Hermeneutical manual ; or, Introduction to the exegetical study of the Scriptures of the New Testament

Front matter

PRINCETON, N. j.

^ * I'iiit of tbe

» ADDISON ALEXANDER UBRaRT 11 wLich was preseutwi t)y

Preface

main theme of the sacred books, and apply what it may thence appropriate in an orderly and judicious manner. If deficient in this, it fails in the fundamentals of the subject. But it should be allowed to move with some freedom in the selection of its topics, and in the relative care and consideration that it expends upon some of them, as compared with others. It cannot otherwise occupy, in a serviceable manner, the intermediate ground, that properly belongs to it, between Lexicons, Grammars, Books of Antiquities, etc., on the one hand, and formal commentaries on the other — turning, as it should do, to such account the materials furnished by the former class of productions, as may aid and qualify the student for an independent and discriminating use of the latter. This is the peculiar province and object of a Hermeneutical work on Scripture, and that will always come practically the nearest to the mark, which is the best fitted to place the student of Scripture in the position now indicated. In works composed w^ith such an aim, there must ever be room for some diversity of judgment as to the subjects that should be brought into notice, and the degree of consideration respectively given to them. Different persons will naturally form their opinions from somewhat different points of view; and what will appear to some the fittest arrangement to be adopted, and the points most in need of investigation, may not always be regarded in exactly the same light by others. In this respect I have simply to say, that I have endeavoured to exercise an impartial judgment, influenced, no doubt, to some extent, by what my own experience, coupled with the general tendencies of the age, may have suggested to me as of importance. Throughout the volume prominence has been given

1*

VI PREFACE.

to the connexion tliat subsists between the Old and the New in the Book of God's revehition, as well in respect to words as ideas; there being nothing more essential than correct views here to an intelligent reading of New Testament Scripture, or better fitted to serve as a safeguard against superficial and fanciful interpretations. This, also, has partly operated as a reason for introducing some of the dissertations which occupy the Second Part of the volume. The whole of these, however, have reference to terms and subjects, which must always engage the special attention of those who give themselves to the exegetical study of the writings of the New Testament. And they may further serve the purpose of exemplifying, as by a few testing cases, the principles and modes of inquiry, Avhich it is the great object of the work to explain and recommend.

In another respect, also, I am prepared for finding occasional differences between what has approved itself as right to my own mind, and what may appear such to some of my readers : — I refer to the explanation given of several of the more difficult passages of Scripture, and the exhibitions of Divine truth therewith connected. Here, again, there is room for a certain diversity of judgment, even among those who are agreed upon the plenary inspiration of Scripture, and the great doctrines of evangelical religion. And I am not so extravagant as to imagine, that on every point I shall carry the convictions of all, who may be at..one with me in fundamental principles. It is possible I ma}^ find critics, who are disposed to look with so censorious a spirit and so unkindly an eye on what I have written, that they shall even try to represent me as at fiult in regard to some of those evangelical princi-

PKEFACE. VU pies themselves. This, I perceive, has been attempted in a certain quarter with respect to my last publication— Prophecy viewed in respect to its Distinctive Nature, etc. — and, as the work is occasionally referred to in the present volume, I may be permitted here to make a brief allusion to the subject. In Chapter IV. of that work, I treated of the bearing of prophecy on human freedom and responsibility, with a consideration of the question, how far it should be regarded as conditional in its announcements. I was aware, of course, that people would think differently respecting the mode of explanation I adopted : that to some it might appear more or less satisfactory, to others not. But a writer in the Journal of Prophecy (for July 1857) has chosen to represent me as giving expression to views essentially at variance with the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, or the unconditiouality of the Divine decrees. Nothing certainly was further from my own mind ; neither there, nor in any other part of my writings, have I consciously given expression to a thought which was intended, in the slightest degree, to impugn the statement of doctrine on that subject, contained in the Westminster Confession, or the Articles of the Church of England, and not a few things that plainly enough point in the contrary direction. But the reviewer, of course, must have some way of making out his point; and, with the adroitness of a critic, who sets himself to damage the credit of a book, and its author along with it, he does so by imposing a sense upon my words which they were not intended to bear, and so bringing them in connexion with a subject that Avas not properly in my view. Prophecy, as he there views it, is identical with the Divine decree; so that a conditional element in the one comes

