Luke 1
1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[Forasmuch as many have taken in hand, &c.] Whereas it was several years after the ascension of our Lord before the four books of the holy gospel were committed to writing; the apostles, the seventy disciples, and other ministers of the word, in the mean time everywhere dispersing the glad tidings: no wonder if any pious and greedy auditors had, for their own memory's sake and the good of others, noted in their own private table-books as much as they were capable of carrying from the sermons and discourses which they so frequently heard. Nor is it more strange if some of these should from their own collections compile and publish now and then some commentaries or short histories of the passages they had met with. Which, however they might perform out of very good intentions, and a faithful impartial pen, yet were these writings far from commencing an infallible canon, or eternal unalterable rule of the Christian faith.
It was not in the power of this kind of writers either to select what the Divine Wisdom would have selected for the holy canon, or to declare those things in that style wherein the Holy Spirit would have them declared, to whom he was neither the guide in the action nor the director of their pen.
Our evangelist, therefore, takes care to weigh such kind of writings in such a balance as that it may appear they are neither rejected by him as false or heretical, nor yet received as divine and canonical: not the first, because he tells us they had written even those very things which the heavenly preachers had delivered to them; not the latter, for to those writings he opposeth, that he himself was one that had perfect understanding of things from above. Of which we shall consider in its proper place.
[To set forth in order a declaration.] A kind of phrase not much unlike what was so familiar amongst the Jews, an orderly narration: saving, that that was more peculiarly applied by them to the commemoration of the Passover. And yet it is used in a larger sense too, who was he who set forth in order a declaration.
[Of those things which are most surely believed among us, &c.] Let us recollect what the unbelieving Jews think and say of the actions, miracles, and doctrine of Christ; and then we shall find it more agreeable to render this clause, of those things which are most surely believed among us, according to what Erasmus, Beza, our own English translators, and others, have rendered it, than with the vulgar, of the things which are fulfilled amongst us. They had said, "This deceiver seduceth the people, those wonders he did were by the power of magic; 'but we do most surely believe those things which he did and taught.'"
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, &c.] If from the beginning have reference to the time wherein Christ published the gospel upon earth, as no one need to doubt, then there is little distinction to be made between eyewitnesses and ministers: for who from that time had been made a minister of the word, that had not been an eyewitness and seen Christ himself? so that we may easily conjecture who are these eyewitnesses and ministers here, viz., the apostles, the seventy disciples, and others that filled up the number of the hundred and twenty, mentioned Acts 1:15.
It is said of Mnason, that he was an old disciple, Acts 21:16. It may be supposed of him, that he had been a disciple from the beginning; that is, from the very time wherein Christ himself published his glad tidings. Those words a good while ago, Acts 15:7, ought to be understood also in this sense.
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[Having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first.] This is not indeed ill rendered, having understood these things from the very first: but it may perhaps be better, having attained to an understanding of these things from above,--from heaven itself. So from above signifies from heaven, John 3:3,31, 19:11; James 1:17, 3:17, &c. For,
I. This version includes the other: for he that hath a perfect understanding of these things from above, or by divine inspiration, did understand them from the beginning.
II. Take notice of the distinction that is in Josephus, He that undertakes to give a true relation of things to others, ought himself to know them first very accurately, having either very diligently observed them himself, or learned by inquiry from others. Now if St. Luke had writ his history as "he had learned from others" (as they wrote whom he instances in verse 1), then he had been amongst those that had learned from others. Nor could he promise more than they might do, of whom he said, that many had taken in hand, &c.
[Most excellent Theophilus.] There is one guesses this most excellent Theophilus to have been an Antiochian, another thinks he may be a Roman; but it is very uncertain either who or whence he was. There was one Theophilus amongst the Jews, at that very time, probably, when St. Luke wrote his Gospel; but I do not think this was he. Josephus mentions him; "King Agrippa, removing Jesus the son of Gamaliel from the high priesthood, gave it to Mathias the son of Theophilus: in whose time the Jewish war began."
5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
[Of the course of Abia.] They are very little versed in the Holy Scriptures, and less in the Jewish learning, that could imagine this Zacharias to have been the high priest, when he is said to have been but of the eighth course, and to have attained this turn of attendance by lot.
As to the institution of the courses under the first Temple, there is no need to say anything, because every one hath it before him, 1 Chronicles 24. But under the second Temple there was indeed some difference, not as to the order of their courses, but as to their heads and families. Of which thing the Talmudists treat largely, and indeed not altogether from the purpose: let them comment in my stead:
"Four courses of priests went up out of Babylon; Jedaiah, Harim, Pashur, and Immer, Ezra 2:36, &c. The prophets, who were conversant amongst them at that time, obliged them, that if Jehoiarib himself should come up from the captivity, that he should not thrust out the course that preceded him, but be, as it were, an appendix to it. The prophets come forth, and cast in four-and-twenty lots into the urn; Jedaiah comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Harim comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Pashur comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Immer comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. It was agreed amongst them that if Jehoiarib himself should return out of captivity, he should not exclude the foregoing course, but be, as it were, an appendix to it. The heads of the courses stand forth, and divide themselves into the houses of their fathers," &c. We have the same thing in Babyl. Erachin, fol. 12. 1.
If these things be true (and, indeed, by comparing them with the place in Ezra before quoted, we may believe they are not much amiss), then the course of Abiah, both here and Nehemiah 12:17, must not so much be understood of the stock or race of Abijah, as that that course retained the name of Abijah still. For though there were four-and-twenty classes made up of the four only named, yet did they retain both their ancient order and ancient names too. If therefore Jehoiarib, i.e. his course, should come up out of Babylon (which, however, did not happen), it was provided that he should not disturb the fixed and stated order by intruding into the first place; but retaining the name of Jehoiarib in the first class, which consisted now of those of Jedaiah, his course, should be distributed amongst those orders.
II. The Rabbins have a tradition: there were twenty-four courses of priests in the land of Israel, and twelve courses in Jericho. What! twelve in Jericho? This would increase the number too much. No; but there were twelve of those in Jericho; that when the time came about that any course should go up to Jerusalem, half a course went up from the land of Israel, and half a course from Jericho, that by them might come a supply both of water and food to their brethren that were at Jerusalem.
Gloss:--"When the time came that any course should go up to Jerusalem, it divided itself, that half of it should go to Jericho, that they might supply their brethren with water and food," &c.
III. As to the circulation of these courses or turns, we may guess something of it from the Gloss in Midras Coheleth. The Midras itself hath these words: "It is R. Chaija's tradition: It is written, Seven weeks shall be complete, i.e. between the Passover and Pentecost, Leviticus 23:15. But when are they so? When Joshua and Shecaniah do not interfere."
Where the Gloss, from another author, hath it thus: "when the calends of the month Nisan fall in with the sabbath, then doth the Passover fall in with the sabbath too: and then let them begin to number from the going out of the sabbath, and the weeks will be complete according to the days of the creation. He takes an instance from Joshua and Shecaniah. For there were twenty-four courses, which took their turns alternately every sabbath: amongst which Joshua was the ninth, and Shecaniah the tenth. On the first week of the month Nisan, Jehoiarib was the first course; on the second week Jedaiah; on the paschal week, all the courses attended together. The six weeks to that sabbath that immediately preceded the Pentecost, there ministered six courses, Harim, Seorim, Malchijah, Mijamin, Hakkos, Abiah. In the sabbath that precedes the Pentecost, Joshua enters, but does not attend till after Pentecost. Behold, Joshua and Shecaniah are not between the Passover and Pentecost: for if Joshua was between the Passover and Pentecost, the weeks would not be complete according to the days of the creation."
He adds a great deal more, but, I confess, it is beyond my reach: such is that that immediately follows: "They are not complete as the days of the creation; for we may number from three to three, or from five to five, and so Joshua and Shecaniah will enter [upon their course] before the Pentecost. For behold, the sabbath before Nisan, let it be Jehoiarib's turn, and let there be seven weeks to the Passover," &c.; which must either be some fault in the printer, or a riddle to me that I cannot tell what to make of.
However, by the whole series of the discourse it appears, that the beginning of the double circulation of the courses was with the twofold beginning of the year, Nisan and Tisri: as also that all the courses performed their ministry together in the feasts. Here, indeed, is mention only as to the Passover; but we do not want for authorities to make it out, that as they did so then, so also at the feast of Pentecost and Tabernacles. Let Jehoiarib, therefore, begin the first course in the beginning of the month Nisan; and (remembering, that all the courses together performed their service at the Passover and Pentecost) the courses will all have run out in half the year; for so (taking in those two feasts) six-and-twenty weeks are spent off. Then let Jehoiarib begin again with the month Tisri; and suppose all the courses jointly ministering at the feast of Tabernacles, and they will have finished their round (excepting one week over) by the month Nisan again: which gap of that one week how it is filled up, as also the intercalar month when it happened, would be too much for us to discuss in this place.
IV. The course of Bilgah is put out of its just order, and thrown into the last place, if that be true, which we meet with in Jerusalem Succah. They say, "All that went into the Mountain of the Temple made their entry on the right hand, and went out at the left: but Bilgah went towards the south, because of the apostasy of his daughter Mary: for she went and married a certain soldier of the kingdom of the Grecians. He came and struck the top of the altar, saying, 'O wolf, wolf, thou that devourest all the good things of Israel, and yet in a time of straits helpest them not.' There are also that say, that the reason why this was thus ordered was, because Bilgah's course was once neglected, when it came about to them to have gone up to have performed their ministry. Bilgah, therefore, was always amongst those that went out, as Isbab was amongst those that came in; having cast that course out of their order."
V. "For every course there was a stationary assembly of priests, Levites, and Israelites, at Jerusalem. When the time came, wherein the course must go up, the priests and the Levites went up to Jerusalem; but the Israelites that were within that course, all met within their own cities, and read the history of the creation, Genesis 1; and the stationary men fasted four days in that week; viz. from the second to the fifth."
Gloss: "There was a stationary assembly for every course stated and placed in Jerusalem, who should assist in the sacrifices of their brethren: and besides these that were stated in Jerusalem, there was a stationary assembly in every city. All Israel was divided into twenty-four stations, according to the twenty-four courses. There was the station of priests, Levites, and Israelites, at Jerusalem; the priests of the course went up to Jerusalem to their service, the Levites to their singing; and of all the stations, there were some appointed and settled at Jerusalem that were to assist at the sacrifices of their brethren. The rest assembled in their own cities, poured out prayers that the sacrifices of their brethren might be accepted; fasting, and bringing forth the book of the law on their fast-day," &c. So the Gloss hath it.
The reason of this institution as to stationary-men is given us in the Misna; For how could every man's offering be made, if he himself were not present? Now, whereas the daily sacrifice, and some other offerings, were made for all Israel, and it was not possible that all Israel should be present, these stationaries were instituted, who, in the stead of all Israel, should put their hands upon the daily sacrifice, and should be present at the other offerings that were offered for all Israel. And while these were performing this at Jerusalem, there were other stationaries in every course, who, by prayers and fasting in their own cities, helped forward, as much as they could, the services of their brethren that were at Jerusalem.
"The children of Israel lay on their hands, but the Gentiles do not. The men of Israel lay on their hands, but the women do not. R. Jose saith, Abba Eliezer said to me, We had once a calf for a peace offering: and bringing it into the Court of the Women, the women put their hands upon it: not that this belonged to the women so to do, but that the women's spirits might be pleased." A remarkable thing.
The priests, throughout all the courses grew into a prodigious number, if that be true in Jerusalem Taanith; "R. Zeora in the name of Rabh Houna said, That the least of all the courses brought forth eighty-five thousand branches of priests." A thing not to be credited.
[And he wife was of the daughters of Aaron.] In the Talmudists, a priestess; viz. one born of the lineage of priests. It was lawful for a priest to marry a Levites, or indeed a daughter of Israel: but it was most commendable of all to marry one of the priests' line. Hence that story in Taanith, "Fourscore pair of brethren-priests took to wife fourscore pair of sister-priestesses in Gophne, all in one night."
There was hardly any thing among the Jews with greater care and caution looked after than the marrying of their priests; viz. that the wives they took should not by any means stain and defile their priestly blood: and that all things which were fit for their eating should be hallowed. Hence that usual phrase for an excellent woman, She deserves to marry with a priest.
Josephus speaks much of this care, that the whole priestly generation might be preserved pure and unblended.
[Elisabeth.] The Seventy give this name to Aaron's wife, Exodus 7:23.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
[In all the commandments and ordinances, &c.] So Numbers 36:13, These are the commandments and judgments. It would perhaps seem a little too fine and curious to restrain the commandments to the decalogue, or ten commandments, and the ordinances to the ceremonial and judicial laws, though this does not wholly want foundation. It is certain the precepts delivered after the decalogue, from Exodus 21 to chapter 24, are called judgments, or ordinances, Exodus 21:1, 24:3.
The Vulgar can hardly give any good account why he should render ordinances by justifications, much less the followers of that translation why they should from thence fetch an argument for justification upon observation of the commands, when the commands and institutions of men are by foreign authors called ordinances; nay, the corrupt customs that had been wickedly taken up have the same word, 1 Samuel 2:13, the priest's 'custom' with the people was, &c. 2 Kings 17:8, and walked in the 'statutes' of the heathen
The word ordinance is frequently rendered by those interpreters from ordain; which, to wave all other instances, may abundantly appear from Psalm 119. And the very things which the Jews speak of the Hebrew word obtain also in the Greek.
"Perhaps Satan and the Gentiles will question with Israel, what this or that command means, and what should be the reason of it. The answer that ought to be made in this case is, It is ordained, it is a law given by God, and it becomes not thee to cavil."
"Ye shall observe my statutes, [Lev 18:4] that is, even those which Satan and the nations of the world do cavil at. Such are those laws about eating swine's flesh; heterogeneous clothing; the nearest kinsman's [leviri] putting off the shoe; the cleansing of the leper, and the scapegoat. If, perhaps, it should be said that these precepts are vain and needless, the text saith, 'I am the Lord. I, the Lord, have ordained these things; and it doth not become thee to dispute them.'" They are ordinances, just and equal, deriving their equity from the authority of him that ordained them.
8. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
[In the order of his course.] "The heads of the courses stood forth, and divided themselves into so many houses of fathers. In one course, perhaps, there were five, six, seven, eight, or nine houses of fathers: of the course wherein there were but five houses of fathers, there were three of them ministered three days, and two four days; if six, then five served five days, and one two days; if seven, then every one attended their day; if eight, then six waited six days, and two one day; if nine, then five waited five days, and four the other two."
Take the whole order of their daily attendance from Gloss in Tamid, cap. 6: "The great altar [or the altar of sacrifice] goes before the lesser [or that of incense]. The lesser altar goes before the pieces of wood [laid on the hearth of the great altar]; the laying on the wood goes before the sweeping the inner altar [or that of the incense]; the sweeping of the inner altar goes before the snuffing of the lamps; the snuffing of the lamps goes before the sprinkling of the blood of the daily sacrifice; the sprinkling of the blood of the daily sacrifice goes before the snuffing of the two other lamps; the snuffing of the two other lamps goes before the incense; the incense goes before the laying on the parts of the sacrifice upon the altar; the laying on the parts goes before the Mincha; the Mincha goes before the meal [or the two loaves] of the chief priest; the two loaves of the chief priest go before the drink offering; the drink offering before the additional sacrifices. So Abba Saul." But a little after; "The wise men say, 'The blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled; then the lamps snuffed; then the incense; then the snuffing of the two other lamps: and this is the tradition according to the wise men.'"
9. According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
[According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was, &c.] "The ruler of the Temple saith, Come ye, and cast your lots [that it may be determined] who shall kill the sacrifice, who sprinkle the blood, who sweep the inner altar; who cleanse the candlestick, who carry the parts [of the sacrifice] to the ascent of the altar; the head, the leg, the two shoulders, the tail of the back bone, the other leg, the breast, the gullet, the two sides, the entrails, the flour, the two loaves, and the wine. He hath it, to whom it happens by lot."
"The room Gazith [in which the lots were cast] was in the form of a large hall: the casting of the lots was on the east side of it, some elder sitting on the west [Gloss: Some elder of the Sanhedrim, that instructed them in the custom and manner of casting the lot.] The priests stood about in circle; and the ruler coming, snatched off a cap from the head of this or that person, and by that they understood where the lot was to begin."
"They stood in a circle; and the ruler, coming, snatches off a cap from the head of this or that man: from him the lot begins to be reckoned, every one lifting up his finger at each number. The ruler also saith, 'In whomsoever the number ends, he obtains this or that office by lot: and he declares the number'; e.g., there is, it may be, the number one hundred, or threescore, according to the multitude of the priests standing round. He begins to reckon from the person whose cap he snatched off, and numbers round till the whole number is run out. Now, in whomsoever the number terminates, he obtains that office about which the lot was concerned. And so it is in all the lots."
I will not inquire at present whether this casting of lots was every day, or whether for the whole week, wherein such or such a course performed its attendance. It seems that at this time the number, whatever it was, for the choice of one to burn incense, ended in our Zacharias: whose work and business in this office, let it not be thought tedious to the reader to take an account of in these following passages:
[To burn incense.] "He whose lot it was to burn incense took a vessel containing the quantity of three cabs, in the midst of which there was a censer full and heaped up with incense; over which there was a cover."
"He to whom the lot fell of the vessel wherein the coals were to be taken up, takes it and goes up to the top of the altar; and there, stirring the fire about, takes out some of the hottest coals, and, going down, pours them into a golden vessel."
"When they had come from hence to the space between the altar and the porch of the Temple, one of them tinkles a little bell; by which, if any of the priests be without doors, he knows that his brethren the priests are about to worship: so that he makes all speed, and enters in. The Levite knows his brethren the Levites are beginning to sing, so he makes haste, and enters in too. Then the chief head or ruler of the course for that time sets all the unclean in the east gate of the court, that they may be sprinkled with blood."
"When they were about to go up the steps of the porch, those whose lot it was to sweep off the ashes from the inner altar and the candlestick went up first; he that was to sweep the altar went in first, takes the vessel, worships, and goes out."
"He who, by lot, had the vessel for gathering up the coals, placeth them upon the inner altar, lays them all about to the brim of the vessel, then worships and goes out."
"He who was to burn the incense takes the censer from the midst of the vessel wherein it was, and gives it to one standing by. If any incense had been scattered in the vessel, he gives it him into his hand; scatters the incense upon the coals, and goes out. He does not burn the incense till the ruler bids him do it."
10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
[The whole multitude of the people were praying without.] When the priest went in unto the holy place to burn incense, notice was given to all by the sound of a little bell, that the time of prayer was now: as hath been already noted.
I. As many as were in the court where the altar was retired from between the Temple and the altar, and withdrew themselves lower: They drew off from the space that was between the porch and the altar while the incense was burning.
R. Jose saith, "That in five circumstances the space between the porch and the altar is equal to the temple itself. For no one comes thither bareheaded, disturbed with wine, or with hands and feet unwashed. And as they withdraw themselves from the temple itself in the time of incense, so do they the same at that time from the space that is between the porch and that altar."
II. In the other courts they were not bound to retire or change their place; but in all they gave themselves to prayer, and that in deep silence: "The fathers ordained prayers in the time of the daily sacrifice": And of what kind soever the prayers were, whether their phylacterical ones alone, or their phylacterical in conjunction with others, or others without their phylacterical, still they uttered them very silently: "He that repeats his prayers in that silent manner that he does not hear himself, he does his duty. But R. Jose would have it, that he repeats his prayers so that the sound of his own voice may reach his own ears." To this deep silence in the time of incense and prayers that passage seems to allude, Revelation 8:1,3.
When the incense and prayers were ended, the parts of the sacrifice were laid upon the altar, and then the Levites began their psalmody, and their sounding the trumpet.
11. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
[There appeared unto him an angel of the Lord.] It might be a reasonable doubt whether ever there had appeared an angel in the Temple, even in the first, when elsewhere the appearance of angels was so very familiar, much less in the second, when every thing of that nature had so perfectly ceased, till now that the gospel began to dawn and shine out.
What we find related concerning Simeon the just, how "for those forty years wherein he had served as high priest, he had seen an angel clothed in white coming into the Holy Place on the day of Expiation, and going out again: only his last year he saw him come in, but did not see him go out again; which gave him to understand that he was to die that year": we may suppose this invented rather for the honour of the man than that any such thing happened for the greater solemnity of the day.
[Standing on the right side of the altar of incense.] "It is a tradition. The table [of the shewbread] was on the north side, distant from the wall two cubits and a half. The candlestick on the south, distant from the wall two cubits and a half. The altar [of incense] placed in the middle and drawn out a little towards the east."
So that the angel standing on the right side of the altar stood on the north side: on which side if there were an entrance into the Holy of Holies, as R. Chaninah thinks, then we may suppose the angel, by a sudden appearance, came out from the Holy of Holies.
15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
[Neither wine nor strong drink.] That is, if the Jews may be our interpreters properly enough, "neither new nor old wine"; Numbers 6:3. Greek, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. Targum, He shall separate himself from wine new and old. So Deuteronomy 14:26.
"R. Jose of Galilee saith, Why doth the Scripture double it, wine and strong drink? For is not wine strong drink, and strong drink wine?" Strong drink is wine no doubt, Numbers 28:7; Thou shalt cause the strong wine to be poured out before the Lord. Targum, a drink offering of old wine.
Whilst I a little more narrowly consider that severe interdiction by which the Nazarite was forbidden the total use of the vine, not only that he should not drink of the wine, but not so much as taste of the grape, not the pulp nor stone of the grape, no, not the bark of the vine; I cannot but call to mind,
I. Whether the vine might not be the tree in paradise that had been forbidden to Adam, by the tasting of which he sinned. The Jewish doctors positively affirm this without any scruple.
II. Whether that law about the Nazarites had not some reference to Adam while he was under that prohibition in the state of innocency. For if the bodily and legal uncleannesses, about which there are such strict precepts, Numbers 5, especially the leprosy, the greatest of all uncleannesses, did excellently decipher the state and nature of sin; might not the laws about Nazarites which concerned the greatest purities in a most pure religion, be something in commemoration of the state of man before his fall?
There was, as the doctors call it, the wine of command; which they were bound by precept to drink. Such was "that wine of the tithes," Deuteronomy 12:17,18, that twas commanded to be drunk at Jerusalem, and the cup of wine to be drunk at the Passover. What must the Nazarite do in this case? If he drink, he violates the command of his order; if he do not drink, he breaks the command about tithes and the laws of his fathers. Let Elias untie this knot when he comes.
17. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
[In the Spirit and power of Elias.] I. The Baptist is Elias, as our Saviour was David; that is, the antitype, Jeremiah 30:9; Malachi 4:5; Hosea 3:5, &c. It is less wonder that the Jews, from the words of Malachi, should expect the personal coming of Elijah, since there are not a few Christians that would be looking for the same thing, although they have an angel in this place interpreting it otherwise, and our blessed Saviour elsewhere himself [Matt 11:14]; "This is Elias which was for to come." But they misunderstood the phrase of the "great and dreadful day of the Lord"; as also were deceived into the mistake by the Greek version, "that Elias must come before the last judgment."
II. It is not said by the prophet Malachi, "Behold I will send you Elijah the Tishbite," but "Elijah the prophet"; which perhaps might be better rendered, "Behold I send you a prophet Elijah." And I may confidently say it would not be so wide from the sense and meaning of Malachi as the Greek interpreters, who by a prodigious daringness in favour of the Jewish traditions, have rendered it, I send you Elijah the Tishbite.
III. If I mistake not, "Elias the prophet" is but twice mentioned (I mean in those very terms) throughout the whole book of God: once in this place in Malachi, the other in 2 Chronicles 21:12. And in both those places I believe it is not meant Elijah the Tishbite in his own person, but some one in the spirit and power of him. That the words in Malachi should be so understood, both the angel and our Saviour teach us, and it seems very proper to be so taken in that place in the Chronicles.
IV. That great prophet that lived in Ahab's days is called the Tishbite, throughout the whole story of him, and not the prophet. Nor is he called the prophet, Luke 4:25 (where yet it is said, 'Eliseus the prophet'); nor by St. James 5:17. For the very word Tishbi, which is his epithet, sufficiently asserts his prophetic dignity when it denotes no other than a converter. For whence can we better derive the etymology? to which indeed the prophet Malachi seems to have alluded, "Behold, I send you Elijah the prophet, and he shall turn," &c.
V. But be it so that he might be called Tishbite from the city Toshab, as the Targum and other Rabbins would have it (which yet is very farfetched), that very thing might evince that it is not he himself that is meant by Malachi, but some other, because he doth not mention the Tishbite, but a prophet Elias, that is, a prophet in the spirit of Elias.
So among the Talmudists, any one skilled in signs and languages is called Mordecai, viz. because he is like him who lived in the days of Ahasuerus.
[To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.] John came in the power of Elias; not that power by which he wrought miracles [for John wrought none, John 10:41]; but "in the power of Elias turning the hearts of men," &c. Elias turned many of the children of Israel towards the Lord their God, 1 Kings 18: so did John, who over and above "turned the hearts of the fathers towards their children." Which what it should mean is something dark and unintelligible. You will hardly allow the Jews' gloss upon this place, who do so greatly mistake about the person, and who will allow nothing of good to be done by the Elias they expect, but within the compass of Israel. But are not the Gentiles to be converted? They in the prophets' dialect are 'the children of Zion, of Jerusalem, of the Jewish church': nothing more frequent. And in this sense are the words of Malachi we are now handling to be understood: 'Elias the Baptist will turn the hearts of the Jews towards the Gentiles, and of the Gentiles towards the Jews.' This was indeed the great work of the gospel, to bring over the Jew and Gentile into mutual embraces through the acknowledgment of Christ: which John most happily began, who came that "all men through him might believe," John 1:7: yea, and the Roman soldiers did believe as well as the Jews, Luke 3:14.
[The disobedient to the wisdom of the just.] The Greek in Malachi hath it, the heart of a man towards his neighbour. The words of the prophet having been varied, the angel varies too, but to a more proper sense. For the Gentiles were not to be turned to the Jews as such, or to the religion of the Jews, but to God "in the wisdom of the just." "The children to the fathers": the phrase fathers, according to the Jewish state at that time, was of doubtful sound, and had something of danger in it; for by that word generally at that time, was meant nothing else but the Fathers of Traditions, to whom God forbid any should be turned to those fathers in the folly of traditions, but to God in the wisdom of the just.
18. And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
[For I am an old man.] If so old a man, why then was he not sequestered from the service of the Temple by the law of superannuation? Numbers 4:3, 8:24,25. Hear what the Rabbins say in this case:
"There is something that is lawful in the priests, that is unlawful in the Levites: and there is something lawful in the Levites, that is unlawful in the priests. The Rabbins deliver; the priests upon any blemish are unfit; as for their years they are not unfit; the Levites for their years may be unfit, but by reason of blemish are not. From that which is said, that at the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting, we learn that years may make the Levites unfit. Perhaps the priests also are made unfit through years: and indeed, does it not seem in equity, that if the Levites, whom a blemish doth not make unfit, should yet be made unfit by superannuation, should not much more the priests be made unfit by superannuation, when even a spot or blemish will make them unfit? But the text saith, This is the law of the Levites; not, This is the law of the priests. The Rabbins deliver: What time a priest comes to maturity, till he grow old, he is fit to minister; and yet a spot or blemish makes him unfit. The Levite from his thirtieth to his fiftieth year is fit for service; but being superannuated, he becomes unfit. How must this be understood concerning the Levites? To wit, for that time wherein the ark was in the wilderness: but at Shiloh and in the Temple they were not rendered unfit, unless through the defect of their voice."
21. And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
[They marvelled that he tarried so long.] There is something of this kind told of Simeon the Just, concerning whom we have made some mention already:
"The high priest made a short prayer in the holy place. He would not be long in prayer, lest he should occasion any fear in the people. There is a story of one who tarried a long while in it, and the people were ready to have entered in upon him. They say it was Simeon the Just. They say unto him, 'Why didst thou tarry so long?' He answered them, saying, 'I have been praying for the Temple of your God, that it be not destroyed.' They answered him again, 'However, it was not well for you to tarry so long.'"
22. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
[He beckoned unto them.] There is also, verse 62, they made signs. The deaf and dumb man, he nods to them, and they nod to him.
The Talmudists distinguish the judgments given by a dumb man into the nodding of the head, and the dumb man's making signs.
"If any person be dumb, and yet hath his understanding, should they say to him, May we write a bill of divorce to thy wife, and he nod with his head, they make the experiment upon him three times," &c. And a little after they do not much rely upon the signs of the deaf and dumb man. For as it is in the same place, the dumb person, and the deaf and dumb, differ. Gloss: "The one can hear and not speak; the other can neither hear nor speak."
Amongst the doctors, the deaf and dumb person is commonly looked upon as one made so by some fit of palsy or apoplexy, by which the intellectuals are generally affected: whence the deaf and dumb are, according to the traditional canons, deprived of several offices and privileges of which others are capable.
This case therefore of Zacharias might have occasioned a considerable question, whether he ought not to have been sequestered from his ministry, and deprived of all the privileges of his priesthood, because he had been struck deaf and dumb, but that it happened to him in so signal and extraordinary a way.
24. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months; saying,
[She hid herself five months.] "She hid herself five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me, in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men."
She was big with child, it is plain, because God had looked on her, and taken away her reproach among men. She hid herself, because the Lord had dealt so with her, till he had taken away her reproach; giving her so remarkable a son, one who was to be so strict a Nazarite, and so famous a prophet. Lest therefore she should any way defile herself by going up and down, and thereby contract any uncleanness upon the Nazarite in her womb, she withdraws, and sequesters herself from all common conversation. Consult Judges 13:4.
There were several amongst the Jews that were wont to take upon them the sect of the Nazarites by their own voluntary vow. [Three hundred at once in the days of Jannaeus the king came together to Simeon Ben Shetah.] But there were but two only set apart by divine appointment, Samson and the Baptist: whom the same divine appointment, designing to preserve untouched from all kind of pollution even in their mothers' wombs, directed that the mothers themselves should keep themselves as distant as might be from all manner of defilement whatsoever. Elizabeth obeys; and for the whole time wherein she bore the child within her, she hid herself, for her more effectually avoiding all kind of uncleannesses; although it is true we have the mention but of five months, by reason of the story of the sixth month, which was to be immediately related, verse 26.
26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
[The angel Gabriel.] "R. Simeon Ben Lachish saith, The names of angels went up by the hand of Israel out of Babylon. For before it is said, Then flew one of the seraphim unto me; the seraphim stood before him, Isaiah 6; but afterward the man Gabriel, [Dan 9:21] and Michael your prince," [Dan 10:21].
The angel calls Zacharias back to Daniel 9, where the prediction concerning the coming of Messiah was foretold by Gabriel.
29. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
[Was troubled, &c.] I. It was very rare and unusual for men to salute any women; at least if that be true in Kiddushin. Rabh Judah, the president of the academy of Pombeditha, went to Rabh Nachman, rector of the academy of Neharde, and after some talk amongst themselves, "Saith Rabh Nachman, Let my daughter Doneg bring some drink, that we may drink together. Saith the other, Samuel saith, We must not use the ministry of a woman. But this is a little girl, saith Nachman. The other answers, But Samuel saith, We ought not to use the ministry of any woman at all. Wilt thou please, saith Nachman, to salute Lelith my wife? But, saith he, Samuel saith, The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness. But, saith Nachman, thou mayest salute her by a messenger. To whom the other; Samuel saith, They do not salute any woman. Thou mayest salute her, saith Nachman, by a proxy her husband. But Samuel saith, saith he again, They do not salute a woman at all."
II. It was still much more rare and unusual to give such a kind of salutation as this, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, by which title Gabriel had saluted Daniel of old: with this exception, that it was terror enough so much as to see an angel.
32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
[Shall be called the Son of the Highest.] That is, "he shall be called the Messiah": for Messiah and the Son of God are convertible terms...
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
[The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, &c.] I. This verse is the angel's gloss upon that famous prophecy, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bring forth." The veracity of which Mary not questioning, believing further that she herself was that virgin designed, and yet being utterly ignorant of the manner how so great a thing should be brought about, she only asks, "How shall this be?" &c. Doubtless she took the prophecy in its proper sense, as speaking of a virgin untouched. She knew nothing then, nor probably any part of the nation at that time so much as once thought of that sense by which the Jews have now for a great while disguised that place...
II. Give me leave, for their sakes in whose hand the book is not, to transcribe some few things out of that noble author Morney, which he quotes concerning this grand mystery from the Jews themselves:
"Truth shall spring out of the earth." "R. Joden," saith he, "notes upon this place, that it is not said, Truth shall be born, but shall spring out; because the generation and nativity of the Messiah is not to be as other creatures in the world, but shall be begot without carnal copulation; and therefore no one hath mentioned his father, as who must be hid from the knowledge of men till himself shall come and reveal him." And upon Genesis: "Ye have said (saith the Lord), We are orphans, bereaved of our father; such a one shall your Redeemer be, whom I shall give you." So upon Zechariah, "Behold my servant, whose name is Branch": and out of Psalm 110, "Thou art a priest after the order of Melchizedek": he saith, R. Berachiah delivers the same things. And R. Simeon Ben Jochai upon Genesis more plainly; viz. "That the Spirit, by the impulse of a mighty power, shall come forth of the womb, though shut up, that will become a mighty Prince, the King Messiah."--So he.
36. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
[Hath also conceived a son in her old age.] The angel teaches to what purpose it was that women, either barren before or considerably stricken in years, should be enabled to conceive and bring forth; viz. to make way for the easier belief of the conception of a virgin. If they, either beside or beyond nature, conceive a child, this may be some ground of belief that a virgin, contrary to nature, may do so too. So Abraham by faith saw Christ's day, as born of a pure virgin, in the birth of his own son Isaac of his old and barren wife Sarah.
39. And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda:
[She went into the hill country, &c.] That is, to Hebron, Joshua 21:11. For though it is true indeed that the priests after the return from Babylon were not all disposed and placed in all those very same dwellings they had possessed before the captivity, yet it is probable that Zacharias, who was of the seed of Aaron, being here said to dwell in the hill country of Judah, might have his house in Hebron, which is more peculiarly said to be 'the city of Aaron's offspring.'
41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
[The babe leaped in her womb.] So the Seventy, Genesis 25:22, the children leaped in her womb. Psalm 114:4, the mountains skipped. That which is added by Elizabeth, verse 44, the babe leaped in the womb for joy, signifies the manner of the thing, not the cause: q.d. it leaped with vehement exultation. For John, while he was an embryo in the womb, knew no more what was then done, than Jacob and Esau when they were in Rebekah's womb knew what was determined concerning them.
[Forasmuch as many have taken in hand, &c.] Whereas it was several years after the ascension of our Lord before the four books of the holy gospel were committed to writing; the apostles, the seventy disciples, and other ministers of the word, in the mean time everywhere dispersing the glad tidings: no wonder if any pious and greedy auditors had, for their own memory's sake and the good of others, noted in their own private table-books as much as they were capable of carrying from the sermons and discourses which they so frequently heard. Nor is it more strange if some of these should from their own collections compile and publish now and then some commentaries or short histories of the passages they had met with. Which, however they might perform out of very good intentions, and a faithful impartial pen, yet were these writings far from commencing an infallible canon, or eternal unalterable rule of the Christian faith.
It was not in the power of this kind of writers either to select what the Divine Wisdom would have selected for the holy canon, or to declare those things in that style wherein the Holy Spirit would have them declared, to whom he was neither the guide in the action nor the director of their pen.
Our evangelist, therefore, takes care to weigh such kind of writings in such a balance as that it may appear they are neither rejected by him as false or heretical, nor yet received as divine and canonical: not the first, because he tells us they had written even those very things which the heavenly preachers had delivered to them; not the latter, for to those writings he opposeth, that he himself was one that had perfect understanding of things from above. Of which we shall consider in its proper place.
[To set forth in order a declaration.] A kind of phrase not much unlike what was so familiar amongst the Jews, an orderly narration: saving, that that was more peculiarly applied by them to the commemoration of the Passover. And yet it is used in a larger sense too, who was he who set forth in order a declaration.
[Of those things which are most surely believed among us, &c.] Let us recollect what the unbelieving Jews think and say of the actions, miracles, and doctrine of Christ; and then we shall find it more agreeable to render this clause, of those things which are most surely believed among us, according to what Erasmus, Beza, our own English translators, and others, have rendered it, than with the vulgar, of the things which are fulfilled amongst us. They had said, "This deceiver seduceth the people, those wonders he did were by the power of magic; 'but we do most surely believe those things which he did and taught.'"
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, &c.] If from the beginning have reference to the time wherein Christ published the gospel upon earth, as no one need to doubt, then there is little distinction to be made between eyewitnesses and ministers: for who from that time had been made a minister of the word, that had not been an eyewitness and seen Christ himself? so that we may easily conjecture who are these eyewitnesses and ministers here, viz., the apostles, the seventy disciples, and others that filled up the number of the hundred and twenty, mentioned Acts 1:15.
It is said of Mnason, that he was an old disciple, Acts 21:16. It may be supposed of him, that he had been a disciple from the beginning; that is, from the very time wherein Christ himself published his glad tidings. Those words a good while ago, Acts 15:7, ought to be understood also in this sense.
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[Having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first.] This is not indeed ill rendered, having understood these things from the very first: but it may perhaps be better, having attained to an understanding of these things from above,--from heaven itself. So from above signifies from heaven, John 3:3,31, 19:11; James 1:17, 3:17, &c. For,
I. This version includes the other: for he that hath a perfect understanding of these things from above, or by divine inspiration, did understand them from the beginning.
II. Take notice of the distinction that is in Josephus, He that undertakes to give a true relation of things to others, ought himself to know them first very accurately, having either very diligently observed them himself, or learned by inquiry from others. Now if St. Luke had writ his history as "he had learned from others" (as they wrote whom he instances in verse 1), then he had been amongst those that had learned from others. Nor could he promise more than they might do, of whom he said, that many had taken in hand, &c.
[Most excellent Theophilus.] There is one guesses this most excellent Theophilus to have been an Antiochian, another thinks he may be a Roman; but it is very uncertain either who or whence he was. There was one Theophilus amongst the Jews, at that very time, probably, when St. Luke wrote his Gospel; but I do not think this was he. Josephus mentions him; "King Agrippa, removing Jesus the son of Gamaliel from the high priesthood, gave it to Mathias the son of Theophilus: in whose time the Jewish war began."
5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
[Of the course of Abia.] They are very little versed in the Holy Scriptures, and less in the Jewish learning, that could imagine this Zacharias to have been the high priest, when he is said to have been but of the eighth course, and to have attained this turn of attendance by lot.
As to the institution of the courses under the first Temple, there is no need to say anything, because every one hath it before him, 1 Chronicles 24. But under the second Temple there was indeed some difference, not as to the order of their courses, but as to their heads and families. Of which thing the Talmudists treat largely, and indeed not altogether from the purpose: let them comment in my stead:
"Four courses of priests went up out of Babylon; Jedaiah, Harim, Pashur, and Immer, Ezra 2:36, &c. The prophets, who were conversant amongst them at that time, obliged them, that if Jehoiarib himself should come up from the captivity, that he should not thrust out the course that preceded him, but be, as it were, an appendix to it. The prophets come forth, and cast in four-and-twenty lots into the urn; Jedaiah comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Harim comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Pashur comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. Immer comes, and having drawn five, himself was the sixth. It was agreed amongst them that if Jehoiarib himself should return out of captivity, he should not exclude the foregoing course, but be, as it were, an appendix to it. The heads of the courses stand forth, and divide themselves into the houses of their fathers," &c. We have the same thing in Babyl. Erachin, fol. 12. 1.
If these things be true (and, indeed, by comparing them with the place in Ezra before quoted, we may believe they are not much amiss), then the course of Abiah, both here and Nehemiah 12:17, must not so much be understood of the stock or race of Abijah, as that that course retained the name of Abijah still. For though there were four-and-twenty classes made up of the four only named, yet did they retain both their ancient order and ancient names too. If therefore Jehoiarib, i.e. his course, should come up out of Babylon (which, however, did not happen), it was provided that he should not disturb the fixed and stated order by intruding into the first place; but retaining the name of Jehoiarib in the first class, which consisted now of those of Jedaiah, his course, should be distributed amongst those orders.
II. The Rabbins have a tradition: there were twenty-four courses of priests in the land of Israel, and twelve courses in Jericho. What! twelve in Jericho? This would increase the number too much. No; but there were twelve of those in Jericho; that when the time came about that any course should go up to Jerusalem, half a course went up from the land of Israel, and half a course from Jericho, that by them might come a supply both of water and food to their brethren that were at Jerusalem.
Gloss:--"When the time came that any course should go up to Jerusalem, it divided itself, that half of it should go to Jericho, that they might supply their brethren with water and food," &c.
III. As to the circulation of these courses or turns, we may guess something of it from the Gloss in Midras Coheleth. The Midras itself hath these words: "It is R. Chaija's tradition: It is written, Seven weeks shall be complete, i.e. between the Passover and Pentecost, Leviticus 23:15. But when are they so? When Joshua and Shecaniah do not interfere."
Where the Gloss, from another author, hath it thus: "when the calends of the month Nisan fall in with the sabbath, then doth the Passover fall in with the sabbath too: and then let them begin to number from the going out of the sabbath, and the weeks will be complete according to the days of the creation. He takes an instance from Joshua and Shecaniah. For there were twenty-four courses, which took their turns alternately every sabbath: amongst which Joshua was the ninth, and Shecaniah the tenth. On the first week of the month Nisan, Jehoiarib was the first course; on the second week Jedaiah; on the paschal week, all the courses attended together. The six weeks to that sabbath that immediately preceded the Pentecost, there ministered six courses, Harim, Seorim, Malchijah, Mijamin, Hakkos, Abiah. In the sabbath that precedes the Pentecost, Joshua enters, but does not attend till after Pentecost. Behold, Joshua and Shecaniah are not between the Passover and Pentecost: for if Joshua was between the Passover and Pentecost, the weeks would not be complete according to the days of the creation."
He adds a great deal more, but, I confess, it is beyond my reach: such is that that immediately follows: "They are not complete as the days of the creation; for we may number from three to three, or from five to five, and so Joshua and Shecaniah will enter [upon their course] before the Pentecost. For behold, the sabbath before Nisan, let it be Jehoiarib's turn, and let there be seven weeks to the Passover," &c.; which must either be some fault in the printer, or a riddle to me that I cannot tell what to make of.
However, by the whole series of the discourse it appears, that the beginning of the double circulation of the courses was with the twofold beginning of the year, Nisan and Tisri: as also that all the courses performed their ministry together in the feasts. Here, indeed, is mention only as to the Passover; but we do not want for authorities to make it out, that as they did so then, so also at the feast of Pentecost and Tabernacles. Let Jehoiarib, therefore, begin the first course in the beginning of the month Nisan; and (remembering, that all the courses together performed their service at the Passover and Pentecost) the courses will all have run out in half the year; for so (taking in those two feasts) six-and-twenty weeks are spent off. Then let Jehoiarib begin again with the month Tisri; and suppose all the courses jointly ministering at the feast of Tabernacles, and they will have finished their round (excepting one week over) by the month Nisan again: which gap of that one week how it is filled up, as also the intercalar month when it happened, would be too much for us to discuss in this place.
IV. The course of Bilgah is put out of its just order, and thrown into the last place, if that be true, which we meet with in Jerusalem Succah. They say, "All that went into the Mountain of the Temple made their entry on the right hand, and went out at the left: but Bilgah went towards the south, because of the apostasy of his daughter Mary: for she went and married a certain soldier of the kingdom of the Grecians. He came and struck the top of the altar, saying, 'O wolf, wolf, thou that devourest all the good things of Israel, and yet in a time of straits helpest them not.' There are also that say, that the reason why this was thus ordered was, because Bilgah's course was once neglected, when it came about to them to have gone up to have performed their ministry. Bilgah, therefore, was always amongst those that went out, as Isbab was amongst those that came in; having cast that course out of their order."
V. "For every course there was a stationary assembly of priests, Levites, and Israelites, at Jerusalem. When the time came, wherein the course must go up, the priests and the Levites went up to Jerusalem; but the Israelites that were within that course, all met within their own cities, and read the history of the creation, Genesis 1; and the stationary men fasted four days in that week; viz. from the second to the fifth."
Gloss: "There was a stationary assembly for every course stated and placed in Jerusalem, who should assist in the sacrifices of their brethren: and besides these that were stated in Jerusalem, there was a stationary assembly in every city. All Israel was divided into twenty-four stations, according to the twenty-four courses. There was the station of priests, Levites, and Israelites, at Jerusalem; the priests of the course went up to Jerusalem to their service, the Levites to their singing; and of all the stations, there were some appointed and settled at Jerusalem that were to assist at the sacrifices of their brethren. The rest assembled in their own cities, poured out prayers that the sacrifices of their brethren might be accepted; fasting, and bringing forth the book of the law on their fast-day," &c. So the Gloss hath it.
The reason of this institution as to stationary-men is given us in the Misna; For how could every man's offering be made, if he himself were not present? Now, whereas the daily sacrifice, and some other offerings, were made for all Israel, and it was not possible that all Israel should be present, these stationaries were instituted, who, in the stead of all Israel, should put their hands upon the daily sacrifice, and should be present at the other offerings that were offered for all Israel. And while these were performing this at Jerusalem, there were other stationaries in every course, who, by prayers and fasting in their own cities, helped forward, as much as they could, the services of their brethren that were at Jerusalem.
"The children of Israel lay on their hands, but the Gentiles do not. The men of Israel lay on their hands, but the women do not. R. Jose saith, Abba Eliezer said to me, We had once a calf for a peace offering: and bringing it into the Court of the Women, the women put their hands upon it: not that this belonged to the women so to do, but that the women's spirits might be pleased." A remarkable thing.
The priests, throughout all the courses grew into a prodigious number, if that be true in Jerusalem Taanith; "R. Zeora in the name of Rabh Houna said, That the least of all the courses brought forth eighty-five thousand branches of priests." A thing not to be credited.
[And he wife was of the daughters of Aaron.] In the Talmudists, a priestess; viz. one born of the lineage of priests. It was lawful for a priest to marry a Levites, or indeed a daughter of Israel: but it was most commendable of all to marry one of the priests' line. Hence that story in Taanith, "Fourscore pair of brethren-priests took to wife fourscore pair of sister-priestesses in Gophne, all in one night."
There was hardly any thing among the Jews with greater care and caution looked after than the marrying of their priests; viz. that the wives they took should not by any means stain and defile their priestly blood: and that all things which were fit for their eating should be hallowed. Hence that usual phrase for an excellent woman, She deserves to marry with a priest.
Josephus speaks much of this care, that the whole priestly generation might be preserved pure and unblended.
[Elisabeth.] The Seventy give this name to Aaron's wife, Exodus 7:23.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
[In all the commandments and ordinances, &c.] So Numbers 36:13, These are the commandments and judgments. It would perhaps seem a little too fine and curious to restrain the commandments to the decalogue, or ten commandments, and the ordinances to the ceremonial and judicial laws, though this does not wholly want foundation. It is certain the precepts delivered after the decalogue, from Exodus 21 to chapter 24, are called judgments, or ordinances, Exodus 21:1, 24:3.
The Vulgar can hardly give any good account why he should render ordinances by justifications, much less the followers of that translation why they should from thence fetch an argument for justification upon observation of the commands, when the commands and institutions of men are by foreign authors called ordinances; nay, the corrupt customs that had been wickedly taken up have the same word, 1 Samuel 2:13, the priest's 'custom' with the people was, &c. 2 Kings 17:8, and walked in the 'statutes' of the heathen
The word ordinance is frequently rendered by those interpreters from ordain; which, to wave all other instances, may abundantly appear from Psalm 119. And the very things which the Jews speak of the Hebrew word obtain also in the Greek.
"Perhaps Satan and the Gentiles will question with Israel, what this or that command means, and what should be the reason of it. The answer that ought to be made in this case is, It is ordained, it is a law given by God, and it becomes not thee to cavil."
"Ye shall observe my statutes, [Lev 18:4] that is, even those which Satan and the nations of the world do cavil at. Such are those laws about eating swine's flesh; heterogeneous clothing; the nearest kinsman's [leviri] putting off the shoe; the cleansing of the leper, and the scapegoat. If, perhaps, it should be said that these precepts are vain and needless, the text saith, 'I am the Lord. I, the Lord, have ordained these things; and it doth not become thee to dispute them.'" They are ordinances, just and equal, deriving their equity from the authority of him that ordained them.
8. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
[In the order of his course.] "The heads of the courses stood forth, and divided themselves into so many houses of fathers. In one course, perhaps, there were five, six, seven, eight, or nine houses of fathers: of the course wherein there were but five houses of fathers, there were three of them ministered three days, and two four days; if six, then five served five days, and one two days; if seven, then every one attended their day; if eight, then six waited six days, and two one day; if nine, then five waited five days, and four the other two."
Take the whole order of their daily attendance from Gloss in Tamid, cap. 6: "The great altar [or the altar of sacrifice] goes before the lesser [or that of incense]. The lesser altar goes before the pieces of wood [laid on the hearth of the great altar]; the laying on the wood goes before the sweeping the inner altar [or that of the incense]; the sweeping of the inner altar goes before the snuffing of the lamps; the snuffing of the lamps goes before the sprinkling of the blood of the daily sacrifice; the sprinkling of the blood of the daily sacrifice goes before the snuffing of the two other lamps; the snuffing of the two other lamps goes before the incense; the incense goes before the laying on the parts of the sacrifice upon the altar; the laying on the parts goes before the Mincha; the Mincha goes before the meal [or the two loaves] of the chief priest; the two loaves of the chief priest go before the drink offering; the drink offering before the additional sacrifices. So Abba Saul." But a little after; "The wise men say, 'The blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled; then the lamps snuffed; then the incense; then the snuffing of the two other lamps: and this is the tradition according to the wise men.'"
9. According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
[According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was, &c.] "The ruler of the Temple saith, Come ye, and cast your lots [that it may be determined] who shall kill the sacrifice, who sprinkle the blood, who sweep the inner altar; who cleanse the candlestick, who carry the parts [of the sacrifice] to the ascent of the altar; the head, the leg, the two shoulders, the tail of the back bone, the other leg, the breast, the gullet, the two sides, the entrails, the flour, the two loaves, and the wine. He hath it, to whom it happens by lot."
"The room Gazith [in which the lots were cast] was in the form of a large hall: the casting of the lots was on the east side of it, some elder sitting on the west [Gloss: Some elder of the Sanhedrim, that instructed them in the custom and manner of casting the lot.] The priests stood about in circle; and the ruler coming, snatched off a cap from the head of this or that person, and by that they understood where the lot was to begin."
"They stood in a circle; and the ruler, coming, snatches off a cap from the head of this or that man: from him the lot begins to be reckoned, every one lifting up his finger at each number. The ruler also saith, 'In whomsoever the number ends, he obtains this or that office by lot: and he declares the number'; e.g., there is, it may be, the number one hundred, or threescore, according to the multitude of the priests standing round. He begins to reckon from the person whose cap he snatched off, and numbers round till the whole number is run out. Now, in whomsoever the number terminates, he obtains that office about which the lot was concerned. And so it is in all the lots."
I will not inquire at present whether this casting of lots was every day, or whether for the whole week, wherein such or such a course performed its attendance. It seems that at this time the number, whatever it was, for the choice of one to burn incense, ended in our Zacharias: whose work and business in this office, let it not be thought tedious to the reader to take an account of in these following passages:
[To burn incense.] "He whose lot it was to burn incense took a vessel containing the quantity of three cabs, in the midst of which there was a censer full and heaped up with incense; over which there was a cover."
"He to whom the lot fell of the vessel wherein the coals were to be taken up, takes it and goes up to the top of the altar; and there, stirring the fire about, takes out some of the hottest coals, and, going down, pours them into a golden vessel."
"When they had come from hence to the space between the altar and the porch of the Temple, one of them tinkles a little bell; by which, if any of the priests be without doors, he knows that his brethren the priests are about to worship: so that he makes all speed, and enters in. The Levite knows his brethren the Levites are beginning to sing, so he makes haste, and enters in too. Then the chief head or ruler of the course for that time sets all the unclean in the east gate of the court, that they may be sprinkled with blood."
"When they were about to go up the steps of the porch, those whose lot it was to sweep off the ashes from the inner altar and the candlestick went up first; he that was to sweep the altar went in first, takes the vessel, worships, and goes out."
"He who, by lot, had the vessel for gathering up the coals, placeth them upon the inner altar, lays them all about to the brim of the vessel, then worships and goes out."
"He who was to burn the incense takes the censer from the midst of the vessel wherein it was, and gives it to one standing by. If any incense had been scattered in the vessel, he gives it him into his hand; scatters the incense upon the coals, and goes out. He does not burn the incense till the ruler bids him do it."
10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
[The whole multitude of the people were praying without.] When the priest went in unto the holy place to burn incense, notice was given to all by the sound of a little bell, that the time of prayer was now: as hath been already noted.
I. As many as were in the court where the altar was retired from between the Temple and the altar, and withdrew themselves lower: They drew off from the space that was between the porch and the altar while the incense was burning.
R. Jose saith, "That in five circumstances the space between the porch and the altar is equal to the temple itself. For no one comes thither bareheaded, disturbed with wine, or with hands and feet unwashed. And as they withdraw themselves from the temple itself in the time of incense, so do they the same at that time from the space that is between the porch and that altar."
II. In the other courts they were not bound to retire or change their place; but in all they gave themselves to prayer, and that in deep silence: "The fathers ordained prayers in the time of the daily sacrifice": And of what kind soever the prayers were, whether their phylacterical ones alone, or their phylacterical in conjunction with others, or others without their phylacterical, still they uttered them very silently: "He that repeats his prayers in that silent manner that he does not hear himself, he does his duty. But R. Jose would have it, that he repeats his prayers so that the sound of his own voice may reach his own ears." To this deep silence in the time of incense and prayers that passage seems to allude, Revelation 8:1,3.
When the incense and prayers were ended, the parts of the sacrifice were laid upon the altar, and then the Levites began their psalmody, and their sounding the trumpet.
11. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
[There appeared unto him an angel of the Lord.] It might be a reasonable doubt whether ever there had appeared an angel in the Temple, even in the first, when elsewhere the appearance of angels was so very familiar, much less in the second, when every thing of that nature had so perfectly ceased, till now that the gospel began to dawn and shine out.
What we find related concerning Simeon the just, how "for those forty years wherein he had served as high priest, he had seen an angel clothed in white coming into the Holy Place on the day of Expiation, and going out again: only his last year he saw him come in, but did not see him go out again; which gave him to understand that he was to die that year": we may suppose this invented rather for the honour of the man than that any such thing happened for the greater solemnity of the day.
[Standing on the right side of the altar of incense.] "It is a tradition. The table [of the shewbread] was on the north side, distant from the wall two cubits and a half. The candlestick on the south, distant from the wall two cubits and a half. The altar [of incense] placed in the middle and drawn out a little towards the east."
So that the angel standing on the right side of the altar stood on the north side: on which side if there were an entrance into the Holy of Holies, as R. Chaninah thinks, then we may suppose the angel, by a sudden appearance, came out from the Holy of Holies.
15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
[Neither wine nor strong drink.] That is, if the Jews may be our interpreters properly enough, "neither new nor old wine"; Numbers 6:3. Greek, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. Targum, He shall separate himself from wine new and old. So Deuteronomy 14:26.
"R. Jose of Galilee saith, Why doth the Scripture double it, wine and strong drink? For is not wine strong drink, and strong drink wine?" Strong drink is wine no doubt, Numbers 28:7; Thou shalt cause the strong wine to be poured out before the Lord. Targum, a drink offering of old wine.
Whilst I a little more narrowly consider that severe interdiction by which the Nazarite was forbidden the total use of the vine, not only that he should not drink of the wine, but not so much as taste of the grape, not the pulp nor stone of the grape, no, not the bark of the vine; I cannot but call to mind,
I. Whether the vine might not be the tree in paradise that had been forbidden to Adam, by the tasting of which he sinned. The Jewish doctors positively affirm this without any scruple.
II. Whether that law about the Nazarites had not some reference to Adam while he was under that prohibition in the state of innocency. For if the bodily and legal uncleannesses, about which there are such strict precepts, Numbers 5, especially the leprosy, the greatest of all uncleannesses, did excellently decipher the state and nature of sin; might not the laws about Nazarites which concerned the greatest purities in a most pure religion, be something in commemoration of the state of man before his fall?
There was, as the doctors call it, the wine of command; which they were bound by precept to drink. Such was "that wine of the tithes," Deuteronomy 12:17,18, that twas commanded to be drunk at Jerusalem, and the cup of wine to be drunk at the Passover. What must the Nazarite do in this case? If he drink, he violates the command of his order; if he do not drink, he breaks the command about tithes and the laws of his fathers. Let Elias untie this knot when he comes.
17. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
[In the Spirit and power of Elias.] I. The Baptist is Elias, as our Saviour was David; that is, the antitype, Jeremiah 30:9; Malachi 4:5; Hosea 3:5, &c. It is less wonder that the Jews, from the words of Malachi, should expect the personal coming of Elijah, since there are not a few Christians that would be looking for the same thing, although they have an angel in this place interpreting it otherwise, and our blessed Saviour elsewhere himself [Matt 11:14]; "This is Elias which was for to come." But they misunderstood the phrase of the "great and dreadful day of the Lord"; as also were deceived into the mistake by the Greek version, "that Elias must come before the last judgment."
II. It is not said by the prophet Malachi, "Behold I will send you Elijah the Tishbite," but "Elijah the prophet"; which perhaps might be better rendered, "Behold I send you a prophet Elijah." And I may confidently say it would not be so wide from the sense and meaning of Malachi as the Greek interpreters, who by a prodigious daringness in favour of the Jewish traditions, have rendered it, I send you Elijah the Tishbite.
III. If I mistake not, "Elias the prophet" is but twice mentioned (I mean in those very terms) throughout the whole book of God: once in this place in Malachi, the other in 2 Chronicles 21:12. And in both those places I believe it is not meant Elijah the Tishbite in his own person, but some one in the spirit and power of him. That the words in Malachi should be so understood, both the angel and our Saviour teach us, and it seems very proper to be so taken in that place in the Chronicles.
IV. That great prophet that lived in Ahab's days is called the Tishbite, throughout the whole story of him, and not the prophet. Nor is he called the prophet, Luke 4:25 (where yet it is said, 'Eliseus the prophet'); nor by St. James 5:17. For the very word Tishbi, which is his epithet, sufficiently asserts his prophetic dignity when it denotes no other than a converter. For whence can we better derive the etymology? to which indeed the prophet Malachi seems to have alluded, "Behold, I send you Elijah the prophet, and he shall turn," &c.
V. But be it so that he might be called Tishbite from the city Toshab, as the Targum and other Rabbins would have it (which yet is very farfetched), that very thing might evince that it is not he himself that is meant by Malachi, but some other, because he doth not mention the Tishbite, but a prophet Elias, that is, a prophet in the spirit of Elias.
So among the Talmudists, any one skilled in signs and languages is called Mordecai, viz. because he is like him who lived in the days of Ahasuerus.
[To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.] John came in the power of Elias; not that power by which he wrought miracles [for John wrought none, John 10:41]; but "in the power of Elias turning the hearts of men," &c. Elias turned many of the children of Israel towards the Lord their God, 1 Kings 18: so did John, who over and above "turned the hearts of the fathers towards their children." Which what it should mean is something dark and unintelligible. You will hardly allow the Jews' gloss upon this place, who do so greatly mistake about the person, and who will allow nothing of good to be done by the Elias they expect, but within the compass of Israel. But are not the Gentiles to be converted? They in the prophets' dialect are 'the children of Zion, of Jerusalem, of the Jewish church': nothing more frequent. And in this sense are the words of Malachi we are now handling to be understood: 'Elias the Baptist will turn the hearts of the Jews towards the Gentiles, and of the Gentiles towards the Jews.' This was indeed the great work of the gospel, to bring over the Jew and Gentile into mutual embraces through the acknowledgment of Christ: which John most happily began, who came that "all men through him might believe," John 1:7: yea, and the Roman soldiers did believe as well as the Jews, Luke 3:14.
[The disobedient to the wisdom of the just.] The Greek in Malachi hath it, the heart of a man towards his neighbour. The words of the prophet having been varied, the angel varies too, but to a more proper sense. For the Gentiles were not to be turned to the Jews as such, or to the religion of the Jews, but to God "in the wisdom of the just." "The children to the fathers": the phrase fathers, according to the Jewish state at that time, was of doubtful sound, and had something of danger in it; for by that word generally at that time, was meant nothing else but the Fathers of Traditions, to whom God forbid any should be turned to those fathers in the folly of traditions, but to God in the wisdom of the just.
18. And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
[For I am an old man.] If so old a man, why then was he not sequestered from the service of the Temple by the law of superannuation? Numbers 4:3, 8:24,25. Hear what the Rabbins say in this case:
"There is something that is lawful in the priests, that is unlawful in the Levites: and there is something lawful in the Levites, that is unlawful in the priests. The Rabbins deliver; the priests upon any blemish are unfit; as for their years they are not unfit; the Levites for their years may be unfit, but by reason of blemish are not. From that which is said, that at the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting, we learn that years may make the Levites unfit. Perhaps the priests also are made unfit through years: and indeed, does it not seem in equity, that if the Levites, whom a blemish doth not make unfit, should yet be made unfit by superannuation, should not much more the priests be made unfit by superannuation, when even a spot or blemish will make them unfit? But the text saith, This is the law of the Levites; not, This is the law of the priests. The Rabbins deliver: What time a priest comes to maturity, till he grow old, he is fit to minister; and yet a spot or blemish makes him unfit. The Levite from his thirtieth to his fiftieth year is fit for service; but being superannuated, he becomes unfit. How must this be understood concerning the Levites? To wit, for that time wherein the ark was in the wilderness: but at Shiloh and in the Temple they were not rendered unfit, unless through the defect of their voice."
21. And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
[They marvelled that he tarried so long.] There is something of this kind told of Simeon the Just, concerning whom we have made some mention already:
"The high priest made a short prayer in the holy place. He would not be long in prayer, lest he should occasion any fear in the people. There is a story of one who tarried a long while in it, and the people were ready to have entered in upon him. They say it was Simeon the Just. They say unto him, 'Why didst thou tarry so long?' He answered them, saying, 'I have been praying for the Temple of your God, that it be not destroyed.' They answered him again, 'However, it was not well for you to tarry so long.'"
22. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
[He beckoned unto them.] There is also, verse 62, they made signs. The deaf and dumb man, he nods to them, and they nod to him.
The Talmudists distinguish the judgments given by a dumb man into the nodding of the head, and the dumb man's making signs.
"If any person be dumb, and yet hath his understanding, should they say to him, May we write a bill of divorce to thy wife, and he nod with his head, they make the experiment upon him three times," &c. And a little after they do not much rely upon the signs of the deaf and dumb man. For as it is in the same place, the dumb person, and the deaf and dumb, differ. Gloss: "The one can hear and not speak; the other can neither hear nor speak."
Amongst the doctors, the deaf and dumb person is commonly looked upon as one made so by some fit of palsy or apoplexy, by which the intellectuals are generally affected: whence the deaf and dumb are, according to the traditional canons, deprived of several offices and privileges of which others are capable.
This case therefore of Zacharias might have occasioned a considerable question, whether he ought not to have been sequestered from his ministry, and deprived of all the privileges of his priesthood, because he had been struck deaf and dumb, but that it happened to him in so signal and extraordinary a way.
24. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months; saying,
[She hid herself five months.] "She hid herself five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me, in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men."
She was big with child, it is plain, because God had looked on her, and taken away her reproach among men. She hid herself, because the Lord had dealt so with her, till he had taken away her reproach; giving her so remarkable a son, one who was to be so strict a Nazarite, and so famous a prophet. Lest therefore she should any way defile herself by going up and down, and thereby contract any uncleanness upon the Nazarite in her womb, she withdraws, and sequesters herself from all common conversation. Consult Judges 13:4.
There were several amongst the Jews that were wont to take upon them the sect of the Nazarites by their own voluntary vow. [Three hundred at once in the days of Jannaeus the king came together to Simeon Ben Shetah.] But there were but two only set apart by divine appointment, Samson and the Baptist: whom the same divine appointment, designing to preserve untouched from all kind of pollution even in their mothers' wombs, directed that the mothers themselves should keep themselves as distant as might be from all manner of defilement whatsoever. Elizabeth obeys; and for the whole time wherein she bore the child within her, she hid herself, for her more effectually avoiding all kind of uncleannesses; although it is true we have the mention but of five months, by reason of the story of the sixth month, which was to be immediately related, verse 26.
26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
[The angel Gabriel.] "R. Simeon Ben Lachish saith, The names of angels went up by the hand of Israel out of Babylon. For before it is said, Then flew one of the seraphim unto me; the seraphim stood before him, Isaiah 6; but afterward the man Gabriel, [Dan 9:21] and Michael your prince," [Dan 10:21].
The angel calls Zacharias back to Daniel 9, where the prediction concerning the coming of Messiah was foretold by Gabriel.
29. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
[Was troubled, &c.] I. It was very rare and unusual for men to salute any women; at least if that be true in Kiddushin. Rabh Judah, the president of the academy of Pombeditha, went to Rabh Nachman, rector of the academy of Neharde, and after some talk amongst themselves, "Saith Rabh Nachman, Let my daughter Doneg bring some drink, that we may drink together. Saith the other, Samuel saith, We must not use the ministry of a woman. But this is a little girl, saith Nachman. The other answers, But Samuel saith, We ought not to use the ministry of any woman at all. Wilt thou please, saith Nachman, to salute Lelith my wife? But, saith he, Samuel saith, The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness. But, saith Nachman, thou mayest salute her by a messenger. To whom the other; Samuel saith, They do not salute any woman. Thou mayest salute her, saith Nachman, by a proxy her husband. But Samuel saith, saith he again, They do not salute a woman at all."
II. It was still much more rare and unusual to give such a kind of salutation as this, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, by which title Gabriel had saluted Daniel of old: with this exception, that it was terror enough so much as to see an angel.
32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
[Shall be called the Son of the Highest.] That is, "he shall be called the Messiah": for Messiah and the Son of God are convertible terms...
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
[The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, &c.] I. This verse is the angel's gloss upon that famous prophecy, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bring forth." The veracity of which Mary not questioning, believing further that she herself was that virgin designed, and yet being utterly ignorant of the manner how so great a thing should be brought about, she only asks, "How shall this be?" &c. Doubtless she took the prophecy in its proper sense, as speaking of a virgin untouched. She knew nothing then, nor probably any part of the nation at that time so much as once thought of that sense by which the Jews have now for a great while disguised that place...
II. Give me leave, for their sakes in whose hand the book is not, to transcribe some few things out of that noble author Morney, which he quotes concerning this grand mystery from the Jews themselves:
"Truth shall spring out of the earth." "R. Joden," saith he, "notes upon this place, that it is not said, Truth shall be born, but shall spring out; because the generation and nativity of the Messiah is not to be as other creatures in the world, but shall be begot without carnal copulation; and therefore no one hath mentioned his father, as who must be hid from the knowledge of men till himself shall come and reveal him." And upon Genesis: "Ye have said (saith the Lord), We are orphans, bereaved of our father; such a one shall your Redeemer be, whom I shall give you." So upon Zechariah, "Behold my servant, whose name is Branch": and out of Psalm 110, "Thou art a priest after the order of Melchizedek": he saith, R. Berachiah delivers the same things. And R. Simeon Ben Jochai upon Genesis more plainly; viz. "That the Spirit, by the impulse of a mighty power, shall come forth of the womb, though shut up, that will become a mighty Prince, the King Messiah."--So he.
36. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
[Hath also conceived a son in her old age.] The angel teaches to what purpose it was that women, either barren before or considerably stricken in years, should be enabled to conceive and bring forth; viz. to make way for the easier belief of the conception of a virgin. If they, either beside or beyond nature, conceive a child, this may be some ground of belief that a virgin, contrary to nature, may do so too. So Abraham by faith saw Christ's day, as born of a pure virgin, in the birth of his own son Isaac of his old and barren wife Sarah.
39. And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda:
[She went into the hill country, &c.] That is, to Hebron, Joshua 21:11. For though it is true indeed that the priests after the return from Babylon were not all disposed and placed in all those very same dwellings they had possessed before the captivity, yet it is probable that Zacharias, who was of the seed of Aaron, being here said to dwell in the hill country of Judah, might have his house in Hebron, which is more peculiarly said to be 'the city of Aaron's offspring.'
41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
[The babe leaped in her womb.] So the Seventy, Genesis 25:22, the children leaped in her womb. Psalm 114:4, the mountains skipped. That which is added by Elizabeth, verse 44, the babe leaped in the womb for joy, signifies the manner of the thing, not the cause: q.d. it leaped with vehement exultation. For John, while he was an embryo in the womb, knew no more what was then done, than Jacob and Esau when they were in Rebekah's womb knew what was determined concerning them.
"At the Red Sea, even the infants sang in the wombs of their mothers"; as it is said, from the fountain of Israel Psalm 88:27; where the Targum, to the same sense, "Exalt the Lord ye infants in the bowels of your mothers, of the seed of Israel." Let them enjoy their hyperboles.
Questionless, Elizabeth had learned from her husband that the child she went with was designed as the forerunner of the Messiah, but she did not yet know of what sort of woman the Messiah must be born till this leaping of the infant in her womb became some token to her.
56. And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
[Abode with her three months.] A space of time very well known amongst the doctors, defined by them to know whether a woman be with child or no: which I have already observed upon Matthew 1.
59. And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
[And they called it, &c.] I. "The circumciser said, 'Blessed be the Lord our God, who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath given us the law of circumcision.'" The father of the infant said, "Who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath commanded us to enter the child into the covenant of Abraham our father." But where was Zacharias' tongue for this service?
II. God at the same time instituted circumcision, and changed the names of Abram and Sarah: hence the custom of giving names to their children at the time of their circumcision.
III. Amongst the several accounts why this or that name was given to the sons, this was one that chiefly obtained, viz. for the honour of some person whom they esteemed they gave the child his name: which seems to have guided them in this case here, when Zacharias himself, being dumb, could not make his mind known to them. Mahli the son of Mushi hath the name of Mahli given him, who was his uncle, the brother of Mushi his father, 1 Chronicles 23:21,23.
"R. Nathan said, 'I once went to the islands of the sea, and there came to me a woman, whose first-born had died by circumcision; so also her second son. She brought the third to me. I bade her wait a little, till the blood might assuage. She waited a little, and then circumcised him, and he lived: they called him, therefore, by my name, Nathan of Babylon.'" See also Jerusalem Jevamoth.
"There was a certain family at Jerusalem that were wont to die about the eighteenth year of their age: they made the matter known to R. Jochanan, Ben Zacchai, who said, 'Perhaps you are of Eli's lineage, concerning whom it is said, The increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age. Go ye and be diligent in the study of the law, and ye shall live.' They went and gave diligent heed to the law, and lived. They called themselves, therefore, the family of Jochanan, after his name."
It is disputed in the same tract, whether the son begot by a brother's raising up seed to his brother should not be called after the name of him that is deceased: for instance, if one dies without a son, and his name be Joseph, or Jochanan, whether the son that is born to this man's brother, taking his brother's widow to wife, should not have the name after him that afirst had her, and be called 'Joseph,' or 'Jochanan.' Otherwise, indeed, it was very seldom that the son bore the name of the father, as is evident both in the Holy Scriptures and the Rabbinical writers. It cannot be denied but that sometimes this was done; but so very rarely, that we may easily believe the reason why the friends of Zacharias would have given the child his own name was merely, either because they could by no means learn what he himself designed to call him, or else in honour to him, however he lay under that divine stroke at present, as to be both deaf and dumb.
78. Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us.
[The dayspring from on high.] I would readily have rendered it the branch from on high, but for what follows, "to give light," &c...
80. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel.
[In the deserts.] Whether John was an eremite in the sense as it is now commonly taken, we may inquire and judge by these two things: I. Whether there was ever any eremite in this sense among the Jews. II. Whether he absented himself from the synagogues; and whether he did not present himself at Jerusalem in the feasts: and to this may be added, whether he retired and withdrew himself from the society of mankind. If he absented from the synagogues, he must have been accounted a wicked neighbour. If from the feasts, he transgressed the command, Exodus 23:17. If from the society of mankind, what agreeableness was there in this? It seems very incongruous, that he that was born for this end, "to turn the disobedient," &c. should withdraw himself from all society and converse with them. Nothing would persuade me sooner that John was indeed an anchoret, than that which he himself saith, that he did not know Jesus, John 1:31, whereas he was so very near akin to him. One might think, surely he must have lain hid in some den or cave of the earth, when, for the space of almost thirty years wherein he had lived, he had had no society with Jesus, so near a kinsman of his, nay, not so much as in the least to know him. But if this were so, how came he to know and so humbly refuse him, when he offered himself to be baptized by him? Matthew 3:14; and this before he was instructed who he was, by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him? John 1:33.
[eremite - hermit; esp.: a religious recluse.--Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.]
From this question may arise two more:--
I. Whether John appeared or acted under the notion of a prophet before his entrance into the thirtieth year of his age. I am apt to think he did not: and hence I suppose it is said concerning him, "that he was in the deserts"; that is, he was amongst the rustics, and common rank of men, as a man of no note or quality himself, till he made himself public under the notion and authority of a prophet.
II. Whether he might not well know his kinsman Jesus in all this time, and admire his incomparable sanctity, and yet be ignorant that he was the Messiah. Yea, and when he modestly repulsed him from his baptism, was it that he acknowledged him for the Messiah? (which agrees not with John 1:33) or not rather that, by reason of his admirable holiness, he saw that he was above him?
[Till the day of his shewing unto Israel.] John was unquestionably a priest by birth; and being arrived at the thirtieth year of his age, according to the custom of that nation, he was, after examination of the great council, to have been admitted into the priestly office, but that God had commissioned him another way.
"In the room Gazith the great council of Israel sat, and judged concerning the priesthood. The priest in whom any blemish was found, being clothed and veiled in black, went out and was dismissed: but if he had no blemish, he was clothed and veiled in white, and going in ministered, and gave his attendance with the rest of the priests his brethren. And they made a gaudy day, when there was no blemish found in the seed of Aaron the priest."
Questionless, Elizabeth had learned from her husband that the child she went with was designed as the forerunner of the Messiah, but she did not yet know of what sort of woman the Messiah must be born till this leaping of the infant in her womb became some token to her.
56. And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
[Abode with her three months.] A space of time very well known amongst the doctors, defined by them to know whether a woman be with child or no: which I have already observed upon Matthew 1.
59. And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
[And they called it, &c.] I. "The circumciser said, 'Blessed be the Lord our God, who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath given us the law of circumcision.'" The father of the infant said, "Who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath commanded us to enter the child into the covenant of Abraham our father." But where was Zacharias' tongue for this service?
II. God at the same time instituted circumcision, and changed the names of Abram and Sarah: hence the custom of giving names to their children at the time of their circumcision.
III. Amongst the several accounts why this or that name was given to the sons, this was one that chiefly obtained, viz. for the honour of some person whom they esteemed they gave the child his name: which seems to have guided them in this case here, when Zacharias himself, being dumb, could not make his mind known to them. Mahli the son of Mushi hath the name of Mahli given him, who was his uncle, the brother of Mushi his father, 1 Chronicles 23:21,23.
"R. Nathan said, 'I once went to the islands of the sea, and there came to me a woman, whose first-born had died by circumcision; so also her second son. She brought the third to me. I bade her wait a little, till the blood might assuage. She waited a little, and then circumcised him, and he lived: they called him, therefore, by my name, Nathan of Babylon.'" See also Jerusalem Jevamoth.
"There was a certain family at Jerusalem that were wont to die about the eighteenth year of their age: they made the matter known to R. Jochanan, Ben Zacchai, who said, 'Perhaps you are of Eli's lineage, concerning whom it is said, The increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age. Go ye and be diligent in the study of the law, and ye shall live.' They went and gave diligent heed to the law, and lived. They called themselves, therefore, the family of Jochanan, after his name."
It is disputed in the same tract, whether the son begot by a brother's raising up seed to his brother should not be called after the name of him that is deceased: for instance, if one dies without a son, and his name be Joseph, or Jochanan, whether the son that is born to this man's brother, taking his brother's widow to wife, should not have the name after him that afirst had her, and be called 'Joseph,' or 'Jochanan.' Otherwise, indeed, it was very seldom that the son bore the name of the father, as is evident both in the Holy Scriptures and the Rabbinical writers. It cannot be denied but that sometimes this was done; but so very rarely, that we may easily believe the reason why the friends of Zacharias would have given the child his own name was merely, either because they could by no means learn what he himself designed to call him, or else in honour to him, however he lay under that divine stroke at present, as to be both deaf and dumb.
78. Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us.
[The dayspring from on high.] I would readily have rendered it the branch from on high, but for what follows, "to give light," &c...
80. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel.
[In the deserts.] Whether John was an eremite in the sense as it is now commonly taken, we may inquire and judge by these two things: I. Whether there was ever any eremite in this sense among the Jews. II. Whether he absented himself from the synagogues; and whether he did not present himself at Jerusalem in the feasts: and to this may be added, whether he retired and withdrew himself from the society of mankind. If he absented from the synagogues, he must have been accounted a wicked neighbour. If from the feasts, he transgressed the command, Exodus 23:17. If from the society of mankind, what agreeableness was there in this? It seems very incongruous, that he that was born for this end, "to turn the disobedient," &c. should withdraw himself from all society and converse with them. Nothing would persuade me sooner that John was indeed an anchoret, than that which he himself saith, that he did not know Jesus, John 1:31, whereas he was so very near akin to him. One might think, surely he must have lain hid in some den or cave of the earth, when, for the space of almost thirty years wherein he had lived, he had had no society with Jesus, so near a kinsman of his, nay, not so much as in the least to know him. But if this were so, how came he to know and so humbly refuse him, when he offered himself to be baptized by him? Matthew 3:14; and this before he was instructed who he was, by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him? John 1:33.
[eremite - hermit; esp.: a religious recluse.--Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.]
From this question may arise two more:--
I. Whether John appeared or acted under the notion of a prophet before his entrance into the thirtieth year of his age. I am apt to think he did not: and hence I suppose it is said concerning him, "that he was in the deserts"; that is, he was amongst the rustics, and common rank of men, as a man of no note or quality himself, till he made himself public under the notion and authority of a prophet.
II. Whether he might not well know his kinsman Jesus in all this time, and admire his incomparable sanctity, and yet be ignorant that he was the Messiah. Yea, and when he modestly repulsed him from his baptism, was it that he acknowledged him for the Messiah? (which agrees not with John 1:33) or not rather that, by reason of his admirable holiness, he saw that he was above him?
[Till the day of his shewing unto Israel.] John was unquestionably a priest by birth; and being arrived at the thirtieth year of his age, according to the custom of that nation, he was, after examination of the great council, to have been admitted into the priestly office, but that God had commissioned him another way.
"In the room Gazith the great council of Israel sat, and judged concerning the priesthood. The priest in whom any blemish was found, being clothed and veiled in black, went out and was dismissed: but if he had no blemish, he was clothed and veiled in white, and going in ministered, and gave his attendance with the rest of the priests his brethren. And they made a gaudy day, when there was no blemish found in the seed of Aaron the priest."
Luke 2
1. And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
[From Caesar Augustus.] The New Testament mentions nothing of the Roman government, but as now reduced under a monarchical form. When that head, which had been mortally wounded in the expulsion of the Tarquins, was healed and restored again in the Caesars, "all the world wondered," saith St. John, Revelation 13:3; and well they might, to see monarchy, that had for so many hundred years been antiquated and quite dead, should now flourish again more vigorously and splendidly than ever.
But whence the epoch or beginning of this government should take its date is something difficult to determine. The foundations of it, as they were laid by Julius Caesar, so did they seem overturned and erased again in the death he met with in the senate-house. It was again restored, and indeed perfected by Augustus; but to what year of Augustus should we reckon it? I would lay it in his one-and-thirtieth, the very year wherein our Saviour was born. Of this year Dion Cassius, lib. lv, speaks thus:
"The third decennium [or term of ten years] having now run out, and a fourth beginning, he, being forced to it, undertook the government." Observe the force of the word forced to it: then was Augustus constrained or compelled to take the empire upon him. The senate, the people, and (as it should seem) the whole republic, with one consent, submitting themselves entirely to a monarchical form of government, did even constrain the emperor Augustus, (who for some time stiffly refused it,) to take the reins into his hands.
I am not ignorant that the computation of Augustus' reign might reasonably enough commence from his battle and victory at Actium; nor do the Gemarists count amiss, when they tell us that "the Roman empire took its beginning in the days of Cleopatra." And you may, if you please, call that a monarchical government, in opposition to the triumvirate, which at that battle breathed its last. But that, certainly, was the pure and absolute monarchy, which the senate and the commonwealth did agree and consent together to set up.
[Should be taxed.] The Vulgar and other Latin copies read, should be described; which, according to the letter, might be understood of the setting out the whole bounds of the empire, according to its various and distinct provinces. Only that Aethicus tells us, this had been done before; whose words, since they concern so great and noble a monument of antiquity, may not prove tedious to the reader to be transcribed in this place:
"Julius Caesar, the first inventor of the Bissextile account, a man singularly instructed in all divine and human affairs, in the time of his consulship, by a decree of the senate, procured, that the whole Roman jurisdiction should be measured out by men of greatest skill, and most seen in all the attainments of philosophy. So that Julius Caesar and M. Antony being consuls, the world began to be measured.
"That is, from the consulship of Caesar above mentioned to the consulship of Augustus the third time, and Crassus, the space of one-and-twenty years, five months, and eight days, all the East was surveyed by Zenodoxus.
"From the consulship likewise of Julius Caesar and M. Antony to the consulship of Saturninus and Cinna, the space of two-and-thirty years, one month, and ten days, the South was measured out by Polyclitus; so that in two-and-thirty years' time, the whole world was surveyed, and a report of it given in unto the senate."
Thus he: though something obscurely in the accounts of consuls, as also in his silence about the West; which things I must not stand to inquire into at this time. This only we may observe, that Julius Caesar was consul with Antony, AUC 710; and that the survey of the Roman empire, being two-and-thirty years in finishing, ended AUC 742; that is, twelve years before the nativity of our Saviour.
Let us in the meantime guess what course was taken in this survey: I. It is very probable they drew out some geographical tables, wherein all the countries were delineated, and laid down before them in one view. II. That these tables or maps were illustrated by commentaries, in which were set down the description of the countries, the names of places, the account of distances, and whatever might be necessary to a complete knowledge of the whole bounds of that empire. That some such thing was done by Augustus' own hand, so far as concerned Italy, seems hinted by a passage in Pliny; In which thing, we must tell beforehand, that we intend to follow Augustus, and the description he made of all Italy, dividing it unto eleven countries.
And now, after this survey of lands and regions, what could be wanting to the full knowledge of the empire, but a strict account of the people, their patrimony, and estates? and this was Augustus' care to do.
