« AnteriorContinuar »
racle would maintain its ground. Another party has controverted it on the plea of injustice; but this plea will vanish, when it is remembered, that it was an express violation of the law of God to keep swine, and that their destruction was proper manifestation of the justice of the Almighty; consequently we here see Christ both in the exercise of his mercy and justice: of his mercy, in restoring the demoniacs to their right minds,—of his justice, in vindicating the provisions of the Mosaic law. The Jews therefore having violated their laws by keeping swine, thus received a punishment by the loss of their herd; thereby showing, that although Jesus was bringing a new code of laws, still He had regard to those under the old dispensation, until those under the new were firmly established. If the swine belonged to the Gentiles, Christ might have performed the miracle to prove to them the sanctity and stringency of those laws which they ought to have revered ; and as swine were forbidden altogether in the land of Israel, it is clear, that, whether they belonged to Jews or Gentiles, the law ought to have been observed, and that He who came to fulfil, not to destroy it, acted consistently with his Divine character. At all events there was a display of power that alone could have proceeded from God. The effect of this miracle also proved its reality, for the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they besought Him that He would depart out of their coasts; than which words cạnnot more strikingly assure us, that they were convinced that the miracle had been performed by more than earthly power, and that He, who performed it, was invested with more than human attributes.
The next miracle affords another instance of Christ's power to raise the dead. St. Matthew's record declares, that while Jesus was speaking to his disciples, a certain ruler came to Him, and besought Him in behalf of his daughter, who was, when the ruler left her, just at the point of death, and in all probability was dead, at the time he came to our Lord. Jesus, in answer to his prayer, arose and followed him with his disciples. On his road a woman, who had an issue of blood for twelve
years, came behind Him and touched the hem or fringe of his garment : “For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.” As soon as she had accomplished her design, our Lord perceived that virtue had gone out of Him, and as an encouragement to the woman's faith, declared that in consequence of that faith, she should be whole. “ And the woman was made whole from that hour.” Our Lord then proceeded to the ruler's house, and affirmed that the maid for whom the prayers of the ruler were offered was not dead, but only asleep, or that she was not so dead as to require their lamentations; but they laughed him to scorn, for they knew her to be dead. Jesus then entered the room, and took the damsel by the hand, and the maid arose. The result was, as might naturally be expected, that “the fame thereof went abroad into all that land."
From the circumstance of Jairus having been a ruler of the synagogue, we obtain another evidence
· The following remarks are from the Church of England Quarterly Review, No. VI. p. 330 :
“ St. Matthew's words at v. 18, are ápri ételeútnoev; St. Mark's, toxátws čxel; but St. Luke's, åréôvnokav, in whose account it must be particularly borne in mind, that the messengers also subsequently arrive with the information, that the child TÉOynkev. That St. Matthew and St. Luke used equivalent expressions; and that those equivalent expressions were analogous to St. Mark's éoxarwç éxel, and consequently denoted not the natural death, is very apparent, as the subsequent té vnkev not obscurely suggests to us. For as the Greek aorist was used by the Hellenists for the Hebrew preterite, and must, like it, often have been adopted in the sense of the present,-a fact neither noticed by Winer nor Moses Stuart,—it is clear that St. Matthew and St. Luke harmonize with St. Mark. But when she was actually dead, St. Luke employed té vnkev. Thus this objection is utterly worthless ; for the use of the aorist in the Greek Testament and the Septuagint exactly answers to this Hebrew principle in numberless instances; and this solution has its evidence in the fact, that St. Luke, within a few verses, will have otherwise contradicted himself, that is, if we here consider the aorist and preterite to be synonymous.
of the respect and influence which Jesus had acquired among the higher order of the Jews; and we may remark, that the apparent mode of revivification was by a seizure of the hand, as in the preceding instance, accompanied by the Divine command. It is also worthy of notice, that as Peter was afterwards taught to call nothing common and unclean, so Christ practically confirmed the doctrine in the instance of the aiuoppoovoa, whom. Ambrose has strangely conjectured to have been Martha, the sister of Lazarus, and whom the Gospel of Nicodemus calls Veronica. For as her touch was reputed unclean by the Law, the cure which Jesus permitted to recompense her.'faith, was a strong proof of the unbounded beneficence of all his transactions with mankind, and an early demonstration of that liberty by which He set us free from the bondage of the Law. Each of these miracles attests his Almighty Power, and each, in all its circumstances, contains evidences of its truth.
The cure of the blind men was a striking instance of Jesus fulfilling the prophecies. When our Lord left the ruler's house, two blind men met Him, “crying and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy upon us.” By this expression they very plainly acknowledged Him to be the Messiah, and to have lineally descended from David; for we still find in all the Jewish writings the promised Saviour denominated the Messiah Ben David. We perceive also in this miracle, that they first made a confession of their faith in Him, before He touched their eyes, and restored their sight; and the charge that our Saviour gave to these men indicated that He had no desire of ostentation or vainglory, and He further made it, that his enemies might not be induced to plan his destruction. For it was manifest that the miracles which He performed had far greater influence with the multitude than the opposition of the dominant sects, and that his appeals to the Law and to the Prophets, corroborated by stupendous miracles, and the verification of the prophetic signs of the Messiah in Himself, obtained a far greater credence than the glosses and traditions, in which the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees delighted. Of this fact they were aware ;—for it was only by the plea, that He was projecting the institution of a kingdom in opposition to Cæsar, that they at last effected his crucifixion.