Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

BIBLICAL CRITICISM,

Jan. 16, 1817..

Qu the "sin unto death" spoken of by the Apostle John.

[ocr errors]

1 John v. 16, 17.

Fany man see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."

I shall examine, severally, three interpretations of this passage; and shall then propose one which I consider as less fairly liable to objection. 1. The first of those which are now to be canvassed, is stated at large by Dr. Benson, who paraphrases the verses in the following manner:

"if a Christian, by an impulse of the spirit, perceives that any Christian brother has sinned such a sin as to draw down upon himself a disease, which is not to end in death; but to be miraculously cured by him: then let him pray to God; and God, in answer to his prayer, will grant life and perfect health, unto such Christians as have sinned a sin which is not unto death. There is a sin, which draws down a disease upon Christians, that is to end in death. I do not say that he, who has the power of working miracles, shall pray for that: because, in such a case, God would not hear his prayer; nor miraculously cure his Christian brother, at his request."

In a dissertation on the passage, this writer observes that " as God had treated his ancient people, the Israel ites, in a most remarkable and distinguishing manner, under the law, so did he treat the Christians, the subjects of the Messiah's kingdom, at the first erecting this spiritual kingdom ;-punishing some of the more irregular, and (perhaps) otherwise incorrigible offenders, with some remarkable disorders, or even with death itself." "A sin," he adds, "which brought on a disease, that ended in death, was called a sin unto death. And those crimes among the Jews, which brought on diseases, that were afterwards cared, might have been properly called sins not unto

death; as those that were mortal, might as properly have been called sins unto death."

Dr. Benson says,

[ocr errors]

-a sin not unto death could not be known, any other way, than by a divine impulse, or immediate revelation. For, without that, it was impossible to know certainly that they should be able, by praying, miraculously to cure their Christian brother of his malady." And, further,

"When any Christian thus knew that his Christian brother had sinned a sin not unto death, he was to pray for his recovery; and immediately God would grant him life and perfect health unto that offending, but sincerely penitent, Christian. But, without such a prophetic impulse, they were, by no means, to pray for him, in order to cure him by miracle."

Again, (and here I agree with this author):

"The sin unto death was not one particular crime; but any bad habit, or any act of great wickedness."

My objections to Dr. Benson's ex-: position, are that it receives no countenance from the apostle's subject and context; that it creates difficulties, instead of removing them; that it as sumes a fact the existence of which requires proof; and that far from being sanctioned, it is even opposed, by Scriptural phraseology.

In the two preceding verses, John had spoken generally of the readiness of God to grant the petitions offered by Christians in conformity with his will. It should be remembered, too, that not a word is said, in any former or subsequent part of the treatise, respecting bodily diseases. The grand topic of the writer is purity of faithboth speculative and practical-in the gospel. All expositors admit that the eighteenth verse has this reference. Why then should it be imagined that, in the passage before us, there is a sudden transition to another and very different theme?

There is a considerable opposition to the apostle's language in Dr. Benson's paraphrase and reasoning: "if a man," says John, see (187) his brother sin a sin which is not unte

