Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

that John would forthwith lay down his office of harbinger, which, now that the Sun of Righteousness himself had appeared, was entirely fulfilled and terminated. Such a step he does not appear to have taken. On the contrary, the language of Scripture seems to imply that the Baptist church continued side by side with the Messianic (Matt. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19; Matt. ix. 14; Luke xi.; John iii. 23), and remained long after John's execution (Acts xix. 3). Still, though it has been generally assumed that John did not lay down his office, we are not satisfied that the New Testament establishes this alleged fact. John may have ceased to execute his own peculiar work, as the forerunner, but may justifiably have continued to bear his most important testi- | mony to the Messiahship of Christ; or he may even have altogether given up the duties of active life some time, at least, before his death; and yet his disciples, both before and after that event, may have maintained their individuality as a religious communion. Nor is it impossible that some misconception or some sinister motive may have had weight in preventing the Baptist church from dissolving and passing into that of Christ. It was, not improbably, with a view to remove some error of this kind that John sent the embassy of his disciples to Jesus which is recorded in Matt. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19. No intimation is found in the record that John required evidence to give him satisfaction; and all the language that is used is proper and pertinent if we suppose that the doubt lay only in the minds of his disciples. That the terms employed admit the interpretation that John was not without some misgivings (Luke vii. 23; Matt. xi. 6), we are free to allow. And if any doubt had grown up in the Baptist's mind, it was most probably owing to the defective spirituality of his views; for even of him Jesus has declared,' he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he' (Matt. xi. 11). Were this the case, it would of itself account not only for the embassy sent by John to Jesus, but also for the continuance and perpetuation of John's separate influence as the founder of a sect.

The manner of John's death is too well known to require to be detailed here (Matt. iv. 12; xiv. 3; Luke iii. 19; Mark vi. 17; Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 5. 2). He reproved a tyrant for a heinous crime, and received his reward in decapitation.

JOIN THE EVANGELIST. This eminent Apostle was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman, and of Salome. It is probable that he was born at Bethsaida, on the lake of Galilee. His parents appear to have been in easy circumstances; at least, we find that Zebedee employed hired servants (Mark i. 20), and that Salome was among the number of those women who contributed to the maintenance of Jesus (Matt. xxvii. 56). We also find that John received Mary into his house after the death of Jesus. Since this house seems to have been situated at Jerusalem, it would appear that he was the owner of two houses. John's acquaintance, also, with the high-priest (xviii. 15) seems to indicate that he lived at Jerusalem, and belonged to the wealthier class. We may suppose that from a tender age he nourished religious feelings, since Salome, who evinced so much love for Jesus, probably fostered at an earlier period those hopes of a Messiah which

JOHN THE EVANGELIST

she expresses in Matt. xx. 20; and we find that he entered into communion with the Baptist from pure motives. On the banks of the Jordan the Baptist directed John to Jesus, and he immediately became the Lord's disciple, and accompanied him on his return to Galilee. Having arrived there, he at first resumed his trade, but was afterwards called to remain permanently with the Redeemer (Luke v. 5-10). Jesus was particularly attached to John (John xiii. 23; xix. 26; xx. 2; xxi. 7), who was one of the three who were distinguished above the other apostles (Matt. xvii. 1; xxvi. 37; Mark v. 37). After the ascension, John abode at Jerusalem, where Paul met him on his third journey, about the year 52 (Gal. ii. 3-9). Since he had undertaken the care of the mother of Jesus, we cannot well suppose that he left Jerusalem before Mary's death; and, indeed, we find that about the year 58, when Paul was at Ephesus, John was not yet living there. If we consider the great importance of Ephesus among the various churches of Asia Minor, and the dangers arising from false teachers, who were prevalent there as early as the days of Paul (Acts xx. 29), it will appear likely that John was sent to Ephesus after Paul had left that scene, about the year 65. During the time of his activity in Asia Minor he was exiled by the Roman emperor to Patmos, one of the Sporadic isles in the Agean Sea, where, according to Revelations i. 9, he wrote the Apocalypse. Irenæus and, following him, Eusebius state that John beheld the visions of the Apocalypse about the close of the reign of Domitian. If this statement can be depended upon, the exile to Patmos also took place under Domitian, who died A.D. 96. Tertullian relates that in the reign of Domitian John was forcibly conveyed to Rome, where he was thrown into a cask of oil; that he was miraculously released, and then brought to Patmos. But since none of the ancient writers besides the rather undiscriminating Tertullian, relate this circumstance, and since this mode o capital punishment was unheard of at Rome, we ought not to lay much stress upon it. It is, however, likely that John was called to suffer for his faith, since Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writing about A.D. 200, calls him martyr.' According to Eusebius, he returned from exile during the reign of Nerva. The three epistles of John, as also the affecting account concerning his fidelity as a spiritual pastor, given by Clemens Alexandrinus, testify that he was the pastor of a large diocese. John's second Epistle, ver. 12, and third Epistle, ver. 14, indicate that he made journeys of pastoral visitation. John died at Ephesus past the age of ninety, in the reign of the Emperor Trajan. According to Jerome, he was a hundred years old, and according to Suidas, a hundred and twenty.*

