Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

But the context decidedly forbids that Christ should have eaten the Passover before the common time; for, according to both the Evangelists, Christ sent his disciples on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, to prepare the Passover; and if it was prepared on the first day it could not have been eaten before the first day. “They made ready the Passover," and “when even was come he sat down with the twelve." But (Éx. 12; 6, and Deut. 26: 4,) the Jews were commanded to kill the lamb at even of the first day, and therefore Christ could not possibly have anticipated the regular time. Christ may have greatly desired to eat the Passover with his disciples before his suffering, on account of the instructions he was about to give on that occasion, and also because of the importance of the ordinance he was about to institute at that time.

Obj. 3. What occurred on the night when Jesus celebrated the paschal feast, is said to have occurred (John 13: 1,) "before the feast of the Passover,” and therefore he anticipated the Passover.

The phrase "feast of the Passover," although sometimes used to embrace all the ceremonies of both Passover and feast of unleavened bread, was originally and strictly applied only to the festival of eating the paschal lamb. (Exodus 12: 11.) The fourteenth is every where called the Passover. The time of killing it was in the evening, and the eating of it could alone strictly be called a feast, (Ant. Jud. 2, 14,6.) And as this festival introduced the feast of unleavened bread, (whether the eating of the Passover only was meant, in this passage, or the seven days feast,) it was perfectly proper to use the expression 6 before the feast of the Passover,” when they were just about to recline at the table. Nor does the phrase translated "supper being ended,” in the following verse, oppose this construction, inasmuch as it may very well be rendered supper being ready or prepared, instead of being ended; and in this we are sustained by Professor Robinson.

Obj. 4. “Buy those things that we have need of for the feast. John 13: 29.

This can be no serious objection, since the feast” continued seven days.

Obj. 5. The Jews went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.” John 18: 28. Why this expression if they had already eaten the Passover?

Luke 22: 1. “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” If then the seven days were called the Passover, it was necessary that they should avoid defilement, although the paschal lamb had already been eaten.

Obj. 6. The day on which Jesus was crucified was called (John 19: 14,) “the preparation of the Passover.''

But mark: this expression is not preparation for the Passover, but preparation of the Passover, that is, the preparation for the weekly Sabbath, which occurred during the feast. This preparation was undoubtedly on Friday, (see John 19: 14, 31, 42; Luke 23: 54; Mark 15: 45: Mat. 27: 62.) But from Josephus (Ant. Jud. 16. 6. 2.) we learn that it was customary for the Jews always to prepare for the Sabbath on the day before, and, from the language of Mark 15:42, we learn that the preparation was called prosabbaton, foresabbath. Friday was therefore to the Jews always a preparation day, whether connected with the Passover or not. But farther, " the preparation” is spoken of in six passages, and of these six, one terms it the preparation of the Passover; one the foresabbath; two others strongly imply that it was the day before the Sabbath; while not a single passage conflicts with the interpretation we have given of it. From all these considerations, we conclude that, “preparation of the Passover” means no more than the preparation for the weekly Sabbath, which occurred during the Passover.

Obj. 7. (John 19: 31.) That Sabbath day is called a great or high day, because it fell on the fifteenth of Nisan: which being the first day of unleavened bread, was the day of a solemn assembly. Thus (John 7: 37,) the last day of the feast of tabernacles is so called for the same reason. (See Lev, 23: 7, 35.)

This objection assumes the point in dispute, and when clearly stated is as follows: Every day that is called a great day, is called so for the same reason: the last day of the feast of tabernacles is called a great day, because it was a holy convocation; therefore since the Sabbath that occurred during the Passover week is called a great day, it must have been a day of holy convocation. But

who will admit the major premise in his syllogism? We cannot.

Obj. 8. How could Jesus have been taken, tried, and crucified on the fifteenth, when it was a day of holy convocation, and all servile work prohibited? (Ex. 12:16. Lev. 23: 7.)