Vm PREFACE.

to be virtually the same with a conditional ground for the other. The subject of discourse with me, however, was prophecy, simply as it appears in the written Word, as an objective communication to men. In handling this, I, no doubt, occasionally spoke of the Divine purposes; but of these, as is evident from the whole tenor and connexion of the discourse, not as formed in the mind of God, and determining with infinite and unerring wisdom the entire system of the Divine administration. I purposely abstained from entering upon this higher region, and confined my attention to the intimations of the Divine will as disclosed in the prophetic word — to these as coming into contact with men's obligations and responsibilities — and therefore, in a greater or less degree (for they differ widely in the extent to which they admit it,) tinged with that anthropomorphic colouring, which is required to ada.pt the communications of Heaven to the thoughts and feelings, the ever varying states and conditions of men. The subject, as presented by me, might be assigned to that species of accommodation treated of in Part I. sect. 5 of this volume, according to which, while the form given to spiritual things bears the variable type of what is human, there are not the less realities lying behind, fixed and immutable. And in the very brief and general allusion, which was made to the Calvinistic writers of a former age, nothing more was designed than to intimate, in the shortest manner possible — it was implied, indeed, rather than intimated — that the distinction (however expressed) between the secret and the revealed, or between the absolute decrees and the conditional announcements of God, did not, to my view, satisfactorily explicate the matter at issue. I thought so then, and

PKEPACE. IX

I think so still, notwithstanding the advantage I have derived from the instructions of so learned a reviewer. To divide, as he and his authorities do, between prophecy, considered as equivalent to Divine decrees, and prophecy, as involving matter of commination or promise— the former absolute, the latter conditional — does not so^tisfy my "exegetical conscience," and I am afraid never can. It seems to me to introduce an artificial distinction into the prophetic word, which is not indicated in that word itself, nor admits of being properly drawn; and has the appearance, at least, of attempting, by the mere adoption of a particular phraseology, or by arbitrarily singling out portions of the same prophetic message, to tide over difficulties in interpretation, which attach to the subject as a concrete •whole, as an objective communication addressed to the fears or the hopes of mankind.

But this is not the place for minute or lengthened explanations on the subject. I wished merely, in a few sentences, to deliver my protest against a style of criticism which I hold to be essentially unfair, and which, if similarly applied to the sacred writers, might readily be made to turn one half of them against another. It is not likely that I shall refer to any thing of the same sort in future. No one, who reads with a candid and unbiassed spirit what is written in this, or in previous productions of my pen, can have any doubt that the great principles of the Reformed churches are therein maintained and vindicated.

The Third Part of the volume, which is devoted to the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, occupies a larger space than I could have wished. But it relates to a branch of the subject which, in the present day, is of special importance; and I did not

X PREFACE.

see how my main object could be served without taking it up in detail, and examining somewhat carefully the parts which are more peculiarly attended with difficulty. For those who would study the subject in its relation to Typology, and would trace the gradual evolution of the meaning of Old Testament Scripture, through the application of particular passages to the realities of the Gospel, I take leave to refer to the first volume of my Typology, and especially to the Appendix in that volume on this particular subject.

P. F.

Glasgow, May, 1858.

ERRATA.

In Page 19, line 36, for trj, read t'J.

" 35, lines 10 and 11, for sij and ttj, read slj. " 35, for Iva, read ira.

" 42, line 29, for alfia,, read al^a.

" 43, line 2, for "IK'S, read T^S .

" 45, line 23, for hlifDi, read %'^?.

" 45, line 26, for Dm, read Dpi. ■ " 59, line 24, for di uv, read altav.

" 326, line 19, for a^rjv, read abr^v.

" 407, line 22, for o, read 6t.

