even a man's covenant (or testament) when it has been legally executed. But the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed; it does not say, And to his seeds, as in the case of many but as in the case of one, And to his seed, which is Christ." As we go on, however, we shall find it impossible to use the word “ testament," which must therefore be rejected throughout. "Now this I mean; the law which was made four hundred and thirty years afterwards, does not invalidate a 'covenant' (it is impossible to say 'testament' where there is no such a thing as a will or testament alluded to from Genesis to Malachi) previously legally executed by God, so as to supersede the promise. For if the inheritance be from the law, it is no longer from promise; whereas God granted it to Abraham by promise. Why then the law? It was instituted (or 'added,' if πроσетéОn be read) 'on account of the transgressions (till the seed should come to whom the promise had been made) being dispensed (or ordained) through angels by the agency of a mediator. But the term mediator is not applicable to one party, but God is one." The inference is that the law, an arrangement made between two parties, God and the Israelites, cannot interfere with the promise, which was made by God to Abraham in his sole capacity, and without any reciprocal engagements. The proof of this lies in the use of the term "mediator," which is inapplicable to a promise made by God, although applicable to a case like the law, in which a temporary arrangement was made between God and a portion of his creatures. Had St. Paul written Tò dè μeoltys instead of ó de μeoirns, there would have been little difficulty in the latter part of the passage. An explanation very similar to the above is given by Conybeare and Howson, but unaccountably neglected by Ellicott, who favours the view of Windisch, that "God was one because he was both giver and receiver united," the "logical significance and profundity" of which seem to us little better than raving.

HEB. vi. 17-18.

The Authorized Version of this passage requires but slight alteration; and when corrected will run as follows: "And herein God, wishing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, mediated with an oath, in order that by means of two immutable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.' But the interpretation of these words has never been satisfactorily made out, In the first place, a question has been raised about the meaning of ev. But nothing can be

simpler or plainer than the sense given by the Authorized Version "wherein," when resolved as above into a demonstrative adverb and a conjunction. Surely év & must refer to what has preceded, and signify "in the matter of Abraham and the promise.'

Secondly, we find ourselves in the midst of confusion when we attempt to investigate the meaning of the "two immutable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie." Some have considered the promise and the oath which God swore by himself to Abraham to be meant. Thus the immutability of God's counsel or purpose would have been confirmed (1.) by the promise; (2.) by the oath. But here it may be observed that the promise was only the external expression and signification of the counsel or purpose to man, so that it is really ultimately identical with that counsel or purpose, and also that the oath was clearly given to prove the immutability of the promise. So that we have one immutable thing proving the immutability of the other. Again, others have taken the oath of God to Abraham as one immutable thing, and that previously mentioned, "The Lord sware and will not repent; thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek:" as the other. But then it may be replied, that two oaths are no greater security than one, and that a repetition of the same thing, an oath, can scarcely give the security of the two separate immutable things, which appear to be indicated by the words of the passage taken by itself.

We think that the key to this difficulty is to be found in the history of Abraham, to which reference is here tacitly made, and which the readers of the epistle are expected to bear in mind. Let us then first enquire how God, according to the Book of Genesis, proceeded to display to Abraham the immutability of his promise. He did so by an oath, as recorded in Genesis xxii. 16, after the sacrifice of Isaac; but he had previously given him the security of a covenant ratified by sacrifice, which we find narrated at length in Gen. xv. 7—18, which sacrifice he appropriated to himself, as the maker of the covenant, by passing between the pieces into which the sacrificed victims were divided, under the symbols of a smoking furnace and a burning lamp. If then God's proceeding towards Abraham is to be our guide, it is rendered probable that He would also display the immutability of his covenant to the inheritors of the promise by a sacrifice as well as an oath. It must be remembered also, that a man's bare word or promise was not considered of much value among the ancients, whose main dependence was upon oaths and sacrifices, and that God regularly acted as a man of the day in his dealings with men. Let us then scan carefully the remainder of the epistle and see whether

we can find any allusion to another immutable thing, or to a further security on God's part for the unchangeableness of his counsel.

Reading on, we find the first allusion to any such thing in vii. 22, in which Jesus is called the "surety (eyyvos) of a better covenant;" a second in vii. 27, in which Jesus is said to offer up himself; a third in viii. 6, in which Jesus is called the "mediator of a better covenant," where the word "mediator" at once refers us back to vi. 17, "where God is said to have "mediated with an oath ;" and a fourth, which is by far the most striking, in ix. 15-17 (which has been already explained in our last October number), in which the strongest language is used respecting the necessity of the death of the maker of a covenant being brought to bear upon that covenant, in order to make it certain and unchangeable. We conclude, therefore, that in these passages, especially the one last mentioned, we have been led to the second immutable thing, whereby God displays the immutability of his counsel to the inheritors of the promise.

