into the celestial temple, as into the terrestrial. But as the pri vilege is inconceivably higher, the qualification is more important. The cleanness is not ceremonial, but moral; not of the outward man, but of the inward. The same idea is suggested, Ps. xxiv. When such allusions appear in the original, they ought, if possible, to have a place in the version. di 9. The peacemakers, o signolo. An. the pacific: Hey, the peaceable. Weakly both. With us these words imply merely a negative quality, and are equivalent to not contentious, not quarrelsome, not litigious. More is comprised here. This word is not found in any other part of Scripture, but (which is nearly the same) the verb pool of the same origin occurs, Col. i. 20. where the connection shews that it cannot signify to be gentle, to be peaceable, but actively to reconcile, to make peace. Etymology and classical use also concur in affixing the sense of reconciler, peacemaker, to poor. It is likewise so explained by Chrysostom. Indeed, if no more were meant by it than those pacifically disposed, nothing additional, would be given here, to what is implied in the first and third of these characters; for as these exclude covetousness, ambition, anger, and pride, they remove all the sources of war, contention, and strife. Now, though all these characters given by our Lord are closely related, they are still distinct. 11. Prosecute, diawo. E. T. Persecute. Some critics think, not improbably, that the word in this place relates to the prosecutions of the disciples (to whom Jesus here directly addresses himself) on account of their religion, before human tribunals, whereof he often warned them on other occasions. In this verse, he descends to particulars, distinguishing diaxey from ovudige, and ειπείν παν πονηρον βημα, which seem also to be used in reference to judicial proceedings. In the preceding verse, and in the following, there can be no doubt that the verb is used in the utmost latitude, and ought to be rendered persecute. See also ch. x. 23. xxiii. 34. 15. A lamp, λvxvov. E. T. A candle. The meaning of the word is lamp. Candles were not used at that time in Judea for lighting their houses. Auxva consequently means a lamp-stand, not a candlestick. 2 Under a corn measure, ino Tov Modiov. E. T. Under a bushel. But they had no such measure. And though it is true that any measure of capacity will suit the observation, a translator ought not, even indirectly, to misrepresent the customs of the people. The measure mentioned by the Evangelist, so far from answering to our bushel, was less than our peck. But as nothing here depends on the capacity of the measure, it is better to adopt the general term, than to introduce uncouth names, without necessity. Diss. VIII. P. I. § 6. -66 manner. 3 As to the article prefixed to undior and "Obλυχνίαν, Sc. says, serve how the article loses its emphasis, and is rendered a in"stead of the." I admit that the article may be in some cases redundant, but not that we have an example of its redundancy here. Is it not our constant way, when we name any utensil whereof there is but one of the kind in the house, to use the definite article?" Bring me the balance, that I may weigh this." "Take the bushel, and mete the grain." And even when there are more than one, if one be superior in value to the rest, or in more frequent use, it is commonly distinguished in the same On the contrary, when there are more of a kind, and no one distinguished from the rest, we express ourselves indefinitely, as, "Give me a spoon:" "Set a chair for Mr. Such-aone." Our Lord's similitude is taken from the customs of families. He therefore uses the style which would be used in any house. This explains sufficiently why he says a lamp, as probably most houses had more than one, but the modius, there being but one, and the stand, as one might be in more frequent use than the rest, for the accommodation of the family. However, as the sense is sufficiently expressed either way, I have preferred the indefinite manner in my version, being better adapted to the more general terms I was obliged to adopt. See N. on ch. xxvii. 61. 17. Το subvert the law or the prophets, καταλυσαι τον νόμον η τις προφητας. Ε. Τ. Το destroy. Of the different senses which have been assigned to the verb xaraλva, one is, when applied to a law, to break or violate. Though this is the sense of the sim. ple verb vw, v. 19. it cannot be the sense of the compound here. Nobody could suppose that it needed a divine mission to qualify one to transgress the law, which so many, merely from the de pravity of their own minds, flagrantly did every day. Another sense, which suits better the context, is authoritatively to repeal or abrogate. This appears proper as applied to the law, but harsh as applied to the prophets, though by the prophets are meant, by a common metonymy, the prophetical writings. But even these we never speak of abolishing or abrogating. To destroy is rather saying too much, and is more in the military style than in the legislative. If every copy and scrap of these writings were obliterated or burnt, we could not say more than that they were destroyed. The context, in my opinion, shows that the import of the word here is not directly to rescind or repeal, but indirectly to supersede a standing rule by the substitution of another; which, though it does not, formally, annul the preceding, may be said, in effect, to subvert it. This appears fully to express the sense, and is equally adapted to both terms, the law and the prophets. 