" 411, line 2, for aTioasXKu, read aHoatiX'Kio.

" 416, line 22, for a-fotj, read avToYj.

" 420, line 11, for aSsv, read u6r^v.

" 431, line 33, for toiixy^, read tov fiy^.

Section Fourth. — General Rules and Principles to be followed in the Interpretation of Particular Words and Passages, 79

Section Fifth. — Of False and True Accommodation ; or the Influence that should be allowed to Prevailing Modes of Thought in fashioning the views and utterances of the Sacred Writers,.. 106

Section Sixth. — The Respect due in the Interpretation of the New Testament to the Analogy of the Faith, or from one part of Scripture to another; and the further respect to be had to the Religions of the Ancient World, the True and the False, 121

Section Seventh.— The Relation of the Old to the New in God's Dispensations more exactly defined, with the view of preventing mistaken or partial Interpretations of such portions of New Testament Scripture as bear on it, , , 139

Part Second

DISSERTATIONS ON PARTICULAR SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE EXEGESIS OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE.

Page.

Sectiox First. — The Two Genealogies of Christ, given respectively

by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke, 205

Section Second. — The designations and doctrine of Angels, with reference more especially to the Interpretation of passages in New Testament Scripture, ,. 225

Section Seventh. — On the Import and Use of 5ttt9j;xj; in the New Testament, , , 338

Section Eighth. — On the Import of certain terms employed in New TestSment Scripture to indicate the nature and extent of the renovation to be accomplished through the Gospel, iXB-idvoia,, Tta- Jicyysvi ffta, avaxaivuiSi' j, artoxatao •fafjcj, 352

Section Ninth. — On the use of Farasl-cue and Fascha in St. John's account of our Lord's last sufferings; and the question there- M'ith connected, whether our Lord kept His last Passover on the same day as the Jews, 368

Part Third. The Use Made Op Old Testament Scripture In The Writings

OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Page.

Section First. — Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, considered in respect to the manner of citation, 393

Section Second. — -Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, considered in respect to the mode of application, 456

Appendix. — The historical circumstances that led to Christ's birth at

Bethlehem — Cyrenius and the taxing, 504

Part First

DISCUSSION OF FACTS AND PRINCIPLES BEARING ON THE LAN- GUAGE AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE.

SECTION FIEST.

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

In the more exact and scientific study of the Sacred Scriptures, the first object, in the order of nature, that calls for examination, has respect to the state of the original records. The possession of a pure text is an indispensable preliminary to a thoroughly correct and trustworthy exposition. And, as well from its importance as from the peculiar character of the investigations belonging to it, this is now fitly assigned to a distinct branch of Biblical study. Next to it in order, and certainly not inferior in importance, is a correct and discriminating acquaintance with the original language of Scripture, and the principles that should guide our inquiries into its meaning and purport. All theology that is really sound, and that will stand the test of time, must have its foundation here. The reformers, to their credit, clearly perceived this, and were hence led to doctrinal results, which, in the main, never have been, and never can be displaced. They proceeded on the sound maxim of Melancthon, that Scripture cannot be understood theologically, unless it has been already understood grammatically, (Scriptura non potest intelligi theologice, nisi antea sit intellecta grammatice.) In such statements, of course, the term grammatical must be taken in its wider sense, as comprehending all that is necessary to a just discernment of 2

14 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE

the import and spirit of the original. And if such a critical acquaintance with the mere language of sacred Scripture be but one element of success, it still is an element of very peculiar moment to the -well-furnished theologian; since it has respect to the ultimate source of all that is sound and valuable in theological attainment.

As regards the Scriptures of the New Testament, with which alone we have properly to do at present, it is only the Greek language that comes directly into notice; since the whole of the writings that compose the New Testament are found, as to their original form, in no other language than that of the Greek. If any of them ever existed in a 2:)rior original, it no longer does so. Nor, with the exception of St. Matthew's Gospel, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, has it ever been imagined, but by a few dreaming and speculative minds, that the books of the New Testament appeared originally ia any other language. The Epistle to the Hebrews is now also held by all men of competent learning to have been originally composed in Greek. An4 there only remains the gospel of St. Matthew about which there may still be some room for difference of opinion — though, even in regard to it, the conviction has of late been growing in favour of the proper originality of its present form, which was certainly in current use before the close of the apostolic age.