"He took upon him the government both of their manners and laws, and both perpetual: by which right, though without the title of censor, he laid a tax upon the people three times; the first and third with his colleague, the second alone." The first with his colleague, M. Agrippa; the third, with his colleague Tiberius; the second, by himself alone; and this was the tax our evangelist makes mention of in this place.
2. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
[This taxing was first made, &c.] Not the first taxing under Augustus, but the first that was made under Cyrenius: for there was another taxing under him, upon the occasion of which the sedition was raised by Judas the Gaulonite. Of this tax of ours, Dion Cassius seems to make mention, the times agreeing well enough, though the agreement in other things is more hardly reducible:--
"He began a tax upon those that dwelt in Italy, and were worth two hundred sesterces; sparing the poorer sort, and those that lived beyond the countries of Italy, to avoid tumults."
If those that lived out of Italy were not taxed, how does this agree with the tax which our evangelist speaks of? unless you will distinguish, that in one sense they were not taxed, that is, as to their estates they were not to pay any thing: but in another sense they were, that is, as to taking account of their names, that they might swear their allegiance and subjection to the Roman empire. As to this, let the more learned judge.
4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Beth-lehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David):
[Because he was of the house and lineage of David.] We read in the evangelists of two families, that were of the stock and line of David; and the Talmudic authors mention a third. The family of Jacob the father of Joseph, the family of Eli the father of Mary, and the family of Hillel the president of the Sanhedrim, "who was of the seed of David, of Shephatiah the son of Abital."
I do not say that all these met at this time in Bethlehem: [It is indeed remarked of Joseph, that he was "of the house of David"; partly because he was to be reputed, though he was not the real father of Christ; and partly also, that the occasion might be related that brought Mary to Bethlehem, where the Messiah was to be born.] But it may be considered whether Cyrenius, being now to take an estimate of the people, might not, on purpose and out of policy, summon together all that were of David's stock, from whence he might have heard the Jews' Messiah was to spring, to judge whether some danger might not arise form thence.
7. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
[There was no room for them in the inn.] From hence it appears, that neither Joseph nor his father Jacob had any house of their own here, no, nor Eli neither, wherein to entertain his daughter Mary ready to lie in. And yet we find that two years after the birth of Christ, Joseph and Mary his wife lived in a hired house till they fled into Egypt.
"A certain Arabian said to a certain Jew, 'The Redeemer of the Jews is born.' Saith the Jew to him, 'What is his name?' 'Menahem,' saith the other. 'And what the name of his father?' 'Hezekiah.' 'But where dwell they?' 'In Birath Arba in Bethlehem Judah.'" He shall deserve many thanks that will but tell us what this Birath Arba is. The Gloss tells us no other than that this "Birath Arba was a place in Bethlehem"; which any one knows from the words themselves. But what, or what kind of place was it? Birah indeed is a palace or castle: but what should Arba be? A man had better hold his tongue than conjecture vainly and to no purpose...
8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
[And there were shepherds keeping watch over their flock, &c.] These are the sheep of the wilderness; viz. those which go out to pasture about the time of the Passover, and are fed in the fields, and return home upon the first rain.
"Which is the first rain? It begins on the third of the month Marchesvan. The middle rain is on the seventh: the last on the seventeenth. So R. Meier: but R. Judah saith, On the seventh, seventeenth, and one-and-twentieth."
The spring coming on, they drove their beasts into wildernesses or champaign grounds, where they fed them the whole summer, keeping watch over them night and day, that they might not be impaired either by thieves or ravenous beasts. They had for this purpose their tower to watch in, or else certain small cottages erected for this very end, as we have observed elsewhere. Now in the month Marchesvan, which is part of our October and part of November, the winter coming on, they betook themselves home again with the flocks and the herds.
13. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
[A multitude of the heavenly host praising God.] The Targumist upon Ezekiel 1:24, a host of angels from above. So in 1 Kings 19:11,12, "A host of the angels of the wind. A host of the angels of commotion. A host of the angels of fire; and after the host of the angels of fire, the voice of the silent singers."
14. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
[Glory to God in the highest.] We may very well understand this angelic hymn, if good will towards men, be taken for the subject, and the rest of the words for the predicate. The good will of God towards men is glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth. And, is put between glory and peace; not between them and good will.
But now this good will of God towards men, being so wonderfully made known in the birth of the Messiah, how highly it conduced to the glory of God, would be needless to shew; and how it introduced peace on the earth the apostle himself shews from the effect, Ephesians 2:14; Colossians 1:20; and several other places.
21. And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
[And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child.] "The disciples of R. Simeon Ben Jochai asked him, Why the law ordained circumcision on the eighth day? To wit, lest while all others were rejoicing, the parents of the infant should be sad. The circumcision therefore is deferred till the woman in childbed hath got over her uncleanness." For, as it is expressed a little before, "The woman that brings forth a man-child is prohibited her husband the space of seven days, but on the seventh day, at the coming in of the evening which begins the eighth day, she washeth herself, and is allowed to go in unto her husband." If she came nigh him within the seven days she made him unclean. On the eighth day, therefore, Joseph addresseth himself to make provision for his wife, and to take care about the circumcision of the child.
22. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
[When the days of her purification were accomplished, &c.] "R. Asai saith, the child whose mother is unclean by childbearing is circumcised the eighth day; but he whose mother is not unclean by childbearing is not circumcised the eighth day."
You will ask probably, what mother that is, that is not unclean by childbearing. Let the Gloss upon this place make the answer: "She whose child is cut out of her womb: as also a Gentile woman who is brought to bed today, and the next day becomes a proselyte; her child is not deferred till the eighth day, but is circumcised straightway." And the Rabbins a little after: "One takes a handmaid big with child, and while she is with him brings forth; her child is circumcised the eighth day. But if he takes a serving-maid, and with her a child newly born, that child is circumcised the first day."
They did not account a heathen woman unclean by child-bearing, because she was not yet under the law that concerned uncleanness. Hence, on the other side, Mary was unclean at her bearing a child, because she was under the law; so Christ was circumcised because born under the law.
II. After seven days the woman must continue for three and thirty days in the blood of her purifying, Leviticus 12:4; where the Greek, in her unclean blood; far enough from the mind of Moses. And the Alexandrian MS much wider still: She shall sit thirty and ten days in an unclean garment.
Pesikta, as before, col. 4, it is written "in the blood of her purifying: though she issue blood like a flood, yet is she clean. Nor doth she defile any thing by touching it, but what is holy. For seven days, immediately after she is brought to bed, she lies in the blood of her uncleanness; but the three-and-thirty days following, in the blood of her purifying."
[To present him to the Lord.] I. This was done to the first-born, but not to the children that were born afterward: nor was this done to the first-born unless the first-born were fit for the priest. For in Becoroth they distinguish betwixt a first-born fit for inheritance, and a first-born fit for a priest. That is, if the first-born should be any ways maimed, or defective in any of his parts, or had any kind of spot or blemish in him, this laid no bar for his inheriting, but yet made him unfit and incapable of being consecrated to God.
II. The first-born was to be redeemed immediately after the thirtieth day from his birth. "Every one is bound to redeem his first-born with five shekels after he is thirty days old; as it is said, 'From a month old shalt thou redeem,'" Numbers 18:16. Not that the price of that redemption was always paid exactly upon the thirtieth day, but that then exactly it became due. Hence in that treatise newly quoted: "If the child die within the thirty days, and the father hath paid the price of his redemption beforehand, the priest must restore it: but if he die after the thirty days are past, and the father hath not paid the price of his redemption, let him pay it." Where we find the price of redemption supposed as paid either before or after the thirty days.
III. The women that were to be purified were placed in the east gate of the court called Nicanor's Gate, and were sprinkled with blood.
There stood Mary for her purifying: and there, probably, Christ was placed, that he might be presented before the Lord, presented to the priest.
24. And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
[A pair of turtledoves, &c.] I. "The turtles were older, and of a larger size": pigeons less, and younger. For it is said of pigeons, two young pigeons; but not so of turtles.
This was called the offering of the poor; which if a rich man offered, he did not do his duty. And when the doctors speak so often of an offering rising or falling, it hath respect to this. "For the offering of the richer sort was a lamb; but if his hand could not reach to a lamb, then he offered a pair of turtles, or pigeons. But if he was poor, he offered the tenth part of an ephah: therefore is the oblation said to be rising or falling."
"King Agrippa came one day to offer a thousand burnt offerings; but a certain poor man prevented him with two turtledoves. So, also, when one would have offered a bullock, there was a poor man prevented him with a handful of herbs."
II. Of the two turtledoves or young pigeons, one was to be offered as a burnt offering, the other as a sin offering. But as to the particular appointment of the one for the burnt offering, the other for the sin offering, that is, which should be which, it is disputed among the doctors whether it lay in the breast of him or her that offered it, or the priest, to determine it.
By the way, we may observe that the blessed Virgin offers a sin offering for herself. Now what the meaning and design of a sin offering was, is evident from Leviticus 4 and 5.
25. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
[Simeon.--The same man was just and devout.] I. Simeon the Just, of whom the Jewish histories tell so many and great things, hath nothing to do here. For, as it is certain that Simeon died long before, so it is very uncertain whether he deserved the title of Just as well as our Simeon did. He was called 'Just' both for his piety towards God, and his charity towards his countrymen. Grant he was so; yet is it a far greater testimony that is given of our Simeon.
II. Rabban Simeon, the son of Hillel, was alive and at Jerusalem in those very times wherein our evangelist wrote, his father Hillel also still living; whom the son succeeded upon the decease of the father, as president of the council. But as to him, there is nothing famous concerning him amongst Jewish authors but his bare name: "Rabban Simeon, the son of old Hillel, a prince of Israel, as his father had been. As you may see in cap. 1. Schabb. there is no mention of him in Misna." He was, therefore, no father of traditions, neither were there any things recited from him in the Misna: which, indeed, was very extraordinary; but how it should come to pass I cannot tell. Whether he had a sounder apprehension of things; or was not well seen in traditions; or was this very Simeon the evangelist mentions, and so looked higher than the mere traditions of men: this is all the hindrance, that Rabban Simeon lived a great while after the birth of our Saviour and had a son, Gamaliel, whom he bred up a Pharisee.
[Waiting for the consolation of Israel.] That is, believing the consolation of Israel was nigh at hand. The whole nation waited for the consolation of Israel, insomuch that there was nothing more common with them than to swear by the desire which they had of seeing it.
"R. Judah Ben Tabbai said, So let me see the consolation [of Israel], if I have not put to death a false witness. Simeon Ben Shetah saith to him, 'So let me see the consolation, if thou hast not shed innocent blood.'"
"R. Eliezer Ben Zadok said, So let me see the consolation, if I did not see her gleaning barley under the horses' heels."
"R. Simeon Ben Shetah said, 'So let me see the consolation, I saw one pursuing another with a drawn sword.'"
"Those which desire the years of consolation that are to come."
35. (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
[Yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also.] Thy soul, i.e. thy life. It is a prediction that the blessed Virgin should suffer martyrdom: "This child of thine shall be set for a sign, which shall be spoken against; neither shalt thou escape in the contradiction that shall be given him, for thou shalt die by the sword." Epiphanius gives some countenance to this exposition.
"Whether the holy Virgin died and was buried, her death was crowned with infinite honour; she made a most chaste end, and the crown of her virginity was given her: or whether she was put to death (as is written, 'A sword shall pass through thine own soul'), she is possessed of glory and a crown amongst the martyrs."
36. And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
[Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser.] There were, therefore, prophets at this time among the people. It is not to be denied that at this time there were; that is, when the morning of the gospel began to dawn: but for four hundred years past there had not been even one that had deserved that name, however the Jews vainly enough had honoured the memories of some with that title; which we shall not meddle with at this present. But was this Anna accounted a prophetess by the Jews; if so, whence that proverbial expression, "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet"? John 7:52. She was certainly a Galilean; and for that very reason, probably, it is here remarked that she was of the tribe of Aser.
What think we of that passage in Vajicra Rabba, fol. 174.4 and Bemidbar Rabb. fol. 250.4, The king Messiah, who is placed on the north, shall come and build the house of the sanctuary, which is placed on the south. Doth not this savour something of Christ's coming out of Galilee?
37. And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
[Departed not from the Temple.] I. It may be doubted whether any women ever discharged any office in the Temple: some think they did. But that which they allege out of 1 Samuel 2:22, concerning the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, is quite another thing from any public ministering, if we will admit the Targumist and the Rabbins for expositors. So Exodus 38:8, women assembling by troops at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. The Targumists both here and in the place before quoted have it, women that came to pray...
It is apparent, that women were wont to come from other parts to the tabernacle for devotion's sake, not to perform any ministry. So this Anna, by birth of the tribe of Aser, had changed her native soil, and fixed her abode at Jerusalem, partly for devotion, that she might be the more at leisure for praying in the Temple, and partly as a prophetess, that she might utter her prophecies in the great metropolis.
II. She departed not from the Temple; that is, not in the stated times of prayer: according as it is commanded Aaron and his sons, Leviticus 10:7; "Ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle." Where Siphra, fol. 24. 2, not in the time of their ministry.
42. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
[And when he was twelve years old.] "Let a man deal gently with his son till he come to be twelve years old: but from that time, let him descend with him into his way of living": that is, let him diligently, and with severity (if need be), keep him close to that way, rule, or art, by which he may get his living.
At twelve years old, they were wont to inure children to fasting, from time to time, or from hour to hour; that they might be accustomed to it, and so be capable of fasting upon the day of atonement.
Christ being now twelve years old, applies himself to his proper work, to be about his Father's business.
Solomon, when 'twelve years old,'...judged between the two women.
"R. Chama saith, That Moses, when he was twelve years old, was taken from his father's house."
43. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
[And when they had fulfilled the days.] Here ariseth a question, Whether it was lawful to depart from Jerusalem before the seven days were ended? If not, why did Peter and Cleophas go away on the third day? If they might, how then is that precept to be understood about eating the unleavened bread throughout the whole seven days?
I. It is controverted amongst the doctors about that passage, Deuteronomy 16:6,7, "Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover at the even, at the going down of the sun, and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go into thy tents," whether it be lawful, after they had eaten the lamb, to go every one to his own house. This is denied, and that not without reason. For as it is in the Gloss, "On the day of the feast," (that is, the first day of the seven,) "the sabbatical limits forbade it." For on the feast day no man ought to exceed the bounds of a sabbath day's journey. "That therefore, (say they) that is said, 'Thou shalt go into thy tents,' is to be thus understood, 'Thou shalt go into thy tents that are without the walls of Jerusalem; but by no means into thine own house.'"
II. Was it lawful then to return home on the second day of the feast? No, it was not. For on that day was the general appearance in the court, and presentment of their offerings. And this seems hinted by R. Elhanani in another Gloss upon the place newly cited: "There were two reasons (saith he) of their lodging in Jerusalem: the one because of the feast day; the other because of the offering."
III. It was not unlawful to depart on the third day, if necessity of affairs required it. But as in many other cases the doctors were wont to speak, so might it be said in this it was much more commendable for them to abide in Jerusalem till all the seven days were ended; and that especially because of the last day, which was a festival or holy day.
"R. Jose the Galilean saith, There are three things commanded to be done in the feast; 1. the Chagigah; 2. the appearance in the court; 3. the rejoicing." The Chagigah or the peace offerings were on the first day; the appearance in the court was on the second day; the rejoicing might be on any day.
IV. In Moed Katon, a treatise that discourseth on things lawful or not lawful to be done in the intermedials of the feast, or in those days of the feast that were not kept holy; in the very entrance of that discourse there are several things allowed, which plainly argue absence and distance from Jerusalem.
As to eating unleavened bread, the precept indeed was indispensable, neither that any thing leavened should be eaten, nor that any leaven should be found in their houses for seven days together: but no one would say that this command was restrained only to Jerusalem. It is said in Jerusalem Kiddushin, the women's Passover is arbitrary: that is, the women's appearance at Jerusalem at the Passover was at pleasure. But let them not say that eating unleavened bread was arbitrary, or at the women's pleasure: for although they sat at home, and did not go to Jerusalem to the Passover, yet did they abstain from leaven in their own houses: the unleavened bread was eaten in every house.
VI. It seems from the very phraseology that Joseph and Mary continued at Jerusalem all the seven days; which was indeed generally done by others for devotion's sake. And then think what numerous companies of people must be going away to this or that country, yea, particularly, how great a crowd might be journeying, together with Joseph and Mary, towards Galilee. So that it may be less strange, if Jesus had not been within his parents' sight, though he had been among the crowd; nor that though they did not see him, yet that they should not suspect his absence.
44. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
[They went a day's journey.] The first ordinary day's journey from Jerusalem towards Galilee, was to Neapolis, of old called Sychem, distant thirty miles. But was this the day's journey that Joseph and the company that travelled along wit him made at this time? The place where Christ was first missed by his parents is commonly shewed at this day to travellers, much nearer Jerusalem, by the name of Beere, but ten miles from that city. You may believe those that shew it, as you think fit.
46. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
[Sitting in the midst of the doctors.] I. "There are three courts of judicature in the Temple: one in the gate of the Court of the Gentiles; another in the gate of the Court of Israel; a third in the room Gazith."
There was also a synagogue in the Temple, which must be observed. "The high priest came to read" [those places which were to be read on the day of atonement]. "The chazan of the synagogue takes the book, and gives it to the ruler of the synagogue; the ruler to the sagan; the sagan to the high priest," &c. Where the Gloss: "There was a synagogue near the court, in the Mountain of the Temple."
In which of these places Christ was found sitting amongst the doctors, let those tell us that undertake to shew the place where his parents first missed him.
II. It is not easy to say what place he could be admitted to amongst the doctors, especially when that custom obtained which is mentioned: "The Rabbins have a tradition: From the days of Moses to Rabban Gamaliel's, they were instructed in the law standing. But when Rabban Gamaliel died, the world languished, so that they learned the law sitting." Whence also that tradition, that, "since the death of Rabban Gamaliel, the glory of the law was eclipsed."
Now when it was come to that pass after Gamaliel's death, that the disciples sat while the master read, how did they sit? On the ground. Hence that passage; "Rabh would not sit upon his bed, and read to his scholar, while he sat upon the ground." Gloss: "Either both should be on the bed, or both upon the ground."
"The disciples of R. Eleazar Ben Shammua asked him, 'How came you to this great age?' He answered them, 'I never made the synagogue a common way' [that is, I never took my passage through the synagogue for a shorter cut]. 'And I never walked upon the heads of the holy people.'" The Gloss is, "upon the heads of his disciples, sitting upon the ground."
Whether on the naked floor, might be a question, if there were place for it; but we let that pass at this present. For this custom of sitting prevailed after the death of Gamaliel, who took the chair many years after this that we are now upon. The great Hillel possessed the seat at this time; or if he was newly dead, his son Simeon succeeded him: so that it was the disciples' part in this age to stand, not to sit in the presence of their doctors. How therefore should it be said of Christ, that he was "sitting among the doctors"? Let the following clause solve the difficulty:
[And asking them questions.] It was both lawful and customary for the disciples, or any that were present, publicly to inquire either of the doctor that was then reading, or indeed the whole consistory, about any doubtful matter wherein he was not well satisfied. Take but two stories out of many others that may illustrate this matter:--
"R. Judah ordained R. Levi Ben Susi for a doctor to the Simonians. They made him a great chair, and placed him in it. Then propounded questions to him [occasioned from Deuteronomy 25:9], If thy brother's wife should have her hands cut off, how should she loose the shoe of her husband's brother? If she should spit blood; what then?" Most profound questions certainly! such as require a most cunning sophister to unriddle them.
"There is a story of a certain disciple that came and interrogated R. Joshua, Of what kind is evening prayer? He answered him, It is arbitrary. He came to Rabban Gamaliel and asked him; he told him, It is that we are in duty bound to. 'How then,' saith he, 'did R. Joshua tell me it is voluntary?' Saith the other, 'Tomorrow, when I come into the Consistory, do thou come forth and question me about this matter.' The disciple stood forth and asked Rabban Gamaliel [then president of the Sanhedrim] 'Of what kind is evening prayer?' He answers, It is a thing of duty. 'But behold,' saith the other, 'R. Joshua saith, It is a thing at pleasure.' Saith Gamaliel to Joshua, 'Dost thou affirm it to be a thing of pleasure?' He saith unto him, 'No.' 'Stand upon thy feet,' saith the other, 'that they may witness against thee.' Rabban Gamaliel was then sitting and expounding. [Probably this very article.] R. Joshua stood on his feet till all the people cried out to him. They say to R. Hospith the interpreter, 'Dismiss the people,' They say to R. Zenon the Chazan, 'Say, Begin ye'; and they said, 'Begin thou'; so all the people rose up and stood on their feet. They said unto him, 'Who is it thy wickedness hath not touched?' They went out straightway and made R. Eleazar Ben Azariah president of the council. How many seats were there? R. Jacob Ben Susi saith, fourscore seats for the disciples of the wise, beside those who stood behind the bars. R. Jose Ben R. Bon saith thirty, besides those that stood behind the bars." We have the same story in Bab. Beracoth, fol. 27. 2.
This we transcribed the largelier, not only for proof of what we said, of the disciples' asking the doctors questions in the court, but that the reader might have a little sight of the manner of that court, and how there were many, not only of the disciples of the Wise, but others, too, that flocked thither.
We may further add: "In a city where there are not two great wise men, one fit to teach and instruct in the whole law, the other who knows how to hear, and ask, and answer, they do not constitute a Sanhedrim, although there were a thousand Israelites there," &c. "In a city where there are not two that may speak, and one that may hear, they do not constitute a Sanhedrim. In Bitter, there were three: In Jabneh four; viz. R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, R. Akibah, and Simeon the Temanite. He judged before them, sitting on the ground." By him who hears they mean one skilful in the traditions, that can propound questions, and answer every question propounded. Such a one was Simeon the Temanite; who though he was a man of that learning, yet, not being promoted to become one of the elders, he sat upon the ground; that is, not on any of the benches of the fathers of the Sanhedrim; but on one of the seats that were near the ground; for they speak these things as done in the times after the death of Gamaliel. There is nothing absurd therefore in it, if we should suppose Christ gotten into the very Sanhedrim itself. Thither Joseph and his mother might come, and seeking him, might find him on the benches of the fathers of the council for that time, they having found him so capable both to propound questions and answer them. For it is plain they did admit of others, for other reasons, to sit sometimes in their seats. And it is less wonder if they suffer him to sit amongst them, being but twelve years of age, when as they promoted R. Eleazar Ben Azariah to the presidency itself when he was but sixteen. But if it was in a lower court, it is still less wonder if he sat amongst them. But that which might be chiefly inquired is, whether Christ sat amongst them as one of their disciples? This indeed is hardly credible.
[From Caesar Augustus.] The New Testament mentions nothing of the Roman government, but as now reduced under a monarchical form. When that head, which had been mortally wounded in the expulsion of the Tarquins, was healed and restored again in the Caesars, "all the world wondered," saith St. John, Revelation 13:3; and well they might, to see monarchy, that had for so many hundred years been antiquated and quite dead, should now flourish again more vigorously and splendidly than ever.
But whence the epoch or beginning of this government should take its date is something difficult to determine. The foundations of it, as they were laid by Julius Caesar, so did they seem overturned and erased again in the death he met with in the senate-house. It was again restored, and indeed perfected by Augustus; but to what year of Augustus should we reckon it? I would lay it in his one-and-thirtieth, the very year wherein our Saviour was born. Of this year Dion Cassius, lib. lv, speaks thus:
"The third decennium [or term of ten years] having now run out, and a fourth beginning, he, being forced to it, undertook the government." Observe the force of the word forced to it: then was Augustus constrained or compelled to take the empire upon him. The senate, the people, and (as it should seem) the whole republic, with one consent, submitting themselves entirely to a monarchical form of government, did even constrain the emperor Augustus, (who for some time stiffly refused it,) to take the reins into his hands.
I am not ignorant that the computation of Augustus' reign might reasonably enough commence from his battle and victory at Actium; nor do the Gemarists count amiss, when they tell us that "the Roman empire took its beginning in the days of Cleopatra." And you may, if you please, call that a monarchical government, in opposition to the triumvirate, which at that battle breathed its last. But that, certainly, was the pure and absolute monarchy, which the senate and the commonwealth did agree and consent together to set up.
[Should be taxed.] The Vulgar and other Latin copies read, should be described; which, according to the letter, might be understood of the setting out the whole bounds of the empire, according to its various and distinct provinces. Only that Aethicus tells us, this had been done before; whose words, since they concern so great and noble a monument of antiquity, may not prove tedious to the reader to be transcribed in this place:
"Julius Caesar, the first inventor of the Bissextile account, a man singularly instructed in all divine and human affairs, in the time of his consulship, by a decree of the senate, procured, that the whole Roman jurisdiction should be measured out by men of greatest skill, and most seen in all the attainments of philosophy. So that Julius Caesar and M. Antony being consuls, the world began to be measured.
"That is, from the consulship of Caesar above mentioned to the consulship of Augustus the third time, and Crassus, the space of one-and-twenty years, five months, and eight days, all the East was surveyed by Zenodoxus.
"From the consulship likewise of Julius Caesar and M. Antony to the consulship of Saturninus and Cinna, the space of two-and-thirty years, one month, and ten days, the South was measured out by Polyclitus; so that in two-and-thirty years' time, the whole world was surveyed, and a report of it given in unto the senate."
Thus he: though something obscurely in the accounts of consuls, as also in his silence about the West; which things I must not stand to inquire into at this time. This only we may observe, that Julius Caesar was consul with Antony, AUC 710; and that the survey of the Roman empire, being two-and-thirty years in finishing, ended AUC 742; that is, twelve years before the nativity of our Saviour.
Let us in the meantime guess what course was taken in this survey: I. It is very probable they drew out some geographical tables, wherein all the countries were delineated, and laid down before them in one view. II. That these tables or maps were illustrated by commentaries, in which were set down the description of the countries, the names of places, the account of distances, and whatever might be necessary to a complete knowledge of the whole bounds of that empire. That some such thing was done by Augustus' own hand, so far as concerned Italy, seems hinted by a passage in Pliny; In which thing, we must tell beforehand, that we intend to follow Augustus, and the description he made of all Italy, dividing it unto eleven countries.
And now, after this survey of lands and regions, what could be wanting to the full knowledge of the empire, but a strict account of the people, their patrimony, and estates? and this was Augustus' care to do.
"He took upon him the government both of their manners and laws, and both perpetual: by which right, though without the title of censor, he laid a tax upon the people three times; the first and third with his colleague, the second alone." The first with his colleague, M. Agrippa; the third, with his colleague Tiberius; the second, by himself alone; and this was the tax our evangelist makes mention of in this place.
2. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
[This taxing was first made, &c.] Not the first taxing under Augustus, but the first that was made under Cyrenius: for there was another taxing under him, upon the occasion of which the sedition was raised by Judas the Gaulonite. Of this tax of ours, Dion Cassius seems to make mention, the times agreeing well enough, though the agreement in other things is more hardly reducible:--
"He began a tax upon those that dwelt in Italy, and were worth two hundred sesterces; sparing the poorer sort, and those that lived beyond the countries of Italy, to avoid tumults."
If those that lived out of Italy were not taxed, how does this agree with the tax which our evangelist speaks of? unless you will distinguish, that in one sense they were not taxed, that is, as to their estates they were not to pay any thing: but in another sense they were, that is, as to taking account of their names, that they might swear their allegiance and subjection to the Roman empire. As to this, let the more learned judge.
4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Beth-lehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David):
[Because he was of the house and lineage of David.] We read in the evangelists of two families, that were of the stock and line of David; and the Talmudic authors mention a third. The family of Jacob the father of Joseph, the family of Eli the father of Mary, and the family of Hillel the president of the Sanhedrim, "who was of the seed of David, of Shephatiah the son of Abital."
I do not say that all these met at this time in Bethlehem: [It is indeed remarked of Joseph, that he was "of the house of David"; partly because he was to be reputed, though he was not the real father of Christ; and partly also, that the occasion might be related that brought Mary to Bethlehem, where the Messiah was to be born.] But it may be considered whether Cyrenius, being now to take an estimate of the people, might not, on purpose and out of policy, summon together all that were of David's stock, from whence he might have heard the Jews' Messiah was to spring, to judge whether some danger might not arise form thence.
7. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
[There was no room for them in the inn.] From hence it appears, that neither Joseph nor his father Jacob had any house of their own here, no, nor Eli neither, wherein to entertain his daughter Mary ready to lie in. And yet we find that two years after the birth of Christ, Joseph and Mary his wife lived in a hired house till they fled into Egypt.
"A certain Arabian said to a certain Jew, 'The Redeemer of the Jews is born.' Saith the Jew to him, 'What is his name?' 'Menahem,' saith the other. 'And what the name of his father?' 'Hezekiah.' 'But where dwell they?' 'In Birath Arba in Bethlehem Judah.'" He shall deserve many thanks that will but tell us what this Birath Arba is. The Gloss tells us no other than that this "Birath Arba was a place in Bethlehem"; which any one knows from the words themselves. But what, or what kind of place was it? Birah indeed is a palace or castle: but what should Arba be? A man had better hold his tongue than conjecture vainly and to no purpose...
8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
[And there were shepherds keeping watch over their flock, &c.] These are the sheep of the wilderness; viz. those which go out to pasture about the time of the Passover, and are fed in the fields, and return home upon the first rain.
"Which is the first rain? It begins on the third of the month Marchesvan. The middle rain is on the seventh: the last on the seventeenth. So R. Meier: but R. Judah saith, On the seventh, seventeenth, and one-and-twentieth."
The spring coming on, they drove their beasts into wildernesses or champaign grounds, where they fed them the whole summer, keeping watch over them night and day, that they might not be impaired either by thieves or ravenous beasts. They had for this purpose their tower to watch in, or else certain small cottages erected for this very end, as we have observed elsewhere. Now in the month Marchesvan, which is part of our October and part of November, the winter coming on, they betook themselves home again with the flocks and the herds.
13. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
[A multitude of the heavenly host praising God.] The Targumist upon Ezekiel 1:24, a host of angels from above. So in 1 Kings 19:11,12, "A host of the angels of the wind. A host of the angels of commotion. A host of the angels of fire; and after the host of the angels of fire, the voice of the silent singers."
14. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
[Glory to God in the highest.] We may very well understand this angelic hymn, if good will towards men, be taken for the subject, and the rest of the words for the predicate. The good will of God towards men is glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth. And, is put between glory and peace; not between them and good will.
But now this good will of God towards men, being so wonderfully made known in the birth of the Messiah, how highly it conduced to the glory of God, would be needless to shew; and how it introduced peace on the earth the apostle himself shews from the effect, Ephesians 2:14; Colossians 1:20; and several other places.
21. And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
[And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child.] "The disciples of R. Simeon Ben Jochai asked him, Why the law ordained circumcision on the eighth day? To wit, lest while all others were rejoicing, the parents of the infant should be sad. The circumcision therefore is deferred till the woman in childbed hath got over her uncleanness." For, as it is expressed a little before, "The woman that brings forth a man-child is prohibited her husband the space of seven days, but on the seventh day, at the coming in of the evening which begins the eighth day, she washeth herself, and is allowed to go in unto her husband." If she came nigh him within the seven days she made him unclean. On the eighth day, therefore, Joseph addresseth himself to make provision for his wife, and to take care about the circumcision of the child.
22. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
[When the days of her purification were accomplished, &c.] "R. Asai saith, the child whose mother is unclean by childbearing is circumcised the eighth day; but he whose mother is not unclean by childbearing is not circumcised the eighth day."
You will ask probably, what mother that is, that is not unclean by childbearing. Let the Gloss upon this place make the answer: "She whose child is cut out of her womb: as also a Gentile woman who is brought to bed today, and the next day becomes a proselyte; her child is not deferred till the eighth day, but is circumcised straightway." And the Rabbins a little after: "One takes a handmaid big with child, and while she is with him brings forth; her child is circumcised the eighth day. But if he takes a serving-maid, and with her a child newly born, that child is circumcised the first day."
They did not account a heathen woman unclean by child-bearing, because she was not yet under the law that concerned uncleanness. Hence, on the other side, Mary was unclean at her bearing a child, because she was under the law; so Christ was circumcised because born under the law.
II. After seven days the woman must continue for three and thirty days in the blood of her purifying, Leviticus 12:4; where the Greek, in her unclean blood; far enough from the mind of Moses. And the Alexandrian MS much wider still: She shall sit thirty and ten days in an unclean garment.
Pesikta, as before, col. 4, it is written "in the blood of her purifying: though she issue blood like a flood, yet is she clean. Nor doth she defile any thing by touching it, but what is holy. For seven days, immediately after she is brought to bed, she lies in the blood of her uncleanness; but the three-and-thirty days following, in the blood of her purifying."
[To present him to the Lord.] I. This was done to the first-born, but not to the children that were born afterward: nor was this done to the first-born unless the first-born were fit for the priest. For in Becoroth they distinguish betwixt a first-born fit for inheritance, and a first-born fit for a priest. That is, if the first-born should be any ways maimed, or defective in any of his parts, or had any kind of spot or blemish in him, this laid no bar for his inheriting, but yet made him unfit and incapable of being consecrated to God.
II. The first-born was to be redeemed immediately after the thirtieth day from his birth. "Every one is bound to redeem his first-born with five shekels after he is thirty days old; as it is said, 'From a month old shalt thou redeem,'" Numbers 18:16. Not that the price of that redemption was always paid exactly upon the thirtieth day, but that then exactly it became due. Hence in that treatise newly quoted: "If the child die within the thirty days, and the father hath paid the price of his redemption beforehand, the priest must restore it: but if he die after the thirty days are past, and the father hath not paid the price of his redemption, let him pay it." Where we find the price of redemption supposed as paid either before or after the thirty days.
III. The women that were to be purified were placed in the east gate of the court called Nicanor's Gate, and were sprinkled with blood.
There stood Mary for her purifying: and there, probably, Christ was placed, that he might be presented before the Lord, presented to the priest.
24. And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
[A pair of turtledoves, &c.] I. "The turtles were older, and of a larger size": pigeons less, and younger. For it is said of pigeons, two young pigeons; but not so of turtles.
This was called the offering of the poor; which if a rich man offered, he did not do his duty. And when the doctors speak so often of an offering rising or falling, it hath respect to this. "For the offering of the richer sort was a lamb; but if his hand could not reach to a lamb, then he offered a pair of turtles, or pigeons. But if he was poor, he offered the tenth part of an ephah: therefore is the oblation said to be rising or falling."
"King Agrippa came one day to offer a thousand burnt offerings; but a certain poor man prevented him with two turtledoves. So, also, when one would have offered a bullock, there was a poor man prevented him with a handful of herbs."
II. Of the two turtledoves or young pigeons, one was to be offered as a burnt offering, the other as a sin offering. But as to the particular appointment of the one for the burnt offering, the other for the sin offering, that is, which should be which, it is disputed among the doctors whether it lay in the breast of him or her that offered it, or the priest, to determine it.
By the way, we may observe that the blessed Virgin offers a sin offering for herself. Now what the meaning and design of a sin offering was, is evident from Leviticus 4 and 5.
25. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
[Simeon.--The same man was just and devout.] I. Simeon the Just, of whom the Jewish histories tell so many and great things, hath nothing to do here. For, as it is certain that Simeon died long before, so it is very uncertain whether he deserved the title of Just as well as our Simeon did. He was called 'Just' both for his piety towards God, and his charity towards his countrymen. Grant he was so; yet is it a far greater testimony that is given of our Simeon.
II. Rabban Simeon, the son of Hillel, was alive and at Jerusalem in those very times wherein our evangelist wrote, his father Hillel also still living; whom the son succeeded upon the decease of the father, as president of the council. But as to him, there is nothing famous concerning him amongst Jewish authors but his bare name: "Rabban Simeon, the son of old Hillel, a prince of Israel, as his father had been. As you may see in cap. 1. Schabb. there is no mention of him in Misna." He was, therefore, no father of traditions, neither were there any things recited from him in the Misna: which, indeed, was very extraordinary; but how it should come to pass I cannot tell. Whether he had a sounder apprehension of things; or was not well seen in traditions; or was this very Simeon the evangelist mentions, and so looked higher than the mere traditions of men: this is all the hindrance, that Rabban Simeon lived a great while after the birth of our Saviour and had a son, Gamaliel, whom he bred up a Pharisee.
[Waiting for the consolation of Israel.] That is, believing the consolation of Israel was nigh at hand. The whole nation waited for the consolation of Israel, insomuch that there was nothing more common with them than to swear by the desire which they had of seeing it.
"R. Judah Ben Tabbai said, So let me see the consolation [of Israel], if I have not put to death a false witness. Simeon Ben Shetah saith to him, 'So let me see the consolation, if thou hast not shed innocent blood.'"
"R. Eliezer Ben Zadok said, So let me see the consolation, if I did not see her gleaning barley under the horses' heels."
"R. Simeon Ben Shetah said, 'So let me see the consolation, I saw one pursuing another with a drawn sword.'"
"Those which desire the years of consolation that are to come."
35. (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
[Yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also.] Thy soul, i.e. thy life. It is a prediction that the blessed Virgin should suffer martyrdom: "This child of thine shall be set for a sign, which shall be spoken against; neither shalt thou escape in the contradiction that shall be given him, for thou shalt die by the sword." Epiphanius gives some countenance to this exposition.
"Whether the holy Virgin died and was buried, her death was crowned with infinite honour; she made a most chaste end, and the crown of her virginity was given her: or whether she was put to death (as is written, 'A sword shall pass through thine own soul'), she is possessed of glory and a crown amongst the martyrs."
36. And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
[Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser.] There were, therefore, prophets at this time among the people. It is not to be denied that at this time there were; that is, when the morning of the gospel began to dawn: but for four hundred years past there had not been even one that had deserved that name, however the Jews vainly enough had honoured the memories of some with that title; which we shall not meddle with at this present. But was this Anna accounted a prophetess by the Jews; if so, whence that proverbial expression, "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet"? John 7:52. She was certainly a Galilean; and for that very reason, probably, it is here remarked that she was of the tribe of Aser.
What think we of that passage in Vajicra Rabba, fol. 174.4 and Bemidbar Rabb. fol. 250.4, The king Messiah, who is placed on the north, shall come and build the house of the sanctuary, which is placed on the south. Doth not this savour something of Christ's coming out of Galilee?
37. And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
[Departed not from the Temple.] I. It may be doubted whether any women ever discharged any office in the Temple: some think they did. But that which they allege out of 1 Samuel 2:22, concerning the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, is quite another thing from any public ministering, if we will admit the Targumist and the Rabbins for expositors. So Exodus 38:8, women assembling by troops at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. The Targumists both here and in the place before quoted have it, women that came to pray...
It is apparent, that women were wont to come from other parts to the tabernacle for devotion's sake, not to perform any ministry. So this Anna, by birth of the tribe of Aser, had changed her native soil, and fixed her abode at Jerusalem, partly for devotion, that she might be the more at leisure for praying in the Temple, and partly as a prophetess, that she might utter her prophecies in the great metropolis.
II. She departed not from the Temple; that is, not in the stated times of prayer: according as it is commanded Aaron and his sons, Leviticus 10:7; "Ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle." Where Siphra, fol. 24. 2, not in the time of their ministry.
42. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
[And when he was twelve years old.] "Let a man deal gently with his son till he come to be twelve years old: but from that time, let him descend with him into his way of living": that is, let him diligently, and with severity (if need be), keep him close to that way, rule, or art, by which he may get his living.
At twelve years old, they were wont to inure children to fasting, from time to time, or from hour to hour; that they might be accustomed to it, and so be capable of fasting upon the day of atonement.
Christ being now twelve years old, applies himself to his proper work, to be about his Father's business.
Solomon, when 'twelve years old,'...judged between the two women.
"R. Chama saith, That Moses, when he was twelve years old, was taken from his father's house."
43. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
[And when they had fulfilled the days.] Here ariseth a question, Whether it was lawful to depart from Jerusalem before the seven days were ended? If not, why did Peter and Cleophas go away on the third day? If they might, how then is that precept to be understood about eating the unleavened bread throughout the whole seven days?
I. It is controverted amongst the doctors about that passage, Deuteronomy 16:6,7, "Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover at the even, at the going down of the sun, and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go into thy tents," whether it be lawful, after they had eaten the lamb, to go every one to his own house. This is denied, and that not without reason. For as it is in the Gloss, "On the day of the feast," (that is, the first day of the seven,) "the sabbatical limits forbade it." For on the feast day no man ought to exceed the bounds of a sabbath day's journey. "That therefore, (say they) that is said, 'Thou shalt go into thy tents,' is to be thus understood, 'Thou shalt go into thy tents that are without the walls of Jerusalem; but by no means into thine own house.'"
II. Was it lawful then to return home on the second day of the feast? No, it was not. For on that day was the general appearance in the court, and presentment of their offerings. And this seems hinted by R. Elhanani in another Gloss upon the place newly cited: "There were two reasons (saith he) of their lodging in Jerusalem: the one because of the feast day; the other because of the offering."
III. It was not unlawful to depart on the third day, if necessity of affairs required it. But as in many other cases the doctors were wont to speak, so might it be said in this it was much more commendable for them to abide in Jerusalem till all the seven days were ended; and that especially because of the last day, which was a festival or holy day.
"R. Jose the Galilean saith, There are three things commanded to be done in the feast; 1. the Chagigah; 2. the appearance in the court; 3. the rejoicing." The Chagigah or the peace offerings were on the first day; the appearance in the court was on the second day; the rejoicing might be on any day.
IV. In Moed Katon, a treatise that discourseth on things lawful or not lawful to be done in the intermedials of the feast, or in those days of the feast that were not kept holy; in the very entrance of that discourse there are several things allowed, which plainly argue absence and distance from Jerusalem.
As to eating unleavened bread, the precept indeed was indispensable, neither that any thing leavened should be eaten, nor that any leaven should be found in their houses for seven days together: but no one would say that this command was restrained only to Jerusalem. It is said in Jerusalem Kiddushin, the women's Passover is arbitrary: that is, the women's appearance at Jerusalem at the Passover was at pleasure. But let them not say that eating unleavened bread was arbitrary, or at the women's pleasure: for although they sat at home, and did not go to Jerusalem to the Passover, yet did they abstain from leaven in their own houses: the unleavened bread was eaten in every house.
VI. It seems from the very phraseology that Joseph and Mary continued at Jerusalem all the seven days; which was indeed generally done by others for devotion's sake. And then think what numerous companies of people must be going away to this or that country, yea, particularly, how great a crowd might be journeying, together with Joseph and Mary, towards Galilee. So that it may be less strange, if Jesus had not been within his parents' sight, though he had been among the crowd; nor that though they did not see him, yet that they should not suspect his absence.
44. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
[They went a day's journey.] The first ordinary day's journey from Jerusalem towards Galilee, was to Neapolis, of old called Sychem, distant thirty miles. But was this the day's journey that Joseph and the company that travelled along wit him made at this time? The place where Christ was first missed by his parents is commonly shewed at this day to travellers, much nearer Jerusalem, by the name of Beere, but ten miles from that city. You may believe those that shew it, as you think fit.
46. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
[Sitting in the midst of the doctors.] I. "There are three courts of judicature in the Temple: one in the gate of the Court of the Gentiles; another in the gate of the Court of Israel; a third in the room Gazith."
There was also a synagogue in the Temple, which must be observed. "The high priest came to read" [those places which were to be read on the day of atonement]. "The chazan of the synagogue takes the book, and gives it to the ruler of the synagogue; the ruler to the sagan; the sagan to the high priest," &c. Where the Gloss: "There was a synagogue near the court, in the Mountain of the Temple."
In which of these places Christ was found sitting amongst the doctors, let those tell us that undertake to shew the place where his parents first missed him.
II. It is not easy to say what place he could be admitted to amongst the doctors, especially when that custom obtained which is mentioned: "The Rabbins have a tradition: From the days of Moses to Rabban Gamaliel's, they were instructed in the law standing. But when Rabban Gamaliel died, the world languished, so that they learned the law sitting." Whence also that tradition, that, "since the death of Rabban Gamaliel, the glory of the law was eclipsed."
Now when it was come to that pass after Gamaliel's death, that the disciples sat while the master read, how did they sit? On the ground. Hence that passage; "Rabh would not sit upon his bed, and read to his scholar, while he sat upon the ground." Gloss: "Either both should be on the bed, or both upon the ground."
"The disciples of R. Eleazar Ben Shammua asked him, 'How came you to this great age?' He answered them, 'I never made the synagogue a common way' [that is, I never took my passage through the synagogue for a shorter cut]. 'And I never walked upon the heads of the holy people.'" The Gloss is, "upon the heads of his disciples, sitting upon the ground."
Whether on the naked floor, might be a question, if there were place for it; but we let that pass at this present. For this custom of sitting prevailed after the death of Gamaliel, who took the chair many years after this that we are now upon. The great Hillel possessed the seat at this time; or if he was newly dead, his son Simeon succeeded him: so that it was the disciples' part in this age to stand, not to sit in the presence of their doctors. How therefore should it be said of Christ, that he was "sitting among the doctors"? Let the following clause solve the difficulty:
[And asking them questions.] It was both lawful and customary for the disciples, or any that were present, publicly to inquire either of the doctor that was then reading, or indeed the whole consistory, about any doubtful matter wherein he was not well satisfied. Take but two stories out of many others that may illustrate this matter:--
"R. Judah ordained R. Levi Ben Susi for a doctor to the Simonians. They made him a great chair, and placed him in it. Then propounded questions to him [occasioned from Deuteronomy 25:9], If thy brother's wife should have her hands cut off, how should she loose the shoe of her husband's brother? If she should spit blood; what then?" Most profound questions certainly! such as require a most cunning sophister to unriddle them.
"There is a story of a certain disciple that came and interrogated R. Joshua, Of what kind is evening prayer? He answered him, It is arbitrary. He came to Rabban Gamaliel and asked him; he told him, It is that we are in duty bound to. 'How then,' saith he, 'did R. Joshua tell me it is voluntary?' Saith the other, 'Tomorrow, when I come into the Consistory, do thou come forth and question me about this matter.' The disciple stood forth and asked Rabban Gamaliel [then president of the Sanhedrim] 'Of what kind is evening prayer?' He answers, It is a thing of duty. 'But behold,' saith the other, 'R. Joshua saith, It is a thing at pleasure.' Saith Gamaliel to Joshua, 'Dost thou affirm it to be a thing of pleasure?' He saith unto him, 'No.' 'Stand upon thy feet,' saith the other, 'that they may witness against thee.' Rabban Gamaliel was then sitting and expounding. [Probably this very article.] R. Joshua stood on his feet till all the people cried out to him. They say to R. Hospith the interpreter, 'Dismiss the people,' They say to R. Zenon the Chazan, 'Say, Begin ye'; and they said, 'Begin thou'; so all the people rose up and stood on their feet. They said unto him, 'Who is it thy wickedness hath not touched?' They went out straightway and made R. Eleazar Ben Azariah president of the council. How many seats were there? R. Jacob Ben Susi saith, fourscore seats for the disciples of the wise, beside those who stood behind the bars. R. Jose Ben R. Bon saith thirty, besides those that stood behind the bars." We have the same story in Bab. Beracoth, fol. 27. 2.
This we transcribed the largelier, not only for proof of what we said, of the disciples' asking the doctors questions in the court, but that the reader might have a little sight of the manner of that court, and how there were many, not only of the disciples of the Wise, but others, too, that flocked thither.
We may further add: "In a city where there are not two great wise men, one fit to teach and instruct in the whole law, the other who knows how to hear, and ask, and answer, they do not constitute a Sanhedrim, although there were a thousand Israelites there," &c. "In a city where there are not two that may speak, and one that may hear, they do not constitute a Sanhedrim. In Bitter, there were three: In Jabneh four; viz. R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, R. Akibah, and Simeon the Temanite. He judged before them, sitting on the ground." By him who hears they mean one skilful in the traditions, that can propound questions, and answer every question propounded. Such a one was Simeon the Temanite; who though he was a man of that learning, yet, not being promoted to become one of the elders, he sat upon the ground; that is, not on any of the benches of the fathers of the Sanhedrim; but on one of the seats that were near the ground; for they speak these things as done in the times after the death of Gamaliel. There is nothing absurd therefore in it, if we should suppose Christ gotten into the very Sanhedrim itself. Thither Joseph and his mother might come, and seeking him, might find him on the benches of the fathers of the council for that time, they having found him so capable both to propound questions and answer them. For it is plain they did admit of others, for other reasons, to sit sometimes in their seats. And it is less wonder if they suffer him to sit amongst them, being but twelve years of age, when as they promoted R. Eleazar Ben Azariah to the presidency itself when he was but sixteen. But if it was in a lower court, it is still less wonder if he sat amongst them. But that which might be chiefly inquired is, whether Christ sat amongst them as one of their disciples? This indeed is hardly credible.
Luke 3
2. Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
[Annas and Caiaphas being high priests.] They do constitute two high priests at one time. True indeed: but they promoted a sagan, together with a high priest.
The 'sagan,' as to his degree, was the same to the high priest, as he that was next or second to the king.
They substituted, indeed, on the vespers of the day of expiation, another priest to the high priest, that should be in readiness to perform the office for the day, if any uncleanness should by chance have befallen the high priest.
"It is storied of Ben Elam of Zipporim, that when a gonorrhea had seized the high priest on the day of expiation, he went in and performed the office for that day. And another story of Simeon Ben Kamith, that as he was walking with the king on the vespers of the day of expiation, his garments were touched with another's spittle, so that Judah his brother went in and ministered. On that day the mother of them saw her two sons high priests."
It is not without reason controverted, whether the sagan were the same with this deputed priest: the Jews themselves dispute it. I would be on the negative part: for the sagan was not so much the vice high priest, as (if I may so speak) one set over the priests. The same with the ruler of the temple; of whom we have such frequent mention among the doctors: upon him chiefly did the care and charge of the service of the temple lie.
"The ruler of the temple saith to them, Go out and see if it be time to slay the sacrifice." "The ruler saith, Come and cast your lots who shall slay the sacrifice, who shall sprinkle the blood," &c. The Gloss is, the ruler is the 'sagan.'
He is commonly called the 'sagan' of the priests: which argues his supremacy among the priests, rather than his vicegerency under the high priest.
"When the high priest stands in the circle of those that are to comfort the mourners, the sagan and he that is anointed for the battle, stand on his right hand, and the head of the father's house, those that mourn, and all the people stand on his left hand."
Mark here the order of the sagan; he is below the high priest, but above the heads of all the courses.
2 Kings 23:4, the priests of the second order: Targum, the 'sagan' of the priests. And chapter 25:18, Zephaniah the second priest: Targum, Zephaniah 'the sagan' of the priests.
Caiaphas therefore was the high priest, and Annas the sagan or ruler of the temple; who, for his independent dignity, is called high priest as well as Caiaphas; and seems therefore to be named first, because he was the other's father-in-law.
There was a dissension between Hanan and the sons of the chief priests, &c. It was in a judicial cause, about a wife requiring her dower, &c. Where the scruple is, who should these chief priests be? whether the fathers and heads of the courses, or the high priest only and the sagan. It was a council of priests: which we have already spoken to at Matthew 26:3. Now the question is, whether by the "sons of the chief priests," be meant the sons of the fathers of courses, or the fathers of courses themselves, or the sons of the high priest and the sagan; where the high priest in that court was like the prince in the Sanhedrim, and the sagan the father of the Sanhedrim.
"Moses was made a sagan to Aaron. He put on his garments, and took them off [viz. on the day of his consecration]. And as he was his sagan in life, so he was in death too."
5. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;
[Every valley shall be filled.] The Jews have a tradition, that some such thing was done by the cloud that led Israel in the wilderness. Instead of many instances, take the Targumist upon Canticles 2:6: "There was a cloud went before them, three days' journey, to take down the hills and raise the valleys: it slew all fiery serpents in the wilderness, and all scorpions; and found out for them a fit place to lodge in."
What the meaning of the prophet in this passage was, Christians well enough understand. The Jews apply it to levelling and making the ways plain for Israel's return out of captivity: for this was the main thing they expected from the Messiah, viz. to bring back the captivity of Israel.
"R. Chanan saith, Israel shall have no need of the doctrine of Messiah the King in time to come; for it is said, To him shall the Gentiles seek (Isa 11:10), but not Israel. If so, why then is Messiah to come? and what is he to do when he doth come? He shall gather together the captivity of Israel," &c.
8. Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
[Of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.] We do not say the Baptist played with the sound of those two words banaia and abanaia: he does certainly, with great scorn, deride the vain confidence and glorying of that nation (amongst whom nothing was more ready and usual in their mouths than to boast that they were the children of Abraham), when he tells them, That they were such children of Abraham, that God could raise as good as they from those very stones.
11. He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
[He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none.] It would be no sense to say, He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath not two; but to him that hath none: for it was esteemed for religion by some to wear but one single coat or garment: of which, more elsewhere.
13. And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
[Exact no more than that which is appointed you.] When the Rabbins saw that the publicans exacted too much, they rejected them, as not being fit to give their testimony in any case. Where the Gloss hath it, too much, that is more than that which is appointed them. And the father of R. Zeirah is commended in the same place, that he gently and honestly executed that trust: "He discharged the office of a publican for thirteen years: when the prince of the city came, and this publican saw the Rabbins, he was wont to say to them, Go, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, Isaiah 26:20." The Gloss is, "Lest the prince of the city should see you; and, taking notice what numbers you are, should increase his tax yearly."
14. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
[Neither accuse any falsely.] "The manner of sycophants is, first to load a person with reproaches, and whisper some secret, that the other hearing it may, by telling something like it, become obnoxious himself."
[With your wages.] A word used also by the Rabbins: The king distributeth wages to his legions. "The king is not admitted to the intercalation of the year, because of the 'opsonia'": that is, lest he should favour himself in laying out the years with respect to the soldiers' pay.
22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
[Like a dove.] If you will believe the Jews, there sat a golden dove upon the top of Solomon's sceptre. "As Solomon sat in his throne, his sceptre was hung up behind him: at the top of which there was a dove, and a golden crown in the mouth of it."
23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
[Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.] "A parable. There was a certain orphaness brought up by a certain epitropus, or foster-father, an honest good man. At length he would place her in marriage. A scribe is called to write a bill of her dower: saith he to the girl, 'What is thy name?' 'N.' saith she. 'What the name of thy father?' She held her peace. To whom her foster-father, 'Why dost thou not speak?' 'Because,' saith she, 'I know no other father but thee.' He that educateth the child is called a father, not he that begets it." Note that: Joseph, having been taught by the angel, and well satisfied in Mary, whom he had espoused, had owned Jesus for his son from his first birth; he had redeemed him as his first-born, had cherished him in his childhood, educated him in his youth: and therefore, no wonder if Joseph be called his father, and he was supposed to be his son.
II. Let us consider what might have been the judgment of the Sanhedrim in this case only from this story: "There came a certain woman to Jerusalem with a child, brought thither upon shoulders. She brought this child up; and he afterward had the carnal knowledge of her. They are brought before the Sanhedrim, and the Sanhedrim judged them to be stoned to death: not because he was undoubtedly her son, but because he had wholly adhered to her."
Now suppose we that the blessed Jesus had come to the Sanhedrim upon the decease of Joseph, requiring his stock and goods as his heir; had he not, in all equity, obtained them as his son? Not that he was, beyond all doubt and question, his son, but that he had adhered to him wholly from his cradle, was brought up by him as his son, and always so acknowledged.
III. The doctors speak of one Joseph a carpenter: "Abnimus Gardieus asked the Rabbins of blessed memory, whence the earth was first created: they answer him, 'There is no one skilled in these matters; but go thou to Joseph the architect.' He went, and found him standing upon the rafters."
It is equally obscure, who this Joseph the carpenter, and who this Abnimus was; although, as to this last, he is very frequently mentioned in those authors. They say, that "Abnimus and Balaam were two the greatest philosophers in the whole world." Only this we read of him, That there was a very great familiarity betwixt him and R. Meir.
[Which was the son of Heli.] I. There is neither need nor reason, nor indeed any foundation at all, for us to frame I know not what marriages, and the taking of brothers' wives, to remove a scruple in this place, wherein there is really no scruple in the least. For,
1. Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader's mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: "Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God." For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph's pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too. For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam 'the son of God' too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, "This is my Son," was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman. And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother's side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, "Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi"; and so of the rest...
2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.
There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake; He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell's gate hung at her ear.
If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli: and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.
27. Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri.
Please see Genealogies of the Bible: A Neglected Subject (111k) at the Arthur Custance Doorway Papers Library site for more info.]
[The son of Rhesa, the son of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, the son of Neri.] I. That Pedaiah, the father of Zorobabel, 1 Chronicles 3:19, is omitted here, is agreeable with Ezra 5:2; Haggai 1:1, &c.; but why it should be omitted, either here or there, is not so easy to guess.
II. As to the variation of the names both here and 1 Chronicles 3, this is not unworthy our observation: that Zorobabel and his sons were carried out of Babylon into Judea; and, possibly, they might change their names when they changed the place of their dwelling. It was not very safe for him to be known commonly in Babylon by the name of Zorobabel, when the import of that name was the winnowing of Babel; so that he was there more generally called Sheshbazzar. But he might securely resume the name in Judea, when Cyrus and Darius had now fanned and sifted Babylon. So his two sons, Meshullam and Hananiah, could not properly be called, one of them Abiud, the glory of my father, and the other Rhesa, a prince, while they were in Babylon; but in Judea they were names fit and suitable enough.
III. Of the variation of names here, and in Matthew 1, I have already spoken in that place: to wit, that Neri was indeed the father of Salathiel; though St. Matthew saith Jechoniah (who died childless, Jer 22:30) begat him: not that he was his son by nature, but was his heir in succession.
36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
[The son of Cainan.] I will not launch widely out into a controversy that hath been sufficiently bandied already. I shall despatch, as briefly as I may, what may seem most satisfactory in this matter:
I. There is no doubt, and indeed there are none but will grant that St. Luke hath herein followed the Greek version. This, in Genesis 11:12,13, relates it in this manner: "Arphaxad lived a hundred and five and thirty years, and begat Cainan; and Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat Salah: and Cainan lived after he had begot Salah three hundred and thirty years."
Consulting Theophilus about this matter, I cannot but observe of this author, that he partly follows the Greek version, in adding to Arphaxad a hundred years, and partly not, when he omits Cainan: for so he; Arphaxad, when he was a hundred and thirty-five years of age, begat Salah. Nor can I but wonder at him that translates him, that he should of his own head insert, "Arphaxad was a hundred and thirty-five years old, and begat a son named Cainan. Cainan was a hundred and thirty years old, and begat Salah": when there is not one syllable of Cainan in Theophilus. A very faithful interpreter indeed!
1. I cannot be persuaded by any arguments that this passage concerning Cainan was in Moses' text, or indeed in any Hebrew copies which the Seventy used; but that it was certainly added by the interpreters themselves, partly because no reason can be given how it should ever come to be left out of the Hebrew text, and partly because there may be a probable reason given why it should be added in the Greek; especially when nothing was more usual with them than to add of their own, according to their own will and pleasure.
I might, perhaps, acknowledge this one slip, and be apt to believe that Cainan had once a place in the original, but, by I know not what fate or misfortune, left now out; but that I find a hundred such kind of additions in the Greek version, which the Hebrew text will by no means own, nor any probable reason given to bear with it. Let us take our instances only from proper names, because our business at present is with a proper name.
Genesis 10:2: Elisa is added among the sons of Japhet: and, verse 22, another Cainan among the sons of Shem.
Genesis 46:20: Five grandchildren added to the sons of Joseph; Malachi 4:5, the Tishbite.
Exodus 1:11: the city On, is added to Pithom and Raamses.
2 Samuel 20:18: the city Dan is added to Abel. Not to mention several other names of places in the Book of Joshua.
Now can I believe that these names ever were in the Hebrew copy, since some of them are put there without any reason, some of the against all reason (particularly Dan being joined with Abel, and the grandchildren of Joseph), and all of them with no foundation at all?
II. I question not but the interpreters, whoever they were, engaged themselves in this undertaking with something of a partial mind; and as they made no great conscience of imposing upon the Gentiles, so they made it their religion to favour their own side. And according to this ill temperament and disposition of mind, so did they manage their version; either adding or curtailing at pleasure, blindly, lazily, and audaciously enough: sometimes giving a very foreign sense, sometimes a contrary, oftentimes none: and this frequently to patronise their own traditions, or to avoid some offence they think might be in the original, or for the credit and safety of their own nation. The tokens of all which it would not be difficult to instance in very great numbers, would I apply myself to it, but it is the last only that is my business at this time.
III. It is a known story of the thirteen places which the Talmudists tell us were altered by the LXXII elders when they wrote out the law (I would suppose in Hebrew) for Ptolemy. They are reckoned up, and we have the mention of them sprinkled up and down; as also, where it is intimated as if eighteen places had been altered.
Now if we will consult the Glossers upon those places, they will tell us that these alterations were made, some of them, lest the sacred text should be cavilled at; others that the honour and peace of the nation might be secured. It is easy, therefore, to imagine that the same things were done by those that turned the whole Bible. The thing itself speaks it.
Let us add, for example's sake, those five souls which they add to the family of Jacob; numbering up five grandchildren of Joseph, who, as yet, were not in being,--nay, seven, according to their account, Genesis 46:27. Children that were born to Joseph in the land of Egypt, even nine souls.
Now, which copy do we think it most reasonable to believe, the Greek or the Hebrew? and as to the question, whether these five added in the Greek were anciently in Moses' text, but either since lost by the carelessness of the transcribers or rased out by the bold hand of the Jews, let reason and the nature of the thing judge. For if Machir, Gilead, Shuthelah, Tahan, and Eran, were with Joseph when Jacob with his family went down into Egypt, (and if they were not, why are they numbered amongst those that went down?) then must Manasseh at the age of nine years, or ten at most, be a grandfather; and Ephraim at eight or nine. Can I believe that Moses would relate such things as these? I rather wonder with what kind of forehead the interpreters could impose such incredible stories upon the Gentiles, as if it were possible they should be believed.
IV. It is plain enough to any one that diligently considers the Greek version throughout, that it was composed by different hands, who greatly varied from one another, both in style and wit. So that this book was more learnedly rendered than that, the Greek reading more elegant in this book than in that, and the version in this book comes nearer the Hebrew than in that; and yet in the whole there is something of the Jewish craft, favouring and patronising the affairs of that nation. There is something of this nature in the matters now in hand, the addition of Cainan, and the five souls to the seventy that went down into Egypt.
How mighty the Jewish nation valued themselves beyond all the rest of mankind, esteeming those seventy souls that went down with Jacob into Egypt beyond the seventy nations of the world; he that is so great a stranger in the Jewish affairs and writings, that he is yet to learn, let him take these few instances; for it would be needless to add more:
"Seventy souls went down with Jacob into Egypt, that they might restore the seventy families dispersed by the confusion of tongues. For those seventy souls were equal to all the families of the whole world. And he that would be ruling over them, is as if he would usurp a tyranny over the whole world."
"How good is thy love towards me, O thou congregation of Israel! It is more than that of the seventy nations."
"The holy blessed God created seventy nations; but he found no pleasure in any of them, save Israel only."
"Saith Abraham to God, 'Didst thou not raise up seventy nations unto Noah?' God saith unto him, 'I will raise up that nation unto thee of whom it is written, How great a nation is it!'" The Gloss is: "That peculiar people, excelling all the seventy nations, that holy nation, as the holy language excels all the seventy languages."
There are numberless passages of that kind. Now when this arrogant doctrine and vainglorying, if familiarly known amongst the Gentiles, could not but stir up a great deal of hatred, and consequently danger to the Jews, I should rather think the interpreters might make such additions as these, through the caution and cunning of avoiding the danger they apprehend, than that ever they were originally in the text of Moses. To wit, by adding another Cainan, and five souls to those seventy in Jacob's retinue, they took care that the Gentiles should not, in the Greek Bibles, find exactly the seventy nations in Genesis 10, but seventy-two (or seventy-three if we reckon Elisa also;) as also not seventy, but seventy-five souls that went down into Egypt.
It was the same kind of craft they used in that version, Deuteronomy 32:8; whence that comparison between the seventy souls and the seventy nations took its rise. Moses hath it thus; "When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." But they render it thus; He set the bounds of the nations, according to the number of the angels of God. A sense indeed most foreign from that of Moses, yet which served to obscure his meaning, so far as might avoid any danger that might arise from the knowledge of it. Making the passage itself so unintelligible, that it needs an Oedipus to unriddle it; unless they should allude to the Jewish tradition (which I do a little suspect) concerning the seventy angels, set over the seventy nations of the world.
V. But now if this version be so uncertain, and differs so much from the original, how comes it to pass that the evangelists and apostles should follow it so exactly, and that even in some places where it does so widely differ from the Hebrew fountain?
Ans. I. It pleased God to allot the censers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram to sacred use, because they were so ordained and designed by the first owners: so doth it please the Holy Ghost to determine that version to his own use, being so primarily ordained by the first authors. The minds, indeed, of the interpreters were not perhaps very sincere in the version they made, as who designed the defence and support of some odd things: so neither were the hearts of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram sincere at all, but very perverse in offering their incense: but so long as their incense had been dedicated to sacred use, it pleased God to make their censers holy. So the Greek version designed for sacred use, as designed for the Holy Bible, so it was keept and made use of by the Holy Ghost.
II. Whereas the New Testament was to be wrote in Greek, and come into the hands chiefly of the Gentiles, it was most agreeable, I may say most necessary for them, to follow the Greek copies, as being what the Gentiles were only capable of consulting; that so they, examining the histories and quotations that were brought out of the Old Testament, might find them agreeing with, and not contradicting them. For instance; they, consulting their Greek Bibles for the names from David backward to Adam, there find "Cainan, the son of Arphaxad." If St. Luke should not also have inserted it, how readily they might have called his veracity in question, as to the other part of the genealogy, which had been extracted out of tables and registers not so familiarly known!
III. If there be any credit to be given to that story of the Greek version, which we meet with in Aristeas and Josephus, then we may also believe that passage in it which we may find in Aristeas. "When the volumes of the law had been read through, the priests, and interpreters, and elders, and governors of the city, and all the princes of the people standing by, said 'Forasmuch as this interpretation is rightly, religiously, and in every thing so very accurately finished, it is fit that all things should continue as they are, and no alteration should be made.' When all had by acclamations given their approbation to these things, Demetrius commanded that, according to their custom, they should imprecate curses upon any that should, by addition, or alteration, or diminution, ever make any change in it. This they did well in, that all things might be kept entire and inviolate for ever."
If this passage be true, it might be no light matter to the Jew, when quoting any thing in Greek out of the Old Testament, to depart in the least from the Greek version; and indeed it is something a wonder, that after this they should ever dare to undertake any other. But supposing there were any credit to be had to this passage, were the sacred penmen any way concerned in these curses and imprecations? Who saith they were? But, however, who will not say that this was enough for them to stop the mouths of the cavilling Jews, that they, following the Greek version, had often departed from the truth of the original to avoid that anathema; at least, if there were any truth in it.
Object. But the clause that is before us (to omit many others) is absolutely false: for there was neither any Cainan the son of Arphaxad; nor was Jesus the son of any Cainan that was born after the flood.
Ans. I. There could be nothing more false as to the thing itself than that of the apostle, when he calleth the preaching of the gospel foolishness, 1 Corinthians 1:21; and yet, according to the common conceptions of foolish men, nothing more true. So neither was this true in itself that is asserted here; but only so in the opinion of those for whose sake the evangelist writes. Nor yet is it the design of the Holy Ghost to indulge them in any thing that was not true; but only would not lay a stumblingblock at present before them: "I am made all things to all men, that I might gain some."
II. There is some parallel with this of St. Luke and that in the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 1:36: "The sons of Eliphaz, Teman, and Omar, and Zephi, and Gatam, and Timnah, and Amalek." Where it is equally false, that Timnah was the son of Eliphaz, as it is that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. But far, far be it from me to say, that the Holy Ghost was either deceived himself, or would deceive others. Timnah was not a man, but a woman; not the son of Eliphaz, but his concubine; not Amalek's brother, but his mother, Genesis 36:12. Only the Holy Ghost teacheth us by this shortness of speech, to recur to the original story from whence these things are taken, and there consult the determinate explication of the whole matter: which is frequently done by the same Holy Spirit, speaking very briefly in stories well known before.
The Gentiles have no reason to cavil with the evangelist in this mater; for he agrees well enough with their Bibles. And if the Jews, or we ourselves, should find fault, he may defend himself from the common usage of the Holy Ghost, in whom it is no rare and unusual thing, in the recital of stories and passages well enough known before, to vary from the original and yet without any design of deceiving, or suspicion of being himself deceived; but, according to that majesty and authority that belongs to him, dictating and referring the reader to the primitive story, from whence he may settle and determine the state of the matter, and inquire into the reasons of the variation. St. Stephen imitates this very custom, while he is speaking about the burial of the patriarchs, Acts 7:15,16; being well enough understood by his Jewish auditory, though giving but short hints in a story so well known.
III. It is one thing to dictate from himself, and another thing to quote what is dictated from others, as our evangelist in this place doth. And since he did, without all question, write in behalf of the Gentiles, being the companion of him who was the great apostle of the Gentiles, what should hinder his alleging according to what had been dictated in their Bibles?
When the apostle names the magicians of Egypt, Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy 3:9, he doth not deliver it for a certain thing, or upon his credit assure them that these were their very names, but allegeth only what had been delivered by others, what had been the common tradition amongst them, well enough known to Timothy, a thing about which neither he nor any other would start any controversy.
So when the apostle Jude speaks of "Michael contending with the devil about the body of Moses," he doth not deliver it for a certain and authentic thing; and yet is not to be charged with any falsehood, because he doth not dictate of his own, but only appeals to something that had been told by others, using an argument with the Jews fetched from their own books and traditions.
IV. As it is very proper and even necessary towards the understanding some sentences and schemes of speech in the New Testament, to inquire in what manner they were understood by those that heard them from the mouth of him that spoke them, or those to whom they were written; so let us make a little search here as to the matter now in hand. When this Gospel first appeared in public amongst the Jews and Gentiles, the Gentiles could not complain that the evangelist had followed their copies: and if the Jews found fault, they had wherewithal to answer and satisfy themselves. And that particularly as to this name of 'Cainan' being inserted, as also the five souls being added to the retinue of Jacob; the learned amongst them knew from whence he had it; for what reason this addition had been made in the Greek version, and that St. Luke had faithfully transcribed it thence: so that if there were any fault, let them lay the blame upon the first authors, and not upon the transcriber.
V. To conclude: Before the bible had been translated for Ptolemy (as it is supposed) into the Greek tongue, there were an infinite number of copies in the Hebrew in Palestine, Babylon, Egypt, even everywhere, in every synagogue: and it is a marvellous thing, that in all antiquity there should not be the least hint or mention of so much as one Hebrew copy amongst all these that agrees with the Greek version. We have various editions of that version which they call the Septuagint, and those pretty much disagreeing among themselves: but who hath ever heard or seen one Hebrew copy that hath in every thing agreed with any one of them? The interpreters have still abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew text.
[Annas and Caiaphas being high priests.] They do constitute two high priests at one time. True indeed: but they promoted a sagan, together with a high priest.
The 'sagan,' as to his degree, was the same to the high priest, as he that was next or second to the king.
They substituted, indeed, on the vespers of the day of expiation, another priest to the high priest, that should be in readiness to perform the office for the day, if any uncleanness should by chance have befallen the high priest.
"It is storied of Ben Elam of Zipporim, that when a gonorrhea had seized the high priest on the day of expiation, he went in and performed the office for that day. And another story of Simeon Ben Kamith, that as he was walking with the king on the vespers of the day of expiation, his garments were touched with another's spittle, so that Judah his brother went in and ministered. On that day the mother of them saw her two sons high priests."
It is not without reason controverted, whether the sagan were the same with this deputed priest: the Jews themselves dispute it. I would be on the negative part: for the sagan was not so much the vice high priest, as (if I may so speak) one set over the priests. The same with the ruler of the temple; of whom we have such frequent mention among the doctors: upon him chiefly did the care and charge of the service of the temple lie.
"The ruler of the temple saith to them, Go out and see if it be time to slay the sacrifice." "The ruler saith, Come and cast your lots who shall slay the sacrifice, who shall sprinkle the blood," &c. The Gloss is, the ruler is the 'sagan.'
He is commonly called the 'sagan' of the priests: which argues his supremacy among the priests, rather than his vicegerency under the high priest.
"When the high priest stands in the circle of those that are to comfort the mourners, the sagan and he that is anointed for the battle, stand on his right hand, and the head of the father's house, those that mourn, and all the people stand on his left hand."
Mark here the order of the sagan; he is below the high priest, but above the heads of all the courses.
2 Kings 23:4, the priests of the second order: Targum, the 'sagan' of the priests. And chapter 25:18, Zephaniah the second priest: Targum, Zephaniah 'the sagan' of the priests.
Caiaphas therefore was the high priest, and Annas the sagan or ruler of the temple; who, for his independent dignity, is called high priest as well as Caiaphas; and seems therefore to be named first, because he was the other's father-in-law.
There was a dissension between Hanan and the sons of the chief priests, &c. It was in a judicial cause, about a wife requiring her dower, &c. Where the scruple is, who should these chief priests be? whether the fathers and heads of the courses, or the high priest only and the sagan. It was a council of priests: which we have already spoken to at Matthew 26:3. Now the question is, whether by the "sons of the chief priests," be meant the sons of the fathers of courses, or the fathers of courses themselves, or the sons of the high priest and the sagan; where the high priest in that court was like the prince in the Sanhedrim, and the sagan the father of the Sanhedrim.
"Moses was made a sagan to Aaron. He put on his garments, and took them off [viz. on the day of his consecration]. And as he was his sagan in life, so he was in death too."
5. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;
[Every valley shall be filled.] The Jews have a tradition, that some such thing was done by the cloud that led Israel in the wilderness. Instead of many instances, take the Targumist upon Canticles 2:6: "There was a cloud went before them, three days' journey, to take down the hills and raise the valleys: it slew all fiery serpents in the wilderness, and all scorpions; and found out for them a fit place to lodge in."
What the meaning of the prophet in this passage was, Christians well enough understand. The Jews apply it to levelling and making the ways plain for Israel's return out of captivity: for this was the main thing they expected from the Messiah, viz. to bring back the captivity of Israel.
"R. Chanan saith, Israel shall have no need of the doctrine of Messiah the King in time to come; for it is said, To him shall the Gentiles seek (Isa 11:10), but not Israel. If so, why then is Messiah to come? and what is he to do when he doth come? He shall gather together the captivity of Israel," &c.
8. Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
[Of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.] We do not say the Baptist played with the sound of those two words banaia and abanaia: he does certainly, with great scorn, deride the vain confidence and glorying of that nation (amongst whom nothing was more ready and usual in their mouths than to boast that they were the children of Abraham), when he tells them, That they were such children of Abraham, that God could raise as good as they from those very stones.
11. He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
[He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none.] It would be no sense to say, He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath not two; but to him that hath none: for it was esteemed for religion by some to wear but one single coat or garment: of which, more elsewhere.
13. And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
[Exact no more than that which is appointed you.] When the Rabbins saw that the publicans exacted too much, they rejected them, as not being fit to give their testimony in any case. Where the Gloss hath it, too much, that is more than that which is appointed them. And the father of R. Zeirah is commended in the same place, that he gently and honestly executed that trust: "He discharged the office of a publican for thirteen years: when the prince of the city came, and this publican saw the Rabbins, he was wont to say to them, Go, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, Isaiah 26:20." The Gloss is, "Lest the prince of the city should see you; and, taking notice what numbers you are, should increase his tax yearly."
14. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
[Neither accuse any falsely.] "The manner of sycophants is, first to load a person with reproaches, and whisper some secret, that the other hearing it may, by telling something like it, become obnoxious himself."
[With your wages.] A word used also by the Rabbins: The king distributeth wages to his legions. "The king is not admitted to the intercalation of the year, because of the 'opsonia'": that is, lest he should favour himself in laying out the years with respect to the soldiers' pay.
22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
[Like a dove.] If you will believe the Jews, there sat a golden dove upon the top of Solomon's sceptre. "As Solomon sat in his throne, his sceptre was hung up behind him: at the top of which there was a dove, and a golden crown in the mouth of it."
23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
[Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.] "A parable. There was a certain orphaness brought up by a certain epitropus, or foster-father, an honest good man. At length he would place her in marriage. A scribe is called to write a bill of her dower: saith he to the girl, 'What is thy name?' 'N.' saith she. 'What the name of thy father?' She held her peace. To whom her foster-father, 'Why dost thou not speak?' 'Because,' saith she, 'I know no other father but thee.' He that educateth the child is called a father, not he that begets it." Note that: Joseph, having been taught by the angel, and well satisfied in Mary, whom he had espoused, had owned Jesus for his son from his first birth; he had redeemed him as his first-born, had cherished him in his childhood, educated him in his youth: and therefore, no wonder if Joseph be called his father, and he was supposed to be his son.
II. Let us consider what might have been the judgment of the Sanhedrim in this case only from this story: "There came a certain woman to Jerusalem with a child, brought thither upon shoulders. She brought this child up; and he afterward had the carnal knowledge of her. They are brought before the Sanhedrim, and the Sanhedrim judged them to be stoned to death: not because he was undoubtedly her son, but because he had wholly adhered to her."
Now suppose we that the blessed Jesus had come to the Sanhedrim upon the decease of Joseph, requiring his stock and goods as his heir; had he not, in all equity, obtained them as his son? Not that he was, beyond all doubt and question, his son, but that he had adhered to him wholly from his cradle, was brought up by him as his son, and always so acknowledged.
III. The doctors speak of one Joseph a carpenter: "Abnimus Gardieus asked the Rabbins of blessed memory, whence the earth was first created: they answer him, 'There is no one skilled in these matters; but go thou to Joseph the architect.' He went, and found him standing upon the rafters."
It is equally obscure, who this Joseph the carpenter, and who this Abnimus was; although, as to this last, he is very frequently mentioned in those authors. They say, that "Abnimus and Balaam were two the greatest philosophers in the whole world." Only this we read of him, That there was a very great familiarity betwixt him and R. Meir.
[Which was the son of Heli.] I. There is neither need nor reason, nor indeed any foundation at all, for us to frame I know not what marriages, and the taking of brothers' wives, to remove a scruple in this place, wherein there is really no scruple in the least. For,
1. Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader's mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: "Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God." For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph's pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too. For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam 'the son of God' too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, "This is my Son," was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman. And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother's side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, "Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi"; and so of the rest...
2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.
There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake; He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell's gate hung at her ear.
If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli: and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.
27. Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri.
Please see Genealogies of the Bible: A Neglected Subject (111k) at the Arthur Custance Doorway Papers Library site for more info.]
[The son of Rhesa, the son of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, the son of Neri.] I. That Pedaiah, the father of Zorobabel, 1 Chronicles 3:19, is omitted here, is agreeable with Ezra 5:2; Haggai 1:1, &c.; but why it should be omitted, either here or there, is not so easy to guess.
II. As to the variation of the names both here and 1 Chronicles 3, this is not unworthy our observation: that Zorobabel and his sons were carried out of Babylon into Judea; and, possibly, they might change their names when they changed the place of their dwelling. It was not very safe for him to be known commonly in Babylon by the name of Zorobabel, when the import of that name was the winnowing of Babel; so that he was there more generally called Sheshbazzar. But he might securely resume the name in Judea, when Cyrus and Darius had now fanned and sifted Babylon. So his two sons, Meshullam and Hananiah, could not properly be called, one of them Abiud, the glory of my father, and the other Rhesa, a prince, while they were in Babylon; but in Judea they were names fit and suitable enough.
III. Of the variation of names here, and in Matthew 1, I have already spoken in that place: to wit, that Neri was indeed the father of Salathiel; though St. Matthew saith Jechoniah (who died childless, Jer 22:30) begat him: not that he was his son by nature, but was his heir in succession.
36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
[The son of Cainan.] I will not launch widely out into a controversy that hath been sufficiently bandied already. I shall despatch, as briefly as I may, what may seem most satisfactory in this matter:
I. There is no doubt, and indeed there are none but will grant that St. Luke hath herein followed the Greek version. This, in Genesis 11:12,13, relates it in this manner: "Arphaxad lived a hundred and five and thirty years, and begat Cainan; and Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat Salah: and Cainan lived after he had begot Salah three hundred and thirty years."
Consulting Theophilus about this matter, I cannot but observe of this author, that he partly follows the Greek version, in adding to Arphaxad a hundred years, and partly not, when he omits Cainan: for so he; Arphaxad, when he was a hundred and thirty-five years of age, begat Salah. Nor can I but wonder at him that translates him, that he should of his own head insert, "Arphaxad was a hundred and thirty-five years old, and begat a son named Cainan. Cainan was a hundred and thirty years old, and begat Salah": when there is not one syllable of Cainan in Theophilus. A very faithful interpreter indeed!
1. I cannot be persuaded by any arguments that this passage concerning Cainan was in Moses' text, or indeed in any Hebrew copies which the Seventy used; but that it was certainly added by the interpreters themselves, partly because no reason can be given how it should ever come to be left out of the Hebrew text, and partly because there may be a probable reason given why it should be added in the Greek; especially when nothing was more usual with them than to add of their own, according to their own will and pleasure.
I might, perhaps, acknowledge this one slip, and be apt to believe that Cainan had once a place in the original, but, by I know not what fate or misfortune, left now out; but that I find a hundred such kind of additions in the Greek version, which the Hebrew text will by no means own, nor any probable reason given to bear with it. Let us take our instances only from proper names, because our business at present is with a proper name.
Genesis 10:2: Elisa is added among the sons of Japhet: and, verse 22, another Cainan among the sons of Shem.
Genesis 46:20: Five grandchildren added to the sons of Joseph; Malachi 4:5, the Tishbite.
Exodus 1:11: the city On, is added to Pithom and Raamses.
2 Samuel 20:18: the city Dan is added to Abel. Not to mention several other names of places in the Book of Joshua.
Now can I believe that these names ever were in the Hebrew copy, since some of them are put there without any reason, some of the against all reason (particularly Dan being joined with Abel, and the grandchildren of Joseph), and all of them with no foundation at all?
II. I question not but the interpreters, whoever they were, engaged themselves in this undertaking with something of a partial mind; and as they made no great conscience of imposing upon the Gentiles, so they made it their religion to favour their own side. And according to this ill temperament and disposition of mind, so did they manage their version; either adding or curtailing at pleasure, blindly, lazily, and audaciously enough: sometimes giving a very foreign sense, sometimes a contrary, oftentimes none: and this frequently to patronise their own traditions, or to avoid some offence they think might be in the original, or for the credit and safety of their own nation. The tokens of all which it would not be difficult to instance in very great numbers, would I apply myself to it, but it is the last only that is my business at this time.
III. It is a known story of the thirteen places which the Talmudists tell us were altered by the LXXII elders when they wrote out the law (I would suppose in Hebrew) for Ptolemy. They are reckoned up, and we have the mention of them sprinkled up and down; as also, where it is intimated as if eighteen places had been altered.