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

death, he shall ask, &c. Now to see to present the prayer was so essentially the commission of this sin, is to know, connected with an impulse of the it personally, and on the evidence of spirit" that the petitioner could not seuse. But the learned commentator otherwise be satisfied of the propriety affixes a new and inadmissible signifi- or success of his request, both the cation to this word, see For he command and the promise must have glosses the clause thus: if a Christ- been superfluous. ian, by an impulse, of the spirit, perceives that any Christian brother has sinned such a sin, &c." No doubt, there is a reading which, could it be established, might give plausibility to this interpretation: the word however to which I allude, is not even noticed by Dr. Benson, and, in truth, is undeserving of regard. It reinains therefore, for those who adopt the opinion of this critic to shew by what process the verb employed in the text can be made to denote an impulse of the spirit. The excellent writer, contrary to his practice, has contented himself here with an assumption. It is an assumption, too, by which we are far from being aided in discovering the import of the terms a sin not unto death and a sin unto death. If we take this author as our guide, a fresh perplexity occurs to us, in the midst of our investigation. We are desirous of exploring the respective senses of the phrases which I have just transcribed: and yet our attention must be diverted to an unusual and arbitrary comment, on a verb of very familiar occurrence! Whether a sin not unto death, could be known, or not be known, any other, way than by a Divine impulse, or immediate revelation, is an inquiry the issue of which depends on our previously ascertaining the nature of that sin. However, besides the extreme difficulty, if I may not call it the impossibility, of reconciling Dr. Benson's gloss on the term see with Take courage, son; thy sins are the principles of sound criticism, his forgiven thee." But why should we hypothesis renders it necessary for us imagine that the language of Jesus to suppose that the prayers of which was ænigmatical? Had he not litethe apostle speaks were not to be rally a delegated power on earth to offered without " a prophetic in forgive sins?" Did not he even compulse." Does John, let me ask, thus municate this power to his apostles? qualify and restrict, his assurance?"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are No: he simply says, "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and shall obtain life for him." This passage contains at once a command and a promise. Here the future tense is manifestly equivalent with the imperative mood. But if the obligation

It is conceded that Almighty God did sometimes see proper to punish" offenders among the first: Christians in a very remarkablemanner, by sending upon them some bodily disorder; and, in the case of great crimes, even death itself." In 1 Cor. xi. 29, 30, and in other passages of the New Testament we have examples of the fact. To deliver over unto Satan an unworthy member of` the church (1 Tim. i. 20), was simply to excommunicate him; to cast him out of the family of Christ into his own place, the world. As to the prayer of faith spoken of in James v. 14, 15, there is not the least evidence that the malady to be cured by it was the immediate effect and punishment of sin': for the words of the apostle concerning the diseased person are," IF he have conmitted sins, they shall be forgiven him."

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Dr. Benson takes for granted that "a sin which brought on a disease · ending in death was called a sin unto death." But he has not produced a single authority in behalf of this exposition. I am aware of it's being a current opinion that the healing of bodily disorders, and the forgiveness of sins are frequently represented in the New Testament as one and the same act. It is an opinion in which I cannot acquiesce. A supposed illustration and proof of it, have been found in Matt. ix. 5, 6. On curing "the sick of the palsy," our Lord said to him,

[ocr errors]

remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,” John xx. 23. This text must govern our interpretation of other passages containing the same phraseology. Forbearing to inquire, how far this power of forgiving sins extended, it, plainly, was not synonymous with the power of healing diseases; which prerogative had already been conferred on

[ocr errors]

Our

Lord's immediate attendants, Matt. x. 8. The correct paraphrase therefore of the words, " thy sins are forgiven thee," is, Perceiving that thou art qualified for becoming a member of my spiritual kingdom, I assure thee of the pardon of thy of fences, on repentance: and, in testimony of my being authorized to grant it, I work a miracle of healing on thy body.' Jesus, agreeably to his character and practice, first asserts a claim, and then makes it good by an act which no man could have performed had not God been with him.

The

It is remarkable that in John xi. 4, we have a phrase which, it may fairly be conceived, the apostle would have used had he been speaking here of a bodily disease: "when Jesus heard [that Lazarus was sick], he said, This SICKNESS is not unto death." beloved disciple, we perceive, employs very different language, and treats of a SIN not unto death. Am not I entitled to conclude that the difference of expression arises from a corresponding difference of subject?

II. On these grounds I dissent from Dr. Benson's explanation of the sin not unto death, c. From that which is proposed by the editors of the "Improved Version, &c." I must likewise withhold my humble suffrage.

"Sin and disease," they observe in their note, "were considered as so inseparably connected, according to the Jewish philosophy, that, perhaps, the apostle might mean nothing more by the advice which he here gives, than to recommend prayer for the sick when the disease was curable, and to dissuade from unbecoming importunity where the malady was evidently incurable, and fatal. See John ix. 2. 34. Matt. ix. 1-8. See Dr. Priestley in loc."

