CHAPTER XVII. 1. To his disciples, #gos 785 μadnraç. Vul. Ad discipulos suos. This reading is favoured by the Al. Cam. and a considerable number of MSS and by the 1st Sy. Cop. Arm. and Sax. versions. The 2d Sy. also has the pronoun, but it is marked as doubtful with an asterisk. The sense is now ise affected. -- 7. Would any of you who hath a servant, &c. say to him, on his return from the field, Come immediately, ri de eğ vμwv duhov εχων εισελθοντι εκ το αγρε ερεί ευθέως παρελθων. Ε. Τ. Which of you having a servant—, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go- Val. Quis vestrum habens servum Regresso de agro dicat illi, statim transi. The only material difference between these two versions arises from the different manner of pointing. I have, with the Vul. joined Evews to παρελθών. Our translators have joined it to EGEL. In this way of reading the sentence, the adverb is no better than an expletive; in the other, ευθέως παρελθων is well contrasted to μετα ταυτα φαγε a in the following verse. 10. We have conferred no favour, daños axpelos coμ. Diss. XII. P. I. § 14. 11. Through the confines of Samaria and Galilee, dia pec Σαμαρείας και Γαλιλαίας. E. T. Through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. I agree with Gro. and others, that it was not through the heart of these countries, but, on the contrary, through those parts in which they bordered with each other, that our Lord travelled at that time. I understand the words dia etɣ, as of the same import with ava merov, as commonly understood. And in this manner we find it interpreted by the Sy. and Ara, translators. No doubt the nearest way, from where our Lord resided, was through the midst of Samaria. But bad that been his route, the historian had no occasion to mention Galilee, the country whence he came; and if he had mentioned it, it would have been surely more proper, in speaking of a journey from a Galilean city to Jerusalem, to say, through Galilee and Samaria, than, reversing the natural order, to say, through Samaria and Galilee. But if, as I understand it, the confines only of the two countries were meant, it is a matter of no consequence which of them was first named. Besides, the incident recorded in the following words, also, renders it more probable that he was on the borders of Samaria, than in the midst of the country. It appears that there was but one Samaritan among the lepers that were cleansed, who is called an alien, the rest being Jews. 18. This alien, • aλλoyers &Tos. The Jews have, ever since the captivity, considered the Samaritans as aliens. them Cuthites to this day. They call 21. The reign of God is within you, ǹ BarıλHK TO ©:8 EVTOG nav sv. Vul. Er. Zu. Regnum Dei intra vos est. Cas. though not in the same words, to the same purpose. I should have added Be. too, who says, Regnum Dei intus habetis; had he not shown, in his Commentary, that he meant differently, denoting no more, by intus, than apud vos. Most modern translators, and, among them, the authors of our common version, have rendered the words in the same way as the Vul. the Sy. and other ancient interpreters. L. Cl. and Beau. both, say, Au milieu de vous, and have been followed by some Eng. translators, particu larly the An. and Dod. who say, Among you. This way of rendering has also been strenuously supported, of late, by some learned critics. I shall briefly state the evidence on both sides. That the preposition avros, before a plural noun, signifies among, Raphelius has given one clear example from Xenophon's Expedition of Cyrus, the only one, it would appear, that has yet been discovered, for to it later critics, as Dod. and Pearce, have been obliged to recur. I have taken occasion, once and again, to declare my dissatisfaction with conclusions founded merely on classical authority, in cases where recourse could be had to the writings of the N. T. or the ancient Gr. translation of the Old. I acknowledge that eros does not oft occur in either, but it does sometimes. Yet in none of the places does it admit the signification which those critics give it here. As I would avoid being tedious, I shall only point out the passages to the learned reader, leaving him to consult them at his leisure. The only other place in the N. T. is Mt. xxiii. 26. In the Sep. Ps. xxxviii. 4. cviii. 22. or, as numbered in the Eng. Bible, xxxix. 3. cix. 22. and Cant. iii. 10. These are all the passages wherein Evros occurs as a preposition in that version. But it is sometimes used elliptically with the article ra, for the inside, or the things within, as Ps. cii. 1. in the Gr. but in the Eng. ciii. 1. Is. xvi. 11. Dan. X. 16. We have this expression also twice in the Apocrypha, Ecclus xix. 26. 1 Mac. iv. 48. Of all which I shall only remark, in general, that no advocate for the modern interpretation of ETOS μ in the Gospel, has produced any one of them as giving countenance to his opinion. Wh. (who, though a judicious critic, sometimes argues more like a party than a judge), after explaining eros μ si to mean, is even now among you, and, is come unto you; adds, 66 50 εντος ύμων, and εν ύμιν, are "frequently used in the O. T." Now, the truth is, that does frequently occur in the O. T. in the acceptation mentioned, but Evros μav never, either in that or in any other acceptation: now does εντος ήμων occur, nor εντος αυτων, nor any similar expres sion. The author proceeds to give examples: accordingly, his examples are all (as was unavoidable, for he had no other) of EV , and ev nu, not one of Evros uv, or of any similar applica tion of this