Now if we will consult the Glossers upon those places, they will tell us that these alterations were made, some of them, lest the sacred text should be cavilled at; others that the honour and peace of the nation might be secured. It is easy, therefore, to imagine that the same things were done by those that turned the whole Bible. The thing itself speaks it.
Let us add, for example's sake, those five souls which they add to the family of Jacob; numbering up five grandchildren of Joseph, who, as yet, were not in being,--nay, seven, according to their account, Genesis 46:27. Children that were born to Joseph in the land of Egypt, even nine souls.
Now, which copy do we think it most reasonable to believe, the Greek or the Hebrew? and as to the question, whether these five added in the Greek were anciently in Moses' text, but either since lost by the carelessness of the transcribers or rased out by the bold hand of the Jews, let reason and the nature of the thing judge. For if Machir, Gilead, Shuthelah, Tahan, and Eran, were with Joseph when Jacob with his family went down into Egypt, (and if they were not, why are they numbered amongst those that went down?) then must Manasseh at the age of nine years, or ten at most, be a grandfather; and Ephraim at eight or nine. Can I believe that Moses would relate such things as these? I rather wonder with what kind of forehead the interpreters could impose such incredible stories upon the Gentiles, as if it were possible they should be believed.
IV. It is plain enough to any one that diligently considers the Greek version throughout, that it was composed by different hands, who greatly varied from one another, both in style and wit. So that this book was more learnedly rendered than that, the Greek reading more elegant in this book than in that, and the version in this book comes nearer the Hebrew than in that; and yet in the whole there is something of the Jewish craft, favouring and patronising the affairs of that nation. There is something of this nature in the matters now in hand, the addition of Cainan, and the five souls to the seventy that went down into Egypt.
How mighty the Jewish nation valued themselves beyond all the rest of mankind, esteeming those seventy souls that went down with Jacob into Egypt beyond the seventy nations of the world; he that is so great a stranger in the Jewish affairs and writings, that he is yet to learn, let him take these few instances; for it would be needless to add more:
"Seventy souls went down with Jacob into Egypt, that they might restore the seventy families dispersed by the confusion of tongues. For those seventy souls were equal to all the families of the whole world. And he that would be ruling over them, is as if he would usurp a tyranny over the whole world."
"How good is thy love towards me, O thou congregation of Israel! It is more than that of the seventy nations."
"The holy blessed God created seventy nations; but he found no pleasure in any of them, save Israel only."
"Saith Abraham to God, 'Didst thou not raise up seventy nations unto Noah?' God saith unto him, 'I will raise up that nation unto thee of whom it is written, How great a nation is it!'" The Gloss is: "That peculiar people, excelling all the seventy nations, that holy nation, as the holy language excels all the seventy languages."
There are numberless passages of that kind. Now when this arrogant doctrine and vainglorying, if familiarly known amongst the Gentiles, could not but stir up a great deal of hatred, and consequently danger to the Jews, I should rather think the interpreters might make such additions as these, through the caution and cunning of avoiding the danger they apprehend, than that ever they were originally in the text of Moses. To wit, by adding another Cainan, and five souls to those seventy in Jacob's retinue, they took care that the Gentiles should not, in the Greek Bibles, find exactly the seventy nations in Genesis 10, but seventy-two (or seventy-three if we reckon Elisa also;) as also not seventy, but seventy-five souls that went down into Egypt.
It was the same kind of craft they used in that version, Deuteronomy 32:8; whence that comparison between the seventy souls and the seventy nations took its rise. Moses hath it thus; "When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." But they render it thus; He set the bounds of the nations, according to the number of the angels of God. A sense indeed most foreign from that of Moses, yet which served to obscure his meaning, so far as might avoid any danger that might arise from the knowledge of it. Making the passage itself so unintelligible, that it needs an Oedipus to unriddle it; unless they should allude to the Jewish tradition (which I do a little suspect) concerning the seventy angels, set over the seventy nations of the world.
V. But now if this version be so uncertain, and differs so much from the original, how comes it to pass that the evangelists and apostles should follow it so exactly, and that even in some places where it does so widely differ from the Hebrew fountain?
Ans. I. It pleased God to allot the censers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram to sacred use, because they were so ordained and designed by the first owners: so doth it please the Holy Ghost to determine that version to his own use, being so primarily ordained by the first authors. The minds, indeed, of the interpreters were not perhaps very sincere in the version they made, as who designed the defence and support of some odd things: so neither were the hearts of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram sincere at all, but very perverse in offering their incense: but so long as their incense had been dedicated to sacred use, it pleased God to make their censers holy. So the Greek version designed for sacred use, as designed for the Holy Bible, so it was keept and made use of by the Holy Ghost.
II. Whereas the New Testament was to be wrote in Greek, and come into the hands chiefly of the Gentiles, it was most agreeable, I may say most necessary for them, to follow the Greek copies, as being what the Gentiles were only capable of consulting; that so they, examining the histories and quotations that were brought out of the Old Testament, might find them agreeing with, and not contradicting them. For instance; they, consulting their Greek Bibles for the names from David backward to Adam, there find "Cainan, the son of Arphaxad." If St. Luke should not also have inserted it, how readily they might have called his veracity in question, as to the other part of the genealogy, which had been extracted out of tables and registers not so familiarly known!
III. If there be any credit to be given to that story of the Greek version, which we meet with in Aristeas and Josephus, then we may also believe that passage in it which we may find in Aristeas. "When the volumes of the law had been read through, the priests, and interpreters, and elders, and governors of the city, and all the princes of the people standing by, said 'Forasmuch as this interpretation is rightly, religiously, and in every thing so very accurately finished, it is fit that all things should continue as they are, and no alteration should be made.' When all had by acclamations given their approbation to these things, Demetrius commanded that, according to their custom, they should imprecate curses upon any that should, by addition, or alteration, or diminution, ever make any change in it. This they did well in, that all things might be kept entire and inviolate for ever."
If this passage be true, it might be no light matter to the Jew, when quoting any thing in Greek out of the Old Testament, to depart in the least from the Greek version; and indeed it is something a wonder, that after this they should ever dare to undertake any other. But supposing there were any credit to be had to this passage, were the sacred penmen any way concerned in these curses and imprecations? Who saith they were? But, however, who will not say that this was enough for them to stop the mouths of the cavilling Jews, that they, following the Greek version, had often departed from the truth of the original to avoid that anathema; at least, if there were any truth in it.
Object. But the clause that is before us (to omit many others) is absolutely false: for there was neither any Cainan the son of Arphaxad; nor was Jesus the son of any Cainan that was born after the flood.
Ans. I. There could be nothing more false as to the thing itself than that of the apostle, when he calleth the preaching of the gospel foolishness, 1 Corinthians 1:21; and yet, according to the common conceptions of foolish men, nothing more true. So neither was this true in itself that is asserted here; but only so in the opinion of those for whose sake the evangelist writes. Nor yet is it the design of the Holy Ghost to indulge them in any thing that was not true; but only would not lay a stumblingblock at present before them: "I am made all things to all men, that I might gain some."
II. There is some parallel with this of St. Luke and that in the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 1:36: "The sons of Eliphaz, Teman, and Omar, and Zephi, and Gatam, and Timnah, and Amalek." Where it is equally false, that Timnah was the son of Eliphaz, as it is that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. But far, far be it from me to say, that the Holy Ghost was either deceived himself, or would deceive others. Timnah was not a man, but a woman; not the son of Eliphaz, but his concubine; not Amalek's brother, but his mother, Genesis 36:12. Only the Holy Ghost teacheth us by this shortness of speech, to recur to the original story from whence these things are taken, and there consult the determinate explication of the whole matter: which is frequently done by the same Holy Spirit, speaking very briefly in stories well known before.
The Gentiles have no reason to cavil with the evangelist in this mater; for he agrees well enough with their Bibles. And if the Jews, or we ourselves, should find fault, he may defend himself from the common usage of the Holy Ghost, in whom it is no rare and unusual thing, in the recital of stories and passages well enough known before, to vary from the original and yet without any design of deceiving, or suspicion of being himself deceived; but, according to that majesty and authority that belongs to him, dictating and referring the reader to the primitive story, from whence he may settle and determine the state of the matter, and inquire into the reasons of the variation. St. Stephen imitates this very custom, while he is speaking about the burial of the patriarchs, Acts 7:15,16; being well enough understood by his Jewish auditory, though giving but short hints in a story so well known.
III. It is one thing to dictate from himself, and another thing to quote what is dictated from others, as our evangelist in this place doth. And since he did, without all question, write in behalf of the Gentiles, being the companion of him who was the great apostle of the Gentiles, what should hinder his alleging according to what had been dictated in their Bibles?
When the apostle names the magicians of Egypt, Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy 3:9, he doth not deliver it for a certain thing, or upon his credit assure them that these were their very names, but allegeth only what had been delivered by others, what had been the common tradition amongst them, well enough known to Timothy, a thing about which neither he nor any other would start any controversy.
So when the apostle Jude speaks of "Michael contending with the devil about the body of Moses," he doth not deliver it for a certain and authentic thing; and yet is not to be charged with any falsehood, because he doth not dictate of his own, but only appeals to something that had been told by others, using an argument with the Jews fetched from their own books and traditions.
IV. As it is very proper and even necessary towards the understanding some sentences and schemes of speech in the New Testament, to inquire in what manner they were understood by those that heard them from the mouth of him that spoke them, or those to whom they were written; so let us make a little search here as to the matter now in hand. When this Gospel first appeared in public amongst the Jews and Gentiles, the Gentiles could not complain that the evangelist had followed their copies: and if the Jews found fault, they had wherewithal to answer and satisfy themselves. And that particularly as to this name of 'Cainan' being inserted, as also the five souls being added to the retinue of Jacob; the learned amongst them knew from whence he had it; for what reason this addition had been made in the Greek version, and that St. Luke had faithfully transcribed it thence: so that if there were any fault, let them lay the blame upon the first authors, and not upon the transcriber.
V. To conclude: Before the bible had been translated for Ptolemy (as it is supposed) into the Greek tongue, there were an infinite number of copies in the Hebrew in Palestine, Babylon, Egypt, even everywhere, in every synagogue: and it is a marvellous thing, that in all antiquity there should not be the least hint or mention of so much as one Hebrew copy amongst all these that agrees with the Greek version. We have various editions of that version which they call the Septuagint, and those pretty much disagreeing among themselves: but who hath ever heard or seen one Hebrew copy that hath in every thing agreed with any one of them? The interpreters have still abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew text.
Luke 4
1. And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.
[Was led by the Spirit.] In St. Matthew it is, was led up of the Spirit. By which I would suppose our Saviour caught up by the Holy Spirit into the air, and so carried into the wilderness. The reasons of this conjecture are, I. Because we read of the like thing done to Philip, Acts 8:39,40. The same also is supposed concerning Elijah, 1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:16. II. It is probable the devil also might snatch Jesus up into the air, having this occasion to pretend himself no other than the Holy Ghost, who had caught him up and brought him already into the wilderness: and under this notion he might require that worship from him, as if he himself was indeed the Holy Ghost. III. We must not pass by the method which St. Luke takes in describing the order of the temptations, somewhat different from that of St. Matthew. The temptation upon the pinnacle of the Temple is mentioned by St. Matthew, and that most truly, the second in order: but in St. Luke it is reckoned the third; adding, that "when the devil had ended all his temptation, he departed from him for a season." But now, according to St. Luke, how did Christ get down from the pinnacle again? He tells us, that he was carried up thither by the devil, and there (according to his method in the story) the temptation was ended: how then did Christ get down again? Observe but what follows; Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and then join the stories as they are joined in St. Luke: the devil set him on the pinnacle of the Temple, and there urgeth him to cast himself down; but when he could not persuade him, he leaves him standing on the pinnacle, and all the temptation was ended; and Jesus, by the power of the Spirit returned into Galilee. May we not suppose that the evangelist would by this give us to understand, that Christ, after the temptation was ended, was carried through the air by the Holy Ghost into Galilee, as he had been caught up before by him, and been brought into the wilderness, yea, and under that pretence [or upon that occasion], had been snatched up by the devil himself to the pinnacle of the Temple, and to a very high mountain?
2. Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
[Forty days, &c.] Moses, in his dealings with God, fasted forty days three times, one after another. It was sufficient for Christ, having withal so great a conflict with the devil, to do it but once. Moses' first quadragesimal was Exodus 24:18: his second time was after he had destroyed the golden calf, Deuteronomy 10:10: the third was after the tables of the law had been made anew, Exodus 34:28. About that very time of the year wherein Moses ended his last forty days' fast, Christ began his; viz. about the middle of the month Tisri; and how long he continued it on in the month Marchesvan, it is not difficult to apprehend.
5. And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
[In a moment of time.] In momento. So the Vulgar. Now what quantity of time a moment contains, if it be worth the while to inquire, the doctors tell us:
How much is a moment? It is the fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred, eighty-eighth part of an hour. Very accurately calculated truly!
13. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
[He departed from him for a season.] The devil had now found by experience, how much in vain it was for him to tempt our Saviour by suggestions, or those kinds of allurements by which he inveigles mankind; and therefore he watches for an opportunity of trying his arts upon him some other way: which at last he doth, both by himself and by his instruments. And when that season drew near, and the devil returned to his proper business, we find there is mention made of Satan entering into Judas, and that "now the prince of this world cometh," John 14:30.
16. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
[He stood up to read.] That we may frame the better judgment of this action of our Saviour's, let us a little look into the customs of the synagogue:--
I. They read standing up. Piske: and Rabbenu Asher; "They do not read in the law otherwise than standing up. Nay, it is unlawful for him that readeth to lean upon any thing. Whence comes it that he that readeth in the law is bound to stand up? Rabh Abhu saith, Because the Scripture saith, Do thou stand by me. Nor ought any one to lean any way, as it is in the Jerusalem. R. Samuel Bar Isaac going into a synagogue found one expounding and leaning against a pillar. He saith to him, This is not lawful: for as the law was given with reverence, so are we to handle it with reverence too."
They preferred the Law before the Prophets, and the Law and the Prophets above the Hagiographa, or holy writings: and yet they yielded that honour to the Prophets, that even they should not be read but standing up. Whence that is particular which they say concerning the Book of Esther, "A man may read out of the Book of Esther, either standing or sitting. But not so out of the law." Christ in this followed the custom of the synagogue, in that while he read the Law he stood up, while he taught it he sat down.
II. He that read in the Prophets was called Maphtir; and was appointed to that office by the ruler of the synagogue.
"Rabh Bibai was a great man in taking care of the things of God. And Mar was a great man in taking care of the things of the town." The Gloss is: "Of the things of God, that is, about the collectors of the alms, and the distribution of it, and the ordering those that were to expound and read the Prophets."
It is probable that Christ did at this time offer himself as a Maphtir, or as one that would read in the Prophets, and preach upon what he read; not before hand appointed to it by the ruler of the synagogue, but rather approved of when he had offered himself. For those of Nazareth had heard of some miracles which he had wrought at Capernaum, verse 23: and therefore no wonder if they were very desirous to hear something from him answerable to those great things he had done.
III. Piske: "He that reads in the Prophets ought not to read less than one-and-twenty verses." Here our Saviour doth not seem to have observed the custom of the synagogue, for he read but two verses: and yet he did nothing but what was both allowable and usual. And that is worth our taking notice of which we meet with, "If there be an interpreter or preaching on the sabbath day, they read out of the prophets, three, or five, or seven verses, and are not so careful to read just one-and-twenty."
"If there be an interpreter [or interpretation] on the sabbath day": was there not always one on every sabbath day? So that neither Moses nor the Prophets might be read unless one stood by that could expound: as seems abundantly evident both from the traditions and the rules that concerned such a one.
These words, therefore I would understand in such a sense; 'If either the interpreter should in his exposition enlarge himself into a sermon, or any other should preach,' &c. For the interpreter did sometimes comment and preach upon what they read. And probably Christ did at this time both read and properly interpreted.
"Jose the Maonite expounded in the synagogue of Maon. 'Hear, O ye priests; hearken, O house of Israel; and give y ear, O house of the king,' Hosea 5. He said, The holy blessed God is about to snatch away the priests and set them in judgment, saying unto them, 'Why have ye not laboured in the law? Have you not had the use and enjoyment of four-and-twenty portions belonging to the priests?' They say unto him, 'They have not given us any thing.' 'Hearken, O ye house of Israel, why have you not given those four-and-twenty portions to the priests which I have commanded you in the law?' They answer him, 'Because of those who are of the house of the prince, who devour all themselves.' 'Give ear, O house of the king, for judgment is towards you; for to you I have said that this should be the rule concerning the priests: to you, therefore, and over you, is it turned a rule of judgment.' Rabbi [the prince] heard this, and was displeased with it."
"After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha."
"Rabh Joseph expounded it, After these things the king promoted Haman of Hammedatha the Agagite, the son of Cuza, the son of Aphlet, the son of Dio, the son of Diusot, the son of Paros, the son of Nidan, the son of Baalkan," &c. See the place, and compare it with the Targumist upon Esther, chapter 3:1.
"A reader in the Prophet enlargeth upon 'Shemaa'" [the manner and form of the thing we have in Massech. Soph. cap. 14]; "he passeth before the ark, and lifteth up his hands" (that is, in order to give him blessing); "but if he be a child, his father or his master doth these things in his stead," &c. But the Gloss tells us that these things are to be understood of an ordinary reader of the prophets. Now Christ was an extraordinary reader. However, he read here, which he did not do in any other synagogue; for this was the synagogue to which he belonged, and he read as a member of that synagogue.
17. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
[And there was delivered unto him the book of Esaias.] I. The minister of the church kept the sacred books in his custody, and brought them out to be read when they met together in the synagogue.
"The high priest came to read [on the day of expiation]; the minister of the synagogue takes the book of the law, and giveth it to the ruler of the synagogue," &c. Where the Gloss is, The 'chazan' of the synagogue, that is, the minister. From him did our Saviour receive the book, and to him he returned it again.
II. If it be asked whether he received the book of the Prophet Isaiah by itself or joined with the other prophets, it is not easy to determine it. We may gather something from what vulgarly obtained amongst them.
"The Rabbins deliver: 'Let a man frame the Law and the Prophets and the holy writings into one volume': they are the words of R. Meir. But R. Judah saith, 'Let the Law be apart by itself; the book of the Prophets by itself; and the book of the holy writings [Hagiographa] by itself.' And the wise men say, 'Every book by itself.'"
But we may ask if every prophet was by himself, Isaiah by himself, Jeremiah by himself, &c. It is probable they were: for so they sometimes divided the law into single quintanes [or fifth parts].
All know what title the books of the law do bear in the front of the Hebrew Bibles, viz. The five quintanes of the law. Genesis is the first quintane: Exodus is the second quintane: and so of the rest...
"They fold up the book of the Law in the cloth of the quintanes, and the quintanes in the cloth of the Prophets and Hagiographa: but they do not fold up the Prophets and Hagiographa in the cloth of the quintanes, nor the quintanes in the cloth of the Law." And a little after; "They lay the Law upon the quintanes, and the quintanes upon the Prophets and Hagiographa; but not the Prophets and Hagiographa upon the quintanes, nor the quintanes upon the Law": that is, not any one single quintane upon all the quintanes made up into one volume. So the Gloss hath it; "A quintane; that is, a book of the law, in which there is only one quintane."
Seeing, therefore, that the book of that Law was sometimes divided in this manner, into distinct books, we may judge as well that the greater prophets might be thus divided also, and the twelve lesser made up into one volume. Hence, perhaps, that passage: "The reader of the Prophet might skip from one text to another: but he might not skip from prophet to prophet: but in the twelve prophets it was lawful." For they were all made up in one volume ready to his hand; and so were not the greater prophets.
Give me leave, therefore, to conjecture that on that sabbath wherein these things were transacted in the synagogue at Nazareth, that section which was to be read in the Prophets was, according to the rubric, in the prophet Isaiah; and upon that account the minister of the synagogue delivered that book to our Saviour when he stood up to read.
[And when he had opened the book, he found the place, &c.] In the Talmudic language I would render it thus, unrolling the book...
The high priest after the reading of the law, rolling, or folding up the book, puts it into his bosom. And yet
It is said...which we must not render they do not fold up, but they do not unfold or unroll the book of the law in the synagogue.
They unroll a prophet in the congregation, but they do not unroll the law in he congregation. That is, as the Gloss hath it, They unroll from one place or passage to another passage in another place. So they were wont to do in the Prophets, but not in the Law. And upon this account was it permitted for the reader to skip in the prophet from one place to another, because it was permitted them to unroll the prophet, either a single prophet, or the twelve lesser in the synagogue; but as to the Law, it was not allowed them so to do.
And they put the question How far may he skip so that he that interprets do not break off? The Gloss is, "Let him not skip from the place he reads, unless that he may unroll the book, and be ready to read the place to which he skips, when the interpreter ceaseth."
And because it was not lawful for him so to unroll the law in the synagogue, "on the kalends of the month Tebeth, if it proved to be the sabbath day, they brought three books of the law and read in one of them the place for the sabbath, in another, that for the kalends, in the third, that for the feast of dedication."
The words therefore of our evangelist to me seem not barely to mean that he unfolded or opened the book; but that being opened, he unrolled it from folio to folio, till he had found the place he designed to read and expound. Which though it was not the section appointed by the rubric for the day, yet did not Christ much recede from the custom of the synagogue, which allowed the reader to skip from one place to another.
25. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
[When the heavens were shut up three years and six months.] This number of three years and six months is much used both in the Holy Scriptures and in Jewish writings; concerning which we have more largely discoursed in another place. And although both in the one and the other it is not seldom used allusively only, yet in this place I can see no reason why it should not be taken according to the letter in its proper number, however indeed there will be no small difficulty to reduce it to its just account. That there was no rain for three years together, is evident enough from 1 Kings 17, &c.: but whence comes this addition of six months?
"Elijah said to Ahab, As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word; If there shall be these years." These words include three years at the least, because he saith, years in the plural, and not years in the dual.
And chapter 18, "The word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go shew thyself unto Ahab, and I will send rain upon the earth." In the third year; where then shall we find the six months?
I. Doubtless both our Saviour and his apostle St. James, chapter 5 verse 17, in adding six months do speak according to the known and received opinion of that nation; which is also done elsewhere sometimes in historical matters in the New Testament.
St. Stephen tells us, Acts 7:16, that the bones of the twelve patriarchs were carried over from Egypt and buried in Sychem, when holy writ mentions only the bones and burial of Joseph: wherein he speaks according to the vulgar opinion of the nation.
Again, verse 30, he tells us that Moses was forty years old when he fled into the land of Midian, and that he tarried there forty years more, when Moses himself mentions nothing of the circumstance: this he speaks agreeably to the opinion of the people.
II. Neither our Saviour nor St. James says that Elijah shut up the heavens three years and six months; but Christ tells us, "That the heaven was shut up in the days of Elias three years and six months": and St. James, "That Elias prayed that it might not rain, and it rained not upon the earth by the space of three years and six months."
May I therefore have leave to distinguish in this manner? Elijah shut up the heaven for three years, that there might be no rain, as in the Book of Kings: and there was no rain for three years and a half, as our Saviour and St. James relate.
III. The words of Menander in Josephus may help a little towards the untying this knot: Menander also makes mention of this drought in the acts of Ithobalus, king of Tyre, saying, There was no rain from the month of October to the month of October the year following.
It is true he shortens the space of this drought by making it continue but one year; but however, having placed the beginning of it in the month of October, he gives us a key that opens us a way into things more inward and secret.
IV. Consider the distinction of the former and the latter rain, Deuteronomy 11:14; Jeremiah 5:24; Joel 2:23.
"The Rabbins deliver: the former is in the month Marchesvan; the latter in the month Nisan."
The Targumist in Joel 2:23: "Who hath given you the first rain in season and the latter in the month Nisan." See also our note upon chapter 2:8.
R. Solomon, upon Deuteronomy 11, differs a little; but we are not solicitous about the order, which should be the first, either that in the month Marchesvan, or that in the month Nisan: that which makes to our purpose is, that rains were at those stated times; and for the rest of the year generally there was no rain.
V. Those six months mentioned by our Saviour and St. James must be accounted before the beginning of the three years, and not tacked to the end of them, as is very evident from this, that it is said, "The third year Elijah shewed himself to Ahab," &c.
In the beginning therefore of those three years we believe Elijah shut up heaven upon the approach of that time wherein the rains were wont to fall in the month of Marchesvan, and opened heaven again the same month at the end of three years. Nor is it nothing that Menander speaks of the drought, taking its beginning in the month October, which in part answers to the Jews' Marchesvan: for consult that passage, chapter 18; "Ahab said unto Obadiah, Go into the land unto all the fountains of water, and unto all brooks: peradventure we may find grass to save the horses and mules alive." No one will say this search was made in the winter, but in the summer: not before or in the month Nisan, wherein the rains were wont to fall; for what hay or grass could be expected at that time? But when the year grew on to the summer, then was it a seasonable time to inquire after hay and grass. Reckon therefore the time of Ahab's and Obadiah's progress in this search: the time wherein Elijah and Obadiah meeting together, Ahab fell in with them: the time wherein the Israelites and the prophets of Baal were gathered together at mount Carmel; when Elijah sacrificed there, and the followers of Baal were killed: and certainly it will be more probable that the unlocking of the heavens and the fall of the rains happened in that usual and ordinary season, the month Marchesvan, than any other part of the year. Three years agone, in that month when the rains were expected, according to the common season of the year, Elijah shut heaven up that it should not rain; and now at the close of three years, when the season for those rains recurred, he unlocks the heavens and the rains fall abundantly.
VI. Now, go back from Marchesvan, the month wherein the prophet locked up heaven, to the month Nisan preceding, and those six months between, they were also without rain, according to the ordinary course of the year and climate. In the month Nisan it rained; the rest of the year to Marchesvan it was fair and held up: when that month came the rains were expected; but Elijah had shut the heavens up, and they remained shut up for the space of three years ensuing. So that though he did not shut up heaven above the space of three years, yet there was no rain for three years and six months.
27. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
[Naaman the Syrian.] These instances galled those of Nazareth upon a twofold account:
I. That they looked upon themselves as vilified by these examples; especially if we consider the occasion upon which our Saviour brought them. 'Thou hast wrought miracles in Capernaum; do something also here in thine own city.' 'No, you are unworthy of it, as Israel of old was unworthy of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, who were therefore sent amongst the Gentiles.'
II. That by these instances he plainly intimated the calling of the Gentiles, than which nothing could be more grating in the ear of the Jews. Elijah was sent to a heathen woman, and a heathen man was sent to Elisha: and both of them were turned from heathenism to the true religion. Those words therefore of Naaman, 2 Kings 5:17,18, I would thus render; "Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice to strange gods, but unto Jehovah. And concerning this thing the Lord pardon thy servant [viz. concerning my former idolatry], that when my master went into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and leaned upon my hand, I also bowed myself in the house of Rimmon; for that I bowed myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant concerning this thing."
29. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
[That they might cast him down headlong.] By what authority, or by what legal process could those of Nazareth do this? There was, indeed, a court of judicature consisting of three men, because a synagogue was there; but it was not in the power of that court to decree any thing in capital matters. It may be asked, whether that license that was permitted the zealots extended thus far: "He that steals the consecrated dishes and curseth by a conjurer" (that is, curseth God in the name of an idol), "and goes in to a heathen woman (that is, openly, as Zimri, Num 25:6), the zealots slay him. And the priest that ministers in his uncleanness, his brethren the priests beat out his brains with clubs." But doth this license of the zealot belong to all persons upon all occasions? When Nathanael said, [John 1:46] "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" he does not seem there to reflect so much upon the smallness and insignificancy of the town, as the looseness and depravity of its manners.
33. And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
[Who had a spirit of an unclean devil.] An expression something unusual. Perhaps it points towards the pythonic or necromantic spirit: how these are distinguished amongst the doctors we may see in Ramban in Sanhedrin, cap. 7. hal. 4. Both of them (though in a different manner) invited and desired the inspirations of the devil. But of this thing I shall treat more largely at chapter 13:11.
[Was led by the Spirit.] In St. Matthew it is, was led up of the Spirit. By which I would suppose our Saviour caught up by the Holy Spirit into the air, and so carried into the wilderness. The reasons of this conjecture are, I. Because we read of the like thing done to Philip, Acts 8:39,40. The same also is supposed concerning Elijah, 1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:16. II. It is probable the devil also might snatch Jesus up into the air, having this occasion to pretend himself no other than the Holy Ghost, who had caught him up and brought him already into the wilderness: and under this notion he might require that worship from him, as if he himself was indeed the Holy Ghost. III. We must not pass by the method which St. Luke takes in describing the order of the temptations, somewhat different from that of St. Matthew. The temptation upon the pinnacle of the Temple is mentioned by St. Matthew, and that most truly, the second in order: but in St. Luke it is reckoned the third; adding, that "when the devil had ended all his temptation, he departed from him for a season." But now, according to St. Luke, how did Christ get down from the pinnacle again? He tells us, that he was carried up thither by the devil, and there (according to his method in the story) the temptation was ended: how then did Christ get down again? Observe but what follows; Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and then join the stories as they are joined in St. Luke: the devil set him on the pinnacle of the Temple, and there urgeth him to cast himself down; but when he could not persuade him, he leaves him standing on the pinnacle, and all the temptation was ended; and Jesus, by the power of the Spirit returned into Galilee. May we not suppose that the evangelist would by this give us to understand, that Christ, after the temptation was ended, was carried through the air by the Holy Ghost into Galilee, as he had been caught up before by him, and been brought into the wilderness, yea, and under that pretence [or upon that occasion], had been snatched up by the devil himself to the pinnacle of the Temple, and to a very high mountain?
2. Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
[Forty days, &c.] Moses, in his dealings with God, fasted forty days three times, one after another. It was sufficient for Christ, having withal so great a conflict with the devil, to do it but once. Moses' first quadragesimal was Exodus 24:18: his second time was after he had destroyed the golden calf, Deuteronomy 10:10: the third was after the tables of the law had been made anew, Exodus 34:28. About that very time of the year wherein Moses ended his last forty days' fast, Christ began his; viz. about the middle of the month Tisri; and how long he continued it on in the month Marchesvan, it is not difficult to apprehend.
5. And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
[In a moment of time.] In momento. So the Vulgar. Now what quantity of time a moment contains, if it be worth the while to inquire, the doctors tell us:
How much is a moment? It is the fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred, eighty-eighth part of an hour. Very accurately calculated truly!
13. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
[He departed from him for a season.] The devil had now found by experience, how much in vain it was for him to tempt our Saviour by suggestions, or those kinds of allurements by which he inveigles mankind; and therefore he watches for an opportunity of trying his arts upon him some other way: which at last he doth, both by himself and by his instruments. And when that season drew near, and the devil returned to his proper business, we find there is mention made of Satan entering into Judas, and that "now the prince of this world cometh," John 14:30.
16. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
[He stood up to read.] That we may frame the better judgment of this action of our Saviour's, let us a little look into the customs of the synagogue:--
I. They read standing up. Piske: and Rabbenu Asher; "They do not read in the law otherwise than standing up. Nay, it is unlawful for him that readeth to lean upon any thing. Whence comes it that he that readeth in the law is bound to stand up? Rabh Abhu saith, Because the Scripture saith, Do thou stand by me. Nor ought any one to lean any way, as it is in the Jerusalem. R. Samuel Bar Isaac going into a synagogue found one expounding and leaning against a pillar. He saith to him, This is not lawful: for as the law was given with reverence, so are we to handle it with reverence too."
They preferred the Law before the Prophets, and the Law and the Prophets above the Hagiographa, or holy writings: and yet they yielded that honour to the Prophets, that even they should not be read but standing up. Whence that is particular which they say concerning the Book of Esther, "A man may read out of the Book of Esther, either standing or sitting. But not so out of the law." Christ in this followed the custom of the synagogue, in that while he read the Law he stood up, while he taught it he sat down.
II. He that read in the Prophets was called Maphtir; and was appointed to that office by the ruler of the synagogue.
"Rabh Bibai was a great man in taking care of the things of God. And Mar was a great man in taking care of the things of the town." The Gloss is: "Of the things of God, that is, about the collectors of the alms, and the distribution of it, and the ordering those that were to expound and read the Prophets."
It is probable that Christ did at this time offer himself as a Maphtir, or as one that would read in the Prophets, and preach upon what he read; not before hand appointed to it by the ruler of the synagogue, but rather approved of when he had offered himself. For those of Nazareth had heard of some miracles which he had wrought at Capernaum, verse 23: and therefore no wonder if they were very desirous to hear something from him answerable to those great things he had done.
III. Piske: "He that reads in the Prophets ought not to read less than one-and-twenty verses." Here our Saviour doth not seem to have observed the custom of the synagogue, for he read but two verses: and yet he did nothing but what was both allowable and usual. And that is worth our taking notice of which we meet with, "If there be an interpreter or preaching on the sabbath day, they read out of the prophets, three, or five, or seven verses, and are not so careful to read just one-and-twenty."
"If there be an interpreter [or interpretation] on the sabbath day": was there not always one on every sabbath day? So that neither Moses nor the Prophets might be read unless one stood by that could expound: as seems abundantly evident both from the traditions and the rules that concerned such a one.
These words, therefore I would understand in such a sense; 'If either the interpreter should in his exposition enlarge himself into a sermon, or any other should preach,' &c. For the interpreter did sometimes comment and preach upon what they read. And probably Christ did at this time both read and properly interpreted.
"Jose the Maonite expounded in the synagogue of Maon. 'Hear, O ye priests; hearken, O house of Israel; and give y ear, O house of the king,' Hosea 5. He said, The holy blessed God is about to snatch away the priests and set them in judgment, saying unto them, 'Why have ye not laboured in the law? Have you not had the use and enjoyment of four-and-twenty portions belonging to the priests?' They say unto him, 'They have not given us any thing.' 'Hearken, O ye house of Israel, why have you not given those four-and-twenty portions to the priests which I have commanded you in the law?' They answer him, 'Because of those who are of the house of the prince, who devour all themselves.' 'Give ear, O house of the king, for judgment is towards you; for to you I have said that this should be the rule concerning the priests: to you, therefore, and over you, is it turned a rule of judgment.' Rabbi [the prince] heard this, and was displeased with it."
"After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha."
"Rabh Joseph expounded it, After these things the king promoted Haman of Hammedatha the Agagite, the son of Cuza, the son of Aphlet, the son of Dio, the son of Diusot, the son of Paros, the son of Nidan, the son of Baalkan," &c. See the place, and compare it with the Targumist upon Esther, chapter 3:1.
"A reader in the Prophet enlargeth upon 'Shemaa'" [the manner and form of the thing we have in Massech. Soph. cap. 14]; "he passeth before the ark, and lifteth up his hands" (that is, in order to give him blessing); "but if he be a child, his father or his master doth these things in his stead," &c. But the Gloss tells us that these things are to be understood of an ordinary reader of the prophets. Now Christ was an extraordinary reader. However, he read here, which he did not do in any other synagogue; for this was the synagogue to which he belonged, and he read as a member of that synagogue.
17. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
[And there was delivered unto him the book of Esaias.] I. The minister of the church kept the sacred books in his custody, and brought them out to be read when they met together in the synagogue.
"The high priest came to read [on the day of expiation]; the minister of the synagogue takes the book of the law, and giveth it to the ruler of the synagogue," &c. Where the Gloss is, The 'chazan' of the synagogue, that is, the minister. From him did our Saviour receive the book, and to him he returned it again.
II. If it be asked whether he received the book of the Prophet Isaiah by itself or joined with the other prophets, it is not easy to determine it. We may gather something from what vulgarly obtained amongst them.
"The Rabbins deliver: 'Let a man frame the Law and the Prophets and the holy writings into one volume': they are the words of R. Meir. But R. Judah saith, 'Let the Law be apart by itself; the book of the Prophets by itself; and the book of the holy writings [Hagiographa] by itself.' And the wise men say, 'Every book by itself.'"
But we may ask if every prophet was by himself, Isaiah by himself, Jeremiah by himself, &c. It is probable they were: for so they sometimes divided the law into single quintanes [or fifth parts].
All know what title the books of the law do bear in the front of the Hebrew Bibles, viz. The five quintanes of the law. Genesis is the first quintane: Exodus is the second quintane: and so of the rest...
"They fold up the book of the Law in the cloth of the quintanes, and the quintanes in the cloth of the Prophets and Hagiographa: but they do not fold up the Prophets and Hagiographa in the cloth of the quintanes, nor the quintanes in the cloth of the Law." And a little after; "They lay the Law upon the quintanes, and the quintanes upon the Prophets and Hagiographa; but not the Prophets and Hagiographa upon the quintanes, nor the quintanes upon the Law": that is, not any one single quintane upon all the quintanes made up into one volume. So the Gloss hath it; "A quintane; that is, a book of the law, in which there is only one quintane."
Seeing, therefore, that the book of that Law was sometimes divided in this manner, into distinct books, we may judge as well that the greater prophets might be thus divided also, and the twelve lesser made up into one volume. Hence, perhaps, that passage: "The reader of the Prophet might skip from one text to another: but he might not skip from prophet to prophet: but in the twelve prophets it was lawful." For they were all made up in one volume ready to his hand; and so were not the greater prophets.
Give me leave, therefore, to conjecture that on that sabbath wherein these things were transacted in the synagogue at Nazareth, that section which was to be read in the Prophets was, according to the rubric, in the prophet Isaiah; and upon that account the minister of the synagogue delivered that book to our Saviour when he stood up to read.
[And when he had opened the book, he found the place, &c.] In the Talmudic language I would render it thus, unrolling the book...
The high priest after the reading of the law, rolling, or folding up the book, puts it into his bosom. And yet
It is said...which we must not render they do not fold up, but they do not unfold or unroll the book of the law in the synagogue.
They unroll a prophet in the congregation, but they do not unroll the law in he congregation. That is, as the Gloss hath it, They unroll from one place or passage to another passage in another place. So they were wont to do in the Prophets, but not in the Law. And upon this account was it permitted for the reader to skip in the prophet from one place to another, because it was permitted them to unroll the prophet, either a single prophet, or the twelve lesser in the synagogue; but as to the Law, it was not allowed them so to do.
And they put the question How far may he skip so that he that interprets do not break off? The Gloss is, "Let him not skip from the place he reads, unless that he may unroll the book, and be ready to read the place to which he skips, when the interpreter ceaseth."
And because it was not lawful for him so to unroll the law in the synagogue, "on the kalends of the month Tebeth, if it proved to be the sabbath day, they brought three books of the law and read in one of them the place for the sabbath, in another, that for the kalends, in the third, that for the feast of dedication."
The words therefore of our evangelist to me seem not barely to mean that he unfolded or opened the book; but that being opened, he unrolled it from folio to folio, till he had found the place he designed to read and expound. Which though it was not the section appointed by the rubric for the day, yet did not Christ much recede from the custom of the synagogue, which allowed the reader to skip from one place to another.
25. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
[When the heavens were shut up three years and six months.] This number of three years and six months is much used both in the Holy Scriptures and in Jewish writings; concerning which we have more largely discoursed in another place. And although both in the one and the other it is not seldom used allusively only, yet in this place I can see no reason why it should not be taken according to the letter in its proper number, however indeed there will be no small difficulty to reduce it to its just account. That there was no rain for three years together, is evident enough from 1 Kings 17, &c.: but whence comes this addition of six months?
"Elijah said to Ahab, As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word; If there shall be these years." These words include three years at the least, because he saith, years in the plural, and not years in the dual.
And chapter 18, "The word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go shew thyself unto Ahab, and I will send rain upon the earth." In the third year; where then shall we find the six months?
I. Doubtless both our Saviour and his apostle St. James, chapter 5 verse 17, in adding six months do speak according to the known and received opinion of that nation; which is also done elsewhere sometimes in historical matters in the New Testament.
St. Stephen tells us, Acts 7:16, that the bones of the twelve patriarchs were carried over from Egypt and buried in Sychem, when holy writ mentions only the bones and burial of Joseph: wherein he speaks according to the vulgar opinion of the nation.
Again, verse 30, he tells us that Moses was forty years old when he fled into the land of Midian, and that he tarried there forty years more, when Moses himself mentions nothing of the circumstance: this he speaks agreeably to the opinion of the people.
II. Neither our Saviour nor St. James says that Elijah shut up the heavens three years and six months; but Christ tells us, "That the heaven was shut up in the days of Elias three years and six months": and St. James, "That Elias prayed that it might not rain, and it rained not upon the earth by the space of three years and six months."
May I therefore have leave to distinguish in this manner? Elijah shut up the heaven for three years, that there might be no rain, as in the Book of Kings: and there was no rain for three years and a half, as our Saviour and St. James relate.
III. The words of Menander in Josephus may help a little towards the untying this knot: Menander also makes mention of this drought in the acts of Ithobalus, king of Tyre, saying, There was no rain from the month of October to the month of October the year following.
It is true he shortens the space of this drought by making it continue but one year; but however, having placed the beginning of it in the month of October, he gives us a key that opens us a way into things more inward and secret.
IV. Consider the distinction of the former and the latter rain, Deuteronomy 11:14; Jeremiah 5:24; Joel 2:23.
"The Rabbins deliver: the former is in the month Marchesvan; the latter in the month Nisan."
The Targumist in Joel 2:23: "Who hath given you the first rain in season and the latter in the month Nisan." See also our note upon chapter 2:8.
R. Solomon, upon Deuteronomy 11, differs a little; but we are not solicitous about the order, which should be the first, either that in the month Marchesvan, or that in the month Nisan: that which makes to our purpose is, that rains were at those stated times; and for the rest of the year generally there was no rain.
V. Those six months mentioned by our Saviour and St. James must be accounted before the beginning of the three years, and not tacked to the end of them, as is very evident from this, that it is said, "The third year Elijah shewed himself to Ahab," &c.
In the beginning therefore of those three years we believe Elijah shut up heaven upon the approach of that time wherein the rains were wont to fall in the month of Marchesvan, and opened heaven again the same month at the end of three years. Nor is it nothing that Menander speaks of the drought, taking its beginning in the month October, which in part answers to the Jews' Marchesvan: for consult that passage, chapter 18; "Ahab said unto Obadiah, Go into the land unto all the fountains of water, and unto all brooks: peradventure we may find grass to save the horses and mules alive." No one will say this search was made in the winter, but in the summer: not before or in the month Nisan, wherein the rains were wont to fall; for what hay or grass could be expected at that time? But when the year grew on to the summer, then was it a seasonable time to inquire after hay and grass. Reckon therefore the time of Ahab's and Obadiah's progress in this search: the time wherein Elijah and Obadiah meeting together, Ahab fell in with them: the time wherein the Israelites and the prophets of Baal were gathered together at mount Carmel; when Elijah sacrificed there, and the followers of Baal were killed: and certainly it will be more probable that the unlocking of the heavens and the fall of the rains happened in that usual and ordinary season, the month Marchesvan, than any other part of the year. Three years agone, in that month when the rains were expected, according to the common season of the year, Elijah shut heaven up that it should not rain; and now at the close of three years, when the season for those rains recurred, he unlocks the heavens and the rains fall abundantly.
VI. Now, go back from Marchesvan, the month wherein the prophet locked up heaven, to the month Nisan preceding, and those six months between, they were also without rain, according to the ordinary course of the year and climate. In the month Nisan it rained; the rest of the year to Marchesvan it was fair and held up: when that month came the rains were expected; but Elijah had shut the heavens up, and they remained shut up for the space of three years ensuing. So that though he did not shut up heaven above the space of three years, yet there was no rain for three years and six months.
27. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
[Naaman the Syrian.] These instances galled those of Nazareth upon a twofold account:
I. That they looked upon themselves as vilified by these examples; especially if we consider the occasion upon which our Saviour brought them. 'Thou hast wrought miracles in Capernaum; do something also here in thine own city.' 'No, you are unworthy of it, as Israel of old was unworthy of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, who were therefore sent amongst the Gentiles.'
II. That by these instances he plainly intimated the calling of the Gentiles, than which nothing could be more grating in the ear of the Jews. Elijah was sent to a heathen woman, and a heathen man was sent to Elisha: and both of them were turned from heathenism to the true religion. Those words therefore of Naaman, 2 Kings 5:17,18, I would thus render; "Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice to strange gods, but unto Jehovah. And concerning this thing the Lord pardon thy servant [viz. concerning my former idolatry], that when my master went into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and leaned upon my hand, I also bowed myself in the house of Rimmon; for that I bowed myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant concerning this thing."
29. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
[That they might cast him down headlong.] By what authority, or by what legal process could those of Nazareth do this? There was, indeed, a court of judicature consisting of three men, because a synagogue was there; but it was not in the power of that court to decree any thing in capital matters. It may be asked, whether that license that was permitted the zealots extended thus far: "He that steals the consecrated dishes and curseth by a conjurer" (that is, curseth God in the name of an idol), "and goes in to a heathen woman (that is, openly, as Zimri, Num 25:6), the zealots slay him. And the priest that ministers in his uncleanness, his brethren the priests beat out his brains with clubs." But doth this license of the zealot belong to all persons upon all occasions? When Nathanael said, [John 1:46] "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" he does not seem there to reflect so much upon the smallness and insignificancy of the town, as the looseness and depravity of its manners.
33. And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
[Who had a spirit of an unclean devil.] An expression something unusual. Perhaps it points towards the pythonic or necromantic spirit: how these are distinguished amongst the doctors we may see in Ramban in Sanhedrin, cap. 7. hal. 4. Both of them (though in a different manner) invited and desired the inspirations of the devil. But of this thing I shall treat more largely at chapter 13:11.
Luke 5
1. And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
[To hear the word of God, he stood by the lake, &c.] For they were wont to teach also without the synagogue and Beth Midrash, in the highways and in the streets. "Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai taught in the street before the Mountain of the Temple the whole day." See the Gloss upon it: "Ben Azzai taught in the streets of Tiberias."
This custom R. Judah forbade in this canon: "Let not the doctors teach their disciples in the streets." And accordingly he severely rebuked R. Chaijam, because he taught his brothers' sons in the street.
And yet it is related of the same R. Judah, R. Judah sat labouring in the law [labouring in the word and doctrine, as the expression is 1 Timothy 5:17], "before the Babylonish synagogue in Zippor: there was a bullock passed by him to the slaughter, and it lowed." This bullock because he did not deliver from the slaughter, he was struck with the toothache for the space of thirteen years.
5. And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
[We have toiled all night.] In the Talmud's way of expressing it laborious all night. Labouring all the day.
12. And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
[When he was in a certain city, behold, a man full of leprosy.] "The walled cities are more holy than the land of Israel in general, because they cast out the leprous from them." Which must be understood (if we allow of the Rabbins for interpreters) of cities that had been walled from the days of Joshua. If this city which the evangelist here mentions were of that number, no leper would have been suffered in it, unless absolved from his uncleanness by the priest. For the leprosy remained after that absolution; and the sick man was not healed but restored to the church. That the man is here said to be full of leprosy; the passage may not impertinently be compared with Leviticus 13:12,13.
Whether he had been purified by the priest before or no, however, Christ sends him to the priest, to offer what was required from the leper that was cleansed. The law of Moses hardly supposeth the leper healed when he was made clean. It is a question, indeed, whether the disease was ever curable but by a miracle. And therefore is this man sent to the Temple to shew himself to the priest, and offer for a testimony unto them, verse 14: that is, that he might bear witness, that the leprosy, an incurable disease, was now healed by miracle, as formerly it had been in Miriam and Naaman: and so there was now a great prophet arisen in Israel.
17. And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
[On a certain day.] In Talmudic writing it is on a certain time.
27. And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
[At the receipt of custom.] The house of tribute. "This thing is like a king of flesh and blood passing by the house of tribute. He saith to his servants, Pay the tax to the publicans."
39. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
[The old is better.] Is not the old better? The Gloss is, Old wine: that is, of three years old.
Wine of three leaves. The Gloss is, "Of three years: because from the time that the vine had produced that wine, it had put forth its leaves three times."
[To hear the word of God, he stood by the lake, &c.] For they were wont to teach also without the synagogue and Beth Midrash, in the highways and in the streets. "Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai taught in the street before the Mountain of the Temple the whole day." See the Gloss upon it: "Ben Azzai taught in the streets of Tiberias."
This custom R. Judah forbade in this canon: "Let not the doctors teach their disciples in the streets." And accordingly he severely rebuked R. Chaijam, because he taught his brothers' sons in the street.
And yet it is related of the same R. Judah, R. Judah sat labouring in the law [labouring in the word and doctrine, as the expression is 1 Timothy 5:17], "before the Babylonish synagogue in Zippor: there was a bullock passed by him to the slaughter, and it lowed." This bullock because he did not deliver from the slaughter, he was struck with the toothache for the space of thirteen years.
5. And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
[We have toiled all night.] In the Talmud's way of expressing it laborious all night. Labouring all the day.
12. And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
[When he was in a certain city, behold, a man full of leprosy.] "The walled cities are more holy than the land of Israel in general, because they cast out the leprous from them." Which must be understood (if we allow of the Rabbins for interpreters) of cities that had been walled from the days of Joshua. If this city which the evangelist here mentions were of that number, no leper would have been suffered in it, unless absolved from his uncleanness by the priest. For the leprosy remained after that absolution; and the sick man was not healed but restored to the church. That the man is here said to be full of leprosy; the passage may not impertinently be compared with Leviticus 13:12,13.
Whether he had been purified by the priest before or no, however, Christ sends him to the priest, to offer what was required from the leper that was cleansed. The law of Moses hardly supposeth the leper healed when he was made clean. It is a question, indeed, whether the disease was ever curable but by a miracle. And therefore is this man sent to the Temple to shew himself to the priest, and offer for a testimony unto them, verse 14: that is, that he might bear witness, that the leprosy, an incurable disease, was now healed by miracle, as formerly it had been in Miriam and Naaman: and so there was now a great prophet arisen in Israel.
17. And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
[On a certain day.] In Talmudic writing it is on a certain time.
27. And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
[At the receipt of custom.] The house of tribute. "This thing is like a king of flesh and blood passing by the house of tribute. He saith to his servants, Pay the tax to the publicans."
39. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
[The old is better.] Is not the old better? The Gloss is, Old wine: that is, of three years old.
Wine of three leaves. The Gloss is, "Of three years: because from the time that the vine had produced that wine, it had put forth its leaves three times."
Luke 6
1. And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
[On the second sabbath after the first.] I have spoken to this already in notes upon Matthew 12: let me add a few things in this place.
It is a controversy amongst the Jewish doctors and the Baithuseans, about the exposition of those words that concern the offering of the sheaf of the first-fruits; On the morrow of the sabbath, Leviticus 23:10,11.
Gloss: "The Baithuseans desired that the first day of the Passover should be on the sabbath, that the offering of the sheaf might fall on the first day of the week: and that the feast of Pentecost might also fall on the first day of the week. For they interpreted those words, The priest shall wave the sheaf on the morrow of the sabbath, as if the sense of them were, On the morrow of the sabbath of the creation."
Against this the Rabbins dispute with one consent, and indeed truly enough, affirming, that by the morrow after the sabbath must be understood the morrow after a sabbatical day, or after the first day of the feast. So the Targumist, Siphra, Solomon, Menahem, &c. So also the Greek version. We may see their arguments in Siphra, and Pesikta, and Menacoth, fol. 65. 1. The principal argument is that of Rabban Jochanan disputing with a Baithusean in the place last quoted: "One scripture (saith he) saith, You shall number fifty days" (that is, from the day wherein you offer your sheaf unto Pentecost), Leviticus 23:16. "Another scripture saith, Ye shall count seven sabbaths, Leviticus 23:14; Deuteronomy 16:9. This, if the first day of the feast happen on the sabbath: that, if the first day of the feast happen in the middle of the week.
His meaning is this: If the first day of the seven-day's feast of the Passover happen on the sabbath, then the sheaf being offered the next day after, the feast of Pentecost will fall on the next day after the seventh sabbath. But if that first day happen in the middle of the week, then, from the offering of the sheaf the next day, we must not count seven sabbaths but fifty days.
For instance, suppose we the lamb eaten on the third day of the Jewish week, which with us is Tuesday, Wednesday was the first day of the feast; and on Thursday the sheaf was offered; then on Thursday again, accounting fifty days, is the feast of Pentecost. Here seven sabbaths come between, and four days after the last sabbath, before the Pentecost. Where numbering by sabbaths shortens the space of time; but numbering by fifty days fixes the matter beyond scruple. And at once it concludes these two things: I. That the offering of the sheaf was not restrained to the next day after the sabbath, but to the day after the sabbatical day, viz. the first day of the feast. II. That the day of Pentecost was not restrained to the first day of the week, as the Baithuseans would have it, but might fall on any day of the week.
What should be the Baithuseans' reason why they so earnestly contended to reduce the day of Pentecost always to the morrow after the sabbath, or the first day of the week, is not easy to comprehend. Perhaps he that disputes the matter with Rabban Jochanan gives some hint of it, when he tells us, "Our master Moses loved Israel, and knowing that the feast of Pentecost should be but for one day, did therefore appoint it on the morrow after the sabbath, that Israel might rejoice two days together."
Whatever the reason was, it is certain they misunderstood that phrase as to the offering the sheaf the morrow after the sabbath, when it was to be understood of the morrow after a sabbatical day. And so the Greek version, and he shall offer the sheaf before the Lord to be accepted for you, on the morrow after the first day of the feast.
Let us take an instance of this in the last Passover our Saviour kept.
The paschal lamb was eaten on the fifth day of the week, our Thursday; the first day of the feast was the sixth day of the week, our Friday, the day on which our Lord was crucified. The day declining towards night (about the time that our Lord was buried), they went out that were deputed by the Sanhedrim to reap the sheaf: and on the morrow, that was their sabbath, whiles our Saviour slept in the grave, they offered that sheaf. That day therefore was the second day, and from thence they counted the weeks to Pentecost. And the sabbaths that came between took their name from that second day. The first sabbath after that was the first sabbath after the second day; and the next sabbath after that was the second sabbath after the second day; and so of the rest.
"The first day of the Passover is called the sabbath; and they counted after that seven sabbaths that had relation to that." Note that, that had relation or alliance.
[For more info on Pentecost, please see "The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, Chapter 13: The Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Day of Pentecost" by Alfred Edersheim.]
12. And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
[In prayer to God: or In the prayer of God.] Compare this kind of phrase with what is said, Beracoth, fol. 7. 1: "R. Jochanan in the name of R. Jose saith, How doth it appear that the holy blessed God doth pray? From thence, that it is said, I will bring them to my holy mountain and make them joyful in the house of 'my' prayer. It is not said of their prayer, but of 'my' prayer. Whence it follows that the holy blessed God doth pray. But how doth he pray? saith Rabh Zutra Bar Tobijah; Rabh saith, Let it be my good pleasure that my mercy overcome my wrath."
"The holy blessed God made him a tabernacle and prayed in it: as it is said, His tabernacle is in Salem, and his dwellingplace in Zion. Now what doth he say when he prayeth? Let it be my good pleasure that I may see my dwellingplace built."
I cannot but laugh at their triflings, and yet withal observe the opinion that nation had, and compare it with this phrase, the prayer of God. They will have it that God prays, not by way of supplication, but authority: "So let it be." Thus our blessed Lord sometimes, Father, I will, John 17:24. Whether the phrase in this place should be thus interpreted, I do not determine.
38. Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
[Good measure, pressed down, &c.] I. Concerning measures heaped up and stricken off, see Menacoth, fol. 87: "R. Meir saith, It is said, a tenth, a tenth to every lamb. Whence is hinted, that there were decimaries [or tithing measures] in the Temple: one heaped up, the other stricken off. The heaped up was that by which they measured all their bread-corn for holy uses. That which was stricken off was that whereby they measured the cakes or the high priest's loaves." "All the measures in the Temple were heaped up, besides that of the high priests." Now the Gloss, giving the reason why this was not heaped up as well as the other, tells us, "It was because he was to divide the flour into two tenths; if therefore the measure was heaped up, some of the fine flour would spill upon the ground as he moved it this way and that way in dividing it."
"Rabh Papa asked, the filling of the priest's hand whereof we have mention, was it by the measure stricken off or heaped up? R. Aba saith to Rabh Ishai, The filling of the priest's hand, of which we have mention, was neither by the measures stricken off nor heaped up, but by measures floating over."
II. Every one may observe that our evangelist in his repetition of this sermon upon the mount doth omit many things that are set down in St. Matthew; those especially that have relation to the dictates and glosses of the scribes and Pharisees about manslaughter, oaths, divorces, &c.; or their customs in their prayers, fasts, and alms, &c. Writing for the service of the Gentiles, he passeth over what respecteth the Jews.
[On the second sabbath after the first.] I have spoken to this already in notes upon Matthew 12: let me add a few things in this place.
It is a controversy amongst the Jewish doctors and the Baithuseans, about the exposition of those words that concern the offering of the sheaf of the first-fruits; On the morrow of the sabbath, Leviticus 23:10,11.
Gloss: "The Baithuseans desired that the first day of the Passover should be on the sabbath, that the offering of the sheaf might fall on the first day of the week: and that the feast of Pentecost might also fall on the first day of the week. For they interpreted those words, The priest shall wave the sheaf on the morrow of the sabbath, as if the sense of them were, On the morrow of the sabbath of the creation."
Against this the Rabbins dispute with one consent, and indeed truly enough, affirming, that by the morrow after the sabbath must be understood the morrow after a sabbatical day, or after the first day of the feast. So the Targumist, Siphra, Solomon, Menahem, &c. So also the Greek version. We may see their arguments in Siphra, and Pesikta, and Menacoth, fol. 65. 1. The principal argument is that of Rabban Jochanan disputing with a Baithusean in the place last quoted: "One scripture (saith he) saith, You shall number fifty days" (that is, from the day wherein you offer your sheaf unto Pentecost), Leviticus 23:16. "Another scripture saith, Ye shall count seven sabbaths, Leviticus 23:14; Deuteronomy 16:9. This, if the first day of the feast happen on the sabbath: that, if the first day of the feast happen in the middle of the week.
His meaning is this: If the first day of the seven-day's feast of the Passover happen on the sabbath, then the sheaf being offered the next day after, the feast of Pentecost will fall on the next day after the seventh sabbath. But if that first day happen in the middle of the week, then, from the offering of the sheaf the next day, we must not count seven sabbaths but fifty days.
For instance, suppose we the lamb eaten on the third day of the Jewish week, which with us is Tuesday, Wednesday was the first day of the feast; and on Thursday the sheaf was offered; then on Thursday again, accounting fifty days, is the feast of Pentecost. Here seven sabbaths come between, and four days after the last sabbath, before the Pentecost. Where numbering by sabbaths shortens the space of time; but numbering by fifty days fixes the matter beyond scruple. And at once it concludes these two things: I. That the offering of the sheaf was not restrained to the next day after the sabbath, but to the day after the sabbatical day, viz. the first day of the feast. II. That the day of Pentecost was not restrained to the first day of the week, as the Baithuseans would have it, but might fall on any day of the week.
What should be the Baithuseans' reason why they so earnestly contended to reduce the day of Pentecost always to the morrow after the sabbath, or the first day of the week, is not easy to comprehend. Perhaps he that disputes the matter with Rabban Jochanan gives some hint of it, when he tells us, "Our master Moses loved Israel, and knowing that the feast of Pentecost should be but for one day, did therefore appoint it on the morrow after the sabbath, that Israel might rejoice two days together."
Whatever the reason was, it is certain they misunderstood that phrase as to the offering the sheaf the morrow after the sabbath, when it was to be understood of the morrow after a sabbatical day. And so the Greek version, and he shall offer the sheaf before the Lord to be accepted for you, on the morrow after the first day of the feast.
Let us take an instance of this in the last Passover our Saviour kept.
The paschal lamb was eaten on the fifth day of the week, our Thursday; the first day of the feast was the sixth day of the week, our Friday, the day on which our Lord was crucified. The day declining towards night (about the time that our Lord was buried), they went out that were deputed by the Sanhedrim to reap the sheaf: and on the morrow, that was their sabbath, whiles our Saviour slept in the grave, they offered that sheaf. That day therefore was the second day, and from thence they counted the weeks to Pentecost. And the sabbaths that came between took their name from that second day. The first sabbath after that was the first sabbath after the second day; and the next sabbath after that was the second sabbath after the second day; and so of the rest.
"The first day of the Passover is called the sabbath; and they counted after that seven sabbaths that had relation to that." Note that, that had relation or alliance.
[For more info on Pentecost, please see "The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, Chapter 13: The Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Day of Pentecost" by Alfred Edersheim.]
12. And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
[In prayer to God: or In the prayer of God.] Compare this kind of phrase with what is said, Beracoth, fol. 7. 1: "R. Jochanan in the name of R. Jose saith, How doth it appear that the holy blessed God doth pray? From thence, that it is said, I will bring them to my holy mountain and make them joyful in the house of 'my' prayer. It is not said of their prayer, but of 'my' prayer. Whence it follows that the holy blessed God doth pray. But how doth he pray? saith Rabh Zutra Bar Tobijah; Rabh saith, Let it be my good pleasure that my mercy overcome my wrath."
"The holy blessed God made him a tabernacle and prayed in it: as it is said, His tabernacle is in Salem, and his dwellingplace in Zion. Now what doth he say when he prayeth? Let it be my good pleasure that I may see my dwellingplace built."
I cannot but laugh at their triflings, and yet withal observe the opinion that nation had, and compare it with this phrase, the prayer of God. They will have it that God prays, not by way of supplication, but authority: "So let it be." Thus our blessed Lord sometimes, Father, I will, John 17:24. Whether the phrase in this place should be thus interpreted, I do not determine.
38. Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
[Good measure, pressed down, &c.] I. Concerning measures heaped up and stricken off, see Menacoth, fol. 87: "R. Meir saith, It is said, a tenth, a tenth to every lamb. Whence is hinted, that there were decimaries [or tithing measures] in the Temple: one heaped up, the other stricken off. The heaped up was that by which they measured all their bread-corn for holy uses. That which was stricken off was that whereby they measured the cakes or the high priest's loaves." "All the measures in the Temple were heaped up, besides that of the high priests." Now the Gloss, giving the reason why this was not heaped up as well as the other, tells us, "It was because he was to divide the flour into two tenths; if therefore the measure was heaped up, some of the fine flour would spill upon the ground as he moved it this way and that way in dividing it."
"Rabh Papa asked, the filling of the priest's hand whereof we have mention, was it by the measure stricken off or heaped up? R. Aba saith to Rabh Ishai, The filling of the priest's hand, of which we have mention, was neither by the measures stricken off nor heaped up, but by measures floating over."
II. Every one may observe that our evangelist in his repetition of this sermon upon the mount doth omit many things that are set down in St. Matthew; those especially that have relation to the dictates and glosses of the scribes and Pharisees about manslaughter, oaths, divorces, &c.; or their customs in their prayers, fasts, and alms, &c. Writing for the service of the Gentiles, he passeth over what respecteth the Jews.
Luke 7
2. And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
[Who was dear unto him.] So was Tabi to his master Rabban Gamaliel: of whom we meet with several things up and down, particularly that in Beracoth, fol. 16. 2: "When his servant Tabi was dead, he received consolations for him. His disciples say unto him, 'Master, thou hast taught us that they do not use to receive consolations for their servants.' He answered them saying, 'My servant Tabi was not as other servants, he was most upright.'"
5. For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
[He hath built us a synagogue.] I. It was no unusual thing for one single man to build a synagogue at his own charge: "If any man build a house, and afterward consecrated it to a synagogue, it is of the nature of a synagogue." Gloss: "Any one that builds a synagogue and gives it to his fellow citizens," &c.
And the doctors in that treatise dispute much upon this question, Whether it be lawful to sell a synagogue or to alienate it to any civil use: and amongst the rest, they suppose some one building a synagogue, but would at last reserve it to his own proper use.
II. They had no scruple as to a Gentile's building it, since the holiness of the place consisted not so much in the building as in its being set apart and dedicated to holy use; of which we have some instances in Herod's building the Temple. Such a one had this centurion approved himself towards the Jewish nation, that concerning his liberality and devotion in being at the charges of building, they found no reason to move any scruple.
12. Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
[There was a dead man carried out.] Amongst the Talmudists, a dead corpse going out, is commonly a phrase which is first understood of carrying the corpse out of the court-gate.
"At what time do they take their beds lower? From the time that the person deceased is carried out of the court-gate of his own house."
Secondly, It is taken also for carrying the corpse out of the city: for the burying-places were not near the city.
"The infant dying before it be thirty days old, is carried out in the bosom: and is buried by one woman and two men."
"An infant of thirty days old is carried out in a little coffin. R. Judah saith, Not in a coffin that is carried on men's shoulders, but in their arms."
A child of three years old is carried out in a bed: and so onward from that age.
[Much people was with her.] R. Simeon Ben Eliezer saith, for the dead that is carried out on his bed there are many mourners: but if he be not carried out on his bed [but in a coffin], there are not many mourners.
If the deceased person be known to many, then many accompany him.
There were ordinarily at such funerals those that carried the bier, and some to take their turns, and some also to take their turns again. For as the Gloss hath it, every one desired that office.
There were also those that stood in order about the mourners to comfort them.
14. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
[Touched the bier.] In Syriac, he approached to the bier. The Talmudist would say, he came to the bed of the dead: which indeed is the same, 2 Samuel 3:31, David followed after the bed. The Targumist, after the bier.
"Jacob said to his sons, Beware ye, that no uncircumcised person touch my bed, lest he drive away thence the Divine presence."
37. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
[A woman which was a sinner.] I. Women of an ill name amongst the Jews were such as these:
"She who transgresseth the law of Moses, and the Jewish law." The Gloss is, "The Jewish law, that is, what the daughters of Israel follow, though it be not written."
"Who is she that transgresseth the law of Moses? She that gives her husband to eat of what is not yet tithed: she that suffers his embraces while her menstrua are upon her: she that doth not set apart a loaf of bread for herself: she that voweth and doth not perform her vow."
"How doth she transgress the Jewish law? If she appears abroad with her head uncovered: if she spin in the streets: if she talk with every one she meets. Abba Saul saith, If she curse her children. R. Tarphon saith, If she be loud and clamorous." The Gloss is, "If she desire coition with her husband within doors, so very loud that her neighbours may hear her."
Maimonides upon the place: "If when she is spinning in the street, she makes her arms so naked that men may see them: if she hang either roses or myrtle, or pomegranate, or any such thing either at her eyes or cheeks: if she play with young men: if she curse her husband's father in the presence of her husband," &c.
II. However, I presume the word sinner, sounds something worse than all this, which also is commonly conjectured of this woman; viz. that she was actually an adulteress, and every way a lewd woman. It is well known what the word sinners signifies in the Old Testament, and what sinners, in the New.
38. And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
[And stood at his feet behind him.] She washed his feet as they lay stretched out behind him: of which posture we treat more largely in our notes upon John 12.
47. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
[For she loved much.] If we consider these two or three things, we shall quickly understand the force and design of the word for, &c.
I. That this was not the first time when this woman betook herself to our Saviour; nor is this the first of her receiving remission of her sins. It is supposed, and that not without good reason, that this was Mary Magdalene. If so, then had her 'seven devils' been cast out of her before; and at that time her sins had been forgiven her, our Lord at once indulging to her the cure both of her body and her mind. She therefore, having been obliged by so great a mercy, now throws herself in gratitude and devotion at the feet of Christ. She had obtained remission of her sins before this action: and from thence came this action, not from this action her forgiveness.
II. Otherwise the similitude which our Saviour propounds about forgiving the debt, would not be to the purpose at all. The debt is not released because the debtor loves his creditor, but the debtor loves because his debt is forgiven him. Remission goes before, and love follows.
III. Christ doth not say, She hath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and anointed me with ointment, therefore her sins are forgiven; but for this cause I say unto thee, Her sins are forgiven her. He tells Simon this, that he might satisfy the murmuring Pharisee. "Perhaps, Simon, thou wonderest within thyself, that since this hath been so lewd a woman, I should so much as suffer her to touch me: but I must tell thee that it is very evident, even from this obsequiousness of hers, and the good offices she hath done to me, that her sins are forgiven her: she could never have given these testimonies and fruits of her gratitude and devotion, if she had still remained in her guilt, and not been loosed form her sins."
[Who was dear unto him.] So was Tabi to his master Rabban Gamaliel: of whom we meet with several things up and down, particularly that in Beracoth, fol. 16. 2: "When his servant Tabi was dead, he received consolations for him. His disciples say unto him, 'Master, thou hast taught us that they do not use to receive consolations for their servants.' He answered them saying, 'My servant Tabi was not as other servants, he was most upright.'"
5. For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
[He hath built us a synagogue.] I. It was no unusual thing for one single man to build a synagogue at his own charge: "If any man build a house, and afterward consecrated it to a synagogue, it is of the nature of a synagogue." Gloss: "Any one that builds a synagogue and gives it to his fellow citizens," &c.
And the doctors in that treatise dispute much upon this question, Whether it be lawful to sell a synagogue or to alienate it to any civil use: and amongst the rest, they suppose some one building a synagogue, but would at last reserve it to his own proper use.
II. They had no scruple as to a Gentile's building it, since the holiness of the place consisted not so much in the building as in its being set apart and dedicated to holy use; of which we have some instances in Herod's building the Temple. Such a one had this centurion approved himself towards the Jewish nation, that concerning his liberality and devotion in being at the charges of building, they found no reason to move any scruple.
12. Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
[There was a dead man carried out.] Amongst the Talmudists, a dead corpse going out, is commonly a phrase which is first understood of carrying the corpse out of the court-gate.
"At what time do they take their beds lower? From the time that the person deceased is carried out of the court-gate of his own house."
Secondly, It is taken also for carrying the corpse out of the city: for the burying-places were not near the city.
"The infant dying before it be thirty days old, is carried out in the bosom: and is buried by one woman and two men."
"An infant of thirty days old is carried out in a little coffin. R. Judah saith, Not in a coffin that is carried on men's shoulders, but in their arms."
A child of three years old is carried out in a bed: and so onward from that age.
[Much people was with her.] R. Simeon Ben Eliezer saith, for the dead that is carried out on his bed there are many mourners: but if he be not carried out on his bed [but in a coffin], there are not many mourners.
If the deceased person be known to many, then many accompany him.
There were ordinarily at such funerals those that carried the bier, and some to take their turns, and some also to take their turns again. For as the Gloss hath it, every one desired that office.
There were also those that stood in order about the mourners to comfort them.
14. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
[Touched the bier.] In Syriac, he approached to the bier. The Talmudist would say, he came to the bed of the dead: which indeed is the same, 2 Samuel 3:31, David followed after the bed. The Targumist, after the bier.
"Jacob said to his sons, Beware ye, that no uncircumcised person touch my bed, lest he drive away thence the Divine presence."
37. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
[A woman which was a sinner.] I. Women of an ill name amongst the Jews were such as these:
"She who transgresseth the law of Moses, and the Jewish law." The Gloss is, "The Jewish law, that is, what the daughters of Israel follow, though it be not written."
"Who is she that transgresseth the law of Moses? She that gives her husband to eat of what is not yet tithed: she that suffers his embraces while her menstrua are upon her: she that doth not set apart a loaf of bread for herself: she that voweth and doth not perform her vow."
"How doth she transgress the Jewish law? If she appears abroad with her head uncovered: if she spin in the streets: if she talk with every one she meets. Abba Saul saith, If she curse her children. R. Tarphon saith, If she be loud and clamorous." The Gloss is, "If she desire coition with her husband within doors, so very loud that her neighbours may hear her."
Maimonides upon the place: "If when she is spinning in the street, she makes her arms so naked that men may see them: if she hang either roses or myrtle, or pomegranate, or any such thing either at her eyes or cheeks: if she play with young men: if she curse her husband's father in the presence of her husband," &c.
II. However, I presume the word sinner, sounds something worse than all this, which also is commonly conjectured of this woman; viz. that she was actually an adulteress, and every way a lewd woman. It is well known what the word sinners signifies in the Old Testament, and what sinners, in the New.
38. And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
[And stood at his feet behind him.] She washed his feet as they lay stretched out behind him: of which posture we treat more largely in our notes upon John 12.
47. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
[For she loved much.] If we consider these two or three things, we shall quickly understand the force and design of the word for, &c.
I. That this was not the first time when this woman betook herself to our Saviour; nor is this the first of her receiving remission of her sins. It is supposed, and that not without good reason, that this was Mary Magdalene. If so, then had her 'seven devils' been cast out of her before; and at that time her sins had been forgiven her, our Lord at once indulging to her the cure both of her body and her mind. She therefore, having been obliged by so great a mercy, now throws herself in gratitude and devotion at the feet of Christ. She had obtained remission of her sins before this action: and from thence came this action, not from this action her forgiveness.
II. Otherwise the similitude which our Saviour propounds about forgiving the debt, would not be to the purpose at all. The debt is not released because the debtor loves his creditor, but the debtor loves because his debt is forgiven him. Remission goes before, and love follows.
III. Christ doth not say, She hath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and anointed me with ointment, therefore her sins are forgiven; but for this cause I say unto thee, Her sins are forgiven her. He tells Simon this, that he might satisfy the murmuring Pharisee. "Perhaps, Simon, thou wonderest within thyself, that since this hath been so lewd a woman, I should so much as suffer her to touch me: but I must tell thee that it is very evident, even from this obsequiousness of hers, and the good offices she hath done to me, that her sins are forgiven her: she could never have given these testimonies and fruits of her gratitude and devotion, if she had still remained in her guilt, and not been loosed form her sins."
Luke 8
2. And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils.
[Mary called Magdalene.] Whence should she have this name?
I. We have observed above, in our notes upon Matthew 27:56, that there is mention made in the Talmudic authors of Maria Magdila the daughter of Maria, a plaiter of women's hair; who they say was the wife of Papus Ben Juda, but an adulteress. They make this Papus contemporary with Rabban Gamaliel (of Jafneh) and R. Joshua, and with R. Akibah: who all lived both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem: so that the times do not very much disagree. And probable it is, that the Gemarists retained some memory of our Mary Magdalene, in the word Magdila.
II. We further observe in our notes upon John 12, that there was a certain town near Jerusalem called Magdala, of a very ill fame, which perhaps was Bethany itself; or be it some other, yet might our Mary (if she was the sister of Lazarus) not unfitly be called Magdalene, either as she might have lived there some time, being there married, or have imitated the whorish customs of that place. But I am apt to think that Bethany itself might go under the name of Magdala.
[Out of whom went seven devils.] As to the number seven, we contend not, when there is hardly any thing more useful than to put this certain number for an uncertain. Our difficulty is, whether these words are to be taken according to their letter, or according to the Jewish sense, who were wont to call vices by the name of devils: as "An evil affection is Satan": "Drunkenness by new wine is a devil." If this Mary be the same with the woman that was a sinner in the foregoing chapter, as is believed, then by devils seems to be understood the vices to which she was addicted: especially when both the Pharisee and evangelist call her a sinner, rather than demoniac. But this we leave at the choice of the reader.
3. And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
[The wife of Chusa.] We meet with such a name in Haman's genealogy: "The king promoted Haman the Hammedathite, the Agathite, the son of Cusa," &c. The Targumist, Esther 5, reckoning up the same genealogy, mentions not this name, and differs in others. Only this let us take notice of by the way, that Chusa is a name in the family of Haman the Edomite, and this Cusa here was in the family of Herod, who himself was of the blood of the Edomites.
18. Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
[For whosoever hath, to him shall be given.] God's measure is not like the measure of flesh and blood. The measure of flesh and blood is this: An empty vessel is receptive, but a full one can take in no more. But God's measure is this, The full vessel is receptive of more, but the empty vessel receives nothing; according as it is said, If hearing thou wilt hear; that is, If thou hearest thou shalt hear; if thou dost not hear, thou shalt not hear. The Gloss is, "If thou accustom thyself to hear, then thou shalt hear, and learn and add." That is not much unlike Beracoth, fol. 55. 1: "God doth not give wisdom but to him with whom is wisdom already."
[Mary called Magdalene.] Whence should she have this name?
I. We have observed above, in our notes upon Matthew 27:56, that there is mention made in the Talmudic authors of Maria Magdila the daughter of Maria, a plaiter of women's hair; who they say was the wife of Papus Ben Juda, but an adulteress. They make this Papus contemporary with Rabban Gamaliel (of Jafneh) and R. Joshua, and with R. Akibah: who all lived both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem: so that the times do not very much disagree. And probable it is, that the Gemarists retained some memory of our Mary Magdalene, in the word Magdila.
II. We further observe in our notes upon John 12, that there was a certain town near Jerusalem called Magdala, of a very ill fame, which perhaps was Bethany itself; or be it some other, yet might our Mary (if she was the sister of Lazarus) not unfitly be called Magdalene, either as she might have lived there some time, being there married, or have imitated the whorish customs of that place. But I am apt to think that Bethany itself might go under the name of Magdala.
[Out of whom went seven devils.] As to the number seven, we contend not, when there is hardly any thing more useful than to put this certain number for an uncertain. Our difficulty is, whether these words are to be taken according to their letter, or according to the Jewish sense, who were wont to call vices by the name of devils: as "An evil affection is Satan": "Drunkenness by new wine is a devil." If this Mary be the same with the woman that was a sinner in the foregoing chapter, as is believed, then by devils seems to be understood the vices to which she was addicted: especially when both the Pharisee and evangelist call her a sinner, rather than demoniac. But this we leave at the choice of the reader.
3. And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
[The wife of Chusa.] We meet with such a name in Haman's genealogy: "The king promoted Haman the Hammedathite, the Agathite, the son of Cusa," &c. The Targumist, Esther 5, reckoning up the same genealogy, mentions not this name, and differs in others. Only this let us take notice of by the way, that Chusa is a name in the family of Haman the Edomite, and this Cusa here was in the family of Herod, who himself was of the blood of the Edomites.
18. Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
[For whosoever hath, to him shall be given.] God's measure is not like the measure of flesh and blood. The measure of flesh and blood is this: An empty vessel is receptive, but a full one can take in no more. But God's measure is this, The full vessel is receptive of more, but the empty vessel receives nothing; according as it is said, If hearing thou wilt hear; that is, If thou hearest thou shalt hear; if thou dost not hear, thou shalt not hear. The Gloss is, "If thou accustom thyself to hear, then thou shalt hear, and learn and add." That is not much unlike Beracoth, fol. 55. 1: "God doth not give wisdom but to him with whom is wisdom already."
Luke 9
3. And he said unto then, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
[Neither have two coats apiece.] Either my computation of times very much deceives me, or the winter was now coming on when the apostles were sent forth; and yet Christ forbids that they should be clothed with a double garment. It was not much that they should be forbid to take money or provision for their journey, because they were to have their food administered to them as the reward of their preaching the gospel: but to strive with the cold and winter without sufficient clothing seems something hard.
I. It was not an unusual thing in that nation, that some out of a more religious severity, did clothe themselves but with a single garment; of which thing we have already spoken in notes upon Mark 14:51, to which probably this passage may have some reference: "R. Jose saith, 'Let my portion be with those who die of the disease in their bowels: for, saith Mar, Very many righteous men die of the disease in their bowels,'"; viz. a disease contracted by the austerities of their life, both as to food and clothing. And so it is said particularly of the priests.
"The priests walked barefoot upon the pavement, and used water, and were not clad but with a single garment. And from this custom their natural vigour languished, and their bowels grew infirm."
For this very reason was there a physician appointed in the Temple, upon whom the charge lay of remedying this evil: whom we might not unfitly call the bowel-doctor.
Now, it may be inquired whether our Lord from this example prescribed this severity to his apostles, not allowing them more than a single garment, when this journeying of theirs, to preach the gospel, was a winter's work: for they returned from this journey a little before the Passover. Compare the tenth verse of this chapter, and so on, with John 6:4, and so on. But let us a little enlarge upon this subject.
In both the Talmuds there are reckoned up eighteen several garments, wherewith the Jew is clothed from head to foot. Amongst the rest, two shoes, two buskins, &c.: but those which are more properly called garments, and which are put upon the body, are reckoned these:
1. Mactoren: which word is variously rendered by several men. By the Gloss I suppose a mantle: by Aruch a cloak; by others a hood. In the Gloss upon Bava Bathra it is made the same with talith.
"Resh Lachish went to Bozrah; and, seeing some Israelites eating of fruits that had not been tithed, forbade them. Coming from R. Jochanan, he saith to him, Even while thy 'mactoren' [or cloak] is upon thee, go and recall thy prohibition.'"
2. 'Kolbin' of thread. Which the Babylonians call kolbos. The ordinary Jewish garment was talith, the outward garment, and chaluk, the inward. But in the place quoted is no mention of talith in so many syllables at all; but instead of it a Greek word for a Hebrew one, a coat.
Epiphanius, speaking of the scribes, "Moreover, they wore garments distinguished by the phylacteries, which were certain borders of purple." They used long robes, or a certain sort of garment which we may call 'dalmatics,' or 'kolobia,' which were wove in with large borders of purple.
That he means the talith, the thing itself declares; for those borders of purple were no other than the zuzith, certain skirts hung and sewed on to the talith.
3. A woolen shirt, the inward garment. Whence the Gloss, the 'chaluk' was the shirt upon his skin. Hence that boast of R. Jose, "that throughout his whole life the roof of his house had not seen what was within that shirt of his."
II. And now the question returns; viz. whether by those two coats in the place before us should be meant those two kinds of garments, the talith and the chaluk, that is, that they should take but one of them: or those two kinds doubled; that is, that they should take but one of each? Whether our Saviour bound them to take but one of those garments, or whether he forbade them taking two of each?
I conceive, he might bind them to take but one of those garments...When our Lord commands them not to put on two coats, the foregoing words may best explain what he means by it: for when he cuts them short of other parts of garments and necessaries, such as a scrip, a staff, and sandals, we may reasonably suppose he would cut them short of one of the ordinary garments, either the talith or the chaluk.
This may seem something severe, that he should send them out in the winter time half naked; but, 1. This well enough became that providence which he was determined to exert towards them in a more peculiar manner, as may be gathered from Luke 22:35, and to the charge of which he would commit them. Of such a kind and nature was his providence in preserving them, as was shewn towards the Israelites in the wilderness, which suffered not their garments to wax old, which kept their bodies from decay and diseases, and their feet unhurt by all their travel. 2. It suited well enough with the mean and low estate of that kingdom of heaven, and of the Messiah, which the apostles were to preach up and propagate; so that, from the view of the first publishers, the Jews might learn to frame a right judgment concerning both the Messiah and his kingdom; viz. they might learn to believe in the Messiah when they should observe him capable so wondrously to protect his messengers, though surrounded with such numberless inconveniences of life: and might further be taught not to expect a pompous kingdom when they see the propagators of it, of so mean a degree and quality.
The words of the Baptist, He that hath two coats, let him impart, &c., may be also understood in this sense, that he that hath both the talith and the chaluk may give to him that is naked and hath neither, either the one or the other.
8. And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.
[That one of the old prophets was risen again.] So is the expression again, verse 19; in which sense that prophet must be taken, John 1:21,25, that is one of the old prophets that is risen again.
Although they looked for no other prophet (excepting Elias only) before the appearing of the Messiah, yet doth it seem that they had an opinion that some of the ancient prophets should rise again, and that the time was now at hand wherein they should so do; and that because they made such frequent mention of it in their common talk, that "some one of the old prophets had risen again."
30. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
[Moses and Elias.] The Jews have a fiction that Moses shall come with Elias when Elias himself comes. "The holy blessed God said to Moses, 'As thou hast given thy life for Israel in this world, so in the ages to come, when I shall bring Elias the prophet amongst them, you two shall come together'"...
They also feign that Moses was raised up at the same time with Samuel by the witch of Endor:
"Samuel thought that day had been the day of judgment, and therefore he raised Moses along with himself."
"Moses did not die [for the just die not]; but went up into the highest, to minister before God."
31. Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
[They spake of his decease.] The French and Italian translation do render this word decease too loosely. And I wish the English have not done it too narrowly; They spake of his decease. It were better, They spake of his departure. For the ascent of Christ into heaven was his exodus, as well as his death: nay, I may say more, if, at least, in the word exodus there be any allusion to the Israelites' going out of Egypt. For that was in victory and triumph, as also the ascent of Christ into heaven was.
There is no question but they did indeed discourse with him about his death and the manner of it; viz. his crucifixion: whereas, Moses and Elias themselves did depart without any pain or anguish. But I should think, however, there is more contained in that word; and that the expression the time of his receiving up, verse 51, hath some reference to his departure...
51. And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,
[When the time was come that he should be received up] It is a difficulty amongst some, why there should be any mention of his receiving up, when there is no mention of his death. But let it be only granted that under that expression his decease is included the ascension of Christ, and then the difficulty is solved. The evangelist seems from thence to calculate. Moses and Elias had spoken of his departure out of this world, that is, of his final departure, when he took leave of it at his ascension into heaven: and from thenceforward, till the time should come wherein he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face towards Jerusalem, resolving with himself to be present at all the feasts that should precede his receiving up.
He goes therefore to the feast of Tabernacles; and what he did there, we have it told us, John 7. After ten weeks, or thereabout, he went up to the feast of Dedication, chapter 13:22; John 10:22; and at length to the last feast of all, his own Passover, chapter 17:11.
52. And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
[Into a village of the Samaritans.] It may be a question, whether the Jews, in their journeying to and from Jerusalem, would ordinarily deign to lodge in any of the Samaritan towns. But if necessity should at any time compel them to betake themselves into any of their inns, we must know that nothing but their mere hatred to the nation could forbid them: for "their land was clean, their waters were clean, their dwellings were clean, and their roads were clean." So that there could be no offence or danger of uncleanness in their dwelling; and so long as the Samaritans, in most things, came the nearest the Jewish religion of all others, there was less danger of being defiled either in their meats or beds or tables, &c.
55. But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
[Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.] What Elias once did to those of Samaria, the sons of Zebedee had an ambition to imitate in this place; dreaming (as it should seem) that there were those thunders and lightnings in their very name Boanerges, that should break out at pleasure for the death and destruction of those that provoked them. But could you not see, O ye sons of Zebedee, how careful and tender your Master was, from the very bottom of his soul, about the lives and well-being of mankind; how he healed the sick, cured those that were possessed with devils, and raised the dead? and will you be breathing slaughter and fire, and no less destruction to the town than what had happened to Sodom? Alas! you do not know, or have not considered, what kind of spirit and temper becomes the apostles of the Messiah.
60. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
[Let the dead bury their dead.] The Jews accounted of the Gentiles as no other than dead. The people of the earth, [that is, the Gentiles] do not live. And as the Gentiles, so even amongst themselves, these four sorts are so esteemed: "These four are accounted as dead, the blind, the leprous, the poor, and the childless."
[Neither have two coats apiece.] Either my computation of times very much deceives me, or the winter was now coming on when the apostles were sent forth; and yet Christ forbids that they should be clothed with a double garment. It was not much that they should be forbid to take money or provision for their journey, because they were to have their food administered to them as the reward of their preaching the gospel: but to strive with the cold and winter without sufficient clothing seems something hard.
I. It was not an unusual thing in that nation, that some out of a more religious severity, did clothe themselves but with a single garment; of which thing we have already spoken in notes upon Mark 14:51, to which probably this passage may have some reference: "R. Jose saith, 'Let my portion be with those who die of the disease in their bowels: for, saith Mar, Very many righteous men die of the disease in their bowels,'"; viz. a disease contracted by the austerities of their life, both as to food and clothing. And so it is said particularly of the priests.
"The priests walked barefoot upon the pavement, and used water, and were not clad but with a single garment. And from this custom their natural vigour languished, and their bowels grew infirm."
For this very reason was there a physician appointed in the Temple, upon whom the charge lay of remedying this evil: whom we might not unfitly call the bowel-doctor.
Now, it may be inquired whether our Lord from this example prescribed this severity to his apostles, not allowing them more than a single garment, when this journeying of theirs, to preach the gospel, was a winter's work: for they returned from this journey a little before the Passover. Compare the tenth verse of this chapter, and so on, with John 6:4, and so on. But let us a little enlarge upon this subject.
In both the Talmuds there are reckoned up eighteen several garments, wherewith the Jew is clothed from head to foot. Amongst the rest, two shoes, two buskins, &c.: but those which are more properly called garments, and which are put upon the body, are reckoned these:
1. Mactoren: which word is variously rendered by several men. By the Gloss I suppose a mantle: by Aruch a cloak; by others a hood. In the Gloss upon Bava Bathra it is made the same with talith.
"Resh Lachish went to Bozrah; and, seeing some Israelites eating of fruits that had not been tithed, forbade them. Coming from R. Jochanan, he saith to him, Even while thy 'mactoren' [or cloak] is upon thee, go and recall thy prohibition.'"
2. 'Kolbin' of thread. Which the Babylonians call kolbos. The ordinary Jewish garment was talith, the outward garment, and chaluk, the inward. But in the place quoted is no mention of talith in so many syllables at all; but instead of it a Greek word for a Hebrew one, a coat.
Epiphanius, speaking of the scribes, "Moreover, they wore garments distinguished by the phylacteries, which were certain borders of purple." They used long robes, or a certain sort of garment which we may call 'dalmatics,' or 'kolobia,' which were wove in with large borders of purple.
That he means the talith, the thing itself declares; for those borders of purple were no other than the zuzith, certain skirts hung and sewed on to the talith.
3. A woolen shirt, the inward garment. Whence the Gloss, the 'chaluk' was the shirt upon his skin. Hence that boast of R. Jose, "that throughout his whole life the roof of his house had not seen what was within that shirt of his."
II. And now the question returns; viz. whether by those two coats in the place before us should be meant those two kinds of garments, the talith and the chaluk, that is, that they should take but one of them: or those two kinds doubled; that is, that they should take but one of each? Whether our Saviour bound them to take but one of those garments, or whether he forbade them taking two of each?
I conceive, he might bind them to take but one of those garments...When our Lord commands them not to put on two coats, the foregoing words may best explain what he means by it: for when he cuts them short of other parts of garments and necessaries, such as a scrip, a staff, and sandals, we may reasonably suppose he would cut them short of one of the ordinary garments, either the talith or the chaluk.
This may seem something severe, that he should send them out in the winter time half naked; but, 1. This well enough became that providence which he was determined to exert towards them in a more peculiar manner, as may be gathered from Luke 22:35, and to the charge of which he would commit them. Of such a kind and nature was his providence in preserving them, as was shewn towards the Israelites in the wilderness, which suffered not their garments to wax old, which kept their bodies from decay and diseases, and their feet unhurt by all their travel. 2. It suited well enough with the mean and low estate of that kingdom of heaven, and of the Messiah, which the apostles were to preach up and propagate; so that, from the view of the first publishers, the Jews might learn to frame a right judgment concerning both the Messiah and his kingdom; viz. they might learn to believe in the Messiah when they should observe him capable so wondrously to protect his messengers, though surrounded with such numberless inconveniences of life: and might further be taught not to expect a pompous kingdom when they see the propagators of it, of so mean a degree and quality.
The words of the Baptist, He that hath two coats, let him impart, &c., may be also understood in this sense, that he that hath both the talith and the chaluk may give to him that is naked and hath neither, either the one or the other.
8. And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.
[That one of the old prophets was risen again.] So is the expression again, verse 19; in which sense that prophet must be taken, John 1:21,25, that is one of the old prophets that is risen again.
Although they looked for no other prophet (excepting Elias only) before the appearing of the Messiah, yet doth it seem that they had an opinion that some of the ancient prophets should rise again, and that the time was now at hand wherein they should so do; and that because they made such frequent mention of it in their common talk, that "some one of the old prophets had risen again."
30. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
[Moses and Elias.] The Jews have a fiction that Moses shall come with Elias when Elias himself comes. "The holy blessed God said to Moses, 'As thou hast given thy life for Israel in this world, so in the ages to come, when I shall bring Elias the prophet amongst them, you two shall come together'"...
They also feign that Moses was raised up at the same time with Samuel by the witch of Endor:
"Samuel thought that day had been the day of judgment, and therefore he raised Moses along with himself."
"Moses did not die [for the just die not]; but went up into the highest, to minister before God."
31. Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
[They spake of his decease.] The French and Italian translation do render this word decease too loosely. And I wish the English have not done it too narrowly; They spake of his decease. It were better, They spake of his departure. For the ascent of Christ into heaven was his exodus, as well as his death: nay, I may say more, if, at least, in the word exodus there be any allusion to the Israelites' going out of Egypt. For that was in victory and triumph, as also the ascent of Christ into heaven was.
There is no question but they did indeed discourse with him about his death and the manner of it; viz. his crucifixion: whereas, Moses and Elias themselves did depart without any pain or anguish. But I should think, however, there is more contained in that word; and that the expression the time of his receiving up, verse 51, hath some reference to his departure...
51. And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,
[When the time was come that he should be received up] It is a difficulty amongst some, why there should be any mention of his receiving up, when there is no mention of his death. But let it be only granted that under that expression his decease is included the ascension of Christ, and then the difficulty is solved. The evangelist seems from thence to calculate. Moses and Elias had spoken of his departure out of this world, that is, of his final departure, when he took leave of it at his ascension into heaven: and from thenceforward, till the time should come wherein he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face towards Jerusalem, resolving with himself to be present at all the feasts that should precede his receiving up.
He goes therefore to the feast of Tabernacles; and what he did there, we have it told us, John 7. After ten weeks, or thereabout, he went up to the feast of Dedication, chapter 13:22; John 10:22; and at length to the last feast of all, his own Passover, chapter 17:11.
52. And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
[Into a village of the Samaritans.] It may be a question, whether the Jews, in their journeying to and from Jerusalem, would ordinarily deign to lodge in any of the Samaritan towns. But if necessity should at any time compel them to betake themselves into any of their inns, we must know that nothing but their mere hatred to the nation could forbid them: for "their land was clean, their waters were clean, their dwellings were clean, and their roads were clean." So that there could be no offence or danger of uncleanness in their dwelling; and so long as the Samaritans, in most things, came the nearest the Jewish religion of all others, there was less danger of being defiled either in their meats or beds or tables, &c.
55. But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
[Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.] What Elias once did to those of Samaria, the sons of Zebedee had an ambition to imitate in this place; dreaming (as it should seem) that there were those thunders and lightnings in their very name Boanerges, that should break out at pleasure for the death and destruction of those that provoked them. But could you not see, O ye sons of Zebedee, how careful and tender your Master was, from the very bottom of his soul, about the lives and well-being of mankind; how he healed the sick, cured those that were possessed with devils, and raised the dead? and will you be breathing slaughter and fire, and no less destruction to the town than what had happened to Sodom? Alas! you do not know, or have not considered, what kind of spirit and temper becomes the apostles of the Messiah.
60. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
[Let the dead bury their dead.] The Jews accounted of the Gentiles as no other than dead. The people of the earth, [that is, the Gentiles] do not live. And as the Gentiles, so even amongst themselves, these four sorts are so esteemed: "These four are accounted as dead, the blind, the leprous, the poor, and the childless."
Luke 10
1. After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
[Seventy.] Why the Vulgar should have seventy-and-two, they themselves, I suppose, are able to give no very good reason: much less the interpreter of Titus Bostrensis, when in the Greek copy before him he saw only seventy, why he should render it seventy-two.
Aben Ezra upon the story of Eldad and Medad hath this passage: "The wise men say, That Moses took six out of every tribe, and the whole number amounted to seventy-and-two: but whereas the Lord had commanded only seventy, the odd two were laid aside." Now if God laid aside two of those who had been enrolled, and endowed with the Holy Spirit, that so there might be the just number of seventy only, we can hardly imagine why our Saviour should add two, to make it seventy-two and not seventy. "It was said to Moses at Mount Sinai, Go up, thou and Aaron, and Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: so will the holy blessed God ordain to himself in the world to come a council of elders of his own people." Now the number of this consistory, the doctors determine to be no other than seventy. A council of seventy-two was never heard of amongst the Jews, but once only at Jabneh.
"R. Simeon Ben Azzai saith, I received it from the mouths of the seventy-two elders, on the day when they made R. Eliezer Ben Azariah one of the Sanhedrim." Nor did they then remove Rabban Gamaliel, although he had displeased them.
3. Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
[As lambs among wolves.] It is added in another evangelist, "Be ye wise as serpents," &c.: with which we may compare that in Midrash Schir; "The holy blessed God saith concerning Israel those that belong to me are simple as doves, but amongst the nations of the world, they are subtle as serpents."
4. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
[Salute no man by the way.] I. We have a passage something like this elsewhere; "If thou meet any man, salute him not"; that is (as is commonly expounded), do not hinder thy journey by discoursing with any in the way. But the same reason doth not hold in this place; the business of these disciples not requiring such mighty expedition. They were commanded out two by two, to this or the other place or city where Christ himself was to come in person; nor was it necessary they should run in so great haste, that they should make no stay in the way. Only having appointed them to such and such places, their business indeed lay nowhere but in those very places to which they had been particularly sent, to proclaim the coming of Christ there, and not to be telling it in the way. The twelve apostles that were sent, their business was to declare the coming of the 'kingdom of heaven'; these the coming of the 'King himself.' No wonder, therefore, if the apostles were not forbidden to salute any in the way; for their province was, wherever they came, to tell the world that the kingdom of heaven was come: but these were only to give notice that the Messiah was coming: and that in those places only to which he was to come, and not to any whom they should meet cursorily in the way.
II. It was a very usual thing in that nation, upon some accounts, not to salute any in the way, no, not any person at all. "He that is mourning for the dead, let him not salute any person for the first seven days of his mourning." If thirteen fasts had been celebrated by order of the Sanhedrim for the imploring of rain, and yet no rain had fallen, then they "diminish from their business, and from building, and from planting, and from espousals and marriage, and from saluting each other as men under the rebukes of Heaven": that is, they abstained from all these things. "The religious do not use to salute one another; but if any of the common people do at any time salute them, they return it in a very low voice with all gravity, veiling themselves, and sitting in the posture of mourners or excommunicate persons."
Whether that of the apostle, "Salute one another with a holy kiss," might not have some reference to this usage, might be a matter for our inquiry, if there were place for it; but I forbear.
What therefore doth our Saviour intend by this prohibition, Salute no man by the way? would he imitate this Jewish custom, that he would have them taken for mourners everywhere?
I. He would have all that belonged to him conformable to himself, that every one from the quality of the messengers might, in some measure, judge what he was that sent them; as we have already hinted concerning the twelve apostles, He himself was "a man of sorrows"; and if his messengers do represent some such thing, either in their looks or behaviour, the people might the more easily guess what kind of person he was that commissioned them.
II. Christ had a twofold end in designing them to the places to which he in his own person had determined to come; namely, that thither all persons should assemble themselves to his doctrine for the healing of their souls: and that those that were diseased might be gathered thither in order to a cure. Now it was very fit and convenient that the behaviour of those that were to assemble the people to these ends should be mournful and solemn, to testify the fellow-feeling they had with the afflicted and miserable.
8. And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
[Eat such things as are set before you.] The traditional canons were so very precise and curious about not eating unless what were clean, what had been duly tithed, and from which the Trumah had been duly separated, that it might be almost a wonder the strict traditionists should not be famished if they lived and fed only by canon. "Let not the religious serve at the table of a laic, unless all things be rightly prepared and decimated."
From the irksomeness and perplexity of this niceness doth our Saviour acquit and absolve his followers; partly that he might introduce the gospel liberty; partly also consulting the necessity of his disciples, who if they had been bound up to that strictness in meats, what could they do when their converse was to lie chiefly amongst persons perfectly unknown to them?
18. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
[I beheld Satan, &c.] "Lucifer falling from heaven," Isaiah 14:12, is the king of Babylon divested of his throne and dominion. So is Satan in this place. The word I beheld, I would refer to this very time: "When I sent you forth I saw Satan's fall at hand, that he should be immediately despoiled of his power and tyranny." For when the Messiah had determined to exhibit himself, and, in order thereunto, to send out so numerous a multitude of persons that should publish his appearance, it was absolutely necessary, and it could not otherwise be, but that the power of Satan should sink, and his government be shaken.
It is probable these seventy disciples were sent out upon the approach of the feast of Tabernacles, and when there now remained about half a year to the death of Christ. In which interval of time Christ shewed himself more openly, both by the preaching of these persons, and also in his own personal exhibition of himself, than before he had done. All which things determining in his death, whose death was also the death of Satan, might give him a very just occasion of saying, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, thrown out of his throne and kingdom. Compare Revelation 12:8, where 'heaven' is to be interpreted 'the church.'
25. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
[Behold, a certain lawyer stood up.]
Some few Notes concerning the Jewish Doctors.
The word lawyer we meet with in Matthew 22:35, where the Syriac hath it a scribe. So Luke 7:30; as also in this place, and chapter 11:45. Nor without reason, when he in St. Matthew, one of them which was a lawyer, is said to be, Mark 12:28, one of the scribes.
However there seems some difficulty from a passage in our evangelist, where woe unto you scribes, and Then answered one of the lawyers, seems to make some distinction betwixt them. As to this, we shall make some remarks in its proper place. In the mean time let it not seem tedious to the reader, if we discourse some things concerning the doctors of the law, with the various classes and orders of them, that we may the better judge of that sort of men of which we have so frequent mention in the holy Scriptures. And,
I. It is not unknown how the name scribe was a general title given to all the learned part of that nation, as it is opposed to the rude and illiterate person. "If two persons eat together, and are both scribes, they each of them say grace singly for themselves: but if one of them be a scribe, and the other an illiterate person, the scribe saith grace, and it sufficeth for the other that is unlearned."
Indeed, the first original of the word scribes did more peculiarly signify the numberers. "The ancients were called numberers, because they numbered all the letters of the law..." The Gloss gives another reason out of the Jerusalem Talmud; namely, "because they numbered all the points and contents of the law, as the forty principal servile works save one," &c.
Should we indeed grant that the first original of the word had such narrow bounds as this, yet does not this hinder but that it afterward enlarged itself so far as to denote any person learned in the law, and every doctor of it; nay, that it extended itself even to the schoolmasters that taught children: if not to the very libellarii, those whose business it was to write out bills of divorce and forms of contracts, &c. Of which two there is mention made amongst the ten sorts, whereof if none should happen to be in a city, it was not fit for any disciple of the wise to abide in it.
II. That the fathers of the Sanhedrim were more emphatically called the scribes is so well known that it needs no confirmation. That passage in the evangelist sufficiently shews it; "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat": that is, on the legislative bench, or in the Sanhedrim: where also the Sadducees that were of that council are called scribes: and the scribes are distinguished there from the Pharisees, not that they were not scribes, but because all the scribes there were not Pharisees.
III. There was a certain degree of doctors or scribes that were in the Sanhedrim, but were not members of it: these are commonly called those who gave judgment in the presence of the wise men, fit for the office of legislators, but not yet admitted. Such were Simeon Ben Azzai, and Simeon Ben Zumah. Such also was Simeon the Temanite, of whom we have made mention elsewhere, (out of Sanhedrin, fol. 17. 2) He judged in the presence of the Sanhderim, sitting upon the ground. He did not sit on the bench with the fathers, as not being one of their number, but on the seats below, nearer the ground: him the fathers consulted in difficult matters. A shadow of which we have in England of the judges, men learned in the laws, who have their seats in our house of lords.
Whether he that was particularly called the wise man was of the number of the fathers, or only of this kind of judges, I shall not at present dispute, but leave the reader to judge from this story: "Rabban Simeon Ben Gamliel was the president of the Sanhedrim: R. Meir was chacam, or the wise man; and R. Nathan, the vice-governor." Now when Rabban Simeon had decreed something that disparaged R. Meir and R. Nathan, "Saith R. Meir to R. Nathan, I am the chacam [or the wise man], and thou art the vice-president. Let us remove Rabban Simeon from the presidency, then thou wilt be the president, and I the vice-president."
There is nothing more common, and yet nothing more difficult than that saying, "The school of Hillel saith so and so, and the school of Shammai so: but the wise men say otherwise." It is very obscure who these wise men should be. If we should say the Sanhedrim, it is plain that one part of it consisted of the Shammaeans, and another part of the Hillelites. If so, then it should seem that these wise men are those judges of whom we have spoken: unless you will assign a third part to the Sadducees, to whom you will hardly attribute the determination of the thing, and much less the emphatical title of the wise men. But this we leave undecided.
IV. Let us a little inquire out of the Sanhedrim; we shall find variety of scribes and doctors of the law, according to the variety of the law itself, and the variety of teaching it. Hence those various treatises amongst the Rabbins; the Micra, Misna, Midras, Talmud, Agadah, &c.
1. Micra, is the text of the Bible itself: its reading and literal explication.
2. Misna, the doctrine of traditions and their explication.
3. Midras, the mystic and allegorical doctrine and exposition of the Scriptures: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Now these were the ways and methods of preaching him:
I. As to the written law (for every one knows they had a twofold law, written and oral, as they call it), they had a twofold way of declaring it, viz., explaining and applying it according to the literal sense of it, for edification, exhortation, and comfort, as the apostle hath it; or else by drawing allegories, mysteries, and far-fetched notions out of it. As to the former way, the rulers of the synagogue seem to have respect to it in what they said to Paul and Barnabas: If ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. As to the latter, the instances are endless in the Jewish writings every where; so far, that they have even melted down the whole volume of the Scriptures into tradition and allegory.
It is not easily determined whether those preachers were so of a different order, that one should wholly addict himself to the plain and literal exposition and application of the Scriptures, the other only to the mystical and more abstruse way of teaching. There is no question but both these did frequently meet both in one preacher, and that in one and the same sermon: and indeed I cannot tell but that the word Agadah may sometimes denote both these ways of expounding and interpreting the law. When a certain person, being interrogated about certain traditions, could give no answer, the standers by said, Perhaps he is not skilled in the [traditional] doctrine: but he may be able to expound. And so they propound to him Daniel 10:21 to explain. To which that also agrees well enough, "The masters of the Agada or expositions, because they are 'Darshanin' [or profound searchers of the Scriptures], are honoured of all men, for they draw away the hearts of their auditors." Nor does that sound very differently as to the thing itself: On the sabbath day they discussed discussions [i.e. in the Scriptures, searching the Scriptures] "to the masters of families, who had been employed in their occasions all the week; and while they were expounding, they taught them the articles about things forbidden and things permitted them," &c.
To these kind of mystic and allegorical expositions of Scripture (if at least it be proper to call them expositions) they were so strangely bewitched, that they valued nothing more than a skill in tickling or rubbing the itching ears of their auditors with such trifles. Hence that passage, "R. Joshua said to R. Jochanan Ben Bruchah, and to R. Eleazar the blind, What new thing have you met with today in 'Beth Midras'? They answered and said, 'We are all thy disciples, and drink wholly at thy waters.' To whom he; 'It is impossible but you should meet with something novel every day in Beth Midras.'"
II. As to the oral law, there was also a twofold way of explaining it, as they had for the written law:
1. The former way we have intimated to us in these words: "The book of the Law, when it grows old, they lay up with one of the disciples of the wise men, even although he teach the traditions." The passage seems very obscure, but it is thus explained by the Gloss: "Albeit it doth not any way help the disciples of the wise men in Talmud and Gemara, but in Misnaioth and Beriathoth," that is, he that would only read the body of the traditional law, and render the literal sense of it,--and not he that would dispute scholastically, and comment upon it. For,
2. There were doctors that would inquire more deeply into the traditions, would give some accounts (such as they were), of them, would discuss difficulties, solve doubts, &c.; a specimen of which is the Talmudic Gemara throughout.
Lastly, amongst the learned, and doctors of that nation, there were the Agadici, who would expound the written law in a more profound way than ordinary, even to what was cabalistical. These were more rare, and (as it should seem) not so acceptable amongst the people. Whether these are concerned in what follows, let the reader judge: "R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, So and so let it happen to me, if in all my life I ever saw the book Agada above once; and then I found a hundred seventy-and-five sections of the law, where it is written, 'The Lord hath said, hath spoken, hath commanded.' They are according to the number of the years of our father Abraham, as it is said, To receive gifts for men, &c. A hundred forty-and-seven Psalms, which are in the Book of Psalms [mark the number] are according to the number of the years of our father Jacob; as it is written, 'Thou art holy, and inhabitest the praises of Israel.' A hundred twenty-and-three turns, wherein Israel answereth Hallelujah [to him that repeats the Hallel], are according to the number of the years of Aaron," &c. And as a coronis, let me add that passage in Sanhedrim, "If they be masters of the textual reading, they shall be conversant in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. If they be masters of the Misna, they shall be conversant in Misna Halacoth and Haggadoth. And if they be masters of the Talmud, they shall be conversant in the traditions of the Passover, in the Passover: in the traditions of Pentecost, in Pentecost: in the traditions of the feast of Tabernacles, in the feast of Tabernacles."
These all, whom we have mentioned, were scribes and doctors and expounders of the law; but which of these may properly and peculiarly challenge to themselves the title of lawyers, whether all, or any particular class of them? The latter is most probable: but then, what class will you choose? or will you distinguish betwixt the lawyer and the teacher of the law? I had rather the reader would frame his own judgment here. And yet, that I might not dismiss this question wholly untouched, and at the same time not weary the reader with too long a digression, I have referred what is to be alleged in this matter to my notes upon chapter 11:45.
26. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
[How readest thou?] An expression very common in the schools, What readest thou? when any person brought a text of Scripture for the proof of any thing. The Rabbins have a tradition, that the disease of the squinancy came into the world upon the account of tithes. (The Gloss hath it: "For eating of fruits that had not been tithed.") "R. Eliezer Ben R. Jose saith, 'It was for an evil tongue.' Rabba saith, and it is the saying also of R. Joshua Ben Levi, What readest thou? The king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by himself shall glory: for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped." And a little after, upon another subject: "R. Simeon Ben Gezirah saith, What or how readest thou? If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock": Canticles 1:8.
We will not be very curious in inquiring whether our Saviour used the very same form of speech, or any other. In this only he departs from their common use of speech, in that he calls to another to allege some text of Scripture; whereas it was usual in the schools that he that spoke that would allege some place himself.
27. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
[And with all thy mind.] In this answer of the man there are these two things observable:
I. That our Saviour brings in this clause, which in so many terms is not in Moses, where the rest are: where the Greek both of the Roman and Alexandrian edition render with all thy might. But wherein is mind? I pass by other copies, wherein though there is some varying, yet there is not this which is now before us.
Our Saviour hath the same clause elsewhere, but not in the same order; with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: here it is, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. What shall we say therefore? shall we suppose it writ to this sense in the Hebrew in their phylacteries? This we can hardly think. Was it added by the Greek interpreters, and so the evangelists take it from thence? we see it is not so. What then? doth might signify both strength and mind? Here, indeed, the hinge of the question turns. That it denotes strength, no one doubts; yea, and the Rabbins suppose it denotes Mammon too, with whom the Syriac and Targumist agree: but still, where doth it signify the mind?
1. Take such a Gloss as is frequently in use amongst the allegorizing doctors: With what measure he shall mete to thee, do thou praise him exceedingly. Where we see they play with the sound of words, which is a very common thing with them to do...
2. To this we may add, if we think fit, what they commonly require in all religious services; viz. the preparation and the intention of the mind...Moses' words, therefore, are rendered by the evangelists not strictly and according to the letter, as they are in him, or were in the parchments in the phylacteries; but both according to their full sense and tenour, as also according to the common and received interpretation of that nation.
"R. Levi Bar Chajothah went to Caesarea, and heard them reciting their 'Shemaa' [or their phylacteries] Hellenistically [i.e. in Greek]" &c. Now, whether the clause we are now handling was inserted there, it would be in vain to inquire, because not possible to find...
The second thing observable in this man's answer, is, that he adds, "And thy neighbour as thyself": which indeed was not written in the schedules of their phylacteries: otherwise I should have thought the man had understood those words of our Saviour, How readest thou? as if he had said, "How dost thou repeat the sentences of the phylacteries?" for he reciteth the sentence as it was in their phylacteries, only adding this clause, "And thy neighbour," &c. Now the usual expression for the recitation of their phylacteries was They read the 'Shemaa'; which also is so rendered by some when indeed they commonly repeat them without book. He that read the Book [of Esther] orally: i.e. as the Gemara explains it, "Without book," or "by heart." It is queried, "Why they repeat those two sections every day? R. Levi saith, Because the ten commandments [of the decalogue] are comprehended therein." And he shews further how they are comprehended, saving only (which is very observable) the second commandment. Afterward indeed they confess, "It was very fitting they should every day repeat the very decalogue itself; but they did not repeat it, lest the heretics should say, that only those commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai." However, they did repeat those passages wherein they supposed the decalogue was summed up.
Whether, therefore, this lawyer of ours understood the words of our Saviour as having respect to that usage of repeating their phylacteries; or whether he of his own accord, and according to his own opinion, would be giving the whole sum of the decalogue, he shews himself rather a textual than a traditional doctor, although the word lawyer, seems to point out the latter rather.
29. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
[And who is my neighbour?] This doubt and form of questioning he had learned out of the common school, where it is thus taught in Aruch. He excepts all Gentiles when he saith, His neighbour.
"An Israelite killing a stranger inhabitant, he doth not die for it by the Sanhedrim; because it is said, If any one lift up himself against his neighbour. And it is not necessary to say, He does not die upon the account of a Gentile: for they are not esteemed by them for their neighbour."
"The Gentiles, amongst whom and us there is no war, and so those that are keepers of sheep amongst the Israelites, and the like, we are not to contrive their death: but if they be in any danger of death, we are not bound to deliver them: e.g. If any of them fall into the sea, you shall not need to take him out: for it is said, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour; but such a one is not thy neighbour."
30. And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
[A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.] This was the most beaten and frequented road in the whole land of Israel, and that, not only as it led to Perea, but also upon the account of that great traffic that was between these two cities, especially because of the courses that were as well in Jericho as Jerusalem. Of which we have discoursed elsewhere. To which I shall superadd this passage out of Jerusalem Taanith: "The former prophets instituted four-and-twenty courses, and for every course there was a stationary class of priests, Levites, and Israelites in Jerusalem. It is a tradition: Four-and-twenty thousand was the stationary number out of Jerusalem, and half that station out of Jericho. Jericho could indeed have produced an entire station; but that it would give the preference to Jerusalem; and therefore it produced but half."
Here, therefore, you may see in this historical parable why there is such particular mention made of a priest and Levite travelling that way, because there was very frequent intercourse of this sort of men between these towns; and that upon the account of the stations above mentioned.
[He fell among thieves.] It is with great confidence I see, but upon what foundation I cannot see, that the commentators generally make Adummim the scene of this robbery above all other places. It is true, the road betwixt Jerusalem and Jericho was dangerous enough; and for that reason (as is commonly believed) there was placed a band of soldiers "betwixt Aelia and Jericho," for the safeguard of passengers: but whereas it is said that the place is called Adummim, i.e. a place of redness, from the blood that was spilt by robbers there, this seems to have very little force in it: because the place had that name of Adummim even in Joshua's days, when we can hardly suppose the times to have been so pestered with robberies as they were when our Saviour uttered this parable: see Joshua 15:7, where if we consider the situation of 'the going up to Adummim,' it will appear it was not very distant from Jericho.
[Half dead.] The Rabbins term it next to death; beyond which condition, on this side death, was only one just expiring.
31. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
[When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.] And why, I pray, priest and Levite, do ye thus pass by a man in such a miserable condition? Was he not an Israelite? It is true, ye had learned out of your own schools not to succour a Gentile, no, nor a keeper of sheep, though he was an Israelite: now was this wounded man such a one? or did ye think ye should have contracted some pollution by touching one half dead? The word passed by on the other side, seems to hint as if they passed by him, keeping their distance from him: let them tell the reason themselves. For my part, I would impute it wholly to the mere want of charity.
33. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him.
[But a certain Samaritan.] The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: that is, so as to be obliged by them for any courtesy done to them. But would this Jew, half dead, reject the kindness of the Samaritan at this time? This person being of a nation than which the Jews hated nothing more, is brought in shewing this kindness to the Jew, on purpose to give the plainer instance, who is our neighbour. It might seem more proper to have said, that the Samaritan acknowledged the wounded man for his neighbour in being so kind to him: but our Saviour intimates that he was the wounded man's neighbour; thereby teaching us that even a stranger, yea, an enemy (against the doctrine of their own schools), is no other than our neighbour.
34. And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
[Pouring in oil and wine.] It is a tradition. "They spread a plaster for the sick on the sabbath day: that is, upon condition they had mingled it with wine and oil on the evening of the sabbath. But if they have not mixed it on the sabbath, it is forbidden. A tradition. R. Simeon Ben Eliezer saith, That it is allowed by R. Meir, both to mingle the oil and the wine, and also to anoint the sick on the sabbath day."
35. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
[He took out two pence.] Aruch: "A shekel of the law is selaa, and is of the value of four pence." So that the half shekel is two pence: a price that was to be paid yearly by every one as a ransom for his soul or life. Whence, not unfitly, we see two pence are paid down for the recovery of this man's life that had been wounded and half dead.
[And gave them to the host.] The Rabbins retain this Greek word, however the author of Aruch calls it Ismaelitic, or Arabic. A tavern or inn (saith he), in the Ismaelitish language, is called 'pondak.' It is true, indeed, the Arabic version useth this word in this place; but it is well known whence it takes its original. "Two men went into an inn; one a just, the other a wicked man. They sat down apart. The wicked man saith to the host, 'Let me have one pheasant, and let me have conditum or hippocras.' The just man said to the host, 'Let me have a piece of bread and a dish of lentils.' The wicked man laughed the just man to scorn, 'See how this fool calls for lentils when he may have dainties.' On the contrary, the just man, 'See how this fool eateth, when his teeth are to be immediately dashed out.' The just man saith to the host, 'Give me two cups of wine, that I may bless them': he gave them him, and he blessed them, and rising up gave to the host a piece of money for the portion that he had eaten, and departed in peace. But there was a falling out betwixt the wicked man and his host about the reckoning, and the host dashed out his teeth."
38. Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
[Martha received him, &c.] Our Saviour is now at the feast of Tabernacles: and visits Bethany, where there had grown a friendship betwixt himself and Lazarus' family, upon his having cast out so many devils out of Mary his sister. For it is no foreign thing to suppose she was that Mary that was called Magdalene, because Bethany itself was called Magdala. As to the name Martha, see notes upon John 11: and as to the name Magdala, see notes upon John 12.
[Seventy.] Why the Vulgar should have seventy-and-two, they themselves, I suppose, are able to give no very good reason: much less the interpreter of Titus Bostrensis, when in the Greek copy before him he saw only seventy, why he should render it seventy-two.
Aben Ezra upon the story of Eldad and Medad hath this passage: "The wise men say, That Moses took six out of every tribe, and the whole number amounted to seventy-and-two: but whereas the Lord had commanded only seventy, the odd two were laid aside." Now if God laid aside two of those who had been enrolled, and endowed with the Holy Spirit, that so there might be the just number of seventy only, we can hardly imagine why our Saviour should add two, to make it seventy-two and not seventy. "It was said to Moses at Mount Sinai, Go up, thou and Aaron, and Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: so will the holy blessed God ordain to himself in the world to come a council of elders of his own people." Now the number of this consistory, the doctors determine to be no other than seventy. A council of seventy-two was never heard of amongst the Jews, but once only at Jabneh.
"R. Simeon Ben Azzai saith, I received it from the mouths of the seventy-two elders, on the day when they made R. Eliezer Ben Azariah one of the Sanhedrim." Nor did they then remove Rabban Gamaliel, although he had displeased them.
3. Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
[As lambs among wolves.] It is added in another evangelist, "Be ye wise as serpents," &c.: with which we may compare that in Midrash Schir; "The holy blessed God saith concerning Israel those that belong to me are simple as doves, but amongst the nations of the world, they are subtle as serpents."
4. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
[Salute no man by the way.] I. We have a passage something like this elsewhere; "If thou meet any man, salute him not"; that is (as is commonly expounded), do not hinder thy journey by discoursing with any in the way. But the same reason doth not hold in this place; the business of these disciples not requiring such mighty expedition. They were commanded out two by two, to this or the other place or city where Christ himself was to come in person; nor was it necessary they should run in so great haste, that they should make no stay in the way. Only having appointed them to such and such places, their business indeed lay nowhere but in those very places to which they had been particularly sent, to proclaim the coming of Christ there, and not to be telling it in the way. The twelve apostles that were sent, their business was to declare the coming of the 'kingdom of heaven'; these the coming of the 'King himself.' No wonder, therefore, if the apostles were not forbidden to salute any in the way; for their province was, wherever they came, to tell the world that the kingdom of heaven was come: but these were only to give notice that the Messiah was coming: and that in those places only to which he was to come, and not to any whom they should meet cursorily in the way.
II. It was a very usual thing in that nation, upon some accounts, not to salute any in the way, no, not any person at all. "He that is mourning for the dead, let him not salute any person for the first seven days of his mourning." If thirteen fasts had been celebrated by order of the Sanhedrim for the imploring of rain, and yet no rain had fallen, then they "diminish from their business, and from building, and from planting, and from espousals and marriage, and from saluting each other as men under the rebukes of Heaven": that is, they abstained from all these things. "The religious do not use to salute one another; but if any of the common people do at any time salute them, they return it in a very low voice with all gravity, veiling themselves, and sitting in the posture of mourners or excommunicate persons."
Whether that of the apostle, "Salute one another with a holy kiss," might not have some reference to this usage, might be a matter for our inquiry, if there were place for it; but I forbear.
What therefore doth our Saviour intend by this prohibition, Salute no man by the way? would he imitate this Jewish custom, that he would have them taken for mourners everywhere?
I. He would have all that belonged to him conformable to himself, that every one from the quality of the messengers might, in some measure, judge what he was that sent them; as we have already hinted concerning the twelve apostles, He himself was "a man of sorrows"; and if his messengers do represent some such thing, either in their looks or behaviour, the people might the more easily guess what kind of person he was that commissioned them.
II. Christ had a twofold end in designing them to the places to which he in his own person had determined to come; namely, that thither all persons should assemble themselves to his doctrine for the healing of their souls: and that those that were diseased might be gathered thither in order to a cure. Now it was very fit and convenient that the behaviour of those that were to assemble the people to these ends should be mournful and solemn, to testify the fellow-feeling they had with the afflicted and miserable.
8. And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
[Eat such things as are set before you.] The traditional canons were so very precise and curious about not eating unless what were clean, what had been duly tithed, and from which the Trumah had been duly separated, that it might be almost a wonder the strict traditionists should not be famished if they lived and fed only by canon. "Let not the religious serve at the table of a laic, unless all things be rightly prepared and decimated."
From the irksomeness and perplexity of this niceness doth our Saviour acquit and absolve his followers; partly that he might introduce the gospel liberty; partly also consulting the necessity of his disciples, who if they had been bound up to that strictness in meats, what could they do when their converse was to lie chiefly amongst persons perfectly unknown to them?
18. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
[I beheld Satan, &c.] "Lucifer falling from heaven," Isaiah 14:12, is the king of Babylon divested of his throne and dominion. So is Satan in this place. The word I beheld, I would refer to this very time: "When I sent you forth I saw Satan's fall at hand, that he should be immediately despoiled of his power and tyranny." For when the Messiah had determined to exhibit himself, and, in order thereunto, to send out so numerous a multitude of persons that should publish his appearance, it was absolutely necessary, and it could not otherwise be, but that the power of Satan should sink, and his government be shaken.
It is probable these seventy disciples were sent out upon the approach of the feast of Tabernacles, and when there now remained about half a year to the death of Christ. In which interval of time Christ shewed himself more openly, both by the preaching of these persons, and also in his own personal exhibition of himself, than before he had done. All which things determining in his death, whose death was also the death of Satan, might give him a very just occasion of saying, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, thrown out of his throne and kingdom. Compare Revelation 12:8, where 'heaven' is to be interpreted 'the church.'
25. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
[Behold, a certain lawyer stood up.]
Some few Notes concerning the Jewish Doctors.
The word lawyer we meet with in Matthew 22:35, where the Syriac hath it a scribe. So Luke 7:30; as also in this place, and chapter 11:45. Nor without reason, when he in St. Matthew, one of them which was a lawyer, is said to be, Mark 12:28, one of the scribes.
However there seems some difficulty from a passage in our evangelist, where woe unto you scribes, and Then answered one of the lawyers, seems to make some distinction betwixt them. As to this, we shall make some remarks in its proper place. In the mean time let it not seem tedious to the reader, if we discourse some things concerning the doctors of the law, with the various classes and orders of them, that we may the better judge of that sort of men of which we have so frequent mention in the holy Scriptures. And,
I. It is not unknown how the name scribe was a general title given to all the learned part of that nation, as it is opposed to the rude and illiterate person. "If two persons eat together, and are both scribes, they each of them say grace singly for themselves: but if one of them be a scribe, and the other an illiterate person, the scribe saith grace, and it sufficeth for the other that is unlearned."
Indeed, the first original of the word scribes did more peculiarly signify the numberers. "The ancients were called numberers, because they numbered all the letters of the law..." The Gloss gives another reason out of the Jerusalem Talmud; namely, "because they numbered all the points and contents of the law, as the forty principal servile works save one," &c.
Should we indeed grant that the first original of the word had such narrow bounds as this, yet does not this hinder but that it afterward enlarged itself so far as to denote any person learned in the law, and every doctor of it; nay, that it extended itself even to the schoolmasters that taught children: if not to the very libellarii, those whose business it was to write out bills of divorce and forms of contracts, &c. Of which two there is mention made amongst the ten sorts, whereof if none should happen to be in a city, it was not fit for any disciple of the wise to abide in it.
II. That the fathers of the Sanhedrim were more emphatically called the scribes is so well known that it needs no confirmation. That passage in the evangelist sufficiently shews it; "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat": that is, on the legislative bench, or in the Sanhedrim: where also the Sadducees that were of that council are called scribes: and the scribes are distinguished there from the Pharisees, not that they were not scribes, but because all the scribes there were not Pharisees.
III. There was a certain degree of doctors or scribes that were in the Sanhedrim, but were not members of it: these are commonly called those who gave judgment in the presence of the wise men, fit for the office of legislators, but not yet admitted. Such were Simeon Ben Azzai, and Simeon Ben Zumah. Such also was Simeon the Temanite, of whom we have made mention elsewhere, (out of Sanhedrin, fol. 17. 2) He judged in the presence of the Sanhderim, sitting upon the ground. He did not sit on the bench with the fathers, as not being one of their number, but on the seats below, nearer the ground: him the fathers consulted in difficult matters. A shadow of which we have in England of the judges, men learned in the laws, who have their seats in our house of lords.
Whether he that was particularly called the wise man was of the number of the fathers, or only of this kind of judges, I shall not at present dispute, but leave the reader to judge from this story: "Rabban Simeon Ben Gamliel was the president of the Sanhedrim: R. Meir was chacam, or the wise man; and R. Nathan, the vice-governor." Now when Rabban Simeon had decreed something that disparaged R. Meir and R. Nathan, "Saith R. Meir to R. Nathan, I am the chacam [or the wise man], and thou art the vice-president. Let us remove Rabban Simeon from the presidency, then thou wilt be the president, and I the vice-president."
There is nothing more common, and yet nothing more difficult than that saying, "The school of Hillel saith so and so, and the school of Shammai so: but the wise men say otherwise." It is very obscure who these wise men should be. If we should say the Sanhedrim, it is plain that one part of it consisted of the Shammaeans, and another part of the Hillelites. If so, then it should seem that these wise men are those judges of whom we have spoken: unless you will assign a third part to the Sadducees, to whom you will hardly attribute the determination of the thing, and much less the emphatical title of the wise men. But this we leave undecided.
IV. Let us a little inquire out of the Sanhedrim; we shall find variety of scribes and doctors of the law, according to the variety of the law itself, and the variety of teaching it. Hence those various treatises amongst the Rabbins; the Micra, Misna, Midras, Talmud, Agadah, &c.
1. Micra, is the text of the Bible itself: its reading and literal explication.
2. Misna, the doctrine of traditions and their explication.
3. Midras, the mystic and allegorical doctrine and exposition of the Scriptures: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Now these were the ways and methods of preaching him:
I. As to the written law (for every one knows they had a twofold law, written and oral, as they call it), they had a twofold way of declaring it, viz., explaining and applying it according to the literal sense of it, for edification, exhortation, and comfort, as the apostle hath it; or else by drawing allegories, mysteries, and far-fetched notions out of it. As to the former way, the rulers of the synagogue seem to have respect to it in what they said to Paul and Barnabas: If ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. As to the latter, the instances are endless in the Jewish writings every where; so far, that they have even melted down the whole volume of the Scriptures into tradition and allegory.
It is not easily determined whether those preachers were so of a different order, that one should wholly addict himself to the plain and literal exposition and application of the Scriptures, the other only to the mystical and more abstruse way of teaching. There is no question but both these did frequently meet both in one preacher, and that in one and the same sermon: and indeed I cannot tell but that the word Agadah may sometimes denote both these ways of expounding and interpreting the law. When a certain person, being interrogated about certain traditions, could give no answer, the standers by said, Perhaps he is not skilled in the [traditional] doctrine: but he may be able to expound. And so they propound to him Daniel 10:21 to explain. To which that also agrees well enough, "The masters of the Agada or expositions, because they are 'Darshanin' [or profound searchers of the Scriptures], are honoured of all men, for they draw away the hearts of their auditors." Nor does that sound very differently as to the thing itself: On the sabbath day they discussed discussions [i.e. in the Scriptures, searching the Scriptures] "to the masters of families, who had been employed in their occasions all the week; and while they were expounding, they taught them the articles about things forbidden and things permitted them," &c.
To these kind of mystic and allegorical expositions of Scripture (if at least it be proper to call them expositions) they were so strangely bewitched, that they valued nothing more than a skill in tickling or rubbing the itching ears of their auditors with such trifles. Hence that passage, "R. Joshua said to R. Jochanan Ben Bruchah, and to R. Eleazar the blind, What new thing have you met with today in 'Beth Midras'? They answered and said, 'We are all thy disciples, and drink wholly at thy waters.' To whom he; 'It is impossible but you should meet with something novel every day in Beth Midras.'"
II. As to the oral law, there was also a twofold way of explaining it, as they had for the written law:
1. The former way we have intimated to us in these words: "The book of the Law, when it grows old, they lay up with one of the disciples of the wise men, even although he teach the traditions." The passage seems very obscure, but it is thus explained by the Gloss: "Albeit it doth not any way help the disciples of the wise men in Talmud and Gemara, but in Misnaioth and Beriathoth," that is, he that would only read the body of the traditional law, and render the literal sense of it,--and not he that would dispute scholastically, and comment upon it. For,
2. There were doctors that would inquire more deeply into the traditions, would give some accounts (such as they were), of them, would discuss difficulties, solve doubts, &c.; a specimen of which is the Talmudic Gemara throughout.
Lastly, amongst the learned, and doctors of that nation, there were the Agadici, who would expound the written law in a more profound way than ordinary, even to what was cabalistical. These were more rare, and (as it should seem) not so acceptable amongst the people. Whether these are concerned in what follows, let the reader judge: "R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, So and so let it happen to me, if in all my life I ever saw the book Agada above once; and then I found a hundred seventy-and-five sections of the law, where it is written, 'The Lord hath said, hath spoken, hath commanded.' They are according to the number of the years of our father Abraham, as it is said, To receive gifts for men, &c. A hundred forty-and-seven Psalms, which are in the Book of Psalms [mark the number] are according to the number of the years of our father Jacob; as it is written, 'Thou art holy, and inhabitest the praises of Israel.' A hundred twenty-and-three turns, wherein Israel answereth Hallelujah [to him that repeats the Hallel], are according to the number of the years of Aaron," &c. And as a coronis, let me add that passage in Sanhedrim, "If they be masters of the textual reading, they shall be conversant in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. If they be masters of the Misna, they shall be conversant in Misna Halacoth and Haggadoth. And if they be masters of the Talmud, they shall be conversant in the traditions of the Passover, in the Passover: in the traditions of Pentecost, in Pentecost: in the traditions of the feast of Tabernacles, in the feast of Tabernacles."
These all, whom we have mentioned, were scribes and doctors and expounders of the law; but which of these may properly and peculiarly challenge to themselves the title of lawyers, whether all, or any particular class of them? The latter is most probable: but then, what class will you choose? or will you distinguish betwixt the lawyer and the teacher of the law? I had rather the reader would frame his own judgment here. And yet, that I might not dismiss this question wholly untouched, and at the same time not weary the reader with too long a digression, I have referred what is to be alleged in this matter to my notes upon chapter 11:45.
26. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
[How readest thou?] An expression very common in the schools, What readest thou? when any person brought a text of Scripture for the proof of any thing. The Rabbins have a tradition, that the disease of the squinancy came into the world upon the account of tithes. (The Gloss hath it: "For eating of fruits that had not been tithed.") "R. Eliezer Ben R. Jose saith, 'It was for an evil tongue.' Rabba saith, and it is the saying also of R. Joshua Ben Levi, What readest thou? The king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by himself shall glory: for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped." And a little after, upon another subject: "R. Simeon Ben Gezirah saith, What or how readest thou? If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock": Canticles 1:8.
We will not be very curious in inquiring whether our Saviour used the very same form of speech, or any other. In this only he departs from their common use of speech, in that he calls to another to allege some text of Scripture; whereas it was usual in the schools that he that spoke that would allege some place himself.
27. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
[And with all thy mind.] In this answer of the man there are these two things observable:
I. That our Saviour brings in this clause, which in so many terms is not in Moses, where the rest are: where the Greek both of the Roman and Alexandrian edition render with all thy might. But wherein is mind? I pass by other copies, wherein though there is some varying, yet there is not this which is now before us.
Our Saviour hath the same clause elsewhere, but not in the same order; with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: here it is, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. What shall we say therefore? shall we suppose it writ to this sense in the Hebrew in their phylacteries? This we can hardly think. Was it added by the Greek interpreters, and so the evangelists take it from thence? we see it is not so. What then? doth might signify both strength and mind? Here, indeed, the hinge of the question turns. That it denotes strength, no one doubts; yea, and the Rabbins suppose it denotes Mammon too, with whom the Syriac and Targumist agree: but still, where doth it signify the mind?
1. Take such a Gloss as is frequently in use amongst the allegorizing doctors: With what measure he shall mete to thee, do thou praise him exceedingly. Where we see they play with the sound of words, which is a very common thing with them to do...
2. To this we may add, if we think fit, what they commonly require in all religious services; viz. the preparation and the intention of the mind...Moses' words, therefore, are rendered by the evangelists not strictly and according to the letter, as they are in him, or were in the parchments in the phylacteries; but both according to their full sense and tenour, as also according to the common and received interpretation of that nation.
"R. Levi Bar Chajothah went to Caesarea, and heard them reciting their 'Shemaa' [or their phylacteries] Hellenistically [i.e. in Greek]" &c. Now, whether the clause we are now handling was inserted there, it would be in vain to inquire, because not possible to find...
The second thing observable in this man's answer, is, that he adds, "And thy neighbour as thyself": which indeed was not written in the schedules of their phylacteries: otherwise I should have thought the man had understood those words of our Saviour, How readest thou? as if he had said, "How dost thou repeat the sentences of the phylacteries?" for he reciteth the sentence as it was in their phylacteries, only adding this clause, "And thy neighbour," &c. Now the usual expression for the recitation of their phylacteries was They read the 'Shemaa'; which also is so rendered by some when indeed they commonly repeat them without book. He that read the Book [of Esther] orally: i.e. as the Gemara explains it, "Without book," or "by heart." It is queried, "Why they repeat those two sections every day? R. Levi saith, Because the ten commandments [of the decalogue] are comprehended therein." And he shews further how they are comprehended, saving only (which is very observable) the second commandment. Afterward indeed they confess, "It was very fitting they should every day repeat the very decalogue itself; but they did not repeat it, lest the heretics should say, that only those commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai." However, they did repeat those passages wherein they supposed the decalogue was summed up.
Whether, therefore, this lawyer of ours understood the words of our Saviour as having respect to that usage of repeating their phylacteries; or whether he of his own accord, and according to his own opinion, would be giving the whole sum of the decalogue, he shews himself rather a textual than a traditional doctor, although the word lawyer, seems to point out the latter rather.
29. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
[And who is my neighbour?] This doubt and form of questioning he had learned out of the common school, where it is thus taught in Aruch. He excepts all Gentiles when he saith, His neighbour.
"An Israelite killing a stranger inhabitant, he doth not die for it by the Sanhedrim; because it is said, If any one lift up himself against his neighbour. And it is not necessary to say, He does not die upon the account of a Gentile: for they are not esteemed by them for their neighbour."
"The Gentiles, amongst whom and us there is no war, and so those that are keepers of sheep amongst the Israelites, and the like, we are not to contrive their death: but if they be in any danger of death, we are not bound to deliver them: e.g. If any of them fall into the sea, you shall not need to take him out: for it is said, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour; but such a one is not thy neighbour."
30. And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
[A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.] This was the most beaten and frequented road in the whole land of Israel, and that, not only as it led to Perea, but also upon the account of that great traffic that was between these two cities, especially because of the courses that were as well in Jericho as Jerusalem. Of which we have discoursed elsewhere. To which I shall superadd this passage out of Jerusalem Taanith: "The former prophets instituted four-and-twenty courses, and for every course there was a stationary class of priests, Levites, and Israelites in Jerusalem. It is a tradition: Four-and-twenty thousand was the stationary number out of Jerusalem, and half that station out of Jericho. Jericho could indeed have produced an entire station; but that it would give the preference to Jerusalem; and therefore it produced but half."
Here, therefore, you may see in this historical parable why there is such particular mention made of a priest and Levite travelling that way, because there was very frequent intercourse of this sort of men between these towns; and that upon the account of the stations above mentioned.
[He fell among thieves.] It is with great confidence I see, but upon what foundation I cannot see, that the commentators generally make Adummim the scene of this robbery above all other places. It is true, the road betwixt Jerusalem and Jericho was dangerous enough; and for that reason (as is commonly believed) there was placed a band of soldiers "betwixt Aelia and Jericho," for the safeguard of passengers: but whereas it is said that the place is called Adummim, i.e. a place of redness, from the blood that was spilt by robbers there, this seems to have very little force in it: because the place had that name of Adummim even in Joshua's days, when we can hardly suppose the times to have been so pestered with robberies as they were when our Saviour uttered this parable: see Joshua 15:7, where if we consider the situation of 'the going up to Adummim,' it will appear it was not very distant from Jericho.
[Half dead.] The Rabbins term it next to death; beyond which condition, on this side death, was only one just expiring.
31. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
[When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.] And why, I pray, priest and Levite, do ye thus pass by a man in such a miserable condition? Was he not an Israelite? It is true, ye had learned out of your own schools not to succour a Gentile, no, nor a keeper of sheep, though he was an Israelite: now was this wounded man such a one? or did ye think ye should have contracted some pollution by touching one half dead? The word passed by on the other side, seems to hint as if they passed by him, keeping their distance from him: let them tell the reason themselves. For my part, I would impute it wholly to the mere want of charity.
33. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him.
[But a certain Samaritan.] The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: that is, so as to be obliged by them for any courtesy done to them. But would this Jew, half dead, reject the kindness of the Samaritan at this time? This person being of a nation than which the Jews hated nothing more, is brought in shewing this kindness to the Jew, on purpose to give the plainer instance, who is our neighbour. It might seem more proper to have said, that the Samaritan acknowledged the wounded man for his neighbour in being so kind to him: but our Saviour intimates that he was the wounded man's neighbour; thereby teaching us that even a stranger, yea, an enemy (against the doctrine of their own schools), is no other than our neighbour.
34. And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
[Pouring in oil and wine.] It is a tradition. "They spread a plaster for the sick on the sabbath day: that is, upon condition they had mingled it with wine and oil on the evening of the sabbath. But if they have not mixed it on the sabbath, it is forbidden. A tradition. R. Simeon Ben Eliezer saith, That it is allowed by R. Meir, both to mingle the oil and the wine, and also to anoint the sick on the sabbath day."
35. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
[He took out two pence.] Aruch: "A shekel of the law is selaa, and is of the value of four pence." So that the half shekel is two pence: a price that was to be paid yearly by every one as a ransom for his soul or life. Whence, not unfitly, we see two pence are paid down for the recovery of this man's life that had been wounded and half dead.
[And gave them to the host.] The Rabbins retain this Greek word, however the author of Aruch calls it Ismaelitic, or Arabic. A tavern or inn (saith he), in the Ismaelitish language, is called 'pondak.' It is true, indeed, the Arabic version useth this word in this place; but it is well known whence it takes its original. "Two men went into an inn; one a just, the other a wicked man. They sat down apart. The wicked man saith to the host, 'Let me have one pheasant, and let me have conditum or hippocras.' The just man said to the host, 'Let me have a piece of bread and a dish of lentils.' The wicked man laughed the just man to scorn, 'See how this fool calls for lentils when he may have dainties.' On the contrary, the just man, 'See how this fool eateth, when his teeth are to be immediately dashed out.' The just man saith to the host, 'Give me two cups of wine, that I may bless them': he gave them him, and he blessed them, and rising up gave to the host a piece of money for the portion that he had eaten, and departed in peace. But there was a falling out betwixt the wicked man and his host about the reckoning, and the host dashed out his teeth."
38. Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
[Martha received him, &c.] Our Saviour is now at the feast of Tabernacles: and visits Bethany, where there had grown a friendship betwixt himself and Lazarus' family, upon his having cast out so many devils out of Mary his sister. For it is no foreign thing to suppose she was that Mary that was called Magdalene, because Bethany itself was called Magdala. As to the name Martha, see notes upon John 11: and as to the name Magdala, see notes upon John 12.
Luke 11
1. And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
[Teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.] What kind of request is this, that this disciple, whoever he is, doth here make? Was he ignorant of, or had he forgot, that form of prayer which the Lord had delivered to them in his sermon upon the mount? If he had not forgot it, why then doth he require any other? Doth he mean, 'Lord, teach us to pray, for John hath taught his disciples?' or thus, 'Teach us a form and rule of prayer like that which John had taught his?' This latter is the most probable; but then it is something uncertain what kind of form that might be which the disciples of John were taught. As to this inquiry, we may consider these things:
I. It is said of the disciples of John, They fast often, and make prayers, Luke 5:33: where, upon many accounts, I could persuade myself that prayers ought to be taken here in its most proper sense for supplications. To let other things pass, let us weigh these two:
1. That the Jews' daily and common prayers, ordinary and occasional, consisted chiefly of benedictions and doxologies, which the title of that Talmudic tract, which treats of their prayers, sufficiently testifies, being called [Beracoth] benedictions, as also that tephillah, the general nomenclature for prayer, signifies no other than praising, i.e. benediction or doxology. To illustrate this matter, we have a passage or two not unworthy our transcribing:
"Perhaps, a man begs for necessaries for himself, and afterward prayeth. This is that which is spoken by Solomon, when he saith, To the prayer, and to the supplication." I omit the version, because the Gemarists interpret it themselves; rinna is tephillah, and tephillah is bakkashah. Their meaning is this: The first word of Solomon's rinnah, signifies prayer (as the Gloss hath it, i.e. prayer with praise, or doxology) the latter word, tephillah, signifies petition, or supplication; Gloss, begging for things necessary.
It cannot be denied but that they had their petitionary or supplicatory prayers; but then, the benedictory or doxological prayers were more in number, and more large and copious: especially those which were poured out occasionally or upon present emergency. Read the last chapter of the treatise I newly quoted, and judge as to this particular: read the whole treatise, and then judge of the whole matter.
2. It may be reasonably supposed that the Baptist taught his disciples a form of prayer different from what the Jewish forms were. It stands with reason, that he that was to bring in a new doctrine, (I mean new in respect to that of the Jewish) should bring in a new way of prayer too; that is, a form of prayer that consisted more in petition and supplication than the Jewish forms had done; nay, and another sort of petitions than what those forms which were petitionary had hitherto contained. For the disciples of John had been instructed in the points of regeneration, justifying faith, particular adoption, and sanctification by the Spirit, and other doctrines of the gospel, which were altogether unknown in the schools or synagogues of the Jews. And who would imagine, therefore, that John Baptist should not teach his disciples to pray for these things?
II. It is probable, therefore, that when this disciple requested our Saviour that he would teach his disciples as John had done, he had respect to such kind of prayers as these; because we find Christ so far condescending to him, that he delivers him a form of prayer merely petitionary, as may appear both from the whole structure of the prayer, as also in that the last close of all the doxology, "For thine is the kingdom," &c. is here left wholly out; he took care to deliver [a form] that was merely supplicatory. This is confirmed by what follows concerning the man requesting some loaves of his neighbour, adding withal this exhortation, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find." Which two things seem to answer those two things by which supplicatory prayer is defined; these are sheelah, asking, and bakkashah, seeking: for if there may be any difference in the meaning of these two words, I would suppose it thus, bakkashah, or seeking, may respect the things of God; so, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God," &c.: and sheelah, or asking, may respect those things which are necessary for ourselves: which texture we find very equally divided in this present form of prayer, where the three first petitions are in behalf of God's honour, and the three last in behalf of our own necessaries.
It was in use amongst the Jews, when they fasted, to use a peculiar sort of prayer, joined with what were daily, terming it the prayer of the fast. This we have mentioned in Taanith, where it is disputed whether those that fasted for certain hours only, and not for the whole day, ought to repeat that prayer of the fast: as also, in what order and place that prayers is to be inserted amongst the daily ones. Now if it should be granted that John had taught his disciples any such form, that might be particularly adapted to their fastings, it is not very likely this disciple had any particular reference to that, because the disciples of Christ did not fast as the disciples of John did. It rather respected the whole frame of their prayers which he had instructed them in, which consisted chiefly of petitions and supplications.
Object. But probably this disciple was not ignorant that Christ had already delivered to them a petitionary form in that Sermon of his upon the Mount: and therefore what need had he to desire, and for what reason did he importune another?
Answer. It is likely he did know it; and as likely he did not expect the repetition of the same again: but being very intent upon what John had done for his disciples, did hope for a form more full and copious, that might more largely and particularly express what they were to ask for, according to what he had observed probably in the form that had been prescribed by John: but the divine wisdom of our Saviour knew, however, that all was sufficiently comprehended in what he had given them. And as the Jews had their short summary of those eighteen prayers epitomized, so would he have this form of his a short summary of all that we ought to ask for.
4. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
[And lead us not into temptation.] I am much deceived if this petition is not amongst other things, and indeed principally, and in the first place, directed against the visible apparitions of the devil, the evil one: as also his actual obsessions: by which the phrase of God's 'leading us into temptation' is very much softened.
The doxology, 'For thine is the kingdom,' &c., is left out, because it was our Saviour's intention in this place to deliver to them a form of prayer merely petitionary; for which very same reason also, Amen is omitted too. For he shall say Amen at thy giving of thanks: and indeed they commonly ended all their prayers, even those that consisted most of petition, with thanksgiving and benediction; concluding in this manner, "Blessed be thou, O Lord, who hast thus done, or thus commanded," or the like; and then was it answered by all, Amen. This we may observe in those Psalms that conclude any portion of that book, and end with Amen: upon what subject soever the Psalmist is engaged, either throughout the whole psalm, or immediately before the bringing forth of Amen, still he never doth mention Amen without some foregoing doxology and benediction, "Blessed be the Lord God, &c., Amen and Amen." In St. Matthew, therefore, we find Amen, because there is the doxology: in St. Luke it is wanting, because the doxology is so too. You may see more of this in notes upon Matthew 6.
15. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
[Through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.] I. As to this name of Beelzebub I have elsewhere discoursed, and do still assert the reading of it with the letter l in the end of it, viz. Beelzebul, against the Syriac, Persian, Vulgar, and other translations, which read it Beelzebub. The Italian, cautiously indeed, but not purely, Beelzebu, that he might not strike upon either the one or the other reading: but in the mean time I will not answer for the faithfulness and candour of the interpreter.
II. Amongst the Jews we may observe three devils called the chief, or prince of the devils: 1. 'The angel of death'; who is called Prince of all the Satans. 2. The devil Asmodeus: of him afterward. 3. Beelzebub, in this place. Now as to vindicating the writing of it by l in the end of the word, and not b:
III. It is a question whether there were such a thing as Beelzebub in rerum natura. Why should not the deity of the place take his farewell, when Ekron, the place of this deity, was wholly obliterated? When there was no more an idol nor oracle at Ekron, did not the demon cease to be Beelzebub any longer, although it did not cease to be a demon? Wherever, therefore, Ekron was under the second Temple, or the place where it had been under the first; you can hardly persuade me there was any idol or oracle of Beelzebub, and so not Beelzebub himself. I will not here dispute whether Achor, the Cyrenians' tutelar god against flies, hath any relation or affinity with the name of Ekron. Let it be granted that Beelzebub might change his soil upon some occasion, and remove from Ekron to Cyrene: but then how should he come to be the prince of the devils, when all his business and power was only among flies?
It may not be improbable, perhaps, that he might be first or chief of those demons, or Baalim, that Ahab brought among the Israelites; and so Ahaziah his son, in the midst of his affliction and danger, might fly for refuge to that idol as what had been the god of his father: but what is it could move the ages following at so long distance of time from this, that they should esteem this demon Beelzebub the prince of the devils? Here I confess myself not well satisfied: but as to Beelzebul, something may be said.
IV. I have already shewn, in notes upon Matthew 12, that the Jewish doctors (and such were these who contended with our Saviour) did give idolatrous worship the denomination of zebul, or dung, for the ignominy of the thing; and so was the nation generally taught by these Rabbins. I gave some instances for the proof of it, which I shall not here repeat, but add one more: "It is said of Joseph" [when his mistress would have tempted him to adultery], "that he came into the house to do his business. R. Judah saith, It was a day of fooling and of dunging, it was a day of theatres." Where the Gloss upon the word zebul, stercoration, saith thus: "It is a word of contempt, and so it is expounded by R. Solomon in the treatise Avodah Zarah, and Tosaphoth; viz. that fooling signifies to sacrifice [that is, to idols]; and they prove it out of Jerusalem Beracoth, where it is said, 'He that seeth a place where they dung [that is, offer sacrifice] to an idol, let him say, Whoso offereth sacrifice to strange gods, let him be accursed.'" Which words we have also alleged out of the Jerusalem Talmud.
V. Now therefore, when idolatry was denominated zebul amongst the Jews, and indeed reckoned amongst the most grievous of sins they could be guilty of, that devil whom they supposed to preside over this piece of wickedness they named him Beelzebub, and esteemed him the prince of the devils; or (if you will pardon the expression) the most devilized of all devils.
VI. They give the like title to the devil Asmodeus. Asmodeus the king of the devils. The devil, the prince of the spirits. Which elsewhere is expounded, the devil Asmodeus. For in both places we have this ridiculous tale: "There was a certain woman brought forth a son in the night-time, and said to her son [a child newly born you must know], 'go and light me a candle, that I may cut thy navel.' As he was going, the devil Asmodeus meeting him, said to him, 'Go and tell thy mother that if the cock had not crowed I would have killed thee,'" &c.
The very name points at 'apostasy,' not so much that the devil was an apostate, as that this devil provoked and enticed people to apostatize: Beelzebul amongst the Gentiles, and Asmodeus amongst the Jews, the first authors of their apostasy. Whether both the name and demon were not found out by the Jews to affright the Samaritans, see the place above quoted: "When as Noah went to plant a vineyard, the demon Asmodeus met him and said, Let me partake with thee," &c. So that it seems they suppose Asmodeus had a hand in Noah's drunkenness. "When he [that is, Solomon] sinned, Asmodeus drove him to it," &c. They call the angel of death by the name of prince of all Satans, because he destroys all mankind by death, none excepted.
31. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
[The queen of the south, &c.] I. I cannot but wonder what should be the meaning of that passage in Bava Bathra; Whoever saith that the queen of Sheba was a woman, doth no other than mistake. What then is the queen of Sheba? The kingdom of Sheba. Would he have the whole kingdom of the Sabeans to have come to Solomon? Perhaps what is said, that the queen of Sheba came with an exceeding great army (for so is that clause rendered by some), might seem to sound something of this nature in his ears. But if there was any kind of ambiguity in the word queen, as indeed there is none, or if interpreters doubted at all about it, as indeed none had done, the great oracle of truth hath here taught us that the queen did come to Solomon: but why doth he term her the queen of 'the south,' and not the queen of 'Sheba'?
II. There are plausible things upon this occasion spoken concerning Sheba of the Arabians, which we have no leisure to discuss at present. I am apt rather to apprehend that our Saviour may call her the queen of the south in much a like sense as the king of Egypt is called in Daniel 'the king of the south.' The countries in that quarter of the world were very well known amongst the Jews by that title: but I question whether the Arabian Saba were so or no. Grant that some of the Arabian countries be in later ages called Aliemin, or southern parts, yet I doubt whether so called by antiquity, or in the days of our Saviour.
Whereas it is said that the queen of the south came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, is it worth the patience of the reader to hear a little the folly of the Jews about this matter? Because it is said that she came to make a proof of his wisdom by dark sayings and hard questions, these doctors will be telling us what kind of riddles and hard questions she put to him. "She saith unto him, 'If I ask thee any thing, wilt thou answer me?' He said, 'It is the Lord that giveth wisdom.' She saith, 'What is this then? There are seven things go out and nine enter. Two mingle [or prepare] the cup, and one drinks of it.' He saith, 'There are seven days for a woman's separation, that go out; and nine months for her bringing forth, that come in. Two breasts do [mingle, or] prepare the cup, and one sucks it.' Again saith she, 'I will ask thee one thing more: What is this? A woman saith unto her son, Thy father was my father; thy grandfather was my husband; thou art my son, and I am thy sister.' To whom he answered, 'Surely they were Lot's daughters.'" There is much more of this kind, but thus much may suffice for riddles.
33. No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
[No man, when he hath lighted a candle, &c.] The coherence of this passage with what went before seems a little difficult, but the connection probably is this: there were some that had reviled him as if he had cast out devils by the prince of the devils, others that had required a sign from heaven, verses 15,16. To the former of these he gives an answer, verse 17,18: and, indeed, to both of them, verse 19, and so on. This passage we are upon respects both, but the latter more principally: q.d. "You require a sign of me: would you have me light a candle, and put it under a bushel? would you have me work miracles, when I am assured beforehand you will not believe these miracles? Which, however of themselves they may shine like a candle lighted up, yet, in respect to you that believe them not, it is no other than a candle under a bushel, or in a secret place."
36. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.
[The whole shall be full of light.] This clause seems so much the same with the former, as if there were something of tautology; If thy whole body therefore be full of light, &c. Our Saviour speaketh of the eye, after the manner of the schools, where the evil eye, or the eye not single, signified the covetous, envious, and malicious mind: "Do not bring such a mind along with thee, but a candid, benign, gentle mind; then thou wilt be all bright and clear thyself, and all things will be bright and clear to thee. If you had but such a mind, O ye carping, blasphemous Jews, you would not frame so sordid and infamous a judgment of my miracles; but you would have a clear and candid opinion concerning them."
38. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.
[That he had not first washed before dinner.] Had the Pharisee himself washed before dinner, in that sense wherein washed signifies the washing of the whole body? It is hardly credible, when there was neither need, nor was it the custom, to wash the whole body before meat, but the hands only. This we have spoken largelier upon elsewhere [Matt 15; Mark 7]; from whence it will be necessary for us to repeat these things; that there is a washing of the hands, and there is a dipping of the hands. This clause we are upon refers to this latter. The Pharisee wonders that Christ had not washed his hands; nay, that he had not dipped them all over in the water when he was newly come from the people that were gathered thick together.
Of how great esteem this washing their hands before meat was amongst them, besides what I have alleged elsewhere, take this one instance more: "It is storied of R. Akibah, that he was bound in prison, and R. Joshua ministered unto him as his reader. He daily brought him water by measure. One day the keeper of the prison met him, and said unto him, 'Thou hast too much water today.' He poured out half, and gave him half. When he came to R. Akibah, he told him the whole matter. R. Akibah saith unto him, 'Give me some water to wash my hands': the other saith unto him, 'There is not enough for thee to drink; and how then shouldest thou have any to wash thine hands?' To whom he, 'What shall I do in a matter wherein there is the guilt of death? It is better I should die [that is, by thirst] than that I should transgress the mind of my colleagues'": who had thus prescribed about washing of hands.
And a little after; Samuel saith, "At that time wherein Solomon instituted the 'Erubhin' and washing of the hands, there came forth 'Bath Kol,' and said, 'My son, if thy heart be wise, even mine shall rejoice.'" Observe here, (at least if you will believe it) that Solomon was the first author of this washing of hands. "Whosoever blesseth immediately after the washing of hands, Satan doth not accuse him for that time of his repast."
39. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
[Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter, &c.] This our Saviour speaks of the persons, and not of the vessels; which is plain, in that,
I. He saith, your inward parts, &c.; so that the sense is to this purpose: You cleanse yourselves outwardly indeed by these kinds of washings; but that which is within you is full of rapine, &c.
II. Whereas he saith, he that made that which is without, he doth not speak it of the artificer that made the cup or the platter, but of God. Else what kind of argument is this? 'He that made the cups and the platters, made both the outside and the inside of them': what then? 'Therefore do ye make yourselves clean both outside and inside too.' But if we refer it to God, then the argument holds forcibly enough: 'Did not God, that made you without, make you within too? he expects, therefore, that you should keep yourselves clean, not only as to your outside, but as to your inside too.'
III. It is hardly probable that the Pharisees should wash the outside of the cup or platter, and not the inside too. Take but these two passages out of this kind of authors themselves: "Those dishes which any person eats out of over night, they wash them, that he may eat in them in the morning. In the morning they wash them, that he may eat in them at noon. At noon, that he may eat in them at the mincha. After the mincha, he doth not wash them again; but the cups, and jugs, and bottles, he doth wash, and so it goes throughout the whole day," &c. I will not give myself nor reader the trouble to examine the meaning of the words: it suffices that here is mention only of washing, and that the whole vessel, not of this or that part only: and the washing of such vessels was by dipping them in water.
"All vessels that have an outside and an inside, if the inside be defiled, the outside is also; but if the outside be defiled, the inside is not defiled." One would think this was to our purpose, and asserted the very literal sense of the words we have in hand, viz. that the cups and the platters, although they were unclean on the outside, yet in the inside they might be clean; and it was sufficient to the Pharisee, if he cleansed them on the outside only. But the vessels here mentioned (if the Gloss may be our interpreter) are such as they might use both the outside and the inside indifferently. Some of them are recited by the Gemarists, viz. sacks, wallets, nightcaps, pillowcases, &c.
Our Saviour, therefore, does not here speak according to the letter, neither here nor in Matthew 23:25, when he saith, "Ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter"; but by way of parable and similitude. 'You, while you are so very nice and officious in your external washings, you do nothing more than if you only washed the outside of the cup or dish, while there was nothing but filth and nastiness within.'
40. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?
[Ye fools.] A word very common to the nation. "Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai said to the Baithuseans, Ye fools, how prove you this?" "Esau said, Cain was a fool. Pharaoh said, Esau was a fool. Haman said, Pharaoh was a fool. Gog and Magog will say, They were all fools that are gone before us." Hence that common phrase, O thou most foolish thing in all the world.
41. But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
[But rather give alms of such things as ye have.] This seems ironically spoken, and in derision to the opinion they had concerning alms.
1. As to the version of the word of such things, may we not suppose it signifies not only, that which is over and above, as the Vulgar, but also all that you have, as Beza: or not only something that may have respect to the riches of this world, but something also that may have respect to the doctrines and tenets of the Pharisees. As if the meaning was this, "'Those things which are amongst you,' i.e. which obtain commonly amongst you, are to this purpose, 'Give but alms, and all things are clean unto you.'" ...
II. However, that which is over and above, or that which you have, (for I will not be very tenacious in this) yet it is hardly probable that our Saviour utters this as his own, but rather as the words and opinion of the Pharisees. Nor do I think that he speaks these things directly, or by way of directions to them, but that he cites their tenets in mere scoff and displeasure. For indeed, this principle was the spawn of their own schools, that giving of alms had a value in it that served for atonement, justification, salvation, every thing. Hence that common term that reached so comprehensively, righteousness. And hence is it that, in those numberless places in the Holy Scriptures, where the praises of justice and righteousness are celebrated, and all the blessings of it pronounced, they apply it all to the giving of alms. Take on instance for all: "Rabh Asai saith, Alms is equivalent to all the other commandments." "R. Judah saith, Giving of alms is a great thing; for it hastens our redemption. It is written, righteousness, [i.e., giving of alms], delivers from death. Almsgiving, delivereth from sudden death, and from the judgment of hell. R. Meir saith, If any wicked man should make this objection, that if your God love the poor, why doth he not feed them? do thou make this answer; it is, that we by them might be delivered from the judgment of hell."
I fear, indeed, that the Greek interpreters have a touch of this, when they so oftentimes render justice by giving of alms. So that the reader may judge whether our Saviour either would teach, that rapine, injustice, and unrighteousness might be cleansed by giving of alms; or that he would give them any counsel of this nature, when he knew they were sufficiently tinctured with this kind of doctrine already.
45. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.
[Then answered one of the lawyers.] Here seems a little difficulty, that whereas, in the foregoing verse it is said, "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees," it is not subjoined then answered one of the scribes, but one of the lawyers; which scruple perhaps the Vulgar observing, made him leave scribes and Pharisees wholly out. Our Saviour inveighs more peculiarly, and by name, against the Pharisees, verses 37,42,43; and at length joins the scribes with them, verse 44. Hence that lawyer cavils and complains, either that he had named the scribes in terms, or that he had accused the Pharisees of nothing but what the scribes might be equally accused of. As to this very scribe, did not he wash his hands before dinner as the Pharisees did? for it is said of all the Jews, "except they wash their hands oft, eat not." Did not the scribe tithe mint and rue as well as the Pharisee? when we find that the tithing of herbs was instituted by the Rabbins. In a word, the scribes and the Pharisees go hand in hand in that discourse of our Saviour's, Matthew 23; where he blameth both the one and the other for the same things. So that it is plain enough why this man complains; but it is not so plain why he should be termed "one of the lawyers," and not "one of the scribes."
I. It is not very easy distinguishing betwixt the scribe and the Pharisee, unless that Pharisaism was a kind of tumour and excrescence as to superstition and austerities of religion beyond the common and stated practice of that nation, even of the scribes themselves. Whether that distinction betwixt singular, and a disciple, hints any difference as to the austerity of religion, I cannot affirm; I will only lay a passage or two in the reader's eye for him to consider.
"The Rabbins have a tradition, Let no one say, I am a Disciple, I am not fit to be made a Singular." The Gloss hath it, "I am not fit to begin the fasts with the Singulars." And the Gemara a little after; "The Rabbins have a tradition: Every one that would make himself a Singular, let him not make himself so: but if any one would make himself a Disciple, let him." And at length; It is not lawful for a Disciple of the Wise to continue in fastings, because he diminisheth from the work of God: that is, he ceaseth from learning and teaching.
One would here think, that it is plainly distinguished betwixt a Pharisee and any other; and yet the Gemarists, in the very same place, say thus, All the Disciples of the Wise are Singulars. At length they query, "Who is a Singular, and who is a Disciple? A Singular is he that is worthy to be preferred to be a pastor of a synagogue. A Disciple is he, who if they ask him any thing concerning a tradition in his doctrine, he hath wherewithal to answer." So that by a Disciple they mean not him that is now learning, but him who hath already learned and now teacheth; but, in other places, they apply both these to the Disciple.
"R. Jochanan saith, Who is a Disciple of the Wise? he whom they prefer to be pastor of a synagogue: he who, if they ask him about any tradition in any place, hath wherewithal to answer." The difference between these, however confounded in this place, was this: that the Disciple could answer doubts and questions fetched out of that place or from that subject upon which he had taught or read; but the Singular, could answer all doubts raised from any place, even out of the treatise concerning marriages. That mention of the pastor and the teacher, Ephesians 4:11, we seem to have some shadow of it here: the Disciple is the teacher, and the Singular is the pastor of the synagogue: and perhaps if these things were observed, it might give some light into that place of the apostle.
II. As the Disciple and the Singular are sometimes confounded, sometimes distinguished, so also is the scribe and the Pharisee. They are sometimes confounded; for many of the Pharisees were scribes: and they are sometimes distinguished; for many of them were of the common people, and not scribes. Perhaps it may not be improperly said, that there were Pharisees that were of the clergy, and Pharisees that were of the laity. He whom we have now before us was a scribe, but not a Pharisee; but it is not easy to give the reason why he is termed a lawyer and not a scribe. Here is some place for conjecture, but not for demonstration. As to conjecture, therefore, let us make a little essay in this matter.
I. I conceive that the lawyer and teacher of the law, may be opposed to the Sadducees to whom the Pharisee is diametrically opposite; for they were contrary to them in their practice of the traditional rites as much as they could; and these again abundantly contrary to them in traditional doctrines. The Sadducees had, indeed, their scribes or their teachers, as well as any other party: and there is frequent mention of the scribes of the Sadducees. And from this antithesis, probably, is Rabban Gamaliel termed a doctor of law. For there was then an assembly of the 'sect of the Sadducees,' verse 17: and when Gamaliel, who was of the other sect, made his speech amongst them, it is easy to conceive why he is there termed a doctor of law. For the same reason we may suppose the person here before us might be called one of the lawyers, and not a scribe, because there were scribes even amongst the Sadducees.
II. I conceive, therefore, that the lawyers and teachers of the law were the traditionary doctors of the law. As to Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, the thing is without dispute: and if there were any difference between the lawyers and doctors of the law, yet as to this matter, I suppose there was none. Let us consider this following passage: "It is a tradition: R. Simeon Ben Jochai saith, He that is conversant, in the textual exposition of the law, hath a measure, which is not a measure. He that is conversant in Misna, hath a measure, from whence they receive a reward: but if he be conversant in the Talmud, there is not a greater measure than this. Always betake yourself to the Misna rather than the Talmud. But R. Jose Ben R. Bon saith, This which thou sayest, obtained before the Rabbi had mixed with it manifold traditions: but from the time that he mixed with it manifold traditions, always have recourse to the Talmud rather than to the Misna."
