תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

John xij. S.

Then took Mary

Bethang.

delivered his discourse to the Apostles, than that it happened
in the same hour.

But even if we admit that both of them happened on the
same day, it will by no means follow, that the entertainment
likewise at Bethany took place on that day; at least the words
with which St. Matthew begins his narration of it, “ Now when
Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper," con-
tain no determination of time, and may as easily refer to a pre-
ceding as a present period.

Still, however, it might be objeeted, that though St. Matthew and St. Mark have not expressly mentioned the day on which the unction took place at Bethany, they have at least assigned to it, a place, in that part of their

narrative where they were advanced, to within two days of the passover. Now this objection presupposes that the Evangelists always wrote according to the order of time, which they certainly did not: and if we only make a different division of the chapters, and reckon to the twenty-fifth chapter the two first verses of the twentysixth, the unction at Bethany, which is related in the following verses, will have less reference to the time specified in those two verses.

The Jewish Sanhedrim had formed the resolution to put Jesus to death, but not on the feast day: and it was the unction at Bethany which afforded them the means of getting him into their power, though on the day which they had endeavoured to avoid. This may be gathered from St. Matthew's own relation, who, after having described the consultation of the Sanhedrim, immediately relates the unction at Bethany, and then adds, “ That one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, what will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” (Matt. xxvi. 14, 15.) The account given by St. Matthew is in some measure obscure, because we do not perceive in what manner the circumstance of the unction, excited in Judas the resolution to betray his master. But this, we clearly learn, from the relation of St. Jobn; from which it appears that Judas was properly the person who censured the unction, under the pretence that the ointment ought to have been sold for the benefit of the poor; and that this specious pretext likewise met with the approbation of other Apostles. The true reason, as St. Jobn expressly declares, was the hope of having a further opportunity of defrauding the money-bag, which was entrusted to his care. The answer therefore of Jesus affected Judas in particular, whose guilty conscience augmented the severity of the rebuke. Under these circumstances, it is by no means extraordinary that Judas resolved to take revenge, especially when we consider that he was already an apostate, (John vi. 67. 71.) and thought perhaps that, if contrary to his belief, Jesus was really the Messiah, the measures concerted against him would be of no avail; but that, on the other hand, if Jesus was an impostor, he would meet with the fate he deserved. It appears, then, that the unction at Bethany, which gave rise to the offer of Judas to the Sanhedrim, to betray Christ, is more properly arranged immediately before the relation of the effect which it produced, than it would have been, if placed at the beginning of the twentyfirst chapter, to which it properly belongs, according to the merits of time.

It will be observed, that Michaelis in these observations bas

Mark xiv. 3. having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard, very Bethany.

precious 7;

replied to the principal objections which have been proposed
by Lightfoot, Whiston, Whitby, Macknight, and others. Arch-
bishop Newcome has reviewed these arguments in a long note
on the subject.

Bishop Marsh is not satisfied with these arguments of Mi-
cbaelis. He observes that Matt. xxvi. 2. and Mark xiv. 1. bring
their narrative down to the third day, and that the assembly of
the Chief Priests was certainly held three days before the Pas-
sover, when Judas betrayed Christ; but it does not therefore
follow, as Bishop Marsh supposes, that the Unction was on the
same day. St. Mattbew connects the two events, in order to
point out the cause and the effect, without distinguishing the
precise time. St. Mark follows St. Matthew's plan, and for the
same reason.

The first day of unleavened bread is mentioned in its order, after the parenthetical narration of the causes of the betraying, and has no reference to the Unction. Bishop Marsh justly objects to Archbishop Newcome's order, but proposes the opinion, that the Unction took place on the Wednesday before the Passover. This learned theologian, however, does not rest this opinion upon the arguments generally made use of, but upon a supposed corruption of the original text of St. John. As the testimony, however, of all existing MSS. is against this opinion, Bishop Marsh conjectures that the corruption in question was made at so very early a period, that no manuscript extant has the original reading. It is at all times painful to be compelled to differ from an authority so eminent as Bishop Marsh; but it is impossible to approve of any emendation of the text of the New Testament, wbich increases instead of lessening difficulties; and is unsupported by the authority of one quotation, version, or MS. extant. The Scriptures must be treated with greater veneration.

