Riding on an ass. when under the sense of sin and sorrow, can have had to do in foreshadowing the acts of violence attributed to Jesus in ejecting from the temple people with whose ways he was displeased, it is impossible to say. (41). "And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass" (Matt. xxi. 1-5). The Evangelist does not see that the " ass here spoken of, and the "foal of an ass," are one and the same, according to a Hebrew method of emphasising by reiteration, the phrase signifying " an ass, even a colt the foal of an ass. Falling into this error, he does not hesitate to shape the event to bear out his reading, representing that two animals were in question, and most absurdly stating that Jesus managed to seat himself upon both. “ And (they) brought the ass," he says, "and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon." The other evangelists avoid such misreading, and with them there is but one animal, namely an ass's foal. The chapter in which this prophecy stands, opens with denunciations of Tyre, Sidon, and the Philistines, who are to be overthrown or brought under subjection. The passage cited is associated with these events, and with the rule of the promised king of Jerusalem. "And I will encamp," it is said, "about mine house because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth and no oppressor shall pass through any more: for now have I seen with mine eyes. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass. And I will cut off the chariot from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth" (Zech. ix. 8-10). The personage here spoken of is an actual earthly ruler. He is to put down all hostilities, and to exercise dominion" over territories defined within certain expressed limits. He might show himself in kingly state, surrounded with the pomp and parade consistent with possession of wealth, dignity, and power; but his pleasure is to avoid all display indicative of pride, and to give evidence of the lowliness and humility of his disposition. And he does this by entering Jerusalem on an ass, as might any ordinary inhabitant. None of these surrounding circumstances belonged to Jesus. He possessed no armed forces; he put down no hostile nations; and he had no earthly possessions, far less any regal dominion. "His kingdom was not of this world." He claimed no territories stretching "from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth." He came in "the form of a servant," and had not "where to lay his head." Known merely as the son of a carpenter, and an itinerant preacher, it was no humiliation, but rather an exaltation, to him, to be seen borne in any manner but upon his own feet. In those countries to ride on an ass is no degradation, this being still the ordinary conveyance of the wealthiest citizens. Jesus riding on an ass of itself expressed nothing, hundreds daily doing the like. To make the representation in Zechariah applicable as a prophecy, all those other circumstances, betokening the triumphant Messiah, were necessary; and in the instance of Jesus the whole were wanting. As on so many previous occasions which have been pointed out, the evangelist, eager to prove the one he wrote of to be the predicted Messiah, seizes upon some one incident or phrase, wrenches it from its context, and arbitrarily adapts it to his subject, regardless of the accompanying features, which, if cited, would expose the inapplicability of the reference. (42.) "And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, "Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased, and said unto him, hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, yea; have ye never read, out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" (Matt. xxi. 15, 16). The phrase in question might Out of the mouth of babes, &c. Treachery of Judas. When I conmoon and the be referred to legitimately as a saying, but certainly not as a (43.) "I speak not of you all I know whom I have chosen but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me." And when asked who it was who should betray him, Jesus, to be in keeping with the citation he had made, answered, “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot" (John xiii. 18, 26). The passage quoted is thus given. "Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble.-The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness. I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee. Mine enemies speak evil of me, when shall he die, and his name perish ?- All they that hate me whisper together against me against me do they devise my hurt.--Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. But thou, O Lord, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them" (Ps. xli. 1-10). Was Judas Iscariot, never mentioned but to be held up to detestation, the "familiar friend" of Jesus? And was he one "in whom he trusted?" Armed with divine knowledge, Jesus is represented to have known him all along. "I speak not of you all I know whom I have chosen," "for he knew who should betray him" (John xiii. 11, 18), designating him "the son of perdition" (John xvii. 12). Judas' eating bread with Jesus, as the evangelist puts it, does not fulfil the prophet's : description, which is that of a dependant "which did eat of my describing some mere mortal, broken down by persecution and was Judas. (44). Judas receives thirty pieces of silver as the wages of Wages of his treachery. Afterwards, repenting, he casts the money down in the temple, and hangs himself. The chief priests, deeming it unlawful to place the money in the treasury, purchase therewith a potter's field. "Then," it is added, fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me" (Matt. xxvii. 3-10). The evangelist, for whom inspiration is claimed, makes the mistake of quoting Jeremiah for Zechariah. The passage appears thus. "Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars. Thus saith the Lord my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was priced at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel" (Zech. xi. 1-14). It is impossible to say what the prophet is speaking of, but at least it is apparent that the circumstances he puts together are not applicable to the act of Judas. It purports to be a time of judgment upon the Jews, who seem referred to under the Deposition of Judas. term "the flock of the slaughter." The judgment is expressed by breaking two staves, the fracture of one denoting a breach of covenant with the people, and that of the other, the severance of Judah and Israel. The poor of the flock recognise the word of the Lord, on which some one asks for his price, and gets it; and he disposes of the proceeds under divine instruction. What this action expresses, is not discernible. In the incident of Judas, he who gets the price is not the person priced, as in Zechariah, and the other circumstances introduced and associated with this pricing by the prophet are wholly wanting in the narrative of the evangelist. (45.) Peter, in giving his account of the retributive end of Judas Iscariot, says it was what happened in fulfilment of that "which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas;-for it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and his bishoprick let another take" (Acts i. 16-20). The citations are of Ps. lxix. 25, and cix. 8. The 69th Psalm, says Dr Davidson, "is not David's. Some righteous sufferer living in the time of the Babylonish captivity speaks. It is not Messianic."1 This psalm is full of dreadful imprecations, not befitting the character ascribed to Jesus, and the utterances are those of one entreating for deliverance from the hands of his enemies, in a tone, and with a lack of confidence in the issue, which do not accord with the accounts of Jesus. Here also is the passage to the effect that gall and vinegar were offered to the sufferer by the enemies he is denouncing, of whom he adds, "let their table become a snare before them," "let their eyes be darkened;" and then follow the words Peter lays hold of and applies to Judas, "let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents." It is impossible, fairly, when many persons are alluded to for their acts, to ascribe the whole to one person and his individual act; nor did Judas engage in giving the "gall and vinegar; neither is his particular act in any way indicated by the Psalmist. Of the 109th Psalm, Dr Davidson equally says it was not written by David. It is not Messianic." This Psalm also teems with awful denunciations. They are applied to some enemy, "because," it is stated among other things, 1 Introduction to the Old Testament, II. 302. 2 Idem. |