« VorigeDoorgaan »
On this the; separated. Paul went forth in company with Silas. Barnabas, taking his sister's son with him, proceeded to his native island of Cyprus, A.D. 52. (Acts xiv. xv.). Here the apostolic history breaksoffsuddenry, and we have no more certain knowledge respecting Barnabas; for the mention made of him in Paul's Epistles (Gal. ii.l. ICor.ix.O) relates to an earlier period. Respecting his subsequent fate tradition varies. The least improbable account makes him suffer martyrdom at the hands of the Jews in Cyprus. There is a letter extant, written in Greek, which bears his name, but of which he was not the author.
Oar narrative shows that Barnabas was no ordinary man. In faith, in hope and charity, in enlarged views and disinterested labours, he is eminently distinguished. Yet, had we s knowledge of what others in the early church did for its establishment and edification, we should regard the labours of Barnabas certainly not as less worthy, but probably as less singular. As it is, he may well be accounted the second apostle to the Gentiles,*—inferior only to Paul; to his connection with whom he appears to owe the notice which is taken of him in the book of Acts, in which other men's labours are cursorily noticed, or passed in silence. With all his seal and goodness of heart, however, Barnabas could never have taken and kept the first part; for he was of a yielding nature, and inclined to purchase peace even by the compromise of principle. Hence was he carried away for a moment by the Judaiiing party, against whom Paul so vigorously and so meritoriously set a stern and undaunted front from first to last (Gal.ii. 13).
In the dispute which arose between Barnabas and Paul, the latter was certainly in the right; for Paul might well object to taking with him, as the companion of his missionary tour, a young man who from fickleness or inconstancy had deserted the work on a former occasion. We must admire the openness and honesty of Luke in narrating the unhappy occurrence. Such a chronicler is eminently worthy of credence.
BABSABAS (C. son of Saba), the ordinary appellation of Joseph Barsabas, sur named Justus, who, having been one of those who associated with the apostles during the whole public ministry of the Bedeemer, was, together with Matthias, appointed by them as a candidate for the vacant apostleship, caused by the death of Judas. Lots being cast, Matthias was chosen. According to EuMbius, Barsabas Justus was one of the seventy. Tradition states, that he was con
■ Tfce utlfl of apostle U Indeed applied to Baraatea, in common with Paul (Acts xiv. 4). But the word b new employed in a laser meaning, and Is somewhat equivalent to the term 'messengers of too churches,' found in 2 Cor. rUI. 23, comp. nsinl.1
demned to death by poison, which, however, he drank without receiving injury (Acta i. 23, seq.).
Another Barsabas, bearing the surname of J uJas, was with Silas, a' chief man among the brethren,' sent by the apostles, in company with Paul and Barnabas, to the Gentiles in Antiocli, Syria, and Silicia, to convey to theui the determinations of the council held in Jerusalem regarding circumcision, and other Jewish observances (Acts zv. 22, stq.).
BARTHOLOMEW (H. son of Tolmai), one of the twelve apostles. As this is a family rather than a personal name, his proper name has been thought to be Nathanael (John i. 45; xxi. 2). Besides, the three evangelists who speak of Bartholomew (Matt. x. 3. Markiii. 18. Luke vi. 14) do not speak of Nathaniel; while the fourth, who speaks of Nathanael, says nothing of Bartholomew. In the three first Gospels moreover, Philip and Bartholomew are found together in the lists of the apostles; in the fourth we find Philip connected with Nathanael. If, as these facts seem to show, Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same person, the subjeot of this notice was of Cana in Galilee; whence it would appear, that our Saviour's miracle, performed at the nuptial banquet in that place, was not without fruit.
Bartholomew is said to have preached the gospel in India. The manner of his death is variously related. Among the books falsely ascribed to apostles, there is a Gospel which bears the name of Bartholomew.
To this apostle belongs the famous saying, 'Can any good come out of Nazareth?'— uttered in reply to Philip, when the latter declared to the former, 'We have found the Messiah' (John i. 45, 40). This replyshows him to have had his full share of the prejudices of the day. His prejudices, however, did not go so far as those of some who are called Christians. He was quite sure, indeed, that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah; and all the more sure was he, because his confidence reposed in unreasoning impressions. Still, when Philip rejoined, 'Come and see,' he at once repaired to the Messiah, and was converted. How strong soever his prejudices were, evidence with him had still greater force. Jesus gave him a proof that he knew men's hearts; Nathanael yielded, and became his follower.