Bishop Marsh, in bis note (No. 9.) to this section of Michaelis, also endeavours to prove that the day on which Christ was betrayed was the day of the Unction. His arguments do not appear satisfactory. The question principally rests upon the precise meaning of the word TÓTe, which Michaelis would render

very soon after," and his annotator“ immediately after."

The authority of Mr. Dick, in his Essay on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, confirms me yet further in the conviction that the Unction at Bethany took place six days before the Passover.-See Dick's Essay, p. 300, 301.

(a) Marsh's Michaelis, voi. iii. part i. p. 23. (6) Lightfoot has endeavoured to prove the same thing.

37 It is not exactly known of what this (vápdog risuń) consisted which was poured upon the head of our Lord. The words occur but twice, Mark xiv. 3. There came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard, very precious, abe yuvn έχουσα αλάβαστρον μύρα, νάρδο πισικής πολυτελούς· andJohn xii. 3. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, &c. ή εν Μαρία, λαβούσα λίτραν μύρου νάρδε πισικής πολυτίμα. Schleusner derives the word πισική from πίνω bibo; and supposes that the ointment could be poured out as a liquid. He quotes, among other authorities, the same passage from Æschylus (a) as Heinsius does, to confirm his opinion. Others derive the word from hisıs, and suppose that it merely significs

Mat. xxvi.7. of very precious ointment,

Bethany. John xii. 3. a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, Mark xiv.3. and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. Mat.xxvi.7. as he sate at meat. John xii. 3. and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with

her hair : and the house was filled with the odour of the

ointment.
Mat. xxvi.8. But when his disciples saw it,
Mark xiv. 4. there were some that had indignation within themselves,

and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made ?
5. For it might have been sold for more than three hun-

dred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they

murmured against her. Mat. xxvi.8. To what purpose is this waste ? John xii. 4.

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,

that the ointment was pure and unadulterated. With this opi-
nion Heinsius agrees, and defends the interpretation from the
Hellenistic interpretation of a verse in Isaiah xxxiii. 16. če ti
εις νόσον πέσοι εκ ήν αλέξη' ουδεν, έδε βρώσιμον ο χρισόν, έδε
Tisòv (6). Others rejecting both these opinions, suppose that the
word is not Greek, but Latin, and that vápdog TISUT) is the same
as nardus spicata hoc est ex spicus expressa, from mégw premo,
unde πιεση, by metathesis πισική, as φελόνη for Peanula. Sca-
liger reads the word a Tisik), from arioow contundo. Nonnus
keeps the word, as it is in St. John, and gives no explanation.
Lightfoot supposes the word to be derived from the Syriac
xpho's, and interprets the whole phrase to signify an aromatic
confection of nard, maste, or myrobalane. Hartung (c) is of
opinion that the ointment in question was brought from Opis, a
town near Babylon, whence spices and unguents were exported,
and that the true reading, therefore, ought to be ofisins.
Lampe (d) and Cloppenburg, however, reject this interpreta-
tion, for the best of all reasons when the language of the New
Testament is under consideration, because the word is not to
be found in any manuscript or version extant; and the latter
derives the word from the name of Pista, a Persian city, men-
tioned by Eschylus, Τάδε μεν περσών των οίχομένων ελλάδ' ες
ålav IIisd kaleirai, Persæ, line 1, 2. on which the Scholiast ob-
serves, άγνούσι δ' ότι πόλις έσι Περσών έσωθεν Πισείρα καλουμένη,
ήν συνκόψας ο ποιητής Πισά έφη-the only objection to this opi-
nion is that nard does not grow in Persia. It might, however,
be imported from India, and manufactured there for the use of
the merchants. Abulfeda is quoted both by Lampe and Pfeiffer,
to prove that Pista was the metropolis of Caramania, a large
and flourishing city on the river Indus.

Pfeiffer, after reviewing these various opinions, comes to the
same conclusion as Luther and Kuinoel (Com. in Hist. lib. N.
T. in Mark xiv. 3.) that it signifies unadulterated, or pure, and
is derived from hisig. He quotes Casaubon's observation, that
TTISLÒS signifies that which can be depended upon, or which
deserves confidence. Eusebius (demons. Evang. lib. viii.) calls
the wine of the Eucharist, κράμα πισικών της καινής διαθήκης.