Whence, then, did this predilection for the Greek arise? Were our Lord's discourses, and the writings of the Evangelists, as well as of the apostles, transmitted to us in Greek, because that was the current language of the place and time? Was this really the language in which our Lord and his apostles usually spoke? So, some have been disposed to maintain; and though it is a question rather of antiquarian interest, than of any vital moment for the interpretation of Scripture, it is entitled to some consideration at our hands. It has also a certain bearing on the dispute respecting the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel. Indeed, it was chiefly in connexion with this more special question, that the other pressed itself on the attention of Biblical students. Thus Hug, in his introduction to the New Testament, went at considerable length into the

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15

investigation of the subject, for the purpose of vindicating the proper originality of the Greek gospel of Matthew ; and endeavoured to prove, that the Greek language was in current use throughout Palestine at the commencement of the Christian era — so much so, that the people generally understood it, that our Lord himself often employed it, nor had His evangelists and apostles any proper reason for resorting to another in those writings, which were intended for circulation in Palestine and the neighbouring regions. But the fullest and, we believe, also the ablest defence of this view, is to be found in the treatise of an Italian Ecclesiastic, Dominici Diodati, entitled De Christo Greece loquente exercitatio, originally published at Naples in 1767, and re-published in this country not many years since. In this treatise the subject is discussed, partly on general grounds, as on its own account interesting and important to the Biblical student, and partly also with reference to its bearing on the question of the original language of Matthew's Gospel. The position which the author labours to establish, is, that "neither Hebrew, Syriac, nor Latin, was the vernacular language of the Saviour, but Greek." It will be readily understood, on the other side, that those who held the contrary opinion respecting Matthew's Gospel — viz., that it was originally written in Hebrew for the use of the Jewish believers in Syria — were naturally led to controvert the position, that Greek was generally spoken and understood in Palestine: they held, that not Greek, but Aramaic, a sort of broken Hebrew, was the only language in general use, and that also commonly employed by our Lord and his apostles in their public discourses.

Now, on a question of this kind, it is not difficult JTor an ingenious theorist, or an eager disputant, to sort and apply some scattered notices of ancient writers, either directly or indirectly bearing on the subject, in such a way as to give them a plausible appearance, and compel them to pay tribute to the side of the controversy he has espoused. But there are certain great principles applicable to the case which, with all sober and impartial minds, must go far to settle it, and which cannot be overthrown, or materially modified by any

16 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF

occasional statements or fragmentary notices culled out of ancient records. It is found, not in the history of one people, but in the history of nations generally, that there is nothing ■which is more tenacious of its grasp, and which more slowly yields to the force of foreign influences, than the vernacular language of a people. " Language is after all the most du-' rable of human monuments. Conquerors may overthrow empires and states ; earthquakes may swallow up cities ; time may confound all things besides: — but the winged words, in •which man gives utterance to his feelings and thoughts, often outlast all these ravages, and preserve the memory of nations long after they have ceased to exist. That which seems the most fragile, the most variable, the most evanescent of human attributes or possessions, becomes in reality the most permanent, the most indestructible. If no longer able to support an independent existence, it clings to and coalesces with some more recent and robust dialect: — if lost in one form, it is almost certain to re-appear in another — exhibiting amidst all changes and disfigurations incontestable traces of its origin. This law of decay and reproduction, of fluctuation yet permanence, is so general, that it is principally from analytical inquiries into the origin, composition, and afiinities of language, that we derive what knowledge we possess of the early history and fortunes of nations."^

In confirmation of this, it is only necessary to point to a few well-known examples. One of the most striking is furnished by the ancient country of the Pharaohs, after the time that, their dynasty came to an end, and a succession of conquests, followed by the ascendency of a foreign power, swept over the land. Persian, Macedonian, Roman, and Arabian conquerors in turn held possession of the throne of Egypt, each endeavouring to establish as firmly as possible their dominion over the vanquished, and to render their sway enduring and complete. Yet after this subduing and fusing process had been proceeding for twelve or fourteen centuries, we have the best grounds for believing that the language of the Pharaohs still survived, and continued, though not, we may well

^ Encyclopedia Britannica, 7th ed., Art. 'Hieroglyphics,' c. 2d.

