only _true_ ground on which to take our stand; but withdrawing from it
because we do not fear the appeal to unassisted Reason, even in matters
of Faith,--so that the proper limits and conditions of inquiry be but
observed;--we proceed to inquire whether,--apart from Revelation,--there
be not good ground for believing that the words of the ancient Hebrew
Lawgiver and Prophet contain and mean the very thing which the Christian
Apostle _says_ they do.--We change our language at this stage of the
inquiry. We no longer assert, (as before we did,) that the HOLY GHOST
speaking by the mouth of Moses, _must have meant_, what the same HOLY
GHOST, speaking by the mouth of St. Paul, declares that He _did_ mean.
We are willing to study the sacred text solely by the light which grave
criticism and patient learning have thrown upon it.--Our inquiry now, is
this;--Although the words in Deuteronomy, read over attentively by
ourselves, suggest no such Christian meaning as we find affixed to them
in the Epistle to the Romans,--is there no reason, traditional or
otherwise, for supposing that they _do_ envelope that meaning; yea, so
teem and swell with it, that the germ of the flower may be actually
detected in the yet unopened bud?... I proceed to this inquiry.
1. And first, it is obvious, to any one reading the xxixth and xxxth
chapters of the last Book of Moses, that they contain _another
Covenant_, beside that of Horeb. This is expressly stated in the first
verse of the xxixth chapter:--"These are the words of the Covenant which
the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land
of Moab, _beside the Covenant which He made with them in Horeb_[541]."
Not to stand too stiffly thereupon, however[542], let it be at least
freely allowed that even if we choose to regard this chapter and the
next as a _renewal_ only of the Covenant made in Horeb, it is a
_distinct_ renewal;--both in respect of time and of place. Of time,--for
whereas the Covenant of Sinai belongs to the _first_ of the forty years
of wandering, the Covenant of Moab belongs to the _last_. Of place,--for
whereas the other was made at the furthest limit of the people's
wanderings, _this_ belongs to their nearest approach to Canaan.--And I
confidently ask, After _such_ an announcement, and at a moment like
_that_,--the forty years of typical wandering ended, and the earthly
type of the heavenly inheritance full in view, Jordan alone intercepting
the vision of their Rest;--shall we wonder, if here and there a ray of
coming glory shall be found to flash through the language of the dying
patriarch? if some traces shall be discernible, even in the language of
Moses, of the dayspring of the Gospel of CHRIST?
2. We find that it contains not a few sayings in support of such a
presumption. The 10th verse opens the covenant, and in the following
solemn language:--"Ye stand, this day, all of you, before the LORD your
GOD: the Captains of your tribes, your Elders, and your officers, with
all the men of Israel;--your little ones, your wives, and the stranger
that is in thy camp,--from the hewer of thy wood, to the drawer of thy
water." And what was the _intention_ of this solemn standing before the
LORD? Even--"that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the LORD thy
GOD, and enter into His oath, which the LORD thy GOD maketh with thee
this day."--The purport of the Covenant thus to be made, was, that GOD
might establish Israel that day for a people unto Himself, and that He
might be unto them a GOD,--(an expression elsewhere appropriated by the
Great Apostle to the Christian Church[543],)--as He had ... sworn unto
their fathers, _to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob_. So that we have
here the renewal of the _Evangelical Covenant_ made with Abraham, and
renewed to Isaac and Jacob,--which is clearly distinguished in Scripture
from the _Legal_ Covenant, made with their children 430 years after; and
which is declared ineffectual to disannul the earlier one, confirmed
before by GOD, and pointing entirely to CHRIST[544]. That earlier
Evangelical Covenant then, it was, which was renewed in the land of
Moab;--in the course of renewing which, the words of the text occur.
3. And that it was indeed the Evangelical, (not the Legal Covenant,)
which is here spoken of, is abundantly confirmed by the subsequent
language of the passage: for Moses proceeds,--"Neither with you only do
I make this Covenant and this oath; but with him that standeth here this
day with us before the LORD our GOD, and _also with him that is not here
with us this day_[545]:" meaning, (as the ancient Targum expounds the
place,) "_with every generation that shall rise up unto the world's
end_." It was the same Covenant, therefore, which is made with
_ourselves_; "for the promise is unto" us, and to our "children, and to
all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our GOD shall
call[546]:" "_not_ according to the Covenant which GOD made with the
Fathers of Israel in the day that He took them by the hand to bring them
out of the Land of Egypt[547]."
