Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

ters of Mark and Luke; which will, at the same time, very fully prove, how much those Writers have mistaken the design of those chapters, who have referred them, to any other event, than to the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the full manifestation, by that awful event, of the true nature of the Messiah's character, as opposed to his being a temporal Prince, who was to raise the Jews to a state of unexampled. prosperity.

The first observation, which naturally arises, from this comparison of the two chapters is, that both the Disciples of Jesus and the Pharisees, being Jews, and having the same sentiments-the same prejudices, and the same expectations, concerning the nature of the Messiah's character their enquiries, very naturally, turned upon the same subject; which, as naturally, in both cases, led our Lord to inform them of their mistake and to caution them against deceivers, who should assume the character of the Messiah- -or who should' point out others as sustaining it. Both the questions of the Disciples and that of the Pharisees and the general answer of Jesus, in both cases, together with the cautions, which he gave them, to beware of deceivers, are so nearly similar to each other, that they cannot, easily, be mistaken. And, where there is an apparent difference, in the two Evangelists` -that difference is more, in the language, than in the sense. Thus, when St. Luke says, they should desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man-what was it, but this very desirethis expectation, which would induce the false Christs and false Prophets, mentioned by St. Matthew, to arise and to say-Lo here-or lo there, is the person, whom you are so anxiously expecting!

A second observation, which arises from an attentive view of this comparison is, that the coming of the Son of Man,-. the day when the Son of Man should be revealed, and the seeing one of the days of the Son of Man, are phrases, which appear to be only different forms of expression, signifying the coming of the Mesiah. Thus St. Luke, in mentioning the state of things, in the time of Noah, and in making his application to the time of our Saviour, says so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man-but in illustrating the same subject, from the state of things in the time of Lot-the Evangelist changes the form of the expression, and instead of saying, as he had done, in the case of Noah-so shall it be, in the days of the

Son

Son of Man-he says-Even thus shall it be when the Son of Man is revealed. * Now, what better evidence can possibly be desired, to shew that these different forms of expression, are synonymous, and that they plainly intimate that the destruction of Jerusalem would, in the fullest manner, demonstrate to them, how much they had mistaken, the true nature of the Messiah's character in supposing, that he would be a temporal Prince, who should raise them to an high degree of worldly prosperity. St. Matthew, the attentive Reader will observe, adheres to one mode of expression. As the days of Noah were so shall the true nature of the coming of the Son of Man, the Messiah, be.

[ocr errors]

It must, however, be carefully observed that some of the expressions which are made use of, in St. Luke's account, must be understood differently, according to the different views, which the Disciples and the Pharisees, on the one hand, and our Lord, on the other, entertained concerning the nature of the coming of the Messiah. In the sense in which the Pharisees, in St. Luke, understood the nature of the coming of the Messiah, Jesus told them, that the kingdom of God would not come with observation, probably meaning, by that expression, that it would not come with those appearances of worldly splendor which would portend great national prosperity. + In the same sense, he seems to have told them that they should desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but should not see it. Upon the other hand, in

[ocr errors]

"Our Lord," says Archbishop Newcome," describes the destruction "of Jerusalem, when he says, Luke xvii. 30. Even thus shall it be in the day "when the Son of Man is revealed. This is plain from what follows, verses

31, 34, 35, 36. and therefore the close of verse 26, refers to the destruction "of Jerusalem and as it was in the days of Noah---so shall it be also, in the "days of the Son of Man. For the same event is compared to the days of "Noah, and to the days of Lot." See Archbishop Newcome's Observations upon our Lord's conduct as a divine instructor, page 254.

+ Dr. Lardner, in his Sermon on Jesus the Son of Man, has observed, "that Luke xvii. 22. are owing to an enquirie concerning the time of the "manifestation of the kingdom of the Messiah; accompanied, it is likely, "with indications of their prevailing prejudice concerning its worldly "nature. Verse 20. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come; he answered them and said---The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: or with the outward pomp and splendour, visible in earthly kingdoms, exciting wonder and surprize, attracting the 86 eyes, and pleasing the passions of carnal and worldly people." See Lardner's Sermons, Vol. II. pages 152, 153,

[ocr errors]

the

the sense in which our Lord meant to describe the nature of his coming he connects the revelation of the Son of Man with their destruction, and makes use of comparisons to illustrate his meaning, drawn from the well known histories of the calamitous events, which had taken place, in the times of Noah and of Lot, the nature of which, could not possibly be mistaken. These comparisons appear to have been perfectly consistent with the strictest propriety, if applied to the destruction of Jerusalem but that propriety does not by any means, so clearly appear, if they be supposed to relate to the day of Judgment. *