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17

conceive, without the introduction of many foreign admixtures, to form the staple of the vernacuLar tongue of the people. What is called the Coptic language is but a correct form of the old Egyptic, (as the name also, perhaps, is.^) Into this language the Scriptures were translated in the earlier ages of Christianity; a liturgy in common use probably about the fifth or sixth century, is still employed by the few remaining Copts of the present day — though the Coptic tongue in which it is written is no longer understood by them. They adhere to it merely as a venerable relic of the better past of their history ; of which it forms an abiding, though a mournful and mummy-like witness. But its introduction into the churches of Egypt a few centuries after the Christian era testifies to the fact, that the substance of the ancient language had withstood the influences of foreign conquest and dominion for more than a thousand years.

We may, however, take an example nearer home. The Norman conquest took place in the year 106G; and it is well known to have been the policy of the first Norman kings — a policy, too, that was continued with steady aim by their successors— to get rid of the old Saxon entirely, and have it supplanted by their own Norman French. In this French the statutes of the realm were written ; so also were commentaries upon the laws, and the decisions of the courts of justice. In many places it was at length introduced into the common schools; so that an old chronicler (Ralph Higden) complains of it as a thing " against the usage and manner of all other nations," that " children in schools are compelled for to leave their own language, and to construe their lessons and their things in French." A change in this respect only began to be introduced about the year 1385 — more than three centuries after the conquest — when the English again resumed its place in the schools ; — and though it was English materially altered, betraying in many respects the influence of Norman domination, yet it still retained its old Saxon root and trunk. The power and policy of the conquerors, though in active operation for more than three centuries, could prevail no further

18 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF

than to superinduce some partial changes upon the mother tongue of the people, and introduce some additional terms; and that, too, while this tongue itself was in a comparatively crude state, and very far from having reached its matured form.

Other examples might be referred to — such as the Welsh, the Gaelic, and the Irish-speaking portions of the British Isles, from which still more powerful and long-continued influences have not been suflicient to dislodge the ancient dialects from their place, as the customary vehicles of intercourse among the people. But it is needless to enlarge. The cases adduced are by no means singular; they are but specimens of a multitude— exemplifications of principles and habits that are inherent in human nature, operating equally among all races and in all climes. And is it, then, to be conceived, with such facts presenting themselves in the linguistic history of tribes and nations, that the effect of a foreign rule in Palestine — a rule that had not for more than two or three centuries possessed the form of a stringent and pervasive domination — the rule, too, of masters, who themselves spoke different languages, first Persian, then Greek, then Roman, and who never were so closely identified with the subjects of their sway as in the cases already noticed — is it yet to be conceived, that the effect here was to be such, as to bring about an entire revolution in the vernacular language of the people? The supposition is in the highest degree improbable — we may even say, morally impossible; the rather so, as the Jews had reasons connected with their religion, their history, and their prospects, for cleaving to their language, which no other people, either in ancient or in modern times, equally possessed. Every thing in the past and the future contributed to throw an air of sacredness and grandeur around the Hebrew language, which must have doubly endeared it to their minds, and, on the, part of their conquerors, have greatly aggravated the difficulty of supplanting it by another altogether different. It is, therefore, against all analogy, and in opposition to the strongest tendencies of human nature, to suppose that in such circumstances the Greek tongue should, in the age of