Yet more remarkably perhaps is this established by the language of the
ensuing chapter: for GOD therein promises that _Circumcision of the
heart_ whereby men should be enabled to love the LORD their GOD with
_all their heart_ and with _all their soul_. Now this seems clearly to
intimate not legal but Evangelical obedience,--the result of the free
outpouring of the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD; of which, in the Law, (properly so
called,) we find no promise whatever. Here then we discover another
anticipation of something which belongs to the times of the Gospel.
And this Evangelical complexion is to be recognized in the entire
contents of the xxixth and xxxth chapters. They contain no single
mention of ceremonial rites or observances,--of which the Law is, for
the most part, full. But free obedience and perfect love are inculcated
as the condition of blessedness: while hearty repentance is made the
sole condition of forgiveness of sin.
In connexion with this, I may call your attention to a curious
coincidence,--if indeed it be not something more. On the sincere
repentance of the people, it is promised "that then the LORD thy GOD
will turn thy captivity;" which the Targum of Jonathan
paraphrases,--"His WORD will receive with delight thy repentance:" while
the Septuagint even more remarkably renders the words--"will heal thy
sins;" that is,--"will be thy JESUS." Moses proceeds,--"and gather thee
from all the nations whither the LORD thy GOD hath called thee." And
what is this but one of the very places, if it be not _the very place_,
to which St. John alludes when he declares that Caiaphas prophesied that
JESUS should die for that nation; and not for that nation only; but that
He should gather together in one, the children of GOD that were
scattered abroad[548]?
4. Nor is it, finally, a little remarkable that, by the general consent
of the Hebrew Doctors, this xxxth chapter has ever been held to have
reference to the times of MESSIAH. The restoration spoken, is referred
by them to the restoration to be effected by CHRIST: while the promises
it contains are connected with those prophetic intimations which clearly
point to the days of the Gospel[549]. So much, then, for the evidence,
_apart from Revelation_, which the general complexion of the place in
Deuteronomy affords to the reasonableness of the meaning affixed to it
by the voice of the later Scriptures. Before we proceed to examine a
little in detail the words of the text, we may be surely allowed to
remind ourselves of the Testimony which St. Paul bears to the
Evangelical character of what is here delivered. He asserts, in the most
direct and emphatic manner, that it is the Righteousness which is by
Faith which here speaks[550]. He is contrasting the spirit of the Law,
with that of the Gospel. He is setting the requirements of the one
against those of the other. To exhibit the former,--he quotes from
Leviticus. To enable us to judge of the latter,--he quotes this very
place in Deuteronomy. Having shewn the justification under the
Law,--which is by entire fulfilment of every enjoined work;--the Apostle
describes the Righteousness of the Gospel,--which is by Faith in CHRIST.
And he discovers its voice in the present chapter: nay, he calls our
attention to its language; and, lest the intention of it should escape
us, he proceeds to supply us, not only with an interpretation of it, but
with a paraphrase as well.
Enough has been said, I trust, to render this proceeding on the part of
the Apostle no matter of surprise Let us see whether the particulars of
his interpretation are altogether novel and unprecedented either.--The
words of Moses which we have to consider, it will be remembered, are
these:--The "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
shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us,
that we may hear it and do it? Neither is it beyond the Sea, that thou
shouldest 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[551]."