Whence it is clear, that his was a warm, open, and generous nature. He loved his educational prepossessions; but he loved truth more, and whatever he adopted he pursued with ardour and constancy. Accordingly, our Lord described him in these words: 'Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.' We here see also the value of a good counsellor. Before Philip invited Nathanael to go to Christ, the latter had satii
There is a great disproportion between the amount of good which the apostles wrought, and the space that their names occupy on the page of history. A very few lines relate all that is known respecting Bartholomew. Even his name is a subject of doubt. At first view, it is impossible not to regret this want of full and detailed information. We f oon, however, leam to sec that, in this as in other cases, the actual ordinations of Providence ore the best. Bartholomew and his associates had a great work to perform, and were so ardently and exclusively engaged in it, that they had neither time nor thought to write down their deeds. They were too busy, too disinterested, too unconscious, to become historians of their own doings. They were men of deeds, not words, intent on saving the world, rather than erecting a memorial to their own houonr. And so, in active and ceaseless labours, their lives passed away till the time was gone when they themselves had strength, and others could readily in that age find materials for biography. They died, and left to earth only the blessed deeds which they had wrought — their own holy example, and the good and happy lives of their numerous converts. They died, and found their reward on high.
This state of things is very natural in the actual circumstances of most of the apostles; and as such it carries evidence with it of its own truth and reality. It is also a very high eulogium on Bartholomew and others. Most faithful, devoted, and unselfish, was their service in the cause of Christ. They show to ns, and to men of all coming times, the way to become truly great.
BAHTIM.EUS (C. son of Tirrneiis) was a blind beggar, who, seated on the road near Jericho, implored the restoration of his sight from the Saviour, when the latter was at a short distance from the town, and had his eyes graciously unclosed in consequence of his faith; while the crowd, who followed the steps of Jesus, reproved the urgency with which the blind man preferred his petition.
So far, the narratives of the evangelists agree (Matt. xx. 29, seq. Mark X. 40, seq. Luke xviii. 35, seq.). In other words their three accounts are substantially the same. Yet are there variations in them. Matthew speaks of two blind men; Mark and Luke, of one: Mark names that one; Luke calls him 'a certain blind man: Matthew say?, Jesus wa9 proceeding from Jericho; Mark, that he was going towards Jericho; Luke, that he was drawing nigh to Jericho. Yet we defy even an enemy of the gospel to read these three narratives, at least in the original, and to deny that they refer to one event, and are in substance the same. Nor are we solicitous to explain the origin of the diversities. The Gospels are to us more credible with, than they would be without, these diversities; for they show that we have here the narratives of three independent witnesses,— men who in their love of truth would rather vary than copy from each other, or servilely transcribe a received standard.
But while these three accounts are substantially the same, they are the same with a difference — a difference of manner, which does not lie in minute variations, but in the general character of the narratives. Thus while Matthew is Hebraistic, and Luke approaches to a correct Greek style, Mark (as is customary with him) is striking and graphic, seizing and setting forth individual point9. And here probably—in the peculiarity of Mark's own mind — lies the reason why he speaks of only one beggar, and why he assigns to that one his name. Nor do we need any other proof to show that we have here to do with a real event, than is furnished by the way in which Mark speaks of this blind beggar, — 'Blind Bartimtens sat by the way-side, begging.' This is a master's stroke. No one could bo ignorant who blind Barlimeus was, and therefore no explanations are added. The person of the beggar was well known in Judea at the time, and Mark was too aimpl* and unconscious a writer to think of pom* leritv. The idea of one man — of blind Bartimsus — was in bis mind, and with a stroke or two of his pen he sets him down before the eyes of his readers in his wonted place, by the roadside; a picture which will remain to all ages.