2 But to ratify, adλa wλnpwoai. E. T. But to fulfil. The sense of the verb πληρω is ascertained by καταλύω. We have seen that the meaning of this word cannot be to break, and therefore it is highly probable that the other means more than to obey. The proper opposite of weakening and subverting a law is confirm. ing and ratifying it. See N. on ch. iii. 15. Some of great name translate it here to complete, perfect, or fill up, and think it alludes to the precepts, as it were, superadded in this discourse. I own there is a plausibility in this explanation; some of our Lord's precepts being, to appearance, improvements on the law. Yet I cannot help thinking, that these divine sayings are to be regarded rather as explanatory of the law, in showing its extent and spirituality, than as additions to it, not binding on men before, but deriving their power to oblige, purely from their promulgation by Jesus Christ. Besides, I find no example of the sense to fill up in any passage that can be reckoned analogous to the present. For the phrase fill up the measure of your fathers cannot surely be accounted of the number. The word measure there leaves no room to hesitate. It is otherwise here. The interpretation, make fully known, given by Benson (Essay concerning abolishing of the Ceremonial Law, ch. ii. sect. 2.), though not implausible, does not make so exact a contrast to the preceding word subvert, nor is it, in this application, so well established by use. 18. Verily I say unto you, aμn xeya bu. As Mt. has retain ed the Heb. word amen, in such affirmations, and is, in this, followed by the other Evangelists, though less frequently by L. than by the rest, it is not improper here, where the word first occurs, to inquire into its import. Its proper signification is true, verus, as spoken of things, observant of truth, verax, as spoken of persons, sometimes truth in the abstract. In the O. T. it is sometimes used adverbially, denoting a concurrence in any wish or prayer, and is rendered by the Seventy EVOITO, SO be it. In this application the word has been adopted into most European languages. In the N. T. it is frequently used in affirmation. Now as L. has been more sparing than the other Evangelists, in the use of this Oriental term, it is worth while to observe, when he is relating the same passages of our Lord's history with them, what word he has substituted for the amen, as this will shew in what manner he understood the Heb. adverb. The same prediction which in Mt. xvi. 8. is ushered in by the words αμήν λέγω ὑμιν is thus introduced, L. ix. 27, λέγω ύμιν αληθώς, which answers to truly or verily with us. Another example of this interpretation we find, on comparing Mr. xii. 43. with L. xxi. 3. The only other example, in passages entirely parallel, is Mt. xxiii. 36. and L. xi. 51. where the any of the former is, by the latter, rendered by the affirmative adverb va.. I have not observed any passage in the O. T. wherein the word amen is used in affirming ; and therefore I consider this idiom in the Gospels as more properly a Syriasm than a Hebraism. Indeed some derivatives from amen often occur in affirmation. Such as amenah, Gen. xx. 12. Jos. vii. 20. rendered in the Sep. andas. Such also is amenam, which occurs oftner, and is rendered aλndws, ex' «dnDesas, ev aλndela, or ovras, exactly corresponding to the application made of au in the Gospels. This is as strong evidence of the import of this word, in the N. T. as the nature of the thing will admit. Nor does there appear the shadow of a reason for the opinion maintained by some critics that, when used thus, it is of the nature of an oath. It is true that to swear by the God of truth, elohe.amen, is mentioned (Is. lxv. 16.) as an oath; and so doubtless would it be to swear by the God of knowledge, or by the God of power. But does any body conclude hence, that the words knowledge and power, wheresoever found, or howsoever applied, include an oath? It has also been urged, that in the trial of jealousy the woman is said to be charged with an oath of cursing (Num. v. 22.), when all that was required of her was to say, amen, amen, to the imprecation pronounced upon her by the priest in case she was guilty of the crime suspected. This was doubtless an imprecation and an oath, for amen, said in that manner, was equivalent to the repetition of the words spoken by the priest. Should the magistrate in an Eng. judicatory (where the oath ad ministered to witnesses is still in the form of an imprecation) rehearse the words, concluding as usual, so help you God, and require of the witness only to say amen, it would be justly termed an oath, and an imprecation against himself, if he gave a false testimony. But does any man conclude hence that amen implies either oath or imprecation, when he subjoins it to prayers for health and safety? This character does not result from any single word, but from the scope and structure of the whole sentence. Yet a critic of no less eminence than Father Si. after translat. ing properly unv deya iμn, Mr. viii. 12. je vous assure, subjoins in a note, autrement, je vous jure. With how little reason this note is added, let the judicious reader determine. Our Lord often recurs to this solemn form of asseveration in this discourse upon the Mount, where he expressly forbids his disciples the use of oaths in their intercourse with one another. How would it have sounded from him to address them in this 6 manner, Swear 'not in any form; but let your answer to what is asked be simply yes or no; for I swear to you, that whatever exceedeth these ' proceedeth from evil? How would this suit the harmony which so eminently subsists between his precepts and example? In fact, his solemn manner was calculated to impress the hearers with a sense, not so much of the reality, as of the importance, of what was affirmed; the aim was more to rouse attention than enforce belief. 2 One iota, wra Ev. E. T. One jot. I thought it better here, with most Itn. and Fr. translators, to retain the Gr. word than to employ a term which, if it have a meaning, hardly differs in meaning from the word tittle immediately following. This could be the less objected against, as our translators have oftner than once introduced the name of two other Gr. letters, alpha and omega, in the Apocalypse. 3 Without attaining its end, iw, av YEÏNTAI. L. ii. 2. N. |