This interpretation is so far distinct from Dr. Benson's that it does not proceed on the hypothesis of a supernatural infliction of disease being the case treated of by John: in other rethe two expositions are nearly spects identical, and lie open to the same objections. Justice indeed to the Editors, c. requires me to observe that they propose their explanation as conjectural, and do little more than repeat the sentiment of Dr. Priestley; which he has not supported, however, by any reasoning or quotation.

of an

error

If the object of the apostle was simply "to recommend prayer for the sick, &c." it seems reasonable to believe that he would have expressed himself in the phraseology of James on the same topic, and on a similar occasion. V. 15, &c. Concerning the passages to which the Editors, &c. refer their readers, it is obvious to remark that not one of them is pertinent to the end for which they are produced ; at furthest, they evince no identity of language on the subjects of disease and sin, but merely indicate the existence erroneous opinion respecting then among the Jews; an which our Lord discountenanced, instead of adopting. The irrelevancy of Matt. ix. 1-8 to the hypothesis on which we are animadverting, I have pointed out. Whether John ix. 34, mean any thing more than that the individual addressed was born of sinful parents, and in a degraded rank, is at best doubtful: the just explanation of it, appears to be afforded by Ps. li. 5, compared with John vií. 49. Even as to the remaining text, John ix. 2; though the question of the disciples be framed on an erroneous tenet of "the Jewish philosophy," it rather proves that they assumed a connection between sin and certain states of the human body than that their current phraseology was founded on an ima gined inseparable relation between disease and sin: they speak of the man before them as being destitute of one of the senses, not as afflicted with sickness. I think, with deference, that the Editors, &c. have laid down too general a proposition. That the Jews admitted an universally inseparable connection between sin and disease, and that their usual language to denote the want of sight or of health was in conformity with this opinionthese points are not yet established. Both positions must be supported by satisfactory evidence before the interpretation here offered by the Editors,

c. is acknowledged as correct.

III. J. G. Rosenmüller would detach this passage from the rest of the chapter: and he takes the sin unto death to be "a capital offence against the laws of society:" Mihi apatia

eos lavatov videtur esse crimen capitale quodvis. Pro eo, qui tale crimen commiserit, non vult apostolus interces siones fieri apud magistratus, quibus jus

ex

vita el necis compeicbat; ne paguni in
suspicionem adducerentur, talia crimina
apud Christianos parvi fieri. According
to this commentator, John dissuades
his Christian brethren from inter-
ceding with the magistrate in behalf of
any individual of their number who
has committed a crime of so high a
degree and the apostle's motive in
suggesting the caution is to prevent
the heathens from supposing that the
disciples of Jesus deemed lightly of
such offences. On the same prin-
ciple, Rosenmüller, of course,
plains the sin not unto death-videtur
esse levior culpa transgressione legis alicu-
jus civilis contractu, quam, a Christiano
"admissam facile ita exaggerare poterant
magistratus pagani, ut supplicii reum
pronuntiarent cum, qui mitiori pœna
affectus dimitti potuisset. Pro ejusmodi
peccatore deprecari poterat frater Christ-
ianus, ut vita ei donaretur. If a pro-
fessor of the gospel were convicted of
a crime far less heinous than any of
the class just adverted to, for him his
fellow-believers might petition the
judge, and implore that life the for-
feiture of which might too easily be
decreed by the prejudices, suspicions
and jealousies of a heathen magis-

trate.

This is very ingenious, but, like the preceding interpretations, has no countenance from the apostle's context. Rosenmüller acknowledges indeed that the basis of the exposition is hypothe

tical: hæc mea est cONJECTURA. In proof of it's having no solidity, let us compare together the fourteenth, fifteenth and the sixteenth verses.

the

14. this is the confidence that we have in him [in God. See Benson in loc. and 1 John iii. 21.], that if we ask [airwμela] any thing according to his will, he heareth us. 15. And if we know that he hear us whatsoever we ask [ó av artwμsla], we know that we have the petitions [Ta aiyuara] that we desired [or asked, a prxaμev] of him. 16. If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask [ailyca]; and he [God] shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray [ερωτηση] for it."