Now, that all this denotes something close at hand and easy,--in place
of something supposed to be remote and difficult,--is obvious. The whole
of the earlier part of it, St. Paul affirms to be tantamount to the
following injunction,--"Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into
Heaven, to bring CHRIST down; or who descend into the abyss, to bring
CHRIST up from the dead." Concerning which words of caution, we have to
remark that there seems to have been no intention whatever on the part
of the Apostle, to warn _his readers_ against requiring a renewed
Revelation of CHRIST in the flesh, or a second Resurrection of the
Eternal SON from the dead. He is illustrating the nature of Legal and
Evangelical Righteousness, by the language of the Jewish Law. He
contrasts the two, in their respective requirements; finding the voice
of both in the writings of Moses: of the former,--in connexion with the
covenant of Sinai; of the latter,--in connexion with the covenant which
the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the
land of Moab, _besides_ the former Covenant. With characteristic fire
and earnestness, glancing, as usual, at every side of the question
before him,--having, a little way back, explained himself, without
explanation, when he inserted that remarkable parenthetical clause,
=telos gar nomou CHRISTOS=[552],--"for _CHRIST_ is the object of the
Law;"--in order now to shew how thoroughly this is the case,--how full
the Law is of _Him_, in whom alone it finds its perfect scope, end, and
completion,--he explains that the very phrase "Who shall ascend up into
Heaven?" pointed to nothing less than _the Incarnation_ of CHRIST: that,
"Who shall go over the Sea?" contained a wondrous far-sighted
allusion,--(not the less real because unsuspected,)--even to the
_Resurrection_ of our LORD from death. So true is it, "that both in the
Old and New Testament Everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by CHRIST,
who is the only Mediator between GOD and Man, being both GOD and Man.
Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did
look only for transitory promises[553]."
Moses then here warns the ancient people of GOD against an evil heart of
unbelief. "Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend up into Heaven?" for
such words on the part of Man would imply disbelief in the doctrine that
the SON of GOD should hereafter take upon Him human flesh. (Since "no
man hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even
the Son of Man which is in Heaven[554].") "Neither say, Who shall
descend into the deep?" for such words on human lips must imply
disbelief in MESSIAH'S Descent into Hell, and Resurrection from the
Dead.--The mystery of Redemption might not be impatiently demanded; but
must be looked for in faith, until the fulness of time should come, and
the whole mystery of godliness should be revealed to the wondering eyes
of Men and Angels[555].
We shall perhaps be asked, whether it is credible that Moses can have
had any conception that such a meaning as St. Paul here ascribes to his
words, did really underlie them? To which we answer, first, that it is
by no means incredible[556]. And next, that whether Moses knew the full
meaning of the language he was commissioned to deliver, or not,--seems,
(as already explained[557],) to be an entirely separate question: the
only question before us, being, _whether his language contained that
meaning_, or not.... To what extent the Prophets,--who, (we know,)
studied their own prophecies[558],--were ever permitted to fathom their
depth, is a mere matter of speculation[559]; delightful indeed, but in
the present case quite irrelevant. In the meantime, we know for certain
that _Moses prophesied of CHRIST_[560].
And next, if it be said that really this is only a proverbial
expression,--a Hebrew phrase to denote something passing difficult, and
hard of attainment:--(as when, in the Book of Proverbs, it is
asked,--"Who hath ascended up into Heaven, or who hath
descended[561]?")--we answer, we see no ground whatever for supposing
that in the place just quoted, it _is_ a proverb, and no more,--although
from its use in the Talmud, the expression would certainly appear to
have become, at last, proverbial[562]. _If_ a proverb, however, it seems
to have been a sacred one; nor can any place be appealed to where it
occurs, nearly of the antiquity of _this_, in the writings of Moses. To
pretend therefore to explain away a certain mode of expression, in the
place where it _first_ stands on record,--and where it is declared to
have a deep and mysterious meaning,--simply because, _subsequently_, it
was (to all appearance) used _without_ any such pregnancy of
signification,--is, manifestly illogical.
Nay, there is good ground for presuming, that the very place last
quoted, contains a reference to the Eternal SON: for Agur proceeds to
ask,--"What is His Name, and _what is His Son's Name_, if thou canst
tell[563]?" ... But the reference is far more obvious when the same
expressions occur in the Book of Baruch. "Who hath gone up into Heaven,
and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over
the sea, and found her[564]?" For _Wisdom_ is there spoken of; and
Wisdom, as we remember, is one of the names of CHRIST,--the name by
which He is discoursed of, in the Book of Proverbs.
The uninspired evidence which completes the connexion of this place of
Deuteronomy with the second Person in the Blessed Trinity, is the
traditional interpretation assigned to it by the Hebrew Commentators.
