According to Tittmann, "the Saviour could not inculcate on his disciples the mere prudential duty of forgiving others in order that they themselves might obtain forgiveness, which would be quite foreign to real integrity and purity of mind; but he wished them to consider that if they cherished an implacable spirit they could have no grounds to hope for pardon from God; so that if they themselves were not ready to forgive it was impossible that they should obtain forgiveness."1 But this reasoning would exclude everywhere the telic force of iva. According to the writer's own admission, the forgiving of others is an indispensable condition of pardon; why not then regard this condition, as well as any other, in the light of a means to an end? Is it possible to believe that obtaining forgiveness from God is an object and aim at all inconsistent with "real integrity and purity of mind?" Much more soundly does Meyer give the real thought of the passage: "To the exhortation to confidence in prayer Jesus links on another principal requisite of being heard--namely, the necessity of forgiving in order to obtain forgiveness." " The forgiving is presented as an indispensable means to an end.

The ecbatic

sense of iva

need not in all

cases be de

nied.

It need not, however, be denied that in some passages the ecbatic rendering of iva may bring out more clearly the sense of the author. The particle may be allowed some measure of its native telic import, and yet the final cause or end may be conceived of as an accomplished result or attainment rather than an objective ideal necessary to be reached.' Ellicott's position may be accepted as every way sound and satisfactory: "The uses of iva in the New Testament appear to be three: (1) Final, or indicative of the end, purpose, or object of the action -the primary and principal meaning, and never to be given up except on the most distinct counter arguments. (2) Sub-final, occasionally, especially after verbs of entreaty (not of command), subject of the prayer being blended with, and even in some cases obscuring, the purpose of making it. (3) Eventual, or indicative of result, apparently in a few cases, and due, perhaps, more to what is called 'Hebrew teleology' (i. e., the reverential aspect under which the Jews regarded prophecy and its fulfilment) than grammatical depravation." "

1 Biblical Repository for Jan., 1835, p. 105.

2 Critical Commentary on Mark xi, 25.

the

8 Comp. Winer's New Testament Grammar (English translation, Andover, 1874), pp. 457-461, and Buttmann's Grammar of the New Testament Greek (English translation, Andover, 1873), pp. 235–241.

4 Critical and Grammatical Commentary on Ephesians i, 17.

prophetic citation.

But when the words iva Tλnpwoy are used in connexion with the iva telic in fulfilment of prophecy we should not hesitate to accept formulas of the telic force of iva. The Scriptures themselves recognise a sort of divine necessity for the fulfilment of all that predicted or typified the Christ. As it was necessary (čɗɛɩ) for the Christ to suffer (Luke xxiv, 26), so "it was necessary that all things which were written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning him should be fulfilled" (Luke xxiv, 44; comp. the dε λnowñvaι of Acts i, 16). The objection that it is absurd to suppose all these things were done merely to fulfil a prophecy is based upon a misconception and misrepresentation of the evangelist. The statement that this particular divine purpose was served does not imply that no other divine purpose was accomplished. "All these things did transpire," says Whedon, "in order, among other purposes, to the fulfilment of that prophecy, inasmuch as the fulfilment of that prophecy was at the same time the accomplishment of the Incarnation of the Redeemer, and the verification of the divine prediction. Nor is there any predestinarian fatalism in all this. God predicts what he foresees that men will freely do; and then men do freely in turn fulfil what God predicts, and so unconsciously act in order to verify God's veracity. Moreover there is no fatalism in supposing that God has high plans which he does with infinite wisdom carry out through the free, unnecessitated, though foreseen wills of men. Such is his inconceivable wisdom that he can so place free agents in a free system of probation that which ever way they freely turn they will but further his great generic plans and verify his foreknowledge. So that it may, in a right sense, be true that all these things are done by free agents in order to so desirable an end as to fulfil the divine foresight.' The passage in Matt. ii, 15, has been thought by many to be a certain instance of the ecbatic usage of iva. It is there cited in Matt. written that Joseph arose and took the child Jesus and his mother by night and withdrew into Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, "in order that (iva λnown) it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt I called my son." The quotation is a literal translation of the Hebrew of Hos. xi, 1, and the reference of the prophet is to Israel. The whole verse of Hos. xi, 1, reads thus: "For a child was Israel, and I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Here some would see a double sense of prophecy, and others an Old Testament text accommodated to a New Testament use. But the true interpretation of this quotation will recog.

Hosea xi, 1, as

ii, 15.

1 Commentary on Matthew i, 22

991

nise the typical character of Israel as "God's firstborn," a familiar thought of the Old Testament Scripture. Thus, in Exod. iv, 22, Jehovah is represented as saying: "My son, my firstborn, is Israel.” And again in Jer. xxxi, 9: "For I have been to Israel for a father, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Compare also Isa. xlix, 3. Recognising this typical character of Israel as God's firstborn son, the evangelist readily perceived that the ancient exodus of Israel out of Egypt was a type of this event in the life of the Son of God while he was yet a child. Among the other purposes (and there were doubtless many) that were served by this going down into Egypt, and exodus therefrom, was the fulfilment of the prophecy of Hosea. This fulfilment of typical events, as we have shown above (p. 384), does not authorize the doctrine of a double sense in the language of prophecy. The words of Hosea xi, 1, have but one meaning, and announce in poetic form a fact of Israel's ancient history. That fact was a type which was fulfilled in the event recorded in Matt. ii, but the language used by the prophet had no previous fulfilment. It was not a prediction at all, but an allusion to an event which occured six hundred years before Hosea was born.'

