« PreviousContinue »
there can be no question that it comes nearer the primitive signification of xupios, than either of the former. Kupios and deos are correlates in Greek, just as master and servant are in English. Indeed, lord and servant are thus used in the common version of the Gospels, but not so properly. Vassal, not servant, is, in English, correlative to lord" At least, it was so anciently; for both were feudal terms, the latter denoting the proprietor of the land, the former the tenant, cr him who held it under the proprietor. But, with the gradual abolition of feudal customs, the name vassal has gone almost into disuse; whereas the import of the term lord has been greatly altered, in some respects extended, and in some respects limited. But such variations are incident to every language. A remain of this usage, however, We have still in Scotland, in the meaning assigned to the word laird, which is no other than the old Scotch pronunciation of lord. In that dialect, it invariably denotes landlord, or, as Dr. Johnson well explains it, lord of the manor. But to return : the reason why our translators have chosen sometimes to contrast servant and lord, rather than servant and master, is because they had preoccupied the word master, employing it to answer to didaoxanos. This made it necessary to recur to some other term, to answer to xvpios, for which none fitter could be found than lord. I have thought it preferable to
32 Blackstone's Com, B. II. ch. 4,
render Sidaoxakos, more literally, teacher, and say 35, The disciple is not above his teacher, nor the servant above his master. That the motive of our transla. tors was precisely what I have mentioned, is evident from this, that in the numerous passages in the Epistles, where the observance of the relative du. ties of masters and servants is inculcated, the word κυριος, as well as δεσποτης, is always rendered master, and not lord. But there is an ambiguity, which arises from rendering Sidaoxados master, when the context does not point out what kind of master is meant. In the words of James 3*, Mn noanoSidaoxahor yiveode, as expressed in the common translation, Be not many masters, hardly any of the unlearned suppose him to be speaking of teachers.
$ 13. Now, let us consider the ordinary method which our translators have followed, in the history of Jesus Christ. One who reads the Bible with reflection, (which not one of a thousand does), is astonished to find, that on the very first appearance of Jesus Christ, as a teacher, though attended with no exterior marks of splendor and majesty ; though not acknowledged by the great and learned of the age ; though meanly habited, in a garb not superior to that of an ordinary artificer, in which capacity we have ground to believe he assisted 3 his supposed father, in his earlier days; he is addressed by al
33 Matth. x. 24.
34 James, iii. 1.
35 Mark, vi. 3.
most every body in the peculiar manner in which the Almighty is addressed in prayer. Thus the le per 35, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Thus the centurion, Lord my servant lieth at home. The Canaanitish woman crieth after him 38, Have mercy on me, O Lord. He is likewise mentioned sometimes under the single appellation of The Lord 3", without any addition, a form of expression which, in the Old Testament, our translators, as above observed, had invariably appropriated to God. What is the meaning of this ? Is it that, from his first showing himself in public, all men believed him to be the Messiah, and not only so, but to be possessed of a divine nature, and entitled to be accosted as God? Far from it. The utmost that can with truth be affirmed of the multitude, is that they believed him to be a prophet. And even those who, in process of time, came to think him the Messiah, never formed a conception of any character, as belonging to that title, superior to that of an earthly sovereign, or of any nature superior to the human. Nay, that the Apostles themselves, before his re. surrection, had no higher notion, it were easy to prove. What then is the reason of this strange peculiarity ? Does the original give any handle for it? None in the least. For, though the title that is given to him, is the same that is given to God, it is so far from being peculiarly so, as is the case with
36 Matth. viji. 2. 38 Matth. xv.
39 John xx, 2.
the English term so circumstanced, that it is the common compellation of civility given not only to every stranger, but to almost every man of a decent appearance, by those whose station does not place them in an evident superiority.
It is the title with which Mary Magdalene accosted one whom she supposed to be a gardener 40. It is the title given by some Greek proselytes to the Apostle Philip“, probably a fisherman of Galilee, It is the title with which Paul the tentmaker, and Silas his companion, were saluted by the jailor at Philippi Lastly, it is the title with which Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, a pagan and idolater, is addressed by the chief priests and Pharisees *3. And though the Jewish rulers would not refuse what was merely respectful to the Roman procurator, who as such was their superior, we may be sure they would not have given him a title that could be understood to imply any thing sacred or divine. Our translators have been so sensible of this, that even in the application to the chief magistrate within the country, they have thought fit to render it only sir. Further, it is the title which those gave to Jesus, who, at the time they gave it, knew nothing about him. In this manner, the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well addressed him “, when she knew no more of him than that he was a Jew, which would
! John, xii. 21.
40 John, xx. 15.
Acts, xvi. 30. See $ 7.
not recommend him to her regard. Thus also he was addressed by the impotent man who lay near the pool of Bethesda “, who, as we learn from the sequel of the story, did not then know the person who conversed with him, and who soon proved his benefactor. In these places indeed, and some others which might be mentioned, our translators have rendered the word xvple, not lord, but sir. Why they have not uniformly done so, when the term is given by contemporaries to Jesus residing on the earth, it would be impossible to assign a good reason. The only reason I can imagine, is the uniform practice that obtains very properly amongst his followers since his ascension, now when all power in heaven and on earth is committed to him 46, now when he is made head over all things unto his church ", and hath received a name that is above every name “, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on the earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father : in one word, now when men are more especially obliged to honour the Son even as they honour the Father.
Is there any fitness in thus exhibiting the honours of deity, as appropriated to him in the very time of his humiliation, when, for our sakes, he was pleased to veil his glory 5, when he made himself of no
45 John, v. 7.
46 Matth, xxviii. 18.