The Targum of Jerusalem expounds the latter clause as follows:--"Neither
is the Law beyond the Great Sea, that thou shouldest say, O that we had
one _like Jonas the prophet_ that might go down to the bottom of the
Great Sea, and bring it to us." So that the very Jewish Doctors
themselves here become our instructors; and teach us that a greater than
Jonas must be here,--even while they guide our eyes to that especial
type of our SAVIOUR CHRIST in His Descent into Hell, and Rising again
from the dead. I say, the very Jewish Doctors themselves here contribute
their testimony; and yield a most unsuspicious witness to the inspired
exegesis of the Apostle: for, "as Jonas was three days and three nights
in the whale's belly,"--so, (they clearly mean to say), so should it be
with the man whom Moses here indicateth: and so,--(these are the words
of CHRIST Himself),--so was "_the Son of Man_ three days and three
nights in the heart of the Earth[565]."
You will of course notice the facility with which the Jews themselves,
interpreting their own Scriptures, have here exchanged the notions of
going "_over_ the sea,"--("_beyond_ the sea," as it is in the
Hebrew,)--and "_going down to the bottom_" of the sea. St. Paul seems,
in this place, to have "accommodated" the words of Moses: but we cannot
fail to perceive that the Hebrew text must cry aloud for such supposed
"accommodation;" yea, cry aloud, even in the uncircumcised ears of the
Jewish people; that their own Commentators, as if divinely guided by the
good hand of GOD, should bear their own independent witness to the
correctness of the Apostolic interpretation.
Nor may I fail to call your attention to the term employed by St. Paul
to denote the Sea:--a term, surely divinely chosen. He had just before,
(in the 6th and 7th verses,) employed the Version of the LXX: he was
about to use it again in the 8th verse: but in this, (the 7th,) he
departs from it. Instead of,--Tis diaperasei hêmin eis to peran
tês thalassês; he writes,--=Tis katabêsetai eis
ten abysson=. The term =abyssos=,--which is applicable to the
deep places of the Earth, _and_ to the depth of the Sea, with equal
propriety;--(being a more indifferent term even than our own expression
"the deep");--affords a memorable example of the fulness and pregnancy
of language on inspired lips. Adhering to the letter of the text he
quotes, the Apostle, by changing _the word_ expressive of that literal
sense, embraces the whole spiritual breadth and fulness of the
passage:--reminding us of Him, by the blood of whose covenant were sent
forth the prisoners of hope out of the pit _wherein is no
water_[566],--even before he names Him; our SAVIOUR CHRIST!
I must also remind you, that there are many expressions used by our
LORD, or used concerning Him by His Apostles, which help to shew, that,
to have come down from Heaven,--and to have been brought up from the
deep of the Earth again,--may be regarded as the mysterious summary of
the SAVIOUR'S Mission[567].--"No man hath _ascended up_ to Heaven,"
(saith our LORD,) "but He that _came down_ from Heaven[568]." "I am the
living Bread which _came down_ from Heaven.... Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of Man _ascend up_ where He was
before[569]?" In another place,--"I came forth from the FATHER and am
come into the World: again I leave the World, and go to the
FATHER[570]."--But the most remarkable place remains: "Now, that He
_ascended_, what is it but that He also _descended first_ into the
lowest parts of the Earth? He that _descended_, is the same also that
_ascended up_ far above all Heavens[571]." I say, this brief
summary,--given by CHRIST Himself, or by those who had seen Him,--of the
mystery of His manifestation in the flesh,--throws light on the language
of the Hebrew lawgiver. It shews that the language of Moses to Israel,
in the plains of Moab, fairly embraced the two great truths which Faith
even now can but be exhorted to lay fast hold upon, and to
appropriate:--"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth that JESUS is the
LORD,"--that is, confess that the man Jesus is the uncreated, Incarnate
JEHOVAH; "and believe with thy heart that GOD raised Him up from the
dead,--thou shalt be saved." ... Such is the form which the exhortation
_now_ assumes. More darkly, of old time,--(as was fitting,)--was the
same thing spoken: and, because reference was then made to an event not
yet accomplished, the impatience of Unbelief is there repressed,--rather
than the ardour of Faith stimulated. "Say not in thy heart who shall
ascend into Heaven? or, who shall go down into the deep place?" ... But
shall we deal so faithlessly with the Divine Oracles of the Old
Testament, as to deny them the deeper meaning assigned to them in the
New, because they speak darkly? Let us, from a review of all that has
been humbly offered,--let us at least admit that there is good
independent ground for believing that when Moses spake of ascending into
Heaven,--it was with reference to the future coming of CHRIST:--when he
made mention of descending into the Deep,--the Resurrection of the
SAVIOUR of the World was, in reality, the thing he spake of.--Let us
allow that _here_, at least, there is nothing in the language of the New
Testament, which, when studied by the light of unassisted Reason, does
not appear to have been fully included, contemplated, intended by the
language of the Old:--that the accommodation has not been
arbitrary;--say rather, that _here_ at least there has been _no
accommodation at all_!
