Thus a kingdom is promised to the poor, consolation to the mourners, an inheritance to the meek, who are liable here to be dispossessed of every thing by the aspiring and the violent; and so of the rest. 4, 5. In the Vul. and the Cam. these verses are transposed. The Vul. is the only version, and the Cam. the only MS. where this arrangement is found. 6. "Who hunger and thirst for righteousness," of neɩvõνtes nai διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην. In the ordinary interpretation, to hunger and thirst denotes to have an ardent desire. Maldonate was of opinion, that the words ought rather to be rendered “who hunger and thirst because of righteousness;" that is, whose righteousness or integrity has occasioned their being reduced to such a state of indigence. His reasons for this exposition are as follow; 1st, That they who are in the literal sense hungry and thirsty are here meant, there is reason to presume from the parallel passage in L. where the words are, "Ye who hunger now," without the addition of righteousness, or any word corresponding to it. 2dly, Though thirst is by the sacred authors often used metaphorically for the desire of spiritual good things, there is not any clear example that hunger is ever so applied. 3dly, Each of these declarations, commonly called beatitudes, regards a particular virtue, and not a virtuous character in general. I acknowledge that the first is the only one of these reasons which appears to me to have any weight. As to the second, a single instance of a metaphorical application, when plain from the context, is sufficient evidence. Besides, though hunger simply is not used by metaphor for the desire of spiritual things, the spiritual things themselves are represented by bread and by meat, as well as by drink, Isa. 50: 1, 2. J. 6: 27; and our participation in them is represented by eating, as well as by drinking, J. 6: 50. 1 Cor. 5: 2. Hunger here, therefore, coupled with thirst, may be accounted sufficiently explicit for expressing strong desire of spiritual things, in like manner as eating coupled with drinking denotes an ample participation in them. In tropes so closely related, the sense of one ascertains the sense of the other. As to the third reason, though righteousness is used to denote the whole of practical religion, "to hunger and thirst for righteousness" may, not improperly, be said to express one particular quality only, to wit, a zeal for higher attainments in virtue and piety. The declaration in ver. 10, may, in one view, be considered as equally general with this, and in another, as regarding solely the virtue of perseverance or constancy. But what principally weighs with me is, 1st, The consideration that the common interpretation appears to have been the universal interpretation of the earliest ages. This is a strong presumption that it is the most natural, and best suited to the construction. 2dly, The omission of the preposition did, on Maldonate's hypothesis, is not at all suited to the style of these writers; but that dipao is sometimes used actively, and governs the accusative of that which is the object of our thirst, we are authorized by Phavorinus to assert: συντασσεται, says that lexicographer, αίτιατίκῃ καὶ γενικῇ, αἰτιατικῇ μὲν, ὡς τὸ, εδίψησε σε ἡ ψύχη μου, καὶ διψῶ τοὺς λόγους. The former of these examples is quoted from Ps. 62: 2, answering to 63: 1, in the English Bible, which follows the Masoretic Heb. My soul thirsteth for thee. The passage appears in the same form in Trommius' Concordance, on the verb dpaw. Yet in the common editions of the Sep. the pronoun is σοί, not σε. But that the accusative is sometimes used as well as the dative and the genitive, is manifest from Wisd. 11: 14, ovy öμoa dixawis diynoάvres. Besides, the sense which Maldonate gives is included in ver. 10; and this I think a strong objection to it. 8. "The clean in heart," oi xavapoi ty xaodig. E. T. "The pure in heart." I admit that this is a just expression of the sense, and more in the Eng. idiom than mine. My only reason for preferring a more literal version of the word xavagos here is, because I would, in all such instances, preserve the allusion to be found in the moral maxims of the N. T. to the ancient ritual, from which the metaphors of the sacred writers, and their other tropes, are frequently borrowed, and to which they owe much of their lustre and energy. The laws in regard to the cleanness of the body, and even of the garments, if neglected by any person, excluded him from the temple. He was incapacitated for being so much as a spectator of the solemn service at the altar. The Jews considered the empyreal heaven as the archetype of the temple of Jerusalem. In the latter, they enjoyed the symbols of God's presence, who spoke to them by his ministers; whereas, in the former, the blessed inhabitants have an immediate sense of the divine presence, and God speaks to them face to face. Our Lord, preserving the analogy between the two dispensations, intimates that cleanness will be as necessary in order to procure admission into the celestial temple, as into the terrestrial. But as the privilege is inconceivably higher, the qualification is more important. The cleanness is not ceremonial, but moral; not of the outward man, but of the inward. The same idea is suggested, Ps. xxiv. When such allusions appear in the original, they ought, if possible, to have a place in the version. 