preposition. Strange, indeed, if he did not perceive that a single example of this use of the preposition EVTOS (which use he had affirmed to be frequent), was more to his purpose than five hundred examples of the other. The instances of the other were, indeed, nothing to his purpose at all. The import of ev, in such cases, was never questioned; and his proceeding on the supposition that those phrases were equivalent, was what logicians call a petitio principii, a taking for granted the whole matter in dispute. Nay, let me add, the frequency of the occurrence of e, in Scripture, applied to a purpose to which evtos μ is never applied, notwithstanding the numerous occasions, makes against his argument, instead of supporting it, as it renders it very improbable that the two phrases were understood as equivalent. But to come from the external, to the internal, evidence; it has been thought, that the interpretation, amongst you, suits better the circumstances of the times. The Messiah was already come. His doctrine was begun to be preached, and converts, though not very numerous, were made. This may be regarded as evidences that his reign was already commenced among them. But in what sense, it may be asked, could his reign or kingdom be said to be within them? It is true, that the laws of this kingdom were intended for regulating the inward principles of the heart, as well as outward actions of the life; but is it not rather too great a stretch in language, to talk of God's kingdom being within us? So, I acknowledge, I thought once; but on considering the great latitude wherein the phrase, n BRIHA TO 8, is used in the N. T. in relation sometimes to the epoch of the dispensation, sometimes to the place, sometimes for the divine administration itself, sometimes for the laws and maxims which would obtain; I began to think differently of the use of the word in this passage. The Apostle Paul hath said, Rom. xiv. 17. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Now, these qualities, righteousness, and peace, and spiritual joy, if we have them at all, must be within us, that is, in the heart or soul. If so, the Apostle has, by implication, said no less than is reported here by the Evangelist, as having been said by our Lord, that the kingdom of God is within us. Is there any im. propriety in saying that God reigns in the hearts of his people? If not, to say, the reign of God is in their hearts, or within them, is the same thing, a little varied in the form of expression. Even the rendering of Barizea, kingdom, and not reign, heightens the apparent impropriety. But it is a more formidable objection against the common version, that our Lord's discourse was at that time addressed to the Pharisees: and how could it be said to men, whose hearts were so alienated from God, as theirs then were, that God reigned within them? This difficulty seems to have determined the opinion of Dr. Dod. To this I answer, that in such declarations, conveying general truths, the personal pronoun is not to be strictly interpreted. It is not, in such cases, you the individuals spoken to, but you of this nation, or you of the human species, men in general. In this way we understand the words of Moses, Deut. xxx. 11, 12, 13, 14. This commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. This is not to be considered as characterising any individual (for let it be observed, that the pronoun is, throughout the whole, in the singular number), nor even the whole people addressed. The people addressed had, by their conduct, shown too often, and too plainly, that the commandments of God were neither in their heart, nor in their mouth. But it is to be considered as explaining the nature of the divine service; for it remains an unchangeable truth, that it is an essential character of the service which God requires from his people, that his word be habitually in their heart. The same sentiment is quoted by the Apostle, Rom. x. 6, &c. and adapted to the Gospel dispensation. I think further with Markland, that Eros vμav, as implying an inward and spiritual principle, is here opposed to wagarngnois, outward show and parade, with which secular dominion is commonly introduced. 36. The whole of this verse is wanting in many MSS. some of them of great note. It is not found in some of the early editions, nor in the Cop. and Eth. versions. But both the Sy. versions, also the Ara, and the Vul. have it. In a number of La. MSS. it is wanting. Some critics suppose it to have been added from Mt. This is not improbable. However, as the evidence on both sides nearly balances each other, I have retained it in the text, distinguishing it as of doubtful authority. CHAPTER XVIII. 1. He also showed them by a parable that they ought to persist in prayer, ελεγε δε καὶ παραβολην, αυτοις προς το δειν παντοτε προσevxeodai. E. T. And he spake a parable, unto them, to this end, that men ought always to pray. The construction here plainly shows, that the word to be supplied before the infinitive is avτ85. Ελεγεν αυτοις προ το δειν αυτός. The words are a continuation of the discourse related in the preceding chapter, which is here rather inopportunely interrupted by the division into chapters. There is, in these words, and in the following parable, a particular reference to the distress and trouble they were soon to meet with from their persecutors, which would render the duties of prayer, patience, and perseverance, peculiarly seasonable. 2 Without growing weary, un exxaxeiv. E. T. and not to faint. At the time when the common version was made, the |