THE SCENES ON THE LAKE.
After receiving the report of his apostles’ labors, Jesus said to them, “Come ye yourselves apart into a retired place, and rest awhile:” for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. And he took them and went privately by ship aside, into a lonely place, near the city called Bethsaida. And the people saw him departing, and many knew him, and went on foot to the place, out of all the country, and outwent them, and came together to him as soon as he reached there. And he received them, and spoke unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing. It was on this occasion that he performed the miracle of feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes. So great was the impression made on their minds by this extraordinary act of benevolence and power, that he thought it best, in order to avoid the hindrance of his great task, by any popular commotion in his favor, to go away in such a manner as to be effectually beyond their reach for the time.——With this view he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and go before him to the other side of the lake, opposite to Bethsaida, where they then were; while he sent away the people. After sending the multitude away, he went up into a mountain, apart, to pray. And after night fall, the vessel was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land. Thence he saw them toiling with rowing, (for the wind was contrary to them, and the ship tossed in the waves:) and about three or four o’clock in the morning, he comes to them, walking on the sea, and appeared as if about to pass unconcernedly by them. But when they saw him walking upon the sea. they supposed it to have been a spirit, and they all cried out, “It is a spirit;” for they all saw him, and were alarmed; and immediately he spoke to them, and said “Be comforted; it is I; be not afraid.” And Peter, foremost in zeal on this occasion, as at almost all times, said to him, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee upon the water.” And he said, “Come.” And when Peter had come down out of the vessel, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, “Lord, save me.” And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him; and said to him, “O thou of little faith! wherefore didst thou doubt?” And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased; and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. And all they that were in the vessel came and worshiped him, saying, “Of a truth, thou art the Son of God.” This amazement and reverence was certainly very tardily acknowledged by them, after all the wonders they had seen wrought by him; but they considered not the miracle of the loaves, the most recent of all, which happened but a few hours before. For this thoughtlessness, in a matter so striking and weighty, Jesus himself afterwards rebuked them, referring both to this miracle of feeding the five thousand, and to a subsequent similar one. However, the various great actions of a similar character, thus repeated before them, seem at last to have had a proper effect, since, on an occasion not long after, they boldly and clearly made their profession of faith in Jesus, as the Christ.
“A lonely place.”——The word desert, which is the adjective given in this passage, in the common English version, (Matthew xiv. 13, 15, Mark vi. 31, 32, 35, Luke ix. 10, 12,) does not convey to the reader, the true idea of the character of the place. The Greek word Ερημος (eremos) does not in the passages just quoted, mean “desert,” in our modern sense of that English word, which always conveys the idea of “desolation,” “wildness” and “barrenness,” as well as “solitude.” But the Greek word by no means implied these darker characteristics. The primary, uniform idea of the word is, “lonely,” “solitary,” and so little does it imply “barrenness,” that it is applied to lands, rich, fertile and pleasant, a connection, of course, perfectly inconsistent with our ideas of a desert place. Schleusner gives the idea very fairly under Ερημια, (eremia,) a derivative of this word. “Notat locum aliquem vel tractum terrae, non tam incultum et horridum, quam minus habitabilem,——solitudinem,——locum vacuum quidem ab hominibus, pascuis tamen et agris abundantem, et arboribus obsitum.” “It means a place or tract of land, not so much uncultivated and wild, as it does one thinly inhabited,——a solitude, a place empty of men indeed, yet rich in pastures and fields, and planted with trees.” But after giving this very clear and satisfactory account of the derivative, he immediately after gives to the primitive itself, the primary meaning “desertus, desolatus, vastus, devastatus,” and refers to passages where the word is applied to ruined cities; but in every one of those passages, the true idea is that above given as the meaning, “stripped of inhabitants,” and not “desolated” or “laid waste.” Hedericus gives this as the first meaning, “desertus, solus, solitarius, inhabitatus.” Schneider also fully expresses it, in German, by “einsam,” (lonely, solitary,) in which he is followed by Passow, his improver, and by Donnegan, his English translator. Jones and Pickering, also give it thus. Bretschneider and Wahl, in their New Testament Lexicons, have given a just and proper classification of the meanings. The word “desert” came into our English translation, by the minute verbal adherence of the translators to the Vulgate or Latin version, where the word is expressed by “desertum” probably enough because desertus, in Latin, does not mean desert in English, nor any thing like it, but simply “lonely,” “uninhabited;”——in short, it has the force of the English participle, “deserted,” and not of the adjective “desert,” which has probably acquired its modern meaning, and lost its old one, since our common translation was made; thus making one instance, among ten thousand others, of the imperfection of this ancient translation, which was, at best, but a servile English rendering of the Vulgate. Campbell, in his four gospels, has repeated this passage, without correcting the error, though Hammond, long before, in his just and beautiful paraphrase, (on Matthew xiv. 13,) had corrected it by the expression, “a place not inhabited.” Charles Thomson, in his version, has overlooked the error in Matthew xiv. 13, 15, but has corrected it in Mark vi. 31, &c., and in Luke ix. 10; expressing it by “solitary.” The remark of the apostles to Jesus, “This place is lonely,” does not require the idea of a barren or wild place; it was enough that it was far from any village, and had not inhabitants enough to furnish food for five thousand men; as in 2 Corinthians xi. 26, it is used in opposition to “city,” in the sense of “the country.”
