« PreviousContinue »
Luke iv. 6.
Luke iv. 6.
Luke iv. 7. Matt. ir. 9. Luke iv. 7. Luke iv. &
And the devil said unto him,
If thou therefore wilt worship me,
*Or fall down
before me. all shall be thine.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan : for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Then the devil leaveth him,
And when the devil 53 had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
Matt. iv. II.
Luke iv. 13.
ing this mountain, speaks of it as extremely high, and commanding the most beautiful prospect imaginable. It overlooks the mountains of Arabia, the country of Gilead, the country of the Ammonites, the plains of Moab, the plain of Jericho, the river Jordan, and the whole extent of the Dead Sea. These various domains the Tempter might shew to our Lord distinctly, and might also at the same time point out, (for so the original word sometimes signifies,) and direct our Lord's eye towards several other regions that lay beyond them, which might comprehend all the principal kingdoms of the eastern world. According to tradition, the mountain on which our Saviour was tempted is called Quarantania. Maundrell describes it as, exceedingly high, and difficult of ascent, having a small chapel at the top, and another about half way up, on a prominent part of a rock. Near this lalter are several caves and holes, originally used by hermits, and by some even of this day, during the period of Lent, in imitation of the ex, ample of our blessed Saviour. The words of the Evangelists are so clear and distinct, in their account of this transaction, and it was so evidently a premeditated scheme on the part of Satan, availing himself of the first symptom of human weakness, beginning his attack at the moment that our Saviour“ was an hungered;" that, had we no other evidence, there can be no reasonable grounds for considering the temptation in any other point of view than as a real contest.
The temptation of Christ, as well as that of our first parents, must be considered as a real scene. We are not justified in making our present experience the criterion of truth, and rejecting the positive testimony of Revelation, on account of theoretical difficulties. The whole question concerning the origin and continuance of evil, is involved in insuperable mystery. But we may with as much propriety deny the origin of evil, as refuse to believe in its remedy: which it cannot be irrational to conclude would be, in some manner, correspondent to the disease, Till the next stage of our being has developed the unrevealed mysteries of the Deity who made mankind, we must be contented, like obedient children, to believe much that we cannot yet understand.
$3 The Evil. Spirit in this temptation is called by the three names, which unit. edly characterise him as the destroyer of man. He is at once their enemy (Σατανάς), their accuser (ο Διάβολος), and their tempter (ο πειράζων).
And [he] was with the wild beasts ; and the Mark 1. 13. angels ministered unto him. and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him 54. Matt. iv. II.
ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE TEMPTATIONS AS RELATED
BY ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE.
84 In this history of the temptation, St. Matthew's order is, 1. “Command that these stones be made bread." 2. “Cast thyself down from the temple.". 3. "I will give thee all thou seest from this high mountain, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."-St. Luke's order is, the first temptation the same as St. Matthew; the third temptation is placed by him for the second, and the second for the third. But St. Luke does not affirm this order. He has only kai ávayaywv, ver. 5; and wai Kyayev, ver. 9. Whereas St. Matthew uses particles, which seem to fix his order; as, Tóte, ver. 5 ; and rádi, ver. 8. Le Clerc says, “Hoc repugnantia haberi non potest, cum neuter evangelistarum profiteatur se, hâc in re, ordinem temporis accurate secutum."—Newcome's Notes to his Harmony, p. 6, fol. edit. Dublin, 1778.
Possibly the reason of the difference in the order of the account of the temptations given us in these two Evangelists, may be in some measure ascertained from & consideration of the respective purposes for which they originally composed their Gospels. St. Matthew wrote for the Jews of Judæa. The title of “King." was the most usual name given to the Messiah by the Jews. “ Vulgatissimum est hoc nomen Messiæ, quem Judæi ubique vocant, newran 7500," says Schoetgenius, Horæ Hebr. vol. i. p. 13, and instances abound throughout his book. But he was not only considered as king of Israel, but king over all the world. Thus we read (Zohar Genes. fol. 128, col. 509, ad verba, Genes. xlix. 11, ex versione Sommeri, p. 96, apud Schoetgen, vol. ii. p. 638-9.) “ So the king Messias will shew favour to Israel, but he will be a terror to all people who profess not the true religion.” St. Matthew, therefore, seems to point out to his Jewish readers, that Jesus, who was the true spiritual Messiah, first conquered all desire for the luxuries of life.--He then refused to declare himself by any useless though stupendous miracle, the expected king of Israel, by proving himself, at an unfit time, and in an unsuitable manner, the Messiah they expected : for his course was that of toil and suffering, of neglected and lowly poverty and scorn, till the time came for the establishment of his spiritual kingdom. In repulsing the third temptation, he shewed his contempt of all worldly power, and wisdom, and distinction, till the promised period when the converted Heathen should be given him for his spiritual inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his spiritual possession. The Evangelist thus preserves the climax. He ascends from one gradation of virtue to another, and shews how our Lord, by resisting the tempter, attained to that height of excellence which ought to impress the mind with the greatest veneration.
St. Luke wrote for the Gentiles of Achaia. He places before them the same triumph of Christ, and teaches the same doctrine; that he conquered the desire of the pleasures of this life, the love of temporal dominion over the world at large, and all the dazzling glories and triumphs to which that dominion led. But he teaches this doctrine in the manner the most likely to impress the minds of his Gentile readers ; for which purpose he changes the order to preserve the appropriate climax, and the gradation of the power of the temptation. Christ
MATT. iv. 1, and part of ver. 4. 6. 7. 10.
Quarantania 1 Then was a Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness.
n Mark i. 12, &c. Luke iv,
Quos inter Augustus recumbens
Carm. lib. iii, Od. 35. or the
Præsens divus habebitur
Carm. lib. iil. Od. 5.