We have certainly no reason to think that the holy convocation on the fifteenth was any more sacred than the weekly Sabbath. They were both termed days of holy convocation. Indeed on the weekly Sabbath all work was prohibited, and not a fire could be kindled on that day; (Ex. 20:10. 35: 2, 3. Lev. 23: 3. Num. 15: 32. Deut. 5: 14.) while on the holy convocation, which was observed on the fifteenth of Abib or Nisan, they were permitted to prepare food, and to return home from the place of eating the Passover; and servile work, or as Gesenius says, “work connected with labor” only was interdicted. Ex. 12: 16. Num. 28: 18. Lev. 23: 7. The apprehension and crucifixion of Christ may not then be regarded as servile work, and therefore not prohibited by the law. But if this should be claimed as servile work, and forbidden by the law, then we reply that chief priests and Pharisees, who could go to Pilate, on the Sabbath when all work was prohibited, Mat. 27:62, to secure the sealing of the sepulchre, could easily also crucify Christ even on a day of holy convocation.

Learning and Labor.

BY REV. J. H. FAIRCHILD, Professor of Languages in the Oberlin Collegiate Institute. THERE was a time when learning was rare, and those who were more favored than their neighbors with literary advantages, felt called upon to exercise their gifts professionally. It was a duty they owed to the race. To do otherwise would have been a misapplication of their powers. The expenditure of time and money also, by which such advantages were secured, was so great that few could meet it without receiving from their fellow men some return. Thus from duty and necessity originated the learned professions as they are called.

For ages the demand was greater than the supply. But the art of Printing, with the various other improvements in science and in art, has brought a knowledge of letters within the reach of all. That knowledge which was formerly a rare attainment is now secured by the common school-boy, and even a liberal education can be obtained in our country by any young man who has energy and perseverence, however limited his pecuniary resources. Colleges and Universities are springing up on all sides, and the learned professions are daily receiving accessions. This is at present almost the only path to distinction. Military glory is becoming a byword, and only needs a Cervantes to place it by the side of Knight-errantry among the grotesque fancies of the past.The young man who pants after distinction sees no other path before him than that which lies through the halls of science and a learned profession; and in proportion as education extends and its blessings are felt will the number of those who aspire after knowledge as a substantial good, be increased.

Let us consider the bearing of these facts upon the welfare of mankind. Do they portend good or ill to the race? How shall this tendency to acquire knowledge be regulated so as to purify and elevate? Shall a limit be set to the extension of the learned professions?

There are difficulties in our present system.

1. Every man who lives by his learning is really a tax upon the productive power of the country. He must eat the food and wear the clothing which the labor of others produces. The community in which he lives may not feel the burden. He may draw his support from other and unseen sources. But it is still true that so much is withdrawn from the aggregate means of living. It does not necessarily follow that such a man is out of his place. If he has a good to confer for which the world can afford to pay him, he lives as honestly as any man, no matter what shape his equivalent may take. If he adds to the happiness or the virtue of mankind, he gives an equivalent for what he gets, and often indefinitely more. If he gives efficiency to the productive power by furnishing skill or energy to the muscular force, he pays his way. The world enjoys more of the comforts of life for his existence. If he diminishes the “ills that flesh is heir to," he is a benefactor and may take of the world he blesses, what he needs for the prosecution of his labors. If he can add one to the galaxy of truths which illumine the darkness of earth, he is worthy of his hire, and the food and raiment he needs are a slight return for the good conferred. If he can enshrine those truths in the affections of men by surrounding them with the charms of music or of poesy, he may hold up his head as one who works for his living. He that has such commodities as these to dispose of, shall have a stall in the world's market, and none of his neighbors shall call him an intruder or cry down his goods.

But how stands the case? Is this the view which the mass of men of learning take of the subject? Can all who are pressing on to swell their numbers be profitably employed in the professions which they have marked out for themselves? They must eat the bread for which others toil. Have they substantial good to give in return, so that the world shall suffer no loss? If not, they have no right to ask a living for their learning. Bread is not so plenty that it can be afforded to the idle. Working and eating must go together, and he is no worker who is not employed to the profit of mankind, however busy he may be. Says the “ Father of Philosophy," that man is idle who can do any thing better than what he is now doing. Starvation is no dream in these days—it is a verity; and the man who eats and labors not, takes bread from the hungry. The victims of starvation would have been diminished by one if he had lived by the sweat of his face.

In almost every small town of our country you may find half a dozen in each of the three learned professions, where two would answer the same purpose. If six could do the work of the eighteen then the twelve are a useless burden. They live upon their fellow men and pay nothing for their living. If they were inmates of the poor-house, they might

« FöregåendeFortsätt »