BARUCH(H. bleaed. A.M. 4043; A.C. Cuj; V. 005), son of Neriah, a faithful friend of the prophet Jeremiah,— who, in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Jtidah, wrote down from the lips of the prophet his predictions touching the invasion of the Babylonians, and the deportation of the Israelites. The 'roll of the book' in which this 'burden' was written, baring been destroyed at the instance of Jehoiakim, Baroch made a second record, similar to the first; but the guilty nation did not heed the divine warnings, even though they were solemnly read to the king and his princes, at the command of the Most High, under the direction of the prophet, and by the lips of Baroch, who gave the court an exact account of the manner in which these charges and admonitions had been committed to writing. The reward of this faithful service was, that both Jeremiah and Baruch were obliged to consult their safety by coneeaJment (Jer. xxxvi. 4, seq.). Baruch was resided with special dislike by the Jews, under the suspicion of inducing Jeremiah to utter hard sayings against them (Jer. xliii. 3); but, when dismayed at the terrors he saw gathering around him, he was comforted by a special communication which Jeremiah pronounced on his behalf (xlv.). It is said, that after Jeremiah had died in LfcTP'> Baruch went to Babylon, where he ended his days. If faithful men could have saved the Jews from captivity, the assaults of their enemies would have been in vain; for, in high as well as in humble life, did prophets make their appearance, and utter their awful voices. Baruch was of an illustrious family in the court of Judah, where his brother held a distinguished post (xxxii. 12; li. 59). The apocryphal book, entitled Baruch, was not written by the person of whom we have now spoken.
During the siege of Jerusalem, Baruch was concerned in a transaction designed to show that the Jews would be restored to their native country, which is full of instruction r«jarding ancient Hebrew usages. (Jer. xxxii. 12).
BASHAN (H. a fruitful land) was a district that lay beyond Jordan, on the east of the Lake of Galilee, having the river Jabbok, vhich flows from the east into the Jordan, for its southern extremity; and on the north, an undetermined line, bordering on Mount Hermon. In the division of Palestine, it fell to the lot of the half-tribe of Manasseh, comprehending 'all the kingdom •f Og, king of Bashan, and all the towns of
J air, which are in Bashan, threescore cities' (Josh. xiii. 30), of which Ashtaroth and Ediei seem to have been the chief (Josh, xii. 4). The land was hilly, and celebrated for its oaks, as Lebanon was for its cedars (Isa. ii. 13), and also for its rich pastures (Jer. 1. 19. Micah vii. 14), on which were fed and fattened large flocks and herds, whence we read in Ezek. xxxix. 18,—'Ye shall eat the flesh of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fallings of Bashan.' It was one of those places distinguished in Scripture for producing fine oxen: whence we read of 'strong bulls of Bashan,' in Ps. xxii. 12; comp. Amos iv. 1. Sharon, which Bochart places between Joppa and Lydda (Acts ix. 35), was another celebrated pasture district (1 Chron. xxvii. 29). The valley of Achor (Isa. lxv. 10) was a third spot, which Jerome fixes on the north of Jericho, not far from Gilgal.
After the exile, the Chaldee pronunciation, substituting a ( for an < or an sh, changed the name Bashan into Batantea, though properly the province of Buinmca was only the southern part of the ancient Bashan. According to Bobinson, the ancient name is still substantially retained in Bethenyeli.
BAT is the English rendering of a Hebrew wor,d, Gataleph, which, according to Aben Ezra, whose opinion is generally followed, conveys the idea of flying in the dork, — a meaning that does not ill accord with the slight indications supplied by the three passages in which the term is found (Lev. xi. 19. Deut. xiv. 18. Isa. ii. 20). Bats are found on the Egyptian monuments, as these copies show : —
The catalogue of unclean birds, as given in the law, begins with the eagle, the highest and noblest of the feathered race, and ends with the bat, which is the lowest, and forms the connecting link between the quadruped and the winged species. The prohibition implies that there were, at the time it was given, those who eat bats; nor is there a doubt that the larger species of bats have supplied nutriment to more than one portion of the human race. It is not easy now to assign a satisfactory reason why the bat was accounted unclean by Moses. Not improbably its peculiar formation and habits may have created against it a prejudice, on which a certain disgust may have been founded; which disgust may have been the occasion of the legislator's prohibition. That prohibition, however, has confirmed and perpetuated the aversion to the bat, which is, in many countries, so deep as to wear the appearance of being natnral. Though, however, bats in Syria inhabit dork, hidden, and ruinous places, they also make their appearance in towns, as well as in frequented and decorated rooms. Nor is there any thing in their make to justify strong feelings of dislike. 'The bat,' says Dr. Kitto, 'is a delicate and beautiful creature, covered with a fine fur of very pale yellow; while the fine integuments, forming what are called the wings, are, when expanded, ribbed with the bright red lines of the bony prolongations, by which they are managed and supported.'