(a) Heinsii exercitationes Sacræ, p 218. (6) Prom. vinct. Glasgow edit.'imputed to Porson, line 478. (6) Apud Pfeiffer exoticorum N. T. locus xxii. at the end of the dubia vexata, p. 916. (d) Vide Lampe on, John xii. 3, vol. ii. p. 825, note.

John xii. 5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, Bethany.

and given to the poor?
6. This he said, not that he cared for the poor : but be-

cause he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was

put therein. Mark xiv.6. And Jesus said, Let her alone ; why trouble ye her?

she

hath wrought a good work on me.
7. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever
ye

will ye may do them good : but me ye have not always.

8. She hath done what she could John xii. 7. Let her alone : against the day of my burying hath she

kept this. Mt. xxvi.12. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body,

she did it for my burial. Mark xiv.8. she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

9. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall

be preached throughout the whole world, this also that

she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. John xii. 9. Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was

there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that
they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from

the dead.
10.

But the chief priests consulted that they might put La-
zarus also to death ;
11.

Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went
away and believed on Jesus.

MATT. xxvi. ver. 6. part of ver. 7, 8. and ver. 9, 10, 11. 13.
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the
lcper,

7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box-
and poured it on bis bead-

8 —they had indignation, saying, -
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and
given to the poor.

10 Wben Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trou-
ble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

Il For ye have the poor always with you ; but me ye have not always.

13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel sball be preached in the wbole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

JOHN xii. part of ver. 7. and ver. 8. 7 Then said Jesus

8 For the poor always ye bave with you; but me ye have not always.

SECTION LIII.
Christ

prepares to enter Jerusalem.
MATT. xxi. 1-7. MARK xi. 1-7. LUKE xix. 29-35,

part. JOHN xii. 12-18.
And it came to pass,
On the next day,

Lu. xix, 29.
John xü, 12.

Near Jeresalem.

Mat. xxi. 1. when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come Near Jeru. La. xix. 29. when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the salem.

mount called the Mount of Olives,
Joha xii. 12. much people that were come to the feast, when they heard

that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13. Took branches of palm-trees, and went forth to meet

him, and cried, Hosannah, blessed is the King of Israel,

that cometh in the name of the Lord. Mat, xxi. 1. then sent Jesus Mark xi, 1. forth two of his disciples,

2. And saith unto them, Go your way into the village

over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it,
Mat. xxi. 2. straightway ye shall find an ass tied,
Lu. xix. 30. and a colt tied
Mat. xxi. 2. with her,
Lu. xix. 30. whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him

hither. Mat. xxi. 2. unto me.

3. And if any man say ought unto you, La. xix. 31. Why do ye loose him ? thus shall ye say unto him, Be

cause the Lord hath need of him. Mark xi. 3. and straightway he will send him hither. Mat. xxi. 4.

All this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was

spoken by the prophet, saying, John xii. 14. as it is written,

15. Fear not, daughter of Sion 3 :

38 This prediction of Zechariah, four hundred years before the event, announced to the people of Israel, that the king of Jerusalem, contrary to the universal custom of his own, and of every other nation, should enter into his royal city, without any outward pomp and splendour-that he should ride upon the humblest of animals-Himself the meekest and lowliest of men, yet the Saviour of his people, and, as such, be received by them with the loudest rejoicings and acclamations. We are assured, by the Prophet Malachi also, that the Messiah should certainly visit the second temple at Jerusalem. Let me now, then, appeal to the Jew who receives tho Old Testament, and entreat him to search the records of the history of his fathers, and there find if any Prophet, Priest, or King, or Ruler of Israel, before the destruction of the second temple, ever entered into Jerusalem, as Jesus of Nazareth is here represented to have done; and which of all these rulers of Israel united so many of their ancient prophecies in his own person. Of all the long train of Persian, Grecian, Roman, or Jewish rulers, to whom can we apply the prophecy of Zechariah, and assert that he rode into Jerusalem humble, royal, and a Saviour, visiting and appearing in their temple. Ezra was in their city when the prophecy was delivered (a). The successor of the Persian conqueror was reposing in his palace. Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem, attended by the captains and cavalry of the king of Persia, (Nehem. ii. 9.) When he arose privately in the night, he was accompanied by few only of his train, and though he rode, it was not in the manner described by the prophet (b); and of this his second entrance nothing is recorded (c).

Did the governors of Syria, under the Persian sovereigns of

« הקודםהמשך »