9. "The peace-makers,” oi ɛionvonoidi. An. "The pacific:" Hey. "The peaceable." Weakly both. With us these words imply merely a negative quality, and are equivalent to 'not contentious,' 'not quarrelsome,' not litigious.' More is comprised here. This word is not found in any other part of Scripture, but (which is nearly the saine) the verb tionvonоiew, of the same origin, occurs Col. 1: 20, where the connexion shows that it cannot signify to be gentle, to be peaceable, but actively to reconcile, to make peace. Etymology and classical use also concur in affixing the sense of' reVOL. II. 5 conciler,'' peace-maker,' to sionvoлotós. It is likewise so explained by Chrysostom. Indeed, if no more were meant by it than those pacifically disposed, nothing additional would be given here to what is implied in the first and third of these characters; for as these exclude covetousness, ambition, anger, and pride, they remove all the sources of war, coutention, and strife. Now, though all these characters given by our Lord are closely related, they are still distinct. 11. "Prosecute," diawal. E. T. "Persecute." Some critics think, not improbably, that the word in this place relates to the prosecutions of the disciples, (to whom Jesus here directly addresses himself,) on account of their religion, before human tribunals, whereof he often warned them on other occasions. In this verse he descends to particulars, distinguishing διώκειν from ὀνειδίζειν, and ἐιπεῖν πᾶν πονηρὸν ῥῆμα, which seems also to be used in reference to Judicial proceedings. In the preceding verse, and in the following, there can be no doubt that the verb is used in the utmost latitude, and ought to be rendered' persecute.' See also chap. 10: 23. 23: 34. 15. "A lamp," húzvov. E. T. "A candle." The meaning of the word is 'lamp.' Candles were not used at that time in Judea, for lighting their houses. Auvia consequently means a lamp-stand, not a candlestick. 2 "Under a corn-measure," vno rov pódiov. E. T. "Under a bushel." But they had no such measure. And though it is true that any measure of capacity will suit the observation, a translator ought not, even indirectly, to misrepresent the custom of the people. The measure mentioned by the evangelist, so far from answering to our bushel, was less than our peck. But as nothing here depends on the capacity of the measure, it is better to adopt the general term, than to introduce uncouth names without necessity. Diss. VIII. Part i. sect. 6. 3 As to the article prefixed to uódiov and λvyviav, Sc. says, "Observe how the article loses its emphasis, and is rendered a instead of the." I admit that the article may be in some cases redundant, but not that we have an example of its redundancy here. Is it not our constant way, when we name any utensil whereof there is but one of the kind in the house, to use the definite article? "Bring me the balance, that I may weigh this:" "Take the bushel, and mete the grain." And even when there are more than one, if one be superior in value to the rest, or in more frequent use, it is commonly distinguished in the same manner. On the contrary, when there are more of a kind, and no one distinguished from the rest, we express ourselves indefinitely, as "Give me a spoon :" "Set a chair for Mr. Such-a-one." Our Lord's similitude is taken from the customs of families. He therefore uses the style which would be used in any house. This explains sufficiently why he says 'a lamp,' as probably most houses had more than one, but the modius,' there being but one, and the stand' as one might be in more frequent use than the rest, for the accommodation of the family. However, as the sense is sufficiently expressed either way, I have preferred the indefinite manner in my version, being better adapted to the more general terms I was obliged to adopt. See N. on ch. 27: 61. 