COMMENTARY
ON
A
HARMONY OF THE
EVANGELISTS,
MATTHEW, MARK, AND
LUKE,
BY JOHN
CALVIN
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN,
AND COLLATED WITH
THE AUTHOR'S FRENCH
VERSION,
BY THE REV. WILLIAM
PRINGLE
VOLUME
FIRST
THE
TRANSLATOR’S
PREFACE
ALL the writings of JOHN CALVIN are marked by
extraordinary vigor, learning, and judgment. Few of them are so well known as
THE INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION — a systematic treatise, which,
though written at the early age of twenty-four, was universally acknowledged to
be a production of the highest ability. Concise and luminous, powerful in
argument, scriptural, devout and practical, it has not been superseded by any
later work. But the fame which he acquired by THE INSTITUTES was fully sustained
by his expository writings, which possess at least equal claims on the attention
of divines. They contributed powerfully to diffuse the pure Gospel of Christ,
commanded the applause of all the Reformed Churches, and received even from
enemies no mean commendation. More than a century after his valuable life had
closed, they occupied a place in every theological library. The learned Matthew
Poole, in the preface to his Synopsis, apologizes for the small number of his
quotations from them, on the express ground that the Commentaries themselves, he
had every reason to believe, were in the hands of all his
readers.
This reputation, after having suffered a partial
eclipse, will soon, in all probability, regain its former brightness. The first
tendency to this improvement was discovered in a neighboring country, where the
distinguishing doctrines of Christianity had long been supplanted by a creed
little removed from infidelity. In Germany, Biblical criticism is almost a
national pursuit. That unconquerable industry which had already crowned her
scholars with laurels in Greek and Roman literature, has given them as
unquestionable a pre-eminence in the field of sacred philology. Had such rare
attainments been always consecrated to the honor of the Redeemer, every good man
would have rejoiced. Unhappily, they were but too frequently employed in
maintaining the most dangerous errors, in opposing every inspired statement
which the mind of man is unable fully to comprehend, in divesting religion of
its spiritual and heavenly character, and in undermining the whole fabric of
revealed truth. But a gracious Providence has raised up other men, whom, though
we may not feel ourselves at liberty to subscribe to all their views, we cannot
but hail as the friends of evangelical truth, and admire for their holy
fortitude in coming
to the help of the Lord,
to the help of the Lord against the mighty,
(<070523>Judges
5:23.)
At the head of this illustrious band it is almost
superfluous to name Professor Tholuck of Halle, admitted by the most competent
judges, both in Britain and on the Continent, to be one of the first biblical
scholars of the age. Having been led by his own researches, and by public
events, to examine the writings of the Reformer, he hastened to draw the
attention of his countrymen to the neglected treasures. His own Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans afforded an opportunity which was eagerly embraced.
Not satisfied with this brief notice, he wrote an elaborate and masterly
dissertation on “The merits of Calvin as an Interpreter of the Holy
Scriptures,” a translation of which appeared shortly afterwards in the
(American) “Biblical Repository.” He superintended a handsome octavo
edition of Calvin’s Commentaries on the New Testament, printed at Berlin,
and sold at a moderate price. To another eminent interpreter he candidly awards
the honor of having led the way in this
undertaking.
f1a But he was one of the earliest to follow
in the path which had been marked out, and has labored, beyond all his
contemporaries, to make the Commentaries of Calvin more extensively known, and
more highly esteemed.
Our Author has exerted a powerful influence on all
succeeding expositors. They have found their interest in listening to his
instructions, and have been more deeply indebted to him than is generally known.
Many valuable interpretations of passages of Scripture appeared for the first
time in his writings, and have ever since been warmly approved. In other cases,
the views which had been previously held are placed by him in so strong a light
as to remove every doubt, and satisfy the most cautious inquiry. And yet the
stores, from which so much has been drawn, are far from being exhausted, nor is
their value greatly lowered by improvements which have been subsequently made.
The department of History presents an analogous case. Documents which had been
overlooked are carefully examined. Conflicting evidence is more accurately
weighed. Important transactions assume a new aspect, or, at least, are altered
in their subordinate details. Still, there are historians, in whose narrative
the great lines of truth are so powerfully drawn, that the feebler, though more
exact, delineations of other men cannot supply their place.
In the chief moral requisite for such a work Calvin
is excelled by none. He is an honest interpreter. No consideration would have
induced him to wrest the words of Scripture from their plain meaning. Those who
may question his conclusions cannot trace them to an unworthy motive. Timid
theologians will be occasionally startled by his expositions. Though they may
not absolutely impeach the soundness of his doctrine, they will tremble for the
fate of some favorite theory or ingenious argument. With such minds he has no
sympathy. He examines the Scriptures with the humility of one who inquires at
the oracle of God,
(<101623>2
Samuel 16:23,) and proclaims the reply with the faith of one who knows that the
word of the Lord is tried,
(<191830>Psalm
18:30.)
Intimately connected with this integrity of purpose
is the Catholic spirit which he constantly breathes. His labors are dedicated to
no sect, but to the cause of divine truth. If his opinions do not find equal
favor with all true Christians, they are made to feel that he addresses them as
brethren in Christ Jesus. In his eye the Church of Christ is one. He never
forgets the ties which unite all believers to each other and to their exalted
Head. Are there any whose sentiments are hardly distinguishable from those
things which are most surely believed among us,
(<420101>Luke
1:1,) and yet who associate with the name of Calvinism all that is stern
and repulsive? Let them follow the expositions of this master in Israel.
They will find the most remarkable peculiarities of his creed boldly avowed,
but accompanied by other revealed truths to which they had supposed him to be
indifferent, and by no ordinary earnestness of practical exhortation. Amidst his
severest denunciations of doctrinal error, they will not fail to discover the
same enlarged views and Christian forbearance which animated the great apostle
of the Gentiles. Rarely will they behold that sentiment more beautifully
exemplified,
Grace be to all them that
love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity,
(<490624>Ephesians
6:24.)
Learning ought not to be a prominent feature
in a work essentially popular. But the learning of Calvin manifests itself in
the most desirable manner, and adds great weight to his interpretations. Of his
acquaintance with Hebrew it is unnecessary now to speak. His familiarity with
the Greek language appears less in observations on phrases, or allusions to the
various renderings of some passages, than in a close adherence to those shades
of meaning which no translation of the Scriptures can convey. Even when he
appears to have overlooked or mistaken the words, a reference to the original,
which had been studiously kept out of view, will justify the unexpected
remark. f2a
Origen, Chrysostom, and other Greek Fathers, were
among his familiar authors. Classical writers are introduced on every proper
occasion, for illustrating a term, or a custom, or the general principles of
reasoning. Quotations are made from these writers, and from some of their
philosophical treatises, which are seldom even consulted except by those who can
read the language with considerable freedom. To say nothing of the Stagyrite,
every scholar knows, for example, that no Greek prose offers more serious
difficulties than the idiomatic, though fascinating, style of
Plato. f3a
In that minute analysis which is peculiar to modern
criticism, Calvin may have been deficient. That he wanted the skill necessary
for such investigations is not so manifest. The absence of those processes by
which he arrived at his conclusions makes it difficult to determine how far the
subtle elements of language had undergone his scrutiny. If we shall suppose him
to have neglected these matters, our astonishment must be the greater that the
deductions of recent inquirers should have been so largely anticipated.
Conjectures thrown out by Sir Isaac Newton were long afterwards verified by
experiments of extreme labor and delicacy. But Calvin speaks habitually with a
tone of confidence. We must therefore conclude that, like the shrewd remarks to
which the philosopher was pleased to give the name of conjectures, his
discoveries were reached by a shorter route, which other minds could with
difficulty follow. f4a
This extraordinary sagacity was accompanied by
another quality not less needed in an interpreter, a sound judgment, which
leaned neither to ancient usage nor to ingenious novelties, which refused to bow
to the authority of great names, and sternly rebuked the most plausible
sophistry when opposed to the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture. He took a
dispassionate and wide survey, not only of the passage immediately under
consideration, but of kindred expressions or sentiments that were found in any
of the inspired writers. It was left to the industry of later times to collect
parallels, and arrange them on the margin of our Bibles, as an invaluable aid to
interpretation. But his own perusal of the sacred volume supplied him largely
with such materials, and enabled him to draw them out with instinctive readiness
as occasion required.
As we pass along, we meet with direct quotations,
largely but appositely introduced, and tending to confirm the views which he had
adopted. Still more frequently we observe a copious use of that phraseology
which is peculiar to the sacred writers, and which falls on the pious ear with
refreshing melody. In him it rises higher than that felicitous application of
Scripture which our more elegant writers have cultivated for the purpose of
imparting a literary charm to their compositions; for those beauties came to him
unsought while he was aiming at something higher than the mere ornaments of
diction, and the language of Scripture had been so thoroughly interwoven with
his ordinary style, that he must have been frequently unconscious of its
presence. To aid the reader in discovering those allusions, the passages from
which they have been taken are generally marked. The references made by our
Author himself may be supposed to be abundant, and must have struck many persons
as a prominent feature of his writings; but in far more numerous cases, no clue
was given to his authorities, and some pains have been taken to supply the
omissions.
The Latin original has been scrupulously followed.
His own vernacular version gives us some idea of the freedom, spirit, and
elegance, with which he would have accommodated himself to the taste of the
English reader, if it had been executed in our language. But a translator is not
permitted to use the same liberties as the author, and faithfulness demands that
he shall adhere strictly to the copy which is set before him. The meaning has
been given without addition or omission, and even the structure of the sentences
has been followed, so far as that could be done without violating the purity of
English idiom. To exhibit the peculiar excellencies of such a writer, or, where
that could not be done, to find in a modern tongue a suitable equivalent, was no
easy task. His admirably concise diction, and rapid but masterly transitions,
and above all, that rare felicity of expression for which his severest judges
have given him credit, render it difficult to represent the style and manner of
so great a master of composition.
