Page images
PDF
EPUB

of God which taketh away the sins of the world; the office of the high-priest was typical of the atoning and propitiatory office of Christ; and the like as to many other things. But in all these cases, and in all like to them, there is nothing of a double sense to words. The words which describe the rites, sacrifices, or occurrences, of the ancient dispensation, are to be interpreted in their plain, usual, historical sense; for example, the institution of the passover in Ex. XII. When this is done, an interpreter, so far as the exegesis of mere language is concerned, has fully discharged his duty. But another question may arise, subsequent to this, viz., Whether the things thus described do not afford resemblances of future things under the new dispensation? Christ and the apostles have decided that they do; and even more than this is apparently decided, for they seem plainly to teach us, that many of the ancient rites, and transactions, and persons also, were designed to be types of good things to come. It is this which makes them truly types. Surely it is not every resemblance which fancy can draw between an earlier and later occurrence or personage, that constitutes a type in a true and scriptural sense. We must limit types of this character only to such things or persons, as were designed to afford resemblances that might convey instruction to the ancient church.

Will any one, who believes in the divine authority of the New Testament, call in question the fact, that the paschal lamb, the Jewish sacrifices at large, the high-priest's office, and other things of the like nature, were designedly emblems of the future? If any do question this, I am not among the number. But then, in all these cases of types, there is only an emblem of the future, or a resemblance of something future, in the things or persons of ancient days, and no second sense to words which describe those things. If, moreover, the Jewish dispensation was designed to be

preparatory to the Christian one, what less could be rationally expected, than that there would be such a significancy in many of its institutions?

On the same ground, for substance, we may place a class of texts cited in the New Testament, which have generally been regarded as the most difficult of all. Let us select an example which comprises in itself all the serious difficulties that can attend the subject, in any part of the New Testament. In Matt. 2: 15, the writer refers to the flight of Joseph and Mary with the infant Jesus to Egypt, and their subsequent departure from that country in order to go again to Palestine. He appeals, for confirmation of the fact that all these arrangements were under the guidance of a superintending power, to a passage in Hosea 11: 1, which says: "When Israel was a child I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt." As written by the prophet this is no part of a prediction, and is not designed to be one, but it is a simple declaration of a historical truth. Yet the Evangelist says, that when Jesus went down to Egypt, and was to be recalled from that country, that all this was a fulfilment (λngwois) of what the prophet Hosea had said, in the passage just quoted. What then are the elements of this case, and of all others like to it? Simply these; viz., that something transacted, done, performed in former days, or any event that happened, if they found an antitype or corresponding resemblance under the new dispensation, might be said to have a nλngos, i. e. a fulfilment. But who that ever has studied the New Testament references to the ancient Scriptures, does not know that the words fulfilment and fulfil have a wide latitude of meaning? Any thing which happened or was done in ancient times, and which for substance is repeated or takes place again under the new dispensation; any thing later which presents a lively resemblance to another and earlier thing;

may be, and often is, spoken of as a lowσis of that earlier thing. It matters not, now, whether the word by strictly critical and classical usage would bear this latitude of sense. Enough that such is New Testament usage.

God often calls ancient Israel his child, his son, because he was a special object of his love. The Hebrews were exiles in the land of Egypt, they were delivered from that state by a special providence, and brought to Palestine, the promised land. Jesus, the beloved Son of God in a higher and nobler sense, was an exile in Egypt, he was delivered from this state and brought to Palestine—and all by a special Providence. Angels interposed to accomplish his deliverance. Here then was a case, in which that Son of God in whom he was well pleased was brought to Egypt, and out of Egypt, in a manner not unlike to that recorded in ancient history. What happened in later times, happened in a higher and nobler sense than what happened in early times. And might it not be said, on this account, that there was in this case a nλngwoię? It is said; why not justly said, and in a way full of meaning?

and

But even here there is no occult sense of words, in the prophet. They are mere plain, simple, historical words. Yet the events to which they refer, bear a resemblance to subsequent events under the new dispensation; and on this account the latter are named a filling up or fulfilment of the former. It is the want of right views as to the use of πλήρωσις and επληρώθη in the New Testament, which has misled so many interpreters of its quotations.

In a way not unlike to this last method of applying Old Testament Scriptures, we are accustomed continually to quote and apply maxims and sentiments from the classic writers, without ever supposing that the passages which we quote were actual predictions. Like occurrences or exigencies call to mind ancient declarations or narrations

Could he

No; here

respecting similar events or occurrences, and those declarations are therefore cited as applicable to the latter events. Thus, to introduce another conspicuous example, the 69th Psalm affords the means of a striking illustration. David here describes, in very vivid colors, the persecution of his enemies, deprecates their malignity, and predicts their overthrow. That his own personal enemies are here meant, and that David in propria persona speaks, and for himself, is clear from the tenor of the composition. That David is originally and personally meant, and not Christ, is clear from v. 5: "O God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my sins are not hidden from thee." "who knew no sin" make such a confession? is the proper and original David, and here in the context are his personal enemies. Yet in v. 9th we find the expression: "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up ;" and this is applied by the disciples to Jesus, when he drove from the temple the traffickers who profaned it, John 2: 17. So again, in v. 21: "They gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," which is applied to Jesus in John 19: 28, 29, and probably in Matt. 27: 34, 48, and Mark 15: 23. John intimates, that when the vinegar was given to Jesus on the cross, there was 66 fulfilment of the Scriptures." And undoubtedly there was, in the sense already explained. There was an event like to that in ancient times. David's bitter enemies persecuted him to the greatest extremity. They "gave him gall to eat and vinegar to drink ;" not in the literal sense, probably, but in the figurative one. But the spiritual David was persecuted more bitterly still, even unto death. Literally even did they give him vinegar to drink mingled with gall, Matt. 27: 34. Here was a лλnowσis, a filling up, a completing in a higher sense, of that which was done in ancient times. A more important personage was here concerned;

a

and the passage of Scripture in Ps. 69: 21, when applied to Jesus, stands forth as a most prominent and lively description of his sufferings.

Once more, in respect to this same Psalm; in Romans 11: 19, Paul quotes vs. 22, 23, (with some little variation from the original), and applies them to the state of the Jews in his day, as descriptive of their blindness, stupidity, and unbelief. Literally and originally the descriptions here were applied to David's enemies; but David's Son, who is called Lord by his earthly ancestor (Matt. 22: 45), applies them with still greater force to his own enemies.

Nor is even this all the use which is made in the New Testament of this strikingly descriptive Psalm. Peter (Acts 1: 20) applies to Judas the 25th verse: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein." He even adds, that the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake concerning Judas (v. 16), and apparently he means to include Ps. 69: 25 in what was said; see Acts 1:20, which begins the quotation with a yάo. In the same breath, Peter quotes another passage from Ps. 109: 9, (which Psalm is altogether of the like tenor with Ps. LXIX.), which runs thus: "His bishopric let another man take." The fair question now is: Was Judas originally meant here? The tenor of both Psalms shows clearly that he was not. Yet David, as king, was beyond all reasonable doubt a type of king Messiah; and what is done in respect to the type, may, by the usage of the New Testament writers, be applied to the antitype. The Holy Ghost did truly speak that which is applicable to Judas, or which deeply concerns Judas, inasmuch as he hath, by the mouth of David, spoken respecting David's enemies what is exactly and highly descriptive of Judas' character and destiny.

In all the New Testament there occur no cases of greater difficulty, than those which have now been brought be

« PreviousContinue »