But I am impatient to leave this low rationalistic ground, and take my
stand again, on the vantage ground of Faith. The position, I trust, has
been established, that even in the case of words which seem least
promising,--least likely to enfold the deeply mysterious meaning claimed
for them by an Apostle,--the result of patient inquiry and research is
to shew that such a meaning really _does_ exist there, to the fullest
extent. We have discovered, from mere grounds of Reason, apart from
Revelation, that what St. Paul has cited in this place from Deuteronomy,
may very well contain all that he says it contains. But, were nothing of
the kind discoverable;--were it a most hopeless endeavour to reconcile
the meaning evolved by the inspired Apostle, with the text he professes
to interpret,--the claims of the sacred exegesis would remain wholly
unimpaired. We should still say that _this_, because it is an _inspired_
Commentary, is entitled to our fullest acceptance. We have, anyhow, the
HOLY SPIRIT interpreting Himself. He surely must be the best judge of
His own Divine meaning. He does but enrich the Treasury of Truth, even
by His apparent departures from the original Hebrew verity. Shall not
the HOLY GHOST, the Comforter, be allowed to speak comfort to His people
in whatever way seemeth best to Himself? Is it not lawful for Him to do
what He will with His own? Is thine eye evil, because He is very good?
Yes, it cannot be too emphatically insisted on, that the success which
may attend investigations of this nature, is not to be admitted for a
moment as the measure of the soundness of the principle on which they
proceed. The reasoning whereby Newton shewed that the diamond is a
combustible substance would have been no whit invalidated had the
diamond resisted to this hour every chemical attempt to reduce it to
carbon. We do not,--(what need to say?)--we do not discourage the
endeavour to enucleate the deep Christian significancy of passages for
which Inspired writers claim such sublime meaning. Rather do we think
that Human Reason could not find a worthier field for the employment of
her powers[572], than this. But we are strenuous to insist that the full
and sufficient, and only irrefragable proof that a mighty Christian
meaning does actually underlie the unpromising utterance of one of GOD'S
ancient Saints, is,--_that an Inspired Writer declares it to exist
there_.
There is no _accommodation_ therefore, when an inspired writer adduces
Scripture. Human language _will_ sometimes require to be "accommodated:"
Divine language, never! May not the HOLY SPIRIT lay His finger on
whatever parts of His ancient utterance He sees fit? may He not invert
clauses, and (in order to bring out His meaning better) even alter
words? If He tells thee that the prophetic allusion of Isaiah to "our
griefs" and "our sorrows" comprehends "our infirmities" and "our
sicknesses" in its span[573],--is it for _thee_ to discredit His
assertion? If He is pleased to intimate that the providential
arrangement whereby CHRIST, though born at Bethlehem, grew up at
Nazareth,--had for its object the fulfilment of many a detached and
seemingly disconnected prophecy[574],--shall the unexpectedness of His
disclosure excite ridicule in such an one as thyself? When He tells thee
that besides the immediate scope of certain well-known words of Hosea
and of Jeremiah, there was the ulterior aim He indicates; if behind
Israel after the flesh, He shews thee the Anointed SON[575],--if behind
those captive Jews of the tribe of Benjamin whom Nebuzar-Adan led past
their mother's grave on their way to Babylon, He points to the
slaughtered infant of Bethlehem; assuring thee that when He spake by the
mouth of Jeremiah concerning the nearer event that remoter one was full
before Him also; and that the solemn and affecting utterance of the
Prophet was divinely intended by Himself to cover both[576];--wilt thou,
when He discourses to thee thus, presume to talk to Him of
"_accommodation?_" Is it not enough for thee to have cavilled at the
first page of the _Old_ Testament on "scientific" grounds? Must thou,
for Theological considerations, dispute the first page of the _New_
Testament also?