17. "To subvert the law or the prophets," xarakõσai ròv vóμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας. E. T. "To destroy." Of the different senses which have been assigned to the verb xarakvoαι, one is, when applied to a law, to break,' or 'violate.' Though this is the sense of the simple verb Aw, ver. 19, it cannot be the sense of the compound here. Nobody could suppose that it needed a divine mission to qualify one to transgress the law, which so many, merely from the depravity of their own minds, flagrantly did every day. Another sense, which suits better the context, is authoritatively to repeal,' or abrogate.' This appears proper as applied to the law, but harsh as applied to the prophets, though by the prophets are meant, by common metonymy, the prophetical writings. But even these we never speak of abolishing or abrogating. To destroy is rather saying too much, and is more in the military style than in the legislative. If every copy and scrap of these writings were obliterated or burnt, we could not say more than that they were destroyed. The context, in my opinion, shows that the import of the word here is not directly to rescind or repeal, but indirectly to supersede a standing rule by the substitution of another; which, though it does not formally annul the preceding, may be said in effect to subvert it. This appears fully to express the sense, and is equally adapted to both terms, the law and the prophets. great 2" But to ratify,” άàåα ¤àŋowσal. E. T. "But to fulfil." The sense of the verb πληρόω is ascertained by καταλύω. We have seen that the meaning of this word cannot be 'to break,' and therefore it is highly probable that the other means more than 'to obey.' The proper opposite of weakening and subverting a law is confirming and ratifying it. See N. on ch. 3: 15. Some of name translate it here to complete,' 'perfect,' or 'fill up,' and think it alludes to the precepts, as it were, superadded in this discourse. I own there is a plausibility in this explanation; some of our Lord's precepts being, to appearance, improvements on the law. Yet I cannot help thinking, that these divine sayings are to be regarded rather as explanatory of the law, in showing its extent and spirituality, than as additions to it, not binding on men before, but deriving their power to oblige, purely from their promulgation by Jesus Christ. Besides, I find no example of the sense to fill up in any passage that can be reckoned analogous to the present. For the phrase " fill up the measure of your fathers," cannot surely be accounted of the number. The word measure' there leaves no room to hesitate. It is otherwise here. The interpretation, " make fully known," given by Benson, (Essay concerning Abolishing of the Ceremonial Law. ch. 2. sect. 2,) though not implausible, does not make so exact a contrast to the preceding word 'subvert,' nor is it, in this application, so well established by use. 18. "Verily I say unto you," aμýv léyw vμïv. As Mt. has retained the Heb. word 'amen,' in such affirmations, and is in this followed by the other evangelists, though less frequently by L. than by the rest, it is not improper here, where the word first occurs, to inquire into its import. Its proper signification is 'true,' 'verus,' as spoken of things, observant of truth,' verax' as spoken of persons, sometimes truth,' in the abstract. In the O. T. it is sometimes used adverbially, denoting a concurrence in any wish or prayer, and is rendered by the Seventy yévoiro, so be it.' In this application the word has been adopted into most European languages. In the N. T. it is frequently used in affirmation. Now as L. has been more sparing than the other evangelists in the use of this oriental term, it is worth while to observe, when he is relating the same passages of our Lord's history with them, what word he has substituted for the 'amen,' as this will show in what manner he understood the Heb. adverb. The same prediction which in Mt. 16: 8, is ushered in by the words dun kiya vμiv, is thus introduced L. 9: 27, kéyw vμîv άans, which answers to truly' or 'verily' with us. Another example of this interpretation we find, on comparing Mr. 12: 43, with L. 21: 3. The only example, in passages entirely parallel, is Mt. 23: 36, and L. 11: 51, where the dunv of the former is, by the latter, rendered by the affirmative adverb vai. I have not observed any passage in the O. T. wherein the word 'amen' is used in affirming; and therefore I consider this idiom in the Gospels as more properly a Syriasm than a Hebraism. Indeed some derivatives from 'amen' often occur in affirmation. Such as 'amenah,' Gen. 20: 12. Jos. 7: 20, rendered in the Sep. aindas. Such also is amenam,' which occurs oftener, and is rendered aληθώς, επ ̓ ἀληθείας, ἐν ἀληθεία, οι ὄντως, exactly corresponding to the application made of dun in the Gospels. This is as strong evidence of the import of this word in the N. T. as the nature of the thing will admit. Nor does there appear the shadow of a reason for the opinion maintained by some critics, that, when used thus, it is of the nature of an oath. It is true that to swear by the God of truth, elohe-amen,' is mentioned (Is. 65: 16,) as an oath; and so doubtless would it be to swear by the God of knowledge,' or ' by the God of power.' But does any body conclude hence, that the words knowledge and power, wheresoever found, or howsoever applied, include an oath? It has also been urged, that in the trial of jealousy the woman is said to be charged with an oath of cursing, |