HIS DECLARATION OF CHRIST’S DIVINITY.
Journeying on northward, Jesus came into the neighborhood of [♦]Caesarea Philippi, and while he was there in some solitary place, praying alone with his select disciples, at the conclusion of his prayer, he asked them, “Who do men say that I, the son of man, am?” And they answered him, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist:” Herod, in particular, we know, had this notion; “some, that thou art Elijah, and others that thou art Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, that is risen again.” So peculiar was his doctrine, and so far removed was he, both in impressive eloquence and in original views, from the degeneracy and servility of that age, that the universal sentiment was, that one of the bold, pure “spirits of the fervent days of old,” had come back to call Judah from foreign servitude, to the long remembered glories of the reigns of David and Solomon. But his chosen ones, who had by repeated instruction, as well as long acquaintance, better learned their Master, though still far from appreciating his true character and designs, had yet a higher and juster idea of him, than the unenlightened multitudes who had been amazed by his deeds. To draw from them the distinct acknowledgment of their belief in him, Jesus at last plainly asked his disciples, “But who do ye say that I am?” Simon Peter, in his usual character as spokesman, replied for the whole band, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus, recognizing in this prompt answer, the fiery and devoted spirit that would follow the great work of redemption through life, and at last to death, replied to the zealous speaker in terms of marked and exalted honor, prophesying at the same time the high part which he would act in spreading and strengthening the kingdom of his Master: “Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art a ROCK, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” In such high terms was the chief apostle distinguished, and thus did his Master peculiarly commission him above the rest, for the high office, to which all the energies of his remaining life were to be devoted.
[♦] “Cesarea” replaced with “Caesarea”
Who do men say that I am.——The common English translation, here makes a gross grammatical blunder, putting the relative in the objective case,——“Whom do men say,” &c. (Matthew xvi. 13–15.) It is evident that on inverting the order, putting the relative last instead of first, it will be in the nominative,——“Men say that I am who?” making, in short, a nominative after the verb, though it here comes before it by the inversion which the relative requires. Here again the blunder may be traced to a heedless copying of the Vulgate. In Latin, as in Greek, the relative is given in the accusative, and very properly, because it is followed by the infinitive. “Quem dicunt homines esse Filium hominis?” which literally is, “Whom do men say the son of man to be?”——a very correct form of expression; but the blunder of our translators was, in preserving the accusative, while they changed the verb, from the infinitive to the finite form; for “whom” cannot be governed by “say.” Hammond has passed over the blunder; but Campbell, Thomson, and Webster, have corrected it.
Son of Man.——This expression has acquired a peculiarly exalted sense in our minds, in consequence of its repeated application to Jesus Christ, and its limitation to him, in the New Testament. But in those days it had no meaning by which it could be considered expressive of any peculiar characteristic of the Savior, being a mere general emphatic expression for the common word “man,” used in solemn address or poetical expressions. Both in the Old and New Testament it is many times applied to men in general, and to particular individuals, in such a way as to show that it was only an elegant periphrasis for the common term, without implying any peculiar importance in the person thus designated, or referring to any peculiar circumstance as justifying this appellative in that case. Any concordance will show how commonly the word occurred in this connection. The diligent Butterworth enumerates eighty-nine times in which this word is applied to Ezekiel, in whose book of prophecy it occurs oftener than in any other book in the Bible. It is also applied to Daniel, in the address of the angel to him, as to Ezekiel; and in consideration of the vastly more frequent occurrence of the expression in the writers after the captivity, and its exclusive use by them as a formula of solemn address, it has been commonly considered as having been brought into this usage among the Hebrews, from the dialects of Chaldea and Syria, where it was much more common. In Syriac, more particularly, the simple expression, “man,” is entirely banished from use by this solemn periphrasis,
(bar-nosh,) “SON OF MAN,” which every where takes the place of the original direct form. It should be noticed also, that in every place in the Old Testament where this expression (“son of man”) occurs, before Ezekiel, the former part of the sentence invariably contains the direct form of expression, (“man,”) and this periphrasis is given in the latter part of every such sentence, for the sake of a poetical repetition of the same idea in a slightly different form. Take, for instance, Psalm viii. 4, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?” And exactly so in every other passage anterior to Ezekiel, as Numbers xxiii. 19, Job xxv. 16, xxxv. 8, Isaiah li. 12, lvi. 2, and several other passages, to which any good concordance will direct the reader.