John afford us marked exemplification of our blessed Redeemer's manner of acting in both cases, when rightly and when erroneously understood to speak in the literal sense. Jo. vi. 42. Once more, the very chapter under discussion affords us a striking example of this rule. Our Saviour having said that he had come down from heaven, is correctly understood, yet murmured against. "And they said; is not this Jesus, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?" He acts in his usual manner. As they had understood him rightly, he cares not for the objection; but having premised the reasons why they did not believe in him, goes on, in the second part of his discourse, to repeat again and again the very phrase which had caused complaint, by saying that he came down from heaven; (vv. 50, 51, 59.) The two rules then are sufficiently clear; when his hearers, misunderstanding his words, raise objections, Jesus explains them; when understanding them right, they find fault, he repeats them. In order, therefore, to discover whether the Jews understood our Saviour wrong or right in our case, we have only to look at his answer to their objection, and see whether he explains his previous words as in the eleven instances I first brought, or repeats the obnoxious expressions, as in the three last cases which I quoted. The answer to this question is sufficiently clear. In his answer, our Saviour repeats the same words five times, and, as we shall clearly see next evening, in phrases which add energy to his previous expressions. In order to bring the passage under consideration into more immediate contact with the two canons I have laid down, I will transcribe it in parallel columns, with a text of each class. Jo. iii. 3-5. 1. Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jo. iii. 3-5. 2. Nicodemus saith to him; How can a man be born again when he is old? 3. Jesus answered; amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Jo. vi. 52-54. this bread, he shall Jo. vi. 52-54. 3. Then Jesus said not have life in A slight inspection of the three passages, will leave no doubt regarding the class to which our text is to be referred. Thus, therefore, the objec tion of the Jews proves that they understood our Redeemer's words in their literal sense, of a real eating of his flesh; his answer, illustrated by his invariable practice, demonstrates that they were right in so understanding. We, therefore, who understand them as they did, are right also. I must detain you a little longer, in order to reply to some objections which may be brought against the train of argument I have been pursuing. It may be said that I have laid down as a rule, that it was our Saviour's constant practice to explain himself when, his meaning being mistaken, objections were raised against his doctrines: and if this rule be erroneous, all my reasoning falls to the ground. Now, we have many instances in the New Testament, where our Lord, far from giving such explanations, seems to be desirous rather of keeping his hearers in the dark. In order to prove this, the method of teaching by parable was once pointed out to me by a controversial antagonist, as sufficiently indicative of our Lord's desire to enwrap his doctrines in mysterious obscurity. This objection is in reality so indirect, that I should not consider myself bound to be diffuse in answering it, even if I had not done so, fully, elsewhere. In our course of hermeneutics, and in a voluminous essay which I once delivered to you, I have proved, that teaching in parables, so far from being a course selected by Jesus for the purpose of concealing his real dogmas, was, in fact, a method of instruction, forced upon him by the habits and feelings of his countrymen, and the practice of the Jewish schools; that his parables themselves were, of their own nature, sufficiently intelligible, being drawn from common sayings or habitual occurrences; and that, in fine, they were sufficiently understood by his auditors. Instead, therefore, of spending more time in answering an objection, which belongs more properly to another place, I will notice two passages, which appear to be at variance with the rule I have laid down, and discuss them as briefly as the subject will permit. The first is Jo. ii. 18-22. Upon the Jews asking Jesus for a sign of his authority, in driving the tradesmen from the temple, he said to them,"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews then said: six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up again in three days? But he spoke of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen again from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture, and the word that Jesus had said." Here the Jews understood his words literally, when he meant them to be understood figuratively; yet he gives no explanation. On the contrary, the Jews retained their erroneous interpretation to the end; for they made it a charge against him at his trial; and the Apostles themselves, as appears * Mat, xxvi, 61. xxvii. 40; Mar. xiv. 58, xv, 29. from the very text, did not understand it until after the resurrection. 1. I must commence by remarking, that the phrase used by our Lord in this passage, if referred to his body, was one in such ordinary use among the Jews, that he noways departed from established forms of language. Nothing was more common among those nations who had imbibed the oriental philosophy, and among them the Jews, than to consider the body as a vessel, a house, a tabernacle, a temple. It is called a vessel by St. Paul;* and the same appellation is given to it by Socrates, who, in his last discourse, calls it "the vessel and receptacle of the soul;"+ and by Lucretius "Crede animam quoque diffundi, multoque perire,...... "Sic animus per se non quit sine corpore et ipso, Esse homine, ollius quasi quod vas esse videtur." Ibid. 553. v. also 794. These expressions are justly referred by Bendtsen to the antiquum orientalium judicium. Isaiah calls it a house, § and Job a house of clay. It is styled a tabernacle, by the same Apostle; and his * 2 Cor. iv. 7; 1 Thessal. iv. 4. comp. 1 Sam. xxi. 5. † Plato, Sympos. c. xxxii. + "Marmora Mystica, in Miscellanea Hafnensia, philologici maxime argumenti," Fascic. ii." Copenhag. 1824, p. 293. § xxxviii. 12. iv. 19. 12. Cor. v. 1, 2, 4, where it is also called a house. |