All the assistance that could be derived from our
Author’s French version has been thankfully accepted. It would have been
unwise as well as ungrateful to leave out of view so authoritative an exposition
of his meaning, or to disregard the production of one whose command of his
native tongue is acknowledged by the ablest critics to have anticipated the
elegancies of a later age. “He wrote in Latin,” says
D’Alembert, “as well as is possible in a dead language, and in
French with a purity which was extraordinary for his time. This purity, which is
to the present day admired by our skillful critics, renders his writings greatly
superior to almost all of the same age; as the works of Messieurs de Port Royal
are still distinguished on the same account from the barbarous rhapsodies of
their opponents and contemporaries.” Amidst the driest details of verbal
criticism, there are frequent glimpses of that eloquence which De Thou and other
great men regarded with admiration, and which, when aided by the living voice,
must have told powerfully on his hearers.
It must be observed, however, that the Latin and
French texts have been treated apart, as if they had not proceeded from the same
pen, and have been separated by a broad line which meets the eye of the reader.
The old translators sometimes proceeded as if they had not been aware of the
vernacular copy, and at other times blended it with the original in so strange a
manner, that they appear to follow a path of their own, while they are
faithfully tracking the Author’s footsteps. In the new translations
prepared for the CALVIN SOCIETY, care has been taken to adhere scrupulously to
the Latin text, and at the same time to give the English reader the full benefit
of those illustrations which the Author thought fit to employ in submitting the
work to the perusal of his countrymen. The French translation has been all along
collated with the original; and whenever it contained additional matter, or
removed obscurity by greater copiousness of language, or even when a striking
phrase occurred, the passages have been exhibited and translated at the bottom
of the page.
Notes, partly selected, but chiefly original,
have been added. Some are intended to illustrate a remote allusion, to prevent a
casual expression from being misunderstood, or to bring out more clearly the
Author’s meaning. Others are devoted to history, or to biblical criticism.
Those which have been written by myself, and for which I must be held
responsible, are marked. Ed. All questions of a doctrinal nature have been
excluded from these Notes. The publications of the CALVIN TRANSLATION
SOCIETY are addressed to the whole Church of Christ, and ought not to wear the
badge of any of the sections into which that Church is unhappily divided. In
every thing that relates to doctrine the Author has been left in full possession
of the field.
It will scarcely be supposed that every
interpretation contained in this work has my entire concurrence. The great
principles inculcated in the writings of Calvin have my cordial approbation;
and, indeed, I could scarcely name a writer with whose views of Divine truth I
more fully coincide. As a Commentator, ever since I became acquainted with him,
I have been accustomed to assign to him the highest rank, and to receive his
expositions with the deepest respect. My labors on this and on a former
occasion
f5aled me to examine his opinions more
closely than before, and have raised him still more highly in my estimation.
There are some points on which I feel assured that he mistook the meaning of
Scripture; but almost all of them had been little investigated in his day, and
do not appear to have been subjected to his usual severity of judgment. Many
will wonder that he should contend so earnestly for the identity of John’s
baptism with Christ’s baptism, instead of representing them to be two
distinct ordinances, instituted for separate purposes, and placed under totally
different regulations: but on this question the followers of Christ may agree to
differ. It will excite more general surprise to find the great Reformer
maintaining the right of the civil magistrate to punish heretics, and even to
inflict on them the last sentence of the law. Men far inferior to him in
learning and ability have avoided mistakes from which his powerful and
enlightened mind was not exempted. They ought to regard with admiration and
gratitude the conduct of a gracious Providence, which preserved his creed so
remarkably free from Romish errors, and enabled him to approach so closely to
the mind of the Holy Spirit.
A may be expected to resemble other works which bear
the same title. Our Author’s delight in brevity, and his extreme aversion
to repeat what he had said before, would aid the influence of other reasons for
adopting this plan, which are stated by himself towards the conclusion of The
Argument. To meet one obvious disadvantage of this arrangement, a Table of
the passages expounded, which may enable the reader easily to discover where the
exposition is to be found, becomes necessary. Such a Table, together with a list
of the passages taken from other books of Scripture which are quoted or
illustrated in this work, and a copious Index to the subjects of which it
treats, will be given in the Third volume.
The old translator of the Harmony, Eusebius Paget,
deserves to be honored by the admirers of Calvin. It was indeed to be expected
that, after the lapse of nearly three centuries, his version would be found
unsuitable to modern taste. But it is highly creditable to his scholarship, and
to his scrupulous fidelity to the original, for which his well known integrity,
and his warm attachment to the writings of the Reformer, were a sufficient
guarantee. His name has come down to us in connection with sermons and other
works, which appear to have been much esteemed, but are now little known.
“The History of the Bible, briefly collected, by way of Question and
Answer,” was one of his productions, and was printed at the end of
several of the old editions of the Bible.
This volume is adorned by a well-authenticated
likeness of the Reformer.
f6aMany will be surprised to trace the lines
of extreme old age in the countenance of one who died at the age of fifty-five.
But all his biographers agree in stating that, ere he had concluded his fortieth
year, the white locks, shrivelled features, and bent shoulders, bespoke Calvin
to be already an old man;
f7aand that long before other fifteen years
had run their course, he seemed as if threescore years and ten, or rather
fourscore years, had passed over him, and brought their usual attendants
of labor and sorrow,
(<199010>Psalm
90:10.) His friends observed with grief the forerunners of an event which, when
it arrived, they could not but mourn as the premature close of a life so highly
valued.
The quaint title-pages of two editions of the French
version, together with the “Epistle Dedicatory” of Eusebius Paget,
and a fac-simile of his title-page, immediately follow this
Preface.
It may be proper to state, in conclusion, that,
throughout this work, Calvin’s own version of THE THREE EVANGELISTS is
adopted, as nearly as the difference of the languages would allow, in preference
to our Authorized Version, which would not have rendered equal assistance to the
reader in understanding the expositions. Yet the singular coincidence between
the two Versions, interrupted chiefly by verbal differences which do not affect
the sense, lends countenance to the suggestion of an esteemed friend and
fellow-laborer, that King James’s Translators have been more deeply
indebted to the labors of Calvin than is generally believed.
W.
P.
AUCHTERARDER,
4th
January, 1845.
THE EPISTLE
DEDICATORY
TO THE OLD
TRANSLATION
TO THE RIGHT
HONORABLE
FRANCIS, EARL
OF BEDFORD,
OF THE NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER,
KNIGHT,
ONE OF THE LORDS OF HER MAJESTY’S
MOST HON. PRIVY COUNCIL;
GRACE AND PEACE FROM
GOD, WITH THE INCREASE OF THAT TRUE
HONOR WHICH
IS FROM GOD, AND LASTETH FOR EVER.
[Prefixed to the Original English Translation,
London, 1584 and 1610.]
THE choice (Right Honourable) which Luke the
Evangelist made in dedicating this History of the Gospel, which he wrote, to
that noble man Theophilus, and which that man of worthy memory, M. John Calvin,
took in dedicating these his labors to the Lords of Frankfort, driveth me to
dedicate this my small labor of translating this book into the English tongue.
And though it is but little that I have done, in comparison of the labors of the
other two, and not worth the offering to men of great estate; yet, lest that I
should seem singular in dissenting from these two singular instruments in the
Church of God, and that in one and the selfsame book I have presumed to
make bold of your Lordship’s name, hoping that your Honor will not mislike
to have it written in the forehead of this book with noble Theophilus and the
Lords of Frankfort; specially, sith that I do it in testimony of my dutiful love
to you, for the manifold grace of God in you, and benefits which I have received
from you. Men do commonly, in their Epistles, write either in the commendation
of the work, or in the praise of their patron, or in discharging of themselves
of the discredit which their enemies would lay upon them. But I crave pardon of
your Honor, if, in studying to be short, I omit these things.
For, first, the very name of THE GOSPEL OF JESUS
CHRIST and then the names of MATTHEW, MARK, and LUKE, the Evangelists, and of M.
CALVIN, the gatherer of The Harmony and the writer of The Commentary, do yield
more credit and commendation to the matter than all that I can say of it, all
the days of my life. Only this I say of M. CALVIN’S labors here, that in
my simple judgment it is one of the profitablest works for the Church that ever
he did write.
Next, for your praises, as you like not to hear them,
so I will not offend you in setting them down, nor give others occasion to
condemn me of flattery. They which have best known you say, that you began a
good course in your youth; that you witnessed a good confession in the late time
of persecution; that your constancy hath been testified by your troubles at home
and travels in foreign countries: You have continued your profession in the
midst of your dignity, lordships, and living, left by your parents, and in the
seat of government wherein our sovereign and most gracious Queen hath placed
you; not falling asleep, in security, in this so peaceable a
time.
My Lord, continue to the end, so shall you be safe. I
speak not this as if it were your own strength that hath holden you up all this
while; but meditate sometimes, I pray you, upon the seventy-first Psalm; and
pray that Lord, as David did, who kept you in your youth, that He will keep you
in your old age, now that your hair is hoar and hairs grey. And I beseech the
mighty Lord to thrust them forward which are drawn back by their youthly
affections, and to raise up them that fell away for fear of troubles, and to
waken those which in this quiet and calm time do sleep in security, or wax
wanton with the wealth of the world; that we may meet the Lord with true
humility and earnest repentance, to see if He will be intreated to continue His
mercies towards us; lest he turn his correcting rod, which he hath so oft shaken
over us, into a devouting sword to consume us.
Of myself I will say nothing. The mouths of the
wicked cannot be stopped. Their false tongues, I hope, shall teach me to walk
warily; and I have learned, I thank my God, to pass through good report and
through evil, and to commit myself and my cause to Him that judgeth
right.
The Lord of lords preserve your Honour in safety, and
multiply all spiritual blessings upon you and yours. From Kiltehampton, in
Cornwall, this 28th of, January, 1584.