BATHSHEBA (H. daughter of an oath), child of Eliam, and wife of Uriah the Hittite, whom David coveted in consequence of her beauty, and of whose person his royal power and will unjustly made him master. Having done this injury to Uriah, the king took his measures to make the fruit of his criminality appear the natural offspring of that warrior; but failing, through the persistence of the latter in not visiting his home, he sent him back to the army then besieging Kabbah under the command of Joab, directing that general to set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and to retire, so that he might be slain. David's orders were but too well executed. Joab suffered a repulse; but he knew his master's guilty wishes, and ordered the messenger that bore the unwelcome tidings to mention, as a cover, the death of the Hittite. This adroitness had its designed effect on David. The husband being thus disposed of, and the days of his wife's mourning decently terminated, David took to his house Bathsheba, who became his wife, and bare him a son. There is, however, a power higher and stronger than princes. This wickedness displeased the Almighty, who sent Nathan to David with t\ terrible reproof, which was the'more overpowering in its delivery, because conveyed in one of those parables for which the Hebrew literature is celebrated, and which in all their excellence have no equals in any language. 'And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.' The guilty man prayed, fasted, and mourned: — in vain; the child died.
After this, Bathsheba bore Solomon, who was regarded with divine favour. She herself appears to have long retained influence with her husband; for, when he had grown old, and Adonijah his son had taken measures to usurp the royal authority, she was chosen byNathon to make the king acquainted with the attempt, for which she was the ra
ther fitted as being the mother of Solomon, the promised successor; in consequence of which the latter was immediately proclaimed. Indeed, she appears to have enjoyed in the court much of the influence of a queenmother; for, not long after the commencement of the new reign, this same Adonijah successfully entreats her good offices to procure for him a wife of his choice, namely, Abishag, the Shunamite.
This short history is quite oriental:— the resistless passions of the monarch; the passiveness of Bathsheba; the king's entire command over the life of Uriah; the ready obedience of Joab; the boldness and religious elevation of Nathan; and the power at court of the mother of the heir apparent, may have resemblances, but not parallels, in western countries. These qualities authenticate the history in which they arc found, and may suggest that we shall misjudge events, if we apply to the conduct of the king and his paramour rules and tests which the gospel enforces in modem times, and in these lands. The guilt of David with Bathshebawas very great. It was also severely punished and bitterly deplored. Sin, in all climes and all countries, is, before God, equally sin. But let us not be harsh, still less unjust, in our condemnation; remembering that the license to do such wickedness is one of the heavy disadvantages under which monorchs, and especially oriental monarchs, are placed by their position; — a position which is owing as much to the weakness of their fellow-men as to their own ambition.
BATTLEMENT is the rendering of a Hebrew word, Mahgakeh (Deut. xxii. 8), the root of which in the Arabic still signifies to surround. Battlement denotes an elcvatioti or parapet wall, which, with a becoming regard to human life, the law expressly required to be put round a house when built; the necessity of which resulted from the roofs of houses being, for the most part, flat, and from their being used for recreation and pleasure. 'When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.'