Now, I pray, who is he that, according to this tradition, merits most the title of a doctor of law? He that is conversant in the exposition and interpretation of the written law, and the context of it, alas! he doth but little; and for all the oil and labour he hath spent, hath only a measure, which is not a measure. But he that is conversant in the Misna and Talmud, in the traditional doctrine or exposition of the traditional law, he bears away the bell; he hath some reward for his pains, and is dignified with the title of doctor.
III. If there were any distinction betwixt doctors of tradition and doctors of law (which I hardly believe), we may suppose it might be this; either that the doctor of law had his school and his disciples, and the doctor of tradition had none; or that the doctor of tradition was conversant in the Misna, or the plain and literal exposition of traditions, and the doctor of law, in the Talmud, or a more profound and scholastic way of teaching.
However, be there this distinction betwixt them, or some other, or indeed none at all, yet I presume they were both doctors of traditions, and expounders of that which they called the oral law, in opposition to the scribes, whether amongst the Jews or the Sadducees, who employed themselves in the textual exposition of the law.
46. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
[And ye yourselves touch not (the burdens) with one of your fingers.] That the lawyers (as we have already said) were the doctors of traditions, is a little confirmed by this, that what our Saviour reproacheth them for were merely traditionals: this particularly, that they laded men with such 'yokes of traditions,' and yet they themselves would not touch or move them with one of their fingers.
This exposition indeed vulgarly obtains, 'You lay grievous burdens upon others, which in the meantime you indulge yourselves in, and will not undergo them by any means.' This interpretation I cannot but admit; but yet must inquire whether there be not something more included it. For whereas 'he that would prescribe light things to himself, and burdensome to others,' was commonly accounted and called a wicked cunning fellow: and whereas there is frequent mention of this or that Rabbin, who would lay this or that burden upon himself, which he would acquit others of; it may be a question, whether this exposition, so commonly received, doth indeed speak out the whole sense and meaning of these words.
I apprehend, therefore, our Saviour might not only rebuke the remissness and indulgence they gave themselves, but further their strictness and tenaciousness about their own decrees. They made light of the commandments of God, at their own pleasure; but would never diminish the least tittle of their own. That they might remove or take away any part of the divine law, they employ both hands; but as to their own constitutions, they will not move one finger.
49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
[Therefore also said the wisdom of God.] This form of speaking agreeth well enough with that so much in use, the rule of judgment saith. Amongst numberless instances, take that of the Targumist; "Is it fitting that the daughters of Israel should eat the fruit of their own womb? The rule of judgment [retributive justice] answered and said, Was it also fitting to kill a priest and a prophet in the sanctuary of the Lord, as ye killed Zacharias," &c.
51. From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
[Unto the blood of Zacharias.] If our Saviour had not in the evangelist St. Matthew added "the son of Barachias," no one could have doubted that it referred to any other than Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, whose slaughter is recorded 2 Chronicles 24. It is certain the Jews own no other Zacharias slain in the Temple but himself: and what they say of his slaughter, I have already taken notice upon that place in St. Matthew out of both the Talmuds. We meet with the same things in Midras Echah, and Midras Coheleth: out of which last give me leave briefly to transcribe these passages:
"The blood of Zachary boiled up two hundred and fifty-two years, from the days of Joash to the days of Zedekiah. What did they do? They swept into it all the dust [of the court] and made a heap; yet it ceased not, but still boiled and bubbled up. The Holy Blessed God said to the blood, Behold the time is come that thou exact [that was, Let the Lord behold, and require it at your hands]. When Nebuzaradan came and inquired, what this matter was; they answered, That it was the blood of heifers, and rams, and lambs, which they had sacrificed. Afterward, when he came to understand what the matter was, he slew eighty thousand priests, and yet the blood would not stanch, but broke out and flowed as far as the tomb of Zachary. He brought together, therefore, the Sanhedrim, both the Great and Less, and slew them over that blood, and yet it did not cease," &c.
I hardly indeed think that those that relate this matter did really believe it to have been actually so; but only would by such flowers of rhetoric and strained hyperboles, paint out the horrible guilt of the murder of Zacharias; which by how much the more horrible it was, by so much the more did it agree with the guilt of the murder of our blessed Lord.
And however a great part of it in these relations of theirs may be mere flourish, yet by the whole framing of the thing, it must needs be observed, that the slaughter of this Zacharias was so famous and rooted in the minds of that people generally, that when our Saviour speaks of one Zacharias, slain between the Temple and the altar, it cannot be imagined that they could understand him pointing at any other than this very man. As for his father being here called Barachias, and not Jehoiada, we have spoken to that matter elsewhere.
If any one hesitate about the changing of the name, let him say by what name he finds Jehoiada recited in that catalogue of priests set down in 1 Chronicles 6. It must be either some other name, or else we must suppose him wholly left out of that number. If by another name, you will say (supposing he be also called Barachias) he was then a man of three names. This indeed is no unusual thing with that nation for some to have more names than one: nay, if you will believe the Jewish doctors, even Moses himself had no less than ten.
52. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
[Ye have taken away the key of knowledge.] Should we render it, Ye have taken the key of knowledge, (that is, to yourselves) or, Ye have taken it away; there is not much difference. They took the key of knowledge to themselves, when they arrogated to themselves only all profoundness of wisdom and learning, hereby indeed taking it away from the people, because they taught them nothing but trifling and idle stuff.
The word for key in their language brings to mind the word which was so very much in use amongst them for one that was teaching. Instances of this were endless: there are enough of it in that long preface prefixed to that Midras Threnorum, that hath for its title, The opening of the wise; where (as indeed almost everywhere else), it is so frequently said, R. such a one 'opened'; for I cannot tell how better to render it...
[Teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.] What kind of request is this, that this disciple, whoever he is, doth here make? Was he ignorant of, or had he forgot, that form of prayer which the Lord had delivered to them in his sermon upon the mount? If he had not forgot it, why then doth he require any other? Doth he mean, 'Lord, teach us to pray, for John hath taught his disciples?' or thus, 'Teach us a form and rule of prayer like that which John had taught his?' This latter is the most probable; but then it is something uncertain what kind of form that might be which the disciples of John were taught. As to this inquiry, we may consider these things:
I. It is said of the disciples of John, They fast often, and make prayers, Luke 5:33: where, upon many accounts, I could persuade myself that prayers ought to be taken here in its most proper sense for supplications. To let other things pass, let us weigh these two:
1. That the Jews' daily and common prayers, ordinary and occasional, consisted chiefly of benedictions and doxologies, which the title of that Talmudic tract, which treats of their prayers, sufficiently testifies, being called [Beracoth] benedictions, as also that tephillah, the general nomenclature for prayer, signifies no other than praising, i.e. benediction or doxology. To illustrate this matter, we have a passage or two not unworthy our transcribing:
"Perhaps, a man begs for necessaries for himself, and afterward prayeth. This is that which is spoken by Solomon, when he saith, To the prayer, and to the supplication." I omit the version, because the Gemarists interpret it themselves; rinna is tephillah, and tephillah is bakkashah. Their meaning is this: The first word of Solomon's rinnah, signifies prayer (as the Gloss hath it, i.e. prayer with praise, or doxology) the latter word, tephillah, signifies petition, or supplication; Gloss, begging for things necessary.
It cannot be denied but that they had their petitionary or supplicatory prayers; but then, the benedictory or doxological prayers were more in number, and more large and copious: especially those which were poured out occasionally or upon present emergency. Read the last chapter of the treatise I newly quoted, and judge as to this particular: read the whole treatise, and then judge of the whole matter.
2. It may be reasonably supposed that the Baptist taught his disciples a form of prayer different from what the Jewish forms were. It stands with reason, that he that was to bring in a new doctrine, (I mean new in respect to that of the Jewish) should bring in a new way of prayer too; that is, a form of prayer that consisted more in petition and supplication than the Jewish forms had done; nay, and another sort of petitions than what those forms which were petitionary had hitherto contained. For the disciples of John had been instructed in the points of regeneration, justifying faith, particular adoption, and sanctification by the Spirit, and other doctrines of the gospel, which were altogether unknown in the schools or synagogues of the Jews. And who would imagine, therefore, that John Baptist should not teach his disciples to pray for these things?
II. It is probable, therefore, that when this disciple requested our Saviour that he would teach his disciples as John had done, he had respect to such kind of prayers as these; because we find Christ so far condescending to him, that he delivers him a form of prayer merely petitionary, as may appear both from the whole structure of the prayer, as also in that the last close of all the doxology, "For thine is the kingdom," &c. is here left wholly out; he took care to deliver [a form] that was merely supplicatory. This is confirmed by what follows concerning the man requesting some loaves of his neighbour, adding withal this exhortation, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find." Which two things seem to answer those two things by which supplicatory prayer is defined; these are sheelah, asking, and bakkashah, seeking: for if there may be any difference in the meaning of these two words, I would suppose it thus, bakkashah, or seeking, may respect the things of God; so, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God," &c.: and sheelah, or asking, may respect those things which are necessary for ourselves: which texture we find very equally divided in this present form of prayer, where the three first petitions are in behalf of God's honour, and the three last in behalf of our own necessaries.
It was in use amongst the Jews, when they fasted, to use a peculiar sort of prayer, joined with what were daily, terming it the prayer of the fast. This we have mentioned in Taanith, where it is disputed whether those that fasted for certain hours only, and not for the whole day, ought to repeat that prayer of the fast: as also, in what order and place that prayers is to be inserted amongst the daily ones. Now if it should be granted that John had taught his disciples any such form, that might be particularly adapted to their fastings, it is not very likely this disciple had any particular reference to that, because the disciples of Christ did not fast as the disciples of John did. It rather respected the whole frame of their prayers which he had instructed them in, which consisted chiefly of petitions and supplications.
Object. But probably this disciple was not ignorant that Christ had already delivered to them a petitionary form in that Sermon of his upon the Mount: and therefore what need had he to desire, and for what reason did he importune another?
Answer. It is likely he did know it; and as likely he did not expect the repetition of the same again: but being very intent upon what John had done for his disciples, did hope for a form more full and copious, that might more largely and particularly express what they were to ask for, according to what he had observed probably in the form that had been prescribed by John: but the divine wisdom of our Saviour knew, however, that all was sufficiently comprehended in what he had given them. And as the Jews had their short summary of those eighteen prayers epitomized, so would he have this form of his a short summary of all that we ought to ask for.
4. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
[And lead us not into temptation.] I am much deceived if this petition is not amongst other things, and indeed principally, and in the first place, directed against the visible apparitions of the devil, the evil one: as also his actual obsessions: by which the phrase of God's 'leading us into temptation' is very much softened.
The doxology, 'For thine is the kingdom,' &c., is left out, because it was our Saviour's intention in this place to deliver to them a form of prayer merely petitionary; for which very same reason also, Amen is omitted too. For he shall say Amen at thy giving of thanks: and indeed they commonly ended all their prayers, even those that consisted most of petition, with thanksgiving and benediction; concluding in this manner, "Blessed be thou, O Lord, who hast thus done, or thus commanded," or the like; and then was it answered by all, Amen. This we may observe in those Psalms that conclude any portion of that book, and end with Amen: upon what subject soever the Psalmist is engaged, either throughout the whole psalm, or immediately before the bringing forth of Amen, still he never doth mention Amen without some foregoing doxology and benediction, "Blessed be the Lord God, &c., Amen and Amen." In St. Matthew, therefore, we find Amen, because there is the doxology: in St. Luke it is wanting, because the doxology is so too. You may see more of this in notes upon Matthew 6.
15. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
[Through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.] I. As to this name of Beelzebub I have elsewhere discoursed, and do still assert the reading of it with the letter l in the end of it, viz. Beelzebul, against the Syriac, Persian, Vulgar, and other translations, which read it Beelzebub. The Italian, cautiously indeed, but not purely, Beelzebu, that he might not strike upon either the one or the other reading: but in the mean time I will not answer for the faithfulness and candour of the interpreter.
II. Amongst the Jews we may observe three devils called the chief, or prince of the devils: 1. 'The angel of death'; who is called Prince of all the Satans. 2. The devil Asmodeus: of him afterward. 3. Beelzebub, in this place. Now as to vindicating the writing of it by l in the end of the word, and not b:
III. It is a question whether there were such a thing as Beelzebub in rerum natura. Why should not the deity of the place take his farewell, when Ekron, the place of this deity, was wholly obliterated? When there was no more an idol nor oracle at Ekron, did not the demon cease to be Beelzebub any longer, although it did not cease to be a demon? Wherever, therefore, Ekron was under the second Temple, or the place where it had been under the first; you can hardly persuade me there was any idol or oracle of Beelzebub, and so not Beelzebub himself. I will not here dispute whether Achor, the Cyrenians' tutelar god against flies, hath any relation or affinity with the name of Ekron. Let it be granted that Beelzebub might change his soil upon some occasion, and remove from Ekron to Cyrene: but then how should he come to be the prince of the devils, when all his business and power was only among flies?
It may not be improbable, perhaps, that he might be first or chief of those demons, or Baalim, that Ahab brought among the Israelites; and so Ahaziah his son, in the midst of his affliction and danger, might fly for refuge to that idol as what had been the god of his father: but what is it could move the ages following at so long distance of time from this, that they should esteem this demon Beelzebub the prince of the devils? Here I confess myself not well satisfied: but as to Beelzebul, something may be said.
IV. I have already shewn, in notes upon Matthew 12, that the Jewish doctors (and such were these who contended with our Saviour) did give idolatrous worship the denomination of zebul, or dung, for the ignominy of the thing; and so was the nation generally taught by these Rabbins. I gave some instances for the proof of it, which I shall not here repeat, but add one more: "It is said of Joseph" [when his mistress would have tempted him to adultery], "that he came into the house to do his business. R. Judah saith, It was a day of fooling and of dunging, it was a day of theatres." Where the Gloss upon the word zebul, stercoration, saith thus: "It is a word of contempt, and so it is expounded by R. Solomon in the treatise Avodah Zarah, and Tosaphoth; viz. that fooling signifies to sacrifice [that is, to idols]; and they prove it out of Jerusalem Beracoth, where it is said, 'He that seeth a place where they dung [that is, offer sacrifice] to an idol, let him say, Whoso offereth sacrifice to strange gods, let him be accursed.'" Which words we have also alleged out of the Jerusalem Talmud.
V. Now therefore, when idolatry was denominated zebul amongst the Jews, and indeed reckoned amongst the most grievous of sins they could be guilty of, that devil whom they supposed to preside over this piece of wickedness they named him Beelzebub, and esteemed him the prince of the devils; or (if you will pardon the expression) the most devilized of all devils.
VI. They give the like title to the devil Asmodeus. Asmodeus the king of the devils. The devil, the prince of the spirits. Which elsewhere is expounded, the devil Asmodeus. For in both places we have this ridiculous tale: "There was a certain woman brought forth a son in the night-time, and said to her son [a child newly born you must know], 'go and light me a candle, that I may cut thy navel.' As he was going, the devil Asmodeus meeting him, said to him, 'Go and tell thy mother that if the cock had not crowed I would have killed thee,'" &c.
The very name points at 'apostasy,' not so much that the devil was an apostate, as that this devil provoked and enticed people to apostatize: Beelzebul amongst the Gentiles, and Asmodeus amongst the Jews, the first authors of their apostasy. Whether both the name and demon were not found out by the Jews to affright the Samaritans, see the place above quoted: "When as Noah went to plant a vineyard, the demon Asmodeus met him and said, Let me partake with thee," &c. So that it seems they suppose Asmodeus had a hand in Noah's drunkenness. "When he [that is, Solomon] sinned, Asmodeus drove him to it," &c. They call the angel of death by the name of prince of all Satans, because he destroys all mankind by death, none excepted.
31. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
[The queen of the south, &c.] I. I cannot but wonder what should be the meaning of that passage in Bava Bathra; Whoever saith that the queen of Sheba was a woman, doth no other than mistake. What then is the queen of Sheba? The kingdom of Sheba. Would he have the whole kingdom of the Sabeans to have come to Solomon? Perhaps what is said, that the queen of Sheba came with an exceeding great army (for so is that clause rendered by some), might seem to sound something of this nature in his ears. But if there was any kind of ambiguity in the word queen, as indeed there is none, or if interpreters doubted at all about it, as indeed none had done, the great oracle of truth hath here taught us that the queen did come to Solomon: but why doth he term her the queen of 'the south,' and not the queen of 'Sheba'?
II. There are plausible things upon this occasion spoken concerning Sheba of the Arabians, which we have no leisure to discuss at present. I am apt rather to apprehend that our Saviour may call her the queen of the south in much a like sense as the king of Egypt is called in Daniel 'the king of the south.' The countries in that quarter of the world were very well known amongst the Jews by that title: but I question whether the Arabian Saba were so or no. Grant that some of the Arabian countries be in later ages called Aliemin, or southern parts, yet I doubt whether so called by antiquity, or in the days of our Saviour.
Whereas it is said that the queen of the south came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, is it worth the patience of the reader to hear a little the folly of the Jews about this matter? Because it is said that she came to make a proof of his wisdom by dark sayings and hard questions, these doctors will be telling us what kind of riddles and hard questions she put to him. "She saith unto him, 'If I ask thee any thing, wilt thou answer me?' He said, 'It is the Lord that giveth wisdom.' She saith, 'What is this then? There are seven things go out and nine enter. Two mingle [or prepare] the cup, and one drinks of it.' He saith, 'There are seven days for a woman's separation, that go out; and nine months for her bringing forth, that come in. Two breasts do [mingle, or] prepare the cup, and one sucks it.' Again saith she, 'I will ask thee one thing more: What is this? A woman saith unto her son, Thy father was my father; thy grandfather was my husband; thou art my son, and I am thy sister.' To whom he answered, 'Surely they were Lot's daughters.'" There is much more of this kind, but thus much may suffice for riddles.
33. No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
[No man, when he hath lighted a candle, &c.] The coherence of this passage with what went before seems a little difficult, but the connection probably is this: there were some that had reviled him as if he had cast out devils by the prince of the devils, others that had required a sign from heaven, verses 15,16. To the former of these he gives an answer, verse 17,18: and, indeed, to both of them, verse 19, and so on. This passage we are upon respects both, but the latter more principally: q.d. "You require a sign of me: would you have me light a candle, and put it under a bushel? would you have me work miracles, when I am assured beforehand you will not believe these miracles? Which, however of themselves they may shine like a candle lighted up, yet, in respect to you that believe them not, it is no other than a candle under a bushel, or in a secret place."
36. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.
[The whole shall be full of light.] This clause seems so much the same with the former, as if there were something of tautology; If thy whole body therefore be full of light, &c. Our Saviour speaketh of the eye, after the manner of the schools, where the evil eye, or the eye not single, signified the covetous, envious, and malicious mind: "Do not bring such a mind along with thee, but a candid, benign, gentle mind; then thou wilt be all bright and clear thyself, and all things will be bright and clear to thee. If you had but such a mind, O ye carping, blasphemous Jews, you would not frame so sordid and infamous a judgment of my miracles; but you would have a clear and candid opinion concerning them."
38. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.
[That he had not first washed before dinner.] Had the Pharisee himself washed before dinner, in that sense wherein washed signifies the washing of the whole body? It is hardly credible, when there was neither need, nor was it the custom, to wash the whole body before meat, but the hands only. This we have spoken largelier upon elsewhere [Matt 15; Mark 7]; from whence it will be necessary for us to repeat these things; that there is a washing of the hands, and there is a dipping of the hands. This clause we are upon refers to this latter. The Pharisee wonders that Christ had not washed his hands; nay, that he had not dipped them all over in the water when he was newly come from the people that were gathered thick together.
Of how great esteem this washing their hands before meat was amongst them, besides what I have alleged elsewhere, take this one instance more: "It is storied of R. Akibah, that he was bound in prison, and R. Joshua ministered unto him as his reader. He daily brought him water by measure. One day the keeper of the prison met him, and said unto him, 'Thou hast too much water today.' He poured out half, and gave him half. When he came to R. Akibah, he told him the whole matter. R. Akibah saith unto him, 'Give me some water to wash my hands': the other saith unto him, 'There is not enough for thee to drink; and how then shouldest thou have any to wash thine hands?' To whom he, 'What shall I do in a matter wherein there is the guilt of death? It is better I should die [that is, by thirst] than that I should transgress the mind of my colleagues'": who had thus prescribed about washing of hands.
And a little after; Samuel saith, "At that time wherein Solomon instituted the 'Erubhin' and washing of the hands, there came forth 'Bath Kol,' and said, 'My son, if thy heart be wise, even mine shall rejoice.'" Observe here, (at least if you will believe it) that Solomon was the first author of this washing of hands. "Whosoever blesseth immediately after the washing of hands, Satan doth not accuse him for that time of his repast."
39. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
[Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter, &c.] This our Saviour speaks of the persons, and not of the vessels; which is plain, in that,
I. He saith, your inward parts, &c.; so that the sense is to this purpose: You cleanse yourselves outwardly indeed by these kinds of washings; but that which is within you is full of rapine, &c.
II. Whereas he saith, he that made that which is without, he doth not speak it of the artificer that made the cup or the platter, but of God. Else what kind of argument is this? 'He that made the cups and the platters, made both the outside and the inside of them': what then? 'Therefore do ye make yourselves clean both outside and inside too.' But if we refer it to God, then the argument holds forcibly enough: 'Did not God, that made you without, make you within too? he expects, therefore, that you should keep yourselves clean, not only as to your outside, but as to your inside too.'
III. It is hardly probable that the Pharisees should wash the outside of the cup or platter, and not the inside too. Take but these two passages out of this kind of authors themselves: "Those dishes which any person eats out of over night, they wash them, that he may eat in them in the morning. In the morning they wash them, that he may eat in them at noon. At noon, that he may eat in them at the mincha. After the mincha, he doth not wash them again; but the cups, and jugs, and bottles, he doth wash, and so it goes throughout the whole day," &c. I will not give myself nor reader the trouble to examine the meaning of the words: it suffices that here is mention only of washing, and that the whole vessel, not of this or that part only: and the washing of such vessels was by dipping them in water.
"All vessels that have an outside and an inside, if the inside be defiled, the outside is also; but if the outside be defiled, the inside is not defiled." One would think this was to our purpose, and asserted the very literal sense of the words we have in hand, viz. that the cups and the platters, although they were unclean on the outside, yet in the inside they might be clean; and it was sufficient to the Pharisee, if he cleansed them on the outside only. But the vessels here mentioned (if the Gloss may be our interpreter) are such as they might use both the outside and the inside indifferently. Some of them are recited by the Gemarists, viz. sacks, wallets, nightcaps, pillowcases, &c.
Our Saviour, therefore, does not here speak according to the letter, neither here nor in Matthew 23:25, when he saith, "Ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter"; but by way of parable and similitude. 'You, while you are so very nice and officious in your external washings, you do nothing more than if you only washed the outside of the cup or dish, while there was nothing but filth and nastiness within.'
40. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?
[Ye fools.] A word very common to the nation. "Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai said to the Baithuseans, Ye fools, how prove you this?" "Esau said, Cain was a fool. Pharaoh said, Esau was a fool. Haman said, Pharaoh was a fool. Gog and Magog will say, They were all fools that are gone before us." Hence that common phrase, O thou most foolish thing in all the world.
41. But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
[But rather give alms of such things as ye have.] This seems ironically spoken, and in derision to the opinion they had concerning alms.
1. As to the version of the word of such things, may we not suppose it signifies not only, that which is over and above, as the Vulgar, but also all that you have, as Beza: or not only something that may have respect to the riches of this world, but something also that may have respect to the doctrines and tenets of the Pharisees. As if the meaning was this, "'Those things which are amongst you,' i.e. which obtain commonly amongst you, are to this purpose, 'Give but alms, and all things are clean unto you.'" ...
II. However, that which is over and above, or that which you have, (for I will not be very tenacious in this) yet it is hardly probable that our Saviour utters this as his own, but rather as the words and opinion of the Pharisees. Nor do I think that he speaks these things directly, or by way of directions to them, but that he cites their tenets in mere scoff and displeasure. For indeed, this principle was the spawn of their own schools, that giving of alms had a value in it that served for atonement, justification, salvation, every thing. Hence that common term that reached so comprehensively, righteousness. And hence is it that, in those numberless places in the Holy Scriptures, where the praises of justice and righteousness are celebrated, and all the blessings of it pronounced, they apply it all to the giving of alms. Take on instance for all: "Rabh Asai saith, Alms is equivalent to all the other commandments." "R. Judah saith, Giving of alms is a great thing; for it hastens our redemption. It is written, righteousness, [i.e., giving of alms], delivers from death. Almsgiving, delivereth from sudden death, and from the judgment of hell. R. Meir saith, If any wicked man should make this objection, that if your God love the poor, why doth he not feed them? do thou make this answer; it is, that we by them might be delivered from the judgment of hell."
I fear, indeed, that the Greek interpreters have a touch of this, when they so oftentimes render justice by giving of alms. So that the reader may judge whether our Saviour either would teach, that rapine, injustice, and unrighteousness might be cleansed by giving of alms; or that he would give them any counsel of this nature, when he knew they were sufficiently tinctured with this kind of doctrine already.
45. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.
[Then answered one of the lawyers.] Here seems a little difficulty, that whereas, in the foregoing verse it is said, "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees," it is not subjoined then answered one of the scribes, but one of the lawyers; which scruple perhaps the Vulgar observing, made him leave scribes and Pharisees wholly out. Our Saviour inveighs more peculiarly, and by name, against the Pharisees, verses 37,42,43; and at length joins the scribes with them, verse 44. Hence that lawyer cavils and complains, either that he had named the scribes in terms, or that he had accused the Pharisees of nothing but what the scribes might be equally accused of. As to this very scribe, did not he wash his hands before dinner as the Pharisees did? for it is said of all the Jews, "except they wash their hands oft, eat not." Did not the scribe tithe mint and rue as well as the Pharisee? when we find that the tithing of herbs was instituted by the Rabbins. In a word, the scribes and the Pharisees go hand in hand in that discourse of our Saviour's, Matthew 23; where he blameth both the one and the other for the same things. So that it is plain enough why this man complains; but it is not so plain why he should be termed "one of the lawyers," and not "one of the scribes."
I. It is not very easy distinguishing betwixt the scribe and the Pharisee, unless that Pharisaism was a kind of tumour and excrescence as to superstition and austerities of religion beyond the common and stated practice of that nation, even of the scribes themselves. Whether that distinction betwixt singular, and a disciple, hints any difference as to the austerity of religion, I cannot affirm; I will only lay a passage or two in the reader's eye for him to consider.
"The Rabbins have a tradition, Let no one say, I am a Disciple, I am not fit to be made a Singular." The Gloss hath it, "I am not fit to begin the fasts with the Singulars." And the Gemara a little after; "The Rabbins have a tradition: Every one that would make himself a Singular, let him not make himself so: but if any one would make himself a Disciple, let him." And at length; It is not lawful for a Disciple of the Wise to continue in fastings, because he diminisheth from the work of God: that is, he ceaseth from learning and teaching.
One would here think, that it is plainly distinguished betwixt a Pharisee and any other; and yet the Gemarists, in the very same place, say thus, All the Disciples of the Wise are Singulars. At length they query, "Who is a Singular, and who is a Disciple? A Singular is he that is worthy to be preferred to be a pastor of a synagogue. A Disciple is he, who if they ask him any thing concerning a tradition in his doctrine, he hath wherewithal to answer." So that by a Disciple they mean not him that is now learning, but him who hath already learned and now teacheth; but, in other places, they apply both these to the Disciple.
"R. Jochanan saith, Who is a Disciple of the Wise? he whom they prefer to be pastor of a synagogue: he who, if they ask him about any tradition in any place, hath wherewithal to answer." The difference between these, however confounded in this place, was this: that the Disciple could answer doubts and questions fetched out of that place or from that subject upon which he had taught or read; but the Singular, could answer all doubts raised from any place, even out of the treatise concerning marriages. That mention of the pastor and the teacher, Ephesians 4:11, we seem to have some shadow of it here: the Disciple is the teacher, and the Singular is the pastor of the synagogue: and perhaps if these things were observed, it might give some light into that place of the apostle.
II. As the Disciple and the Singular are sometimes confounded, sometimes distinguished, so also is the scribe and the Pharisee. They are sometimes confounded; for many of the Pharisees were scribes: and they are sometimes distinguished; for many of them were of the common people, and not scribes. Perhaps it may not be improperly said, that there were Pharisees that were of the clergy, and Pharisees that were of the laity. He whom we have now before us was a scribe, but not a Pharisee; but it is not easy to give the reason why he is termed a lawyer and not a scribe. Here is some place for conjecture, but not for demonstration. As to conjecture, therefore, let us make a little essay in this matter.
I. I conceive that the lawyer and teacher of the law, may be opposed to the Sadducees to whom the Pharisee is diametrically opposite; for they were contrary to them in their practice of the traditional rites as much as they could; and these again abundantly contrary to them in traditional doctrines. The Sadducees had, indeed, their scribes or their teachers, as well as any other party: and there is frequent mention of the scribes of the Sadducees. And from this antithesis, probably, is Rabban Gamaliel termed a doctor of law. For there was then an assembly of the 'sect of the Sadducees,' verse 17: and when Gamaliel, who was of the other sect, made his speech amongst them, it is easy to conceive why he is there termed a doctor of law. For the same reason we may suppose the person here before us might be called one of the lawyers, and not a scribe, because there were scribes even amongst the Sadducees.
II. I conceive, therefore, that the lawyers and teachers of the law were the traditionary doctors of the law. As to Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, the thing is without dispute: and if there were any difference between the lawyers and doctors of the law, yet as to this matter, I suppose there was none. Let us consider this following passage: "It is a tradition: R. Simeon Ben Jochai saith, He that is conversant, in the textual exposition of the law, hath a measure, which is not a measure. He that is conversant in Misna, hath a measure, from whence they receive a reward: but if he be conversant in the Talmud, there is not a greater measure than this. Always betake yourself to the Misna rather than the Talmud. But R. Jose Ben R. Bon saith, This which thou sayest, obtained before the Rabbi had mixed with it manifold traditions: but from the time that he mixed with it manifold traditions, always have recourse to the Talmud rather than to the Misna."
Now, I pray, who is he that, according to this tradition, merits most the title of a doctor of law? He that is conversant in the exposition and interpretation of the written law, and the context of it, alas! he doth but little; and for all the oil and labour he hath spent, hath only a measure, which is not a measure. But he that is conversant in the Misna and Talmud, in the traditional doctrine or exposition of the traditional law, he bears away the bell; he hath some reward for his pains, and is dignified with the title of doctor.
III. If there were any distinction betwixt doctors of tradition and doctors of law (which I hardly believe), we may suppose it might be this; either that the doctor of law had his school and his disciples, and the doctor of tradition had none; or that the doctor of tradition was conversant in the Misna, or the plain and literal exposition of traditions, and the doctor of law, in the Talmud, or a more profound and scholastic way of teaching.
However, be there this distinction betwixt them, or some other, or indeed none at all, yet I presume they were both doctors of traditions, and expounders of that which they called the oral law, in opposition to the scribes, whether amongst the Jews or the Sadducees, who employed themselves in the textual exposition of the law.
46. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
[And ye yourselves touch not (the burdens) with one of your fingers.] That the lawyers (as we have already said) were the doctors of traditions, is a little confirmed by this, that what our Saviour reproacheth them for were merely traditionals: this particularly, that they laded men with such 'yokes of traditions,' and yet they themselves would not touch or move them with one of their fingers.
This exposition indeed vulgarly obtains, 'You lay grievous burdens upon others, which in the meantime you indulge yourselves in, and will not undergo them by any means.' This interpretation I cannot but admit; but yet must inquire whether there be not something more included it. For whereas 'he that would prescribe light things to himself, and burdensome to others,' was commonly accounted and called a wicked cunning fellow: and whereas there is frequent mention of this or that Rabbin, who would lay this or that burden upon himself, which he would acquit others of; it may be a question, whether this exposition, so commonly received, doth indeed speak out the whole sense and meaning of these words.
I apprehend, therefore, our Saviour might not only rebuke the remissness and indulgence they gave themselves, but further their strictness and tenaciousness about their own decrees. They made light of the commandments of God, at their own pleasure; but would never diminish the least tittle of their own. That they might remove or take away any part of the divine law, they employ both hands; but as to their own constitutions, they will not move one finger.
49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
[Therefore also said the wisdom of God.] This form of speaking agreeth well enough with that so much in use, the rule of judgment saith. Amongst numberless instances, take that of the Targumist; "Is it fitting that the daughters of Israel should eat the fruit of their own womb? The rule of judgment [retributive justice] answered and said, Was it also fitting to kill a priest and a prophet in the sanctuary of the Lord, as ye killed Zacharias," &c.
51. From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
[Unto the blood of Zacharias.] If our Saviour had not in the evangelist St. Matthew added "the son of Barachias," no one could have doubted that it referred to any other than Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, whose slaughter is recorded 2 Chronicles 24. It is certain the Jews own no other Zacharias slain in the Temple but himself: and what they say of his slaughter, I have already taken notice upon that place in St. Matthew out of both the Talmuds. We meet with the same things in Midras Echah, and Midras Coheleth: out of which last give me leave briefly to transcribe these passages:
"The blood of Zachary boiled up two hundred and fifty-two years, from the days of Joash to the days of Zedekiah. What did they do? They swept into it all the dust [of the court] and made a heap; yet it ceased not, but still boiled and bubbled up. The Holy Blessed God said to the blood, Behold the time is come that thou exact [that was, Let the Lord behold, and require it at your hands]. When Nebuzaradan came and inquired, what this matter was; they answered, That it was the blood of heifers, and rams, and lambs, which they had sacrificed. Afterward, when he came to understand what the matter was, he slew eighty thousand priests, and yet the blood would not stanch, but broke out and flowed as far as the tomb of Zachary. He brought together, therefore, the Sanhedrim, both the Great and Less, and slew them over that blood, and yet it did not cease," &c.
I hardly indeed think that those that relate this matter did really believe it to have been actually so; but only would by such flowers of rhetoric and strained hyperboles, paint out the horrible guilt of the murder of Zacharias; which by how much the more horrible it was, by so much the more did it agree with the guilt of the murder of our blessed Lord.
And however a great part of it in these relations of theirs may be mere flourish, yet by the whole framing of the thing, it must needs be observed, that the slaughter of this Zacharias was so famous and rooted in the minds of that people generally, that when our Saviour speaks of one Zacharias, slain between the Temple and the altar, it cannot be imagined that they could understand him pointing at any other than this very man. As for his father being here called Barachias, and not Jehoiada, we have spoken to that matter elsewhere.
If any one hesitate about the changing of the name, let him say by what name he finds Jehoiada recited in that catalogue of priests set down in 1 Chronicles 6. It must be either some other name, or else we must suppose him wholly left out of that number. If by another name, you will say (supposing he be also called Barachias) he was then a man of three names. This indeed is no unusual thing with that nation for some to have more names than one: nay, if you will believe the Jewish doctors, even Moses himself had no less than ten.
52. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
[Ye have taken away the key of knowledge.] Should we render it, Ye have taken the key of knowledge, (that is, to yourselves) or, Ye have taken it away; there is not much difference. They took the key of knowledge to themselves, when they arrogated to themselves only all profoundness of wisdom and learning, hereby indeed taking it away from the people, because they taught them nothing but trifling and idle stuff.
The word for key in their language brings to mind the word which was so very much in use amongst them for one that was teaching. Instances of this were endless: there are enough of it in that long preface prefixed to that Midras Threnorum, that hath for its title, The opening of the wise; where (as indeed almost everywhere else), it is so frequently said, R. such a one 'opened'; for I cannot tell how better to render it...
Luke 12
1. In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
[When there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people.] There is no one would understand this in the very letter of it; as if the number of the people here present were at least twenty thousand, but a very great number. So Acts 21:20: How many myriads of Jews which believe.
This probably denotes the mighty success of the seventy disciples preaching the gospel, who had so clearly and effectually taught concerning Christ, and told them of the place that he had determined to come to, that the people had flocked together in those vast numbers, ready upon all occasions to meet him, when they heard the Messias was making his approaches to this or that town.
3. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
[That which ye have spoken in the ear.] I have elsewhere spoken of a doctor whispering in the ear of his interpreter. The reason of this usage is given us in Chagigah, because the law is delivered silently; and the reason of this is, it is delivered silently, because of Satan.
However, these words are not to be understood of any such kind of whispering into the ears of the interpreter, but concerning any matter that may have been spoken in never so much secrecy and design not to have been known again. The doctor whispered into the ear of the interpreter to that end, that his disciples might publish what he had said. But here is meant, whatever any had the greatest purpose to conceal, yet God will reveal it; not much unlike that passage in Ecclesiastes 10:20. Our Saviour intimates the folly as well as the wickedness of dissimulation, because in time the visor shall be taken off, and the most dissembled hypocrisy exposed to naked view.
6. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?
[Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings?] Two sparrows were sold for one farthing, and five for two. We find that doves were sold in the Temple upon the account of women in childbed, and their issues of blood, by whom a pair of turtles and young pigeons were to be offered, if they had not wherewithal to present a more costly sacrifice. So probably the sparrows were likely to be sold upon the account of lepers, in the cleansing of whom they were made use of, Leviticus 14:4. I confess the Greek version in this place hath not two sparrows, but two little birds. And yet if you will believe the far-fetched reason that R. Solomon gives, you will easily imagine that they are sparrows that are pointed at: "The leprosy (saith he) came upon mankind for an evil tongue, that is, for too much garrulity of words: and therefore in the cleansing of it they used sparrows that are always chirping and chattering with their voice."
[And not one of them is forgotten before God.] "R. Simeon Ben Jochai standing at the mouth of his cave [wherein he lay hid for the space of thirteen years], he saw a certain man catching of birds. And when he heard Bath Kol out of heaven, saying, 'Mercy, mercy,' the birds escaped: but when he heard Bath Kol saying, 'The pain of death,' then was the bird taken. He saith, therefore, A bird is not taken without God, much less the life of a man." This passage is also recited in Midras Tillin, but the circumstances vary.
9. But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
[But he that denieth me, &c.] consider whether in these words and in the following verse, our blessed Saviour do not point at those two unpardonable sins, apostasy, or denying and renouncing of Christ, and blasphemy, or the sin against the Holy Ghost. The first is called "a sin unto death." And so, in truth and in the event, is the latter too. I find them, indeed, confounded by some, who discourse upon the sin against the Holy Ghost, when yet this difference may be observed, viz., that apostasy cannot properly be charged on any but who have already professed Christianity: but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was uttered by the scribes and Pharisees at that time that they disowned and rejected Christ.
13. And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
[That he divide the inheritance with me.] I. In the titles of brethren this obtained amongst them, that as the eldest was called the firstborn so the younger was called simple, because without the title of firstborn. It seems to be only two brethren here betwixt whom the complaint is made, but which of them is the complainant it is not so easy to determine. You will say the younger most probably, because it is more likely that the firstborn should wrong the younger, than the younger the firstborn. And yet in that court of judicature which they called "the court of Thou draw and I'll draw," the younger might be troublesome to the firstborn as well as the firstborn to the younger. That matter was thus:
"When a father had bequeathed to his firstborn and younger son a servant and an unclean beast," which could not be parted in two, then saith the one to the other, "Do thou draw, or I'll draw"; that is, Do thou redeem thy share, or I will redeem mine. Now here the younger brother may be perverse, and as well hinder the redemption as the firstborn.
II. In the division of inheritances how many vexations and quarrels may arise, both reason and common experience do abundantly teach us. The Rabbins are very large upon this head; and suppose that great controversies may arise either from the testament of the father, or the nature of the inheritance, or the quality of the sons; as if the younger son be a disciple of the wise men, and the elder not; if the younger be made a proselyte, the elder a Gentile, &c. But in the instance now before us, the complaint or controversy is not about dividing but about not dividing; because the firstborn most probably would not gratify the younger in that thing.
The judges in that case was the bench of the Triumviri. These were the judges, in the controversy, and decreed concerning the right or equity of dividing: and either some were appointed by them, or some chosen by those between whom the cause depended, as arbiters in the case, and these were the dividers, those that took care as to the equality of the division. Now we cannot easily suppose what should move this man to appeal to our Saviour as judge in this matter, unless either himself or brother, or both, were of the number of his disciples.
19. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
[Soul, take thine ease, eat, drink, &c.] "When the church is in distress, let not any man then say, 'I will go into mine house, and will eat and drink, and peace be to thee, O my soul.' For if any one shall so do, it is written of him, 'Behold joy, and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die.' But what follows? 'It was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged away from you till you die.'" And what if he should so say and do when the church is not in distress?
20. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
[This night thy soul shall be required of thee.] However this following story hath something in it that may be laughed at, yet hath it something in it that is serious enough: "The Rabbins say, It fell out in the days of R. Simeon Ben Chalaphta, that he went to a certain circumcision, and there feasted. The father of the infant gave them old wine, wine of seven years old, to drink, and said unto them, 'With this wine will I grow old in the joy of my son.' They feasted together till midnight. R. Simeon Ben Chalaphta trusting to his own virtue, went out at midnight to go into the city: in the way he finds the angel of death, and observes him very sad: saith he to him, 'Who art thou?' He saith, 'I am the messenger of the Lord': 'And why then (saith he) art thou so sad?' He saith unto him, 'I am sad for the speeches of those who say, I will do this or that ere long, though they know not how quickly they may be called away by death. That man with whom thou hast been feasting, and that boasted amongst you, With this wine I will grow old in the joy of my son; behold the time draws nigh, that within thirty days he must be snatched away.' He saith unto him, 'Do thou let me know my time.' To whom he answered, 'Over thee, and such as thou art, we have no power; for God, being delighted with good works, prolongeth your lives.'"
24. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?
[Neither storehouse nor barn.] The storehouse is where they laid up their fruits, and the barn where they laid up their grain. It is commonly rendered the floor, but there it is meant the barn-floor. Our Saviour takes an instance from God feeding the ravens, Job 38:41; Psalm 147:9, where it is R. Solomon's remark: "Our Rabbins observe, that the raven is cruel towards its young; but God pitieth them, and provides them flies, that breed out of their own dung." Now the reason they give why the old ones are so unmerciful to their own young is in Chetubboth, where the Gloss thus explains the minds of the Gemarists speaking of the young ones both white and black: "When they grow black the old ones begin to love their young, but while they are all white they loathe them."
In that very place there occurs this passage, not unworthy our transcribing: "There was a certain man brought before Rabh Judah because he refused to provide for his children. Saith he to those that brought him, The dragon brings forth, and lays her young in the town to be nourished up. When he was brought to Rabh Chasda, he saith unto them, 'Compel him to the door of the synagogue, and there let him stand, and say, The raven seeks her young ones, but this man doth not seek [or own] his children.' But doth the raven seek her young ones? Behold it is written, God feedeth the ravens which cry unto him. This hath no difficulty in it. This is said of them while they are white, that 'God feeds them': but that is said of them when they are become black, that 'the raven owneth her young.'" But the Gloss hath it thus: "It seems as if he with his own voice should cry out against himself, and say, 'The raven owneth her young.' But there are those that expound it as if the minister of the synagogue should set him forth and proclaim upon him, The raven acknowledgeth her young, but this man rejects his own children." "Tell it to the church," Matthew 18:17.
30. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
[The nations of the world, &c.] The nations of the world is a very common form of speech amongst the Jews, by which they express the Gentiles, or all other nations beside themselves...
37. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
[He will come forth and serve them.] He that serves at the table goes about while the guests sit. He will come forth seems to denote the same thing here; unless it may refer to some such thing as this, viz. that the master will pass by his dignity, and condescend to minister to his own servants.
38. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
[In the second watch, and in the third.] In the very dead watches of all, at least, if there be not a solecism in speech. At the first watch they went to bed; and at the fourth watch, the time of getting up again came on: so that the second and the third watch was the very dead time of sleep.
47. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
[Shall be beaten with many stripes.] There was a stated number of stripes, and that twas forty, beyond which no malefactor, condemned by the judges to that punishment, ought to receive. Whence that passage seems a little strange: "He that kills a heifer, and afterward two of that heifer's calves, let him be beaten with fourscore stripes." How so? fourscore, when they ought not to exceed above forty? They might not exceed that number for one single crime: but if the crime was doubled, they might double the punishment. And it may be a question, whether they did not double their accusations upon St. Paul, when they multiplied their stripes, he himself telling us, that five times he had received forty stripes save one.
But did every one that was adjudged by the court to stripes, did they always receive that number exactly, of thirty-nine? no doubt the number was more or less, according to the nature of the crime. Which seems to be hinted in Pesachin; He that eateth the 'potitha' [some creeping thing of the sea], "let him be beaten with four stripes: He that eateth a pismire, let him be beaten with five: He that eateth a hornet, let him have six." If this be the sense of the words, then here may arise a question, with what kind of scourge they were beaten? If with that scourge of three cords that was used when they gave nine-and-thirty stripes, repeating their strokes by a scourge of three cords thirteen times, how then could they inflict four or five stripes with such a scourge as that was?
But as to the number of stripes which the master might inflict upon his slave, that was not stated, but left to the pleasure of the master, according to the nature of the crime: which seems hinted at in these words of our Saviour, and in the following rule amongst the Jews, some kind of measure still being attended to:
"It is allowed to deal with a Canaanite [that is, a Gentile] slave with severity. But though this is de jure, yet there is a law of mercy, and rule of wisdom, that a man should be gentle, pursuing righteousness, not making the yoke heavy upon his servant, lest he afflict him."
49. I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
[When there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people.] There is no one would understand this in the very letter of it; as if the number of the people here present were at least twenty thousand, but a very great number. So Acts 21:20: How many myriads of Jews which believe.
This probably denotes the mighty success of the seventy disciples preaching the gospel, who had so clearly and effectually taught concerning Christ, and told them of the place that he had determined to come to, that the people had flocked together in those vast numbers, ready upon all occasions to meet him, when they heard the Messias was making his approaches to this or that town.
3. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
[That which ye have spoken in the ear.] I have elsewhere spoken of a doctor whispering in the ear of his interpreter. The reason of this usage is given us in Chagigah, because the law is delivered silently; and the reason of this is, it is delivered silently, because of Satan.
However, these words are not to be understood of any such kind of whispering into the ears of the interpreter, but concerning any matter that may have been spoken in never so much secrecy and design not to have been known again. The doctor whispered into the ear of the interpreter to that end, that his disciples might publish what he had said. But here is meant, whatever any had the greatest purpose to conceal, yet God will reveal it; not much unlike that passage in Ecclesiastes 10:20. Our Saviour intimates the folly as well as the wickedness of dissimulation, because in time the visor shall be taken off, and the most dissembled hypocrisy exposed to naked view.
6. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?
[Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings?] Two sparrows were sold for one farthing, and five for two. We find that doves were sold in the Temple upon the account of women in childbed, and their issues of blood, by whom a pair of turtles and young pigeons were to be offered, if they had not wherewithal to present a more costly sacrifice. So probably the sparrows were likely to be sold upon the account of lepers, in the cleansing of whom they were made use of, Leviticus 14:4. I confess the Greek version in this place hath not two sparrows, but two little birds. And yet if you will believe the far-fetched reason that R. Solomon gives, you will easily imagine that they are sparrows that are pointed at: "The leprosy (saith he) came upon mankind for an evil tongue, that is, for too much garrulity of words: and therefore in the cleansing of it they used sparrows that are always chirping and chattering with their voice."
[And not one of them is forgotten before God.] "R. Simeon Ben Jochai standing at the mouth of his cave [wherein he lay hid for the space of thirteen years], he saw a certain man catching of birds. And when he heard Bath Kol out of heaven, saying, 'Mercy, mercy,' the birds escaped: but when he heard Bath Kol saying, 'The pain of death,' then was the bird taken. He saith, therefore, A bird is not taken without God, much less the life of a man." This passage is also recited in Midras Tillin, but the circumstances vary.
9. But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
[But he that denieth me, &c.] consider whether in these words and in the following verse, our blessed Saviour do not point at those two unpardonable sins, apostasy, or denying and renouncing of Christ, and blasphemy, or the sin against the Holy Ghost. The first is called "a sin unto death." And so, in truth and in the event, is the latter too. I find them, indeed, confounded by some, who discourse upon the sin against the Holy Ghost, when yet this difference may be observed, viz., that apostasy cannot properly be charged on any but who have already professed Christianity: but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was uttered by the scribes and Pharisees at that time that they disowned and rejected Christ.
13. And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
[That he divide the inheritance with me.] I. In the titles of brethren this obtained amongst them, that as the eldest was called the firstborn so the younger was called simple, because without the title of firstborn. It seems to be only two brethren here betwixt whom the complaint is made, but which of them is the complainant it is not so easy to determine. You will say the younger most probably, because it is more likely that the firstborn should wrong the younger, than the younger the firstborn. And yet in that court of judicature which they called "the court of Thou draw and I'll draw," the younger might be troublesome to the firstborn as well as the firstborn to the younger. That matter was thus:
"When a father had bequeathed to his firstborn and younger son a servant and an unclean beast," which could not be parted in two, then saith the one to the other, "Do thou draw, or I'll draw"; that is, Do thou redeem thy share, or I will redeem mine. Now here the younger brother may be perverse, and as well hinder the redemption as the firstborn.
II. In the division of inheritances how many vexations and quarrels may arise, both reason and common experience do abundantly teach us. The Rabbins are very large upon this head; and suppose that great controversies may arise either from the testament of the father, or the nature of the inheritance, or the quality of the sons; as if the younger son be a disciple of the wise men, and the elder not; if the younger be made a proselyte, the elder a Gentile, &c. But in the instance now before us, the complaint or controversy is not about dividing but about not dividing; because the firstborn most probably would not gratify the younger in that thing.
The judges in that case was the bench of the Triumviri. These were the judges, in the controversy, and decreed concerning the right or equity of dividing: and either some were appointed by them, or some chosen by those between whom the cause depended, as arbiters in the case, and these were the dividers, those that took care as to the equality of the division. Now we cannot easily suppose what should move this man to appeal to our Saviour as judge in this matter, unless either himself or brother, or both, were of the number of his disciples.
19. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
[Soul, take thine ease, eat, drink, &c.] "When the church is in distress, let not any man then say, 'I will go into mine house, and will eat and drink, and peace be to thee, O my soul.' For if any one shall so do, it is written of him, 'Behold joy, and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die.' But what follows? 'It was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged away from you till you die.'" And what if he should so say and do when the church is not in distress?
20. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
[This night thy soul shall be required of thee.] However this following story hath something in it that may be laughed at, yet hath it something in it that is serious enough: "The Rabbins say, It fell out in the days of R. Simeon Ben Chalaphta, that he went to a certain circumcision, and there feasted. The father of the infant gave them old wine, wine of seven years old, to drink, and said unto them, 'With this wine will I grow old in the joy of my son.' They feasted together till midnight. R. Simeon Ben Chalaphta trusting to his own virtue, went out at midnight to go into the city: in the way he finds the angel of death, and observes him very sad: saith he to him, 'Who art thou?' He saith, 'I am the messenger of the Lord': 'And why then (saith he) art thou so sad?' He saith unto him, 'I am sad for the speeches of those who say, I will do this or that ere long, though they know not how quickly they may be called away by death. That man with whom thou hast been feasting, and that boasted amongst you, With this wine I will grow old in the joy of my son; behold the time draws nigh, that within thirty days he must be snatched away.' He saith unto him, 'Do thou let me know my time.' To whom he answered, 'Over thee, and such as thou art, we have no power; for God, being delighted with good works, prolongeth your lives.'"
24. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?
[Neither storehouse nor barn.] The storehouse is where they laid up their fruits, and the barn where they laid up their grain. It is commonly rendered the floor, but there it is meant the barn-floor. Our Saviour takes an instance from God feeding the ravens, Job 38:41; Psalm 147:9, where it is R. Solomon's remark: "Our Rabbins observe, that the raven is cruel towards its young; but God pitieth them, and provides them flies, that breed out of their own dung." Now the reason they give why the old ones are so unmerciful to their own young is in Chetubboth, where the Gloss thus explains the minds of the Gemarists speaking of the young ones both white and black: "When they grow black the old ones begin to love their young, but while they are all white they loathe them."
In that very place there occurs this passage, not unworthy our transcribing: "There was a certain man brought before Rabh Judah because he refused to provide for his children. Saith he to those that brought him, The dragon brings forth, and lays her young in the town to be nourished up. When he was brought to Rabh Chasda, he saith unto them, 'Compel him to the door of the synagogue, and there let him stand, and say, The raven seeks her young ones, but this man doth not seek [or own] his children.' But doth the raven seek her young ones? Behold it is written, God feedeth the ravens which cry unto him. This hath no difficulty in it. This is said of them while they are white, that 'God feeds them': but that is said of them when they are become black, that 'the raven owneth her young.'" But the Gloss hath it thus: "It seems as if he with his own voice should cry out against himself, and say, 'The raven owneth her young.' But there are those that expound it as if the minister of the synagogue should set him forth and proclaim upon him, The raven acknowledgeth her young, but this man rejects his own children." "Tell it to the church," Matthew 18:17.
30. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
[The nations of the world, &c.] The nations of the world is a very common form of speech amongst the Jews, by which they express the Gentiles, or all other nations beside themselves...
37. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
[He will come forth and serve them.] He that serves at the table goes about while the guests sit. He will come forth seems to denote the same thing here; unless it may refer to some such thing as this, viz. that the master will pass by his dignity, and condescend to minister to his own servants.
38. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
[In the second watch, and in the third.] In the very dead watches of all, at least, if there be not a solecism in speech. At the first watch they went to bed; and at the fourth watch, the time of getting up again came on: so that the second and the third watch was the very dead time of sleep.
47. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
[Shall be beaten with many stripes.] There was a stated number of stripes, and that twas forty, beyond which no malefactor, condemned by the judges to that punishment, ought to receive. Whence that passage seems a little strange: "He that kills a heifer, and afterward two of that heifer's calves, let him be beaten with fourscore stripes." How so? fourscore, when they ought not to exceed above forty? They might not exceed that number for one single crime: but if the crime was doubled, they might double the punishment. And it may be a question, whether they did not double their accusations upon St. Paul, when they multiplied their stripes, he himself telling us, that five times he had received forty stripes save one.
But did every one that was adjudged by the court to stripes, did they always receive that number exactly, of thirty-nine? no doubt the number was more or less, according to the nature of the crime. Which seems to be hinted in Pesachin; He that eateth the 'potitha' [some creeping thing of the sea], "let him be beaten with four stripes: He that eateth a pismire, let him be beaten with five: He that eateth a hornet, let him have six." If this be the sense of the words, then here may arise a question, with what kind of scourge they were beaten? If with that scourge of three cords that was used when they gave nine-and-thirty stripes, repeating their strokes by a scourge of three cords thirteen times, how then could they inflict four or five stripes with such a scourge as that was?
But as to the number of stripes which the master might inflict upon his slave, that was not stated, but left to the pleasure of the master, according to the nature of the crime: which seems hinted at in these words of our Saviour, and in the following rule amongst the Jews, some kind of measure still being attended to:
"It is allowed to deal with a Canaanite [that is, a Gentile] slave with severity. But though this is de jure, yet there is a law of mercy, and rule of wisdom, that a man should be gentle, pursuing righteousness, not making the yoke heavy upon his servant, lest he afflict him."
49. I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
[And what will I, if it be already kindled?] What will I, seems to be used after the manner of the schools, where What do I say? is the same with I do say this: and so What do I decree or approve? is the same with This I do decree or approve. So What will I? is the same with This I will. Thus, in these words of our Saviour, What will I, if it be already kindled, the meaning is, This I will, that it be already kindled. Now what kind of fire this was which he would have already kindled, he himself explains verse 51, and so on.
Luke 13
1. There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
[Of the Galileans.] If this report concerning the Galileans was brought to our Saviour immediately after the deed was done, then was this tragedy acted by Pilate, a little before the feast of Dedication; for we find Christ going towards that feast, verse 22. But the time of this slaughter is uncertain: for it is a question, whether they that tell him this passage, relate it as news which he had not heard before, or only to draw from him his opinion concerning that affair, &c.
It is hotly disputed amongst some, as to the persons whom Pilate slew. And,
I. Some would have them to have been of the sect of Judas the Gaulonite; and that they were therefore slain, because they denied to give tribute to Caesar. He is called, indeed, "Judas of Galilee"; and there is little doubt, but that he might draw some Galileans into his opinion and practice. But I question then, whether Christ would have made any kind of defence for such, and have placed them in the same level with these, upon whom the tower of Siloam fell; when it so plainly appears, that he taught directly contrary to that perverse sect and opinion. However, if these were of that sect (for I will not contend it), then do these, who tell this to our Saviour, seem to lay a snare for him, not much unlike that question they put to him, "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or no?"
II. There is one that confounds this story with that of Josephus, which he relates from him thus abbreviated; "In Galilee there were certain Samaritans, who, being seduced by a notorious impostor, moved sedition at mount Gerizim, where this cheat promised them to shew them the sacred vessels which, he falsely told them, had been hid by Moses in that place. Pilate, sending his forces upon them, suppressed them; the greater of them were taken and adjudged to death." I admire how this learned man should deliver these things with so much confidence, as even to chastise Josephus himself for his mistake in his computation of the time for this story, concluding thus; "When, indeed, this slaughter, made upon the Samaritans by Pilate, seems to be that very slaughter of the Galileans mentioned by St. Luke, chapter 13:1."
Whereas, in truth, Josephus mentions not one syllable either of Galilee or sacrifice, or the Galileans, but Samaritans: and it is a somewhat bold thing to substitute rebelling Samaritans in the place of sacrificing Galileans. Nor is it probable that those that tell this matter to our Saviour would put this gloss and colour upon the thing while they related it.
III. The feud and enmity that was between Pilate and Herod might be enough to incense Pilate to make this havock of the subjects of Herod.
[Whose blood Pilate mingled.] "David swore to Abishai, As the Lord liveth, if thou touch the blood of this righteous man [Saul], I will mingle thy blood with his blood." So Pilate mingled the blood of these sacrificers with the blood of those sacrifices they had slain. It is remarkable that in Siphra, "the killing of the sacrifices may be well enough done by strangers, by women, by servants, by the unclean; even those sacrifices that are most holy, provided that the unclean touch not the flesh of them." And a little after; "At the sprinkling of the blood, the work of the priest begins; and the slaying of them may be done by any hand whatever."
Hence was it a very usual thing for those that brought the sacrifice to kill it themselves; and so, probably, these miserable Galileans were slaughtered, while they themselves were slaying their own sacrifices. For it is more likely that they were slain in the Temple while they were offering their sacrifices, than in the way, while they were bringing them thither.
4. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
[Upon whom the tower in Siloam fell.] The poor of Bethesda was the pool of Siloam; and from thence all that adjacent part of the city is denominated Siloam. And therefore it is left doubtful, whether this tower were built over the pool, that is, over the porches of the pool, or stood something remote from it in those parts that yet bore the name of Siloam. And if the article in does not determine the matter, we must continue still in doubt. Will grammar permit that that article should be prefixed to that part of the city? It is certain, that the very pool is called the pool of Siloam. So that I conceive this tower might be built over the porticoes of the pool, and might overwhelm those eighteen men, while they were busied about purifying themselves (and so this event falls in the more agreeably with that of the Galileans), or as they were expecting to be healed at the troubling of the waters: for it is very uncertain at what time this tower fell.
7. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
Behold, these three years I come, &c.] There was no tree that was of a kind to bear fruit might lightly and upon every small occasion be cut down, that law providing against it in Deuteronomy 20:19,20; where the Pesikta observes that there is both an affirmative and also a negative command, by which it is the more forbidden that any tree of that kind should be cut down, unless upon a very indispensable occasion. "Rabh saith, 'Cut not down the palm that bears a cab of dates.' They urge, 'And what of the olive, that that should not be cut down?' 'If it bear but the fourth part of a cab.' R. Chaninah said, My son Shibchah had not died, had he not cut down a fig-tree before its time."
[For more info, please see The Barren Fig-Tree by John Bunyan (140k).]
8. And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
[I will dig about it, and dung it.] They dung it and dig it &c. The Gloss is; "They lay dung in their gardens to moisten the earth. They dig about the roots of their trees, they pluck up the suckers, they take off the leaves, they sprinkle ashes, and they smoke under the trees to kill worms."
11. And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
[Having a spirit of infirmity.] I. The Jews distinguish between spirits, and devils, and good angels. "All things do subserve to the glory of the King of kings, the holy blessed One, even spirits, also devils also ministering angels."
The difficulty is in what sense they take spirits, as they are distinguished from angels and devils: when it is probable they did not mean human souls. But these things are not the business of this place.
II. Therefore, as to this phrase in St. Luke, a spirit of infirmity, let us begin our inquiry from this passage: "It is written, 'If I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your inheritance.' R. Judah saith, 'This foretells such plagues to come upon them.' R. Simeon saith, 'He excepts those violent plagues that do not render a man unclean.'" Where the Gloss is, If those plagues come by the insufflation of the devil, which do not defile the man. And the Gemara a little after; "Rabba saith, He excepts the plagues of spirits. Rabh Papa saith, 'He excepts the plagues of enchantments.'" Where the Gloss again hath it; "Those plagues which are inflicted by the insufflation of the devil, not by the hands of men."
I. You see, therefore, first, that it was a most received opinion amongst the Jews, that diseases or plagues might be inflicted by the devil. Which is plain also from the evangelists; because our Saviour, in this very place, tells us, that the bowing together of this woman was inflicted upon her by Satan.
II. They conceived further, that some diseases were inflicted that were unclean, and some that were not unclean. The unclean were the leprosy, issues, &c.; not unclean, were such as this woman's infirmity, &c.
III. They distinguish betwixt an evil spirit, and an unclean spirit. Not but they accounted an unclean spirit ill enough, and an evil spirit to be unclean enough; but that they might distinguish the various operations of the devil, as also concerning the various persons possessed and afflicted by him.
1. They acknowledged that evil spirits might inflict diseases. "Whomsoever either the Gentiles, or evil spirit drive," i.e. beyond the bounds of the sabbath. Where the Gloss is; "The evil spirit is the devil that hath entered into him, disturbs his intellectuals, so that he is carried beyond the bounds." But Rambam saith, "They call all kind of melancholy an evil spirit." And elsewhere: an evil spirit, i.e. a disease.
2. The unclean spirit amongst them was chiefly and more peculiarly that devil that haunted places of burial, and such-like, that were most unclean. The unclean spirit, i.e. the devil that haunts burying-places. "Thither the necromancer betook himself" (as the Gemara hath it, which I have also quoted in another place); "and when he had macerated himself with fasting, he lodgeth amongst the tombs, to the end that he might be the more inspired by the unclean spirit." Nor is it much otherwise (as they themselves relate it) with the python or prophesying spirit. "For the Rabbins deliver: the python is he that speaks within the parts." The Gloss is, "He that raiseth a dead person, and sits between the parts of the bones," &c.
Hence that reason of our conjecture concerning that demoniac, Luke 4:33; that he was either a necromancer or pythonist, taken from that unusual way of expressing it which is there observable, not having an unclean spirit, nor having an unclean devil, but having a spirit of an unclean devil.
There were therefore two sorts of men whom they accounted under the possession of an unclean spirit, in their proper sense so called: those especially who sought and were ambitious to be inspired of the devil amongst tombs and unclean places; and those also, who, being involuntarily possessed by the devils, betook themselves amongst tombs and such places of uncleanness. And whether they upon whom the devil inflicted unclean diseases should be ranked in the same degree, I do not determine. There were others who were not acted by such diabolical furies, but afflicted with other kind of diseases, whom they accounted under the operation of an evil spirit of disease or infirmity. Not of uncleanness; but of infirmity. And perhaps the evangelist speaks according to this antithesis, that this woman had neither a spirit of uncleanness, according to what they judged of a spirit of uncleanness; nor a disease of uncleanness; but a spirit of infirmity.
15. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
[Doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox?] That disceptation doth attest this, How far a beast going forth. Where it is very much cautioned that the beast be not brought out on the sabbath day carrying any thing upon him that might be a burden not permitted to be borne on that day. They allow that a camel be led out with a halter, a horse with a collar, &c.; that is, when they are led out either to pasture or watering. Nay, the Gloss upon the place adds, "that they may lead out the horse to the water, that he may dip the collar in the water if the water be unclean."
To this may be referred that abstruse and obscure rule concerning the building of mounds about a spring that belongs to a private man, with that art that the beast, being led thither to watering on the sabbath day, shall not go out of the place that is of common right.
It is not only permitted to lead the beast out to watering on the sabbath day, but they might draw water for him, and pour it into troughs, provided only that they do not carry the water, and set it before the beast to drink; but the beast come and drink it of his own accord.
23. Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
[Are there few that be saved?] This question, Lord, are there few that be saved? when it was a received opinion amongst the Jews, 'that all Israel should have their part in the world to come,' makes it doubtful whether it was propounded captiously, or merely for satisfaction.
This very matter is disputed amongst the Masters. "Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth beyond the statute [without measure, AV]. Resh Lachish saith, 'This is for him who forsaketh one statute.' (The Gloss is, 'He that leaves one statute unobserved shall be condemned in hell.') But R. Jochanan saith, 'Their Lord will not have it so as thou sayest concerning them.' (The Gloss is, 'He will not have thee judge so concerning Israel.') For the sense is, Although a man have learned but one statute only, he shall escape hell. It is said, 'It shall come to pass that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts of it shall be cut off and die, and the third part shall be left.' Resh Lachish saith, 'The third part of Shem.' R. Jochanan saith unto him, 'Their Lord will not have it so as thou sayest concerning them, for it is the third part of Noah.' It is said, 'I will take you one of a city and two of a tribe.' Resh Lachish saith, 'These words are to be understood in the very letter.' R. Jochanan saith unto him, 'Their Lord will not have it so as thou sayest concerning them, but one of a city shall expiate for the whole city, and two of a family for the whole family. It is said, 'I will take them for my people'; and it is said, 'I will bring you into the land.' He compares their going out of the land of Egypt with their coming in to their own land: now how was their coming in into the land of Canaan? There were only two persons of threescore myriads that entered it. Rabba saith, So also shall it be in the days of the Messiah.'" A man would hardly have expected such ingenuity from a Jew as we here meet with in Resh Lachish and Rabba.
32. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
[Tell that fox.] I conceive our Saviour may allude here to the common proverb: "The brethren of Joseph fell down before his face and worshipped him, saith R. Benjamin Bar Japheth. Saith R. Eliezer This is what is commonly said amongst men, Worship the fox in his time." The Gloss is, 'In the time of his prosperity.' But go you, and say to that fox, however he may wallow in his present prosperity, that I will never flatter him, or for any fear of him desist from my work; but "behold, I cast out devils," &c.
33. Nevertheless I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
[Of the Galileans.] If this report concerning the Galileans was brought to our Saviour immediately after the deed was done, then was this tragedy acted by Pilate, a little before the feast of Dedication; for we find Christ going towards that feast, verse 22. But the time of this slaughter is uncertain: for it is a question, whether they that tell him this passage, relate it as news which he had not heard before, or only to draw from him his opinion concerning that affair, &c.
It is hotly disputed amongst some, as to the persons whom Pilate slew. And,
I. Some would have them to have been of the sect of Judas the Gaulonite; and that they were therefore slain, because they denied to give tribute to Caesar. He is called, indeed, "Judas of Galilee"; and there is little doubt, but that he might draw some Galileans into his opinion and practice. But I question then, whether Christ would have made any kind of defence for such, and have placed them in the same level with these, upon whom the tower of Siloam fell; when it so plainly appears, that he taught directly contrary to that perverse sect and opinion. However, if these were of that sect (for I will not contend it), then do these, who tell this to our Saviour, seem to lay a snare for him, not much unlike that question they put to him, "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or no?"
II. There is one that confounds this story with that of Josephus, which he relates from him thus abbreviated; "In Galilee there were certain Samaritans, who, being seduced by a notorious impostor, moved sedition at mount Gerizim, where this cheat promised them to shew them the sacred vessels which, he falsely told them, had been hid by Moses in that place. Pilate, sending his forces upon them, suppressed them; the greater of them were taken and adjudged to death." I admire how this learned man should deliver these things with so much confidence, as even to chastise Josephus himself for his mistake in his computation of the time for this story, concluding thus; "When, indeed, this slaughter, made upon the Samaritans by Pilate, seems to be that very slaughter of the Galileans mentioned by St. Luke, chapter 13:1."
Whereas, in truth, Josephus mentions not one syllable either of Galilee or sacrifice, or the Galileans, but Samaritans: and it is a somewhat bold thing to substitute rebelling Samaritans in the place of sacrificing Galileans. Nor is it probable that those that tell this matter to our Saviour would put this gloss and colour upon the thing while they related it.
III. The feud and enmity that was between Pilate and Herod might be enough to incense Pilate to make this havock of the subjects of Herod.
[Whose blood Pilate mingled.] "David swore to Abishai, As the Lord liveth, if thou touch the blood of this righteous man [Saul], I will mingle thy blood with his blood." So Pilate mingled the blood of these sacrificers with the blood of those sacrifices they had slain. It is remarkable that in Siphra, "the killing of the sacrifices may be well enough done by strangers, by women, by servants, by the unclean; even those sacrifices that are most holy, provided that the unclean touch not the flesh of them." And a little after; "At the sprinkling of the blood, the work of the priest begins; and the slaying of them may be done by any hand whatever."
Hence was it a very usual thing for those that brought the sacrifice to kill it themselves; and so, probably, these miserable Galileans were slaughtered, while they themselves were slaying their own sacrifices. For it is more likely that they were slain in the Temple while they were offering their sacrifices, than in the way, while they were bringing them thither.
4. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
[Upon whom the tower in Siloam fell.] The poor of Bethesda was the pool of Siloam; and from thence all that adjacent part of the city is denominated Siloam. And therefore it is left doubtful, whether this tower were built over the pool, that is, over the porches of the pool, or stood something remote from it in those parts that yet bore the name of Siloam. And if the article in does not determine the matter, we must continue still in doubt. Will grammar permit that that article should be prefixed to that part of the city? It is certain, that the very pool is called the pool of Siloam. So that I conceive this tower might be built over the porticoes of the pool, and might overwhelm those eighteen men, while they were busied about purifying themselves (and so this event falls in the more agreeably with that of the Galileans), or as they were expecting to be healed at the troubling of the waters: for it is very uncertain at what time this tower fell.
7. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
Behold, these three years I come, &c.] There was no tree that was of a kind to bear fruit might lightly and upon every small occasion be cut down, that law providing against it in Deuteronomy 20:19,20; where the Pesikta observes that there is both an affirmative and also a negative command, by which it is the more forbidden that any tree of that kind should be cut down, unless upon a very indispensable occasion. "Rabh saith, 'Cut not down the palm that bears a cab of dates.' They urge, 'And what of the olive, that that should not be cut down?' 'If it bear but the fourth part of a cab.' R. Chaninah said, My son Shibchah had not died, had he not cut down a fig-tree before its time."
[For more info, please see The Barren Fig-Tree by John Bunyan (140k).]
8. And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
[I will dig about it, and dung it.] They dung it and dig it &c. The Gloss is; "They lay dung in their gardens to moisten the earth. They dig about the roots of their trees, they pluck up the suckers, they take off the leaves, they sprinkle ashes, and they smoke under the trees to kill worms."
11. And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
[Having a spirit of infirmity.] I. The Jews distinguish between spirits, and devils, and good angels. "All things do subserve to the glory of the King of kings, the holy blessed One, even spirits, also devils also ministering angels."
The difficulty is in what sense they take spirits, as they are distinguished from angels and devils: when it is probable they did not mean human souls. But these things are not the business of this place.
II. Therefore, as to this phrase in St. Luke, a spirit of infirmity, let us begin our inquiry from this passage: "It is written, 'If I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your inheritance.' R. Judah saith, 'This foretells such plagues to come upon them.' R. Simeon saith, 'He excepts those violent plagues that do not render a man unclean.'" Where the Gloss is, If those plagues come by the insufflation of the devil, which do not defile the man. And the Gemara a little after; "Rabba saith, He excepts the plagues of spirits. Rabh Papa saith, 'He excepts the plagues of enchantments.'" Where the Gloss again hath it; "Those plagues which are inflicted by the insufflation of the devil, not by the hands of men."
I. You see, therefore, first, that it was a most received opinion amongst the Jews, that diseases or plagues might be inflicted by the devil. Which is plain also from the evangelists; because our Saviour, in this very place, tells us, that the bowing together of this woman was inflicted upon her by Satan.
II. They conceived further, that some diseases were inflicted that were unclean, and some that were not unclean. The unclean were the leprosy, issues, &c.; not unclean, were such as this woman's infirmity, &c.
III. They distinguish betwixt an evil spirit, and an unclean spirit. Not but they accounted an unclean spirit ill enough, and an evil spirit to be unclean enough; but that they might distinguish the various operations of the devil, as also concerning the various persons possessed and afflicted by him.
1. They acknowledged that evil spirits might inflict diseases. "Whomsoever either the Gentiles, or evil spirit drive," i.e. beyond the bounds of the sabbath. Where the Gloss is; "The evil spirit is the devil that hath entered into him, disturbs his intellectuals, so that he is carried beyond the bounds." But Rambam saith, "They call all kind of melancholy an evil spirit." And elsewhere: an evil spirit, i.e. a disease.
2. The unclean spirit amongst them was chiefly and more peculiarly that devil that haunted places of burial, and such-like, that were most unclean. The unclean spirit, i.e. the devil that haunts burying-places. "Thither the necromancer betook himself" (as the Gemara hath it, which I have also quoted in another place); "and when he had macerated himself with fasting, he lodgeth amongst the tombs, to the end that he might be the more inspired by the unclean spirit." Nor is it much otherwise (as they themselves relate it) with the python or prophesying spirit. "For the Rabbins deliver: the python is he that speaks within the parts." The Gloss is, "He that raiseth a dead person, and sits between the parts of the bones," &c.
Hence that reason of our conjecture concerning that demoniac, Luke 4:33; that he was either a necromancer or pythonist, taken from that unusual way of expressing it which is there observable, not having an unclean spirit, nor having an unclean devil, but having a spirit of an unclean devil.
There were therefore two sorts of men whom they accounted under the possession of an unclean spirit, in their proper sense so called: those especially who sought and were ambitious to be inspired of the devil amongst tombs and unclean places; and those also, who, being involuntarily possessed by the devils, betook themselves amongst tombs and such places of uncleanness. And whether they upon whom the devil inflicted unclean diseases should be ranked in the same degree, I do not determine. There were others who were not acted by such diabolical furies, but afflicted with other kind of diseases, whom they accounted under the operation of an evil spirit of disease or infirmity. Not of uncleanness; but of infirmity. And perhaps the evangelist speaks according to this antithesis, that this woman had neither a spirit of uncleanness, according to what they judged of a spirit of uncleanness; nor a disease of uncleanness; but a spirit of infirmity.
15. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
[Doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox?] That disceptation doth attest this, How far a beast going forth. Where it is very much cautioned that the beast be not brought out on the sabbath day carrying any thing upon him that might be a burden not permitted to be borne on that day. They allow that a camel be led out with a halter, a horse with a collar, &c.; that is, when they are led out either to pasture or watering. Nay, the Gloss upon the place adds, "that they may lead out the horse to the water, that he may dip the collar in the water if the water be unclean."
To this may be referred that abstruse and obscure rule concerning the building of mounds about a spring that belongs to a private man, with that art that the beast, being led thither to watering on the sabbath day, shall not go out of the place that is of common right.
It is not only permitted to lead the beast out to watering on the sabbath day, but they might draw water for him, and pour it into troughs, provided only that they do not carry the water, and set it before the beast to drink; but the beast come and drink it of his own accord.
23. Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
[Are there few that be saved?] This question, Lord, are there few that be saved? when it was a received opinion amongst the Jews, 'that all Israel should have their part in the world to come,' makes it doubtful whether it was propounded captiously, or merely for satisfaction.
This very matter is disputed amongst the Masters. "Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth beyond the statute [without measure, AV]. Resh Lachish saith, 'This is for him who forsaketh one statute.' (The Gloss is, 'He that leaves one statute unobserved shall be condemned in hell.') But R. Jochanan saith, 'Their Lord will not have it so as thou sayest concerning them.' (The Gloss is, 'He will not have thee judge so concerning Israel.') For the sense is, Although a man have learned but one statute only, he shall escape hell. It is said, 'It shall come to pass that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts of it shall be cut off and die, and the third part shall be left.' Resh Lachish saith, 'The third part of Shem.' R. Jochanan saith unto him, 'Their Lord will not have it so as thou sayest concerning them, for it is the third part of Noah.' It is said, 'I will take you one of a city and two of a tribe.' Resh Lachish saith, 'These words are to be understood in the very letter.' R. Jochanan saith unto him, 'Their Lord will not have it so as thou sayest concerning them, but one of a city shall expiate for the whole city, and two of a family for the whole family. It is said, 'I will take them for my people'; and it is said, 'I will bring you into the land.' He compares their going out of the land of Egypt with their coming in to their own land: now how was their coming in into the land of Canaan? There were only two persons of threescore myriads that entered it. Rabba saith, So also shall it be in the days of the Messiah.'" A man would hardly have expected such ingenuity from a Jew as we here meet with in Resh Lachish and Rabba.
32. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
[Tell that fox.] I conceive our Saviour may allude here to the common proverb: "The brethren of Joseph fell down before his face and worshipped him, saith R. Benjamin Bar Japheth. Saith R. Eliezer This is what is commonly said amongst men, Worship the fox in his time." The Gloss is, 'In the time of his prosperity.' But go you, and say to that fox, however he may wallow in his present prosperity, that I will never flatter him, or for any fear of him desist from my work; but "behold, I cast out devils," &c.
33. Nevertheless I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
[It cannot be that a prophet perish, &c.] "A tribe, nor false prophet, [such a one they accounted the holy Jesus,] nor a high priest, can be judged but by the bench of seventy-one." Rambam upon the place, as also the Gemara; "We know that a false prophet must be judged by the Sanhedrim, from the parity of the thing: for so is judged a rebellious judge."
Now as to the judgment itself, these things are said: "They do not judge him to death in the court of judicature, that is, in his own city, nor in that that is at Jabneh; but they bring him to the great Consistory that is at Jerusalem, and reserve him to one of their feasts; and at their feast they execute him, as it is said, 'All Israel shall hear, and shall fear, and do no more so.'"
35. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
[Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he, &c.] There was a time (I confess) when I apprehended no difficulty at all in these words; but now (which may seem a paradox) my old eyes see better than my younger ones did; and by how much the more I look into this passage, by so much the more obscure it appears to me.
I. What sense must that be taken in, Ye shall not see me? when as after he had said this, (at least as the words are placed in our evangelist), they saw him conversant amongst them for the space of three months and more: particularly and in a singular manner, in that august triumph, when riding upon an ass he had the acclamations of the people in these very words, "Blessed is he that cometh," &c. One might therefore think, that the words have some respect to this very time and action; but that in St. Matthew these words are repeated by our Saviour after this triumph was over.
Christ is now at Jerusalem, at the feast of Dedication; at least that feast was not far off; for we find him going to it, verse 22: so that this exposition of the words looks fair enough; "Ye see me now, but henceforward ye shall see me no more, until ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord'"; which very thing was said in that triumph of his. But what shall we say then to that of St. Matthew, that these very words are recited sometime after he had received these acclamations from the people? I would hardly believe with the learned Heinsius, that the words in St. Matthew are not set in their proper place, but the series of the history is transposed: I would rather think our Saviour meant not an ocular seeing him, but spoke it in a spiritual and borrowed sense; viz. in the sense wherein the Jews were wont to use the word seeing, when they spake of "seeing the Messiah, the days of the Messiah, and the consolation of Israel"; that is, of partaking and enjoying the comforts and advantages of the Messiah, and of those days of his. So that our Saviour's meaning may seem to be this; "Ye shall, from henceforward, enjoy no benefit from me the Messiah, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh,'" &c.: for it is worthy our inquiry, whether Christ ever after these words of his, did endeavour so to gather the children of Jerusalem together, that the city might not be destroyed, and the whole nation cast off. He did indeed endeavour to gather the remnant according to the election of grace, but did he ever after this labour that the place and nation might be preserved? As to these, it is argument enough that he had given them wholly over in his own mind, in that here, and in St. Matthew, he did in such precise terms denounce the ruin of Jerusalem, immediately before he uttered these words. I had rather, therefore, than admit any immethodicalness in St. Matthew, expound the passage to this sense; "From henceforward, ye shall never see the consolations of Messiah, nor have me any ways propitious amongst you, endeavouring at all the preservation of your city or nation from ruin, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.'"
II. But then here ariseth as great a difficulty about the word till; that is, whether it concludes that in time they will say and acknowledge it; or whether it excludes and denies that they ever shall. For who knows not how different and even contrary a force there is in this word until? "Occupy till I come": here it concludes that he will come again. "This iniquity shall not be forgiven you till you die": there their forgiveness is excluded for ever. And indeed the expression in this place looks so perfectly two ways, that he that believes the conversion of the Jewish nation as a thing must come to pass, may turn it to his side; he that believes the contrary, to his.
[Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.] Although a more intimate weighing of these words will not very much help in determining the force of this word until in this place, yet will it probably afford us some light into the whole clause.
The words are taken out of Psalm 118:26, and were sung in the Great Hallel. So that I will beg the reader's leave to digress a little in search of this usage, especially as to those words that are now in hand.
I. The Great Hallel was the recitation of Psalms 113-118 upon every feast, in every family or brotherhood. The hymn that our Saviour with his apostles sung at the close of the Passover was the latter part of this Hallel.
II. Every one, indeed, was of right bound to repeat it entirely in his own person. But seeing it was not every one's lot to be so learned or expedite as that came to, there was one to recite it in the stead of all the rest, and they after him made some responsals. This went for a maxim amongst them, if he hear, it is as if he responded. If he hear, though he do not answer, he performs his duty: the meaning is, if any be so unskillful that he can neither recite himself, nor answer after another that doth recite, let him but hear attentively, and he doth as much as is required from him.
III. There was a twofold way of responding according to the difference of persons reciting. If an elder, or master of a family, or one that could fitly represent the whole congregation, should recite or lead in singing; then the rest repeat no other words after him except the first clause of every Psalm; and as to all the remainder, they answered verse by verse Hallelujah. For the action of him that represented them, and led up in singing, availed for those that were represented, especially they having testified their consent by answering Hallelujah. He was a dunce, indeed, that could not answer so far amongst the rest.
IV. But if there wanted such an elder so well skilled in reading or reciting, that it became necessary for a servant or woman, or some more skilful boy, to lead, then let us hear what they did in that case: "If a servant, or woman, or boy should lead in singing, every one in the congregation recites those very words which he had said: if a more ancient person or one of greater note, do sing or read, they answer after him 'Hallelujah.' Now the reason why the words recited by a servant, woman, or boy should be repeated after him verbatim, was this, because such a one was unfit to represent a congregation, and his action could not avail for the rest: so that it behoved every person to recite singly for himself, that he might perform his duty."