The Lord’s most unworthy Minister,
lame
EUSEBIUS PAGET
THE
AUTHOR’S
EPISTLE DEDICATORY
TO
THE VERY NOBLE AND ILLUSTRIOUS
LORDS,
THE
BURGOMASTERS AND COUNCIL
OFTHE NOBLE CITY OF
FRANKFORT,
JOHN
CALVIN
IF virtuous examples were ever necessary to be held
out for imitation, in order to stimulate lazy, sluggish, or inactive persons,
the sloth, and—what is more—the indifference of this very corrupt
age makes it necessary that the greater part of men, who do not of their own
accord advance, but rather fall back, should at least be compelled by shame to
discharge their duty. All, indeed, are seen to be influenced, both in public and
in private, by a disgraceful emulation. There is not a king who does not labor
to show that he is equal to his neighbors in the address, or perseverance, or
energy, or courage, necessary for extending, by every possible method, the
bounds of his dominion. There is not a state or commonwealth that yields the
preference to others for cunning and all the arts of deception, nor a single
individual among the ranks of the ambitious who will acknowledge his inferiority
to others in wicked contrivances. In short, we would almost say that they had
entered into a silent but mutual conspiracy to challenge each other to a contest
of vices, and every man who carries wickedness to an extreme easily ruins a vast
multitude by his example; so that, amidst the general prevalence of crimes, very
few persons are to be found who exhibit a pattern of
uprightness.
For these reasons I reckon it to be the more
advantageous that those uncommon excellencies, by which eminent persons are
distinguished, should receive the commendations which they deserve, and should
be raised to an elevated situation so as to be seen at a great distance, that
the desire of imitating them may be awakened in many breasts. And this I
acknowledge, most honorable Lords, to be the principal reason why I am desirous
that this work of mine should be given to the world under the sanction of your
name. For though my undertaking will be regarded by me as having obtained a
distinguished reward, if your readiness to do good shall derive from it any
increase, yet I have had more particularly in my eye the other object which has
been mentioned, namely, that others may equal your progress, or at least may
follow the same course.
I have no intention, however, to frame a catalogue of
all the excellencies by which you are distinguished, but shall satisfy myself
for the present with mentioning, in terms of commendation, one excellence which
has bound to you myself and a great number of the servants of Christ by what may
be called a more sacred tie. It was a great matter that, more than five years
ago, when all were seized with dreadful alarm, when a fearful devastation of the
churches of Germany, and almost the destruction of the Gospel, was threatened by
the calamity which had occurred, you, on whom the first shower of darts fell,
stood firm in an open profession of the faith which was at that time extremely
odious, and steadily maintained the pure doctrine of godliness which you had
embraced, so as to make it evident that, amidst the greatest anxieties and
dangers, there is nothing which you value more highly than to fight under the
banner of Christ. But it is still more remarkable, and more worthy of being put
on record, that you not only maintain the pure worship of God among yourselves,
and faithfully endeavor to keep your fellow-citizens within the fold of Christ,
but that you collect as torn members those fragments of a dispersed church which
had been thrown out in other countries.
In the present melancholy state of affairs, it has
given me no small consolation to learn that devout worshippers of God, who had
come to you as exiles from England and from other places, were received by you
with warm hospitality; and that you not only opened your gates to them in their
wretched exile, but rendered deserved honor to the Son of God, by making his
Gospel to be distinctly heard in your city in foreign languages. A similar
instance of distinguished kindness was recently showed to the unhappy natives of
Locarno by the Council of Zurich, who not only threw open their city to
them, (when they were not permitted to worship Christ at home according to their
consciences) but even assigned to them a church for holding their religious
assemblies, and were not prevented by a diversity of language from desiring to
hear Christ talk Italian in their own city.
To return to yourselves: as soon as I heard that you
had had the kindness to allow persons who speak our language to found a church
amongst you, I considered that you had laid me under private obligations, and
resolved to take this opportunity of testifying my gratitude. For while there is
good reason for deploring the state of our nation to be such, that the
sacrilegious tyranny of Popery has made a residence in our own country to be
little else than a banishment from the kingdom of God, so, on the other hand, it
is a distinguished favor to have a habitation granted to us on a foreign soil,
where the lawful worship of God may be observed. This truly sacred
hospitality—which was rendered not to men, but rather to Christ
himself—will, I trust, add to your already prosperous condition fresh acts
of the divine kindness, and secure them to you in uninterrupted
succession.
For my own part at least, as I have just now
declared, such were my inducements to dedicate to you this work of mine. It is a
Harmony arranged out of Three Evangelists, and has been prepared by me
with the greatest fidelity and diligence. What toil I have bestowed on it would
serve no purpose to detail; and how far I have succeeded must be left to others
to decide. The readers to whom I refer are those honest, learned, and
well-disposed persons, whose desire of making progress is not retarded by a
barbarous shame at receiving instruction, and who feel an interest in the public
advantage. I do not trouble myself with mean and wicked scoundrels; and such I
call not only the hooded monks, who, in defending the tyranny of the Pope, carry
on open war with us, but those useless
dronesf1b
who, mixing with us, seize on every pretense for concealing their ignorance, and
would wish to have the light of doctrine wholly extinguished. Let them
impudently bark at me as much as they please: my reply will be always ready.
Neither divine nor human obligation subjects me to the judgment of those who
deserve the lash for their most disgraceful ignorance, as much as they deserve
the whip for their obstinate and hardened malice and insolence.
I may be allowed at least to say, without the
imputation of boasting, that I have faithfully endeavored to be of service to
the Church of God. Two years ago, John was published along with my
Commentary, which, I trust, was not without advantage. And thus like one of the
heralds,
f2bI have endeavored, to the utmost extent
that my ability allowed, to do honor to Christ riding magnificently in his royal
chariot drawn by four horses; and feel assured that candid readers, who have
derived advantage from my labors, will not be ashamed to acknowledge that the
success has, in some measure, corresponded to my wish. The evangelical history,
related by four witnesses divinely appointed, is justly compared by me to a
chariot drawn by four horses: for by this appropriate and just harmony God
appears to have expressly prepared for his Son a triumphal chariot, from which
he may make a magnificent display to the whole body of believers, and in which,
with rapid progress, he may review the world. Augustine, too, makes an apt
comparison of the Four Evangelists to trumpets, the sound of which fills every
region of the world, so that the Church, gathered from the East, and West, and
South, and North, flows into a holy unity of faith. So much the more intolerable
is the curiosity of those who, not satisfied with the heavenly heralds, obtrude
upon us, under the name of a Gospel, disgusting tales, which serve no other
purpose than to pollute the purity of faith, and to expose the name of Christ to
the sneers and ridicule of the ungodly.
With regard to yourselves, most noble Lords, as you
detest every kind of leaven, by which the native purity of the Gospel is
corrupted, and show that you have nothing more at heart than to defend and
maintain the pure doctrine, as it was delivered by Christ, I feel assured that
this production, which opens up the treasure of the Gospel, will receive your
warmest approbation, and trust that my dedication of it to you will be accepted
as a mark of my regard. Farewell, most illustrious Lords. May Christ always
direct you by his Spirit, support you by his power, defend you by his
protection, and enrich your city and commonwealth with all abundance of
blessings.
GENEVA, 1st August,
M.D.LV.
THE ARGUMENT
ON THE GOSPEL
OF JESUS CHRIST
ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, MARK, AND
LUKE
IN order to read with profit the Evangelical history,
it is of great importance to understand the meaning of the word
Gospel.
f1cWe shall thus be enabled to ascertain what
design those heavenly witnesses had in writing, and to what object the events
related by them must be referred. That their histories did not receive this name
from others, but were so denominated by the Authors, is evident from Mark, who
expressly says (1:1) that he relates the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. There is one passage in the writings of Paul, from which above all
others a clear and certain definition of the word Gospel may be obtained,
where he tells us that it . .
was promised by God in
the Scriptures, through the prophets, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the
Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the
resurrection from the dead,
(<450102>Romans
1:2-4.)
First, this passage shows that the Gospel is a
testimony of the revealed salvation, which had been formerly promised to the
Fathers in an uninterrupted succession of ages. It points out, at the same time,
a distinction between the promises which kept the hope of the people in
suspense, and this joyful message, by which God declares that he has
accomplished those things which he had formerly required them to
expect.
f2cIn the same manner he states a little
afterwards, that in the Gospel
the righteousness of God
is openly manifested, which was testified by the Law and the Prophets,
(<450321>Romans
3:21.)
The same apostle calls it, in another passage, an
Embassy by which the reconciliation of the world to God, once
accomplished by the death of Christ, is daily offered to men,
(<470520>2
Corinthians 5:20.)
Secondly, Paul means not only that Christ is the
pledge of all the blessings that God has ever promised, but that we have in him
a full and complete exhibition of them; as he elsewhere declares that all the
promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen,
(<470120>2
Corinthians 1:20.) And, indeed, the freely bestowed adoption, by which we are
made sons of God, as it proceeds from the good pleasure which the Father had
from eternity, has been revealed to us in this respect, that Christ (who alone
is the Son of God by nature) has clothed himself with our flesh, and made us his
brethren. That satisfaction by which sins are blotted out, so that we are no
longer under the curse and the sentence of, death, is to be found nowhere else
than in the sacrifice of his death. Righteousness, and salvation, and perfect
happiness, are founded on his resurrection.
The Gospel, therefore, is a public exhibition
of the Son of God manifested in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16,) to deliver a
ruined world, and to restore men from death to life. It is justly called a
good and joyful message, for it contains perfect happiness. Its
object is to commence the reign of God, and by means of our deliverance from the
corruption of the flesh, and of our renewal by the Spirit, to conduct us to the
heavenly glory. For this reason it is often called the kingdom of heaven,
and the restoration to a blessed life, which is brought to us by Christ, is
sometimes called the kingdom of God: as when Mark says that Joseph
waited for the kingdom of God,
(<411543>Mark
15:43,) he undoubtedly refers to the coming of the Messiah.
Hence it is evident that the word Gospel
applies properly to the New Testament, and that those writers are chargeable
with a want of precision,
f3cwho say that it was common to all ages,
and who suppose that the Prophets, equally with the Apostles, were ministers of
the Gospel. Widely different is the account which Christ gives us, when he says,
that
the law and the prophets
were TILL John, and that since that time the kingdom of God began to be
preached,
(<421616>Luke
16:16.)
Mark, too, as we mentioned a little ago, declares
that the preaching of John was the beginning of the Gospel,
(<430101>John
1:1.) Again, the four histories, which relate how Christ discharged the office
of Mediator, have with great propriety received this designation. As the birth,
death, and resurrection of Christ contain the whole of our salvation, and are
therefore the peculiar subject of the Gospel, the name of Evangelists
is justly and suitably applied to those who place before our eyes Christ who
has been sent by the Father, that our faith may acknowledge him to be the Author
of a blessed life.