Thus will the accounts of the two Evangelists be reconciled. Both relate the same facts, both enforce the same doctrine ; the order is different, because each considered the opinions and modes of thinking prevalent among those they addressed, and were anxious to impart the greatest interest to their narrative.
It will be observed, that this interpretation is submitted to the reader, on the supposition that the popular interpretation of the πάσας τας βασιλείας του koopov, (Matt. iv. 8.) be the correct reading; that it is rightly rendered, "the kingdoms of this world;" and that consequently the corresponding phrase in St. Luke, tágas tas faolleias rñs oicovuévns, (Luke iv. 5.) must have the same signification, and is not to be referred principally to the kingdoms into which Judæa was at that time divided. The reading proposed by Michaelis in this pas. sage appears conjectural, and Archbishop Laurence has endeavoured to prove it unfounded. It is however so curious, that I shall append to this note both the remarks of the learned German, and the objections of his critic. The reader will then be able to decide.
Quarantania, 4 But he answered and said, It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, o Deut. viii. 3.
but by every word p Ps. xci. 11.
6 — for it is written, P He shall give his angels charge concerning thee : and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan : for it is written, Deut. vi. 13. 9 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
LUKE iv. part of ver. 2. 3. 5. 9.
6 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world—
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down
Michaelis is labouring to prove that the Gospel of St. Matthew was composed in Hebrew, and derives one argument in support of his opinion, from Matt. iv. 8.
The tempter conducts Christ to the top of a lofty mountain, and shews him Tágas tas baqilsias roŨ kóợpov. If we take this in a literal sense, the thing is impossible : if it was a mére illusion, there was no necessity for ascending a lofty mountain. Here then it appears, that some word was used in the Hebrew original, which was capable of more than one translation: perhaps 87, which signifies "the land," as well as “ the earth :" or yan, 'which, as well as dikepévn, may denote the land of Palestine: or, thirdly, which is perhaps the most probable conjecture, it is not unlikely that St. Matthew wrote an niaban 57, that is, “ all the kingdoms of the Holy Land," and that the translator mistook ay for xay, which in the Septuagint is sometimes rendered by róguos. It is even possible, as 'y signifies literally “ beauty," and koouos has likewise this sense, that the translation in question was occasioned by a too literal adherence to the original. Now all the kingdoms which existed in Palestine in the time of Christ, could be seen from the top of Mount Nebo. St. Matthew, therefore, meant all the kingdoms of Palestine, which his translator converted into all the kingdoms of the world.-Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part 1. p. 155.
Archbishop Laurence contends, however, that there is no adequate proof that the Gospel of St. Matthew was compiled in the Hebrew language, and that no arguments can, or ought to be, founded on conjectures of this nature. In reply to this remark of Michaelis, he observes that '2x is used for Palestine only in four instances, three times by Daniel, and once by Jeremiah, and each time metaphorically, as the pleasant or agreeable land ;” and that the Seventy do not thus translate it either literally or metaphorically: and it is not likely that an appellation of this peculiar description would have been adopted in a plain narrative. Neither could coopos, in the sense of "the world," be put for xax, the proper meaning of which is “ an army," and which is only translated róquos by the LXX, when the host of heaven is mentioned ; or for '2x, in its literal signification of “ beauty, honour, and glory." But it is not necessary to interpret the word koguos, in the sense of “the world." In Rom. iv. 13, the expression kinpovomòv të kóour, is interpreted by Beza, of the “ land of Ca.
From the Temptation of Christ, to the commencement of his
J. P. 4739. 19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent V. Æ. 26.
Bethabara. naan;" and Glass, in his Philologia Sacra, expressly limits its meaning to denote the land of Canaan.-Sermon on Excess in Philological Speculation, note 12, p. 36.
1 Michaelis and Lightfoot begin this part of the history at John v. 15; and Doddridge has placed ver. 15—18 by themselves, before the baptism of Christ. In the note to chap. 1, sect. 2, I have mentioned the reasons for preserving the present order, and preferring the authority of Archbishop Newcome.
Having now been inaugurated by the waters of baptism, the testimony from heaven, the anointing of the Spirit, and the conquest over temptation, into his high office, the Messiah presents himself to his forerunner, who immediately hails him, as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. John, as a prophet, spoke under the influence of divine inspiration : in no other manner could he have obtained power to make the declaration. As our Lord had come into the world for the express object of expiating the sin of man, there is an obvious propriety in the salutation of the Baptist. It seems to mean, that as far as man was concerned, all the other offices, characters, and attributes of the Holy One of God, are of comparatively inferior moment, unless he be considered as the spotless lamb, that should die for mankind. The testimony of the ancient prophets had but gradually revealed the various perfections of the Messiah ; and the hope and faith of man had been continually excited and cherished by the wise and merciful ordinance, which appointed a succession of prophets, each of whom added some additional information respecting Him who was to come. This sa. lutation of the Baptist was the completion of all prophecy. From this time the voice of prophetic inspiration, under the law of the old covenant, utterly ceased. The Messiah had come, and he was before them. The Lamb of God was preparing himself for the fearful sacrifice.
In support of the doctrine of the atonement, there is more authority than for any other revealed in the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. It was taught in the beginning of the patriarchal dispensation, the first after the fall, in the words of the promise, and in the institution of sacrifices. It is enforced by the uniform, concurrent testimony of the types, prophecies, opinions, customs, and traditions of the Jewish Church. It is the peculiar foundation and principal doctrine of the Christian Church in all ages, which has never deviated from the opinion that the death of Christ on the cross was “the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world."-See particularly Archbishop Magee on the Atonement, with the notes and dissertations appended; the commentators; Outram; and the principal authors referred to by Archbishop Magee. Dr. P. Smith's Sermon also on the Atonement is a valuable tract.