Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

being incorporated with Him, which expressions are always used to denote love and charity.* This phrase occurs in this sense, John xv. 4-9, 1 Jo. ii. 24; iv. 16, 17. If, then, we find, in the first part of the discourse, the efficacy attributed to that which Christ inculcated, to be precisely what is ever attributed to faith, we see a strong confirmation, that the discourse related to that virtue. But, similarly, when we find the expression changed, and one used which no longer applies to it, but to a totally different virtue, that is, to a union by love with Christ, we are equally authorised in considering a different subject introduced, and some institution alluded to, which is to unite us to Christ, not merely through faith, but still more through love.

These are striking distinctions between the first part of our Lord's discourse and the second: but the most important yet remains to be explained, and will require one or two preliminary remarks. One of the most delicate points in the interpretation of Scripture, is the explanation of figures, tropes, and similes. It is supposed by Protestants, that by eating the Flesh of Christ, and drinking His Blood, nothing more was meant than a figure or image of believing in Him. If this be the case, I might observe, for instance, that if to eat the bread of life simply meant to believe in Christ, it follows that the verb to eat, is equivalent to the verb to believe. When, therefore, our Saviour speaks of eating His Flesh, if eating be equivalent to believing, we must suppose that he meant believing in His Flesh, a doctrine quite different, and totally distinct, from the other, and which no one has imagined our Saviour to have here taught. For, if the Jews offended, it was rather by too closely attending to the exterior and material appearances of things, and neglecting their spiritual value; nor can we suppose that our blessed Saviour, standing visibly before them in the flesh, would take great pains to inculcate a belief in the truth of His corporal existence,-supposing it even to have been then possibly an object of faith.

* Vv. 57. 58.

But to return, I have just remarked, that tropes, and figures, and types, form the most delicate elements of Scriptural phraseology, as, in fact, they do of every language. Although it may appear, at first sight, that nothing is so vague and indefinite in a language as figurative speech, which may be varied without limits, yet is it, in truth, quite the reverse. For there is nothing in which we are less at liberty to vary from ordinary acceptation than in conventional tropical phraseology. So long as we are using terms in their literal sense, there may be some vagueness; but the moment society has fixed on any certain figurative adaptation of words, we are no longer free to depart from it, without risking the most complete misunderstanding of our words. Nothing is easier than to try this assertion by any proverbial expression of ordinary use; but I will content myself with one simple and obvious illustration. We know that mankind, in general have attached the idea of certain characteristic qualities to the names of some animals. Thus, when we say that a man is like a lamb, or like a wolf, we understand precisely what is meant by the expression used, we know what characteristic it indicates. If we say that a person who is ill, or in pain, suffers like a lamb, we understand the force of the expression-that he is meek and patient under his affliction. If we used it in any different sense, we should necessarily deceive our hearers. Again, we understand by the figure of a lion, a character composed of a certain proportion of strength and prowess, mixed with a degree of generous and noble feeling. By the figure of a tiger, on the other hand, we understand great animal strength, but united with fierceness, cruelty, and brutality. These two animals have many qualities in common; but still, if we say that a man is like, or is a lion, our hearers understand from the ordinary received acceptation of the word, what is meant. But suppose you meant nothing more than that his limbs were beautifully formed, that he was exceedingly agile, and that his power of leaping, or running, was very great, though these are all properties of the lion, would any body

understand you? Would you not deceive your hearers? Most undoubtedly; and more by such a wrong use of an ordinary admitted form of figurative speech, than by any other departure from usual language. And if, in like manner, you called a man of great strength of limb, or agility, a tiger, you would be doing him a positive injustice; you would be guilty of calumny, because his hearers would not depart from the ordinary acceptation of the trope, and would impute ferocity to him.