The power and results of his coming are still more
fully expressed in other books of the New Testament. And even in this respect
John differs widely from the other three Evangelists: for he is almost wholly
occupied in explaining the power of Christ, and the advantages which we derive
from him; while they insist more fully on one point, that our Christ is that Son
of God who had been promised to be the Redeemer of the world. They interweave,
no doubt, the doctrine which relates to the office of Christ, and inform us what
is the nature of his grace, and for what purpose he has been given to us; but
they are principally employed, as I have said, in showing that in the person of
Jesus Christ has been fulfilled what God had promised from the
beginning.
f4cThey had no intention or design to abolish
by their writings the law and the prophets; as some fanatics dream that
the Old Testament is superfluous, now that the truth of heavenly wisdom has been
revealed to us by Christ and his Apostles. On the contrary, they point with the
finger to Christ, and admonish us to seek from him whatever is ascribed to him
by the law and the prophets. The full profit and advantage, therefore, to
be derived from the reading of the Gospel will only be obtained when we learn to
connect it with the ancient promises.
With regard to the three writers of the Evangelical
history, whom I undertake to expound, Matthew is sufficiently known.
Mark is generally supposed to have been the private friend and disciple
of Peter. It is even believed that he wrote the Gospel, as it was dictated to
him by Peter, and thus merely performed the office of an amanuensis or
clerk.
f5cBut on this subject we need not give
ourselves much trouble, for it is of little importance to us, provided only we
believe that he is a properly qualified and divinely appointed witness, who
committed nothing to writing, but as the Holy Spirit directed him and guided his
pen. There is no ground whatever for the statement of Jerome, that his Gospel is
an abridgment of the Gospel by Matthew. He does not everywhere adhere to the
order which Matthew observed, and from the very commencement handles the
subjects in a different manner. Some things, too, are related by him which the
other had omitted, and his narrative of the same event is sometimes more
detailed. It is more probable, in my opinion—and the nature of the case
warrants the conjecture—that he had not seen Matthew’s book when he
wrote his own; so far is he from having expressly intended to make an
abridgment.
I have the same observation to make respecting
Luke: for we will not say that the diversity which we perceive in the
three Evangelists was the object of express arrangement, but as they intended to
give an honest narrative of what they knew to be certain and undoubted, each
followed that method which he reckoned best. Now as this did not happen by
chance, but by the direction of Divine Providence, so under this diversity in
the manner of writing the Holy Spirit suggested to them an astonishing harmony,
which would almost be sufficient of itself to secure credit to them, if there
were not other and stronger evidences to support their
authority.
Luke asserts plainly enough that he is the person who
attended Paul. But it is a childish statement which Eusebius makes, that Paul is
the Author of the Gospel which bears the name of Luke, because in one passage he
mentions his
Gospel,
f6c(<550208>2
Timothy 2:8.) As if what follows did not make it clear that Paul is speaking of
his whole preaching, and not of a single book: for he adds,
for which I suffer trouble, even
to bonds,
(<550209>2
Timothy 2:9.) Now, it is certain that he was not held
guilty f7c
of having written a book, but of having administered and preached with the
living voice the doctrine of Christ. Eusebius, whose industry was great,
discovers here a singular want of judgment in collecting without discrimination
such gross absurdities. On this head I have thought it necessary to warn my
readers, that they may not be shocked at fooleries of the same description which
occur in every part of his history.
Of that method of interpretation which I have chosen
to adopt, and which it may be many persons, at first sight, will not approve, it
will be proper to give some account for the satisfaction of pious and candid
readers. First, it is beyond all dispute, that it is impossible to expound, in a
proper and successful manner, any one of the Evangelists, without comparing him
with the other two; and, accordingly, faithful and learned commentators spend a
very great portion of their labor on reconciling the narratives of the three
Evangelists. But as it frequently happens that persons of ordinary abilities
find the comparison to be no easy matter, when it is necessary to pass at every
turn from the one to the other, I thought that it might prove to be a seasonable
and useful abridgment of their labor, if I were to arrange the three histories
in one unbroken chain, or in a single picture, in which the reader may perceive
at a glance the resemblance or diversity that exists. In this way I shall leave
out nothing that has been written by any of the three Evangelists; and whatever
may be found in more than one of them will be collected into one
place.
Whether or not I have succeeded to my expectation,
the reader must decide by his own experience. So far from claiming the praise of
having brought out something new, I readily acknowledge, as becomes an honest
man, that I have adopted this method in imitation of others. Bucer, a man
of revered memory, and an eminent teacher of the Church of God, who above all
others appears to me to have labored successfully in this field, has been
especially my model. As he availed himself of the labors of the ancients who had
traveled this road before him, so my toils have been not a little alleviated by
his industry and application. Where I use the liberty of differing from him,
(which I have freely done, whenever it was necessary,) Bucer himself, if he were
still an inhabitant of the earth, would not be displeased.
COMMENTARY
ON A
HARMONY OF THE
EVANGELISTS
LUKE
1:1-4
|
LUKE
1:1-4
|
|
1. Forasmuch as many have
undertaken to compose a narrative of those things which are most surely believed
among us, 2. Even as they delivered them unto us, who from
the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having carefully examined all
things from the beginning, to write to thee in detail, most excellent
Theophilus, 4. That thou mayest acknowledge the certainty of
those things whereof thou hast been instructed.
|
LUKE is the only Evangelist who makes a preface
to his Gospel, for the purpose of explaining briefly the motive which induced
him to write. By addressing a single individual he may appear to have acted
foolishly, instead of sounding the trumpet aloud, as was his duty, and inviting
all men to believe. It appears, therefore, to be unsuitable that the doctrine
which does not peculiarly belong to one person or to another, but is common to
all, should be privately sent to his friend Theophilus. Hence some have been led
to think that Theophilus is an appellative noun, and is applied to all
godly persons on account of their love of God; but the epithet which is
joined to it is inconsistent with that opinion. Nor is there any reason for
dreading the absurdity which drove them to adopt such an expedient. For it is
not less true that Paul’s doctrine belongs to all, though some of
his Epistles were addressed to certain cities, and others to certain men. Nay,
we must acknowledge, if we take into account the state of those times, that Luke
adopted a conscientious and prudent course. There were tyrants on every hand
who, by terror and alarm, were prepared to obstruct the progress of sound
doctrine. This gave occasion to Satan and his ministers for spreading abroad the
clouds of error, by which the pure light would be obscured. Now, as the great
body of men cared little about maintaining the purity of the Gospel, and few
considered attentively the inventions of Satan or the amount of danger that
lurked under such disguises, every one who excelled others by uncommon faith, or
by extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, was the more strongly bound to do his
utmost, by care and industry, for preserving the doctrine of godliness pure and
uncontaminated from every corruption. Such persons were chosen by God to be the
sacred keepers of the law, by whom the heavenly doctrine committed to them
should be honestly handed down to posterity. With this view therefore, Luke
dedicates his Gospel to Theophilus, that he might undertake the faithful
preservation of it; and the same duty Paul enjoins and recommends to Timothy,
(<550114>2
Timothy 1:14; 3:14.)
1.
Forasmuch as
many. He assigns a reason for writing which,
one would think, ought rather to have dissuaded him from writing. To compose a
history, which had already employed many authors, was unnecessary labor, at
least if they had faithfully discharged their duty. But no accusation of
imposture, or carelessness, or any other fault, is in the slightest degree
insinuated. It looks, therefore, as if he were expressing a resolution to do
what had been already done. I reply, though he deals gently with those who had
written before him, he does not altogether approve of their labors. He does not
expressly say that they had written on matters with which they were imperfectly
acquainted, but by laying claim to certainty as to the facts, he modestly denies
their title to full and unshaken confidence. It may be objected that, if they
made false statements, they ought rather to have been severely censured. I reply
again, they may not have been deeply in fault; they may have erred more from
want of consideration than from malice; and, consequently, there would be no
necessity for greater fierceness of attack. And certainly there is reason to
believe that these were little more than historical sketches which, though
comparatively harmless at the time, would afterwards, if they had not been
promptly counteracted, have done serious injury to the faith. But it is worthy
of remark that, in applying this remedy through Luke to unnecessary writings,
God had a wonderful design in view of obtaining, by universal consent, the
rejection of others, and thus securing undivided credit to those which reflect
brightly his adorable majesty. There is the less excuse for those silly people,
by whom disgusting stories, under the name of Nicodemus, or some other person,
are, at the present day, palmed upon the world.
Are most surely believed among
us. The participle
peplhroforhme>na,
which Luke employs, denotes things fully ascertained, and which do not admit of
doubt. The old translator has repeatedly fallen into mistakes about this word,
and through that ignorance has given us a corrupted sense of some very beautiful
passages. One of these occurs in the writings of Paul, where he enjoins every
man to be fully persuaded in his own mind,
(<451405>Romans
14:5,) that conscience may not hesitate and waver, tossed to and fro
(<490414>Ephesians
4:14) by doubtful opinions. Hence, too, is derived the word
plhrofori>a,
which he erroneously renders
fullness,
while it denotes that strong conviction springing from faith, in which godly
minds safely rest. There is still, as I have said, an implied contrast; for, by
claiming for himself the authority of a faithful witness, he destroys the credit
of others who give contrary statements.
Among
us f1
has the same meaning as with
us.
f2 He appears to make faith rest on a
weak foundation, its relation to men, while it ought to rest on the Word of God
only; and certainly the full
assurance
(plhrofori>a)
of faith is ascribed to the sealing of the Spirit,
(<520105>1
Thessalonians 1:5;
<581022>Hebrews
10:22.) I reply, if the Word of God does not hold the first rank, faith will not
be satisfied with any human testimonies, but, where the inward confirmation of
the Spirit has already taken place, it allows them some weight in the historical
knowledge of facts. By historical knowledge I mean that knowledge which we
obtain respecting events, either by our own observation or by the statement of
others. For, with respect to the visible works of God, it is equally proper to
listen to eye-witnesses
as to rely on experience. Besides, those
whom Luke follows were not private authors, but were also
ministers of the
Word. By this commendation he exalts
them above the rank of human authority; for he intimates that the persons from
whom he received his information had been divinely authorized to preach the
Gospel. Hence, too, that security which he shortly afterwards mentions, and
which, if it does not rest upon God, may soon be disturbed. There is great
weight in his denominating those from whom he received his Gospel
ministers of the
Word; for on that ground believers
conclude that the witnesses are beyond all exception, as the Lawyers express it,
and cannot lawfully be set aside.