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

JOHN, THE GOSPEL OF

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

particular attention. In the writings of Paul are found Christian truths which have their points of coalescence only in John, viz., that Christ is the image of the invisible God, by whom all things are created (Col. i. 15, 16). Paul considers the Spirit of God in the church, the spiritual Christ, as Jesus himself does (John xiv. 16).

JOHN, THE GOSPEL OF. During the eighteenth century and the first ten years of the nineteenth, the Gospel of John was attacked. but with feeble arguments, by some English Deists, and by four German theologians. A similar attack has lately been made by Strauss, who, although in the third edition of The Life of Jesus he manifested an inclination to give up his doubts, yet resolutely returned to them in the That the speeches of Christ have been faithfourth edition, principally, as he himself con- fully reported may be seen by a comparison of fesses, because without them one could not the speeches of the Baptist in the Gospel of John. escape from believing the miracles of Christ.' It The Baptist's speeches bear an entirely Old is unnecessary, however, to refute his arguments, Testament character: they are full of allusions as they are quite unimportant, and have met with to the Old Testament, and abound in sententious little sympathy even in Germany. It may suffice expressions (John iii. 27-30; i. 26-36). to observe, that during the lapse of ages up to the conclusion of the eighteenth century, no one ever expressed a doubt respecting the genuineness of John's Gospel, except one small sect, whose scepticism. however, was not based upon historical, but merely upon dogmatical grounds.

John's Gospel differs very much in substance from the first three Gospels. But the most striking difference is that of the speeches; and even here the difference is, perhaps, still more apparent in the form than in the substance of them. The difference of the CONTENTS may be accounted for by supposing that John intended to relate and complete the history of the Lord according to his own view of it. We are led to this supposition from the following circumstances: that, with the exception of the history of his passion and his resurrection, there are only two sections in which John coincides with the synoptic gospels (vi. 1-21; xii. 1); that he altogether onits such important facts as the baptism of Jesus by John, the history of his temptation and transfiguration, the institution of the Lord's supper, and the internal conflict at Gethsemane; and that chapters i. 32, iii. 24, xi. 2. indicate that he presupposed his readers to be already acquainted with the Gospel history. He confined himself to such communications as were wanting in the others, especially with regard to the speeches of Jesus.

The peculiarities of John's Gospel more especially consist in the four following doctrines:1. That of the mystical relation of the Son to the Father.

2. That of the mystical relation of the Redeemer to believers.

3. The announcement of the Holy Ghost as the Comforter.

4. The peculiar importance ascribed to Love. Although there can be shown in the writings of the other Evangelists some isolated dicta of the Lord, which seem to bear the impress of John, it can also be shown that they contain thoughts not originating with that disciple, but with the Lord himself. Matthew (xi. 27) speaks of the relation of the Son to the Father so entirely in the style of John, that persons not sufficiently versed in Holy Writ are apt to search for this passage in the Gospel of John. The mystical union of the Son with believers is expressed in Matt. xxviii. 20. The promise of the effusion of the Holy Ghost, in order to perfect the disciples, is found in Luke xxiv. 49. The doctrine of Paul with respect to love, in 1 Cor. xiii., entirely resembles what, according to John, Christ taught on the same subject. Paul here deserves our

We have already intimated our opinion as to the purport and plan of the Gospel of John. Most of the earlier critics considered the Gospel of John to have had a polemico-dogmatical purport. According to Irenæus, John wrote with the intention of combating the errors of Cerinthus the Gnostic. Others suppose that his writings were directed against the disciples of John the Baptist. It is not improbable that the Evangelist had in view, both in his Introduction and also in ch. xix. 34, 35, some heretical opinions of those times; but it cannot be maintained that this is the case throughout the whole of the Gospel. He himself states (xx. 31) that his work had a more general object.