V. When they came to the words now in hand, blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord, if it be a boy or a servant that is the praecentor, he saith, Blessed be he that cometh; and the rest answer, In the name of the Lord. And this is that for which I have so long ventured upon the reader's patience, that he may observe what is done differently from the rest when this clause is recited. It is cut in two, which is not done in others. And the first words are not repeated after the praecentor, as they are in other clauses. And whether this custom obtained only in families where servants or boys led in singing, we may judge from this following passage:
"They asked R. Chaijam Bar Ba, 'How doth it appear, that he who heareth and doth not answer performs his duty?' 'From this, saith he, That we see the greatest Rabbins standing in the synagogue, and they say, Blessed be he that cometh, and they answer, In the name of the Lord: and they both perform their duty.'" Midras Tillin leaves these last words wholly out. For so that hath it: "The men of Jerusalem say from within, Save us now, O Lord, we beseech thee. The men of Judea say from without, Prosper us now, Lord, we beseech thee. The men of Jerusalem say from within, Blessed be he that cometh: and the men of Judea say from without, We have blessed you out of the house of the Lord."
I will not confidently assert that these men had any ill design when they thus mangled this famous clause; but surely there is at least some ground of suspicion that they hardly refer the words to the right object. R. Solomon assuredly doth not. For, "So it ought to be said (saith he) to those that bring their firstfruits, and go up to the feasts."
1. To come is oftentimes the same with them as to teach; "If any one shall come in his own name, him ye will receive": i.e. If any one shall teach. And so it is frequently in the Jerusalem Talmud, concerning this or the other Rabbins, he came, and when he cometh. Which if it be not to be understood of such a one teaching, I confess I am at a loss what it should mean else.
2. Those doctors did not come and teach in the name of the Lord, but either in their own name, or in the name of some father of the traditions. Hence nothing more familiar with them, than "R. N. in the name of R. N. saith": as every leaf, I may say almost every line of their writings witnesses. If, therefore, by cutting short this clause, they would be appropriating to themselves the blessing of the people, whom they had taught to say, Blessed be he that cometh, letting that slip, or omitting what follows, In the name of the Lord; they do indeed like themselves, cunningly lying at catch, and hunting after fame and vainglory.
Let the reader judge, whether Christ might not look this way in these words. However, I shall not scruple to determine, that they shall never see the Messiah, as to any advantage to themselves, till they have renounced the doctrines of coming in their own name, or in the name of the Fathers of the Traditions, embracing his doctrine, who is come in the name of the Lord.
Now as to the judgment itself, these things are said: "They do not judge him to death in the court of judicature, that is, in his own city, nor in that that is at Jabneh; but they bring him to the great Consistory that is at Jerusalem, and reserve him to one of their feasts; and at their feast they execute him, as it is said, 'All Israel shall hear, and shall fear, and do no more so.'"
35. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
[Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he, &c.] There was a time (I confess) when I apprehended no difficulty at all in these words; but now (which may seem a paradox) my old eyes see better than my younger ones did; and by how much the more I look into this passage, by so much the more obscure it appears to me.
I. What sense must that be taken in, Ye shall not see me? when as after he had said this, (at least as the words are placed in our evangelist), they saw him conversant amongst them for the space of three months and more: particularly and in a singular manner, in that august triumph, when riding upon an ass he had the acclamations of the people in these very words, "Blessed is he that cometh," &c. One might therefore think, that the words have some respect to this very time and action; but that in St. Matthew these words are repeated by our Saviour after this triumph was over.
Christ is now at Jerusalem, at the feast of Dedication; at least that feast was not far off; for we find him going to it, verse 22: so that this exposition of the words looks fair enough; "Ye see me now, but henceforward ye shall see me no more, until ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord'"; which very thing was said in that triumph of his. But what shall we say then to that of St. Matthew, that these very words are recited sometime after he had received these acclamations from the people? I would hardly believe with the learned Heinsius, that the words in St. Matthew are not set in their proper place, but the series of the history is transposed: I would rather think our Saviour meant not an ocular seeing him, but spoke it in a spiritual and borrowed sense; viz. in the sense wherein the Jews were wont to use the word seeing, when they spake of "seeing the Messiah, the days of the Messiah, and the consolation of Israel"; that is, of partaking and enjoying the comforts and advantages of the Messiah, and of those days of his. So that our Saviour's meaning may seem to be this; "Ye shall, from henceforward, enjoy no benefit from me the Messiah, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh,'" &c.: for it is worthy our inquiry, whether Christ ever after these words of his, did endeavour so to gather the children of Jerusalem together, that the city might not be destroyed, and the whole nation cast off. He did indeed endeavour to gather the remnant according to the election of grace, but did he ever after this labour that the place and nation might be preserved? As to these, it is argument enough that he had given them wholly over in his own mind, in that here, and in St. Matthew, he did in such precise terms denounce the ruin of Jerusalem, immediately before he uttered these words. I had rather, therefore, than admit any immethodicalness in St. Matthew, expound the passage to this sense; "From henceforward, ye shall never see the consolations of Messiah, nor have me any ways propitious amongst you, endeavouring at all the preservation of your city or nation from ruin, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.'"
II. But then here ariseth as great a difficulty about the word till; that is, whether it concludes that in time they will say and acknowledge it; or whether it excludes and denies that they ever shall. For who knows not how different and even contrary a force there is in this word until? "Occupy till I come": here it concludes that he will come again. "This iniquity shall not be forgiven you till you die": there their forgiveness is excluded for ever. And indeed the expression in this place looks so perfectly two ways, that he that believes the conversion of the Jewish nation as a thing must come to pass, may turn it to his side; he that believes the contrary, to his.
[Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.] Although a more intimate weighing of these words will not very much help in determining the force of this word until in this place, yet will it probably afford us some light into the whole clause.
The words are taken out of Psalm 118:26, and were sung in the Great Hallel. So that I will beg the reader's leave to digress a little in search of this usage, especially as to those words that are now in hand.
I. The Great Hallel was the recitation of Psalms 113-118 upon every feast, in every family or brotherhood. The hymn that our Saviour with his apostles sung at the close of the Passover was the latter part of this Hallel.
II. Every one, indeed, was of right bound to repeat it entirely in his own person. But seeing it was not every one's lot to be so learned or expedite as that came to, there was one to recite it in the stead of all the rest, and they after him made some responsals. This went for a maxim amongst them, if he hear, it is as if he responded. If he hear, though he do not answer, he performs his duty: the meaning is, if any be so unskillful that he can neither recite himself, nor answer after another that doth recite, let him but hear attentively, and he doth as much as is required from him.
III. There was a twofold way of responding according to the difference of persons reciting. If an elder, or master of a family, or one that could fitly represent the whole congregation, should recite or lead in singing; then the rest repeat no other words after him except the first clause of every Psalm; and as to all the remainder, they answered verse by verse Hallelujah. For the action of him that represented them, and led up in singing, availed for those that were represented, especially they having testified their consent by answering Hallelujah. He was a dunce, indeed, that could not answer so far amongst the rest.
IV. But if there wanted such an elder so well skilled in reading or reciting, that it became necessary for a servant or woman, or some more skilful boy, to lead, then let us hear what they did in that case: "If a servant, or woman, or boy should lead in singing, every one in the congregation recites those very words which he had said: if a more ancient person or one of greater note, do sing or read, they answer after him 'Hallelujah.' Now the reason why the words recited by a servant, woman, or boy should be repeated after him verbatim, was this, because such a one was unfit to represent a congregation, and his action could not avail for the rest: so that it behoved every person to recite singly for himself, that he might perform his duty."
V. When they came to the words now in hand, blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord, if it be a boy or a servant that is the praecentor, he saith, Blessed be he that cometh; and the rest answer, In the name of the Lord. And this is that for which I have so long ventured upon the reader's patience, that he may observe what is done differently from the rest when this clause is recited. It is cut in two, which is not done in others. And the first words are not repeated after the praecentor, as they are in other clauses. And whether this custom obtained only in families where servants or boys led in singing, we may judge from this following passage:
"They asked R. Chaijam Bar Ba, 'How doth it appear, that he who heareth and doth not answer performs his duty?' 'From this, saith he, That we see the greatest Rabbins standing in the synagogue, and they say, Blessed be he that cometh, and they answer, In the name of the Lord: and they both perform their duty.'" Midras Tillin leaves these last words wholly out. For so that hath it: "The men of Jerusalem say from within, Save us now, O Lord, we beseech thee. The men of Judea say from without, Prosper us now, Lord, we beseech thee. The men of Jerusalem say from within, Blessed be he that cometh: and the men of Judea say from without, We have blessed you out of the house of the Lord."
I will not confidently assert that these men had any ill design when they thus mangled this famous clause; but surely there is at least some ground of suspicion that they hardly refer the words to the right object. R. Solomon assuredly doth not. For, "So it ought to be said (saith he) to those that bring their firstfruits, and go up to the feasts."
1. To come is oftentimes the same with them as to teach; "If any one shall come in his own name, him ye will receive": i.e. If any one shall teach. And so it is frequently in the Jerusalem Talmud, concerning this or the other Rabbins, he came, and when he cometh. Which if it be not to be understood of such a one teaching, I confess I am at a loss what it should mean else.
2. Those doctors did not come and teach in the name of the Lord, but either in their own name, or in the name of some father of the traditions. Hence nothing more familiar with them, than "R. N. in the name of R. N. saith": as every leaf, I may say almost every line of their writings witnesses. If, therefore, by cutting short this clause, they would be appropriating to themselves the blessing of the people, whom they had taught to say, Blessed be he that cometh, letting that slip, or omitting what follows, In the name of the Lord; they do indeed like themselves, cunningly lying at catch, and hunting after fame and vainglory.
Let the reader judge, whether Christ might not look this way in these words. However, I shall not scruple to determine, that they shall never see the Messiah, as to any advantage to themselves, till they have renounced the doctrines of coming in their own name, or in the name of the Fathers of the Traditions, embracing his doctrine, who is come in the name of the Lord.
Luke 14
1. And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.
[To eat bread on the sabbath day.] The Jews' tables were generally better spread on that day than on any others: and that, as they themselves reckoned, upon the account of religion and piety. I have spoken to this elsewhere: take here a demonstration. "Rabba Bar Rabh Houna went to the house of Rabba Bar Rabh Nachman. He set before him three measures of rich cake: to whom he, 'How did you know of my coming?' The other answered, 'Is there any thing more valuable to us than the sabbath?'" The Gloss is; 'We do by no means prefer thee before the sabbath: we got these things ready in honour of the sabbath, not knowing any thing of thy coming.'
"Rabba Abba bought flesh of thirteen butchers for thirteen staters, and paid them at the very hinge of the door." The Gloss tells us, 'That he bought of thirteen butchers, that he might be sure to taste the best: and before they could come that should bring the flesh, he had gotten his money ready for them, and paid them at the very gate, that he might hasten dinner: and all this in honour of the sabbath-day.'
R. Abhu sat upon an ivory throne, and yet blew the fire: that was towards the cooking of his dinner in honour of the sabbath. It ought not to be passed by without observation, that Christ was at such a dinner, and that in the house of a Pharisee, who doubtless was observant enough of all ceremonies of this kind.
3. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
[Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?] A Jew will be ready to cavil against the truth of the evangelists upon the occasion of this and such like questions they report from our Saviour. What need had he (will such a one say) to ask this question, when he could not but know that, in danger of life, it was permitted them to do any thing towards the preservation of it. Nay, where there was no imminent danger, they were allowed to apply medicines, plasters, &c.; especially, which I must not omit, to apply leaven even in the time of Passover to a 'Gumretha,' some very burning distemper.
This is all true indeed; and this no doubt our Saviour understood well enough: but withal he could not but observe with how ill an eye they looked at him, and would not allow that in him which was lawful in another man. He was always accused for healing on the sabbath day, which whiles he did with a word speaking, he could not violate the sabbath so much as even their own canons permitted him: and wherefore then should they accuse him? In mere hatred to his person and actions. There are two little stories we meet with in places quoted before, which perhaps may serve in some measure to illustrate this matter.
"The grandchild of R. Joshua Ben Levi had some disease in his throat, There came one and mumbled to him in the name of Jesus the son of Pandira, and he was restored." Here we see the virtue and operation of Jesus not so utterly exploded, but they did allow of it.
"When R. Eliezer Ben Damah had been bitten with a serpent, and Jacobus Capharsamensis came in the name of Jesus the son of Pandira to heal him, R. Ismael forbade it." And so the sick man died.
5. And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
[Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, &c.] It being an undoubted maxim, "That they must deal mercifully with an Israelite's goods," the doctors in many things dispensed with the sabbath for the preservation of a beast. "They do not play the midwives with a beast that is bringing forth its young on a feast day, but they help it. How do they help it? They bear up the young one, that it doth not fall upon the ground: they bring wine, spirt it into the nostrils: they rub the paunch of the dam, so that it will suckle its young."
"A firstling if it fall into a ditch [on a fast day, or the sabbath], let the Mumcheh look into it; and if there be any blemish in it, let him take it out and kill it: if not, let him not kill it." He draws it out however, that it might not be lost. And so they deal with other beasts; only the Mumcheh is not made use of.
8. When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
[Sit not down in the highest room.] They were ambitious of the 'highest room' in honour of their wisdom. "There were three persons invited to a feast, a prince, a wise man, and an ordinary person: the wise man sat next to the prince. Being asked by the king why he did so; he answered, 'Because I am a wise man.'" "Janneus the king sitting at table with some of the nobles of Persia, Simeon Ben Shetah, that had been invited, placed himself betwixt the king and queen. Being asked, why so; he answered, 'In the book of Ben Sirah it was written, Exalt Wisdom, and she shall exalt thee, and make thee to sit among princes.'"
It is much such advice as this of our Saviour's that is given us in Proverbs 25:7: upon which place we have this passage: "R. Aquila, in the name of R. Simeon Ben Azzai, thus expounds it: 'Go back from thy place two or three seats, and there sit, that they may say unto thee, Go up higher,'" &c.
18. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs to and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
[With one consent to make excuse.] A very ridiculous, as well as clownish and unmannerly excuse this, if it grew towards night; for it was supper-time. A very unseasonable time to go and see a piece of ground new bought, or to try a yoke of oxen. The substantive, therefore, that should answer to the adjective, I would not seek any otherwhere than as it is included in the word make excuse; so that the sense of it may be they began all for one cause to make excuse, i.e. for one and the same aversation they had to it.
23. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
[Go out into the highways and hedges.] Into the highways, that he might bring in the travellers: but who were those that were among the hedges? We have a parallel place, 1 Chronicles 4:23: "These were the potters," in Greek, Those that dwell in Ataim and Gadir. But the Vulgar, dwelling in plantations and hedges. To the same purpose R. Solomon and Kimchi; "They employed themselves in making pots, in planting, in setting hedges, and making mud walls." The Targumist here is very extravagant: "These are those disciples of the law, for whose sake the world was made; who sit in judgment and stablish the world; and their daughters build up the waste places of the house of Israel with the presence of the Eternal King, in the service of the law, and the intercalation of months," &c.
34. Salt is good;: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
[But if the salt have lost his savour.] This hath a very good connection with what went before. Our Saviour had before taught how necessary it was for him that would apply himself to Christ and his religion, to weigh and consider things beforehand, how great and difficult things he must undergo, lest when he hath begun in the undertaking he faint and go back; he apostatize, and become unsavoury salt.
Savour suits very well with the Hebrew word which both signifies unsavoury and a fool; Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? Thy prophets have seen for thee vanity and that which is unsavoury. [Vain and foolish things, AV] The Greek, vain things and folly. He gave not that which is unsavoury to God. The Greek, he did not give folly to God, [nor charged God foolishly, AV].
[To eat bread on the sabbath day.] The Jews' tables were generally better spread on that day than on any others: and that, as they themselves reckoned, upon the account of religion and piety. I have spoken to this elsewhere: take here a demonstration. "Rabba Bar Rabh Houna went to the house of Rabba Bar Rabh Nachman. He set before him three measures of rich cake: to whom he, 'How did you know of my coming?' The other answered, 'Is there any thing more valuable to us than the sabbath?'" The Gloss is; 'We do by no means prefer thee before the sabbath: we got these things ready in honour of the sabbath, not knowing any thing of thy coming.'
"Rabba Abba bought flesh of thirteen butchers for thirteen staters, and paid them at the very hinge of the door." The Gloss tells us, 'That he bought of thirteen butchers, that he might be sure to taste the best: and before they could come that should bring the flesh, he had gotten his money ready for them, and paid them at the very gate, that he might hasten dinner: and all this in honour of the sabbath-day.'
R. Abhu sat upon an ivory throne, and yet blew the fire: that was towards the cooking of his dinner in honour of the sabbath. It ought not to be passed by without observation, that Christ was at such a dinner, and that in the house of a Pharisee, who doubtless was observant enough of all ceremonies of this kind.
3. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
[Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?] A Jew will be ready to cavil against the truth of the evangelists upon the occasion of this and such like questions they report from our Saviour. What need had he (will such a one say) to ask this question, when he could not but know that, in danger of life, it was permitted them to do any thing towards the preservation of it. Nay, where there was no imminent danger, they were allowed to apply medicines, plasters, &c.; especially, which I must not omit, to apply leaven even in the time of Passover to a 'Gumretha,' some very burning distemper.
This is all true indeed; and this no doubt our Saviour understood well enough: but withal he could not but observe with how ill an eye they looked at him, and would not allow that in him which was lawful in another man. He was always accused for healing on the sabbath day, which whiles he did with a word speaking, he could not violate the sabbath so much as even their own canons permitted him: and wherefore then should they accuse him? In mere hatred to his person and actions. There are two little stories we meet with in places quoted before, which perhaps may serve in some measure to illustrate this matter.
"The grandchild of R. Joshua Ben Levi had some disease in his throat, There came one and mumbled to him in the name of Jesus the son of Pandira, and he was restored." Here we see the virtue and operation of Jesus not so utterly exploded, but they did allow of it.
"When R. Eliezer Ben Damah had been bitten with a serpent, and Jacobus Capharsamensis came in the name of Jesus the son of Pandira to heal him, R. Ismael forbade it." And so the sick man died.
5. And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
[Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, &c.] It being an undoubted maxim, "That they must deal mercifully with an Israelite's goods," the doctors in many things dispensed with the sabbath for the preservation of a beast. "They do not play the midwives with a beast that is bringing forth its young on a feast day, but they help it. How do they help it? They bear up the young one, that it doth not fall upon the ground: they bring wine, spirt it into the nostrils: they rub the paunch of the dam, so that it will suckle its young."
"A firstling if it fall into a ditch [on a fast day, or the sabbath], let the Mumcheh look into it; and if there be any blemish in it, let him take it out and kill it: if not, let him not kill it." He draws it out however, that it might not be lost. And so they deal with other beasts; only the Mumcheh is not made use of.
8. When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
[Sit not down in the highest room.] They were ambitious of the 'highest room' in honour of their wisdom. "There were three persons invited to a feast, a prince, a wise man, and an ordinary person: the wise man sat next to the prince. Being asked by the king why he did so; he answered, 'Because I am a wise man.'" "Janneus the king sitting at table with some of the nobles of Persia, Simeon Ben Shetah, that had been invited, placed himself betwixt the king and queen. Being asked, why so; he answered, 'In the book of Ben Sirah it was written, Exalt Wisdom, and she shall exalt thee, and make thee to sit among princes.'"
It is much such advice as this of our Saviour's that is given us in Proverbs 25:7: upon which place we have this passage: "R. Aquila, in the name of R. Simeon Ben Azzai, thus expounds it: 'Go back from thy place two or three seats, and there sit, that they may say unto thee, Go up higher,'" &c.
18. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs to and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
[With one consent to make excuse.] A very ridiculous, as well as clownish and unmannerly excuse this, if it grew towards night; for it was supper-time. A very unseasonable time to go and see a piece of ground new bought, or to try a yoke of oxen. The substantive, therefore, that should answer to the adjective, I would not seek any otherwhere than as it is included in the word make excuse; so that the sense of it may be they began all for one cause to make excuse, i.e. for one and the same aversation they had to it.
23. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
[Go out into the highways and hedges.] Into the highways, that he might bring in the travellers: but who were those that were among the hedges? We have a parallel place, 1 Chronicles 4:23: "These were the potters," in Greek, Those that dwell in Ataim and Gadir. But the Vulgar, dwelling in plantations and hedges. To the same purpose R. Solomon and Kimchi; "They employed themselves in making pots, in planting, in setting hedges, and making mud walls." The Targumist here is very extravagant: "These are those disciples of the law, for whose sake the world was made; who sit in judgment and stablish the world; and their daughters build up the waste places of the house of Israel with the presence of the Eternal King, in the service of the law, and the intercalation of months," &c.
34. Salt is good;: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
[But if the salt have lost his savour.] This hath a very good connection with what went before. Our Saviour had before taught how necessary it was for him that would apply himself to Christ and his religion, to weigh and consider things beforehand, how great and difficult things he must undergo, lest when he hath begun in the undertaking he faint and go back; he apostatize, and become unsavoury salt.
Savour suits very well with the Hebrew word which both signifies unsavoury and a fool; Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? Thy prophets have seen for thee vanity and that which is unsavoury. [Vain and foolish things, AV] The Greek, vain things and folly. He gave not that which is unsavoury to God. The Greek, he did not give folly to God, [nor charged God foolishly, AV].
Luke 15
4. What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
[Ninety-and-nine.] This was a very familiar way of numbering and dividing amongst the Jews, viz. betwixt one and ninety. I have given instances elsewhere, let me in this place add one more: "Of those hundred cries that a woman in travail uttereth, ninety-and-nine of them are to death, and only one of them to life."
7. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
[Which need no repentance.] Here we are to consider the distinction commonly used in the Jewish schools:--
I. All the good, and those that were to be saved at last, they called just persons. [It is opposed to the word wicked persons, as we may observe more than once in the first Psalm.] Hence this and the like passage very frequently, Paradise is for the just: good things laid up for the just.
Let us by the way play a little with the Gemarists, as they themselves also play with the letters of the alphabet, and amongst the rest especially the letter Tsadi, there is Tsadi that begins a word [or the crooked Tsadi] and Tsadi that ends a word [or the straight Tsadi]. What follows from hence? There is the just person that is crooked [or bowed down], and there is the just person that is erect or straight. Where the Gloss hath it, "It is necessary that the man that is right and straight should be bowed or humble, and he shall be erect in the world to come." Aruch acknowledgeth the same Gloss; but he also brings another which seems of his own making; That "there is a just person who is mild or humble; but there is also a just person who is not so." Let him tell, if he can, what kind of just person that should be that is not mild or humble. But to return to our business.
II. They divide the just into those that are just and no more: and those that are perfectly just. Under the first rank they place those that were not always upright; but having lived a wicked and irreligious life, have at length betaken themselves to repentance and reformation. These they call penitents. Under the latter rank are they placed who have been always upright and never declined from the right way: these they call perfectly just, and just from their first original: as also, holy or good men, and men of good works. Such a one did he account himself, and probably was so esteemed by others, that saith, "All these have I kept from my youth." And such a one might that holy man be thought, who never committed one trespass all the days of his life: excepting this one misfortune that befel him, that once he put on the phylacteries for his forehead before the phylacteries for his arms. A wondrous fault indeed! And what pity is it that for this one trespass of his life he should lose the title of one perfectly holy. Yet for this dreadful crime is the poor wretch deprived of a solemn interment, and by this was his atonement made.
We meet with this distinction of just persons in Beracoth: "R. Abhu saith, In the place where stand the penitents, there do not stand the perfectly just." This distinction also appeared both in the tongues and persons of those that were dancing in the Temple at the feast of Tabernacles. "Some of them said, 'Blessed be our youth that have not made our old men ashamed.' These were the holy and men of good works. Others said, 'Blessed be our old men who have expiated for our youth.' These were they who became penitents."
This phrase of perfectly just persons, puts me in mind of that of the apostle, the spirits of just men made perfect. Where (if I understand aright the scope of the apostle in the argument he is upon) he speaks of just men who are still in this life, and shews that the souls and spirits of believers are made perfectly righteous by faith, contrary to what the Jews held, that men were complete in their righteousness by works, even bodily works.
Seeing those whom they accounted perfectly just are termed men of works; so that perfectly just and men of works were convertible terms, it may not be improbable that the Essenes or Essaei may have their name from of works; so that they might be called workers, and by that be distinguished from the penitents. But of that matter I will raise no dispute.
III. Now which of these had the preference, whether perfect righteousness to repentance, or repentance to perfect righteousness, it is not easy to discern at first view, because even amongst themselves there are different opinions about it. We have a disputation in Beracoth, in the place newly cited, in these words: "R. Chaiah Bar Abba saith, R. Jochanan saith, All the prophets did not prophesy, unless for those that repent. As for those that are perfectly just, eye hath not seen besides thee, O God. But R. Abhu contradicts this: for R. Abhu saith, The penitent do not stand in the place where the perfectly just stand; as it is said, Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near. He names him that is far off first, and then him that is nigh. But R. Jochanan, Who is he that is far off? He that was far off from transgressing from his first original. And who is he that is nigh? He that was next to transgression, but now is afar off from it."
These passages of the Talmud are quoted by Kimchi upon Isaiah 57:19; and, out of him, by Drusius upon this place; but as far as I can perceive, very far wide from the mind of Kimchi. For thus Drusius hath it; R. David Isaiah 57:19, Hoc in loco, &c. In this place the penitent is said to be far off, and the just to be nigh, according to the ancients: but he that is far off is preferred; whence they say, The penitents are better than the perfectly just. As if this obtained amongst them all as a rule or maxim; when indeed the words of Kimchi are these: "He that is far off, that is, he that is far off from Jerusalem, and he that is near, that is, he that is near to Jerusalem. But there is a dispute in the words of our Rabbins about this matter. And some of them interpret it otherwise; for they expound him that is afar off, as to be understood of the penitent, and him that is near, as meaning the just: from whence they teach and say, That the penitent are better than those that are perfectly just."
Some, indeed, that do so expound it, say, that those that are penitent are to be preferred before those that are the perfectly just, but this was not the common and received opinion of all. Nay, the more general opinion gave so great a preference to perfect righteousness, that repentance was not to be compared with it. Hence that of R. Jochanan, approved of by R. Chaijah the great Rabbin, that those good and comfortable things concerning which the prophets do mention in their prophecies, belong only to those who were sometimes wicked men but afterward came unto repentance; but they were far greater things that were laid up for perfectly just persons,--things which had never been revealed to the prophets, nor no prophetic eye ever saw, but God only; things which were indeed of a higher nature than that they could be made known to men; for so the Gloss explaineth those words of theirs.
In this, indeed, they attribute some peculiar excellency to the penitent; in that, although they had tasted the sweets of sin, yet they had abandoned it, and got out of the snare: which it might have been a question whether those that are perfectly just would have done if they had tasted and experienced the same. But still they esteemed it much nobler never to have been stained with the pollutions of sin, always to have been just, and never otherwise than good. Nor is it seldom that we meet with some in the Talmudists making their own perfection the subject of their boast, glorying that they have never done any enormous thing throughout their whole life; placing those whom they called holy or good men, who were also the same with perfectly just, placing them (I say) in the highest form of just persons.
IV. After all this, therefore, judge whether Christ spoke simply or directly of any such persons (as if there were really any such) that could need no repentance; or rather, whether he did not at that time utter himself according to the common conceptions that nation had about some perfectly just persons, which he himself opposed. And this seems so much the more likely by how much he saith, "I say unto you," as if he set himself against that common conceit of theirs: and that example he brings of a certain person that needed no repentance, viz., the prodigal's brother, savours rather of the Jewish doctrine than that he supposed any one in this world perfectly just.
8. Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?
[A woman lighteth a candle.] There is a parable not much unlike this in Midras Schir, "R. Phineas Ben Jair expoundeth. If thou seek wisdom as silver, that is, if thou seek the things of the law as hidden treasures--A parable. It is like a man who if he lose a shekel or ornament in his house, he lighteth some candles, some torches, till he find it. If it be thus for the things of this world, how much more may it be for the things of the world to come!"
11. And he said, A certain man had two sons:
[A certain man had two sons.] It is no new thing so to apply this parable, as if the elder son denoted the Jew, and the younger the Gentile. And, indeed, the elder son doth suit well enough with the Jew in this, that he boasts so much of his obedience, "I have not transgressed at any time thy commandment": as also, that he is so much against the entertainment of his brother, now a penitent. Nothing can be more grievous to the Jews than the reception of the Gentiles.
13. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
[He wasted his substance with riotous living.] Ought not this prodigal to be looked upon as that stubborn and rebellious son mentioned Deuteronomy 21:18? By no means, if we take the judgment of the Sanhedrim itself. For, according to the character that is given of a stubborn and rebellious son in Sanhedrim, cap. 8, where there is a set discourse upon that subject, there can hardly be such a one found in nature as he is there described. Unless he steal from his father and his mother, he is not such a son; unless he eat half a pound of flesh, and drink half a log of wine, he is not such a son. If his father or mother be lame or blind, he is not such a son, &c. Half a pound of flesh! It is told of Maximin, that "he drank frequently in one day a Capitoline bottle of wine, and ate forty pounds of flesh; or, as Cordus saith, threescore."
[Ninety-and-nine.] This was a very familiar way of numbering and dividing amongst the Jews, viz. betwixt one and ninety. I have given instances elsewhere, let me in this place add one more: "Of those hundred cries that a woman in travail uttereth, ninety-and-nine of them are to death, and only one of them to life."
7. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
[Which need no repentance.] Here we are to consider the distinction commonly used in the Jewish schools:--
I. All the good, and those that were to be saved at last, they called just persons. [It is opposed to the word wicked persons, as we may observe more than once in the first Psalm.] Hence this and the like passage very frequently, Paradise is for the just: good things laid up for the just.
Let us by the way play a little with the Gemarists, as they themselves also play with the letters of the alphabet, and amongst the rest especially the letter Tsadi, there is Tsadi that begins a word [or the crooked Tsadi] and Tsadi that ends a word [or the straight Tsadi]. What follows from hence? There is the just person that is crooked [or bowed down], and there is the just person that is erect or straight. Where the Gloss hath it, "It is necessary that the man that is right and straight should be bowed or humble, and he shall be erect in the world to come." Aruch acknowledgeth the same Gloss; but he also brings another which seems of his own making; That "there is a just person who is mild or humble; but there is also a just person who is not so." Let him tell, if he can, what kind of just person that should be that is not mild or humble. But to return to our business.
II. They divide the just into those that are just and no more: and those that are perfectly just. Under the first rank they place those that were not always upright; but having lived a wicked and irreligious life, have at length betaken themselves to repentance and reformation. These they call penitents. Under the latter rank are they placed who have been always upright and never declined from the right way: these they call perfectly just, and just from their first original: as also, holy or good men, and men of good works. Such a one did he account himself, and probably was so esteemed by others, that saith, "All these have I kept from my youth." And such a one might that holy man be thought, who never committed one trespass all the days of his life: excepting this one misfortune that befel him, that once he put on the phylacteries for his forehead before the phylacteries for his arms. A wondrous fault indeed! And what pity is it that for this one trespass of his life he should lose the title of one perfectly holy. Yet for this dreadful crime is the poor wretch deprived of a solemn interment, and by this was his atonement made.
We meet with this distinction of just persons in Beracoth: "R. Abhu saith, In the place where stand the penitents, there do not stand the perfectly just." This distinction also appeared both in the tongues and persons of those that were dancing in the Temple at the feast of Tabernacles. "Some of them said, 'Blessed be our youth that have not made our old men ashamed.' These were the holy and men of good works. Others said, 'Blessed be our old men who have expiated for our youth.' These were they who became penitents."
This phrase of perfectly just persons, puts me in mind of that of the apostle, the spirits of just men made perfect. Where (if I understand aright the scope of the apostle in the argument he is upon) he speaks of just men who are still in this life, and shews that the souls and spirits of believers are made perfectly righteous by faith, contrary to what the Jews held, that men were complete in their righteousness by works, even bodily works.
Seeing those whom they accounted perfectly just are termed men of works; so that perfectly just and men of works were convertible terms, it may not be improbable that the Essenes or Essaei may have their name from of works; so that they might be called workers, and by that be distinguished from the penitents. But of that matter I will raise no dispute.
III. Now which of these had the preference, whether perfect righteousness to repentance, or repentance to perfect righteousness, it is not easy to discern at first view, because even amongst themselves there are different opinions about it. We have a disputation in Beracoth, in the place newly cited, in these words: "R. Chaiah Bar Abba saith, R. Jochanan saith, All the prophets did not prophesy, unless for those that repent. As for those that are perfectly just, eye hath not seen besides thee, O God. But R. Abhu contradicts this: for R. Abhu saith, The penitent do not stand in the place where the perfectly just stand; as it is said, Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near. He names him that is far off first, and then him that is nigh. But R. Jochanan, Who is he that is far off? He that was far off from transgressing from his first original. And who is he that is nigh? He that was next to transgression, but now is afar off from it."
These passages of the Talmud are quoted by Kimchi upon Isaiah 57:19; and, out of him, by Drusius upon this place; but as far as I can perceive, very far wide from the mind of Kimchi. For thus Drusius hath it; R. David Isaiah 57:19, Hoc in loco, &c. In this place the penitent is said to be far off, and the just to be nigh, according to the ancients: but he that is far off is preferred; whence they say, The penitents are better than the perfectly just. As if this obtained amongst them all as a rule or maxim; when indeed the words of Kimchi are these: "He that is far off, that is, he that is far off from Jerusalem, and he that is near, that is, he that is near to Jerusalem. But there is a dispute in the words of our Rabbins about this matter. And some of them interpret it otherwise; for they expound him that is afar off, as to be understood of the penitent, and him that is near, as meaning the just: from whence they teach and say, That the penitent are better than those that are perfectly just."
Some, indeed, that do so expound it, say, that those that are penitent are to be preferred before those that are the perfectly just, but this was not the common and received opinion of all. Nay, the more general opinion gave so great a preference to perfect righteousness, that repentance was not to be compared with it. Hence that of R. Jochanan, approved of by R. Chaijah the great Rabbin, that those good and comfortable things concerning which the prophets do mention in their prophecies, belong only to those who were sometimes wicked men but afterward came unto repentance; but they were far greater things that were laid up for perfectly just persons,--things which had never been revealed to the prophets, nor no prophetic eye ever saw, but God only; things which were indeed of a higher nature than that they could be made known to men; for so the Gloss explaineth those words of theirs.
In this, indeed, they attribute some peculiar excellency to the penitent; in that, although they had tasted the sweets of sin, yet they had abandoned it, and got out of the snare: which it might have been a question whether those that are perfectly just would have done if they had tasted and experienced the same. But still they esteemed it much nobler never to have been stained with the pollutions of sin, always to have been just, and never otherwise than good. Nor is it seldom that we meet with some in the Talmudists making their own perfection the subject of their boast, glorying that they have never done any enormous thing throughout their whole life; placing those whom they called holy or good men, who were also the same with perfectly just, placing them (I say) in the highest form of just persons.
IV. After all this, therefore, judge whether Christ spoke simply or directly of any such persons (as if there were really any such) that could need no repentance; or rather, whether he did not at that time utter himself according to the common conceptions that nation had about some perfectly just persons, which he himself opposed. And this seems so much the more likely by how much he saith, "I say unto you," as if he set himself against that common conceit of theirs: and that example he brings of a certain person that needed no repentance, viz., the prodigal's brother, savours rather of the Jewish doctrine than that he supposed any one in this world perfectly just.
8. Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?
[A woman lighteth a candle.] There is a parable not much unlike this in Midras Schir, "R. Phineas Ben Jair expoundeth. If thou seek wisdom as silver, that is, if thou seek the things of the law as hidden treasures--A parable. It is like a man who if he lose a shekel or ornament in his house, he lighteth some candles, some torches, till he find it. If it be thus for the things of this world, how much more may it be for the things of the world to come!"
11. And he said, A certain man had two sons:
[A certain man had two sons.] It is no new thing so to apply this parable, as if the elder son denoted the Jew, and the younger the Gentile. And, indeed, the elder son doth suit well enough with the Jew in this, that he boasts so much of his obedience, "I have not transgressed at any time thy commandment": as also, that he is so much against the entertainment of his brother, now a penitent. Nothing can be more grievous to the Jews than the reception of the Gentiles.
13. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
[He wasted his substance with riotous living.] Ought not this prodigal to be looked upon as that stubborn and rebellious son mentioned Deuteronomy 21:18? By no means, if we take the judgment of the Sanhedrim itself. For, according to the character that is given of a stubborn and rebellious son in Sanhedrim, cap. 8, where there is a set discourse upon that subject, there can hardly be such a one found in nature as he is there described. Unless he steal from his father and his mother, he is not such a son; unless he eat half a pound of flesh, and drink half a log of wine, he is not such a son. If his father or mother be lame or blind, he is not such a son, &c. Half a pound of flesh! It is told of Maximin, that "he drank frequently in one day a Capitoline bottle of wine, and ate forty pounds of flesh; or, as Cordus saith, threescore."
Luke 16
1. And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
[Which had a steward.] This parable seems to have relation to the custom of letting out grounds, which we find discoursed of, Demai, cap. 6, where it is supposed a ground is let by its owner to some tenant upon this condition, that he pay half, or one third or fourth part of the products of the ground, according as is agreed betwixt them as to the proportion and quantity. So, also, he supposes an olive-yard let out upon such kind of conditions. And there it is disputed about the payment of the tithes, in what manner it should be compounded between the owner and him that occupies the ground.
Steward with Kimchi is pakidh, where he hath a parable not much unlike this: "The world (saith he) is like unto a house built; the heaven is the covering of the house; the stars are the candles in the house; the fruits of the earth are like a table spread in the house; the owner of the house, and he indeed that built it, is the holy blessed God. Man in the world is as it were the steward of the house, into whose hands his lord hath delivered all his riches, if he behave himself well, he will find favour in the eyes of his lord; if ill, he will remove him from his stewardship."
3. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
[I cannot dig, to beg I am ashamed.] Is there not some third thing betwixt digging and begging? The distinction betwixt artificers and labourers, mentioned in Bava Mezia, hath place here. This steward, having conversed only with husbandmen, must be supposed skilled in no other handicraft; but that if he should be forced to seek a livelihood, he must be necessitated to apply himself to digging in the vineyards, or fields, or olive-yards.
6. And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
[Take thy bill, &c.] That is, "Take from me the scroll of thy contract, which thou deliveredst to me; and make a new one, of fifty measures only, that are owing by thee." But it seems a great inequality, that he should abate one fifty in a hundred measures of oil, and the other but twenty out of a hundred measures of wheat; unless the measures of wheat exceeded the measure of oil ten times: so that when there were twenty cori of wheat abated the debtor, there were abated to him two hundred baths or ephahs.
9. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
[Of the mammon of unrighteousness.] I. Were I very well assured that our Saviour in this passage meant riches well gotten, and alms to be bestowed thence, I would not render it mammon of unrighteousness, but hurtful mammon. For hurt signifies as well to deal unjustly. Vulg. hurt not the earth. And so riches, even well got, may be said to be hurtful mammon; because it frequently proves noxious to the owner. It is the lawyers' term, the damage of mammon (Maimonides hath a treatise with that title), that is, when any person doth any way hurt or damnify another's estate. And in reality, and on the contrary, hurtful mammon, i.e. when riches turn to the hurt and mischief of the owner...
II. Or perhaps he might call it mammon of unrighteousness in opposition to mammon of righteousness, i.e. of mercy, or almsgiving: for by that word righteousness, the Jews usually expressed charity or almsgiving, as every one that hath dipped into that language knows very well. And then his meaning might be, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, i.e. of those riches which you have not yet laid out in righteousness, or almsgiving...
III. I see no reason, therefore, why we may not, nay, why, indeed, it is not necessary to, understand the words precisely of riches ill gotten. For,
1. So the application of the parable falls in directly with the parable itself: "That steward gained to himself friends by ill-gotten goods; so do ye: make to yourselves friends of the wealth you have not well got."
Object. But far be it from our Saviour to exhort or encourage any to get riches unjustly, or to stir them up to give alms out of what they have dishonestly acquired. Saith Heinsius; "No man but will confess our Lord meant nothing less than that any one should make friends to himself of riches unjustly gained." Yet, for all this, I must acknowledge myself not so very well satisfied in this matter.
2. Let us but a little consider by what words in the Syriac our Saviour might express mammon of unrighteousness, especially if he spoke in the vulgar language. It was a common phrase, mammon of falsity, or false mammon; at least if the Targumists speak in the vulgar idiom of that nation, which none will deny. It is said of Samuel's sons, that "they did not walk in his ways but turned after 'false mammon.'" "He destroys his own house, whoso heaps up to himself the 'mammon of falsehood.'" "Whoever walks in justice, and speaketh right things, and separates himself from 'the mammon of iniquity.'" "To shed blood and to destroy souls, that they may gain 'mammon of falsehood.'"
There needs no commentator to shew what the Targumists mean by mammon of falsehood, or mammon of unrighteousness. They themselves explain it, when they render it sometimes by mammon of violence; sometimes by mammon of wickedness. Kimchi, by mammon of rapine, upon Isaiah 33.
By the way, I cannot but observe, that that expression, Hosea 5:11, after the commandment, i.e. of Jeroboam or Omri, is rendered by the Targumists after the mammon of falsehood. Where also see the Greek and Vulgar.
Seeing it appears before that mammon of unrighteousness, is the same in the Greek with mammon of falsity or false mammon in the Targumists, who speak in the common language of that nation, there is no reason why it should not be taken here in the very same sense. Think but what word our Saviour would use to express unrighteousness by, and then think, if there can be any word more probable than that which was so well known, and so commonly in use in that nation. Indeed the word unrighteousness, in this place, is softened by some, that it should denote no further than false, as not true and substantial: so that the mammon of unrighteousness should signify deceitful mammon, not opposing riches well got to those that are ill got, but opposing earthly riches to spiritual: which rendering of the word took its rise from hence especially, that it looked ill and unseemly, that Christ should persuade any to make to themselves friends by giving alms out of an ill-gotten estate: not to mention that, verse 11, unrighteous mammon, is opposed to true riches.
III. It is not to be doubted but that the disciples of Christ did sufficiently abhor the acquiring of riches by fraud and rapine: but can we absolve all of them from the guilt of it before their conversion? particularly Matthew the publican? And is it so very unseemly for our Saviour to admonish them to make themselves friends by restitution, and a pious distribution of those goods they may have unjustly gathered before their conversion? The discourse is about restitution, and not giving of alms.
IV. It is a continued discourse in this place with that in the foregoing chapter, only that he does more particularly apply himself to his disciples, verse 1, He said unto his disciples; where the particle and joins what is discoursed here with what went before. Now who were his disciples? not the twelve apostles only, nor the seventy disciples only: but, chapter 15:1, all the publicans and sinners that came to hear him. For we needs must suppose them in the number of disciples, if we consider the distinction of the congregation then present, being made between scribes and Pharisees, and those that came to him with a good mind to hear: besides that we may observe how Christ entertains them, converseth with them, and pleads for them in the parable of the foregoing chapter. Which plea and apology for them against the scribes and Pharisees being finished, he turns his discourse to them themselves, and under the parable of an Unjust Steward, instructs them how they may make to themselves friends of the wealth they had unjustly gained, as he had done. And, indeed, what could have been more seasonably urged before the unjust and covetous Pharisees, than to stir up his followers, that, if they had acquired any unrighteous gains before their conversion, they would now honestly restore them, piously distribute them, that so they may make themselves friends of them, as the Unjust Steward had done?
And for a comment upon this doctrine, let us take the instance of Zacchaeus, chapter 19. If Christ, while entertained in his house, had said to him what he said to his disciples here, Zacchaeus, make to thyself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; would Zacchaeus himself, or those that stood by, have understood him any otherwise, than that he should make friends to himself of that wealth he had gotten dishonestly? And why they may not be so understood here, I profess I know not; especially when he discourses amongst those disciples that had been publicans and sinners; and scarce any of them, for aught we know, but before his conversion had been unjust and unrighteous enough.
[Make to yourselves friends.] Were it so, that, by the mammon of unrighteousness could be understood an estate honestly got, and the discourse were about giving of alms, yet would I hardly suppose the poor to be those friends here mentioned, but Got and Christ. For who else were capable of receiving them into everlasting habitations? As for the poor (upon whom these alms are bestowed) doing this, as some have imagined, is mere dream, and deserves to be laughed at rather than discussed.
In Bava Kama we have a discourse about restitution of goods ill gotten; and amongst other things there is this passage: "The Rabbins deliver; those that live upon violence (or thieves), and usurers, if they make restitution, their restitution is not received." And a little after, for shepherds, exactors, and publicans, restitution is difficult. (The Gloss is, Because they have wronged so many, that they know not to whom to restore their own.) But they do make restitution to those who know their own goods, that were purloined from them. They say true, They do make restitution: but others do not receive it of them. To what end then do they make restitution? That they may perform their duty towards God.
Upon what nicety it was that they would not allow those to restitution, from whom the goods had been purloined, I will not stand to inquire. It was necessary, however, that restitution should be made; that that which was due and owing to God might be performed; that is, they might not retain in their hands any ill-gotten goods, but devote them to some good use; and, accordingly, those things that were restored, (if the owners could not know them again) were dedicated to public use, viz. to the use of the synagogue: and so they made God their friend, of the goods that they had gained by dishonesty and unrighteousness.
11. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
[If ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, &c.] The Vulgar, If ye have not been faithful in the unjust mammon: it is not ill rendered. But can any one be faithful in the unrighteous mammon? As to that, let us judge from the example of Zaccaeus: although he was not faithful in scraping together any thing unjustly, yet was he eminently faithful in so piously distributing it.
12. And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
[If ye have not been faithful in that which was another man's, &c.] To apply another man's to that wealth which is given us by God, is something harsh and obscure; but to apply it to the riches of other men, makes the sense a little more easy: "If ye have been unjust in purloining the goods of other men, and will still as unjustly keep them back, what reason have you to think that others will not deal as unjustly with you, and keep back even what is yours?"
16. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
[And every one presseth into it.] These words may be varied into a sense plainly contrary; so far that they may either denote the entertainment or the persecution of the gospel. Saith Beza: Every one breaketh into it by force; which points at the former sense of these words. Vulgar: Every one commits violence upon it: which points to the latter. I have admitted of the former, as that which is the most received sense of that passage in Matthew 11:12: but the latter seems more agreeable in this place, if you will suppose a continued discourse in our Saviour from verse 15, and that one verse depends upon another. They do indeed seem independent, and incoherent one with another; and yet there is no reason why we may not suppose a connexion, though at the first view it is not so perspicuous. We may observe the manner of the schools in this very difficulty. In both the Talmuds, what frequent transitions are there infinitely obscure and inextricable at first sight, and seemingly of no kind of coherence; which yet the expositors have made very plain and perspicuous, very coherent with one another.
I would therefore join and continue the discourse in some such way as this: "You laugh me to scorn, and have my doctrine in derision, boasting yourselves above the sphere of it, as if nothing I said belonged at all to you. Nor do I wonder at it; for whereas the Law and the Prophets were until John, yet did you deal no otherwise with them, but changed and wrested them at your pleasure by your traditions and the false glosses ye have put upon them. And when with John Baptist the kingdom of heaven arose and made its entry among you, every one useth violence and hostility against it, by contradiction, persecution, and laughing it to scorn. And yet, though you by your foolish traditions have made even the whole law void and of none effect, it is easier certainly for heaven and earth to pass away, than that one tittle of the law should fail. Take but an instance in the first and most ancient precept of the law, 'The man shall cleave unto his wife'; which you, by your traditions and arbitrary divorces, have reduced to nothing; but that still remains, and will remain for ever, in its full force and virtue; and he that puts away his wife (according to the licentiousness of your divorces) and marrieth another, committeth adultery."
19. There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
[There was a certain rich man.] Whoever believes this not to be a parable, but a true story, let him believe also those little friars, whose trade it is to shew the monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and point exactly to the place where the house of the 'rich glutton' stood. Most accurate keepers of antiquity indeed! who, after so many hundreds of years, such overthrows of Jerusalem, such devastations and changes, can rake out of the rubbish the place of so private a house, and such a one too as never had any being, but merely in parable. And that it was a parable, not only the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks it.
The main scope and design of it seems this, to hint the destruction of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they had Moses and the Prophets, did not believe them, nay, would not believe, though one (even Jesus) arose from the dead. For that conclusion of the parable abundantly evidenceth what it aimed at: "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
20. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
[Lazarus.] I. We shew in our notes upon St. John 11:1, in several instances, that the word Lazar is by contraction used by the Talmudists for Eleazar. The author of Juchasin attests it: in the Jerusalem Talmud every R. Eleazar is written without an Aleph, R. Lazar.
II. In Midras Coheleth there is a certain beggar called Diglus Patragus or Petargus: poor, infirm, naked, and famished. But there could hardly be invented a more convenient name for a poor beggar than Lazar, which signifies the help of God, when he stands in so much need of the help of men.
But perhaps there may be something more aimed at in the name: for since the discourse is concerning Abraham and Lazarus, who would not call to mind Abraham and Eliezer his servant, one born at Damascus, a Gentile by birth, and sometime in posse the heir of Abraham; but shut out of the inheritance by the birth of Isaac, yet restored here into Abraham's bosom? Which I leave to the judgment of the reader, whether it might not hint the calling of the Gentiles into the faith of Abraham.
The Gemarists make Eliezer to accompany his master even in the cave of Machpelah: "R. Baanah painted the sepulchres: when he came to Abraham's cave, he found Eliezer standing at the mouth of it. He saith unto him, 'What is Abraham doing?' To whom he, He lieth in the embraces of Sarah. Then said Baanah, 'Go and tell him that Baanah is at the door,'" &c.
[Full of sores.] In the Hebrew language, stricken with ulcers. Sometimes his body full of ulcers, as in this story: "They tell of Nahum Gamzu, that he was blind, lame of both hands and of both feet, and in all his body full of sores. He was thrown into a ruinous house, the feet of his bed being put into basins full of water, that the ants might not creep upon him. His disciples ask him, 'Rabbi, how hath this mischief befallen thee, when as thou art a just man?'" He gives the reason himself; viz. Because he deferred to give something to a poor man that begged of him. We have the same story in Hieros Peah, where it were worth the while to take notice how they vary in the telling it.
22. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
[He was carried by the angels.] The Rabbins have an invention that there are three bands of angels attend the death of wicked men, proclaiming, "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked." But what conceptions they have of angels being present at the death of good men, let us judge from this following passage:
"The men of Tsippor said, 'Whoever tells us that Rabbi [Judah] is dead, we will kill him.' Bar Kaphra, looking upon them with his head veiled with a hood, said unto them, 'Holy men, and angels took hold of the tables of the covenant, and the hand of the angels prevailed; so that they took away the tables.' They said unto him, 'Is Rabbi dead then?'" The meaning of this parabolizer was this; Holy men would fain have detained R. Judah still in the land of the living, but the angels took him away.
[Into Abraham's bosom.] ...The Jewish schools dispose of the souls of Jews under a threefold phrase, I can hardly say under a threefold state:--
I. In the garden of Eden, or Paradise. Amongst those many instances that might be alleged, even to nauseousness, let us take one wherein this very Abraham is named:
"'He shall be as a tree planted by the rivers of waters.' This is Abraham, whom God took and planted in the land of Israel; or, whom God took and planted in Paradise." Take one instance more of one of equal fame and piety, and that was Moses: "When our master Moses departed into Paradise, he said unto Joshua, 'If thou hast any doubt upon thee about any thing, inquire now of me concerning it.'"
II. Under the throne of glory. We have a long story in Avoth R. Nathan of the angel of death being sent by God to take away the soul of Moses; which when he could not do, "God taketh hold of him himself, and treasureth him up under the throne of glory." And a little after; "Nor is Moses' soul only placed under the throne of glory; but the souls of other just persons also are reposited under the throne of glory."
Moses, in the words quoted before, is in Paradise; in these words, he is under the throne of glory. In another place, "he is in heaven ministering before God." So that under different phrases is the same thing expressed; and this, however, is made evident, that there the garden of Eden was not to be understood of an earthly, but a heavenly paradise. That in Revelation 6:9, of 'souls crying under the altar,' comes pretty near this phrase, of being placed under the throne of glory. For the Jews conceived of the altar as the throne of the Divine Majesty; and for that reason the court of the Sanhedrim was placed so near the altar, that they might be filled with the reverence of the Divine Majesty so near them, while they were giving judgment. Only, whereas there is mention of the souls of the martyrs that had poured out their blood for God, it is an allusion to the blood of the sacrifices that were wont to be poured out at the foot of the altar.
III. In Abraham's bosom: which if you would know what it is, you need seek no further than the Rhemists, our countrymen (with grief be it spoken), if you will believe them; for they upon this place have this passage: "The bosom of Abraham is the resting-place of all them that died in perfect state of grace before Christ's time; heaven, before, being shut from men. It is called in Zachary a lake without water, and sometimes a prison, but most commonly of the divines Limbus patrum; for that it is thought to have been the higher part or brim of hell," &c.
If our Saviour had been the first author of this phrase, then might it have been tolerable to have looked for the meaning of it amongst Christian expositors; but seeing it is a scheme of speech so familiar amongst the Jews, and our Saviour spoke no other than in the known and vulgar dialect of that nation, the meaning must be fetched thence, not from any Greek or Roman lexicon. That which we are to inquire after is, how it was understood by the auditory then present: and I may lay any wager that the Jews, when they heard Abraham's bosom mentioned, did think of nothing less than that kind of limbo which we have here described. What! Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, &c., in a lake without water, in prison, on the very brim of hell! Is this to be in paradise? is this to be under the throne of glory? And was Lazarus carried thither by angels when he was carried into Abraham's bosom?
We meet with a phrase amongst the Talmudists; Kiddushin, fol. 72: it is quoted also from Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. Let us borrow a little patience of the reader, to transcribe the whole passage:
"Rabbi [Judah] saith to Levi, Represent the Persians to me by some similitude. He saith, They are like to the host of the house of David. Represent to me the Iberians. They are like to the angels of destruction. Represent to me the Ismaelites. They are like the devils of the stinking pit. Represent to me the disciples of the wise, that are in Babylon. they are like to ministering angels. When R. [Judah] died, he said, Hoemnia is in Babylon, and consists of Ammonites wholly. Mesgaria is in Babylon, and wholly consists of spurious people. Birkah is in Babylon, where two men interchange their wives. Birtha Sataia is in Babylon, and at this day they depart from God. Acra of Agma is in Babylon. Ada Bar Ahava is there. This day he sits in Abraham's bosom. This day is Rabh Judah born in Babylon."
Expositors are not well agreed, neither by whom, nor indeed concerning whom, those words are spoken, This day he sits 'in the bosom of Abraham.' And for that reason have I transcribed the whole period, that the reader may spend his judgment amongst them. The author of Juchasin thinks they may be the words of Adah Bar Ahavah spoken concerning Rabbi Judah. Another Gloss saith, They are spoken of Adah Bar Ahavah himself. Let us hear them both: "The day that Rabbi died, Rabh Adah Bar Ahavah said, by way of prophecy, This day doth he sit in Abraham's bosom." "There are those indeed that expound, This day doth he sit in Abraham's bosom, thus; that is, This day he died. Which if it be to be understood of Adah Bar Ahavah, the times do not suit. It seems to be understood therefore, This day he sits in Abraham's bosom: that is, This day is Adah Bar Ahavah circumcised, and entered into the covenant of Abraham."
But the reader may plainly see, having read out the whole period, that these words were spoken neither by Adah nor of him, but by Levi, of whom we have some mention in the beginning of this passage, and spoken concerning Rabbi Judah that was now dead. It is Levi also that saith, that in his room, on that very selfsame day, was Rabh Judah born in Babylon, according to the common adage of their schools, which immediately follows; "A just man never dies, till there be born in his room one like him." So saith R. Meir; "When R. Akibah died, Rabbi [Judah] was born: when Rabbi Judah died, Rabh Judah was born: when Rabh Judah died, Rabba was born: when Rabba died, Rabh Isai was born."
We have here, therefore, if we will make up the story out of both Talmuds, another not very unlike this of ours. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi Judah is conveyed by angels; in the Babylonian, he is placed in Abraham's bosom: neither would the Glosser have doubted in the least either of the thing, or of the way of expressing it, so as to have fled to any new exposition, had he not mistook the person concerning whom these words were uttered. He supposeth them spoken of Adah Bar Ahavah (wherein he is deceived): and because the times do not fall in right, if they were to be understood of his death, he therefore frames a new interpretation of his own, whiles, in the mean time, he acknowledgeth that others expound it otherwise.
We may find out, therefore, the meaning of the phrase according to the common interpretation, by observing, first, that it was universally believed amongst the Jews, that pure and holy souls, when they left this body, went into happiness, to Abraham. Our Saviour speaks according to the received opinion of that nation in this affair, when he saith, "Many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham."
Give me leave to transcribe a story a little more largely than usual: "There was a woman the mother of seven martyrs (so we find it also 2 Maccabees 7)." When six of her sons were slain, and the youngest brought out in order to it, though but a child of two years and a half old, "the mother saith to Caesar, 'by the life of thy head, I beseech thee, O Caesar, let me embrace and kiss my child.' This being permitted her, she plucked out her breasts and gave it suck. The she; 'By the life of thy head, I entreat thee, O Caesar, that thou wouldest first kill me and then the child.' Caesar answered, 'I will not yield to thee in this matter, for it is written in your own law, The heifer or sheep, with its young one, thou shalt not kill on the same day.' To whom she; 'O thou foolishest of all mortals, hast thou performed all the commands, that this only is wanting?' He forthwith commands that the child should be killed. The mother running into the embraces of her little son, kissed him and said, 'Go thou, O my son, to Abraham thy father, and tell him, Thus saith my mother, Do not thou boast, saying, I built an altar, and offered my son Isaac: for my mother hath built seven altars, and offered seven sons in one day,'" &c.
This woman, questionless, did not doubt of the innocence and purity of the soul of this child, nor of its future happiness, (for we will suppose the truth of the story) which happiness she expresseth sufficiently by this, that her son was going to his father Abraham. There are several other things to the same purpose and of the same mould, that might be produced, but let this suffice in this place: however, see notes upon verse 24.
Now what this being in Abraham's bosom may signify amongst the Jews, we may gather from what is spoken of the manners and the death of this R. Judah; concerning whom it is said, This day he sits in Abraham's bosom. "Rabbi Judah had the toothache thirteen years; and in all that time there was not an abortive woman throughout the whole land of Israel." For to him it is that they apply those words of the prophet, "He was a man of sorrows, and hath borne our griefs." And for these very pains of his, some had almost persuaded themselves that he was the Messiah. At length this toothache was relieved by Elias, appearing in the likeness of R. Chaijah Rubbah, who, by touching his tooth, cured him. When he died, and was to be buried on the evening of the sabbath, there were eighteen synagogues accompanied him to his grave. "Miracles were done; the day did not decline, till every one was got home before the entrance of the sabbath." Bath Kol pronounced happiness for all those that wept for him, excepting one by name; which one when he knew himself excepted, threw himself headlong from the roof of the house, and so died, &c. But to add no more, for his incomparable learning and piety he was called R. Judah the holy. And whither would the Jew think such a one would go when he went out of this world? Who amongst them, when it was said of him that was in Abraham's bosom, would not without all scruple and hesitancy understand it, that he was in the very embraces of Abraham, (as they were wont at table one to lie in the other's bosom) in the exquisite delights and perfect felicities of paradise? not in 'a lake without water,' 'a prison,' 'the very brink of hell.'
23. And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
[He seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus.] Instead of commentary, take another parable: "There are wicked men that are coupled together in this world. But one of them repents before death; the other doth not: so the one is found standing in the assembly of the just; the other in the assembly of the wicked. The one seeth the other, [this agrees with the passage now before us] and saith, 'Woe! and alas! here is accepting of persons in this thing: he and I robbed together, committed murder together; and now he stands in the congregation of the just, and I in the congregation of the wicked.' They answer him, 'O thou most foolish amongst mortals that are in the world! Thou wert abominable, and cast forth for three days after thy death, and they did not lay thee in the grave: the worm was under thee, and the worm covered thee: which when this companion of thine came to understand, he became a penitent. It was in thy power also to have repented, but thou didst not.' He saith unto them, 'Let me go now and become a penitent,' But they say, 'O thou foolishest of men, dost thou not know that this world in which thou art is like the sabbath, and the world out of which thou camest is like the evening of the sabbath? If thou dost not provide something on the evening of the sabbath, what wilt thou eat on the sabbath day? Dost thou not know that the world out of which thou camest is like the land, and the world in which thou now art is like the sea? If a man make no provision on land for what he should eat at sea, what will he have to eat?' He gnashed his teeth and gnawed his own flesh."
24. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
[And he cried and said.] We have mention of the dead discoursing one amongst another, and also with those that are alive. "R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, How doth it appear that the dead have any discourse amongst themselves? It appears from what is said, And the Lord said unto him, This is the land, concerning which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and Jacob saying: What is the meaning of saying? The Holy Blessed God saith unto Moses, Go thou and say to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, The oath which I sware unto you, I have performed unto your children." Note that: "Go thou and say to Abraham," &c. "There is a story of a certain pious man, that went and lodged in a burying-place, and heard two souls discoursing amongst themselves. Said the one unto the other, 'Come, my companion, and let us wander about the world, and listen behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the world.' To which the other replied, 'O my companion, I cannot; for I am buried in a cane mat: but do thou go, and whatsoever thou hearest, do thou come and tell me.' The soul went, and wandered about the world," &c.
"The year following he went again, and lodging in a place of burial, he heard two souls discoursing between themselves. Saith the one unto the other, 'O my companion, come, let us wander about the world, and hearken behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the world.' To which the other, 'O my companion, let me alone; for the words that formerly passed between thee and me were heard amongst the living.' 'Whence could they know?' 'Perhaps some other person that is dead went and told them.'"
"There was a certain person deposited some zuzees with a certain hostess till he should return; and went to the house of Rabh. When he returned she was dead. He went after her to the place of burial, and said unto her, 'Where are my zuzees?' She saith unto him, 'Go, take it from under the hinge of the door, in a certain place there: and speak to my mother to send me my black lead, and the reed of paint by the woman N., who is coming hither tomorrow.' But whence do they know that such a one shall die? Dumah [that is, the angel who is appointed over the dead] comes before, and proclaims it to them."
"The zuzees that belonged to orphans were deposited with the father of Samuel [the Rabbin]. He died, Samuel being absent. He went after him to the place of burial, and said unto them [i.e. to the dead], I look for Abba. They say unto him, Abba the good is here. 'I look for Abba Bar Abba.' They say unto him, 'Abba Bar Abba the good is here.' He saith unto them, 'I look for Abba Bar Abba the father of Samuel; where is he?' They say unto him, He is gone up to the academy of the firmament. Then he saw Levi [his colleague] sitting without." (The Gloss hath it, The dead appeared as without their graves, sitting in a circle, but Levi sat without the circle.) "He saith unto him, 'Why dost thou sit without? why dost thou not ascend?' He answered him, 'They say unto me, Because there want those years wherein thou didst not go into the academy of the Rabbi.' When his father came, he saw him weep. He saith unto him, 'Why dost thou weep?' He saith unto him, 'Where is the orphans' money?' He saith unto him, 'Go, and take it out of the mill-house,'" &c. But I fear, the reader will frown at this huge length of trifles.
[And cool my tongue.] There was a good man and a wicked man that died. As for the good man, he had no funeral rites solemnized, but the wicked man had. Afterward, there was one saw in his dream the good man walking in gardens, and hard by pleasant springs: but the wicked man with his tongue trickling drop by drop at the bank of a river, endeavouring to touch the water, but he could not.
26. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
[A great gulf fixed.] It is well known from the poets, that inferi among the Latins comprehend the seat both of the blessed and the damned, denoting in general the state of the dead, be they according to the quality of their persons allotted either to joys or punishments. On this hand, Elysium for the good; on that hand, Tartarus for the wicked; the river Cocytus, or Acheron, or some such great gulf fixed betwixt them. The Jews seem not to have been very distant from this apprehension of things. "God hath set the one against the other, that is, hell and paradise. How far are they distant? A handbreadth. R. Jochanan saith, A wall is between." But the Rabbins say, They are so even with one another, that you may see out of one into the other.
That of seeing out of the one into the other agrees with the passage before us; nor is it very dissonant that it is said, They are so even with one another; that is, they are so even, that they have a plain view one from the other, nothing being interposed to hinder it, and yet so great a gulf between, that it is impossible to pass the one to the other. That is worth noting, Revelation 14:10, "Shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb."
29. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
[They have Moses and the prophets.] The historical books also are comprehended under the title of the Prophets, according to the common acceptation of the Jews, and the reading in their synagogues: "All the books of the Prophets are eight; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve." So the Gemara also reckons them. So we find the Octateuch of the Prophets, as well as the Pentateuch of Moses, in Photius; of which we have spoken elsewhere.
But are the Hagiographa excluded, when mention is made only of the law and the prophets? Our Saviour speaks after the usual manner of their reading Moses and the Prophets in their synagogues; where every ordinary person, even the most rude and illiterate, met with them, though he had neither Moses nor the prophets nor the Hagiographa at his own house. Indeed, the holy writings, were not read in the synagogues (for what reason I will not dispute in this place), but they were, however, far from being rejected by the people, but accounted for divine writings, which may be evinced, besides other things, even from the very name. Our Saviour therefore makes no mention of them, not because he lightly esteems them, but because Moses and the prophets were heard by every one every sabbath day; and so were not the Hagiographa.
31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
[Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.] Any one may see how Christ points at the infidelity of the Jews, even after that himself shall have risen again. From whence it is easy to judge what was the design and intention of this parable.
[Which had a steward.] This parable seems to have relation to the custom of letting out grounds, which we find discoursed of, Demai, cap. 6, where it is supposed a ground is let by its owner to some tenant upon this condition, that he pay half, or one third or fourth part of the products of the ground, according as is agreed betwixt them as to the proportion and quantity. So, also, he supposes an olive-yard let out upon such kind of conditions. And there it is disputed about the payment of the tithes, in what manner it should be compounded between the owner and him that occupies the ground.
Steward with Kimchi is pakidh, where he hath a parable not much unlike this: "The world (saith he) is like unto a house built; the heaven is the covering of the house; the stars are the candles in the house; the fruits of the earth are like a table spread in the house; the owner of the house, and he indeed that built it, is the holy blessed God. Man in the world is as it were the steward of the house, into whose hands his lord hath delivered all his riches, if he behave himself well, he will find favour in the eyes of his lord; if ill, he will remove him from his stewardship."
3. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
[I cannot dig, to beg I am ashamed.] Is there not some third thing betwixt digging and begging? The distinction betwixt artificers and labourers, mentioned in Bava Mezia, hath place here. This steward, having conversed only with husbandmen, must be supposed skilled in no other handicraft; but that if he should be forced to seek a livelihood, he must be necessitated to apply himself to digging in the vineyards, or fields, or olive-yards.
6. And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
[Take thy bill, &c.] That is, "Take from me the scroll of thy contract, which thou deliveredst to me; and make a new one, of fifty measures only, that are owing by thee." But it seems a great inequality, that he should abate one fifty in a hundred measures of oil, and the other but twenty out of a hundred measures of wheat; unless the measures of wheat exceeded the measure of oil ten times: so that when there were twenty cori of wheat abated the debtor, there were abated to him two hundred baths or ephahs.
9. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
[Of the mammon of unrighteousness.] I. Were I very well assured that our Saviour in this passage meant riches well gotten, and alms to be bestowed thence, I would not render it mammon of unrighteousness, but hurtful mammon. For hurt signifies as well to deal unjustly. Vulg. hurt not the earth. And so riches, even well got, may be said to be hurtful mammon; because it frequently proves noxious to the owner. It is the lawyers' term, the damage of mammon (Maimonides hath a treatise with that title), that is, when any person doth any way hurt or damnify another's estate. And in reality, and on the contrary, hurtful mammon, i.e. when riches turn to the hurt and mischief of the owner...
II. Or perhaps he might call it mammon of unrighteousness in opposition to mammon of righteousness, i.e. of mercy, or almsgiving: for by that word righteousness, the Jews usually expressed charity or almsgiving, as every one that hath dipped into that language knows very well. And then his meaning might be, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, i.e. of those riches which you have not yet laid out in righteousness, or almsgiving...
III. I see no reason, therefore, why we may not, nay, why, indeed, it is not necessary to, understand the words precisely of riches ill gotten. For,
1. So the application of the parable falls in directly with the parable itself: "That steward gained to himself friends by ill-gotten goods; so do ye: make to yourselves friends of the wealth you have not well got."
Object. But far be it from our Saviour to exhort or encourage any to get riches unjustly, or to stir them up to give alms out of what they have dishonestly acquired. Saith Heinsius; "No man but will confess our Lord meant nothing less than that any one should make friends to himself of riches unjustly gained." Yet, for all this, I must acknowledge myself not so very well satisfied in this matter.
2. Let us but a little consider by what words in the Syriac our Saviour might express mammon of unrighteousness, especially if he spoke in the vulgar language. It was a common phrase, mammon of falsity, or false mammon; at least if the Targumists speak in the vulgar idiom of that nation, which none will deny. It is said of Samuel's sons, that "they did not walk in his ways but turned after 'false mammon.'" "He destroys his own house, whoso heaps up to himself the 'mammon of falsehood.'" "Whoever walks in justice, and speaketh right things, and separates himself from 'the mammon of iniquity.'" "To shed blood and to destroy souls, that they may gain 'mammon of falsehood.'"
There needs no commentator to shew what the Targumists mean by mammon of falsehood, or mammon of unrighteousness. They themselves explain it, when they render it sometimes by mammon of violence; sometimes by mammon of wickedness. Kimchi, by mammon of rapine, upon Isaiah 33.
By the way, I cannot but observe, that that expression, Hosea 5:11, after the commandment, i.e. of Jeroboam or Omri, is rendered by the Targumists after the mammon of falsehood. Where also see the Greek and Vulgar.
Seeing it appears before that mammon of unrighteousness, is the same in the Greek with mammon of falsity or false mammon in the Targumists, who speak in the common language of that nation, there is no reason why it should not be taken here in the very same sense. Think but what word our Saviour would use to express unrighteousness by, and then think, if there can be any word more probable than that which was so well known, and so commonly in use in that nation. Indeed the word unrighteousness, in this place, is softened by some, that it should denote no further than false, as not true and substantial: so that the mammon of unrighteousness should signify deceitful mammon, not opposing riches well got to those that are ill got, but opposing earthly riches to spiritual: which rendering of the word took its rise from hence especially, that it looked ill and unseemly, that Christ should persuade any to make to themselves friends by giving alms out of an ill-gotten estate: not to mention that, verse 11, unrighteous mammon, is opposed to true riches.
III. It is not to be doubted but that the disciples of Christ did sufficiently abhor the acquiring of riches by fraud and rapine: but can we absolve all of them from the guilt of it before their conversion? particularly Matthew the publican? And is it so very unseemly for our Saviour to admonish them to make themselves friends by restitution, and a pious distribution of those goods they may have unjustly gathered before their conversion? The discourse is about restitution, and not giving of alms.
IV. It is a continued discourse in this place with that in the foregoing chapter, only that he does more particularly apply himself to his disciples, verse 1, He said unto his disciples; where the particle and joins what is discoursed here with what went before. Now who were his disciples? not the twelve apostles only, nor the seventy disciples only: but, chapter 15:1, all the publicans and sinners that came to hear him. For we needs must suppose them in the number of disciples, if we consider the distinction of the congregation then present, being made between scribes and Pharisees, and those that came to him with a good mind to hear: besides that we may observe how Christ entertains them, converseth with them, and pleads for them in the parable of the foregoing chapter. Which plea and apology for them against the scribes and Pharisees being finished, he turns his discourse to them themselves, and under the parable of an Unjust Steward, instructs them how they may make to themselves friends of the wealth they had unjustly gained, as he had done. And, indeed, what could have been more seasonably urged before the unjust and covetous Pharisees, than to stir up his followers, that, if they had acquired any unrighteous gains before their conversion, they would now honestly restore them, piously distribute them, that so they may make themselves friends of them, as the Unjust Steward had done?
And for a comment upon this doctrine, let us take the instance of Zacchaeus, chapter 19. If Christ, while entertained in his house, had said to him what he said to his disciples here, Zacchaeus, make to thyself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; would Zacchaeus himself, or those that stood by, have understood him any otherwise, than that he should make friends to himself of that wealth he had gotten dishonestly? And why they may not be so understood here, I profess I know not; especially when he discourses amongst those disciples that had been publicans and sinners; and scarce any of them, for aught we know, but before his conversion had been unjust and unrighteous enough.
[Make to yourselves friends.] Were it so, that, by the mammon of unrighteousness could be understood an estate honestly got, and the discourse were about giving of alms, yet would I hardly suppose the poor to be those friends here mentioned, but Got and Christ. For who else were capable of receiving them into everlasting habitations? As for the poor (upon whom these alms are bestowed) doing this, as some have imagined, is mere dream, and deserves to be laughed at rather than discussed.
In Bava Kama we have a discourse about restitution of goods ill gotten; and amongst other things there is this passage: "The Rabbins deliver; those that live upon violence (or thieves), and usurers, if they make restitution, their restitution is not received." And a little after, for shepherds, exactors, and publicans, restitution is difficult. (The Gloss is, Because they have wronged so many, that they know not to whom to restore their own.) But they do make restitution to those who know their own goods, that were purloined from them. They say true, They do make restitution: but others do not receive it of them. To what end then do they make restitution? That they may perform their duty towards God.
Upon what nicety it was that they would not allow those to restitution, from whom the goods had been purloined, I will not stand to inquire. It was necessary, however, that restitution should be made; that that which was due and owing to God might be performed; that is, they might not retain in their hands any ill-gotten goods, but devote them to some good use; and, accordingly, those things that were restored, (if the owners could not know them again) were dedicated to public use, viz. to the use of the synagogue: and so they made God their friend, of the goods that they had gained by dishonesty and unrighteousness.
11. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
[If ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, &c.] The Vulgar, If ye have not been faithful in the unjust mammon: it is not ill rendered. But can any one be faithful in the unrighteous mammon? As to that, let us judge from the example of Zaccaeus: although he was not faithful in scraping together any thing unjustly, yet was he eminently faithful in so piously distributing it.
12. And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
[If ye have not been faithful in that which was another man's, &c.] To apply another man's to that wealth which is given us by God, is something harsh and obscure; but to apply it to the riches of other men, makes the sense a little more easy: "If ye have been unjust in purloining the goods of other men, and will still as unjustly keep them back, what reason have you to think that others will not deal as unjustly with you, and keep back even what is yours?"
16. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
[And every one presseth into it.] These words may be varied into a sense plainly contrary; so far that they may either denote the entertainment or the persecution of the gospel. Saith Beza: Every one breaketh into it by force; which points at the former sense of these words. Vulgar: Every one commits violence upon it: which points to the latter. I have admitted of the former, as that which is the most received sense of that passage in Matthew 11:12: but the latter seems more agreeable in this place, if you will suppose a continued discourse in our Saviour from verse 15, and that one verse depends upon another. They do indeed seem independent, and incoherent one with another; and yet there is no reason why we may not suppose a connexion, though at the first view it is not so perspicuous. We may observe the manner of the schools in this very difficulty. In both the Talmuds, what frequent transitions are there infinitely obscure and inextricable at first sight, and seemingly of no kind of coherence; which yet the expositors have made very plain and perspicuous, very coherent with one another.
I would therefore join and continue the discourse in some such way as this: "You laugh me to scorn, and have my doctrine in derision, boasting yourselves above the sphere of it, as if nothing I said belonged at all to you. Nor do I wonder at it; for whereas the Law and the Prophets were until John, yet did you deal no otherwise with them, but changed and wrested them at your pleasure by your traditions and the false glosses ye have put upon them. And when with John Baptist the kingdom of heaven arose and made its entry among you, every one useth violence and hostility against it, by contradiction, persecution, and laughing it to scorn. And yet, though you by your foolish traditions have made even the whole law void and of none effect, it is easier certainly for heaven and earth to pass away, than that one tittle of the law should fail. Take but an instance in the first and most ancient precept of the law, 'The man shall cleave unto his wife'; which you, by your traditions and arbitrary divorces, have reduced to nothing; but that still remains, and will remain for ever, in its full force and virtue; and he that puts away his wife (according to the licentiousness of your divorces) and marrieth another, committeth adultery."
19. There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
[There was a certain rich man.] Whoever believes this not to be a parable, but a true story, let him believe also those little friars, whose trade it is to shew the monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and point exactly to the place where the house of the 'rich glutton' stood. Most accurate keepers of antiquity indeed! who, after so many hundreds of years, such overthrows of Jerusalem, such devastations and changes, can rake out of the rubbish the place of so private a house, and such a one too as never had any being, but merely in parable. And that it was a parable, not only the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks it.
The main scope and design of it seems this, to hint the destruction of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they had Moses and the Prophets, did not believe them, nay, would not believe, though one (even Jesus) arose from the dead. For that conclusion of the parable abundantly evidenceth what it aimed at: "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
20. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
[Lazarus.] I. We shew in our notes upon St. John 11:1, in several instances, that the word Lazar is by contraction used by the Talmudists for Eleazar. The author of Juchasin attests it: in the Jerusalem Talmud every R. Eleazar is written without an Aleph, R. Lazar.
II. In Midras Coheleth there is a certain beggar called Diglus Patragus or Petargus: poor, infirm, naked, and famished. But there could hardly be invented a more convenient name for a poor beggar than Lazar, which signifies the help of God, when he stands in so much need of the help of men.
But perhaps there may be something more aimed at in the name: for since the discourse is concerning Abraham and Lazarus, who would not call to mind Abraham and Eliezer his servant, one born at Damascus, a Gentile by birth, and sometime in posse the heir of Abraham; but shut out of the inheritance by the birth of Isaac, yet restored here into Abraham's bosom? Which I leave to the judgment of the reader, whether it might not hint the calling of the Gentiles into the faith of Abraham.
The Gemarists make Eliezer to accompany his master even in the cave of Machpelah: "R. Baanah painted the sepulchres: when he came to Abraham's cave, he found Eliezer standing at the mouth of it. He saith unto him, 'What is Abraham doing?' To whom he, He lieth in the embraces of Sarah. Then said Baanah, 'Go and tell him that Baanah is at the door,'" &c.
[Full of sores.] In the Hebrew language, stricken with ulcers. Sometimes his body full of ulcers, as in this story: "They tell of Nahum Gamzu, that he was blind, lame of both hands and of both feet, and in all his body full of sores. He was thrown into a ruinous house, the feet of his bed being put into basins full of water, that the ants might not creep upon him. His disciples ask him, 'Rabbi, how hath this mischief befallen thee, when as thou art a just man?'" He gives the reason himself; viz. Because he deferred to give something to a poor man that begged of him. We have the same story in Hieros Peah, where it were worth the while to take notice how they vary in the telling it.
22. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
[He was carried by the angels.] The Rabbins have an invention that there are three bands of angels attend the death of wicked men, proclaiming, "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked." But what conceptions they have of angels being present at the death of good men, let us judge from this following passage:
"The men of Tsippor said, 'Whoever tells us that Rabbi [Judah] is dead, we will kill him.' Bar Kaphra, looking upon them with his head veiled with a hood, said unto them, 'Holy men, and angels took hold of the tables of the covenant, and the hand of the angels prevailed; so that they took away the tables.' They said unto him, 'Is Rabbi dead then?'" The meaning of this parabolizer was this; Holy men would fain have detained R. Judah still in the land of the living, but the angels took him away.
[Into Abraham's bosom.] ...The Jewish schools dispose of the souls of Jews under a threefold phrase, I can hardly say under a threefold state:--
I. In the garden of Eden, or Paradise. Amongst those many instances that might be alleged, even to nauseousness, let us take one wherein this very Abraham is named:
"'He shall be as a tree planted by the rivers of waters.' This is Abraham, whom God took and planted in the land of Israel; or, whom God took and planted in Paradise." Take one instance more of one of equal fame and piety, and that was Moses: "When our master Moses departed into Paradise, he said unto Joshua, 'If thou hast any doubt upon thee about any thing, inquire now of me concerning it.'"
II. Under the throne of glory. We have a long story in Avoth R. Nathan of the angel of death being sent by God to take away the soul of Moses; which when he could not do, "God taketh hold of him himself, and treasureth him up under the throne of glory." And a little after; "Nor is Moses' soul only placed under the throne of glory; but the souls of other just persons also are reposited under the throne of glory."
Moses, in the words quoted before, is in Paradise; in these words, he is under the throne of glory. In another place, "he is in heaven ministering before God." So that under different phrases is the same thing expressed; and this, however, is made evident, that there the garden of Eden was not to be understood of an earthly, but a heavenly paradise. That in Revelation 6:9, of 'souls crying under the altar,' comes pretty near this phrase, of being placed under the throne of glory. For the Jews conceived of the altar as the throne of the Divine Majesty; and for that reason the court of the Sanhedrim was placed so near the altar, that they might be filled with the reverence of the Divine Majesty so near them, while they were giving judgment. Only, whereas there is mention of the souls of the martyrs that had poured out their blood for God, it is an allusion to the blood of the sacrifices that were wont to be poured out at the foot of the altar.
III. In Abraham's bosom: which if you would know what it is, you need seek no further than the Rhemists, our countrymen (with grief be it spoken), if you will believe them; for they upon this place have this passage: "The bosom of Abraham is the resting-place of all them that died in perfect state of grace before Christ's time; heaven, before, being shut from men. It is called in Zachary a lake without water, and sometimes a prison, but most commonly of the divines Limbus patrum; for that it is thought to have been the higher part or brim of hell," &c.
If our Saviour had been the first author of this phrase, then might it have been tolerable to have looked for the meaning of it amongst Christian expositors; but seeing it is a scheme of speech so familiar amongst the Jews, and our Saviour spoke no other than in the known and vulgar dialect of that nation, the meaning must be fetched thence, not from any Greek or Roman lexicon. That which we are to inquire after is, how it was understood by the auditory then present: and I may lay any wager that the Jews, when they heard Abraham's bosom mentioned, did think of nothing less than that kind of limbo which we have here described. What! Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, &c., in a lake without water, in prison, on the very brim of hell! Is this to be in paradise? is this to be under the throne of glory? And was Lazarus carried thither by angels when he was carried into Abraham's bosom?
We meet with a phrase amongst the Talmudists; Kiddushin, fol. 72: it is quoted also from Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. Let us borrow a little patience of the reader, to transcribe the whole passage:
"Rabbi [Judah] saith to Levi, Represent the Persians to me by some similitude. He saith, They are like to the host of the house of David. Represent to me the Iberians. They are like to the angels of destruction. Represent to me the Ismaelites. They are like the devils of the stinking pit. Represent to me the disciples of the wise, that are in Babylon. they are like to ministering angels. When R. [Judah] died, he said, Hoemnia is in Babylon, and consists of Ammonites wholly. Mesgaria is in Babylon, and wholly consists of spurious people. Birkah is in Babylon, where two men interchange their wives. Birtha Sataia is in Babylon, and at this day they depart from God. Acra of Agma is in Babylon. Ada Bar Ahava is there. This day he sits in Abraham's bosom. This day is Rabh Judah born in Babylon."