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 19

our Lord and His apostles, have come into general use in Palestine, and to any considerable extent taken the place of Aramaic. With far more probability might it be maintained that Norman and not Anglo-Saxon was the language of common life among the English in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, or that in the present day English is understood and spoken by the mass of the population in the Principality of Wales, or in the Highlands of Scotland. It is true, however, that the ancient language of Palestine had undergone a certain change; it had in some degree suffered by the misfortunes of the people, and had lost its original purity. The long sojourn in Chaldea, in the first instance, then the intercourse kept up with the neighbouring Syrian tribes through commerce, war, and marriage relationships, naturally brought into it foreign elements, and imparted to it a Syro-Chaldaic form. Of this we have undoubted indications, both in the later books of the Old Testament, and in occasional notices and expressions that occur in the New. But these successive changes only affected the accidents of the language; they introduced new dialects, antiquated particular words and phrases, and obtained currency for others in their stead; but — as in all similar cases — they left the bones and sinews of the language, its structure and essence, substantially what they were. The historical proofs of this are perfectly sufficient. Josephus, for example, constantly distinguishes between his native tongue and the Greek. While he speaks of having applied diligently to domestic and foreign literature, so as even to be acknowledged by all his countrymen as a person of superior learning, he yet confesses himself to have been so long accustomed to his own tongue (-aro/oc G^Jvr^Q=t(i) that he could not attain to an accurate pronunciation of the Greek, (Antiq. xx. 11, 2.) In the introduction, as well to the Antiquities as to the Wars, he speaks of writing in the Greek language and in his native tongue, as two distinct things, and says, that what he originally wrote in the one he afterwards translated into the other, {^Ea'/Aoi yhoaayj fuzo-rjaliov, d roc^ [^art^idrwc(; z'fj Tza- Tfico) (T'jvrafaCj Bell. Jud. Pro. 1, Antiq. Pro. 2.) And once and again he represents the communicaticiis sent from Titus

20 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OP

during tlie siege of Jerusalem as being interpreted by himself to the Jews, or by some other person who Hehraised [kl^m^cov^) as he terms it, or spake to them in their own tongue {Tzarpcoj jXco'aarj, Bell., v. 9, 2, vi. 2, 11.) At the same time he shows, by occasional allusions to Syriac or Babylonian terms, that the Hebrew current in his day was not altogether identical with that of earlier times — as when, speaking of the high priest's upper robe or girdle, he tells us the old designation for it had been dropt (£5J3X, abaneth,) and it was now called by the Babylonian name Emia, (Antiq. iii. 7, 2,) — a proof that the foreign influence had reached even to the terms for sacred things, and if to these, then assuredly to many others.

"When we turn to the New Testament, the evidence is not less clear on both points — both, that the language in common use in Palestine was of the Hebrew, not of the Greek character, yet Hebrew of the Aramaic, not of the older and purer Hebrew stamp. Thus, when our Lord appears in the attitude of addressing any one very familiarly, of giving or adopting designations for common use. He is represented as speaking in Aramaic : — as when He said to the daughter of Jairus, Talitha cumi, (^o?p NjtScd, Mark v. 41,) and to the blind man, Ephphatha, (nnanXj Mark vii. 34;) or when He referred to the terms currently employed among the people, such as raha, rabhi, corhan; when he applied to His disciples such epithets as Qejplias^ Bai'-jona, Boanerges, ( ^-^P '■?? ;) or when on the cross He exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lama Sabactham. Similar indications are also to be found in the Acts of the Apostles — in the name, for example, reported to have been given by the Jews to the field purchased by the reward of Judas' treachery, Aceldama, (properly 'A)C£aJ'«^«, ^*p!^ Y- j i-19;) or of tabitha as the familiar term, the native word for the Greek ^opx,ciq, (ix. 36;) or, finally, in the fact of St. Paul addressing the Jewish multitude on the occasion of his being apprehended in the temple, in the Hebrew tongue, and their giving, on that account, the more attentive heed to him, as addressing them through a medium which was at once intelligible and congenial to their minds, (ch. xxii. 1.) The composition also of Targums among the Eastern Jews, some time about the apostolic age,