If any person be inclined to place a stress on a supposed difference between

the verbs aITEW and ecwlaw, let him
consider that in John xvii. 9, the lat-
ter is used, as in numerous other pas-
sages, for prayer to God: EYW TEPI
"I pray for
auly εCWTW, X. T. λ.
them, &c." Now in the fourteenth
and fifteenth verses of the fifth chapter
of the first of John's Epistles, prayer to
God is confessedly spoken of: how
perfectly incongruous therefore is the
interpretation which, in ver. 16, as-
signs to the words ailo and spw-
T the sense of intercession with the
civil magistrate. This single objection
would seem decisive against Rosen-
müller's exposition.

IV. Though I can scarcely hope to
be successful where so accurate a critic
has failed, I am not discouraged how-
ever from making the attempt: in his
own language, and with the diffidence
"Si quis
which becomes me, I say,
rectius quid docuerit, ego ei libenter
adstipulabor:" my object is to elicit
truth, by inducing more diligent and.
skilful labourers than myself in the
field of sacred criticism to favour me
with their assistance.

The sin unto death I take to be

apostacy from the Christian doctrine, such apostacy as the writer to the Hebrews describes in vi. 4, &c.; consequently, the sin not unto death is guilt of an inferior degree and kind. By death 1 understand, in both cases, the second. death, or the future punishment which awaits impenitence.

For

In the former part of this interpretation I have the pleasure of finding myself confirmed by the opinion of Archbishop Newcome (note in loc.), who thus paraphrases the words a sin unto death" aggravated apostacy, blasphemy against the holy spirit." what remains of my exposition I have not, it is true, the advantage of the Yet whoever same great authority. considers that, in Scriptural phraseology, death often signifies condemna tion to severe and final punishment, as in John v. 24, 1 John iii. 14, may without difficulty receive it under this sense in the verses before us. The whole passage will then appear to be consistent with itself, with the apostle's subject and style, and with the spirit and the truths of the Christian revela

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

THIS Psalm is generally ascribed to David, and there is no reason to doubt his being the writer of it. It was most probably composed soon after the tribes of Israel had submitted to him, and he was universally acknowledged king. He speaks in the concluding verse of the city of Jehovah, or Jerusalem; but it appears from 2 Sam. v. that he did not gain possession of that city till all the tribes had joined in allegiance to him. In this Psalm he solemnly professes his determination to govern his family with strictness and integrity; to suffer no evil-minded persons in his court; to employ and protect the pious and the good; and to use his high authority in extirpating all the impious and the wicked.

[blocks in formation]

7. He shall not dwell in my house Who practiseth deceit.

He who speaketh falsehood, Shall not continue in my presence. 8. Every morning will I destroy All the wicked of the land; That I may cut off from the city of Jehovah

All the workers of iniquity.

Ver. 1. "Of piety and justice, &c." i. e. "I will declare my resolution of conducting myself in my kingdom with a constant regard to the will of God and the virtue of my subjects, especially of those about my court;" or, "I will now solemnly declare how I mean to act as king towards the virtuous and the wicked, shewing [on] favour to the one, and awarding punishment [] to the other.

2. To this verse the Reviewer particularly directs the attention of the translator; and it is indeed the only passage in the Psalm that presents any serious difficulty. In the authorized English version it is rendered thus: “I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me! I will walk within my house with a perfect heart." And so, with only some slight variations, it is rendered in all the ancient and most of the modern versions. The variations chiefly respect the sense of in the first clause, and the connexion and form of the second: some considering as transitive, others intransitive; some connecting the second clause with the first, while others connect it with the third; some rendering it interrogatively, others without the interrogation. Thus the Targumist, followed by some Commentators (vide Pol. Synops.), renders the first and second clauses" I will cause thee to understand a perfect way, when thou shalt come to me:" considering it as addressed by Jehovah to the king. Mudge takes the verb transitively, but refers it to David, thus: "I will give instruction on the way of integrity; when will it come unto me ?" that is, as he observes in a note, " I will compose a maschil to teach the true conduct of life: oh, how long will it be ere I have the pleasure of enjoying it?" The Syriac is singular in rendering YOON by, "I will walk." Rosenmüller connects the middle with the last clause, thus, "Quando ad me ve

« ZurückWeiter »