Assuming the correctness of the above interpretation, we cannot but remark on the wonderful manner in which it exhibits the Almighty as condescending to meet the current views, and adapting his plans to the customs and understanding of his creatures. Under the priestly theory of sacrifice, which was common to both Jews and Gentiles, men bound themselves to their treaties and covenants by oaths and sacrifices. God, acting in all respects as a man would do, binds himself (1.) to Abraham by a sacrifice and an oath, (2.) to the inheritors of the promise by an oath and a sacrifice, even the sacrifice of his dear and only Son.

A. H. W.

THE BETRAYAL OF OUR LORD.

IN the lists of the disciples of Christ given by three of the evangelists (Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 19; Luke vi. 16), the last named is Judas Iscariot, "who also betrayed him." From John vi. 71, etc., we learn that his father's name was Simon; and his own name, Iscariotes, or Iscariot, is supposed by some to be derived from Kartha or Kartan in Galilee (Josh. xxi. 32); but by others from Kerioth in Judæa (Josh. xv. 25). Dr. Robinson met with the ruins of a place in the south of Judah called El Kuryetein-the two cities; and, though the rest of the disciples of our Lord were Galileans, this may have been the birthplace of Judah, and his name Iscariot may mean simply i, ish Kerioth, a man of Kerioth. To other conjectures relative to the derivation of the word it is scarcely necessary to refer. Judas was probably about the same age as Jesus, so that at the time that Mary was rejoicing over her son in the stable at Bethlehem, and angels were proclaiming the Saviour's birth to the shepherds, his parents were gazing with fond admiration on their boy, and wondering, perhaps, as did many parents in Judæa respecting their offspring, "what manner of child he would be." The first name, Judas, was but another form of the name Judah, and when his father gave it to him he would, perhaps, repeat the words of Jacob, "Judas, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise," and would indulge the hope that his son would become a praise to his family and his tribe.' Little did Simon think that the name of his son would become a byword and a reproach throughout the world; but parents not a few, who have entertained high expectations respecting their children, have, through the perversity of those children, experienced only sorrow and disappointment."

When Judas first became a disciple of Christ there was doubtless something hopeful in his character, for he, as well as the rest of the twelve, was given to Jesus by the Father; and had he been a decidedly bad man, at the time, we may be sure that Jesus would not have chosen him as one of his apostles. It is true that his conduct was foreseen from the first, and was, moreover, a subject of Old Testament prophecy; but never can we entertain the thought that he was taken into the society of

" In John vi. 71, the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus is Iovdav Ziμavos aжо Καρυώτου.

Strange stories are related of the childhood of Judas in the Apocraphal Gospel of the Infancy, which, however, are deserving of no attention. See Jones on the Canon, vol. ii., p. 203.

See Keble's Lyra Innocentiam, Hymn 13.

our Lord because prophecy had spoken of him, and in order that prophecy might be fulfilled. Foreknowledge is not foreappointment, nor is the prediction of what is foreknown the cause of its fulfilment. But Judas, though at first an inquiring spirit, seeking after truth, and especially anxious to find the Messiah, having associated himself with Jesus of Nazareth, believing that in him he had found whom he sought, was soon overcome by an avaricious temper which was the master-passion of his soul. He probably possessed a talent for economy, and, as Jesus and his disciples were poor, it was desirable that such a talent should be used. To Judas, therefore, was committed the task of taking charge of the little stock of money they possessed, and of expending it in provisions as their circumstances required. Did he appropriate some of the contents of "the bag" to himself? Such is the fact implied when, by St. John, he is styled "a thief;" and, about a year after he became a disciple of Christ, Jesus, having him in view, said to the apostle," Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” A “heartpiercing question" this, as Stier calls it, for it was as if Jesus had said, "The betrayer and destroyer insinuates himself into the narrowest circle, and most immediate fellowship with my person; there is one among you who is the devil in relation to me-that is, his elect instrument, one who has fallen through a devilish spirit into the ministry, and is as it were the representation of the devil."d

Thus early, then, after joining the company of the disciples, did the evil dispositions of his nature manifest themselves. He was free at first to have chosen a very different path—a path of honourable service in which he might have obtained greater dignity than any of the kings and princes of the earth; but he allowed "the cursed lust of gold " to swallow up his thoughts, and Satan, seizing upon this passion of his soul, found him an easy prey, and led him captive at his will. It may be asked, why did not Jesus expel him from the number of the twelve as soon as his real character was known? but the same question might be asked with reference to every false professor, and especially with reference to every unworthy minister of the cross. Had he been expelled he might have done great injury to Christ and to his followers before the time; and, moreover, he was permitted to remain in their society, that he might stand as a warning to professors to the end of this world.

That Judas would understand his Master's words-" one of you hath a devil," as referring to himself, there can be little

d John vi. 70. See Stier on the passage.