mother of Jefus was with them.

It would be improper, therefore, to charge the relations of Christ with such a mark of disrespect to him, if their language will bear a more favourable interpretation.

και

Le Clerc, Bishop Pearce, Knatchbull, Macknight, Wall, and Dr. Priestley, apply nganoa and Eeon to oxλos in ver. 20. Accordingly Dr. Priestiey renders ver. 21 as follows. "When his friends "heard of it, they went out to restrain them; for they faid, they are quite furious." For this fenfe of gainoa Pearce refers to Rev. vii. 1; Mark ix. 10; Acts ii. 24; and he interprets on not of -madness, but of extraordinary amazement and rapture. To restrain a whole multitude that were quite furious, or in rapturous amazement, feems, however, too arduous an attempt for the friends of Jesus to make; and, if it had been made, would have led to fome altercation, of which the history makes no mention.

In ver. 3, his relations (fee Bishop Pearce, on Matt. xiii. 55,) and his mother, who seem to be the perfons meant by 01 Tag'aurs in ver. 21, (comp. Prov. xxxi. 21; 1 Efdras i. 15; 1 Maccab. ii. 15, 17; vii. 32, 41; xi. 39; xvi. 16;) instead of reftraining the multitude, or attending to them, exprefs an anxiety about Jefus alone. Without ufing any endeavours to enter the house, or to check the multitude, they stood without, and fent in to Jefus, thus evidently pointing their concern to him. They expreffed no apprehenfion that the multitude would injure Chrift, they were only afraid that he

would exhauft his strength and spirits by too much exertion, and want of neceffary food and refreshment. Again, if the multitude had been either furious, or in rapturous amazement, it is not likely, that any of them would have delivered to Jefus the meffage of his relations, which they, however, did deliver, ver. 31, 32; or that it should be expressly recorded, "now the multitude fat about him" ver. 32. "And he looked round on those who fat about

him, and faith &c. ver. 34:" for fitting is not the natural posture of perfons who are furious, or tranfported with any extraordinary emotion.

Dr. Doddridge, therefore, applies panour to Jefus, and renders een "he is tranfported too far." This expreffion, however, conveys an idea of enthufiaftic ardour, which does not accord with that calm dignity by which the whole conduct of our Lord was characterized.

Mr. Wakefield tranflates the verfe which we

are confidering, thus: "And when his own family "heard of it, they went out to fecure him; for

fome had told them, that he was gone out." The phrafe to fecure him, appears to imply that he was likely to do mischief, if not secured. And fince Jefus fpent the whole of the preceding night on a mountain, (comp. ver. 13, with Luke vi. 12,) telling the family late in the following day, that he was gone out, does not connect well with the context. Nor do Gen. xlii. 28, and Jerem. ix. 10, to which Mr. Wakefield refers for this fenfe of 1, prove the

point; as a view of thefe texts will fhew.

Schleufner coincides with Wakefield in saying that this is the original meaning of the word; but the inftances in the Septuagint which approach nearest to this fignification are Ifai. x. 31; xxxiii. 3; Jerem. ix. 1o; where fugio is the fenfe, which would be improper in Mark iii. 21.

Whitby renders en he is faint, (fee Gen. xlv. 26, 27; Jerem. xlix. 23; Joshua ii. 11; Ifai. vii. 2; 1 Sam. xxviii. 5; for this fenfe.) Obferve, that his friends fay this. Now they, being out of the house, could only know the fact by information from others, and the history does not mention that any such in formation was given to them. from the narrative that Jefus EEOT is the aorist tense, in the indicative mood, which usually denotes the past. As this, however, does not fuit well with the connection, the public verfion, and all the tranflators that I have feen, except Mr. Wakefield, interpret it of present time; in which fense it is fometimes ufed, (as Matt. xxiii. 2, exabiσar) εκάθισαν)

Nor does it appear actually was faint.

though it would be as improper in the text we are confidering as past time, to which Mr. Wakefield applies it. If another fair mode of explanation, then, can be found, that will accord with the context, this fhould be adopted.

The history does not countenance the fuppofition that either before, or at, the time mentioned, Jesus was either faint, or befide himself. Yet the public verfion, Whitby, Doddridge, Campbell, and New

come, have adopted the lefs ufual fignification of the aorist by tranflating on in the present tense. But if the most frequent meaning of the aorift be departed from, this can be justified only by selecting another fenfe which agrees better with the con

nection.

The Hebrews often ufe one tense to express another. Of this numerous inftances occur in the New Testament. The verbs in John xv. 6, remarkably exemplify this. Not only is the prefent tenfe here used to denote the future, but ßanon xai Engan 1 aor. indic. pafs. alfo relate to future time. In other moods alfo the aorift tenfe is employed to exprefs future time. See λon in John xi. 56, and 2 Thefs. i. 10: wvnoa in Mark xiv. 30; If. i. 49: αποθανειν in John iv. 49: γενεσθαι in Mark i. 17 ; x. 43, 44; John xiii. 19: and xiv. 29; aλ85 in Exod. xxii. 9; Sept.: Banonvar in Mark ix. 45, 47; and xaloixnoa in Acts vii. 2.

If then be rendered he will faint, it expreffes the fears and apprehenfions only of his relations, and the verse may be thus tranflated.

"And when his own family heard of it, they went "out to constrain him; for they said, he will faint. Comp. Rev. vii. I; Matt. xxviii. 9; xii. 11; on ngałεw.

The woman expanov conftrained Elijah to eat bread, 2 Kings iv. 8. For the fame purpose, the relations of Christ went out xenoa aulov to conftrain him, because the multitude crowded together fo

as to prevent his eating bread. See ver. 20. After watching the preceding night, and spending the morning in choofing and inftructing his apostles, fome refreshment would be neceffary to recruit his ftrength. Without this, it was natural for his relatives to fuppofe that his fpirits would be exhausted. Comp. Luke vi. 12, &c.

This explanation of Mark iii. 21, accords with the language of the text, and with the whole narrative relating to Jefus, to his relations, and to the multitude; and it implies nothing unsuitable or disrespectful to the character of Jesus Christ, nor uncandid to his relations.