This leads to another observation arising from the comparison, which has been presented to the Reader, that in Luke xvii. the Historian applies the cases of Noah and of Lot, as resembling that of the Jews, in our Saviour's time, particularly, in the suddenness of the event, and in the careless security, they would be in, when calamity came upon them. From the very nature of the sentiments which the fews entertained, concerning the Messiah's character, as a temporal Prince; it must be obvious, that having no idea of the approach of great national calamity-this careless security was inevitable. Now, there is no one remark of greater importance or more particularly deserving of the attention of those, who are desirous of attaining an accurate knowledge of the meaning of the Evangelist, than that, in Matthew xxivthe example of Noah is introduced in the closest connection with our Lord's declaration in the 36th verse. Of that day and hour when the judgments, before described, shall come pass knoweth no man, &c.but as it was in the days of Noahso shall also the coming of the Son of Man, the Messiah, for SUDDENNESS be. What better evidence can possibly be wished for, even if there was no other, that the

to

**

Mr. Houghton, having quoted the following words---Then shall two be in the field---the one shall be taken the other left, &c. says, "probably this is "to be referred to the last day. On the other hand, by Luke, the same passage seems to be referred to the period when the Jews should fall into the hands of their enemies, who are aptly compared to birds of prey "hovering round a carcase; which comparison evidently appears to have this reference, as it is also applied by another Evangelist to the events which would come to pass in that generation. Luke xvii. 37. Matt. xxiv. See Houghton's Sermons, pages 221, 222, 223.

28, 34, These observations of Mr. H. strongly prove the advantage of applying the prediction of our Lord to the destruction of Jerusalem ONLY.

day

day and hour there mentioned, has a direct and exclusive relation and to the things which were to happen in that generation, in answer to the questions of the Disciples-When shall these things be and what shall be the sign of thy coming? THAT, to them, would be a true sign, how much they had mistaker the nature of the Messiah's character. When to this it be added, that the whole connection of the preceding and subsequent parts of the chapter, necessarily requires it to be so applied, and that to apply it, to any other distant and remote event, would be to violate all the rules of language and of sound reasoning; it may be fairly concluded that this, and this only, can be the true meaning, of that much contro verted passage; for as the learned University Preacher, has very justly observed, "To suppose that, at the 36th verse, "the day of judgment is introduced as a period distinct from "the subversion of the Jewish polity, is to suppose, either "that our Saviour prophecied-or that the Evangelist wrote without any regard to propriety or connection.” →

66

It must afford singular satisfaction to the judicious and attentive Reader, to have the suffrage of so able a judge and so diligent an enquirer as Archbishop Newcome, upon this interesting subject; for, besides what has been already quoted from him, he says, "There can be no doubt but that Luke,

chap. xvii. 22-37. refers to the destruction of Jerusalem "Observe verses 31, 34, 35, 36, 37. and compare verse 31. "with Matt. xxiv. 17, 18. and with Mark xiii. 15, 16. There "fore, Matt. xxiv. 37-41, which is parallel throughout to "this passage of St. Luke, refers likewise to that event. After"wards St. Matthew continues the same subject, as appears from comparing chap. xxiv. 42. chap. xxv. 1, 13, 141 " and thus," the Archbishop observes, all the accounts "of the destruction of the Jews harmonize exactly." +

After this long and laborious, but it is hoped, not unin teresting examination of Matthew xxiv. it would have been unnecessary to say any thing farther upon it, if its evident connection with the following chapter had not rendered it indispensible. This connection has not escaped the notice of the learned University Preacher; for he has observed,

*See Edwards's Sermon, page 23.

+ See the Notes at the end of Archbishop Newcome's Harmony, Sect, 118, 119. p. 38.

[blocks in formation]

that the beginning of chap. xxv. is closely united with the former by the particle then, and that the 14th verse is firmly connected with the beginning by the particle for.

To trace this connection more fully, and to endeavour to ascertain, with precision, the true meaning of chap. xxv, cannot, it may be presumed, but be an object of considerable importance, and well worthy of the judicious Reader's attention, more especially as the learned University Preacher has animadverted with uncommon severity upon the labors of an eminent Prelate, upon this chapter; for, having in the manner just related, established the connection of the two chapters, he adds, " Should the most subtle and inventive "genius endeavour to accommodate the remaining portion to 66 any other event, than the great day of retribution, he will "soon perceive the rashness of his undertaking: but that I may spare him the trouble of making the experiment, I would advise him to peruse, if his patience will suffer him, "the frigid and inanimate glosses of that most tasteless critic, Bishop Pearce." *

86

66

The critical abilities of this learned Prelate every one must decide upon, as his judgment shall direct him-but tasteless and inanimate as his glosses were, he appears to have possessed sufficient to distinguish with accuracy, what the learned University Preacher has asserted to be utterly groundlesssufficient to discern that our Lord did not foretel his second and glorious coming, in that generation-sufficient, in a word, to render him a very respectable authority as a Commentator, in many very important instances; though perhaps in some, and particularly in the instance here alluded to, he may not have been so happy in his interpretation. +

But to proceed: The connection of the two chapters, it must be observed, is extremely evident, not only from the use of the particles then and for, in the first and fourteenth verses, as remarked by the learned University Preacher-but

* See Edwards's Sermon on the Predictions of the Apostles, pages 24, 25. The Reader who has attended to what has been said, in the course of this work, will not suspect that what is here said, is meant to depreciate the critical abilities of the learned University Preacher--very far from it; for his Compend of the xxivth of Matthew, repeated at large, in pages 91, 92, and his excellent rule of Criticism, given in page 112, are strong proofs, among many others, of his skill in this respect---but he is by no means free from defects, and therefore should have been less severe upon others, especially upon one who, in his day, was esteemed among the first of Critics.

from

« ForrigeFortsæt »