Erasmus, who has borrowed from
Virgil f3
a phrase used in his version, did not sufficiently consider the estimation
and weight due to a Divine calling. Luke does not talk in a profane style, but
enjoins us in the person of his friend Theophilus to keep in view the command of
Christ, and to hear with reverence the Son of God speaking through his Apostles.
It is a great matter that he affirms them to have been
eye-witneses,
but, by calling them
ministers,
he takes them out of the common order of men, that our faith may have its
support in heaven and not in earth. In short, Luke’s meaning is this:
“that, since thou now hast those things committed faithfully to writing
which thou hadst formerly learned by oral statements, thou mayest place a
stronger reliance on the received doctrine.” It is thus evident that God
has employed every method to prevent our faith from being suspended on the
doubtful and shifting opinions of men. There is the less room for excusing the
ingratitude of the world, which, as if it openly preferred the uncertainty
arising out of vague and unfounded reports, turns from so great a Divine favor
with loathing. But let us attend to the remarkable distinction which our Lord
has laid down, that foolish credulity may not insinuate itself under the name of
faith. Meanwhile, let us allow the world to be allured, as it deserves, by the
deceitful baits of foolish curiosity, and even to surrender itself willingly to
the delusions of Satan.
3.
Having carefully examined all
things. The old translator has it,
having followed out all
things;
f4 and the Greek verb
parakolouqei~n
is taken metaphorically from those who tread in the footsteps of others,
that nothing may escape them. So that Luke intended to express his close and
laborious investigation, just as Demosthenes employs the same word, when, in
examining an embassy against which he brings an accusation, he boasts of his
diligence to have been such, that he perceived every thing that had been done as
well as if he had been a spectator.
LUKE 1:5-13
|
LUKE
1:5-13
|
|
5. In the days of Herod, king of
Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia; and
his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7. And
they had no child, because Elisabeth was barren, and they were now both at an
advanced age. 8. And it happened, while he was discharging
the priest's office in the order of his course before God,
9. According to the custom of the priest's office, it fell to
him by lot to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying
without at the time of incense. 11. And an angel of the Lord
appeared to him, standing at the right hand of the altar on which the incense
was burning. 12. And Zacharias was troubled when he saw him,
and fear fell upon him. 13. But the angel said to him, Fear
not, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard: and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee
a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
|
Luke very properly begins his Gospel with John
the Baptist, just as a person who was going to speak about the daylight would
commence with the dawn. For, like the dawn, he went before the Sun of
Righteousness, which was shortly to arise. Others also mention him, but they
bring him forward as already discharging his office. Luke secures our respect
for him, while he is yet unborn, by announcing the miracles of divine power
which took place at the earliest period of his existence, and by showing that he
had a commission from heaven to be a prophet, ere it was possible for men to
know what would be his character. His object was that John might afterwards be
heard with more profound veneration, when he should come forth invested with a
public office to exhibit the glory of Christ.
5.
In the days of
Herod. This was the son of Antipater,
whom his father elevated to the throne, and labored with such assiduity and toil
to advance, that he was afterwards surnamed Herod
the
Great. Some think that he is here
mentioned by Luke, because he was their first foreign king; and that this was a
suitable time for their deliverance, because the scepter had passed into a
different nation. But they who speak in this manner do not correctly understand
Jacob’s prophecy,
(<014910>Genesis
49:10,) in which the advent of the Messiah is promised not merely after the
royal authority had been taken from the Jews, but after it had been removed from
the tribe of Judah. The holy patriarch did not even intimate that the tribe of
Judah would be stripped of its supremacy, but that the government of the people
would steadily remain in it until Christ, in whose person its permanency would
at length be secured. When the Maccabees flourished, the tribe of Judah was
reduced nearly to a private rank; and shortly afterwards, John, the latest
leader of that race, was slain. But even at that time, its power was not
completely annihilated; for there still remained the Sanhedrim, or Council
selected out of the family and descendants of David, which possessed great
authority, and lasted till the time of Herod, who, by a shocking slaughter of
the judges, revenged the punishment formerly inflicted on himself, when he was
condemned for murder, and forced to undergo voluntary exile, in order to escape
capital punishment.
It was not, therefore, because he was of foreign
extraction, that the reign of Herod broke the scepter of the tribe of Judah,
(<014910>Genesis
49:10;) but because whatever relics of superior rank still lingered in that
tribe were entirely carried off by his robbery. That its royal dignity had
crumbled down long before, and that by slow degrees its supremacy had nearly
given way, does not imply such a discontinuance as to be at variance with
Jacob’s prophecy. For God had promised two things seemingly opposite; that
the throne of
David would be eternal,
(<198929>Psalm
89:29, 36,) and that, after it had been destroyed, he would raise up its ruins,
(<300911>Amos
9:11;) that the sway of his kingly power would be eternal, and yet that there
should come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,
(<231101>Isaiah
11:1.) Both must be fulfilled. That supremacy, therefore, which God had bestowed
on the tribe of Judah, was suffered by him to be broken down for a time, that
the attention of the people might be more strongly directed to the expectation
of Christ’s reign. But when the destruction of the Sanhedrim appeared to
have cut off the hope of believers, suddenly the Lord shone forth. Now, it
belongs to the arrangement of history to mark the date of the transaction; but
for no light reason did the word
king
mark, at the same time, the wretchedness of that period, in order to remind
the Jews, that their eyes ought now to be turned to the Messiah, if they would
sincerely keep the covenant of God.
Zacharias, of the course of
Abia. We learn from sacred history,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3, 31,) that the families of the priests were arranged by David in
certain classes. In this matter David attempted nothing contrary to what the law
enjoined. God had bestowed the priesthood on Aaron and his sons,
(<022801>Exodus
28:1.) The other Levites were set apart to inferior offices,
(<040309>Numbers
3:9.) David made no change in this respect; but his object was, partly to secure
that nothing should be done in tumult and disorder, partly to oppose ambition,
and at the same time to provide that it should not be in the power of a few
persons, by taking the whole service into their own hands, to leave the greater
number unemployed at home. Now in that arrangement,
Abijah,
son of Eleazar, held the eighth rank,
(<132410>1
Chronicles 24:10.) Zacharias, therefore, belonged to the priestly family, and to
the posterity of Eleazar who had succeeded his father in the high priest’s
office,
(<042028>Numbers
20:28.) In what manner Elisabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron, could be
Mary’s
cousin,
(v. 36,) I will explain in the proper place. It is certainly by way of
respect that Luke mentions the genealogy of Elisabeth; for Zacharias was
permitted by the law to take to wife a daughter of any private Levite. From the
equal marriage, therefore, it is evident that he was a man respected among his
own rank.
6.
And they were both righteous
before God. He awards to them a noble
testimony, not only that among men they spent holy and upright lives, but also
that they were righteous before
God. This
righteousness
Luke defines briefly by saying that they
walked in all the commandments of
God. Both ought to be carefully
observed; for, although praise is bestowed on Zacharias and Elisabeth for the
purpose of showing us that the lamp, whose light went before the Son of God, was
taken not from an obscure house, but from an illustrious sanctuary, yet their
example exhibits to us, at the same time, the rule of a devout and righteous
life. In ordering our life,
(<193723>Psalm
37:23,) therefore, our first study ought to be to approve ourselves to God; and
we know that what he chiefly requires is a sincere heart and a pure conscience.
Whoever neglects uprightness of heart, and regulates his outward life only by
obedience to the law, neglects this order. For it ought to be remembered that
the heart, and not the outward mask of works, is chiefly regarded by God, to
whom we are commanded to look. Obedience occupies the second rank; that is, no
man must frame for himself, at his own pleasure, a new form of righteousness
unsupported by the Word of God, but we must allow ourselves to be governed by
divine authority. Nor ought we to neglect this definition, that they are
righteous
who regulate their life by the
commandments
of the law; which intimates that, to the eye of God, all acts of worship are
counterfeit, and the course of human life false and unsettled, so far as they
depart from his law.
Commandments
and
ordinances
differ thus. The latter term relates strictly to exercises of piety and of
divine worship; the latter is more general, and extends both to the worship of
God and to the duties of charity. For the Hebrew word
µyqh,
which signifies statutes or decrees, is rendered by the Greek translator
dikaiw>mata,
ordinances;
and in Scripture
µyqh
usually denotes those services which the people were accustomed to perform in
the worship of God and in the profession of their faith. Now, though hypocrites,
in that respect, are very careful and exact, they do not at all resemble
Zacharias and Elisabeth. For the sincere worshippers of God, such as these two
were, do not lay hold on naked and empty ceremonies, but, eagerly bent on the
truth, they observe them in a spiritual manner. Unholy and hypocritical persons,
though they bestow assiduous toil on outward ceremonies, are yet far from
observing them as they are enjoined by the Lord, and, consequently, do but lose
their labor. In short, under these two words Luke embraces the whole
law.
But if, in keeping the law, Zacharias and Elisabeth
were blameless, they had no need of the grace of Christ; for a full observance
of the law brings life, and, where there is no transgression of it, there is no
remaining guilt. I reply, those magnificent commendations, which are bestowed on
the servants of God, must be taken with some exception. For we ought to consider
in what manner God deals with them. It is according to the covenant which he has
made with them, the first clause of which is a free reconciliation and daily
pardon, by which he forgives their sins. They are accounted
righteous
and
blameless,
because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness,
that the fear of God dwells in them, so long as they give a holy example. But as
their pious endeavors fall very far short of perfection, they cannot please God
without obtaining pardon. The righteousness which is commended in them depends
on the gracious forbearance of God, who does not reckon to them their remaining
unrighteousness. In this manner we must explain whatever expressions are applied
in Scripture to the righteousness of men, so as not to overturn the forgiveness
of sins, on which it rests as a house does on its foundation. Those who explain
it to mean that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous by faith, simply because
they freely obtained the favor of God through the Mediator, torture and misapply
the words of Luke. With respect to the subject itself, they state a part of the
truth, but not the whole. I do own that the righteousness which is ascribed to
them ought to be regarded as obtained, not by the merit of works, but by the
grace of Christ; and yet, because the Lord has not imputed to them their sins,
he has been pleased to bestow on their holy, though imperfect life, the
appellation of
righteousness.