One of the peculiarities of John is, that in speaking of the adversaries of Jesus, he always calls them the Jews. This observation has, in modern times, given rise to a peculiar opinion concerning the plan of John's Gospel, namely, that the Evangelist has, from the very beginning of the Gospel, the following theme before his eyes:-The eternal combat between Divine light and the corruption of mankind, exemplified by the mutual opposition subsisting between the hostile Jewish party and the manifestation of the Son of God, which combat terminates in the victory of light.

The Introduction of the Gospel of John expresses this theme in speaking of the opposition of the world to the incarnate Logos. This theme is here expressed in the same manner as the leading idea of a musical composition is expressed in the overture. As the leading idea of the whole Epistle to the Romans is contained in ch. i. 17, so the theme of the Gospel of John is contained in ch. i. 11-13. The Gospel is divided into two principal sections. The first extends to ch. xii. It comprehends the public functions of Jesus, and terminates with a brief summary (ver. 44-50). The second section contains the history of the Passion and of the Resurrection. The reader is prepared for this section by ch. xii. 23-32. The leading idea of this speech is, that Destruction is necessary, because without it there can be no Resurrection. With ch. xiii. begins the history of our Lord's Passion. In the third verse the Apostle directs attention to the fact that the suffering would finally lead to glory. In the first section is described how the opposition of the influential men among the Jews was gradually increased until the decisive fact of the resurrection of Lazarus led to a public outburst of their hatred. This description terminates with the official decree of Caiaphas (xi. 49, 50).

The Fathers supposed that the Gospel of John

[blocks in formation]

was written at Ephesus, and there is some internal evidence in favour of the statement. One writer affirms that John wrote the Gospel which bears his name in Patmos, but that it was edited by the same Gaius whom Paul in the epistle to the Romans calls mine host. One might be inclined to explain by this circumstance the postscript contained in John xxi. 24, 25.

JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF. For the authenticity of the first epistle very ancient testimony may be adduced. Papias, the disciple of John, quotes some passages from it. Polycarp, also, another disciple of John, quotes a passage from this epistle. So, also, Irenæus.

The author of the first epistle describes himself, at its commencement, as an eye-witness of the life of our Lord. The style and language manifestly harmonize with those of the author of the Gospel of John. The polemics, also, which in ch. ii. 18-26, are directed against the Docetic Gnostics, in ch. iv. 1-3, agree with the sphere of action in Asia Minor in which the Evangelist John was placed. We may, therefore, suppose that the epistle was written to Christian congregations in Asia Minor, which were placed under the spiritual care of the apostle. It is generally admitted that ch. i. 2 refers to the Gospel. If this is correct, the apostle wrote this epistle at a very advanced age, after he had written his gospel. The epistle breathes love and devotion, but also zeal for moral strictness (iii. 6-8; v. 16). There is a remarkable absence of logical connection in the form of separate expressions, and in the transitions from one thought to another. Some writers have been inclined to find a reason for this in the advanced age of the writer. Old age may, perhaps, have contributed to this characteristic, but it is chiefly attributable to the mental peculiarity of the apostle. There has been no subject connected with Biblical literature which has attracted more attention than this epistle, in consequence of the controversies which have existed since the commencement of the sixteenth century, respecting the celebrated passage in 1 John v. 7, 8. We cannot enter here into the history of that controversy, which has continued with more or less of asperity to our own day. We shall merely remark that the disputed passage is found in no Greek manuscript, save only in two, both belonging to the fifteenth century; and that it has not once been quoted by any of the Greek, Latin, or Oriental fathers. It is now, therefore, generally omitted in all critical editions of the New Testament.

The second and third epistles of John were originally wanting in the ancient Syriac translation. From their nature, it may easily be explained how it happened that they were less generally known in ancient Christian congregations, and that the fathers do not quote them so often as other parts of Scripture, since they are very short, and treat of private affairs. The private nature of their contents removes also the suspicion that they could have been forged, since it would be difficult to discover any purpose which could have led to such a forgery. The second epistle is addressed to a lady, called Kuria, which name frequently occurs in ancient writers as that of a woman.

