meaning or reference, a primary and a secondarysecondary, that is, in order, not in importance-and which will consequently receive a double fulfilment.1 The Hebrew word, which is sometimes rendered in our English version by "earth," and in other cases by "land," is used for both, throughout the whole of the Old Testament. And we cannot but 1 This principle is a most important one, and cannot be done without. It is exemplified in a large class of passages, to the full interpretation of which it is essential. The second Psalm may be cited as an instance. It is quoted in the New Testament as applicable in some of its expressions to what occurred at the first advent of the Messiah, (Acts iv. 24, 25.) and yet nothing can be more certain than that its language will only receive its complete fulfilment at His second advent. Again, all those Psalms and other portions of the Old Testament which contain promises relating to the kingdom of David, and which received a partial fulfilment in himself and his son Solomon, in the first place, but which (as is admitted by all) receive, and will receive their full accomplishment only in the person of Christ, may be also given as instances. (See Ps. lxxii.) The following remarks on this subject are truly admirable, and serve at once to explain and defend the principle in the clearest manner:-"This age of prophecy (viz. that of David and Solomon) in particular, brings the doctrine of the 'double sense,' as it has been called, before us. For Scripture prophecy is so framed in some of its predictions, as to bear a sense directed to two objects, of which structure the predictions concerning the kingdom of David furnish a conspicuous example; and I should say an unquestionable one, if the whole principle of that kind of interpretation had not been by some disputed and denied. The double sense of prophecy, however, is of all things the most remote from fraud or equivocation, and has its ground of reason perfectly clear. For what is it? Not the convenient latitude of two unconnected senses, wide of each other, and giving room to a fallacious ambiguity; but the combination of two related, analogous, and harmonizing, though disparate subjects, each clear and definite in itself; implying a twofold truth in the prescience, and creating an aggravated difficulty, and thereby an accumulated proof in, the completion."-DAVISON, Discourses on Prophecy p. 195. See also Bonar's "Prophetical Landmarks,” p. 225-27. feel that this was designed for a special end, in order that, as in the present case, a passage might have a wider and more comprehensive meaning than it could possibly have, had the term been more limited and specific in its signification. As it is, the promises in the thirty-seventh Psalm which we are now considering, may be legitimately regarded as having two significations or bearings, similar in kind, and in a measure connected, but one far wider and more comprehensive than the other, and the fulfilment of which will be subsequent to that of the other, as is always the case in every prophecy having a double sense; its greater and more complete fulfilment will be subsequent to its primary, which is the lesser. Thus the promise in ver. 11, "The meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace," may, without the slightest violence being done to any of its terms, be regarded as containing a promise of "the land" of Canaan, as the land of promise, to the "meek" among the Jews, in particular; and further, of "the earth," as a whole, to all the "meek" both from among Jews and Gentiles, as their eternal inheritance. Our Lord, whose statement, as before observed, is independent of every other, undoubtedly uses the term "earth" (Matt. v. 5) in the second and wider sense, in order to extend the promise to all the meek, not to them of the Jews only, but to them of the Gentiles also. No one thinks of doubting this. To question, or deny it, would be to strip believing Gentiles of all interest in His words.1 This is felt by all. All our commentators feel it, and in order to meet it what do they say? "The promised land was the type of heaven, of which meekness proves the possessor an heir, and for which it forms an essential qualification." (Scott.)2 But, as I need scarcely remark, this is perfectly inadmissible. It is an assertion for which there is not the slightest warrant, and it must therefore fall to the ground. But let the principle 1 And if confined to the Jews, it would be difficult to assign a sufficient reason why our Lord repeated the promise of the Psalmist to them at this time, or of what use it was to them, any more than to us Gentiles, to whom in this case it would not be made; for very soon after this they (the Jews) were cast out of "the land" (of Canaan) and have remained out of it ever since. It is true they will be restored to it hereafter, but until they are restored, this promise cannot benefit them, and already eighteen hundred years have passed away, during which it could not profit them. 2 "Canaan was a type of the kingdom of God, and who is so likely to inherit glory as the man in whom the meekness and gentleness of Jesus dwell?". - Dr. A. Clarke. or notion on which it is founded be observed by all means, for it is instructive to notice how far men can sometimes depart from rationality in their treatment of the Bible. According to this method of interpreting our Lord's words, we arrive at the following result: "Earth" means "heaven;" so that when He says, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth," we are to understand Him to mean, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit heaven”! This is the first result of the popular or prevailing mode of interpreting His words. All we can say of it is, that it strikingly exemplifies the use of the reductio ad absurdum process. 2. The second notion upon the subject is this,That the meek have a more peaceable enjoyment of the present earth than others have, and that a hope of this is held out in the promise of the Saviour to them. Most, if not all our commentators support this view, and some, as for instance, Whitby, confine themselves to it, and reject the one which we have just considered. On this second notion it must be observed, in the first place, that it regards the Saviour's promise to the meek as relating to the present time, and as even now receiving its fulfilment. But it is clear that all the other beatitudes relate to the future, and it seems strange that this also should not do the same. What, however, are the words? "Blessed are meek, for they shall inherit (kλnpovoμńoovoi) the earth." But this means the coming to it as heirs, not the present enjoyment of it. We have here, in short, the oft-repeated truth that believers are "heirs of God," and of "the kingdom which he has promised to them that love him; "—and where the locality of that kingdom will be we have already seen. But thus is it written: "The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;1 if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." (Rom. viii. 16, 17.) "He that overcometh shall inherit all things." (Rev. xxi. 7.) Abraham, we are told, was "heir of the world," (Rom. iv. 13); yet in his lifetime he had "not so much of the promised land as to set his foot on," so far as actual "inheritance," or possession was concerned (Acts vii. 5); and if he did not inherit it "Joint-heirs (σvyêλпpovoμoi) with Christ." It has been well remarked by Ogilvy, that "Christ is still an heir as respects the throne of David." |