III. It remains to notice the purposes for which any of the sacred writers quoted or referred to the more ancient Scrip- Purposes of tures. Attention to this point will be an important aid Scripture quoin enabling us to understand and appreciate the various uses of the holy writings.

tation.

1. The citation of many ancient prophecies was manifestly for the purpose of showing and putting on record their fulfilment. This is true of all the prophecies which are introduced with the formula iva λnown, in order that it might be fulfilled. And the same thought is implied in the context of quotations introduced by

1

1 Lange (Commentary on Matthew ii, 15) has the following: "As the flight and the return had really taken place, the evangelist, whose attention was always directed to the fulfilment of prophecy, might very properly call attention to the fact that even this prediction of Hosea had been fulfilled. And, in truth, viewed not as a verbal but as a typical prophecy, this prediction was fulfilled by this flight into Egypt. Israel of old was called out of Egypt as the son of God, inasmuch as Israel was identified with the Son of God. But now the Son of God himself was called out of Egypt, who came out of Israel, as the kernel from the husk. When the Lord called Israel out of Egypt, it was with special reference to his Son; that is, in view of the high spiritual place which Israel was destined to occupy. In connexion with this it is also important to bear in mind the historical influence of Egypt on the world at large. Ancient Greek civilization-nay, in a certain sense, the imperial power of Rome itself -sprung from Egypt; in Egypt the science of Christian theology originated; from Egypt proceeded the last universal Conqueror; out of Egypt came the typical son of God to found the theocracy; and thence also the true Son of God to complete the theocracy."

other formulas. These facts exhibit the interdependence and organic connexion of the entire body of Holy Scripture. It is a divinely constructed whole, and the essential relations of its several parts must never be forgotten.

2. Other quotations are made for the purpose of establishing a doctrine. So Paul, in Rom. iii, 9-19, quotes the Scriptures to prove the universal depravity of man; and in Rom. iv, 3, he cites the record of Abraham's belief in God to show that a man is justified by faith rather than works, and that faith is imputed unto him for righteousness. This manner of his using the Old Testament obviously implies that the apostle and his readers regarded it as author itative in its teachings. What was written therein, or could be confirmed thereby, was final, and must be accepted as the revelation of God.

3. Sometimes the Scripture is quoted for the purpose of confuting and rebuking opponents and unbelievers. Jesus himself appealed to his Jewish opponents on the ground of their regard for the Scriptures, and showed their inconsistency in refusing to receive him of whom the Scriptures so abundantly testified (John v, 39, 40). With those who accepted the Scripture as the word of God such argumentation was of great weight. How effectually Jesus employed it may be seen in his answers to the Sadducees and Pharisees (Matt. xxii, 29-32, 41-46). Compare John x, 34-36.

4. Finally, the Scriptures were cited or referred to in a general way as a book of divine authority, for rhetorical purposes, and for illustration. Its manifold treasures were the heritage of the people of God. Its language would be naturally appropriated to express any thought or idea which a writer or speaker might wish to clothe in sacred and venerable form. Hence the manners, references, allusions, and citations which serve mainly to enhance the force or beauty of a statement, and to illustrate some argument or appeal. "The writings of the Jewish prophets," says Horne, “which abound in fine descriptions, poetical images, and sublime diction, were the classics of the later Jews; and, in subsequent ages, all their writers affected allusions to them, borrowed their images and descriptions, and very often cited their identical words when recording any event or circumstance that happened in the history of the persons whose lives they were relating, provided it was similar and parallel to one that occurred at the times, and was described in the books, of the ancient prophets."1

1 Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, vol. ii, p. 191.

CHAPTER XX.

THE FALSE AND THE TRUE ACCOMMODATION.

INASMUCH as many passages of the Old Testament Scripture are appropriated by New Testament writers for the sake of The rationalisillustration, or by way of special application, it has been tic theory held by many that all the Old Testament quotations, even the Messianic prophecies, have been applied in the New Testament in a sense differing more or less widely from their original import. This especially has been a position taken by many rationalists of Germany, and some have gone so far as to teach that our Lord accommodated himself to the prejudices of his age and people. His use of Scripture, they tell us, was of the nature of argument and appeal ad hominem; even his words and acts in regard to unclean spirits of demons, and other matters of belief among the Jews, were a falling in line with the errors and superstitions of the common people.

Such a theory of accommodation should be utterly repudiated by the sober and thoughtful exegete. It virtually teaches should be reputhat Jesus Christ was a propagator of falsehood. It diated. would convict every New Testament writer of a species of mental and religious delusion. The divine Teacher did, indeed, accommodate his teaching to the capacity of his hearers, as every wise teacher will do; or, rather, he condescended to put himself on the plane of their limited knowledge. He would speak so that men might understand, and believe, and be saved. But in those who had no disposition to search and test his truth he declared that Isaiah's words (Isa. vi, 9, 10) received a new application, and a most significant fulfilment (Matt. xiii, 14, 15). And this was strictly true. Isaiah's words were first spoken to the dull and blinded hearts of the Israel of his own day. Ezekiel repeated them with equal propriety to the Israel of a later generation (Ezek. xii, 2). And our Lord quoted and applied them to the Israel of his time as one of those homiletic Scriptures which are fulfilled again and again in human history when the faculties of spiritual perception become perversely dull to the truths of God. The prophecy in question was not the prediction of a specific event, but a general oracle of God, and of such a nature as to be capable of repeated fulfilments.