The third epistle is addressed to Gaius, a person otherwise unknown. It is remarkable

JONADAB

[ocr errors]

that the writer of this epistle calls himself' the presbyter' or 'elder.' Some writers have been inclined to aseribe these letters to the presbyter John, who is sometimes spoken of in the ancient church, and to whom even the Apocalypse has been attributed; but if the presbyter John wrote these epistles, John's Gospel also must be ascribed to the same person, of whom otherwise so little is known. This, however, is inadmissible. We may suppose that the term presbyter' or elder' expressed in the epistles of John a degree of friendliness, and was chosen on account of the advanced age of the writer. The apostle Paul, also, in his friendly letter to Philemon, abstains from the title Apostle. The cir cumstances and events in the church, to which the second epistle alludes, coincide with tho e which are otherwise known to have happened in John's congregation. Here, also, are allusions to the dangers arising from the Gnostic heresy. The admonition, in verse 10, not to receive such heretics as Christian brethren, agrees with the ancient tradition, that John made haste to quit a public bath after Cerinthus the Gnostic entered it, declaring he was afraid the building would fall down.

JOHN MARK. [MARK.]

JOHN HYRCANUS. [MACCABEES.]

JOIADA (contraction of JEHOIADA, which see), a high-priest of the Jews, successor to Eliashib, or Joashib, who lived under Nehemiar., about B.C. 434 (Neh. xiii. 28).

JOK'SHAN (fowler), second son of Abraham and Keturah, whose sons Sheba and Dedan appear to have been the ancestors of the Sabæans and Dedanites, who peopled a part of Arabia Felix (Gen. xxv. 2, 3) [ARABIA].

JOK'TAN (small), one of the sons of Eber, a descendant from Shem (Gen. x. 25, 26), and the supposed progenitor of many tribes in Southern Arabia. The Arabians call him Kahtan, and recognise him as one of the principal founders of their nation.

JOK'THEEL (God-subdued). 1. A name given by King Azariah to the city Sela, or Petra, the capital of Arabia Petræa, when he took it from the Edomites (2 Kings xiv. 7) [PETRA]. 2. There was also a city of this name in the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 38).

JON ADAB (God-impelled). 1. A nephew of David, a crafty person, whose counsel suggested to his cousin Ammon the means by which he accomplished his abominable design upon his halfsister Tamar (2 Sam. xiii. 4, 5).

2. A son or descendant of Rechab, the progenitor of those nomadic Rechabites, who held themselves bound by a vow to abstain from wine, and never to relinquish the nomadic life. The principle on which the tribe acted may be considered elsewhere [RECHABITES]. Jonadab was at the head of this tribe at the time when Jehu received his commission to exterminate the house of Ahab, and is supposed to have added to its ancient austerities the inhibition of wine. He was held in great respect among the Israelites generally: and Jehu, alive to the importance of obtaining the countenance and sanction of such a man to his proceedings, took him up in his chariot, when on his road to Samaria to complete the work he had begun at Jezreel. The terms of the colloquy which took place on this occasion are rather

JONAH

remarkable. Perceiving Jonadab, he saluted him, and called out, Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?" Jonadab answered, It is.' Then said Jehu, 'If it be, give me thine hand.' And he gave him his hand, and was taken up into the chariot, Jehu inviting him to Come and see my zeal for the Lord' (2 Kings x. 15-17; Jer. xxxv. 6-10). It would seem that the Rechabites were a branch of the Kenites, over another branch of whom Heber was chief in the time of Deborah and Barak (Judg. iv. 11, 17): and as it is expressly said that Jonadab went out to meet Jehu, it seems probable that the people of Samaria, alarmed at the menacing letter which they had received from Jehu, had induced Jonadab to go to meet and appease him on the road. His venerated character, his rank as the head of a tribe, and his neutral position, well qualified him for this mission; and it was quite as much the interest of Jonadab to conciliate the new dynasty, in whose founder he beheld the minister of the divine decrees, as it was that of Jehu to obtain his concurrence and support in proceedings which he could not but know were likely to render him odious to the people.

JONAH (a dove), the fifth in order of the minor prophets. No era is assigned to him in the book of his prophecy, yet there is little doubt of his being the same person who is spoken of in 2 Kings xiv. 25. His birthplace was Gath-hepher, in the tribe of Zebulon. Jonah flourished in or before the reign of Jeroboam II., and predicted the successful conquests, enlarged territory, and brief prosperity of the Israelitish kingdom under that monarch's sway.