The folly of the Papists is easily refuted. With the righteousness of faith
they contrast this righteousness, which is ascribed to Zacharias, which
certainly springs from the former, and, therefore, must be subject, inferior,
and, to use a common expression, subordinate to it, so that there is no
collision between them. The false coloring, too which they give to a single word
is pitiful.
Ordinances,
they tell us, are called
commandments
of the law, and, therefore, they justify us. As if we asserted that true
righteousness is not laid down in the law, or complained that its instruction is
in fault for not justifying us, and not rather that it is weak through our
flesh,
(<450803>Romans
8:3.) In the commandments of God, as we have a hundred times acknowledged, life
is contained,
(<031805>Leviticus
18:5;
<401917>Matthew
19:17;) but this will be of no avail to men, who by nature were altogether
opposed to the law, and, now that they are regenerated by the Spirit of God, are
still very far from observing it in a perfect
manner.
7.
And they had no
child. By an extraordinary purpose of
God it was appointed that John should be born out of the common and ordinary
course of nature. The same thing happened with Isaac,
(<011717>Genesis
17:17;
<012101>Genesis
21:1-3,) in whom God had determined to give an uncommon and remarkable
demonstration of his favor. Elisabeth had been barren in the prime of life, and
now she is in old age, which of itself shuts up the womb. By two hinderances,
therefore, the Lord gives a twofold, surprising exhibition of his power, in
order to testify, by stretching out his hand, as it were, from heaven, that the
Prophet was sent by himself,
(<390301>Malachi
3:1;
<430106>John
1:6.) He is indeed a mortal man, born of earthly parents; but a supernatural
method, so to speak, recommends him strongly as if he had fallen from
heaven.
9.
According to the custom of
the priest’s office. The law
enjoined that incense should be offered twice every day, that is, every morning
and at even,
(<023007>Exodus
30:7, 8.) The order of courses among the priests had been appointed by David, as
we have already explained; and, consequently, what is here stated as to incense
was expressly enjoined by the law of God. The other matters had been arranged by
David,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3,) that each family might have its own turn, though David
ordained nothing which was not prescribed by the law: he only pointed out a plan
by which they might individually perform the service which God had
commanded.
The word
temple
(na<ov)
is here put for the holy
place; which deserves attention, for it
sometimes includes the outer court. Now, Zacharias is spoken of as going into
the temple, which none but priests were permitted to enter. And so Luke says
that the people stood
without,
there being a great distance between them and the altar of incense; for the
altar on which the sacrifices were offered intervened. It ought to be observed
also that Luke says before
God: for whenever the priest entered
into the holy place, he went, as it were, into the presence of God, that he
might be a mediator between him and the people. For it was the will of the Lord
to have this impressed upon his people, that no mortal is allowed to have access
to heaven, without a priest going before; nay that, so long as men live on the
earth, they do not approach the heavenly throne, so as to find favor there, but
in the person of the Mediator. Now, as there were many priests, there were not
two of them permitted to discharge, at the same time, the solemn office of
intercession for the people; but they were so arranged in classes, that only one
entered the Holy Place, and thus there was but one priest at a time. The design
of the incense was to remind believers that the sweet savor of their prayers
does not ascend to heaven except through the sacrifice of the Mediator; and in
what manner those figures apply to us must be learned from the Epistle to the
Hebrews.
12.
Zacharias was
troubled. Though God does not appear to
his servants for the purpose of terrifying them, yet it is advantageous and even
necessary for them to be struck with awe,
(<193308>Psalm
33:8,) that, amidst their agitation, they may learn to give to God the glory due
unto his name,
(<192902>Psalm
29:2.) Nor does Luke relate only that Zacharias was terrified, but adds that
fear fell upon
him; intimating that he was so alarmed
as to give way to terror. The presence of God fills men with alarm, which not
only leads them to reverence, but humbles the pride of the flesh, naturally so
insolent that they never submit themselves to God until they have been overcome
by violence. Hence, too, we infer that it is only when God is absent,—or,
in other words, when they withdraw from his presence,—that they indulge in
pride and self-flattery; for if they had God as a Judge before their eyes, they
would at once and unavoidably fall prostrate. And if at the sight of an angel,
who is but a spark of the Divine light, this happened to Zacharias, on whom the
commendation of
righteousness
is bestowed, what shall become of us miserable creatures, if the majesty of
God shall overwhelm us with its brightness? We are taught by the example of the
holy fathers that those only are impressed with a lively sense of the Divine
presence who shake and tremble at beholding him, and that those are stupid and
insensible who hear his voice without
alarm.
13.
Fear not,
Zacharias. The glory of God, it ought to
be observed, is not so appalling to the saints as to swallow them up entirely
with dread, but only to cast them down from a foolish confidence, that they may
behold him with humility. As soon, therefore, as God has abased the pride of the
flesh in those who believe in him, he stretches out his hand to raise them up.
He acts differently towards the reprobate; for at whatever time they are dragged
before the tribunal of God, they are overwhelmed by absolute despair: and thus
does God justly reward their vain delights, in which they give themselves up to
the intoxicating antonness of sin. We ought, therefore, to accept this
consolation, with which the angel soothes Zacharias, that we have no reason to
fear, when God is gracious to us. For they are greatly mistaken who, in order to
enjoy peace, hide themselves from the face of God, whereas we ought to acquaint
ourselves with him and be at peace,
(<182221>Job
22:21.)
Thy prayer is
heard. Zacharias may seem to have acted
an improper part, and inconsistent with the nature of his office, if, on
entering the Holy Place in the name of all the people, he prayed as a private
man that he might obtain offspring; for, when the priest sustained a public
character, he ought, in forgetfulness as it were of himself, to offer prayers
for the general welfare of the Church. If we say that there was no absurdity in
Zacharias, after performing the chief part of the prayer, devoting the second
part of it to private meditations about himself, the reply will not be without
weight. But it is hardly probable that Zacharias did, at that time, pray to
obtain a son, of which he had despaired on account of his wife’s advanced
age; nor indeed can any precise moment be drawn from the words of the angel. I
interpret it, therefore, simply that his prayer was at length heard, which he
had poured out before God for a long period. That the desire of having children,
if it be not excessive, is consistent with piety and holiness, may be gathered
from Scripture, which assigns to it not the lowest place among the blessings of
God.
Thou shalt call his name
John. The name was given, I think, to
the Baptist in order to heighten the authority of his office.
ˆnhwhy,
(<130315>1
Chronicles 3:15,) for which the Greeks employ
jIwa>nnhv,
signifies in Hebrew the grace of
the Lord. Many suppose that the son of
Zacharias was so called, because he was beloved of God. I rather think that it
was intended to recommend not the grace which God bestowed upon him as a private
individual, but that grace which his mission would bring to all. The force and
weight of the name are increased by its date; for it was before he was born that
God inscribed on him this token of his favor.
LUKE 1:14-17
|
LUKE
1:14-17
|
|
14. And he shall be to thee joy
and exultation, and many shall rejoice on account of his birth.
15. For he shall be great before the Lord, and shall drink
neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even
from his mother's womb. 16. And many of the children of
Israel shall he bring back to the Lord their God. 17. And he
shall go before him with the spirit and power of Elijah, that he may bring back
the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of
the just, that he may make ready a people prepared for the
Lord.
|
14.
He shall be to thee
joy. The angel describes a greater joy
than what Zacharias could derive from the recent birth of a child; for he
informs him that he would have such a son as he had not even ventured to wish.
He even proceeds farther to state that the joy would not be domestic, enjoyed by
the parents alone, or confined within private walls, but shared alike by
strangers, to whom the advantage of his birth should be made known. It is as if
the angel had said that a son would be born not to Zacharias alone, but would be
the Teacher and Prophet of the whole people. The Papists have abused this
passage for the purpose of introducing a profane custom in celebrating the
birth-day of John. I pass over the disorderly scene of a procession accompanied
by dancing and leaping, and licentiousness of every description, strangely
enough employed in observing a day which they pretend to hold sacred, and even
the amusements authorized on that day taken from magical arts and diabolical
tricks, closely resembling the mysteries of the goddess Ceres. It is enough for
me, at present, to show briefly that they absurdly torture the words of the
angel to mean the annual joy of a birth-day, while the angel restricts his
commendation to that joy which all godly persons would derive from the advantage
of his instruction. They rejoiced that a prophet was born to them, by whose
ministry they were led to the hope of
salvation,
15.
For he shall be
great. He confirms what he said
about
joy, for John had been selected for a
great and extraordinary purpose. These words are not so much intended to extol
his eminent virtues as to proclaim his great and glorious office; as Christ,
when he declares that among them
that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the
Baptist,
(<401111>Matthew
11:11,) refers less to the holiness of his life than to his ministry. What
follows immediately afterwards,
he shall drink neither wine nor
strong drink, must not be understood to
mean that John’s abstemiousness was a singular virtue, but that God was
pleased to distinguish his servant by this visible token, by which the world
would acknowledge him to be a continual Nazarite. The priests too abstained from
wine and strong drink, while they were performing their duties in the temple,
(<031009>Leviticus
10:9.) The same abstinence was enjoined on the Nazarites,
(<040603>Numbers
6:3,) until their vow should be fulfilled. By a striking mark God showed that
John was dedicated to him to be a Nazarite for his whole life, as we learn was
also the case with Samson,
(<071303>Judges
13:3, 4.) But we must not on this ground imagine that the worship of God
consists in abstinence from wine, as apish copyists select some part of the
actions of the fathers for an object of imitation. Only let all practice
temperance, let those who conceive it to be injurious to drink wine abstain of
their own accord, and let those who have it not endure the want with
contentment. As to the word
si>kera,
I fully agree with those who think that, like the Hebrew word
rkç,
it denotes any sort of manufactured wine.
He shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost. These words, I think, convey
nothing more than that John would manifest such a disposition as would hold out
the hope of future greatness. By disposition I mean not such as is found even in
ungodly men, but what corresponds to the excellence of his office. The meaning
is, the power and grace of the Spirit will appear in him not only when he shall
enter upon his public employment, but even from the womb he shall excel in the
gifts of the Spirit, which will be a token and pledge of his future character.
From the
womb, means from his earliest infancy.
The power of the Spirit, I acknowledge, did operate in John, while he was yet in
his mother’s womb; but here, in my opinion, the angel meant something
else, that John, even when a child, would be brought forward to the public gaze,
accompanied by extraordinary commendation of the grace of God. As to
fullness,
there is no occasion for entering into the subtle disputations, or rather
the trifling, of the sophists; for Scripture conveys nothing more by this word
than the pre-eminent and very uncommon abundance of the gifts of the Spirit. We
know, that to Christ alone the Spirit was given without measure,
(<430334>John
3:34,)that we may draw out of his fullness,
(<430116>John
1:16 ;) while to others it is distributed according to a fixed measure,
(<461211>1
Corinthians 12:11;
<490407>Ephesians
4:7.) But those who are more plentifully endued with grace beyond the ordinary
capacity, are said to be full of the Holy Ghost. Now, as the more plentiful
influence of the Spirit was in John an extraordinary gift of God, it ought to be
observed that the Spirit is not bestowed on all from their very infancy, but
only when it pleases God. John bore from the womb a token of future rank. Saul,
while tending the herd, remained long without any mark of royalty, and, when at
length chosen to be king, was suddenly turned into another man,
(<091006>1
Samuel 10:6.) Let us learn by this example that, from the earliest infancy to
the latest old age, the operation of the Spirit in men is
free.
16.
And many of the children of
Israel shall he bring back. These words
show the shamefully dissolute conduct which then prevailed in the Church, for
those in whom conversion to God could take place must have been apostates. And
certainly corrupt doctrine, depraved morals, and disorderly government, were
such as to render it next to a miracle that a very few continued in godliness.
But if the ancient Church was so awfully dissolute, it is a frivolous pretext by
which the Papists defend their own superstitions, that it is impossible for the
Church to err, particularly since they include under this designation not the
genuine and elect children of God, but the crowd of the
ungodly.
But John appears to have more ascribed to him here
than belongs to man. For conversion to God renews men to a spiritual fife, and
therefore is not only God’s own work, but surpasses even the creation of
men. In this way ministers might seem to be made equal, and even superior, to
God viewed as Creator; since to be born again to a heavenly life is a greater
work than to be born as mortals on the earth. The answer is easy; for when the
Lord bestows so great praise on the outward doctrine, he does not separate it
from the secret influence of his Spirit. As God chooses men to be his ministers
whose services he employs for the edification of his Church, he at the same time
operates by them, through the secret influence of his Spirit, that their labors
may be efficacious and fruitful. Wherever Scripture applauds this efficacy in
the ministry of men, let us learn to attribute it to the grace of the Spirit,
without which the voice of man would have spent itself uselessly in the air.
Thus, when Paul boasts that he is a minister of the Spirit,
(<470306>2
Corinthians 3:6,) he claims nothing separately for himself, as if by his voice
he penetrated into the hearts of men, but asserts the power and grace of the
Spirit in his ministry. These expressions are worthy of remark; because Satan
labors, with amazing contrivance, to lower the effect of doctrine, in order that
the grace of the Spirit connected with it may be weakened. The outward
preaching, I acknowledge, can do nothing separately or by itself; but as it is
an instrument of divine power for our salvation, and through the grace of the
spirit an efficacious instrument,
what God hath joined together let
us not put asunder,
(<401906>Matthew
19:6.)
That the glory of conversion and faith, on the other
hand, may remain undivided with God alone, Scripture frequently reminds us that
ministers are nothing in themselves; but in such cases he compares them with
God,
that no one may wickedly steal the honor from God and convey it to them. In
short, those whom God, by the aid of the minister, converts to himself, are said
to be converted by the minister, because he is nothing more than the hand of
God; and both are expressly asserted in this passage. Of the efficacy of the
doctrine we have now said enough. That it lies not in the will and power of the
minister to bring men back to God, we conclude from this that John did not
indiscriminately bring all back, (which he would unquestionably have done, if
every thing had yielded to his wish,) but only brought those back whom it
pleased the Lord effectually to call. In a word, what is here taught by the
angel is laid down by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, that faith cometh by
hearing,
(<451017>Romans
10:17,) but that those only to whom the Lord inwardly reveals his arm
(<235301>Isaiah
53:1;
<431238>John
12:38) are so enlightened as to believe.
17.
And he shall go before
him. By these words he points out what
would be John’s office, and distinguishes him by this mark from the other
prophets, who received a certain and peculiar commission, while John was sent
for the sole object of going before Christ, as a herald before a king. Thus also
the Lord speaks by Malachi,
“Behold, I will
send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me,”
(<390301>Malachi
3:1.)
In short, the calling of John had no other design
than to secure for Christ a willing ear, and to prepare for him disciples. As to
the angel making no express mention of Christ in this passage, but declaring
John to be the usher or standard-bearer of the eternal God, we learn from it the
eternal divinity of Christ. With
the spirit and power of Elijah. By the
words spirit and
power, I understand the power or
excellency of the Spirit, with which Elijah was endued; for we must not here
indulge in a dream like that of Pythagoras, that the soul of the prophet passed
into the body of John, but the same Spirit of God, who had acted efficaciously
in Elijah, afterwards exerted a similar power and efficacy in the Baptist. The
latter term,
power,
is added, by way of exposition, to denote the kind of grace which was the
loftiest distinction of Elijah, that, furnished with heavenly power, he restored
in a wonderful manner the decayed worship of God; for such a restoration was
beyond human ability. What John undertook was not less astonishing; and,
therefore, we ought not to wonder if it was necessary for him to enjoy the same
gift.
That he may bring back the hearts
of the fathers. Here the angel points
out the chief resemblance between John and Elijah. He declares that he was sent
to collect the scattered people into the unity of faith: for to
bring back the hearts of the
fathers is to restore them from discord
to reconciliation; from which it follows, that there had been some division
which rent and tore asunder the people. We know how dreadful was the revolt of
the people in the time of Elijah, how basely they had degenerated from the
fathers, so as hardly to deserve to be reckoned the children of Abraham. Those
who were thus disunited Elijah brought into holy harmony. Such was the reunion
of parents with children, which was begun by John, and at length finished by
Christ. Accordingly, when Malachi speaks of “turning the hearts of the
fathers to the children,”
(<390405>Malachi
4:5,) he intimates that the Church would be in a state of confusion when another
Elijah should appear; and what was that state is plain enough from history, and
will more fully appear in the proper place. The doctrine of Scripture had
degenerated through countless inventions, the worship of God was corrupted by
very gross superstition, religion was divided into various sects, priests were
openly wicked and Epicureans, the people indulged in every kind of wickedness;
in short, nothing remained sound. The expression,
bring back the hearts of the
fathers to the children, is not
literally true; for it was rather the
children
who had broken the covenant and departed from the right faith of their
fathers, that needed to be
brought
back. But though the Evangelist does not
so literally express that order of
bringing
back, the meaning is abundantly obvious,
that, by the instrumentality of John, God would again unite in holy harmony
those who had previously been disunited. Both clauses occur in the prophet
Malachi, who meant nothing more than to express a mutual
agreement.
But as men frequently enter into mutual conspiracies
which drive them farther from God, the angel explains, at the same time, the
nature of that bringing
back which he predicts,
the disobedient to the wisdom of
the just. This deserves attention, that
we may not foolishly allow ourselves to be classed with ungodly men under a
false pretense of harmony. Peace is a sounding and imposing term, and, whenever
the Papists meet with it in scripture, they eagerly seize upon it for the
purpose of raising dislike against us, as if we, who are endeavoring to withdraw
the world from its base revolt, and bring it back to Christ, were the authors of
divisions. But this passage affords a fine exposure of their folly, when the
angel explains the manner of a genuine and proper conversion; and declares its
support and link to be the wisdom
of the just. Accursed then be the peace
and unity by which men agree among themselves apart from God.
By the
wisdom of the just is unquestionably
meant Faith, as, on the contrary, by the
disobedient
are meant Unbelievers. And certainly this is a remarkable encomium on faith,
by which we are instructed, that then only are we truly wise unto righteousness
when we obey the word of the Lord. The world too has its wisdom, but a perverse
and therefore destructive wisdom, which is ever pronounced to be vanity; though
the angel indirectly asserts that the shadowy wisdom, in which the children of
the world delight, is depraved and accursed before God. This is therefore a
settled point, that, with the view of becoming reconciled to each other, men
ought first to return to peace with God.
What immediately follows about
making ready a people prepared
for the Lord, agrees with that clause,
that John, as the herald of Christ, would
go
before his face,
(<390301>Malachi
3:1 ;) for the design of his preaching was to make the people attentive to hear
the instruction of Christ. The Greek participle
kateskeuasme>non,
it is true, does not so properly mean perfection as the form and adaptation by
which things are fitted for their use. This meaning will not agree ill with the
present passage. John was commissioned to fit or mould to Christ a people which,
formerly ignorant and uneducated, had never shown a desire to
learn.
LUKE 1:18-20
|
LUKE
1:18-20
|
|
18. And Zacharias said to the
angel, How shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife is at an advanced
age. 19. And the angel answering said to him, I am Gabriel,
who stand before God, and have been sent to speak to thee, and to convey to thee
these glad tidings. 20. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and
shalt not be able to speak, until the day when these things shall happen;
because thou hast not believed my words, which shall be fulfilled in their
time,
|
And Zacharias said to the
angel. Next follows the doubt of
Zacharias, and the punishment which the Lord inflicted on his unbelief. He had
prayed that he might obtain offspring, and now that it is promised, he
distrusts, as if he had forgotten his own prayers and faith. It might, at first
sight, appear harsh that God is so much offended by his reply. He brings forward
his old age as an objection. Abraham did the same; and yet his faith is so
highly applauded that Paul declares, he
“considered not his
own body now dead, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb,”
(<450419>Romans
4:19,)
but unhesitatingly relied on the truth and power of
God. Zacharias inquires how, or by what proof, he might arrive at certainty. But
Gideon was not blamed for twice asking a sign,
(<070617>Judges
6:17, 37, 39.) Nay more, we are shortly after this informed of Mary’s
objection, How shall this be,
since I know not a man? (ver.
