Page images
PDF
EPUB

*

exorcists, by whose instrumentality similar effects were produced. But the miracles of this order wrought by Christ were so far peculiar as to awaken the utmost astonishment. We are not left to conjecture the ground of this emotion, since it is expressly attributed to the style in which they were effected. The event itself was not without parallel, but the characteristic absolute authority belonged to our Lord alone. Hence, upon one occasion which may illustrate the whole, it is said that the spectators were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine [is] this? for with authority (κατ' ἐξουσίαν) commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him."†

66

His

In correspondence with this view are their confessions. They never acknowledge our Lord as the Messiah,‡ but as "the Son of God." Indeed it may be rationally questioned whether at this time he possessed in any other character the power manifested in these miracles. investiture as the Messiah with universal dominion, is invariably represented as the result of his mediatorial work, and as taking place upon its consummation. It was because he "became obedient to the death of the cross "that he was thus " "highly exalted;"§ nor was it till after his resurrection that, in his mediatorial character, he announced to his disciples, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."|| It is not

66

*Comp. Luke xi. 19 with Acts xix. 13.

+ Mark i. 27.

The only example where, in the received text, the word Christ" t" occurs, is Luke iv. 41. But all evidence, internal as well as external, combines against the genuineness of this reading; and accordingly it is decisively rejected by Griesbach. See note (E). § Philippians ii. 8, 9.

| Matt. xxviii. 18. The above remarks are applicable to a large proportion of our Lord's miracles. See note (K).

therefore to be supposed that demons would acknowledge a power not yet in existence, or do homage to a dominion to which they were not actually subjected.

It is, in fact, explicitly stated by the sacred narrator that our Lord would not permit the unclean spirits "to say that they knew him to be the Christ."* The precise reason for this prohibition is not so easily ascertained. A similar restriction existed in other cases, and might possibly have been intended to cut off occasion from the secular power, prematurely to interfere with the labours of our Lord. Beyond this, it is not unlikely that the testimony of demons to the Messiahship of Jesus might have been prohibited, lest otherwise some plausibility should be given to the calumnious and blasphemous accusations of our Redeemer's enemies. But, on the other hand, the confession of the divine filiation was never forbidden. Our Lord permitted even the demons to confess him as the Son of God, and dictated as were their acknowledgments by obvious and extreme fear, and accompanied by instant submission, the effect upon those who heard them could hardly fail to be in a high degree salutary and instructive. At all events, the distinction between the two is sufficiently evident, and all the circumstances determine the title "Son of God" to proper and supreme Deity.

*So the margin of our version, with greater perspicuity than the text, renders Luke iv. 41.

As for example, Matt. xvi. 20.

Luke xi. 15.

NOTE (D), p. 133.

On the Expression, "the Power of the Highest."—Luke i. 35.

Of the personal use of the term POWER we find several examples in the New Testament. Thus the workers of miracles in the primitive church are called dvváμɛ, 1 Cor. xii. 29. Secular rulers are described by the similar title ovσíaι, Luke xii. 11; Rom. xiii. 1; Tit. iii. 1. The same designation is employed with respect to a certain order of angels, both evil and good; Eph. iii. 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16; ii. 15; while, yet more in point, these intelligences are elsewhere termed dvváμeis, Rom. viii. 38; 1 Pet. iii. 22.

In this last application the term is frequently employed by Philo. His writings also present examples of its personal use, where it is applicable apparently to Divinity alone. The reader is referred to De Cherub., T. i., pp. 143, 144, with which may be compared Heb. iv. 12. Quis Rer. Div. Hær., T. i., p. 496. Quod à Deo mittantur Somnia, T. i., p. 645. De Vitâ Mosis, lib. iii., T. ii., p. 150.

There is, in fact, incontestable evidence that, among the Jews, the word POWER was often employed as a divine title. Thus in the book Schabbath, cited by Cartwright, (Mellific. Hebraic., lib. ii., c. iv.,) we have the expression, "What did Moses answer before a THE POWER?" that is, before God. And Kimchi, on Josh. vii. 52, referring to the opinion of the ancient Rabbins on the punishment of Achan, says, "So it was declared unto Joshua, from the mouth of THE POWER." Nothing indeed, as Vitringa observes, (Obss. Sac., T. i., p. 310,) is more common than for the Talmudical writers and their followers to say, that "Moses received the law from the mouth of THE POWER." And this gives an insight into the design of our Lord in that eminent prediction, “Ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of THE POWER," (Tns Avváμews,)" and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mark xiv. 62.) See Buxtorf's Lex. Chald. et Rab. in voc., 2, p. 385,

and note (H) below.

SECT. IV.] NOTE (D), “THE POWER of the highest." 149

A remarkable instance of the personal employment of the term is recorded by St. Luke, Acts viii. 10. Bewitched by the sorceries of Simon Magus, the Samaritans said, "This man is the great Power of God;" or, as the passage is given by Irenæus, "the Power of God, which is called the great Power." (Adv. Hær., i., c. 20.) That Simon, at a subsequent period, claimed divine honours, is the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, from his countryman, Justin Martyr, downwards; and Irenæus states that he represented himself as having appeared in Judea as the Son, and afterwards in Samaria as the Father. Theodoret bears the same testimony. See Grabe's note on the above cited passage in Irenæus. The natural conclusion seems to be, that the term PowER was by the Samaritans understood to be the designation of a superhuman intelligence; and that they used the phrase," the great Power of God," to signify a divine person, most probably the Logos.

Christ, by St. Paul, is called “the Power of God,” 1 Cor. i. 24, where there is apparently no objection to the personal interpretation; more especially as the accompanying title," the Wisdom of God," is elsewhere employed with such a design. (Prov. viii. 22-30. Comp. Luke xi. 49 with Matt. xxiii, 34. See also the following section.) The learned reader does not need to be reminded that the early writers of the church commonly apply the word dúvaus to the divine nature of our Lord; and in conformity with this usage the passage which has given rise to this note is explained or referred to by Justin Martyr; (Apol. i., p. 54 ;) Theophilus Antioch.; (Ad Autol., lib. ii., p. 88); Tertullian; (Adv. Prax., c. xxvi., p. 658;) Cyprian; (De Idol. Vanit., p. 15;) Gregory Nyssen; (In diem nat. Domini, T. iii., p. 348;) Gregory Nazianzen; (Orat. 59, T.i., pp. 335, 336; Rufinus; (In Symb. Apost. ad calc. Cyprian. Opp., p. 20 ;) and Chrysostom; (Ap. Mares. Hyd. Soc. expug. T. iii., p. 386). Wolf cites also Hermogenes and Hilary in favour of this exposition; and adds that the application of the title before us to the second person of the Trinity is advocated by the best expositors, both ancient and modern. Few men have been equally competent to determine on the number and value of suffrages.

Treating of the Logos, as the instrument in the creation of the world, Philo employs an expression which will probably

strike the reader as presenting a curious coincidence with the passage before us. He calls the Logos "the shadow of God; " (EKI`A Oɛov ;) Leg. Allegor., lib. iii., T. i., p. 106. Compare this with the equally remarkable statement, "the Power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.” (ἐπιΣΚΙΑ'σει σοι. I leave it to more ingenious critics to decide whether or not this similarity is merely fortuitous.

« PreviousContinue »