The book of Jonah contains an account of the prophet's commission to denounce Nineveh, and of his refusal to undertake the embassy-of the method he employed to escape the unwelcome task [TARSHISH], and the miraculous means which God used to curb his self-willed spirit, and subdue his petulant and querulous disposition. The third and fourth chapters briefly detail Jonah's fulfilment of the divine command, and present us with another exemplification of his refractory temper. His attempt to flee from the presence of the Lord must have sprung from a partial insanity, produced by the excitement of distracting motives in an irascible and melancholy heart. The temerity and folly of the fugitive could scarcely be credited, if they had not been equalled by future outbreaks of a similar peevish and morbid infatuation. The mind of Jonah was dark and moody, not unlike a lake which mirrors in the waters the gloomy thunderclouds which overshadow it, and flash over its sullen waves a momentary gleam.

The history of Jonah is certainly striking and extraordinary. Its characteristic prodigy does not resemble the other miraculous phenomena recorded in Scripture; yet we must believe in its literal occurrence, as the Bible affords no indication of its being a mythus, allegory, or parable. On the other hand, our Saviour's pointed and peculiar allusion to it is a presumption of its reality (Matt. xii. 40). The opinion of the earlier Jews is also in favour of the literality of the adventure. It requires less faith to credit this simple excerpt from Jonah's biography, than to believe the numerous hypotheses that have been invented to deprive it of its supernatural character, the

|

[blocks in formation]

great majority of them being clumsy and farfetched, doing violence to the language, and despite to the spirit of revelation. In vindication of the reality of this striking narrative, it may be argued that the allusions of Christ to Old Testament events on similar occasions are to actual occurrences (John iii. 14; vi. 48); that the purpose which God had in view justified his miraculous interposition; that this miracle must have had a salutary effect both on the minds of the Ninevites and on the people of Israel. Neither is the character of Jonah improbable. Many reasons might induce him to avoid the discharge of his prophetic duty-fear of being thought a false prophet, scorn of a foreign and hostile race, desire for their utter destruction, a false diguity which might reckon it beneath his prerogative to officiate among uncircumcised idolaters. Some, who cannot altogether reject the reality of the narrative, suppose it to have had an historical basis, though its present form be fanciful or mythical. Grimm regards it as a dream produced in that sleep which fell upon Jonah as he lay on the sides of the ship, and others regard this book as an allegory.

Various other hypotheses have been proposed which are all vague and baseless, and do not merit a special refutation. Endeavouring to free us from one difficulty they plunge us into others yet more intricate and perplexing. Much profane wit has been expended on the miraculous means of Jonah's deliverance, very unnecessarily and very absurdly; it is simply said, "The Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.' Now the species of marine animal is not defined, and the original word is often used to specify, not the genus whale, but any large fish or seamonster. All objections to its being a whale which lodged Jonah in its stomach from its straitness of throat, or rareness of haunt in the Mediterranean, are thus removed. The Scripture speaks only of an enormous fish, which under God's direction swallowed the prophet, and does not point out the species to which the voracious prowler belonged. Since the days of Bochart it has been a common opinion that the fish was of the shark species or sea-dog.' Entire human bodies have been found in some fishes of this kind. The stomach, too, has no influence on any living substance admitted into it. Granting all these facts as proof of what is termed the economy of miracles, still must we say, in reference to the supernatural preservation of Jonah, Is anything too hard for the Lord?

On what portion of the coast Jonah was set down in safety we are not informed. The prophet proceeded, on receiving a second commission, to fulfil it. The fearful menace had the desired effect. The city humbled itself before God, and a respite was vouchsafed. The king (Pul, according to Usher) and his people fasted, and their penitence was accepted. The spirit of Jonah was chafed that the doom he had uttered was not executed. He retired to a station out of the city whence he might witness the threatened catastrophe. Under the shadow of a gourd prepared by God he reclined, while Jehovah taught him by the growth and speedy death of this plant, and his attachment to it, a sublime lesson of patient and forgiving generosity. The book of Jonah is a simple narrative, with the exception

[blocks in formation]

of the prayer or thanksgiving in chap. ii. Its style and mode of narration are uniform. There are no traces of compilation, as Nactigall supposed; neither is the prayer, as De Wette imagines, improperly borrowed from some other sources. That prayer contains, indeed, not only imagery peculiar to itself, but also such imagery as at once was suggested to the mind of a pious Hebrew preserved in circumstances of extreme jeopardy. On this principle we account for the similarity of some portions of its phraseology to Ps. lix., xlii., &c. The language in both places had been hallowed by frequent usage, and fad become the consecrated idiom of a distressed and succoured Israelite. The hymn seems to have been composed after his deliverance, and the reason why his deliverance is noted after the hymn is recorded may be to show the occasion of its composition.