34,) which the angel passes over as if it contained nothing wrong. How comes
it then that God punishes Zacharias so severely, as if he had been guilty of a
very heinous sin? I do acknowledge that, if the words only are considered,
either all were equally to blame, or Zacharias did nothing wrong. But as the
actions and words of men must be judged from the state of the heart, we ought
rather to abide by the judgment of God, to whom the hidden secrets of the heart
are naked and opened,
(<580413>Hebrews
4:13.)
Unquestionably, the Lord beheld in Zacharias
something worse than his words may bear, and therefore his anger was kindled
against him for throwing back with distrust the promised favor. We have no
right, indeed, to lay down a law to God which would not leave him free to punish
in one the fault which he pardons in others. But it is very evident that the
case of Zacharias was widely different from that of Abraham, or Gideon, or Mary.
This does not appear in the words; and therefore the knowledge of it must be
left to God, whose eyes pierce the depths of the heart. Thus God distinguishes
between Sarah’s laugh
(<011812>Genesis
18:12) and Abraham’s,
(<011717>Genesis
17:17,) though the one apparently does not differ from the other. The reason why
Zacharias doubted was, that, stopping at the ordinary course of nature, he
ascribed less than he ought to have done to the power of God. They take a narrow
and disparaging view of the works of God, who believe that he will do no more
than nature holds out to be probable, as if his hand were limited to our senses
or confined to earthly means. But it belongs to faith to believe that more can
be done than carnal reason admits. Zacharias had no hesitation with regard to
its being the voice of God, but as he looked too exclusively at the world, an
indirect doubt arose in his mind if what he had heard would really happen. In
that respect he did no slight injury to God, for he went so far as to reason
with himself, whether God, who had undoubtedly spoken to him, should be regarded
as worthy of credit.
At the same time, we ought to know that Zacharias was
not so unbelieving as to turn aside wholly from the faith; for there is a
general faith which embraces the promise of eternal salvation and the testimony
of a free adoption. On the other hand, when God has once received us into favor,
he gives us many special promises,—that he will feed us, will deliver us
from dangers, will vindicate our reputation, will protect our life;—and so
there is a special faith which answers particularly to each of these promises.
Thus, it will sometimes happen, that one who trusts in God for the pardon of his
sins, and for salvation, will waver on some point,—will be too much
alarmed by the dread of death, too solicitous about daily food, or too anxious
about his plans. Such was the unbelief of Zacharias; for while he held the root
and foundation of faith, he hesitated only on one point, whether God would give
to him a son. Let us know, therefore, that those who are perplexed or disturbed
by weakness on some particular occasion do not entirely depart or fall off from
the faith, and that, though the branches of faith are agitated by various
tempests, it does not give way at the root. Besides, nothing was farther from
the intention of Zacharias than to call in question the truth of a divine
promise; but while he was convinced generally that God is faithful, he was
cunningly drawn by the craft and wiles of Satan to draw a wicked distinction. It
is all the more necessary for us to keep diligent watch: for which of us shall
be secure against the snares of the devil, when we learn that a man so eminently
holy, who had all his life maintained strict watchfulness over himself, was
overtaken by them?
19. I
am
Gabriel. By these words the angel
intimates that it was not his veracity, but that of God who sent him, and whose
message he brought, that had been questioned; and so he charges Zacharias with
having offered an insult to God. To
stand before
God signifies to be ready to yield
obedience. It implies that he is not a mortal man, but a heavenly
spirits—that he did not fly hither at random, but, as became a servant of
God, had faithfully performed his duty: and hence it follows that
God,
the author of the promise, had been treated with indignity and contempt in
the person of his ambassador. Of similar import is the declaration of Christ,
“he that despiseth you
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent
me,”
(<421016>Luke
10:16.) Although the preaching of the gospel is not brought to us from
heaven by angels, yet, since God attested by so many miracles that he was its
author, and since Christ, the Prince and Lord of angels, once published it with
his own mouth,
(<580102>Hebrews
1:2,) that he might give it a perpetual sanction, its majesty ought to make as
deep an impression upon us, as if all the angels were heard loudly proclaiming
its attestation from heaven. Nay, the apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
not satisfied with elevating the word of the gospel, which speaks by the mouth
of men, to an equality with the law brought by angels, draws an argument from
the less to the greater.
“If the word spoken
by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompence of rewards”
(<580202>Hebrews
2:2,)
“of
how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath
trodden under foot the Son of
God,”
(<581029>Hebrews
10:29,)
whose “voice shakes not the earth only, but
also heaven?”
(<581226>Hebrews
12:26.) Let us learn to render to God the obedience of faith, which he values
more highly than all sacrifices.
Gabriel
means the strength, or power, or pre-eminence of God, and this name is given
to the angel on our account, to instruct us that we must not ascribe to angels
any thing of their own, for whatever excellence they possess is from God. The
Greek participle,
paresthkw<v,
(standing,)
is in the past tense, but everybody knows that the past tense of such verbs
is often taken for the present, and particularly when a continued act is
expressed. The word
eujaggeli>sasqai
(to convey glad tidings)
aggravates the crime of Zacharias; for
he was ungrateful to God, who kindly promised a joyful and desirable
event.
20.
And, behold, thou shalt be
dumb. It was suitable that this kind of
punishment should be inflicted on Zacharias, that, being dumb, he might await
the fulfillment of the promise, which, instead of interrupting it by noisy
murmurs, he ought to have heard in silence. Faith has its silence to lend an ear
to the Word of God. It has afterwards its turn to speak and to answer Amen,
according to that passage,
“I will say to
them, Thou art my people, and they shall
say,
Thou art my God,”
(<280223>Hosea
2:23.)
But as Zacharias had rashly interrupted the Word of
God, he is not allowed this favor of breaking out immediately in thanksgiving,
but is denied for a time the use of his tongue, which had been too forward. Yet
God is pleased graciously to mitigate the punishment, first, by limiting its
duration to ten months, and next by not withholding from Zacharias the favor
which he was unworthy to enjoy. With the same gentleness does he treat us every
day: for when our faith is weak, and we throw out many obstacles, the truth of
God, in continuing to flow toward us, must of necessity break through them with
a kind of violence. That is the angel’s meaning, when he reproaches
Zacharias with unbelief, and yet declares that those things which Zacharias did
not believe would be accomplished
in due time. And so Zacharias is not a
little relieved by learning that his fault has not made void the promise of God,
which will afterwards be displayed in a more remarkable manner. It does
sometimes happen that, notwithstanding the opposition made by unbelievers, the
Lord bestows and fulfils what he had promised to them. We have a remarkable
instance of this in King Ahaz, who rejected the promised safety, and yet was
delivered from his enemies,
(<230712>Isaiah
7:12.) But that resulted, without any advantage to him, in the salvation of the
chosen people. It was otherwise with Zacharias, in whom the Lord chastises, and
at the same time pardons, the weakness of faith.
LUKE 1:21-25
|
LUKE
1:21-25
|
|
21. And the people were waiting
for Zacharias, and wondered that he tarried in the temple.
22. And when he came out, he could not speak to them: and
they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he made them to
understand by signs, f5
and remained speechless.
23. And it happened, when the days of his office were
fulfilled, he departed to his own house. 24. Now after these
days Elisabeth his wife conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
25. Thus hath the Lord done to me in the days when he looked,
that he might take away my reproach among men.
|
21.
And the people were
waiting. Luke now relates that the
people were witnesses of this vision. Zacharias had tarried in the temple longer
than usual. This leads to the supposition that something uncommon has happened
to him. When he comes out, he makes known, by looks and gestures, that he has
been struck dumb. There is reason to believe, also, that there were traces of
alarm in his countenance. Hence they conclude that God has appeared to him.
True, there were few or no visions in that age, but the people remembered that
formerly, in the time of their fathers, they were of frequent occurrence. It is
not without reason, therefore, that they draw this conclusion from obvious
symptoms: for it was not an ordinary occurrence, [it was not a common accident,
but rather an astonishing work of God,
f6] that he became suddenly dumb
without disease, and after a more than ordinary delay came out of the temple in
a state of amazement. The word
temple,
as we have already mentioned, is put for the sanctuary, where the altar of
incense stood,
(<023001>Exodus
30:1.) From this place the priests, after performing their sacred functions,
were wont to go out into their own court, for the purpose of blessing the
people.
23.
When the days were
fulfilled.
Leitourgi>a
is employed by Luke to denote a charge or office, which passed, as we have
said, to each of them in regular order,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3.) We are told that, when the time of his office had expired,
Zacharias returned home. Hence we conclude that, so long as the priests were
attending in their turns, they did not enter their own houses, that they might
be entirely devoted and attached to the worship of God. For this purpose
galleries were constructed around the walls of the temple, in which they had
“chambers,”
(<110605>1
Kings 6:5.) The law did not, indeed, forbid a priest to enter his house, but, as
it did not permit those who ate the show-bread to come near their wives,
(<092104>1
Samuel 21:4,) and as many persons were disposed to treat sacred things in an
irreverent manner, this was probably discovered to be a remedy, that, being
removed from all temptations, they might preserve themselves pure and clear from
every defilement. And they were not only discharged from intercourse with their
wives, but from the use of wine and every kind of intoxicating drink,
(<031009>Leviticus
10:9.) While they were commanded to change their mode of living, it was
advantageous for them not to depart from the temple, that the very sight of the
place might remind them to cultivate such purity as the Lord had enjoined. It
was proper also to withdraw every means of gratification, that they might devote
themselves more unreservedly to their office.
The Papists of the present day employ this as a
pretense for defending the tyrannical law of celibacy. They argue thus. The
priests were formerly enjoin