BAY-TREE (a green bay tree) is a phrase which is found only once in the Scriptures: 'I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay-tree' (Ps. xxxvii. 85). Authorities, however, are not agreed as to whether the Psalmist speaks of some species of tree, or of the flourishing condition of a tree in general. Our translators had the laurel in their minds; yet the marginal rendering is 'a green tree, that growelhinhis own soil;' that is, indigenous, or not transplanted, continuing to grow where it sprang up. The Greek Septuagint translation has 'the cedar of Lebanon.' Tholnck renders,'a tree veil rooted and full of foliage;' Noyes, following the Seventy, translates the words,
'I hare seen a wicked man in great power,
Qediles is almost verbally the same. In the north-western part of Syria, Hosselquist rested under * a green bay-tree,' of which kind of tree he had not met with any specimens in Jndea or Galilee; but, whether it was a species of cedar or not, the traveller does not say. We incline to the rendering of the Septaagint, whose authority in questions of natural history carries with it much weight. Besides, some specific tree, distinguished for its native luxuriance, and actually flourishing in strength and beauty, is a more striking image than is presented by a tree — any tree whatsoever—which is in a thriving condition, because in its native soil. And certainly the cedar, of all the trees of Syria, would afford the noblest idea of external grandeur. Tet even the cedar perishes before the hurricane, as the wicked man, great as he may be, is cut down by the resistless hand of an avenging Providence. The Psalmist makes prophetic reference to those idolatrous empires which were to arise and fill the earth, and threaten to extinguish the church. The first of these empires, tho Assyrian, is presented to us under the symbol of a nourishing cedar planted by the waters. Bat fear not. They shall live their time and then vanish. The church shall survive and til the earth.
BDELLIUM is a Greek word, not much dissimilar in form to the original Hebrew for which it stands, and which occurs only twice in the Bible (Oen. ii. 12. Numb. xi. 7). In the first passage it is mentioned, together with the onyx and gold, as products of the land of Havilah. The mere mention of the word here in this very brief notice of most momentous events, proves— apart from the fact of its standing with gold and onyx-stone — that it represented an object of great value, yet not altogether uncommon. We conclude also, from the second passage, that it could not have been very rare, because it is used as an object of comparison: —' The colour of the manna was as the colour of bdellium.' The bdellium of the ancients (Pliny, xii. U. 10) was a resinous, transparent gum, sweet to the smell, but of bitter taste, which exuded in the form of drops from a tree growing in Arabia, Babylonia, Media, and India: those of Bactriana were accounted most valuable. The tree was about the •ize of an olive-tree, with leaves like those of the oak, and fruit like capers. Naturalism have thought the description of the ancienta answered to the dom-palm, which as common in South Arabia and in Egypt.
The passages before spoken of seem, however, to us to denote some precious stone. Bochart and others have mentioned the pearl; and we think it very probable that the same word should denote such a gum as is above described, and a precious 6tone bearing a resemblance to it. Gum and gem are not dissimilar either in form or in signification.
BEAM (T. to radiate). — The etymological import of this word, as denoting the radiating of the sun, may serve to suggest that it did not, when Wickliffe first introduced it as a translation of the Greek Dokos, in Matt. vii. 3, —' And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?'—signify any thing so large and so long as the piece of timber which is now entitled a beam. The use of this term, beam, when unexplained, takes away from, if it does not destroy, the propriety of tho metaphor. A reference to the etymology will show, that, if length is implied iu the idea conveyed by the word, slendemess also is essential to it. The antithetical word rendered mote would be better represented by our word splinter; by which change, in union with a right understanding of the term beam, the correspondence of the words as found in the original is preserved in its English representative. Even the figurative diction of our Lord observes the rules of propriety.
The meaning of bis words in the passage is sufficiently obvious. The splinter denotes the slight faults of others, which we see most clearly; the beam, our own seriou3 misdeeds, to which our eyes are closed. The proverb that our Lord thus employed was widely spread. Seneca says, — ' You mark the pimples of your neighbour, while covered with sores yourself.' But the precise phraseology was prevalent among the Jews, —' Wheu, of that generation which judges its jndges, some one said, Cast the rod out of thine eye; he received for answer, From thine own eye cast the beam.'
BEANS supplied, at least in their kernels, nutriment for the poorer Hebrews, which was sometimes cooked, sometimes uncooked (2 Sam. xvii. 28). In the bread which Ezekicl was directed to make of various sorts of grain, contrary to the analogy of the law of Moses (Lev. six. 19. Deut. xxii. 9—11), as a sign and forewarning of the defiled bread which the children of Israel would have to eat when driven into exile among the Gentiles, beans arc expressly mentioned (Ezek. iv. 9). According to Rabbinical authority, the bean cultivated in Palestine was the much-esteemed Egyptian bean. The same source of information declares, that the eating of beans was U)terdkte.d to the high priest on the