1. JONATHAN (God-given), a Levite descended from Gershom, the son of Moses, not Manasseh, as in our common copies, an interpolation made (Judg. xviii. 30) in order to save the character of the great lawgiver from the stain of having an idolater among his immediate descendants. The history of this Jonathan is involved in the narrative which occupies Judges xvii., xviii.; and the events themselves appear to have occurred soon after the death of Joshua, and of the elders who outlived him, when the government was in a most unsettled state.

Jonathan, who was resident at Bethlehem, lived at a time when the dues of the sanctuary did not afford a livelihood to the numerous Levites who had a claim upon them; and belonged to a tribe destitute of the landed possessions which gave to all others a sufficient maintenance. He, therefore, went forth to seek his fortune. In Mount Ephraim he came to a house of gods,' which had been established by one Micah, who wanted nothing but a priest to make his establishment complete [MICAH]. This person made Jonathan what was manifestly considered the handsome offer of engaging him as his priest for his victuals, a yearly suit of clothes, and ten shekels (twenty-five shillings) a year in money. Here he lived for some time, till the Danite spies, who were sent by their tribe to explore the north, passed this way and formed his acquaintance. When, not long after, the body of armed Danites passed the same way when going to settle near the sources of the Jordan, the spies mentioned Micah's establishment to them; on which they went and took away not only the ephod, the teraphim, and the graven image,' but the priest also, that they might set up the same worship in the place of which they were going to take possession. Micah vainly protested against this robbery; but Jonathan himself was glad at the improvement in his prospects, and from that time, even down to the captivity, he and his descendants continued to be priests of the Danites in the town of Laish, the name of which they changed to Dan.

[ocr errors]

JONATHAN

were forbidden to the Hebrews. The offence here was twofold, the establishment of a sacred ritual different from the only one which the law recognised, and the worship by symbols, naturally leading to idolatry, with the ministration of one who could not legally be a priest, but only a Levite, and under circumstances in which no Aaronic priest could legally have officiated. It is more than likely that this establishment was eventually merged in that of the golden calf, which Jeroboam set up in this place, his choice of which may very possibly have been determined by its being already in possession of a house of gods.'

2. JONATHAN, eldest son of Saul, king of Israel, and consequently heir apparent of the throne which David was destined to occupy (1 Sam. xiv. 9; 1 Chron. viii. 33; ix. 39). The war with the Philistines, which occupied the early part of his father's reign, afforded Jonathan more than one opportunity of displaying the chivalrous valour and the princely qualities with which he was endowed. His exploit in surprising the Philistine garrison at Michmash, attended only by his armour-bearer, is one of the most daring which history or even romance records (1 Sam. xiv. 1-14). His father came to follow up this victory, and in the ensuing pursuit of the confounded Philistines, Jonathan, spent with fatigue and hunger, refreshed himself with some wild honey which he found in a wood through which he passed. He knew not that his father had rashly vowed to put to death any one who touched a morsel of food before night. When the fact transpired, Saul felt himself bound to execute his vow even upon his gallant son; but the people, with whom the young prince was a great favourite, interposed and prevented the execution of his design (1 Sam. xiv. 16-52).

Jealousy and every mean or low feeling were strangers to the generous heart of Jonathan. Valiant and accomplished himself, none knew better how to acknowledge valour and accomplishment in others. The act of David in meeting the challenge of Goliath, and in overcoming that huge barbarian, entirely won his heart; and from that day forward the son of Jesse found no one who loved him so tenderly, who admired his high gifts with so much enthusiasm, or who risked so much to preserve him from harm, as the very prince whom he was destined to exclude from a throne. Jonathan knew well what was to happen, and he submitted cheerfully to the appointment which gave the throne of his father to the young shepherd of Bethlehem. In the intensity of his love and confidence he shrank not to think of David as his destined king and master; and his dreams of the future pictured nothing brighter than the day in which David should reign over Israel, and he be one with him in friendship, and next to him in place and council.

When Saul began to hate David as his intended successor, he was highly displeased at the friendship which had arisen between him and his sou. There is not any reason to suppose that this This exposed Jonathan to much contumely, and establishment, whether in the hands of Micah or even to danger of life; for, once at least, the of the Danites, involved an apostacy from Je-king's passion against him on this account rose so hovah. It appears rather to have been an attempt to localize or domesticate His presence, under those symbols and forms of service which were common among the neighbouring nations, but

high that he cast a javelin at him to smite him to the wall.'

This unequivocal act taught Jonathan that the court of Saul was no safe place for David. He

« PreviousContinue »