If therefore, we can establish that any expression in any language, besides it own simple, obvious, natural, and literal acceptation, had an established and recognised metaphorical one, we have no choice-no right, to establish any meaning between the literal and that figurative one, and we have even no right to create another figurative one, unless we prove that it was in equal use. Now, the term eating a person's flesh, besides its sensible carnal meaning, had an established, fixed, invariable, tropical signification, among those whom our Saviour addressed; and therefore, we cannot depart from the literal meaning, or, if we do, it can only be to take, without choice, that figurative one. On this ground do I maintain, that a change of phraseology took place at v. 48; because, after that verse, our Saviour uses expressions which allow no choice between the real partaking of His Body and Blood, and a settled figurative signification, which no one will for a moment think of adopting. For I say, that whether we examine the phraseology of Scripture, or the language spoken at this day (which is but a dialect of that spoken at the time of our Saviour) in Palestine, where all the customs, manners, and feelings, are hardly one title changed since His time, or if we examine the language spoken by Himself, we find the expression, to eat the flesh of any person, with a fixed, invariable, signification of doing by thought or deed, but principally by false and calumnious accusation, a grievous injury to that individual. For instance, we have, in the 27th Psalm, this expression,-"While the wicked draw near against me,

to eat my flesh;"—that is, as all commentators upon it have agreed, to oppress, to vex, to ruin me. Again, in the 19th chapter of Job,-" Why do you persecute me, and are not satisfied with my flesh;"-that is, with eating my flesh, calumniating and persecuting me by words, which, as I observed, is the most ordinary meaning of the metaphor. In the prophet Micah, again,—“Who also eat the flesh of my people :”that is, who oppress them, and do them serious injury. In Ecclesiastes, (c. iv.)—"The fool foldeth his arms together, and eats his own flesh;"—that is, he destroys, ruins, himself. These are the only passages where the phrase occurs in the old Testament, although allusion is made to the same idea in the 14th chapter of Job,-"They have opened their jaws against me,they have filled themselves with me." In the New Testament, it occurs once or twice. St. James, (v. 3.) speaking to the wicked, says, "Your gold and silver is cankered, and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire." These are the only occasions on which the expression occurs in Scripture, except where it is spoken of the very act of really eating human flesh, and in every case it has the fixed and determinate tropical signification, of doing a serious injury or harm, particularly by calumny.

The next way to investigate the meaning of this phrase, is by seeing what force it has with those who have inherited, not only the country, but all the feelings, and most of the opinions, of those among whom our Saviour spoke; that is, the Arabs, who now occupy the Holy Land. It is acknowledged by all biblical scholars, that their writings, their manners, and customs, and their feelings, form the richest mine for the illustration of Scripture, in consequence of their exact resemblance on so many points to what is there described. It is singular that among these men, the most common form of expression to designate calumny, is to say that a person eats the flesh of another. I have collected a number of examples from their native writers, and I will give you one or two. We have, for instance, in the code of Mohammedan law, the Koran, this ex

pression::-"Do not speak ill one of another in his absence. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his brother, when dead? Verily you would abhor it.”—That is, equally should you abhor calumny. One of their poets, Nawabig, writes,— "You say that you are fasting, but you are eating the flesh of your brother." In a poetical work, called the Hamasa, we read,“I am not given to detraction, or to eating the flesh of my neighbour." We have also this idea, in constant allusions in their proverbs and fables.* Thus, it is completely understood by persons conversant with the language, that among the Arabs this phrase has no other meaning than wickedly to calumniate and detract an individual. And observe, that it is not in the words that this idea rests, but in the spirit of the language; for, in every instance which I have given, there is a variety of phrase, a different verb or substantive; so that it is not merely one term always used figuratively, but it is in every instance a varied phrase, so as to prove that the idea is in the mind of the hearer.

In the third place, we come to the language in which our Saviour Himself spoke. It is remarkable, that in Syro-Chaldaic there is no expression for to accuse or calumniate, except to eat a morsel of the person calumniated; so much So, that in the Syriac version of Scripture, which was made one or two centuries after the time of our Saviour, there is no name given throughout to the devil, which, in the Greek version, signifies the accuser, or calumniator, but the "eater of flesh." Whenever the Jews are said in the Gospel to have accused our Saviour, they are said, in this version, to have eaten a morsel or portion of Him. In the Chaldaic parts of Daniel, when he is accused, it is said that the accusers eat a portion of him before the king. It would be easy to quote the authority of the first modern writers on the Hebrew, and other oriental languages, in proof of these assertions: I need only mention the names of Michaelis, Winer, and Gesenius; all of whom expressly

See texts and references in "Lectures" as above, p. 67, segg.

« PreviousContinue »