Expositors are not well agreed, neither by whom, nor indeed concerning whom, those words are spoken, This day he sits 'in the bosom of Abraham.' And for that reason have I transcribed the whole period, that the reader may spend his judgment amongst them. The author of Juchasin thinks they may be the words of Adah Bar Ahavah spoken concerning Rabbi Judah. Another Gloss saith, They are spoken of Adah Bar Ahavah himself. Let us hear them both: "The day that Rabbi died, Rabh Adah Bar Ahavah said, by way of prophecy, This day doth he sit in Abraham's bosom." "There are those indeed that expound, This day doth he sit in Abraham's bosom, thus; that is, This day he died. Which if it be to be understood of Adah Bar Ahavah, the times do not suit. It seems to be understood therefore, This day he sits in Abraham's bosom: that is, This day is Adah Bar Ahavah circumcised, and entered into the covenant of Abraham."
But the reader may plainly see, having read out the whole period, that these words were spoken neither by Adah nor of him, but by Levi, of whom we have some mention in the beginning of this passage, and spoken concerning Rabbi Judah that was now dead. It is Levi also that saith, that in his room, on that very selfsame day, was Rabh Judah born in Babylon, according to the common adage of their schools, which immediately follows; "A just man never dies, till there be born in his room one like him." So saith R. Meir; "When R. Akibah died, Rabbi [Judah] was born: when Rabbi Judah died, Rabh Judah was born: when Rabh Judah died, Rabba was born: when Rabba died, Rabh Isai was born."
We have here, therefore, if we will make up the story out of both Talmuds, another not very unlike this of ours. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi Judah is conveyed by angels; in the Babylonian, he is placed in Abraham's bosom: neither would the Glosser have doubted in the least either of the thing, or of the way of expressing it, so as to have fled to any new exposition, had he not mistook the person concerning whom these words were uttered. He supposeth them spoken of Adah Bar Ahavah (wherein he is deceived): and because the times do not fall in right, if they were to be understood of his death, he therefore frames a new interpretation of his own, whiles, in the mean time, he acknowledgeth that others expound it otherwise.
We may find out, therefore, the meaning of the phrase according to the common interpretation, by observing, first, that it was universally believed amongst the Jews, that pure and holy souls, when they left this body, went into happiness, to Abraham. Our Saviour speaks according to the received opinion of that nation in this affair, when he saith, "Many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham."
Give me leave to transcribe a story a little more largely than usual: "There was a woman the mother of seven martyrs (so we find it also 2 Maccabees 7)." When six of her sons were slain, and the youngest brought out in order to it, though but a child of two years and a half old, "the mother saith to Caesar, 'by the life of thy head, I beseech thee, O Caesar, let me embrace and kiss my child.' This being permitted her, she plucked out her breasts and gave it suck. The she; 'By the life of thy head, I entreat thee, O Caesar, that thou wouldest first kill me and then the child.' Caesar answered, 'I will not yield to thee in this matter, for it is written in your own law, The heifer or sheep, with its young one, thou shalt not kill on the same day.' To whom she; 'O thou foolishest of all mortals, hast thou performed all the commands, that this only is wanting?' He forthwith commands that the child should be killed. The mother running into the embraces of her little son, kissed him and said, 'Go thou, O my son, to Abraham thy father, and tell him, Thus saith my mother, Do not thou boast, saying, I built an altar, and offered my son Isaac: for my mother hath built seven altars, and offered seven sons in one day,'" &c.
This woman, questionless, did not doubt of the innocence and purity of the soul of this child, nor of its future happiness, (for we will suppose the truth of the story) which happiness she expresseth sufficiently by this, that her son was going to his father Abraham. There are several other things to the same purpose and of the same mould, that might be produced, but let this suffice in this place: however, see notes upon verse 24.
Now what this being in Abraham's bosom may signify amongst the Jews, we may gather from what is spoken of the manners and the death of this R. Judah; concerning whom it is said, This day he sits in Abraham's bosom. "Rabbi Judah had the toothache thirteen years; and in all that time there was not an abortive woman throughout the whole land of Israel." For to him it is that they apply those words of the prophet, "He was a man of sorrows, and hath borne our griefs." And for these very pains of his, some had almost persuaded themselves that he was the Messiah. At length this toothache was relieved by Elias, appearing in the likeness of R. Chaijah Rubbah, who, by touching his tooth, cured him. When he died, and was to be buried on the evening of the sabbath, there were eighteen synagogues accompanied him to his grave. "Miracles were done; the day did not decline, till every one was got home before the entrance of the sabbath." Bath Kol pronounced happiness for all those that wept for him, excepting one by name; which one when he knew himself excepted, threw himself headlong from the roof of the house, and so died, &c. But to add no more, for his incomparable learning and piety he was called R. Judah the holy. And whither would the Jew think such a one would go when he went out of this world? Who amongst them, when it was said of him that was in Abraham's bosom, would not without all scruple and hesitancy understand it, that he was in the very embraces of Abraham, (as they were wont at table one to lie in the other's bosom) in the exquisite delights and perfect felicities of paradise? not in 'a lake without water,' 'a prison,' 'the very brink of hell.'
23. And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
[He seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus.] Instead of commentary, take another parable: "There are wicked men that are coupled together in this world. But one of them repents before death; the other doth not: so the one is found standing in the assembly of the just; the other in the assembly of the wicked. The one seeth the other, [this agrees with the passage now before us] and saith, 'Woe! and alas! here is accepting of persons in this thing: he and I robbed together, committed murder together; and now he stands in the congregation of the just, and I in the congregation of the wicked.' They answer him, 'O thou most foolish amongst mortals that are in the world! Thou wert abominable, and cast forth for three days after thy death, and they did not lay thee in the grave: the worm was under thee, and the worm covered thee: which when this companion of thine came to understand, he became a penitent. It was in thy power also to have repented, but thou didst not.' He saith unto them, 'Let me go now and become a penitent,' But they say, 'O thou foolishest of men, dost thou not know that this world in which thou art is like the sabbath, and the world out of which thou camest is like the evening of the sabbath? If thou dost not provide something on the evening of the sabbath, what wilt thou eat on the sabbath day? Dost thou not know that the world out of which thou camest is like the land, and the world in which thou now art is like the sea? If a man make no provision on land for what he should eat at sea, what will he have to eat?' He gnashed his teeth and gnawed his own flesh."
24. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
[And he cried and said.] We have mention of the dead discoursing one amongst another, and also with those that are alive. "R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, How doth it appear that the dead have any discourse amongst themselves? It appears from what is said, And the Lord said unto him, This is the land, concerning which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and Jacob saying: What is the meaning of saying? The Holy Blessed God saith unto Moses, Go thou and say to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, The oath which I sware unto you, I have performed unto your children." Note that: "Go thou and say to Abraham," &c. "There is a story of a certain pious man, that went and lodged in a burying-place, and heard two souls discoursing amongst themselves. Said the one unto the other, 'Come, my companion, and let us wander about the world, and listen behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the world.' To which the other replied, 'O my companion, I cannot; for I am buried in a cane mat: but do thou go, and whatsoever thou hearest, do thou come and tell me.' The soul went, and wandered about the world," &c.
"The year following he went again, and lodging in a place of burial, he heard two souls discoursing between themselves. Saith the one unto the other, 'O my companion, come, let us wander about the world, and hearken behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the world.' To which the other, 'O my companion, let me alone; for the words that formerly passed between thee and me were heard amongst the living.' 'Whence could they know?' 'Perhaps some other person that is dead went and told them.'"
"There was a certain person deposited some zuzees with a certain hostess till he should return; and went to the house of Rabh. When he returned she was dead. He went after her to the place of burial, and said unto her, 'Where are my zuzees?' She saith unto him, 'Go, take it from under the hinge of the door, in a certain place there: and speak to my mother to send me my black lead, and the reed of paint by the woman N., who is coming hither tomorrow.' But whence do they know that such a one shall die? Dumah [that is, the angel who is appointed over the dead] comes before, and proclaims it to them."
"The zuzees that belonged to orphans were deposited with the father of Samuel [the Rabbin]. He died, Samuel being absent. He went after him to the place of burial, and said unto them [i.e. to the dead], I look for Abba. They say unto him, Abba the good is here. 'I look for Abba Bar Abba.' They say unto him, 'Abba Bar Abba the good is here.' He saith unto them, 'I look for Abba Bar Abba the father of Samuel; where is he?' They say unto him, He is gone up to the academy of the firmament. Then he saw Levi [his colleague] sitting without." (The Gloss hath it, The dead appeared as without their graves, sitting in a circle, but Levi sat without the circle.) "He saith unto him, 'Why dost thou sit without? why dost thou not ascend?' He answered him, 'They say unto me, Because there want those years wherein thou didst not go into the academy of the Rabbi.' When his father came, he saw him weep. He saith unto him, 'Why dost thou weep?' He saith unto him, 'Where is the orphans' money?' He saith unto him, 'Go, and take it out of the mill-house,'" &c. But I fear, the reader will frown at this huge length of trifles.
[And cool my tongue.] There was a good man and a wicked man that died. As for the good man, he had no funeral rites solemnized, but the wicked man had. Afterward, there was one saw in his dream the good man walking in gardens, and hard by pleasant springs: but the wicked man with his tongue trickling drop by drop at the bank of a river, endeavouring to touch the water, but he could not.
26. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
[A great gulf fixed.] It is well known from the poets, that inferi among the Latins comprehend the seat both of the blessed and the damned, denoting in general the state of the dead, be they according to the quality of their persons allotted either to joys or punishments. On this hand, Elysium for the good; on that hand, Tartarus for the wicked; the river Cocytus, or Acheron, or some such great gulf fixed betwixt them. The Jews seem not to have been very distant from this apprehension of things. "God hath set the one against the other, that is, hell and paradise. How far are they distant? A handbreadth. R. Jochanan saith, A wall is between." But the Rabbins say, They are so even with one another, that you may see out of one into the other.
That of seeing out of the one into the other agrees with the passage before us; nor is it very dissonant that it is said, They are so even with one another; that is, they are so even, that they have a plain view one from the other, nothing being interposed to hinder it, and yet so great a gulf between, that it is impossible to pass the one to the other. That is worth noting, Revelation 14:10, "Shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb."
29. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
[They have Moses and the prophets.] The historical books also are comprehended under the title of the Prophets, according to the common acceptation of the Jews, and the reading in their synagogues: "All the books of the Prophets are eight; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve." So the Gemara also reckons them. So we find the Octateuch of the Prophets, as well as the Pentateuch of Moses, in Photius; of which we have spoken elsewhere.
But are the Hagiographa excluded, when mention is made only of the law and the prophets? Our Saviour speaks after the usual manner of their reading Moses and the Prophets in their synagogues; where every ordinary person, even the most rude and illiterate, met with them, though he had neither Moses nor the prophets nor the Hagiographa at his own house. Indeed, the holy writings, were not read in the synagogues (for what reason I will not dispute in this place), but they were, however, far from being rejected by the people, but accounted for divine writings, which may be evinced, besides other things, even from the very name. Our Saviour therefore makes no mention of them, not because he lightly esteems them, but because Moses and the prophets were heard by every one every sabbath day; and so were not the Hagiographa.
31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
[Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.] Any one may see how Christ points at the infidelity of the Jews, even after that himself shall have risen again. From whence it is easy to judge what was the design and intention of this parable.
Luke 17
2. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
[That a millstone were hanged about his neck.] There is mention among the Talmudic authors, concerning an ass-mill, and it is distinguished from a hand-mill. "Whoso hireth a house of his neighbour, he may build an ass-mill, but not a hand-mill."
To have a millstone hanged about his neck was a common proverb. "Samuel saith, It is a tradition, that a man may marry, and after that apply himself to the study of the law. But R. Jochanan saith, No. Shall he addict himself to the study of the law with a millstone about his neck?"
Suidas tells us, When they drowned any in the sea, they hung stones about their necks. And quotes that of Aristophanes:
Lifting him up, I'll plunge him to the deep,
A stone hung at his neck.
3. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
[Rebuke him.] The Rabbins are not sparing in granting the lawfulness of repeating rebuke upon rebuke, but they are most sparing about forgiveness where any hath given an offence. They allow, from Leviticus 19:17, that a man may rebuke a hundred times if there be any need for it; nay, that it is the duty of a disciple to rebuke his master if occasion be. But as to forgiving him that offends, they abuse the words of the prophet, Amos 1:2, "for three transgressions"; and that of Job 33:29, "Lo, God worketh all these things three times with man"; and teach that a man is not bound to forgive a fourth trespass.
6. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
[As a grain of mustard seed.] A phrase greatly in use. Sometimes we have it like a seed of mustard. Sometimes, like a grain of mustard seed. Sometimes, like a drop of mustard.
When our Lord had been teaching his disciples concerning charity towards their offending brother, they beg of him increase our faith. Which words (saving that I would not wrong the faith of the apostles, as if they begged of their Master an increase of it) I would inquire whether they might not be put into some such sense as this: "Lay down or add something concerning the measure of our faith, as thou hast done concerning the measure of our charity": which, therefore, he doth in his following discourse.
7. But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
[Will say unto him by and by, Go and sit down to meat?] Some there were of old that were wont to do thus. "The wise men of old were used to give their servant something of every thing that they ate themselves." This was indeed kindly done, and but what they ought; but then it follows, they made their beasts and their servants take their meals before themselves. This was supererogation.
11. And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.
[He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.] If it had been said through the midst of Galilee and Samaria, there had been no difficulty; but being said through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, it raiseth that doubt to which I have formerly spoken, viz. whether through 'Galilee,' in this place, ought not to be understood through 'Perea.' The Syriac and Arabic seem to have been aware of this difficulty; and therefore, to accommodate the matter, have rendered through the midst, by between. So that the sense they seem to make of it is this: that Jesus in his journey to Jerusalem took his way in the very extreme borders of Galilee and Samaria, i.e. that he went between the confines, and, as it were, upon the very brink of each country for a good way together. He did, indeed, go to the Scythopolitan bridge, by which he passed over into Perea: but whether through the midst will allow of such a rendering, let the more skillful judge.
12. And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:
[Ten men that were lepers.] I. It is provided by a law, in Leviticus 13:46, that "he that is a leper shall dwell alone, and without the camp." How then came these ten to converse thus together? as also those four together, 2 Kings 7:3?
Other unclean persons must not live with him: i.e. those that are unclean by other kind of defilements: which also is intimated by the Gemarists in these words: "Shall those that have their issues, and those that are defiled by the dead, be sent out into one and the same place? The text saith, 'They shall not defile their camps,' Numbers 5:3; to assign one camp for these, and another for them."
The lepers might be conversant with lepers, and those that had issues with those that had issues; but those that were under different defilements might not converse promiscuously. Which confirms what I have conceived concerning the five porches at the pool of Bethesda; viz., that they were so framed and distinguished at first, that there might be a different reception for those that had contracted different kinds of defilements, and were there waiting to be cleansed in that pool.
That there were certain places where they that were unclean by that disease of the leprosy were secluded, reason might persuade us: for it were an inhuman thing to cast the leprous out of the city without any provision of a dwelling for them, but that they should always lie in the open air. Whether there was any such thing in this place, I will not determine. It seems as if these ten lepers, having heard of our Saviour's coming that way, were got but lately together to attend him there. For when the seventy disciples had beforehand openly proclaimed, in all the places where he was to come, that he would come thither, it is easy to conceive in what infinite throngs the sick, and all that were affected with any kind of distemper, would be crowding thither for a cure.
II. "The leper that transgresseth his bounds, let him receive forty stripes. Those that have their issues, men or women, if they transgress their limits, let them also receive forty stripes." Where the Gloss is, "The limits for those that have their issues are the Mountain of the House, or the Court of the Gentiles: for they are forbid to enter into the camp of the Levites. The unclean are not excluded but from the Court: excepting those that have their issues and a gonorrhea upon them; they are excluded even from the Mountain of the House; and the leper, who is excluded from the camp of Israel, that is, from the city."
Now the camp of Israel, out of which the leper was to be excluded, they interpreted to be every city that had been walled from the days of Joshua: "For (say they) Joshua sanctified the walled cities with the holiness that was ascribed to the camp of Israel; but he did not so to the rest of the land, nor the cities that had no walls." This was a village, and not such a city, where these ten lepers meet our Saviour; and if they were within this village, it was neither beyond the custom nor the rule, provided that they kept but their distance.
"A leper enters into the synagogue: they make him some grates, or bounds, ten hands high and four cubits broad: he enters the first, and goes out the last." The Gloss is, "Lest they should be defiled that stand in the synagogue," &c.
20. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[The kingdom of god cometh not with observation.] The kingdom of God, or of heaven, hath especially a twofold distinct sense in the Holy Scriptures. In some places it signifies the propagation of the gospel by the Messias and his followers, and that especially amongst the Gentiles: in other places it denotes the Messiah's victory and vengeance upon the Jews, the enemies of this gospel; but in the Jewish schools this was their conceit of him: that when he came he should cut off all those nations that obeyed not his, i.e., the Jewish law; redeeming Israel from the Gentile yoke; establishing a kingdom and age amongst them that should be crowned with all kind of delights whatever. In this they were miserably deceived, that they thought the Gentiles were first to be destroyed by him, and then that he himself would reign amongst the Israelites. Which, in truth, fell out just contrary; he was first to overthrow Israel, and then to reign amongst the Gentiles.
It is easy to conceive in what sense the Pharisees propounded that question, When the kingdom of God should come? that is, when all those glorious things should be accomplished which they expected from the Messias? and, consequently, we may as well conceive, from the contexture of his discourse, in what sense our Saviour made his reply: "You inquire when the Messias will come: His coming will be as in the days of Noah, and as in the days of Lot. For as when Noah entered the ark the world perished by a deluge, and as when Lot went out of Sodom those five cities were overthrown, 'so shall it be in the day when the Son of Man shall be revealed.'" So that it is evident he speaks of the kingdom of God in that sense, as it signifies that dreadful revenge he would ere long take of that provoking nation and city of the Jews. The kingdom of God will come when Jerusalem shall be made like Sodom, verse 29, when it shall be made a carcase, verse 37.
It is plain to every eye, that the cutting-off of that place and nation is emphatically called his kingdom, and his coming in glory. Nor indeed without reason: for before he wasted the city and subverted that nation, he had subdued all nations under the empire and obedience of the gospel; according to what he foretold, "That the gospel of the kingdom should be preached in all the world, and then should the end [of Jerusalem] come." And when he had obtained his dominion amongst the Gentiles, what then remained towards the consummation of his kingdom and victories, but to cut off his enemies the Jews, who would not that he should rule over them? Of this kingdom of God he speaks in this place, not answering according to that vain apprehension the Pharisee had when he propounded the question, but according to the thing itself and the truth of it. There are two things he saith of this kingdom:
1. That it comes not with observation. Not but that it might be seen and conspicuous, but that they would not see and observe it. Which security and supineness of theirs he both foretells and taxeth in other places once and again.
2. He further tells them, this kingdom of God is within you: you are the scene of these triumphs. And whereas your expectancies are of that kind, that you say, Behold here a token of the Messias in the subduing of such a nation, and, Behold there in the subduing of another; they will be all in vain, for it is within you; within, and upon your own nation, that these things must be done. I would lay the emphasis in the word you, when commonly it is laid in within.
Besides, those things which follow, verse 22, do very much confirm it, that Christ speaks of the kingdom of God in that sense wherein we have supposed it: they are spoken to his disciples "that the days will come, wherein they shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but shall not see it." The days of the Son of man, in the Jewish style, are the days of the Messias: days, wherein they promise themselves nothing but pleasing, prosperous, and gay enjoyments: and, questionless, the Pharisees put this question under this notion only. But our Saviour so applies the terms of the question to the truth, and to his own purpose, that they signify little else but vengeance and wrath and affliction. And it was so far from it, that the Jews should see their expected pleasures, that the disciples themselves should see nothing but affliction, though under another notion.
[That a millstone were hanged about his neck.] There is mention among the Talmudic authors, concerning an ass-mill, and it is distinguished from a hand-mill. "Whoso hireth a house of his neighbour, he may build an ass-mill, but not a hand-mill."
To have a millstone hanged about his neck was a common proverb. "Samuel saith, It is a tradition, that a man may marry, and after that apply himself to the study of the law. But R. Jochanan saith, No. Shall he addict himself to the study of the law with a millstone about his neck?"
Suidas tells us, When they drowned any in the sea, they hung stones about their necks. And quotes that of Aristophanes:
Lifting him up, I'll plunge him to the deep,
A stone hung at his neck.
3. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
[Rebuke him.] The Rabbins are not sparing in granting the lawfulness of repeating rebuke upon rebuke, but they are most sparing about forgiveness where any hath given an offence. They allow, from Leviticus 19:17, that a man may rebuke a hundred times if there be any need for it; nay, that it is the duty of a disciple to rebuke his master if occasion be. But as to forgiving him that offends, they abuse the words of the prophet, Amos 1:2, "for three transgressions"; and that of Job 33:29, "Lo, God worketh all these things three times with man"; and teach that a man is not bound to forgive a fourth trespass.
6. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
[As a grain of mustard seed.] A phrase greatly in use. Sometimes we have it like a seed of mustard. Sometimes, like a grain of mustard seed. Sometimes, like a drop of mustard.
When our Lord had been teaching his disciples concerning charity towards their offending brother, they beg of him increase our faith. Which words (saving that I would not wrong the faith of the apostles, as if they begged of their Master an increase of it) I would inquire whether they might not be put into some such sense as this: "Lay down or add something concerning the measure of our faith, as thou hast done concerning the measure of our charity": which, therefore, he doth in his following discourse.
7. But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
[Will say unto him by and by, Go and sit down to meat?] Some there were of old that were wont to do thus. "The wise men of old were used to give their servant something of every thing that they ate themselves." This was indeed kindly done, and but what they ought; but then it follows, they made their beasts and their servants take their meals before themselves. This was supererogation.
11. And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.
[He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.] If it had been said through the midst of Galilee and Samaria, there had been no difficulty; but being said through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, it raiseth that doubt to which I have formerly spoken, viz. whether through 'Galilee,' in this place, ought not to be understood through 'Perea.' The Syriac and Arabic seem to have been aware of this difficulty; and therefore, to accommodate the matter, have rendered through the midst, by between. So that the sense they seem to make of it is this: that Jesus in his journey to Jerusalem took his way in the very extreme borders of Galilee and Samaria, i.e. that he went between the confines, and, as it were, upon the very brink of each country for a good way together. He did, indeed, go to the Scythopolitan bridge, by which he passed over into Perea: but whether through the midst will allow of such a rendering, let the more skillful judge.
12. And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:
[Ten men that were lepers.] I. It is provided by a law, in Leviticus 13:46, that "he that is a leper shall dwell alone, and without the camp." How then came these ten to converse thus together? as also those four together, 2 Kings 7:3?
Other unclean persons must not live with him: i.e. those that are unclean by other kind of defilements: which also is intimated by the Gemarists in these words: "Shall those that have their issues, and those that are defiled by the dead, be sent out into one and the same place? The text saith, 'They shall not defile their camps,' Numbers 5:3; to assign one camp for these, and another for them."
The lepers might be conversant with lepers, and those that had issues with those that had issues; but those that were under different defilements might not converse promiscuously. Which confirms what I have conceived concerning the five porches at the pool of Bethesda; viz., that they were so framed and distinguished at first, that there might be a different reception for those that had contracted different kinds of defilements, and were there waiting to be cleansed in that pool.
That there were certain places where they that were unclean by that disease of the leprosy were secluded, reason might persuade us: for it were an inhuman thing to cast the leprous out of the city without any provision of a dwelling for them, but that they should always lie in the open air. Whether there was any such thing in this place, I will not determine. It seems as if these ten lepers, having heard of our Saviour's coming that way, were got but lately together to attend him there. For when the seventy disciples had beforehand openly proclaimed, in all the places where he was to come, that he would come thither, it is easy to conceive in what infinite throngs the sick, and all that were affected with any kind of distemper, would be crowding thither for a cure.
II. "The leper that transgresseth his bounds, let him receive forty stripes. Those that have their issues, men or women, if they transgress their limits, let them also receive forty stripes." Where the Gloss is, "The limits for those that have their issues are the Mountain of the House, or the Court of the Gentiles: for they are forbid to enter into the camp of the Levites. The unclean are not excluded but from the Court: excepting those that have their issues and a gonorrhea upon them; they are excluded even from the Mountain of the House; and the leper, who is excluded from the camp of Israel, that is, from the city."
Now the camp of Israel, out of which the leper was to be excluded, they interpreted to be every city that had been walled from the days of Joshua: "For (say they) Joshua sanctified the walled cities with the holiness that was ascribed to the camp of Israel; but he did not so to the rest of the land, nor the cities that had no walls." This was a village, and not such a city, where these ten lepers meet our Saviour; and if they were within this village, it was neither beyond the custom nor the rule, provided that they kept but their distance.
"A leper enters into the synagogue: they make him some grates, or bounds, ten hands high and four cubits broad: he enters the first, and goes out the last." The Gloss is, "Lest they should be defiled that stand in the synagogue," &c.
20. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[The kingdom of god cometh not with observation.] The kingdom of God, or of heaven, hath especially a twofold distinct sense in the Holy Scriptures. In some places it signifies the propagation of the gospel by the Messias and his followers, and that especially amongst the Gentiles: in other places it denotes the Messiah's victory and vengeance upon the Jews, the enemies of this gospel; but in the Jewish schools this was their conceit of him: that when he came he should cut off all those nations that obeyed not his, i.e., the Jewish law; redeeming Israel from the Gentile yoke; establishing a kingdom and age amongst them that should be crowned with all kind of delights whatever. In this they were miserably deceived, that they thought the Gentiles were first to be destroyed by him, and then that he himself would reign amongst the Israelites. Which, in truth, fell out just contrary; he was first to overthrow Israel, and then to reign amongst the Gentiles.
It is easy to conceive in what sense the Pharisees propounded that question, When the kingdom of God should come? that is, when all those glorious things should be accomplished which they expected from the Messias? and, consequently, we may as well conceive, from the contexture of his discourse, in what sense our Saviour made his reply: "You inquire when the Messias will come: His coming will be as in the days of Noah, and as in the days of Lot. For as when Noah entered the ark the world perished by a deluge, and as when Lot went out of Sodom those five cities were overthrown, 'so shall it be in the day when the Son of Man shall be revealed.'" So that it is evident he speaks of the kingdom of God in that sense, as it signifies that dreadful revenge he would ere long take of that provoking nation and city of the Jews. The kingdom of God will come when Jerusalem shall be made like Sodom, verse 29, when it shall be made a carcase, verse 37.
It is plain to every eye, that the cutting-off of that place and nation is emphatically called his kingdom, and his coming in glory. Nor indeed without reason: for before he wasted the city and subverted that nation, he had subdued all nations under the empire and obedience of the gospel; according to what he foretold, "That the gospel of the kingdom should be preached in all the world, and then should the end [of Jerusalem] come." And when he had obtained his dominion amongst the Gentiles, what then remained towards the consummation of his kingdom and victories, but to cut off his enemies the Jews, who would not that he should rule over them? Of this kingdom of God he speaks in this place, not answering according to that vain apprehension the Pharisee had when he propounded the question, but according to the thing itself and the truth of it. There are two things he saith of this kingdom:
1. That it comes not with observation. Not but that it might be seen and conspicuous, but that they would not see and observe it. Which security and supineness of theirs he both foretells and taxeth in other places once and again.
2. He further tells them, this kingdom of God is within you: you are the scene of these triumphs. And whereas your expectancies are of that kind, that you say, Behold here a token of the Messias in the subduing of such a nation, and, Behold there in the subduing of another; they will be all in vain, for it is within you; within, and upon your own nation, that these things must be done. I would lay the emphasis in the word you, when commonly it is laid in within.
Besides, those things which follow, verse 22, do very much confirm it, that Christ speaks of the kingdom of God in that sense wherein we have supposed it: they are spoken to his disciples "that the days will come, wherein they shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but shall not see it." The days of the Son of man, in the Jewish style, are the days of the Messias: days, wherein they promise themselves nothing but pleasing, prosperous, and gay enjoyments: and, questionless, the Pharisees put this question under this notion only. But our Saviour so applies the terms of the question to the truth, and to his own purpose, that they signify little else but vengeance and wrath and affliction. And it was so far from it, that the Jews should see their expected pleasures, that the disciples themselves should see nothing but affliction, though under another notion.
Luke 18
1. And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
[And not to faint.] The discourse is continued still; and this parable hath its connexion with chapter 17, concerning Christ's coming to avenge himself upon Jerusalem; which if we keep our eye upon, it may help us to an easier understanding of some more obscure passages that occur in the application of this parable. And to this doth the expression not to faint, seem to have relation; viz. that they might not suffer their hopes and courage to languish and droop, upon the prospect of some afflictions they were likely to grapple with, but that they would give themselves to continual prayer.
2. Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
[There was a certain judge, &c.] If the scene of this parabolical history must be supposed to have been amongst the Jews, then there would some questions arise upon it: 1. Whether this judge were any way distinguished from an elder or presbyter: for the doctors are forced to such a distinction from those words in Deuteronomy 21:2, thy elders and thy judges: if a judge, be the same with an elder, which the Babylonian Sotah approve of, then might it be inquired, whether it was lawful for one elder to sit in judgment; which the Sanhedrim deny. But I let these things pass.
The parable propounded is of that rank or order that commonly amongst the Jews is argued from the less to the greater: "If that judge, the wickedest of men, being overcome by the endless importunity of the widow, judged her cause, will not a just, merciful, and good God appear for his own much more, who continually solicit him?"
[Who feared not God, &c.] How widely distant is this wretch from the character of a just judge! "Although in the triumviral court all things are not expected there which are requisite in the Sanhedrim, yet is it necessary, that in every one of that court there should be this sevenfold qualification; prudence, gentleness, piety, hatred of mammon, love of truth, that they be beloved themselves, and of good report."
7. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
[Though he bear long with them.] So 2 Peter 3:9, is longsuffering to us-ward. In both places the discourse is concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and the times immediately preceding it; in which the Lord exercised infinite patience towards his elect. For in that slippery and unsteady state of theirs, when apostasy prevailed beyond measure, and it was a hard thing to abandon Judaism, people were very difficultly gained over to the faith, and as difficultly retained in it, when they had once embraced it. And yet, after all this longsuffering and patience, shall he find faith on earth?
12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
[I fast twice in the week.] I. There were fasts of the congregation, and fasts of this or that single person. And both principally upon the account of afflictions or straits. "These are the calamities of the congregation for which they fast. Being besieged by enemies, the sword, pestilence, a hurtful beast, locusts, the caterpillar, mildew, blasting, abortions, diseases, scarcity of bread, drought." "As the congregation fasts upon the occasion of general calamities, so does this or that person for his particular afflictions. If any that belong to him be sick, or lost in the wilderness, or kept in prison, he is bound to fast in his behalf," &c.
II. "The fasts appointed by the congregation by reason of general calamities, are not from day to day, because there are few that could hold out in such a fast, but on the second and fifth days of the week." On those days they assembled in their synagogues to public prayers: and to this I would refer that of Acts 13:2, as they ministered before the Lord and fasted; much rather than to the celebration of the mass, which some would be wresting it to.
III. It was very usual for the single person, to devote himself to stated and repeated fasts for religion's sake, even when there was no affliction or calamity of life to urge them to it. And those that did so chose to themselves those very days which the congregation was wont to do; viz. the second and the fifth days of the week. The single person that taketh upon him to fast on the second and fifth days, and the second day throughout the whole year, &c.
Let me add this one thing further about these fasts: "R. Chasda saith, The fast upon which the sun sets is not to be called a fast." And yet they take very good care that they be not starved by fasting, for they are allowed to eat and drink the whole night before the fast. "It is a tradition. Rabbi saith, It is lawful to eat till day-light."
[I give tithes of all that I possess.] This Pharisee in the profession he maketh of himself, imitates the profession which he was to make that offered the firstfruits: "I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house and given them to the Levite and to the stranger, to the fatherless and to the widow," &c.
But tell me, O thou Pharisee, dost thou thus strictly give tithes of all things out of an honest mind and pure justice, viz., that the priest and Levite and poor may have every one their own? and not rather out of mere fear and dread, because of that rule, "He that eateth of things that are not tithed is worthy of death?"
13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
[And the publican, standing afar off, &c.] I. That the Israelites, when they went into the Temple to put up their own private prayers, went beyond the outward court, or the Court of the Gentiles, into the Court of the Women; this, amongst other things, makes it evident, viz., that in that court were placed thirteen eleemosynary chests, into which they threw in their voluntary oblations: which was done by the widow with her two mites in that place.
II. It is a question whether any person for his private praying might come as far as the gate of Nicanor, or the Court of Israel; much less into the Court of the Priests, unless the priests only. We read of our Saviour's being in the Court of the Gentiles, viz., in Solomon's Porch, and that he was in the treasury, or the Court of the Women; but you will hardly find him at any time in the Court of Israel. And the negative upon their entrance into that court is confirmed, at least if that rule avail any thing which we meet with in Hieros. Beracoth: "R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, 'He that stands to pray, it is necessary that he first sit down, because it is said, Blessed are they that "sit" in thy house.'" Now it was lawful for no person to sit down in that court but the king only.
III. That therefore this publican stood so much further off while he prayed than the Pharisee, was probably more from his humility than any necessity that lay upon him so to do. For though the heathen and publican go together in those words of our Saviour, "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican," yet it is a question whether the publicans, if they were Jews, were bounded to the outward court only, as the heathens were.
[He would not lift so much as his eyes unto heaven.] What needed this to have been added, when this was the very rule of praying, "Let him that prayeth cover his head and look downward." "The disciple of the wise men, when he stands praying, let him look downward." But were those of the laity or of the common people to do thus? If not, our question is answered, that this man (otherwise than the vulgar was wont) in deep humility and a conscience of his own vileness, would not lift up his eyes. But if this was the usage of all in common, that whilst they were actually praying they must look downward; yet probably in the time that they were composing themselves to prayer, they might be a little lifting up their eyes towards heaven. "If they pray in the Temple, they turn their faces towards the holy of holies; if elsewhere, then towards Jerusalem." And it would be a strange thing if they were not to have their eyes towards heaven at all: indeed, when they began to pray, then they looked downward.
[For more info, please see A Discourse upon the Pharisee and Publican by John Bunyan (341k).]
15. And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
[But when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.] "Wicked Israelites' little ones shall not come into the world to come: wicked heathen's little ones all men confess they shall not come into the world to come. From what time is a little child capable of the world to come? R. Chaijah and R. Simeon Bar Rabbi; one of them saith, From the time wherein he is born. The other saith, From the time that he can speak. Rabbona saith, From the time it is begot. Rabh Nachman Bar Isaac saith, From the time he is circumcised: R. Meir saith, From the time that he can answer, Amen."
Whether this question was handled in the schools or no in the times of the apostles, it is very probable they took this bringing of little children to Christ ill, because (if they might be judges) they were not capable of the kingdom of heaven. And indeed our Saviour's answer to them seems to favour this conjecture of ours: "Is it so indeed, that you suppose such as these unfit and incapable? I tell you, that of such is the kingdom of God."
19. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
[Why callest thou me good?] I. For the better understanding our Saviour's sense and meaning in these and the following words, I would affirm, (and who can argue it to the contrary?) that this man acknowledged Jesus for the true Messiah.
1. This several others did also, who, as yet, were not his disciples; so those blind men, when they call him 'the Son of David,' Matthew 20:30: not to mention others. And what reason can there be for the negative upon this man? Especially when he appears to be a person of more than ordinary parts and accomplishments, not only from what he tells us of himself, but from that kind and affectionate reception he met with from Christ.
2. This was no vulgar or ordinary question he put here, "What shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?" For it seems plain that he was not satisfied in the doctrine of their schools, about the merit of good works, and justification by the law: but he thinks there is something more requisite towards the obtaining salvation, because, after he had (as he tells us) performed this law from his youth up, he yet inquireth further, "What shall I do," &c.; in which that he was in earnest, our Saviour's behaviour towards him sufficiently testified; as also that he came to Jesus, as to no ordinary teacher, to be instructed in this affair.
3. It was very unusual to salute the Rabbins of that nation with this title. For however they were wont to adorn (not to say load) either the dead or absent with very splendid epithets, yet if they spoke to them while present, they gave them no other title than either Rabbi, or Mar, or Mari. If you turn over both the Talmuds, I am deceived if you once find either Good Rabbi, or Good Mar.
II. So far, therefore, is our Lord in these words from denying his Godhead, that he rather doth, as it were, draw this person in to own and acknowledge it: "Thou seemest in thy very address to me, and the compellation thou gavest me, to own me for the Messias: and dost thou take me for God too as well as man, when thou callest me good, seeing there is none good but God only?" Certainly he saw something that was not ordinary in this man, when it is said of him that he loved him, Mark 10:21: i.e. he spoke kindly to him, and exhorted him, &c. See 2 Chronicles 18:2; Psalm 78:36: they flattered him with their mouth. Nor is it an ordinary affection this young man seemed to have for the blessed Jesus, in that he departs sorrowful from the counsel that had been given him; and that he had the person that had counselled him in very high esteem, appears in that he could not without infinite grief reject the counsel he gave him.
31. Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
[He took unto him the twelve.] This falls in with that of John 11:7, "Let us go into Judea." What! say they, into Judea again, where thou wast lately in so much danger? However, he comes out and goes on, his disciples following him wondering, and fearing the effects of it, Mark 10:32. He mentioned only at present his journey into Judea, to see Lazarus: but, as they were going, he foretells his progress to Jerusalem, and what was to be done with him there. It is probable he was at Bethabarah when the message came to him that Lazarus was sick; and from thence, his way lying conveniently over the Scythopolitan bridge, and so through part of Samaria, he chooseth the transjordanine way to the fords of Jericho.
1. And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
[And not to faint.] The discourse is continued still; and this parable hath its connexion with chapter 17, concerning Christ's coming to avenge himself upon Jerusalem; which if we keep our eye upon, it may help us to an easier understanding of some more obscure passages that occur in the application of this parable. And to this doth the expression not to faint, seem to have relation; viz. that they might not suffer their hopes and courage to languish and droop, upon the prospect of some afflictions they were likely to grapple with, but that they would give themselves to continual prayer.
2. Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
[There was a certain judge, &c.] If the scene of this parabolical history must be supposed to have been amongst the Jews, then there would some questions arise upon it: 1. Whether this judge were any way distinguished from an elder or presbyter: for the doctors are forced to such a distinction from those words in Deuteronomy 21:2, thy elders and thy judges: if a judge, be the same with an elder, which the Babylonian Sotah approve of, then might it be inquired, whether it was lawful for one elder to sit in judgment; which the Sanhedrim deny. But I let these things pass.
The parable propounded is of that rank or order that commonly amongst the Jews is argued from the less to the greater: "If that judge, the wickedest of men, being overcome by the endless importunity of the widow, judged her cause, will not a just, merciful, and good God appear for his own much more, who continually solicit him?"
[Who feared not God, &c.] How widely distant is this wretch from the character of a just judge! "Although in the triumviral court all things are not expected there which are requisite in the Sanhedrim, yet is it necessary, that in every one of that court there should be this sevenfold qualification; prudence, gentleness, piety, hatred of mammon, love of truth, that they be beloved themselves, and of good report."
7. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
[Though he bear long with them.] So 2 Peter 3:9, is longsuffering to us-ward. In both places the discourse is concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and the times immediately preceding it; in which the Lord exercised infinite patience towards his elect. For in that slippery and unsteady state of theirs, when apostasy prevailed beyond measure, and it was a hard thing to abandon Judaism, people were very difficultly gained over to the faith, and as difficultly retained in it, when they had once embraced it. And yet, after all this longsuffering and patience, shall he find faith on earth?
12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
[I fast twice in the week.] I. There were fasts of the congregation, and fasts of this or that single person. And both principally upon the account of afflictions or straits. "These are the calamities of the congregation for which they fast. Being besieged by enemies, the sword, pestilence, a hurtful beast, locusts, the caterpillar, mildew, blasting, abortions, diseases, scarcity of bread, drought." "As the congregation fasts upon the occasion of general calamities, so does this or that person for his particular afflictions. If any that belong to him be sick, or lost in the wilderness, or kept in prison, he is bound to fast in his behalf," &c.
II. "The fasts appointed by the congregation by reason of general calamities, are not from day to day, because there are few that could hold out in such a fast, but on the second and fifth days of the week." On those days they assembled in their synagogues to public prayers: and to this I would refer that of Acts 13:2, as they ministered before the Lord and fasted; much rather than to the celebration of the mass, which some would be wresting it to.
III. It was very usual for the single person, to devote himself to stated and repeated fasts for religion's sake, even when there was no affliction or calamity of life to urge them to it. And those that did so chose to themselves those very days which the congregation was wont to do; viz. the second and the fifth days of the week. The single person that taketh upon him to fast on the second and fifth days, and the second day throughout the whole year, &c.
Let me add this one thing further about these fasts: "R. Chasda saith, The fast upon which the sun sets is not to be called a fast." And yet they take very good care that they be not starved by fasting, for they are allowed to eat and drink the whole night before the fast. "It is a tradition. Rabbi saith, It is lawful to eat till day-light."
[I give tithes of all that I possess.] This Pharisee in the profession he maketh of himself, imitates the profession which he was to make that offered the firstfruits: "I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house and given them to the Levite and to the stranger, to the fatherless and to the widow," &c.
But tell me, O thou Pharisee, dost thou thus strictly give tithes of all things out of an honest mind and pure justice, viz., that the priest and Levite and poor may have every one their own? and not rather out of mere fear and dread, because of that rule, "He that eateth of things that are not tithed is worthy of death?"
13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
[And the publican, standing afar off, &c.] I. That the Israelites, when they went into the Temple to put up their own private prayers, went beyond the outward court, or the Court of the Gentiles, into the Court of the Women; this, amongst other things, makes it evident, viz., that in that court were placed thirteen eleemosynary chests, into which they threw in their voluntary oblations: which was done by the widow with her two mites in that place.
II. It is a question whether any person for his private praying might come as far as the gate of Nicanor, or the Court of Israel; much less into the Court of the Priests, unless the priests only. We read of our Saviour's being in the Court of the Gentiles, viz., in Solomon's Porch, and that he was in the treasury, or the Court of the Women; but you will hardly find him at any time in the Court of Israel. And the negative upon their entrance into that court is confirmed, at least if that rule avail any thing which we meet with in Hieros. Beracoth: "R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, 'He that stands to pray, it is necessary that he first sit down, because it is said, Blessed are they that "sit" in thy house.'" Now it was lawful for no person to sit down in that court but the king only.
III. That therefore this publican stood so much further off while he prayed than the Pharisee, was probably more from his humility than any necessity that lay upon him so to do. For though the heathen and publican go together in those words of our Saviour, "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican," yet it is a question whether the publicans, if they were Jews, were bounded to the outward court only, as the heathens were.
[He would not lift so much as his eyes unto heaven.] What needed this to have been added, when this was the very rule of praying, "Let him that prayeth cover his head and look downward." "The disciple of the wise men, when he stands praying, let him look downward." But were those of the laity or of the common people to do thus? If not, our question is answered, that this man (otherwise than the vulgar was wont) in deep humility and a conscience of his own vileness, would not lift up his eyes. But if this was the usage of all in common, that whilst they were actually praying they must look downward; yet probably in the time that they were composing themselves to prayer, they might be a little lifting up their eyes towards heaven. "If they pray in the Temple, they turn their faces towards the holy of holies; if elsewhere, then towards Jerusalem." And it would be a strange thing if they were not to have their eyes towards heaven at all: indeed, when they began to pray, then they looked downward.
[For more info, please see A Discourse upon the Pharisee and Publican by John Bunyan (341k).]
15. And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
[But when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.] "Wicked Israelites' little ones shall not come into the world to come: wicked heathen's little ones all men confess they shall not come into the world to come. From what time is a little child capable of the world to come? R. Chaijah and R. Simeon Bar Rabbi; one of them saith, From the time wherein he is born. The other saith, From the time that he can speak. Rabbona saith, From the time it is begot. Rabh Nachman Bar Isaac saith, From the time he is circumcised: R. Meir saith, From the time that he can answer, Amen."
Whether this question was handled in the schools or no in the times of the apostles, it is very probable they took this bringing of little children to Christ ill, because (if they might be judges) they were not capable of the kingdom of heaven. And indeed our Saviour's answer to them seems to favour this conjecture of ours: "Is it so indeed, that you suppose such as these unfit and incapable? I tell you, that of such is the kingdom of God."
19. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
[Why callest thou me good?] I. For the better understanding our Saviour's sense and meaning in these and the following words, I would affirm, (and who can argue it to the contrary?) that this man acknowledged Jesus for the true Messiah.
1. This several others did also, who, as yet, were not his disciples; so those blind men, when they call him 'the Son of David,' Matthew 20:30: not to mention others. And what reason can there be for the negative upon this man? Especially when he appears to be a person of more than ordinary parts and accomplishments, not only from what he tells us of himself, but from that kind and affectionate reception he met with from Christ.
2. This was no vulgar or ordinary question he put here, "What shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?" For it seems plain that he was not satisfied in the doctrine of their schools, about the merit of good works, and justification by the law: but he thinks there is something more requisite towards the obtaining salvation, because, after he had (as he tells us) performed this law from his youth up, he yet inquireth further, "What shall I do," &c.; in which that he was in earnest, our Saviour's behaviour towards him sufficiently testified; as also that he came to Jesus, as to no ordinary teacher, to be instructed in this affair.
3. It was very unusual to salute the Rabbins of that nation with this title. For however they were wont to adorn (not to say load) either the dead or absent with very splendid epithets, yet if they spoke to them while present, they gave them no other title than either Rabbi, or Mar, or Mari. If you turn over both the Talmuds, I am deceived if you once find either Good Rabbi, or Good Mar.
II. So far, therefore, is our Lord in these words from denying his Godhead, that he rather doth, as it were, draw this person in to own and acknowledge it: "Thou seemest in thy very address to me, and the compellation thou gavest me, to own me for the Messias: and dost thou take me for God too as well as man, when thou callest me good, seeing there is none good but God only?" Certainly he saw something that was not ordinary in this man, when it is said of him that he loved him, Mark 10:21: i.e. he spoke kindly to him, and exhorted him, &c. See 2 Chronicles 18:2; Psalm 78:36: they flattered him with their mouth. Nor is it an ordinary affection this young man seemed to have for the blessed Jesus, in that he departs sorrowful from the counsel that had been given him; and that he had the person that had counselled him in very high esteem, appears in that he could not without infinite grief reject the counsel he gave him.
31. Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
[He took unto him the twelve.] This falls in with that of John 11:7, "Let us go into Judea." What! say they, into Judea again, where thou wast lately in so much danger? However, he comes out and goes on, his disciples following him wondering, and fearing the effects of it, Mark 10:32. He mentioned only at present his journey into Judea, to see Lazarus: but, as they were going, he foretells his progress to Jerusalem, and what was to be done with him there. It is probable he was at Bethabarah when the message came to him that Lazarus was sick; and from thence, his way lying conveniently over the Scythopolitan bridge, and so through part of Samaria, he chooseth the transjordanine way to the fords of Jericho.
Luke 19
2. And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
[Zacchaeus.] there is mention of one of the same name, Zacchai, a father of a famous family, Ezra 2:9: and about the time wherein our Zacchaeus lived, there was one Zacchai, the father of Rabban Jochanan; than whom there was hardly a more noted Rabban in the whole catalogue. This man brought up his son Jochanan in merchandise, wherein he had employed himself for forty years, before he gave himself either to letters or religion. From whence there might arise some conjecture, as if that Zacchai was this Zacchaeus here mentioned, but that these two things make against it:
I. Because he was a Rabbin, or preferred to be one of the elders, as the author of Juchasin doth, not without reason, conjecture. Now whereas the very employment of publicans lay under so ill a name universally in that nation, it is hardly credible that that should consist with the degree of Rabbin. To which I may add, that that Zacchai was of a priestly descent: and what a monster would that seem amongst them, a priest and a publican!
II. We may judge from the character of that Zacchai, whether he did not live and die a Jew as to his religion, in every punctilio of it. "R. Zacchai's disciples asked him" (where note, he bears the title of Rabbi), "How dost thou attain to old age? He answered them, 'I did never in my whole life make water within four cubits of the place of prayer: I never miscalled my neighbour: I never let slip the consecration of a day. My mother was a very old woman, who once sold her hair-lace, and bought wine with it, for me to consecrate a day with.' There is a tradition. When she died, she bequeathed to him three hundred hogsheads of wine: and when he died, he bequeathed three thousand hogsheads to his sons." The Gloss is: He that is constant in the consecration of a day, by the merit of that obtains wine.
[Chief among the publicans.] A few things concerning the degree of publicans:
I. The lexicographer tells us, that they called those the greater publicans who redeemed at a certain fixed price the tax and other revenues of the Romans: these were commonly called the Daciarii.
II. "These are persons not capable of giving any public testimony, shepherds, exactors, and publicans." Upon which words R. Gaon hath this passage: "The Rabbins do not exclude the publicans upon the account that they exact more than is appointed to them; for then they would be the same with exactors. But when the king lays a tax upon the Jews, to be required of every one according to the proportion of their estates, these publicans, in whose power it is to value every one's estate, will favour some in the mitigation of their tax, and burden others beyond all measure."
III. There were publicans (to omit those who collected the taxes in every town) who stood at gates and bridges, requiring tribute of all passengers, concerning whom we meet with something in Schabbath. Where there is also mention of the greater and the lesser publican. Concerning whom the Gloss speaks thus; "Sometimes there is a greater publican, to whom it is very grievous to stand at the bridge all the day long: he therefore substitutes an inferior or lesser publican." Let us take this story out of this same tract.
"R. Judah, R. Joseph, R. Simeon, and R. Judah Ben Garis sitting together, R. Judah began and said, 'O how great are the works of this (Roman) nation: they build streets and bridges and bagnios.' R. Jose held his tongue, and said nothing: but R. Simeon Ben Jochai answered and said, 'Whatsoever they have built, they have built it for their own advantage. They have built bridges that they might gain a toll by them.' R. Judah Ben Garis went and told this to the Roman empire, who thus decreed: 'Let R. Judah, who hath magnified the empire, be promoted: Jose that held his tongue [which, I imagine, ought to be rendered] let him be banished to Cyprus; and for Simeon that reproached it, let him be killed.'" Simeon hearing these things, betook himself into a cave; and there lay hid with his son for the space of thirteen years.
Now as to what order or degree amongst the publicans our Zacchaeus held, it is neither easy nor tanti to determine it. The title of chief among the publicans, will hardly bear it, that he was one of those that received toll or custom at bridges; though even amongst those there were some who had the title of the greater publicans. He may rather be esteemed either of the first or the second class of those I have already named. In either of those it was easier for him to raise false accusation against any (which he chargeth himself with) than at the bridge or so.
8. And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
[The half of my goods I give to the poor.] I. A distribution amongst the poor of these goods that had been ill got was necessary. In Sanhedrim there is a discourse of restitution, and distribution of dishonest gains, especially what wealth had been got by merchandise of fruits of the seventh year, which are forbidden. And this is the form of restitution: "I, N., the son of N., scraped up such a sum by the fruits of the seventh year; and behold, I bestow it all upon the poor."
II. Alms were to be given to the poor out of wealth honestly acquired: but according to the rules and precepts of the Rabbins, they were not bound to bestow above one fifth part. "As to what help is to be afforded by mammon, there is a stated measure; a fifth part of his mammon. No one is bound to give more than one fifth." And they say, "That it is decreed in Usha, that a man should set apart the fifth part of his estate according to the command."
The fifth part was so stated and decreed, that, 1., so far they ought to go upon the account of a command. 2. No man is bound by the law to go further. But, 3., he may do more, if he please, on his own accord. Which this Zacchaeus did in a large and generous measure. The restitution of fourfold for his sycophancy agreed with the law about theft.
9. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
[This day is salvation come to this house.] It is said, verse 7, "That they all murmured that Christ was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner." What then did they think of the house itself that belonged to this sinner? Do we think they would enter in, when they despised any thing that belonged to publicans? Perhaps that expression Zacchaeus stood and said, may seem to hint that he came forth, and stood talking with those that were without doors, and would not enter. However, if we well consider how meanly they accounted of the house of a publican, we may the more easily understand what the meaning of that expression is, This day is salvation come to this house.
[Forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.] That is, say most, the son of Abraham by faith; which indeed is most true. But I doubt, however, that this is not directly the sense of these words. For I question whether the Jews knew of any kind of relation to Abraham but that which was according to the flesh, and by way of stock and offspring. The son of Abraham by faith was a notion unknown; and I scarce believe our Saviour would speak to them in an unintelligible dialect...
11. And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
[And because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.] The time draweth nigh that the kingdom of heaven shall be revealed. We have observed elsewhere, that it was the nation's universal opinion, that that very time wherein Christ did appear was the time wherein they expected the coming of Messiah, being so taught by the prophecy of Daniel. Which however the more modern Jews would now endeavour to evade, as also other more illustrious predictions that concern our Jesus, yet were those times then more truly and more sincerely interpreted. Hence that conflux of Jews from all nations to Jerusalem, Acts 2:5. And to this doth that in some measure attest which the Talmudists relate concerning the paraphrast of the prophets, that when he went about to paraphrase also the Hagiographa, or holy writings, he was forbidden by Bath Kol, saying, That he must abstain from that; for in those books was the end of the Messiah, viz. Daniel 9:26.
13. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
[And delivered them ten pounds.] This parable of the pounds hath for the general the very same scope with that of the talents, Matthew 25. That nobleman or king that went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom is Christ in his gospel, going forth to call in the Gentiles to his obedience: returning, he cuts off the nation of the Jews that would not have him to reign over them, verse 27: and while they were now in expectation of the immediate revelation of the kingdom of heaven, and were dreaming many vain and senseless things concerning it, our Saviour, by this parable, warns and admonisheth them, that he must not look for any advantage by that kingdom who cannot give a good account of those talents which God had committed to his trust and improvement.
A talent is the value of sixty pounds. A pound is a hundred drachms. A drachm is six oboli. An obolus is six pieces of brass coin. A brass piece of coin is seven mites.
44. And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
[Because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.] The Masters dispute the reason of the laying-waste of Jerusalem.
"Abai saith, Jerusalem was not destroyed for any thing but the profanation of the sabbath. R. Abba saith, It was not destroyed for any thing but their neglect in reciting their phylacteries morning and evening. Rabh Menona saith, It was not destroyed for any thing but their not minding the bringing up of their children in the school. Ulla saith, Jerusalem had not been destroyed but for their immodesty one towards another. R. Isaac saith, It had not been destroyed, but that they equalled the inferior with the superior. R. Chainah saith, It had not been destroyed, but that they did not rebuke one another. R. Judah saith, It had not been destroyed, but that they condemned the disciples of the wise men," &c. But Wisdom saith, Jerusalem was destroyed, because she knew not the time of her visitation.
All those great good things that were promised to mankind were promised as what should happen in the last days, i.e. in the last days of Jerusalem. Then was the Messiah to be revealed: then was the Holy Ghost to be poured out: then was the mountain of the Lord to be exalted, and the nations should flow in to it: in a word, then were to be fulfilled all those great things which the prophets had foretold about the coming of the Messiah and the bringing in of the gospel. These were the times of Jerusalem's visitation, if she could have known it. But so far was she from that knowledge, that nothing was more odious, nothing more contemptible, than when indeed all these ineffable benefits were dispensed in the midst of her. Nor indeed were those times described beforehand with more remarkable characters as to what God would do, than they were with black and dreadful indications as to the perverseness and obstinacy of that people. They were the best of times, and the worst generation lived in them. In those last days of that city were 'perilous times,' 2 Timothy 3:1: 'departing from the faith,' 1 Timothy 4:1: 'Scoffers' of religion, 2 Peter 3:3: in a word, 'many antichrists,' 1 John 2:18. So far was Jerusalem and the nation of the Jews from knowing and acknowledging the things that belonged unto their peace.
[Zacchaeus.] there is mention of one of the same name, Zacchai, a father of a famous family, Ezra 2:9: and about the time wherein our Zacchaeus lived, there was one Zacchai, the father of Rabban Jochanan; than whom there was hardly a more noted Rabban in the whole catalogue. This man brought up his son Jochanan in merchandise, wherein he had employed himself for forty years, before he gave himself either to letters or religion. From whence there might arise some conjecture, as if that Zacchai was this Zacchaeus here mentioned, but that these two things make against it:
I. Because he was a Rabbin, or preferred to be one of the elders, as the author of Juchasin doth, not without reason, conjecture. Now whereas the very employment of publicans lay under so ill a name universally in that nation, it is hardly credible that that should consist with the degree of Rabbin. To which I may add, that that Zacchai was of a priestly descent: and what a monster would that seem amongst them, a priest and a publican!
II. We may judge from the character of that Zacchai, whether he did not live and die a Jew as to his religion, in every punctilio of it. "R. Zacchai's disciples asked him" (where note, he bears the title of Rabbi), "How dost thou attain to old age? He answered them, 'I did never in my whole life make water within four cubits of the place of prayer: I never miscalled my neighbour: I never let slip the consecration of a day. My mother was a very old woman, who once sold her hair-lace, and bought wine with it, for me to consecrate a day with.' There is a tradition. When she died, she bequeathed to him three hundred hogsheads of wine: and when he died, he bequeathed three thousand hogsheads to his sons." The Gloss is: He that is constant in the consecration of a day, by the merit of that obtains wine.
[Chief among the publicans.] A few things concerning the degree of publicans:
I. The lexicographer tells us, that they called those the greater publicans who redeemed at a certain fixed price the tax and other revenues of the Romans: these were commonly called the Daciarii.
II. "These are persons not capable of giving any public testimony, shepherds, exactors, and publicans." Upon which words R. Gaon hath this passage: "The Rabbins do not exclude the publicans upon the account that they exact more than is appointed to them; for then they would be the same with exactors. But when the king lays a tax upon the Jews, to be required of every one according to the proportion of their estates, these publicans, in whose power it is to value every one's estate, will favour some in the mitigation of their tax, and burden others beyond all measure."
III. There were publicans (to omit those who collected the taxes in every town) who stood at gates and bridges, requiring tribute of all passengers, concerning whom we meet with something in Schabbath. Where there is also mention of the greater and the lesser publican. Concerning whom the Gloss speaks thus; "Sometimes there is a greater publican, to whom it is very grievous to stand at the bridge all the day long: he therefore substitutes an inferior or lesser publican." Let us take this story out of this same tract.
"R. Judah, R. Joseph, R. Simeon, and R. Judah Ben Garis sitting together, R. Judah began and said, 'O how great are the works of this (Roman) nation: they build streets and bridges and bagnios.' R. Jose held his tongue, and said nothing: but R. Simeon Ben Jochai answered and said, 'Whatsoever they have built, they have built it for their own advantage. They have built bridges that they might gain a toll by them.' R. Judah Ben Garis went and told this to the Roman empire, who thus decreed: 'Let R. Judah, who hath magnified the empire, be promoted: Jose that held his tongue [which, I imagine, ought to be rendered] let him be banished to Cyprus; and for Simeon that reproached it, let him be killed.'" Simeon hearing these things, betook himself into a cave; and there lay hid with his son for the space of thirteen years.
Now as to what order or degree amongst the publicans our Zacchaeus held, it is neither easy nor tanti to determine it. The title of chief among the publicans, will hardly bear it, that he was one of those that received toll or custom at bridges; though even amongst those there were some who had the title of the greater publicans. He may rather be esteemed either of the first or the second class of those I have already named. In either of those it was easier for him to raise false accusation against any (which he chargeth himself with) than at the bridge or so.
8. And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
[The half of my goods I give to the poor.] I. A distribution amongst the poor of these goods that had been ill got was necessary. In Sanhedrim there is a discourse of restitution, and distribution of dishonest gains, especially what wealth had been got by merchandise of fruits of the seventh year, which are forbidden. And this is the form of restitution: "I, N., the son of N., scraped up such a sum by the fruits of the seventh year; and behold, I bestow it all upon the poor."
II. Alms were to be given to the poor out of wealth honestly acquired: but according to the rules and precepts of the Rabbins, they were not bound to bestow above one fifth part. "As to what help is to be afforded by mammon, there is a stated measure; a fifth part of his mammon. No one is bound to give more than one fifth." And they say, "That it is decreed in Usha, that a man should set apart the fifth part of his estate according to the command."
The fifth part was so stated and decreed, that, 1., so far they ought to go upon the account of a command. 2. No man is bound by the law to go further. But, 3., he may do more, if he please, on his own accord. Which this Zacchaeus did in a large and generous measure. The restitution of fourfold for his sycophancy agreed with the law about theft.
9. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
[This day is salvation come to this house.] It is said, verse 7, "That they all murmured that Christ was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner." What then did they think of the house itself that belonged to this sinner? Do we think they would enter in, when they despised any thing that belonged to publicans? Perhaps that expression Zacchaeus stood and said, may seem to hint that he came forth, and stood talking with those that were without doors, and would not enter. However, if we well consider how meanly they accounted of the house of a publican, we may the more easily understand what the meaning of that expression is, This day is salvation come to this house.
[Forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.] That is, say most, the son of Abraham by faith; which indeed is most true. But I doubt, however, that this is not directly the sense of these words. For I question whether the Jews knew of any kind of relation to Abraham but that which was according to the flesh, and by way of stock and offspring. The son of Abraham by faith was a notion unknown; and I scarce believe our Saviour would speak to them in an unintelligible dialect...
11. And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
[And because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.] The time draweth nigh that the kingdom of heaven shall be revealed. We have observed elsewhere, that it was the nation's universal opinion, that that very time wherein Christ did appear was the time wherein they expected the coming of Messiah, being so taught by the prophecy of Daniel. Which however the more modern Jews would now endeavour to evade, as also other more illustrious predictions that concern our Jesus, yet were those times then more truly and more sincerely interpreted. Hence that conflux of Jews from all nations to Jerusalem, Acts 2:5. And to this doth that in some measure attest which the Talmudists relate concerning the paraphrast of the prophets, that when he went about to paraphrase also the Hagiographa, or holy writings, he was forbidden by Bath Kol, saying, That he must abstain from that; for in those books was the end of the Messiah, viz. Daniel 9:26.
13. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
[And delivered them ten pounds.] This parable of the pounds hath for the general the very same scope with that of the talents, Matthew 25. That nobleman or king that went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom is Christ in his gospel, going forth to call in the Gentiles to his obedience: returning, he cuts off the nation of the Jews that would not have him to reign over them, verse 27: and while they were now in expectation of the immediate revelation of the kingdom of heaven, and were dreaming many vain and senseless things concerning it, our Saviour, by this parable, warns and admonisheth them, that he must not look for any advantage by that kingdom who cannot give a good account of those talents which God had committed to his trust and improvement.
A talent is the value of sixty pounds. A pound is a hundred drachms. A drachm is six oboli. An obolus is six pieces of brass coin. A brass piece of coin is seven mites.
44. And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
[Because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.] The Masters dispute the reason of the laying-waste of Jerusalem.
"Abai saith, Jerusalem was not destroyed for any thing but the profanation of the sabbath. R. Abba saith, It was not destroyed for any thing but their neglect in reciting their phylacteries morning and evening. Rabh Menona saith, It was not destroyed for any thing but their not minding the bringing up of their children in the school. Ulla saith, Jerusalem had not been destroyed but for their immodesty one towards another. R. Isaac saith, It had not been destroyed, but that they equalled the inferior with the superior. R. Chainah saith, It had not been destroyed, but that they did not rebuke one another. R. Judah saith, It had not been destroyed, but that they condemned the disciples of the wise men," &c. But Wisdom saith, Jerusalem was destroyed, because she knew not the time of her visitation.
All those great good things that were promised to mankind were promised as what should happen in the last days, i.e. in the last days of Jerusalem. Then was the Messiah to be revealed: then was the Holy Ghost to be poured out: then was the mountain of the Lord to be exalted, and the nations should flow in to it: in a word, then were to be fulfilled all those great things which the prophets had foretold about the coming of the Messiah and the bringing in of the gospel. These were the times of Jerusalem's visitation, if she could have known it. But so far was she from that knowledge, that nothing was more odious, nothing more contemptible, than when indeed all these ineffable benefits were dispensed in the midst of her. Nor indeed were those times described beforehand with more remarkable characters as to what God would do, than they were with black and dreadful indications as to the perverseness and obstinacy of that people. They were the best of times, and the worst generation lived in them. In those last days of that city were 'perilous times,' 2 Timothy 3:1: 'departing from the faith,' 1 Timothy 4:1: 'Scoffers' of religion, 2 Peter 3:3: in a word, 'many antichrists,' 1 John 2:18. So far was Jerusalem and the nation of the Jews from knowing and acknowledging the things that belonged unto their peace.
Luke 20
1. And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders.
[The chief priests and the scribes with the elders.] So it is in Mark 11:27: but in Matthew 21:23, it is the chief priests and elders of the people. Now the question is, who these elders should be, as they are distinguished from the chief priests and the scribes. The Sanhedrim consisted chiefly of priests, Levites, and Israelites, although the original precept was for the priests and Levites only. "The command is, that the priests and Levites should be of the great council; as it is said, Thou shalt go unto the priests and Levites: but if such be not to be found, although they were all Israelites, behold, it is allowed."
None will imagine that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were Israelites only, and no priests or Levites; nor, on the other hand, that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were only priests and Levites, and no Israelites. The scribes, therefore, seem in this place to denote either the Levites, or else, together with the Levites, those inferior ranks of priests who were not the chief priests: and then the elders, may be the Israelites, or those elders of the laity that were not of the Levitical tribe. Such a one was Gamaliel the present president of the Sanhedrim, and Simeon his son, of the tribe of Judah.
37. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
[He calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, &c.] "Why doth Moses say (Exo 32:13), Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? R. Abin saith, The Lord said unto Moses, 'I look for ten men from thee, as I looked for that number in Sodom: find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I will not destroy thy people.' Then said Moses, 'Behold, here am I, and Aaron, and Eleazar, and Ithamar, and Phineas, and Caleb, and Joshua.' 'But' saith God, 'these are but seven; where are the other three?' When Moses knew not what to do, he saith, 'O eternal God, do those live that are dead?' 'Yes,' saith God. Then saith Moses, 'If those that are dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'"
42. And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
[The Lord said unto my Lord, &c.] Whereas St. Matthew tells us, That "no man was able to answer him a word" to that argument, whereby he asserted the divinity of the Messias, it is plain that those evasions were not yet thought of, by which the Jews have since endeavoured to shift off this place. For the Talmudists apply the psalm to Abraham; the Targumist (as it seems) to David; others (as Justin Martyr tells us) to Hezekiah; which yet I do not remember I have observed in the Jewish authors. His words are in his Dialogue with Tryphon: I am not ignorant, that you venture to explain this psalm (when he had recited the whole psalm) as if it were to be understood of king Hezekiah.
The Jewish authors have it thus: "Sem the Great said unto Eliezer [Abraham's servant], 'When the kings of the east and of the west came against you, what did you?' He answered and said, 'The Holy Blessed God took Abraham, and made him to sit on his right hand.'" And again: "The Holy Blessed God had purposed to have derived the priesthood from Shem; according as it is said, Thou art the priest of the most high God: but because he blessed Abraham before he blessed God, God derived the priesthood from Abraham. For so it is said, And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high God. Abraham saith unto him, Who useth to bless the servant before his Lord? Upon this God gave the priesthood to Abraham, according as it is said, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand. And afterward it is written, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever for the speaking of Melchizedek." Midras Tillin and others also, in the explication of this psalm, refer it to Abraham. Worshipful commentators indeed!
46. Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
[Which desire to walk in long robes.] In garments to the feet; in long robes: which their own Rabbins sufficiently testify. "R. Jochanan asked R. Banaah, What kind of garment is the inner garment of the disciple of the wise men? It is such a one, that the flesh may not be seen underneath him." The Gloss is, It is to reach to the very sole of the foot, that it may not be discerned when he goes barefoot. "What is the 'talith,' that the disciple of the wise wears? That the inner garment may not be seen below it to a handbreadth."
What is that, Luke 15:22, the first robe? [the best robe, AV]. Is it the former robe, that is, that which the prodigal had worn formerly? or the first, i.e. the chief and best robe? It may be queried, whether it may not be particularly understood the talith as what was in more esteem than the chaluk, and that which is the first garment in view to the beholders. "I saw amongst the spoils a Babylonish garment, Joshua 7. Rabh saith, A long garment called melotes." The Gloss is, "a 'talith' of purest wool."
[The chief priests and the scribes with the elders.] So it is in Mark 11:27: but in Matthew 21:23, it is the chief priests and elders of the people. Now the question is, who these elders should be, as they are distinguished from the chief priests and the scribes. The Sanhedrim consisted chiefly of priests, Levites, and Israelites, although the original precept was for the priests and Levites only. "The command is, that the priests and Levites should be of the great council; as it is said, Thou shalt go unto the priests and Levites: but if such be not to be found, although they were all Israelites, behold, it is allowed."
None will imagine that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were Israelites only, and no priests or Levites; nor, on the other hand, that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were only priests and Levites, and no Israelites. The scribes, therefore, seem in this place to denote either the Levites, or else, together with the Levites, those inferior ranks of priests who were not the chief priests: and then the elders, may be the Israelites, or those elders of the laity that were not of the Levitical tribe. Such a one was Gamaliel the present president of the Sanhedrim, and Simeon his son, of the tribe of Judah.
37. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
[He calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, &c.] "Why doth Moses say (Exo 32:13), Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? R. Abin saith, The Lord said unto Moses, 'I look for ten men from thee, as I looked for that number in Sodom: find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I will not destroy thy people.' Then said Moses, 'Behold, here am I, and Aaron, and Eleazar, and Ithamar, and Phineas, and Caleb, and Joshua.' 'But' saith God, 'these are but seven; where are the other three?' When Moses knew not what to do, he saith, 'O eternal God, do those live that are dead?' 'Yes,' saith God. Then saith Moses, 'If those that are dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'"
42. And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
[The Lord said unto my Lord, &c.] Whereas St. Matthew tells us, That "no man was able to answer him a word" to that argument, whereby he asserted the divinity of the Messias, it is plain that those evasions were not yet thought of, by which the Jews have since endeavoured to shift off this place. For the Talmudists apply the psalm to Abraham; the Targumist (as it seems) to David; others (as Justin Martyr tells us) to Hezekiah; which yet I do not remember I have observed in the Jewish authors. His words are in his Dialogue with Tryphon: I am not ignorant, that you venture to explain this psalm (when he had recited the whole psalm) as if it were to be understood of king Hezekiah.
The Jewish authors have it thus: "Sem the Great said unto Eliezer [Abraham's servant], 'When the kings of the east and of the west came against you, what did you?' He answered and said, 'The Holy Blessed God took Abraham, and made him to sit on his right hand.'" And again: "The Holy Blessed God had purposed to have derived the priesthood from Shem; according as it is said, Thou art the priest of the most high God: but because he blessed Abraham before he blessed God, God derived the priesthood from Abraham. For so it is said, And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high God. Abraham saith unto him, Who useth to bless the servant before his Lord? Upon this God gave the priesthood to Abraham, according as it is said, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand. And afterward it is written, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever for the speaking of Melchizedek." Midras Tillin and others also, in the explication of this psalm, refer it to Abraham. Worshipful commentators indeed!
46. Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
[Which desire to walk in long robes.] In garments to the feet; in long robes: which their own Rabbins sufficiently testify. "R. Jochanan asked R. Banaah, What kind of garment is the inner garment of the disciple of the wise men? It is such a one, that the flesh may not be seen underneath him." The Gloss is, It is to reach to the very sole of the foot, that it may not be discerned when he goes barefoot. "What is the 'talith,' that the disciple of the wise wears? That the inner garment may not be seen below it to a handbreadth."
What is that, Luke 15:22, the first robe? [the best robe, AV]. Is it the former robe, that is, that which the prodigal had worn formerly? or the first, i.e. the chief and best robe? It may be queried, whether it may not be particularly understood the talith as what was in more esteem than the chaluk, and that which is the first garment in view to the beholders. "I saw amongst the spoils a Babylonish garment, Joshua 7. Rabh saith, A long garment called melotes." The Gloss is, "a 'talith' of purest wool."
Luke 21
24. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
[Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.] "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled": and what then? in what sense is this word until to be understood? Let every one have his conjecture, and let me be allowed mine. I am well assured our Saviour is discoursing about the fall and overthrow of Jerusalem; but I doubt, whether he touches upon the restoration of it: nor can I see any great reason to affirm, that the times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled before the end of the world itself. But as to this controversy, I shall not at present meddle with it. And yet, in the mean time, I cannot but wonder that the disciples, having so plainly heard these things from the mouth of their master, what concerned the destruction both of the place and nation, should be so quickly asking, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" Nor do I less wonder to find the learned Beza expounding the very following verse after this manner: "Then shall there be the signs in the sun, &c.; that is, after those times are fulfilled, which were allotted for the salvation of the Gentiles, and vengeance upon the Jews, concerning which St. Paul discourses copiously." Romans 11:25, &c: when, indeed, nothing could be said clearer for the confutation of that exposition, than that of verse 32; "Verily, I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." It is strange this should be no more observed, as it ought to have been, by himself and divers others, when, in truth, these very words are as a gnomon to the whole chapter. All the other passages of the chapter fall in with Matthew 24 and Mark 13, where we have placed those notes that were proper; and shall repeat nothing here. Which method I have taken in several places in this evangelist, where he relates passages that have been related before, and which I have had occasion to handle as I met with them.
[Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.] "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled": and what then? in what sense is this word until to be understood? Let every one have his conjecture, and let me be allowed mine. I am well assured our Saviour is discoursing about the fall and overthrow of Jerusalem; but I doubt, whether he touches upon the restoration of it: nor can I see any great reason to affirm, that the times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled before the end of the world itself. But as to this controversy, I shall not at present meddle with it. And yet, in the mean time, I cannot but wonder that the disciples, having so plainly heard these things from the mouth of their master, what concerned the destruction both of the place and nation, should be so quickly asking, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" Nor do I less wonder to find the learned Beza expounding the very following verse after this manner: "Then shall there be the signs in the sun, &c.; that is, after those times are fulfilled, which were allotted for the salvation of the Gentiles, and vengeance upon the Jews, concerning which St. Paul discourses copiously." Romans 11:25, &c: when, indeed, nothing could be said clearer for the confutation of that exposition, than that of verse 32; "Verily, I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." It is strange this should be no more observed, as it ought to have been, by himself and divers others, when, in truth, these very words are as a gnomon to the whole chapter. All the other passages of the chapter fall in with Matthew 24 and Mark 13, where we have placed those notes that were proper; and shall repeat nothing here. Which method I have taken in several places in this evangelist, where he relates passages that have been related before, and which I have had occasion to handle as I met with them.
Luke 22
4. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
[And captains.] They are called, verse 52, captains of the Temple: and in the singular number, the captain of the Temple, Acts 4:1: but who should this or these be?
I. All know that there was a Roman garrison in the castle of Antonia, whose charge especially was to suppress all tumults and seditions in the Temple: but was the tribune, or the centurions of that garrison called by the name of the captains of the Temple? Surely rather the captains of the castle of Antonia. And indeed it appears not that the Roman captains had conspired against the life of Christ, that Judas should betake himself to them to make a bargain for the betraying of him.
II. The conjecture might be more probable of those rulers in the Temple, concerning whom we have this mention: "These are the rulers that were in the Temple: Jochanan Ben Phineas, governor of the seals; Ahijah, set over the drink-offerings: Matthiah Ben Samuel, that presided over the lots," &c. But to me it seems beyond all doubt that the captains of the Temple were the captains of the several watches. "In three places the priests kept watch and ward in the Temple, viz. in Beth Abtines, Beth Nitsots, and Beth Mokad. The Levites also in one-and-twenty places more." Whereas, therefore, these watches or guards consisted every one of several persons, there was one single person set over each of them as their captain, or the head of that watch. And this way looks that of Pilate, Matthew 27:65; ye have a watch of your own; let some of them be sent to guard the sepulchre.
III. The captain of the Temple, therefore, distinctively and by way of eminence so termed, I would suppose him, whom they called the ruler of the mountain of the house, who was the chief of all the heads of those wards. "The ruler of the mountain of the Temple takes his walks through every watch with torches lighted before him: and if he found any upon the watch that might not be standing on his feet, he said, 'Peace be with thee!' But if he found him sleeping, he struck him with a stick; and it was warrantable for him to burn the garments of such a one. And when it was said by others, 'What is that noise in the court?' the answer was made, 'It is the noise of a Levite under correction, and whose garments are burning, for that he slept upon the watch.' R. Eliezer Ben Jacob said, 'They once found my mother's son asleep, and they burnt his clothes.'" Compare this passage with Revelation 16:15: "Behold I come as a thief; blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."
It is easy distinguishing this captain of the mountain of the Temple from the ruler of the Temple or the sagan. The former presided only over the guards; the latter over the whole service of the Temple. And so we have them distinguished, Acts 4:1: there is the captain of the Temple, and Annas, who was the sagan.
19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[This is my body.] The words of the institution of the holy eucharist throughout the whole contain a reflection, partly by way of antithesis, partly by way of allusion.
I. This is my body. Upon the account of their present celebration of the Passover, these words might very well have some reference to the body of the Paschal lamb: the body (I say) of the Paschal lamb. For the Jews use this very phrase concerning it: "They bring in a table spread, on which are bitter herbs, with other herbs, unleavened bread, pottage, and the body of the Paschal Lamb." And a little after: he eateth of the body of the Passover. From whence our Saviour's meaning may be well enough discerned; viz. that by the same signification that the Paschal lamb was my body hitherto, from henceforward let this bread be my body.
II. Which is given for you. But the apostle adds, "Which is broken for you": which, indeed, doth not so well agree with the Paschal lamb as with the lamb for the daily sacrifice. For as to the Paschal lamb, there was not a bone of it broken; but that of the daily sacrifice was broken and cut into several parts; and yet they are both of them the body of Christ in a figure. And although, besides the breaking of it, there are these further instances wherein the Paschal lamb and that of the daily sacrifice did differ, viz., 1. that the daily sacrifice was for all Israel, but the Paschal for this or that family: 2. the daily sacrifice was for the atonement of sin; the Passover not so: 3. the daily sacrifice was burnt, but the Passover eaten: yet in this they agreed, that under both the body of our Saviour was figured and shadowed out, though in a different notion.
III. This do in remembrance of me. As you kept the Passover in remembrance of your going out of Egypt. "Thou shalt remember the day of thy going out of Egypt all the days of thy life. Ben Zuma thus explains it; The days of thy life, that is, in the day time: all the days of thy life, that is, in the night time too. But the wise men say, The days of thy life, that is, in this age: all the days of thy life, that the days of the Messiah may be included too." But whereas, in the days of the Messiah there was a greater and more illustrious redemption and deliverance than that out of Egypt brought about; with the Jews' good leave, it is highly requisite, that both the thing itself and he that accomplished it should be remembered. We suspect in our notes upon 1 Corinthians 11, as if some of the Corinthians, in their very participation of the holy eucharist, did so far Judaize, that what had been instituted for the commemoration of their redemption by the death of Christ, they perverted to the commemoration of the going out of Egypt; and that they did not at all 'discern the Lord's body' in the sacrament.
Under the law there were several eatings of holy things. The first was that which Siphra mentions, when the priests eat of the sacrifice, and atonement is made for him that brings it. There were other eatings, viz., of the festival sacrifices of the tenths, thanksgiving-offerings, &c., which were to be eaten by those that brought them; but these all now have their period: and now, Do ye this, and do it in remembrance of me.
IV. This cup...which is shed for you. This seems to have reference to that cup of wine that was every day poured out in the drink offerings with the daily sacrifice; for that also was poured out for the remission of sins. So that the bread may have reference to the body of the daily sacrifice, and the cup to the wine of the drink offering.
V. My blood of the new testament. So St. Matthew and St. Mark with reference to "the blood of bulls and of goats," with which the old testament was confirmed, Exodus 24; Hebrews 9:19.
VI. The new testament in my blood. So our evangelist and so the apostle, 1 Corinthians 11 with reference to the whole ministry of the altar, where blood was poured out; nay, with respect to the whole Jewish religion, for here was the beginning or entry of the new covenant. And indeed it seems that the design of that frequent communion of the Lord's supper in the first ages of the church, among other things, was, that those who were converted from Judaism might be sealed and confirmed against Judaism; the sacrament itself being the mark of the cessation of the old testament and the beginning of the new.
21. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
[But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, &c.] What can be desired more as a demonstration that Judas was present at the eucharist? And whereas the contrary is endeavoured to be proved out of John 13, nothing is made out of nothing: for there is not only syllable throughout the whole chapter of the paschal supper, but of a supper before the 'feast of the Passover.'
26. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
[As the younger.] The vulgar and interlinear, sicut junior. We, as the younger, very well. For, as Beza hath it upon the place, it is properly to be understood of age. I ask therefore,
I. Whether Peter was not the oldest of the whole company? What reason can any have to deny this? It was necessary that some one of them should be the first both in number and order; and it was as fit and equal that the oldest amongst them should be reckoned the first. And who will you say was older than Peter? Hence was it that he had the first place in the catalogue of the apostles, because he was the oldest. For this reason he sat at table in the uppermost place next our Lord: for this reason did our Saviour so often direct his discourse so immediately to him: and for this reason were his answers to Christ taken in the name of all the rest, viz., because the oldest. Which brings to mind the interpreter of the doctor in the school of the Rabbins, who was the interlocutor between the master and the disciples, and for that reason the chief in the school, but without any primacy. Whereas therefore St. Peter, after our Saviour's ascension into heaven, was (to speak vulgarly) the prolocutor in that sacred college, what more probable reason can be offered why he was so, than this seniority? Were not others as capable as speaking as he? had they not equal authority, zeal, faith, knowledge with him, &c.? but he indeed was the eldest man.
II. I cannot therefore but suspect from the proper signification of the word younger, (to which the greater, respecting age, does answer) that some one amongst them had been challenging some privilege and primacy to himself upon the account of seniority: and unless any can make it out that there was somebody older than Peter, pardon me, if I think that he was the chief in this contention, and that it was chiefly moved betwixt himself and the two sons of Zebedee. For it seems unlikely that the other nine would have contended for the primacy with Peter, James, and John; whom Christ had so peculiarly distinguished in their presence with marks of his favour. So that the struggle seems to be especially between these three and Peter the beginner of the strife: which appears, partly in that our Saviour rebukes him by name, and partly in that he could not forget without some grudge, that request of the two brothers, "Lord, let us sit one on thy right hand the other on thy left."
31. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
[Simon, Simon.] Let us change the name and person: "Thomas, Thomas"; or "Philip, Philip, Satan hath desired, &c.; but I have prayed," &c. And who would from hence have picked out an argument for the primacy of Thomas or Philip over the rest of the apostles and the universal church? And yet this do the Romanists in the behalf of Peter. Who would not have taken it rather as a severe chiding? As if he should have said, "Thou, Thomas or Philip, art thou so hot in contending for the primacy, while Satan is so hot against all of you? And whilst you are at strife amongst yourselves, he is at strife against you all!" Under such a notion as this I doubt not our Saviour did speak to Peter, and that in these words he found a severe reprimand rather than any promotion to the primacy.
32. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
[That thy faith fail not.] There seems an emphasis in the word faith. As to the other apostles, indeed, that Christian courage and magnanimity which they ought to have exerted in that difficult time did fail them; but their faith was nothing so near shipwreck as Peter's faith was. They indeed deserted their Master and fled, Mark 14:50: which they seem to have not done without some connivance from himself, John 18:8. But when Peter renounced and abjured his Lord, how near was he becoming an apostate, and his faith from suffering a total shipwreck? Certainly it was Peter's advantage that Christ prayed for him; but it was not so much for his honour, that he, beyond all others, should stand in need of such a prayer.
36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
[Let him sell his garment, and buy a sword.] Doth our Saviour give them this counsel in good earnest?
I. He uses the common dialect. For so also the Rabbins in other things: "He that hath not wherewithal to eat, but upon mere alms, let him beg or sell his garments to buy oil and candles for the feast of Dedication," &c.
II. He warns them of a danger that is very near; and in a common way of speech lets them know that they had more need of providing swords for their defence against the common enemy, than be any way quarrelling amongst themselves. No so much exhorting them to repel force with force, as to give them such an apprehension of the common rage of their enemies against them, that might suppress all private animosities amongst themselves.
37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
[For the things concerning me have an end.] That is, "My business is done, yours is but beginning. While I was present, the children of the bridechamber had no reason to weep; but when I am taken away, and numbered amongst the transgressors, think what will be done to you, and what ought to be done by you; and then think if this be a time for you to be contending with one another."
43. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
[An angel strengthening him.] I. In his temptations in the wilderness there was no angel by him; for St. Matthew saith, chapter 4:11, "Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him": that is, not till the devil had first left him. But in the midst of this trial there was an 'angel strengthening him': and why so? By reason of his agony, you will say, and that very truly: but whence arose this agony? and of what kind was it? It was occasioned (you will say) from a sense of divine indignation and wrath. This dare not I say or imagine, that God was angry or conceived any indignation against him at all. And if the anguish and agony of his mind was the result of the divine wrath pressing in upon him, I do not see what kind of comfort an angel could minister against the wrath of God. It is rather an argument God was not angry with him, when he sent an angel to comfort him.
II. It is not to be doubted, but that Christ was now wrestling with a furious enraged devil; yea, a devil loosed from his chain, and permitted, without any check or restraint from divine providence, to exert all his force and rage against him: which was permitted by God, not from any displeasure against his Son, but that even human nature might, by this her combatant, get a conquest over this insulting enemy. For it had been a small thing to have vanquished the devil by mere divine power.
III. However therefore it is not here related in express terms, yet could I easily persuade myself, that the devil might at this time appear to our Saviour in some visible shape. When he tempted him in the wilderness, he put on the disguise of some good angel, or rather some kind of resemblance of the Holy Ghost. But in this last temptation he puts on himself, and appears in his own colours; viz. in some direful formidable figure, on purpose to terrify our Lord. And from thence it was that he began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, Mark 14:33; and here to be in an agony. Nor do I rashly, and without any ground, suppose this, but upon these reasons:
I. Whereas that old dragon assaulted the first Adam in a garden in a visible shape; it is not absurd to imagine, he did so now to the second Adam, in a garden, in a visible shape.
II. This our evangelist tells us concerning his temptation in the wilderness, that "when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him, for a season." Here he takes the season to return; and I see no reason why he should not at this time, as well as in the wilderness, assume some visible shape. Then, indeed, he addressed himself in a charming and grateful shape, to have enticed and deceived him; but now in a frightful and horrid one, to have amazed and terrified him. He had already experienced how vain a thing it was to go about to cheat and allure him: what remained therefore but to shake his mind (if possible) with fright and terror?
III. For when he had no greater invention in his whole storehouse, by which he could distress and shake the minds of mortals, than the horrid apparition of himself, none will conceive he would neglect this engine, that if it could be, he might disturb his soul through his eye. That, therefore, which the Jews feign or dream about Solomon, that he saw the angel of death (that is, the devil) gnashing his teeth, and that a disciple of Rabbi did so too, I suppose acted in good earnest here; namely, that Christ saw the devil, that old dragon, gaping at him with all horror he could put on. And in this sense would I understand that of the "messenger of Satan buffeting the apostle": viz. that the devil did appear visibly to him in some frightful shape, to afflict and terrify him. And perhaps that vehement desire he had to sift the disciples (v 31) respects this same thing, namely, that he might be permitted to assault them with such kind of affrightments.
44. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
[His sweat was as it were great drops of blood.] Diodorus Siculus, speaking of a country where Alexander the Great had to do with Porus, hath this passage; "There are serpents there which, by their bites would occasion most bitter deaths: they are horrible pains that afflict any that are struck by them, and an issue of sweat, like blood, seizeth them." I would ascribe this bloody sweat of our Saviour to the bite of that old serpent, rather than to the apprehension of divine wrath.
[For more info, please see Appendix VII: Heart Rupture: A Possible Cause of the Lord's Death? by Arthur C. Custance.]
47. And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
[To kiss him.] Our Saviour had to do with a frightful and terrifying devil; but this traitor seems possessed with a tame and gentle one. He converses with the apostles, and there is no token of a devil dwelling in him. He is present at the Passover, at the eucharist, and the very lips of Christ, and still no sign of Satan being his inmate. But when once the devil hath done his work by thee, then, Judas, take heed of thy devil.
As to this treacherous contrivance of Judas, let us frame the most gentle opinion of it that the matter can bear: for instance, that he might perhaps think with himself, that it was not possible for Christ to be apprehended by the Jews, having already seen him working such stupendous miracles, and more than once strangely delivering himself from them: and grant further, that when he said to them, "Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he, lay hold of him," he said it scoffingly, as believing they could not be able to lay hold on him: grant we, in a word, that when he saw him condemned, he repented himself, having never suspected that matters would have gone so far, presuming that Christ would easily have made his escape from them, and himself should have got thirty pieces of silver by the bargain: let us grant, I say, that this was his contrivance, and colour it over with as plausible excuses as we can; yet certainly was there never any thing so impiously done by mortal man, than for him thus to play with the Holy of Holies, and endeavour to make merchandise of the Son of God. However, I suspect much worse things hatched in the breast of this traitor: viz. that Christ did really not please him; and, with the great chiefs of that nation, though he supposed him the true Messiah, yet not such a one as answered their carnal expectation.
The Rabbins distinguish between lawful kisses and kisses of folly; saying, that "all kisses are kisses of folly excepting three": which they there reckon up. But what kind of kiss was this? a kiss of folly? Alas! it is too low and dwarfish a term for this gigantic monster.
53. When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
[This is your hour, and the power of darkness.] The serpent himself is now come in Judas; and the seed of the serpent was that rout that came with him, to whom it was fatal to bruise the heel of the Messiah; and now was the hour for that wickedness. It was anciently foretold and predetermined, both as to the thing itself and the instruments; and now all fences lie open, and you may do what you please. The chains of the devil himself are now loosed; and it is permitted to him, without the least check or restraint of Divine Providence, to exert all his furies at pleasure; for now is the power of darkness.
Darkness, is the devil among the allegorists. "It is said, On the first day of the creation, the angel of death [i.e. the devil] was created, according as it is written, There was darkness upon the face of the deep; that is, the angel of death, who darkeneth the eyes of men."
[And captains.] They are called, verse 52, captains of the Temple: and in the singular number, the captain of the Temple, Acts 4:1: but who should this or these be?
I. All know that there was a Roman garrison in the castle of Antonia, whose charge especially was to suppress all tumults and seditions in the Temple: but was the tribune, or the centurions of that garrison called by the name of the captains of the Temple? Surely rather the captains of the castle of Antonia. And indeed it appears not that the Roman captains had conspired against the life of Christ, that Judas should betake himself to them to make a bargain for the betraying of him.
II. The conjecture might be more probable of those rulers in the Temple, concerning whom we have this mention: "These are the rulers that were in the Temple: Jochanan Ben Phineas, governor of the seals; Ahijah, set over the drink-offerings: Matthiah Ben Samuel, that presided over the lots," &c. But to me it seems beyond all doubt that the captains of the Temple were the captains of the several watches. "In three places the priests kept watch and ward in the Temple, viz. in Beth Abtines, Beth Nitsots, and Beth Mokad. The Levites also in one-and-twenty places more." Whereas, therefore, these watches or guards consisted every one of several persons, there was one single person set over each of them as their captain, or the head of that watch. And this way looks that of Pilate, Matthew 27:65; ye have a watch of your own; let some of them be sent to guard the sepulchre.
III. The captain of the Temple, therefore, distinctively and by way of eminence so termed, I would suppose him, whom they called the ruler of the mountain of the house, who was the chief of all the heads of those wards. "The ruler of the mountain of the Temple takes his walks through every watch with torches lighted before him: and if he found any upon the watch that might not be standing on his feet, he said, 'Peace be with thee!' But if he found him sleeping, he struck him with a stick; and it was warrantable for him to burn the garments of such a one. And when it was said by others, 'What is that noise in the court?' the answer was made, 'It is the noise of a Levite under correction, and whose garments are burning, for that he slept upon the watch.' R. Eliezer Ben Jacob said, 'They once found my mother's son asleep, and they burnt his clothes.'" Compare this passage with Revelation 16:15: "Behold I come as a thief; blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."
It is easy distinguishing this captain of the mountain of the Temple from the ruler of the Temple or the sagan. The former presided only over the guards; the latter over the whole service of the Temple. And so we have them distinguished, Acts 4:1: there is the captain of the Temple, and Annas, who was the sagan.
19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[This is my body.] The words of the institution of the holy eucharist throughout the whole contain a reflection, partly by way of antithesis, partly by way of allusion.
I. This is my body. Upon the account of their present celebration of the Passover, these words might very well have some reference to the body of the Paschal lamb: the body (I say) of the Paschal lamb. For the Jews use this very phrase concerning it: "They bring in a table spread, on which are bitter herbs, with other herbs, unleavened bread, pottage, and the body of the Paschal Lamb." And a little after: he eateth of the body of the Passover. From whence our Saviour's meaning may be well enough discerned; viz. that by the same signification that the Paschal lamb was my body hitherto, from henceforward let this bread be my body.
II. Which is given for you. But the apostle adds, "Which is broken for you": which, indeed, doth not so well agree with the Paschal lamb as with the lamb for the daily sacrifice. For as to the Paschal lamb, there was not a bone of it broken; but that of the daily sacrifice was broken and cut into several parts; and yet they are both of them the body of Christ in a figure. And although, besides the breaking of it, there are these further instances wherein the Paschal lamb and that of the daily sacrifice did differ, viz., 1. that the daily sacrifice was for all Israel, but the Paschal for this or that family: 2. the daily sacrifice was for the atonement of sin; the Passover not so: 3. the daily sacrifice was burnt, but the Passover eaten: yet in this they agreed, that under both the body of our Saviour was figured and shadowed out, though in a different notion.
III. This do in remembrance of me. As you kept the Passover in remembrance of your going out of Egypt. "Thou shalt remember the day of thy going out of Egypt all the days of thy life. Ben Zuma thus explains it; The days of thy life, that is, in the day time: all the days of thy life, that is, in the night time too. But the wise men say, The days of thy life, that is, in this age: all the days of thy life, that the days of the Messiah may be included too." But whereas, in the days of the Messiah there was a greater and more illustrious redemption and deliverance than that out of Egypt brought about; with the Jews' good leave, it is highly requisite, that both the thing itself and he that accomplished it should be remembered. We suspect in our notes upon 1 Corinthians 11, as if some of the Corinthians, in their very participation of the holy eucharist, did so far Judaize, that what had been instituted for the commemoration of their redemption by the death of Christ, they perverted to the commemoration of the going out of Egypt; and that they did not at all 'discern the Lord's body' in the sacrament.
Under the law there were several eatings of holy things. The first was that which Siphra mentions, when the priests eat of the sacrifice, and atonement is made for him that brings it. There were other eatings, viz., of the festival sacrifices of the tenths, thanksgiving-offerings, &c., which were to be eaten by those that brought them; but these all now have their period: and now, Do ye this, and do it in remembrance of me.
IV. This cup...which is shed for you. This seems to have reference to that cup of wine that was every day poured out in the drink offerings with the daily sacrifice; for that also was poured out for the remission of sins. So that the bread may have reference to the body of the daily sacrifice, and the cup to the wine of the drink offering.
V. My blood of the new testament. So St. Matthew and St. Mark with reference to "the blood of bulls and of goats," with which the old testament was confirmed, Exodus 24; Hebrews 9:19.
VI. The new testament in my blood. So our evangelist and so the apostle, 1 Corinthians 11 with reference to the whole ministry of the altar, where blood was poured out; nay, with respect to the whole Jewish religion, for here was the beginning or entry of the new covenant. And indeed it seems that the design of that frequent communion of the Lord's supper in the first ages of the church, among other things, was, that those who were converted from Judaism might be sealed and confirmed against Judaism; the sacrament itself being the mark of the cessation of the old testament and the beginning of the new.
21. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
[But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, &c.] What can be desired more as a demonstration that Judas was present at the eucharist? And whereas the contrary is endeavoured to be proved out of John 13, nothing is made out of nothing: for there is not only syllable throughout the whole chapter of the paschal supper, but of a supper before the 'feast of the Passover.'
26. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
[As the younger.] The vulgar and interlinear, sicut junior. We, as the younger, very well. For, as Beza hath it upon the place, it is properly to be understood of age. I ask therefore,
I. Whether Peter was not the oldest of the whole company? What reason can any have to deny this? It was necessary that some one of them should be the first both in number and order; and it was as fit and equal that the oldest amongst them should be reckoned the first. And who will you say was older than Peter? Hence was it that he had the first place in the catalogue of the apostles, because he was the oldest. For this reason he sat at table in the uppermost place next our Lord: for this reason did our Saviour so often direct his discourse so immediately to him: and for this reason were his answers to Christ taken in the name of all the rest, viz., because the oldest. Which brings to mind the interpreter of the doctor in the school of the Rabbins, who was the interlocutor between the master and the disciples, and for that reason the chief in the school, but without any primacy. Whereas therefore St. Peter, after our Saviour's ascension into heaven, was (to speak vulgarly) the prolocutor in that sacred college, what more probable reason can be offered why he was so, than this seniority? Were not others as capable as speaking as he? had they not equal authority, zeal, faith, knowledge with him, &c.? but he indeed was the eldest man.
II. I cannot therefore but suspect from the proper signification of the word younger, (to which the greater, respecting age, does answer) that some one amongst them had been challenging some privilege and primacy to himself upon the account of seniority: and unless any can make it out that there was somebody older than Peter, pardon me, if I think that he was the chief in this contention, and that it was chiefly moved betwixt himself and the two sons of Zebedee. For it seems unlikely that the other nine would have contended for the primacy with Peter, James, and John; whom Christ had so peculiarly distinguished in their presence with marks of his favour. So that the struggle seems to be especially between these three and Peter the beginner of the strife: which appears, partly in that our Saviour rebukes him by name, and partly in that he could not forget without some grudge, that request of the two brothers, "Lord, let us sit one on thy right hand the other on thy left."
31. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
[Simon, Simon.] Let us change the name and person: "Thomas, Thomas"; or "Philip, Philip, Satan hath desired, &c.; but I have prayed," &c. And who would from hence have picked out an argument for the primacy of Thomas or Philip over the rest of the apostles and the universal church? And yet this do the Romanists in the behalf of Peter. Who would not have taken it rather as a severe chiding? As if he should have said, "Thou, Thomas or Philip, art thou so hot in contending for the primacy, while Satan is so hot against all of you? And whilst you are at strife amongst yourselves, he is at strife against you all!" Under such a notion as this I doubt not our Saviour did speak to Peter, and that in these words he found a severe reprimand rather than any promotion to the primacy.
32. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
[That thy faith fail not.] There seems an emphasis in the word faith. As to the other apostles, indeed, that Christian courage and magnanimity which they ought to have exerted in that difficult time did fail them; but their faith was nothing so near shipwreck as Peter's faith was. They indeed deserted their Master and fled, Mark 14:50: which they seem to have not done without some connivance from himself, John 18:8. But when Peter renounced and abjured his Lord, how near was he becoming an apostate, and his faith from suffering a total shipwreck? Certainly it was Peter's advantage that Christ prayed for him; but it was not so much for his honour, that he, beyond all others, should stand in need of such a prayer.
36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
[Let him sell his garment, and buy a sword.] Doth our Saviour give them this counsel in good earnest?
I. He uses the common dialect. For so also the Rabbins in other things: "He that hath not wherewithal to eat, but upon mere alms, let him beg or sell his garments to buy oil and candles for the feast of Dedication," &c.
II. He warns them of a danger that is very near; and in a common way of speech lets them know that they had more need of providing swords for their defence against the common enemy, than be any way quarrelling amongst themselves. No so much exhorting them to repel force with force, as to give them such an apprehension of the common rage of their enemies against them, that might suppress all private animosities amongst themselves.
37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
[For the things concerning me have an end.] That is, "My business is done, yours is but beginning. While I was present, the children of the bridechamber had no reason to weep; but when I am taken away, and numbered amongst the transgressors, think what will be done to you, and what ought to be done by you; and then think if this be a time for you to be contending with one another."
43. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
[An angel strengthening him.] I. In his temptations in the wilderness there was no angel by him; for St. Matthew saith, chapter 4:11, "Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him": that is, not till the devil had first left him. But in the midst of this trial there was an 'angel strengthening him': and why so? By reason of his agony, you will say, and that very truly: but whence arose this agony? and of what kind was it? It was occasioned (you will say) from a sense of divine indignation and wrath. This dare not I say or imagine, that God was angry or conceived any indignation against him at all. And if the anguish and agony of his mind was the result of the divine wrath pressing in upon him, I do not see what kind of comfort an angel could minister against the wrath of God. It is rather an argument God was not angry with him, when he sent an angel to comfort him.
II. It is not to be doubted, but that Christ was now wrestling with a furious enraged devil; yea, a devil loosed from his chain, and permitted, without any check or restraint from divine providence, to exert all his force and rage against him: which was permitted by God, not from any displeasure against his Son, but that even human nature might, by this her combatant, get a conquest over this insulting enemy. For it had been a small thing to have vanquished the devil by mere divine power.
III. However therefore it is not here related in express terms, yet could I easily persuade myself, that the devil might at this time appear to our Saviour in some visible shape. When he tempted him in the wilderness, he put on the disguise of some good angel, or rather some kind of resemblance of the Holy Ghost. But in this last temptation he puts on himself, and appears in his own colours; viz. in some direful formidable figure, on purpose to terrify our Lord. And from thence it was that he began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, Mark 14:33; and here to be in an agony. Nor do I rashly, and without any ground, suppose this, but upon these reasons:
I. Whereas that old dragon assaulted the first Adam in a garden in a visible shape; it is not absurd to imagine, he did so now to the second Adam, in a garden, in a visible shape.
II. This our evangelist tells us concerning his temptation in the wilderness, that "when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him, for a season." Here he takes the season to return; and I see no reason why he should not at this time, as well as in the wilderness, assume some visible shape. Then, indeed, he addressed himself in a charming and grateful shape, to have enticed and deceived him; but now in a frightful and horrid one, to have amazed and terrified him. He had already experienced how vain a thing it was to go about to cheat and allure him: what remained therefore but to shake his mind (if possible) with fright and terror?
III. For when he had no greater invention in his whole storehouse, by which he could distress and shake the minds of mortals, than the horrid apparition of himself, none will conceive he would neglect this engine, that if it could be, he might disturb his soul through his eye. That, therefore, which the Jews feign or dream about Solomon, that he saw the angel of death (that is, the devil) gnashing his teeth, and that a disciple of Rabbi did so too, I suppose acted in good earnest here; namely, that Christ saw the devil, that old dragon, gaping at him with all horror he could put on. And in this sense would I understand that of the "messenger of Satan buffeting the apostle": viz. that the devil did appear visibly to him in some frightful shape, to afflict and terrify him. And perhaps that vehement desire he had to sift the disciples (v 31) respects this same thing, namely, that he might be permitted to assault them with such kind of affrightments.
44. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
[His sweat was as it were great drops of blood.] Diodorus Siculus, speaking of a country where Alexander the Great had to do with Porus, hath this passage; "There are serpents there which, by their bites would occasion most bitter deaths: they are horrible pains that afflict any that are struck by them, and an issue of sweat, like blood, seizeth them." I would ascribe this bloody sweat of our Saviour to the bite of that old serpent, rather than to the apprehension of divine wrath.
[For more info, please see Appendix VII: Heart Rupture: A Possible Cause of the Lord's Death? by Arthur C. Custance.]
47. And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
[To kiss him.] Our Saviour had to do with a frightful and terrifying devil; but this traitor seems possessed with a tame and gentle one. He converses with the apostles, and there is no token of a devil dwelling in him. He is present at the Passover, at the eucharist, and the very lips of Christ, and still no sign of Satan being his inmate. But when once the devil hath done his work by thee, then, Judas, take heed of thy devil.
As to this treacherous contrivance of Judas, let us frame the most gentle opinion of it that the matter can bear: for instance, that he might perhaps think with himself, that it was not possible for Christ to be apprehended by the Jews, having already seen him working such stupendous miracles, and more than once strangely delivering himself from them: and grant further, that when he said to them, "Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he, lay hold of him," he said it scoffingly, as believing they could not be able to lay hold on him: grant we, in a word, that when he saw him condemned, he repented himself, having never suspected that matters would have gone so far, presuming that Christ would easily have made his escape from them, and himself should have got thirty pieces of silver by the bargain: let us grant, I say, that this was his contrivance, and colour it over with as plausible excuses as we can; yet certainly was there never any thing so impiously done by mortal man, than for him thus to play with the Holy of Holies, and endeavour to make merchandise of the Son of God. However, I suspect much worse things hatched in the breast of this traitor: viz. that Christ did really not please him; and, with the great chiefs of that nation, though he supposed him the true Messiah, yet not such a one as answered their carnal expectation.
The Rabbins distinguish between lawful kisses and kisses of folly; saying, that "all kisses are kisses of folly excepting three": which they there reckon up. But what kind of kiss was this? a kiss of folly? Alas! it is too low and dwarfish a term for this gigantic monster.
53. When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
[This is your hour, and the power of darkness.] The serpent himself is now come in Judas; and the seed of the serpent was that rout that came with him, to whom it was fatal to bruise the heel of the Messiah; and now was the hour for that wickedness. It was anciently foretold and predetermined, both as to the thing itself and the instruments; and now all fences lie open, and you may do what you please. The chains of the devil himself are now loosed; and it is permitted to him, without the least check or restraint of Divine Providence, to exert all his furies at pleasure; for now is the power of darkness.
Darkness, is the devil among the allegorists. "It is said, On the first day of the creation, the angel of death [i.e. the devil] was created, according as it is written, There was darkness upon the face of the deep; that is, the angel of death, who darkeneth the eyes of men."
Luke 23
2. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
[We found this fellow perverting the nation.] "A disciple corrupting his food publicly, as did Jesus of Nazareth." 'To corrupt their food publicly,' is a phrase amongst the Rabbins to denote a mingling of true doctrine with heresy, and the true worship of God with idolatry. This was the accusation they framed against our Saviour at this time, that he taught heterodox and destructive principles, such especially as would tend to turn off and alienate the people from their obedience to the Romans. Aruch recites this passage of the Talmud more cautiously; for instead of as Jesus of Nazareth did, he hath it, as Jeroboam did.
7. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
[He sent him to Herod.] Did Pilate do this as yielding to Herod a jurisdiction in capital matters within the city of Jerusalem upon those that were Galileans? Probably he did it, either in flattery to the tyrant, or else that he might throw off from himself both the trouble and the odium that might arise upon the occasion of condemning Jesus, whom he judged to be an innocent man, and whom in some measure he pitied, looking upon him as a sort of a delirant person, one not very well in his wits: which opinion also Herod seems to have conceived of him, by putting upon him that fool's coat wherewith he clothed him: which I should willingly enough render white and shining, but that I observe our evangelist, when he hath occasion to mention such a garment, calls it a white and shining robe expressly. Chapter 9:29, his garment was white and glistering: Acts 1:10, two men in white apparel.
30. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
[Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, &c.] So they do say, Revelation 6:6: from whence, among other arguments, it may be reasonably supposed, that that chapter treats of the plagues and afflictions that should forerun the destruction of Jerusalem, and, indeed, the destruction and overthrow itself. Weigh the place accurately; and perhaps thou wilt be of the same mind too. Nay, I may further add, that perhaps this observation might not a little help (if my eyes fail me not) in discovering the method of the author of the Book of the Revelation.
31. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
[If they do these things in a green tree, &c.] Consult John Baptist's expression, Matthew 3:10; "Now also the axe is laid to the root of the tree," viz., then when the Jewish nation was subdued to the government of the Romans, who were about to destroy it. And if they deal thus with me, a green and flourishing tree, what will they do with the whole nation, a dry and sapless trunk?
34. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
[They cast lots.] They cast lots for his seamless coat, John 19:23,24. Moses is supposed to have ministered in such a garment: "In what kind of garment did Moses attend the seven days of consecration? In a white vestment. Rabh Cahnah saith, In a white vestment, wherein there was no seam." The Gloss is, "The whole garment was made of one thread, and not as our clothes are, which have their sleeves sewed to the body with a seam." But he gives a very senseless reason why his coat was without a seam; viz., to avoid the suspicion lest Moses should at any time hide any consecrated money within the seams of his coat.
36. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
[They brought him vinegar.] Vinegar was the common drink of the Roman soldiers; and hence those to whom the custody of crucified persons was committed had it always ready by them. "He commanded that no soldier should drink wine in their expedition, but that every one should content himself with vinegar."
"The provision this man (viz. Misitheus) made in the commonwealth was such, that there never was any great frontier-city which had not vinegar, bread-corn, and bacon, and barley, and chaff, laid up for a whole year," &c. "Thou shalt give us as much hay, chaff, vinegar, herbs, and grass, as may suffice us."
Hence it may become less difficult to reconcile the evangelist amongst themselves, speaking of wine given him mixed with myrrh, and of vinegar too; viz., a twofold cup: one, before he was nailed to the cross, i.e. of wine mingled with myrrh; the other, of vinegar, while he hung there: the first, given by the Jews according to their custom; the second, by the soldiers, in abuse and mockery. But if you will grant a third cup, then all difficulty vanisheth indeed. Let the first be wine mingled with myrrh; the second, vinegar mingled with gall; the third, mere vinegar: which the soldiers gave to malefactors if they had desired drink, being that which they drank themselves. Hence the vessel filled with vinegar, was always in readiness, that the soldiers might drink when they had a mind, and persons also upon the cross, if they stood in need of it.
42. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
[Lord, remember me.] Christ is now upon the cross, as of old Joseph was in the prison, between two malefactors. There one of them was delivered, the other hanged; here one obtains salvation, the other perisheth. The faith of this thief is admirable; and kept even pace with that of the apostles, if, in some circumstances, it did not go beyond it. The apostles acknowledged 'Jesus to be the Messiah'; and so doth he: with this addition, which I question whether they did so clearly own and know or no, viz., that Christ should reign and have his kingdom after his death. He seems to have a sounder judgment concerning Christ's kingdom than the apostles themselves, as may be gathered from their question, Acts 1:6.
It pleased God, in this last article of time, to glorify the riches of his grace in a singular and extraordinary manner, both in the conversion of a sinner and the forgiveness of his sins: I say in such an article of time which the world had never before seen, nor ever was like to see again; viz., in the very instant wherein the Messiah was finishing his redemption. It was not unknown to either of the thieves that Jesus was therefore condemned to die because he had professed himself 'the Christ'; hence that of the impenitent malefactor, "If thou art Christ, save thyself and us." And if the penitent thief did for a while join with the other in his petulant reproaches (which seems intimated to us Matthew 27:44), yet was his heart touched at length, and, perhaps, upon his observation of that miraculous darkness which at that time had covered the world.
43. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shall thou be with me in paradise.
[Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.] I. Let us here first consider the phrase in paradise: in common Jewish speech, in the garden of Eden. In what sense we may collect from these following passages: "The Rabbins have a tradition. There are four that went into paradise: namely, Ben Azzai, Ben Zumah, Acher, and R. Akibah. R. Akibah saith unto them, 'When you come to the stones of pure marble, do not ye say Waters, waters [i.e. Alas! these waters will hinder us from going forward]; for it is written, He that telleth lies shall not dwell in my presence [now, it would be a lie to call white marble water].'" "Ben Azzai looked with some curiosity about him, and died: of him the Scripture speaks, 'Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his saints.' Ben Zumah looked with some curiosity about him, and he was disturbed in his intellectuals: of him the Scripture speaketh, 'Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.'"
Aruch, reciting these words, saith, "It is called paradise, under the signification of the garden of Eden, which is reserved for the just. This place is in the heavens, where the souls of the just are gathered together." And the Talmudical Gloss hath it much to the same sense: "These four, by God's procurement, went up into the firmament."
While we are reading these passages, that story may easily occur to mind of St. Paul's being "caught up into paradise," 2 Corinthians 12; and perhaps the legend before us is but the ape of that story. In the story it is observable, that paradise and the 'third heaven' are one and the same thing: in the legend paradise and the highest heavens. For so the doctors comment upon the word in Psalm 68:5: "There are seven classes or degrees of just persons, who see the face of God, sit in the house of God, ascend up unto the hill of God, &c. And to every class or degree there is allotted their proper dwellingplace in paradise. There are also seven abiding places in hell. Those that dwell in paradise, they shine like the shining of the firmament, like the sun, like the moon, like the firmament, like the stars, like lightning, like the lilies, like burning lamps."
II. Our Saviour, therefore, telling the penitent thief, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise, he speaks in the common dialect, and to the capacity of the thief; viz., that he should be in heaven with Christ, and with all just persons that had left this world. Nor, indeed, would I fetch the explication of that article of our creed, He descended into hell, from any passage in the Scripture sooner than this here: adding this, that we must of necessity have recourse to the Greek tongue for the signification of the word, which they generally use to denote the state of the dead, as well the blessed as the miserable. Those who expound that passage in 1 Peter 3:19, of his going down from the cross into hell to preach to the spirits in prison there, do very little regard the scope of the apostle, and are absolute strangers to his meaning in it. For,
1. In that he shuts up the generation before the flood in an infernal prison, he falls in with the received opinion of that nation, which was, that that generation had no part in the world to come; and that they were condemned to boiling waters in hell.
2. He compares the present generation of the Jews with that generation before the flood; that Christ did of old preach even to that generation, and so he hath done to this; that that generation perished through its disobedience, and so will this. He runs much upon the same parallel in his second Epistle, chapter 3:6, &c. We must observe, that the apostle makes his transition from the crucifixion and resurrection of our Saviour directly to the generation before the flood, passing over all those generations that came between, on purpose that he might make the comparison betwixt that and the age he lived in.
53. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
[Wrapped it in linen.] "Mar Zutra saith, that out of the linen in which they wrapped up books, when it grew old they made shrouds for the dead of the precept; for this is to their disgrace." The Gloss adds, "That they do it of the linen wherein they fold up the book of the Law." Him who had suffered death by the sentence of the Sanhedrim, or magistrate, they were wont to call the dead of the precept, because he was executed according to the precept: and such a one to them was our Jesus. Now as to one that was condemned to death by the magistrate, they had an opinion that by how much the more disgracefully they dealt with him, by so much the greater atonement was made for him. Hence that expression, "They did not openly bewail him, that that very setting him at nought" (no man lamenting him) "might redound to his atonement." And from thence, perhaps, if the women at Jerusalem had bewailed any other person as they bewailed our Saviour, that other person might have said, "Ye daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, lest ye cut short my atonement": but Christ speaks to them upon a far different account. And under this notion they wrapped one that had been so executed, in some ragged, torn, old, dirty windingsheets; that this disgrace, being thrown upon him, might augment his expiation. But this good Arimathean behaves himself otherwise with Jesus, as having conceived quite another opinion concerning him.
54. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
[And the sabbath drew on.] The vulgar reads, the sabbath began to dawn: not ill rendered. Beza reads, and the sabbath succeeded: not properly. One would have thought it would have been more congruously said, it began to be dark towards the sabbath: for the night before the sabbath was coming on: but,
I. The sabbatical candles that were lighted in honour of the sabbath were now set up. "There are three things which it is necessary a man should warn those of his own house of on the evening of the sabbath, when night is coming on: Have you paid your tenths? Have you begun your Erubhick society? Light up your candle." "Men and women are bound to light up a candle in their houses upon the sabbath day. If a man hath not bread to eat, yet he must beg from door to door to get a little oil to set up his light." These things being noted, the evangelist may not be improperly understood thus, "The sabbath began to shine with the lights set up"; respect being had to these sabbath candles. But I do not acquiesce here.
II. The evening of the sabbath was called amongst the Jews light. By the light of the fourteenth day they make a search for leaven by the light of a candle. By the light of the fourteenth day; that is, on the evening, or in the night that immediately precedes that day. So Rambam upon the place, "the search for leaven is in the night of the fourteenth day, although the eating of leavened bread is not forbidden before the noon of the fourteenth day. But they instituted this because it is most convenient searching in the night time by candlelight; and at that time also all persons are at home."
"The woman that miscarries on the light [i.e. the evening] of the eighty-first day, the Shammean school absolves her from any offering: but the school of Hillel doth not." The Gloss hath it, on the light of the eighty-fist day, i.e. in the night of the eighty-first day. The question disputed there is: "The woman that had been brought to bed of a girl was bound to the purification of eighty days"; when those days were at an end, then she was bound to offer, Leviticus 12:5,6. Now therefore seeing the oblation was to be brought on the eighty-first day, the question is, What if the woman should happen to miscarry within the very night that begins the eighty-first day, must she the next day offer one or two sacrifices? one for the girl, and one for that of which she hath miscarried? The Shammean school will have but one, but the school of Hillel saith two.
Pesikta speaking concerning a vowed sacrifice, from Leviticus 7:17, hath this passage: "Perhaps it may be eaten on the light [i.e. the evening] of the third day. The text saith upon the third day; it is eaten until the third day. It is not eaten on the light [i.e. the evening, or the night] of the third day": for then the third day was actually begun. But now in this phrase they restrain the word especially to the beginning of the night, though sometimes it is taken for the whole night, as in that tradition newly quoted concerning the woman that miscarried: and so the Gloss upon Pesachin. Maimonides discoursing about putting away the leaven which ought to be on the light of the fourteenth day, i.e. on the night that begins the fourteenth day, hath this passage; "By prescription of the scribes they search for, and cast out their leaven in the night; namely, the beginning of that night that ushers in the fourteenth day." Much to the same sense the Gemarist concerning the light: "How comes twilight to be called light? From thence, because it is written, In the twilight, in the evening, of the day," Proverbs 7:9. Rambam thinks it so called by a rule of contraries; for so he in Pesachin: "The night is called light, by the same rule that they call many other things by their contraries."
But the Gemarists upon the place affirm that the evening is not improperly called light, and prove it from that expression, Psalm 148:3: Praise him all ye stars of light. However unsuitably therefore it might sound in the ears of Greeks or Latins, when they hear the evening or the beginning of the night expressed by the light of the sabbath, yet with the Jews it was a way of expression very usual: and they could readily understand the evangelist speaking in their own vulgar way, when he would tell us the night of the sabbath drew on; but expresseth it by the light of the sabbath began to shine.
56. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
[And rested the sabbath day.] If our Saviour was taken down from the cross about sunset, as it was provided, Deuteronomy 21:23; Joshua 8:29, then had the women this interim of time to buy their spices and despatch other business before the entry of the sabbath day.
I. Between the suns. So they called that space of time that was between the setting of the sun and the appearance of any star.
II. Might they not have that space of time also that was between the first and second star? We may judge something from this passage: "In the evening of the sabbath, if he see one star and do any work, he is acquitted; but if he see two stars, let him bring his trespass-offering."
III. Might they not have some farther allowance in the case of funerals? We may judge from this passage: "they do all works necessary about the dead [on the sabbath day]; they anoint him, they wash him, provided only that they do not stir a limb of him," &c. It was not safe for those women to shew themselves too busy in preparing for his interment; especially seeing Jesus died as a malefactor, and was odious to the people: this might exasperate the people against them, and so much the more too, if they should, in the least measure, violate the sabbath day. But further, besides the honour they gave to the sabbath, it was not prudence in them to break it for a work which they thought they might as well do when the sabbath was done and over.
[We found this fellow perverting the nation.] "A disciple corrupting his food publicly, as did Jesus of Nazareth." 'To corrupt their food publicly,' is a phrase amongst the Rabbins to denote a mingling of true doctrine with heresy, and the true worship of God with idolatry. This was the accusation they framed against our Saviour at this time, that he taught heterodox and destructive principles, such especially as would tend to turn off and alienate the people from their obedience to the Romans. Aruch recites this passage of the Talmud more cautiously; for instead of as Jesus of Nazareth did, he hath it, as Jeroboam did.
7. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
[He sent him to Herod.] Did Pilate do this as yielding to Herod a jurisdiction in capital matters within the city of Jerusalem upon those that were Galileans? Probably he did it, either in flattery to the tyrant, or else that he might throw off from himself both the trouble and the odium that might arise upon the occasion of condemning Jesus, whom he judged to be an innocent man, and whom in some measure he pitied, looking upon him as a sort of a delirant person, one not very well in his wits: which opinion also Herod seems to have conceived of him, by putting upon him that fool's coat wherewith he clothed him: which I should willingly enough render white and shining, but that I observe our evangelist, when he hath occasion to mention such a garment, calls it a white and shining robe expressly. Chapter 9:29, his garment was white and glistering: Acts 1:10, two men in white apparel.
30. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
[Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, &c.] So they do say, Revelation 6:6: from whence, among other arguments, it may be reasonably supposed, that that chapter treats of the plagues and afflictions that should forerun the destruction of Jerusalem, and, indeed, the destruction and overthrow itself. Weigh the place accurately; and perhaps thou wilt be of the same mind too. Nay, I may further add, that perhaps this observation might not a little help (if my eyes fail me not) in discovering the method of the author of the Book of the Revelation.
31. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
[If they do these things in a green tree, &c.] Consult John Baptist's expression, Matthew 3:10; "Now also the axe is laid to the root of the tree," viz., then when the Jewish nation was subdued to the government of the Romans, who were about to destroy it. And if they deal thus with me, a green and flourishing tree, what will they do with the whole nation, a dry and sapless trunk?
34. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
[They cast lots.] They cast lots for his seamless coat, John 19:23,24. Moses is supposed to have ministered in such a garment: "In what kind of garment did Moses attend the seven days of consecration? In a white vestment. Rabh Cahnah saith, In a white vestment, wherein there was no seam." The Gloss is, "The whole garment was made of one thread, and not as our clothes are, which have their sleeves sewed to the body with a seam." But he gives a very senseless reason why his coat was without a seam; viz., to avoid the suspicion lest Moses should at any time hide any consecrated money within the seams of his coat.
36. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
[They brought him vinegar.] Vinegar was the common drink of the Roman soldiers; and hence those to whom the custody of crucified persons was committed had it always ready by them. "He commanded that no soldier should drink wine in their expedition, but that every one should content himself with vinegar."
"The provision this man (viz. Misitheus) made in the commonwealth was such, that there never was any great frontier-city which had not vinegar, bread-corn, and bacon, and barley, and chaff, laid up for a whole year," &c. "Thou shalt give us as much hay, chaff, vinegar, herbs, and grass, as may suffice us."
Hence it may become less difficult to reconcile the evangelist amongst themselves, speaking of wine given him mixed with myrrh, and of vinegar too; viz., a twofold cup: one, before he was nailed to the cross, i.e. of wine mingled with myrrh; the other, of vinegar, while he hung there: the first, given by the Jews according to their custom; the second, by the soldiers, in abuse and mockery. But if you will grant a third cup, then all difficulty vanisheth indeed. Let the first be wine mingled with myrrh; the second, vinegar mingled with gall; the third, mere vinegar: which the soldiers gave to malefactors if they had desired drink, being that which they drank themselves. Hence the vessel filled with vinegar, was always in readiness, that the soldiers might drink when they had a mind, and persons also upon the cross, if they stood in need of it.
42. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
[Lord, remember me.] Christ is now upon the cross, as of old Joseph was in the prison, between two malefactors. There one of them was delivered, the other hanged; here one obtains salvation, the other perisheth. The faith of this thief is admirable; and kept even pace with that of the apostles, if, in some circumstances, it did not go beyond it. The apostles acknowledged 'Jesus to be the Messiah'; and so doth he: with this addition, which I question whether they did so clearly own and know or no, viz., that Christ should reign and have his kingdom after his death. He seems to have a sounder judgment concerning Christ's kingdom than the apostles themselves, as may be gathered from their question, Acts 1:6.
It pleased God, in this last article of time, to glorify the riches of his grace in a singular and extraordinary manner, both in the conversion of a sinner and the forgiveness of his sins: I say in such an article of time which the world had never before seen, nor ever was like to see again; viz., in the very instant wherein the Messiah was finishing his redemption. It was not unknown to either of the thieves that Jesus was therefore condemned to die because he had professed himself 'the Christ'; hence that of the impenitent malefactor, "If thou art Christ, save thyself and us." And if the penitent thief did for a while join with the other in his petulant reproaches (which seems intimated to us Matthew 27:44), yet was his heart touched at length, and, perhaps, upon his observation of that miraculous darkness which at that time had covered the world.
43. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shall thou be with me in paradise.
[Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.] I. Let us here first consider the phrase in paradise: in common Jewish speech, in the garden of Eden. In what sense we may collect from these following passages: "The Rabbins have a tradition. There are four that went into paradise: namely, Ben Azzai, Ben Zumah, Acher, and R. Akibah. R. Akibah saith unto them, 'When you come to the stones of pure marble, do not ye say Waters, waters [i.e. Alas! these waters will hinder us from going forward]; for it is written, He that telleth lies shall not dwell in my presence [now, it would be a lie to call white marble water].'" "Ben Azzai looked with some curiosity about him, and died: of him the Scripture speaks, 'Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his saints.' Ben Zumah looked with some curiosity about him, and he was disturbed in his intellectuals: of him the Scripture speaketh, 'Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.'"
Aruch, reciting these words, saith, "It is called paradise, under the signification of the garden of Eden, which is reserved for the just. This place is in the heavens, where the souls of the just are gathered together." And the Talmudical Gloss hath it much to the same sense: "These four, by God's procurement, went up into the firmament."
While we are reading these passages, that story may easily occur to mind of St. Paul's being "caught up into paradise," 2 Corinthians 12; and perhaps the legend before us is but the ape of that story. In the story it is observable, that paradise and the 'third heaven' are one and the same thing: in the legend paradise and the highest heavens. For so the doctors comment upon the word in Psalm 68:5: "There are seven classes or degrees of just persons, who see the face of God, sit in the house of God, ascend up unto the hill of God, &c. And to every class or degree there is allotted their proper dwellingplace in paradise. There are also seven abiding places in hell. Those that dwell in paradise, they shine like the shining of the firmament, like the sun, like the moon, like the firmament, like the stars, like lightning, like the lilies, like burning lamps."
II. Our Saviour, therefore, telling the penitent thief, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise, he speaks in the common dialect, and to the capacity of the thief; viz., that he should be in heaven with Christ, and with all just persons that had left this world. Nor, indeed, would I fetch the explication of that article of our creed, He descended into hell, from any passage in the Scripture sooner than this here: adding this, that we must of necessity have recourse to the Greek tongue for the signification of the word, which they generally use to denote the state of the dead, as well the blessed as the miserable. Those who expound that passage in 1 Peter 3:19, of his going down from the cross into hell to preach to the spirits in prison there, do very little regard the scope of the apostle, and are absolute strangers to his meaning in it. For,
1. In that he shuts up the generation before the flood in an infernal prison, he falls in with the received opinion of that nation, which was, that that generation had no part in the world to come; and that they were condemned to boiling waters in hell.
2. He compares the present generation of the Jews with that generation before the flood; that Christ did of old preach even to that generation, and so he hath done to this; that that generation perished through its disobedience, and so will this. He runs much upon the same parallel in his second Epistle, chapter 3:6, &c. We must observe, that the apostle makes his transition from the crucifixion and resurrection of our Saviour directly to the generation before the flood, passing over all those generations that came between, on purpose that he might make the comparison betwixt that and the age he lived in.
53. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
[Wrapped it in linen.] "Mar Zutra saith, that out of the linen in which they wrapped up books, when it grew old they made shrouds for the dead of the precept; for this is to their disgrace." The Gloss adds, "That they do it of the linen wherein they fold up the book of the Law." Him who had suffered death by the sentence of the Sanhedrim, or magistrate, they were wont to call the dead of the precept, because he was executed according to the precept: and such a one to them was our Jesus. Now as to one that was condemned to death by the magistrate, they had an opinion that by how much the more disgracefully they dealt with him, by so much the greater atonement was made for him. Hence that expression, "They did not openly bewail him, that that very setting him at nought" (no man lamenting him) "might redound to his atonement." And from thence, perhaps, if the women at Jerusalem had bewailed any other person as they bewailed our Saviour, that other person might have said, "Ye daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, lest ye cut short my atonement": but Christ speaks to them upon a far different account. And under this notion they wrapped one that had been so executed, in some ragged, torn, old, dirty windingsheets; that this disgrace, being thrown upon him, might augment his expiation. But this good Arimathean behaves himself otherwise with Jesus, as having conceived quite another opinion concerning him.
54. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
[And the sabbath drew on.] The vulgar reads, the sabbath began to dawn: not ill rendered. Beza reads, and the sabbath succeeded: not properly. One would have thought it would have been more congruously said, it began to be dark towards the sabbath: for the night before the sabbath was coming on: but,
I. The sabbatical candles that were lighted in honour of the sabbath were now set up. "There are three things which it is necessary a man should warn those of his own house of on the evening of the sabbath, when night is coming on: Have you paid your tenths? Have you begun your Erubhick society? Light up your candle." "Men and women are bound to light up a candle in their houses upon the sabbath day. If a man hath not bread to eat, yet he must beg from door to door to get a little oil to set up his light." These things being noted, the evangelist may not be improperly understood thus, "The sabbath began to shine with the lights set up"; respect being had to these sabbath candles. But I do not acquiesce here.
II. The evening of the sabbath was called amongst the Jews light. By the light of the fourteenth day they make a search for leaven by the light of a candle. By the light of the fourteenth day; that is, on the evening, or in the night that immediately precedes that day. So Rambam upon the place, "the search for leaven is in the night of the fourteenth day, although the eating of leavened bread is not forbidden before the noon of the fourteenth day. But they instituted this because it is most convenient searching in the night time by candlelight; and at that time also all persons are at home."
"The woman that miscarries on the light [i.e. the evening] of the eighty-first day, the Shammean school absolves her from any offering: but the school of Hillel doth not." The Gloss hath it, on the light of the eighty-fist day, i.e. in the night of the eighty-first day. The question disputed there is: "The woman that had been brought to bed of a girl was bound to the purification of eighty days"; when those days were at an end, then she was bound to offer, Leviticus 12:5,6. Now therefore seeing the oblation was to be brought on the eighty-first day, the question is, What if the woman should happen to miscarry within the very night that begins the eighty-first day, must she the next day offer one or two sacrifices? one for the girl, and one for that of which she hath miscarried? The Shammean school will have but one, but the school of Hillel saith two.
Pesikta speaking concerning a vowed sacrifice, from Leviticus 7:17, hath this passage: "Perhaps it may be eaten on the light [i.e. the evening] of the third day. The text saith upon the third day; it is eaten until the third day. It is not eaten on the light [i.e. the evening, or the night] of the third day": for then the third day was actually begun. But now in this phrase they restrain the word especially to the beginning of the night, though sometimes it is taken for the whole night, as in that tradition newly quoted concerning the woman that miscarried: and so the Gloss upon Pesachin. Maimonides discoursing about putting away the leaven which ought to be on the light of the fourteenth day, i.e. on the night that begins the fourteenth day, hath this passage; "By prescription of the scribes they search for, and cast out their leaven in the night; namely, the beginning of that night that ushers in the fourteenth day." Much to the same sense the Gemarist concerning the light: "How comes twilight to be called light? From thence, because it is written, In the twilight, in the evening, of the day," Proverbs 7:9. Rambam thinks it so called by a rule of contraries; for so he in Pesachin: "The night is called light, by the same rule that they call many other things by their contraries."
But the Gemarists upon the place affirm that the evening is not improperly called light, and prove it from that expression, Psalm 148:3: Praise him all ye stars of light. However unsuitably therefore it might sound in the ears of Greeks or Latins, when they hear the evening or the beginning of the night expressed by the light of the sabbath, yet with the Jews it was a way of expression very usual: and they could readily understand the evangelist speaking in their own vulgar way, when he would tell us the night of the sabbath drew on; but expresseth it by the light of the sabbath began to shine.
56. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
[And rested the sabbath day.] If our Saviour was taken down from the cross about sunset, as it was provided, Deuteronomy 21:23; Joshua 8:29, then had the women this interim of time to buy their spices and despatch other business before the entry of the sabbath day.
I. Between the suns. So they called that space of time that was between the setting of the sun and the appearance of any star.
II. Might they not have that space of time also that was between the first and second star? We may judge something from this passage: "In the evening of the sabbath, if he see one star and do any work, he is acquitted; but if he see two stars, let him bring his trespass-offering."
III. Might they not have some farther allowance in the case of funerals? We may judge from this passage: "they do all works necessary about the dead [on the sabbath day]; they anoint him, they wash him, provided only that they do not stir a limb of him," &c. It was not safe for those women to shew themselves too busy in preparing for his interment; especially seeing Jesus died as a malefactor, and was odious to the people: this might exasperate the people against them, and so much the more too, if they should, in the least measure, violate the sabbath day. But further, besides the honour they gave to the sabbath, it was not prudence in them to break it for a work which they thought they might as well do when the sabbath was done and over.
Luke 24
5. And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
[Why seek ye the living among the dead?] "A parable. A certain priest (who had a foolish servant) went somewhere without the city. The servant seeking about for his master, goes into the place of burial, and there calls out to people standing there. 'Did you see my master here?' They say unto him, 'Is not thy master a priest?' He said, 'Yes.' Then said they unto him, 'Thou fool, who ever saw a priest among tombs?' So say Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh; 'Thou fool, is it the custom to seek the dead among the living? (or perhaps the living among the dead?) Our God is the living God; but the gods of whom thou speakest are dead,'" &c.
13. And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
[Why seek ye the living among the dead?] "A parable. A certain priest (who had a foolish servant) went somewhere without the city. The servant seeking about for his master, goes into the place of burial, and there calls out to people standing there. 'Did you see my master here?' They say unto him, 'Is not thy master a priest?' He said, 'Yes.' Then said they unto him, 'Thou fool, who ever saw a priest among tombs?' So say Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh; 'Thou fool, is it the custom to seek the dead among the living? (or perhaps the living among the dead?) Our God is the living God; but the gods of whom thou speakest are dead,'" &c.
13. And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
[And behold two of them were going, &c.] One of these was Cleopas, verse 18, whom we have elsewhere shewn to be the very same with Alpheus, both from the agreement of the name, and also by comparing John 19:25, with Mark 15:47, and Matthew 27:56. That Peter was the other, I do not at all question, grounding my confidence upon verse 34 of this chapter; and 1 Corinthians 15:5. This Cleopas or Alpheus, we see, is the speaker here, and not Peter, being older than Peter, as being the father of four of the apostles.
15. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
[Jesus himself drew near, and went along with them.] "After that, he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." But what form that was, it would be something bold to determine. But it seems to be different from the form of a gardener, and indeed not the form of any plebeian; but rather of some scholar, because he instructs them while they were upon the road, and giveth thanks for them when they sat at meat. So Beracoth; "If two eat together, the one of them a learned man, the other of them an unlearned man, he that is the learned man gives thanks." Hence that passage: "Janneus the king calls out Simeon Ben Shetahh, vice-president of the Sanhedrim, and a doctor, to say grace after supper: and thus he begins; 'Blessed be God for the meat which Janneus and his guests have eaten.' To whom the king, 'How long wilt thou persist in thy frowardness?' Saith the other, 'Why, what should I have said? Must we bless God for the meat that we have eaten, when as I have eaten none at all?'"
21. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, today is the third day since these things were done.
[We trusted, &c.] "We trusted it had been he that should have redeemed Israel": viz., in the sense that that nation had of a redemption, which they hoped for from the Gentile yoke. But the poverty and meanness of Jesus gave them no ground to hope that any such thing should be brought about by arms, as that people had generally dreamed; they hoped, however, it might have been miraculously accomplished, as their first redemption from Egypt had been.
[Today is the third day, &c.] It is worthy our observation what notice the Rabbins take of the third day: "Abraham lifted up his eyes the third day, Genesis 22:4. It is written, After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight, Hosea 6:2. It is written, concerning the third day of the tribes, Joseph said unto them, The third day, Genesis 42:18. Concerning the third day also of the spies: Hide yourselves there three days, Joshua 2:16. And it is said of the third day of the promulgation of the law, And it came to pass on the third day, Exodus 19:16. It is written also of the third day of Jonas, Jonas was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, Jonah 1:17. It is written also of the third day of those that came up out of the captivity. And there abode we in tents three days, Ezra 8:15. It is written also of the third day of the resurrection from the dead, After two days will he revive us, and the third day he will raise us up. It is written also of the third day of Esther, And on the third day Esther put on her royal apparel, Esther 5:1. The Targumist adds, On the third day of the Passover." And that indeed is the day we are at present concerned in, namely, the third day of the Passover. If these things were taken so much notice of concerning the third day, at that time, in the schools and synagogues, (as I see no reason why it should be denied), then these words of Cleopas may seem to look a little that way, as speaking according to the vulgar conceptions of the Jews. For whereas it had been plain enough to have said, today is the third day, but he further adds, beside all this, and the word this, too; there seems a peculiar force in that addition, and an emphasis in that word. As if the meaning of it were this: "That same Jesus was mighty in word and deed, and shewed himself such a one, that we conceived him the true Messiah, and him that was to redeem Israel: and besides all these things which bear witness for him to be such, this very day bears witness also. For whereas there is so great an observation amongst us concerning the third day, this is the third day since he was crucified; and there are some women amongst us, that say they have been told by angels that he is risen again."
30. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
[He took bread, and blessed it, &c.] It is strange that any should expound this breaking of bread of the holy eucharist, when Christ had determined with himself to disappear in the very distribution of the bread and so interrupt the supper. And where indeed doth it appear that any of them tasted a bit? For the supper was ended before it began.
"If three eat together, they are bound to say grace"; that is, as it is afterward explained, "One of them saith, 'Let us bless': but if there be three and himself, then he saith, 'Bless ye.'" Although I do not believe Christ tied himself exactly to that custom of saying, 'Let us bless'; nor yet to the common form of blessing before meat; yet is it very probable he did use some form of blessing, and not the words, 'This is my body.'
32. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
[Did not our hearts burn within us?] Beza saith, "In one copy we read it written, Was not our heart hid?" Heinsius saith, "It is written hidden, in the best copies." Why then should it not be so in the best translations too? But this reading favours his interpretation, which amounts to this: "Were we not fools, that we should not know him while he was discoursing with us in the way?" I had rather expound it by some such parallel places as these: "My heart waxed hot within me, and while I was musing the fire burned," Psalm 39:4; "His word was in mine heart as a burning fire," Jeremiah 20:9. This meaning is, That their hearts were so affected, and grew so warm, that they could hold no longer, but must break silence and utter themselves. So these, 'Were we not so mightily affected, while he talked with us in the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures, that we were just breaking out into the acknowledgment of him, and ready to have saluted him as our Lord?'
That is a far-fetched conceit in Taanith: "R. Alai Bar Barachiah saith, If two disciples of the wise men journey together, and do not maintain some discourse betwixt themselves concerning the law, they deserve to be burnt; according as it is said, It came to pass, as they still went on and talked, behold a chariot of fire, and horses of fire," &c. 2 Kings 2.
34. Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
[Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.] I. That these are the words of the Eleven appears from the case in which the word the eleven is put. They found the eleven and them that were with them, saying. They having returned from Emmaus, found the eleven and the rest, saying to them, when they came into their presence, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon." But do they speak these things amongst themselves as certain and believed? or do they tell them to the two disciples that were come from Emmaus, as things true and unquestionable? It is plain from St. Mark, that the eleven did not believe the resurrection of our Saviour, till he himself had shewed himself in the midst of them. They could not, therefore, say these words, "The Lord is risen, and hath appeared unto Simon," as if they were confidently assured of the truth of them: but when they saw Simon so suddenly and unexpectedly returning, whom they knew to have taken a journey towards Galilee, to try if he could there meet with Jesus, they conclude hence, "Oh! surely the Lord is risen, and hath appeared to Simon," otherwise he would not have returned back so soon.
Which brings to mind that of the messenger of the death of Maximin: "The messenger that was sent from Aquileia to Rome, changing his horses often, came with so great speed that he got to Rome in four days. It chanced to be a day wherein some games were celebrating, when on a sudden, as Balbinus and Gordianus were sitting in the theatre, the messenger came in; and before it could be told, all the people cry out, 'Maximin is slain'; and so prevented him in the news he brought," &c.
We cannot well think that any worldly affairs could have called away these two from the feast before the appointed time, nor indeed from the company of their fellow-disciples, but something greater and more urgent than any worldly occasions. And now imagine with what anguish and perplexity poor Peter's thoughts were harassed for having denied his Master: what emotions of mind he felt, when the women had told him, that they were commanded by angels to let Peter particularly know that the Lord was risen, and went before them into Galilee, and they might see him there, Mark 16:7: that it seems to me beyond all question, that one of these disciples going towards Emmaus was Peter, who as soon as he had heard this from the women, taking Alpheus as a companion of his journey, makes towards Galilee, not without communicating beforehand to his fellow-disciples the design of that progress: they, therefore, finding him so suddenly and unexpectedly returned, make the conjecture amongst themselves, that certainly the Lord had appeared to him, else he would never have come back so soon. Compare but that of the apostle, 1 Corinthian 15:5, he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; and nothing can seem expressed more clearly in the confirmation of this matter.
Object. But it may be objected, that those two returning from Emmaus found the eleven apostles gathered and sitting together. Now if Simon was not amongst them, they were not eleven. Therefore he was not one of those two.
Ans. I. If it should be granted that Peter was there and sat amongst them, yet were they not exactly eleven then; for Thomas was absent, John 20:24. II. When the eleven are mentioned, we must not suppose it exactly meant of the number of apostles then present, but the present number of the apostles.
37. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
[They supposed they had seen a spirit.] Whereas the Jews distinguished between angels and spirits and demons; spirits are defined by R. Hoshaniah to be "such to whom souls are created, but they have not a body made for those souls." But it is a question, whether they included all spirits or souls under this notion, when it is more than probable that apparitions of ghosts, or deceased persons who once had a body, were reckoned by them under the same title. Nor do I apprehend the disciples had any other imagination at this time, than that this was not Christ indeed, in his own person, as newly raised from the dead; but a spectrum only in his shape, himself being still dead. And when the Pharisees speak concerning Paul, Acts 23:9, "That if an angel or a spirit had spoken to him," I would easily believe they might mean it of the apparition of some prophet, or some other departed just person, than of any soul that had never yet any body created to it. I the rather incline thus to think, because it is so evident, that it were needless to prove how deeply impressed that nation was with an opinion of the apparitions of departed ghosts.
44. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
[In the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms.] It is a known division of the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Holy writings.
I. The books of the law and their order need not be insisted upon, commonly called by us, the Pentateuch; but by some of the Rabbins, the Heptateuch; and by some Christians, the Octateuch. "R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, 'Wisdom hath hewn out her seven pillars.' These are the seven books of the law." But are there not but five books only? "Ben Kaphra saith, The Book of Numbers is made three books. From the beginning of the book to And it came to pass when the ark set forward [chap. 10:35], is a book by itself. That verse and the following is a book by itself: and from thence to the end of the book is a book by itself"...
Eulogius, speaking concerning Dosthes or Dositheus, a famous seducer of the Samaritans, hath this passage: He adulterated the Octateuch of Moses with spurious writings, and all kind of corrupt falsifyings. There is mention also of a book with this title, The Christians' Book, an Exposition upon the Octateuch. Whether this was the Octateuch of Moses it is neither certain nor much worth our inquiry; for Photius judgeth him a corrupt author: besides that it may be shewn by and by, that there was a twofold Octateuch besides that of Moses. Now if any man should ask, how it come to pass that Eulogius (and that probably from the common notion of the thing) should divide the books of Moses into an Octateuch; I had rather any one else than myself should resolve him in it. But if any consent that he owned the Heptateuch we have already mentioned, we should be ready to reckon the last chapter of Deuteronomy for the eighth part.
Aben Ezra will smile here, who in that his obscure and disguised denial of the books of the Pentateuch, as if they were not writ by the pen of Moses, instances, in that chapter in the first place, as far as I can guess, as a testimony against it. You have his words in his Commentary upon the Book of Deuteronomy, a little from the beginning, But if you understand the mystery of the twelve, &c., i.e. of the twelve verses of the last chapter of the book (for so his own countrymen expound him), "thou wilt know the truth"; i.e. that Moses did not write the whole Pentateuch; an argument neither worth answering, nor becoming so great a philosopher. For as it is a ridiculous thing to suppose that the chapter that treats of the death and burial of Moses should be written by himself, so would it not be much less ridiculous to affix that chapter to any other volume than the Pentateuch. But these things are not the proper subject for our present handling.
II. There also was an Octateuch of the prophets too: "All the books of the prophets are eight; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve." For the historical books also were read in their synagogues under the notion of the prophets, as well as the prophets themselves, whose names are set down. You will see the title prefixed to them in the Hebrew Bibles, The former prophets, as well as to the others, The latter prophets. The doctors give us the reason why they dispose the prophets in that order, that Jeremiah is named first, Ezekiel next, and Isaiah last, which I have quoted in notes upon Matthew 27:9: and let not the reader think it irksome to repeat it here.
"Whereas the Book of Kings ends in destruction, and the whole Book of Jeremiah treats about destruction; whereas Ezekiel begins with destruction, and ends in consolation; and whereas Isaiah is all in consolation, they joined destruction with destruction, and consolation with consolation."
III. The third division of the Bible is entitled the Holy Writings. And here also is found an Octateuch by somebody (as it seems), though I know not where to find it.
"Herbanus the Jew was a man excellently well instructed in the law, and holy books of the prophets, and the Octateuch, and all the other writings." What this Octateuch should be, distinct from the law and the prophets, and indeed what all the other writings besides should be, is not easily guessed. This Octateuch perhaps may seem to have some reference to the Hagiographa, or Holy Writings: for it is probable enough that, speaking of a Jew well skilled in the Holy Scriptures, he might design the partition of the Bible according to the manner of the Jews' dividing it: but who then can pick out books that should make it up? Let the reader pick out the eight; and then I would say, that the other four are all the other writings. But we will not much disquiet ourselves about this matter.
It may be asked, why these books should be called the Scriptures, when the whole Bible goes under the name of the Holy Scriptures. Nor can any thing be more readily answered to this, than that by this title they would keep up their dignity and just esteem for them. They did not indeed read them in their synagogues, but that they might acknowledge them of most holy and divine authority, out of them they confirm their traditions, and they expound them mystically: yea, and give them the same title with the rest of the Holy Scriptures.
"This is the order of the Hagiographa, Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, the Lamentations, Daniel, the Book of Esther, Ezra, and the Chronicles." It is here disputed, that if Job was in the days of Moses, why then is not his book put in the first place? the answer is, They do not begin with vengeance or affliction; and such is that Book of Job. They reply, Ruth also begins with affliction, viz. with the story of a famine, and the death of Elimelech's sons. "But that was (say they) an affliction that had a joyful ending." So they might have said of the book and affliction of Job too. We see it is disputed there, why the Book of Ruth should be placed the first in that rank, and not the Book of Job. But we might inquire, whether the Book of Psalms ought not to have been placed the first, rather than the Book of Ruth.
IV. In this passage at present before us, who would think otherwise but that our Saviour alludes to the common and most known partition of the Bible? and although he name the Psalms only, yet that under that title he includes that whole volume. For we must of necessity say, that either he excluded all the books of that third division excepting the Book of Psalms, which is not probable; or that he included them under the title of the Prophets, which was not customary; or else that under the title of the Psalms he comprehended all the rest. That he did not exclude them, reason will tell us; for in several books of that division is he himself spoken of, as well as in the Psalms: and that he did not include them in the title of the Prophets reason also will dictate: because we would not suppose him speaking differently from the common and received opinion of that nation. There is very little question, therefore, but the apostles might understand him speaking with the vulgar; and by the Psalms to have meant all the books of that volume, those especially wherein any thing was written concerning himself. For let it be granted that Ruth, as to the time of the history and the time of its writing, might challenge to itself the first place in order (and it is that kind of priority the Gemarists are arguing), yet, certainly, amongst all those books that mention any thing of Christ, the Book of Psalms deservedly obtains the first place; so far that in the naming of this the rest may be understood. So St. Matthew, chapter 27:9, under the name of Jeremiah, comprehends that whole volume of the Prophets, because he was placed the first in that rank: which observation we have made in notes upon that place.
45. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
[Then opened he their understanding.] When it is said, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles the gift of tongues and of prophecy was conferred ("they spake with tongues, and they prophesied," Acts 19:6), by 'prophecy' nothing may be better understood than this very thing, that the minds of such were opened, that they might understand the Scriptures: and perhaps their 'speaking with tongues' might look this way in the first notion of it, viz., that they could understand the original wherein the Scriptures were writ.
50. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
[As far as Bethany.] How many difficulties arise here!
I. This very evangelist (Acts 1:12) tells us, that when the disciples came back from the place where our Lord ascended, "they returned from mount Olivet, distant from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey." But now the town of Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, John 11:18, that is, double a sabbath day's journey.
II. Josephus tells us that the mount of Olives was but five furlongs from the city; and a sabbath day's journey was seven furlongs and a half. "About that time there came to Jerusalem a certain Egyptian, pretending himself a prophet, and persuading the people that they would go out with him to the mount of Olives, which, being situated on the front of the city, is distant five furlongs." These things are all true: 1. That the mount of Olives lay but five furlongs' distance from Jerusalem. 2. That the town of Bethany was fifteen furlongs. 3. That the disciples were brought by Christ as far as Bethany. 4. That when they returned form the mount of Olives they travelled more than five furlongs. And, 5. Returning from Bethany, they travelled but a sabbath day's journey. All which may be easily reconciled, if we would observe that the first space from the city towards this mount was called Bethphage, which I have cleared elsewhere from Talmudic authors, the evangelists themselves also confirming it. That part of that mount was known by that name to the length of about a sabbath day's journey, till it came to that part which was called Bethany. For there was Bethany, a tract of the mount, and the town of Bethany. The town was distance from the city about fifteen furlongs, i.e., two miles, or a double sabbath day's journey: but the first border of this tract (which also bore the name of Bethany) was distant but one mile, or a single sabbath day's journey only.
Our Saviour led out his disciples, when he was about to ascend, to the very first brink of that region or tract of mount Olivet which was called Bethany, and was distant from the city a sabbath day's journey. And so far from the city itself did that tract extend which was called Bethphage: and when he was come to that place where the bounds of Bethphage and Bethany met and touched one another, he there ascended; in that very place where he got upon the ass when he rode into Jerusalem, Mark 11:1. Whereas, therefore, Josephus saith that mount Olivet was but five furlongs from the city, he means the first brink and border of it: but our evangelist must be understood of the place where Christ ascended, where the name of Olivet began, as it was distinguished from Bethphage.
And since we have so frequent mention of a sabbath day's journey, and it is not very foreign from our present purpose to observe something concerning it, let me take notice of these few things:
I. The space of a sabbath day's bound was two thousand cubits. "Naomi and to Ruth, 'We are commanded to observe the sabbaths, and the feasts, but we are not to go beyond two thousand cubits.'" "It is ordained by the scribes, that no man go out of the city beyond two thousands cubits." Instances of this kind are endless. But it is disputed upon what foundation this constitution of theirs is built. "Whence comes it to be thus ordained concerning the two thousand cubits? It is founded upon this, 'Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day,'" Exodus 16:29. "Where are these two thousand cubits mentioned? they have their tradition from hence, Abide ye every man in his place, Exodus 16:29. These are four cubits. Let no man go out of his place: these are two thousand cubits." It is true, indeed, we cannot gain so much as one cubit out of any of these Scriptures, much less two thousand; however, we may learn from hence the pleasant art they have of working any thing out of any thing.
"Asai Ben Akibah saith, 'They are fetched from hence,' in that it is said, Place, place. Here place is said [Let no man go out of his place]. And it is said elsewhere, I will appoint thee a place, Exodus 21:13. As the place that is said elsewhere is two thousand cubits, so the place that is spoken of here is two thousand cubits." But how do they prove that the place mentioned elsewhere is two thousand cubits? "I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee that kills a man unawares: this teaches us that the Israelites in the wilderness" (i.e. those that had slain any one) "betook themselves to a place of refuge. And whither did they flee? To the camp of the Levites."
Now, therefore, when the Israelites' camp in the wilderness was distant from the tabernacle and from the Levites' camp that was pitched about the tabernacle, two thousand cubits, which thing they gather from Joshua 3:4; and whereas it was lawful for them at that distance to approach the tabernacle on the sabbath day; hence they argue for the two thousand cubits as the sabbath day's journey, which we are now inquiring into. But, by the way, let us take notice of the "four cubits," which they gathered from those words, "Abide ye every man in his place." Which must be thus understood: "If any person through ignorance, or by any accident, had gone beyond the limits of the sabbath, and afterward came to know his transgression, he was confined within four cubits, so that he must not stir beyond them till the sabbath was done and over."
They further instance in another foundation for the two thousand cubits: "'Ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits,' Numbers 35:5. But another Scripture saith, 'From the wall of the city and outward ye shall measure a thousand cubits': the thousand cubits are the suburbs of the city, and the two thousand cubits are the sabbatical limits." Maimonides very largely discourseth in what manner and by what lines they measured these two thousand cubits from each city: but it makes very little to our purpose. Only let me add this one thing; that if any one was overtaken in his journeying in the fields or wilderness by the night, when the sabbath was coming in, and did not exactly know the space of two thousand cubits, then he might walk "two thousand ordinary paces: and these were accounted the sabbatical bounds."
So far from the city was that place of mount Olivet, where Christ ascended; viz., that part of the mount where Bethphage ended and Bethany began. Perhaps the very same place mentioned 2 Samuel 15:32; or certainly not far off, where David in his flight taking leave of the ark and sanctuary, looked back and worshipped God. Where if any one would be at the pains to inquire why the Greek interpreters retain the word Ros, both here and in chapter 16:1; and David came unto Ros; and and David passed on a little way from Ros; he will find a knot not easy to be untied. The Talmudists would have it a place of idolatry, but by a reason very far-fetched indeed. The Jewish commentators, with a little more probability, conceive that it was a place from whence David, when he went towards Jerusalem, looking towards the place where the tabernacle was seated, was wont to worship God.
15. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
[Jesus himself drew near, and went along with them.] "After that, he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." But what form that was, it would be something bold to determine. But it seems to be different from the form of a gardener, and indeed not the form of any plebeian; but rather of some scholar, because he instructs them while they were upon the road, and giveth thanks for them when they sat at meat. So Beracoth; "If two eat together, the one of them a learned man, the other of them an unlearned man, he that is the learned man gives thanks." Hence that passage: "Janneus the king calls out Simeon Ben Shetahh, vice-president of the Sanhedrim, and a doctor, to say grace after supper: and thus he begins; 'Blessed be God for the meat which Janneus and his guests have eaten.' To whom the king, 'How long wilt thou persist in thy frowardness?' Saith the other, 'Why, what should I have said? Must we bless God for the meat that we have eaten, when as I have eaten none at all?'"
21. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, today is the third day since these things were done.
[We trusted, &c.] "We trusted it had been he that should have redeemed Israel": viz., in the sense that that nation had of a redemption, which they hoped for from the Gentile yoke. But the poverty and meanness of Jesus gave them no ground to hope that any such thing should be brought about by arms, as that people had generally dreamed; they hoped, however, it might have been miraculously accomplished, as their first redemption from Egypt had been.
[Today is the third day, &c.] It is worthy our observation what notice the Rabbins take of the third day: "Abraham lifted up his eyes the third day, Genesis 22:4. It is written, After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight, Hosea 6:2. It is written, concerning the third day of the tribes, Joseph said unto them, The third day, Genesis 42:18. Concerning the third day also of the spies: Hide yourselves there three days, Joshua 2:16. And it is said of the third day of the promulgation of the law, And it came to pass on the third day, Exodus 19:16. It is written also of the third day of Jonas, Jonas was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, Jonah 1:17. It is written also of the third day of those that came up out of the captivity. And there abode we in tents three days, Ezra 8:15. It is written also of the third day of the resurrection from the dead, After two days will he revive us, and the third day he will raise us up. It is written also of the third day of Esther, And on the third day Esther put on her royal apparel, Esther 5:1. The Targumist adds, On the third day of the Passover." And that indeed is the day we are at present concerned in, namely, the third day of the Passover. If these things were taken so much notice of concerning the third day, at that time, in the schools and synagogues, (as I see no reason why it should be denied), then these words of Cleopas may seem to look a little that way, as speaking according to the vulgar conceptions of the Jews. For whereas it had been plain enough to have said, today is the third day, but he further adds, beside all this, and the word this, too; there seems a peculiar force in that addition, and an emphasis in that word. As if the meaning of it were this: "That same Jesus was mighty in word and deed, and shewed himself such a one, that we conceived him the true Messiah, and him that was to redeem Israel: and besides all these things which bear witness for him to be such, this very day bears witness also. For whereas there is so great an observation amongst us concerning the third day, this is the third day since he was crucified; and there are some women amongst us, that say they have been told by angels that he is risen again."
30. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
[He took bread, and blessed it, &c.] It is strange that any should expound this breaking of bread of the holy eucharist, when Christ had determined with himself to disappear in the very distribution of the bread and so interrupt the supper. And where indeed doth it appear that any of them tasted a bit? For the supper was ended before it began.
"If three eat together, they are bound to say grace"; that is, as it is afterward explained, "One of them saith, 'Let us bless': but if there be three and himself, then he saith, 'Bless ye.'" Although I do not believe Christ tied himself exactly to that custom of saying, 'Let us bless'; nor yet to the common form of blessing before meat; yet is it very probable he did use some form of blessing, and not the words, 'This is my body.'
32. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
[Did not our hearts burn within us?] Beza saith, "In one copy we read it written, Was not our heart hid?" Heinsius saith, "It is written hidden, in the best copies." Why then should it not be so in the best translations too? But this reading favours his interpretation, which amounts to this: "Were we not fools, that we should not know him while he was discoursing with us in the way?" I had rather expound it by some such parallel places as these: "My heart waxed hot within me, and while I was musing the fire burned," Psalm 39:4; "His word was in mine heart as a burning fire," Jeremiah 20:9. This meaning is, That their hearts were so affected, and grew so warm, that they could hold no longer, but must break silence and utter themselves. So these, 'Were we not so mightily affected, while he talked with us in the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures, that we were just breaking out into the acknowledgment of him, and ready to have saluted him as our Lord?'
That is a far-fetched conceit in Taanith: "R. Alai Bar Barachiah saith, If two disciples of the wise men journey together, and do not maintain some discourse betwixt themselves concerning the law, they deserve to be burnt; according as it is said, It came to pass, as they still went on and talked, behold a chariot of fire, and horses of fire," &c. 2 Kings 2.
34. Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
[Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.] I. That these are the words of the Eleven appears from the case in which the word the eleven is put. They found the eleven and them that were with them, saying. They having returned from Emmaus, found the eleven and the rest, saying to them, when they came into their presence, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon." But do they speak these things amongst themselves as certain and believed? or do they tell them to the two disciples that were come from Emmaus, as things true and unquestionable? It is plain from St. Mark, that the eleven did not believe the resurrection of our Saviour, till he himself had shewed himself in the midst of them. They could not, therefore, say these words, "The Lord is risen, and hath appeared unto Simon," as if they were confidently assured of the truth of them: but when they saw Simon so suddenly and unexpectedly returning, whom they knew to have taken a journey towards Galilee, to try if he could there meet with Jesus, they conclude hence, "Oh! surely the Lord is risen, and hath appeared to Simon," otherwise he would not have returned back so soon.
Which brings to mind that of the messenger of the death of Maximin: "The messenger that was sent from Aquileia to Rome, changing his horses often, came with so great speed that he got to Rome in four days. It chanced to be a day wherein some games were celebrating, when on a sudden, as Balbinus and Gordianus were sitting in the theatre, the messenger came in; and before it could be told, all the people cry out, 'Maximin is slain'; and so prevented him in the news he brought," &c.
We cannot well think that any worldly affairs could have called away these two from the feast before the appointed time, nor indeed from the company of their fellow-disciples, but something greater and more urgent than any worldly occasions. And now imagine with what anguish and perplexity poor Peter's thoughts were harassed for having denied his Master: what emotions of mind he felt, when the women had told him, that they were commanded by angels to let Peter particularly know that the Lord was risen, and went before them into Galilee, and they might see him there, Mark 16:7: that it seems to me beyond all question, that one of these disciples going towards Emmaus was Peter, who as soon as he had heard this from the women, taking Alpheus as a companion of his journey, makes towards Galilee, not without communicating beforehand to his fellow-disciples the design of that progress: they, therefore, finding him so suddenly and unexpectedly returned, make the conjecture amongst themselves, that certainly the Lord had appeared to him, else he would never have come back so soon. Compare but that of the apostle, 1 Corinthian 15:5, he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; and nothing can seem expressed more clearly in the confirmation of this matter.
Object. But it may be objected, that those two returning from Emmaus found the eleven apostles gathered and sitting together. Now if Simon was not amongst them, they were not eleven. Therefore he was not one of those two.
Ans. I. If it should be granted that Peter was there and sat amongst them, yet were they not exactly eleven then; for Thomas was absent, John 20:24. II. When the eleven are mentioned, we must not suppose it exactly meant of the number of apostles then present, but the present number of the apostles.
37. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
[They supposed they had seen a spirit.] Whereas the Jews distinguished between angels and spirits and demons; spirits are defined by R. Hoshaniah to be "such to whom souls are created, but they have not a body made for those souls." But it is a question, whether they included all spirits or souls under this notion, when it is more than probable that apparitions of ghosts, or deceased persons who once had a body, were reckoned by them under the same title. Nor do I apprehend the disciples had any other imagination at this time, than that this was not Christ indeed, in his own person, as newly raised from the dead; but a spectrum only in his shape, himself being still dead. And when the Pharisees speak concerning Paul, Acts 23:9, "That if an angel or a spirit had spoken to him," I would easily believe they might mean it of the apparition of some prophet, or some other departed just person, than of any soul that had never yet any body created to it. I the rather incline thus to think, because it is so evident, that it were needless to prove how deeply impressed that nation was with an opinion of the apparitions of departed ghosts.
44. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
[In the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms.] It is a known division of the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Holy writings.
I. The books of the law and their order need not be insisted upon, commonly called by us, the Pentateuch; but by some of the Rabbins, the Heptateuch; and by some Christians, the Octateuch. "R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, 'Wisdom hath hewn out her seven pillars.' These are the seven books of the law." But are there not but five books only? "Ben Kaphra saith, The Book of Numbers is made three books. From the beginning of the book to And it came to pass when the ark set forward [chap. 10:35], is a book by itself. That verse and the following is a book by itself: and from thence to the end of the book is a book by itself"...
Eulogius, speaking concerning Dosthes or Dositheus, a famous seducer of the Samaritans, hath this passage: He adulterated the Octateuch of Moses with spurious writings, and all kind of corrupt falsifyings. There is mention also of a book with this title, The Christians' Book, an Exposition upon the Octateuch. Whether this was the Octateuch of Moses it is neither certain nor much worth our inquiry; for Photius judgeth him a corrupt author: besides that it may be shewn by and by, that there was a twofold Octateuch besides that of Moses. Now if any man should ask, how it come to pass that Eulogius (and that probably from the common notion of the thing) should divide the books of Moses into an Octateuch; I had rather any one else than myself should resolve him in it. But if any consent that he owned the Heptateuch we have already mentioned, we should be ready to reckon the last chapter of Deuteronomy for the eighth part.
Aben Ezra will smile here, who in that his obscure and disguised denial of the books of the Pentateuch, as if they were not writ by the pen of Moses, instances, in that chapter in the first place, as far as I can guess, as a testimony against it. You have his words in his Commentary upon the Book of Deuteronomy, a little from the beginning, But if you understand the mystery of the twelve, &c., i.e. of the twelve verses of the last chapter of the book (for so his own countrymen expound him), "thou wilt know the truth"; i.e. that Moses did not write the whole Pentateuch; an argument neither worth answering, nor becoming so great a philosopher. For as it is a ridiculous thing to suppose that the chapter that treats of the death and burial of Moses should be written by himself, so would it not be much less ridiculous to affix that chapter to any other volume than the Pentateuch. But these things are not the proper subject for our present handling.
II. There also was an Octateuch of the prophets too: "All the books of the prophets are eight; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve." For the historical books also were read in their synagogues under the notion of the prophets, as well as the prophets themselves, whose names are set down. You will see the title prefixed to them in the Hebrew Bibles, The former prophets, as well as to the others, The latter prophets. The doctors give us the reason why they dispose the prophets in that order, that Jeremiah is named first, Ezekiel next, and Isaiah last, which I have quoted in notes upon Matthew 27:9: and let not the reader think it irksome to repeat it here.
"Whereas the Book of Kings ends in destruction, and the whole Book of Jeremiah treats about destruction; whereas Ezekiel begins with destruction, and ends in consolation; and whereas Isaiah is all in consolation, they joined destruction with destruction, and consolation with consolation."
III. The third division of the Bible is entitled the Holy Writings. And here also is found an Octateuch by somebody (as it seems), though I know not where to find it.
"Herbanus the Jew was a man excellently well instructed in the law, and holy books of the prophets, and the Octateuch, and all the other writings." What this Octateuch should be, distinct from the law and the prophets, and indeed what all the other writings besides should be, is not easily guessed. This Octateuch perhaps may seem to have some reference to the Hagiographa, or Holy Writings: for it is probable enough that, speaking of a Jew well skilled in the Holy Scriptures, he might design the partition of the Bible according to the manner of the Jews' dividing it: but who then can pick out books that should make it up? Let the reader pick out the eight; and then I would say, that the other four are all the other writings. But we will not much disquiet ourselves about this matter.
It may be asked, why these books should be called the Scriptures, when the whole Bible goes under the name of the Holy Scriptures. Nor can any thing be more readily answered to this, than that by this title they would keep up their dignity and just esteem for them. They did not indeed read them in their synagogues, but that they might acknowledge them of most holy and divine authority, out of them they confirm their traditions, and they expound them mystically: yea, and give them the same title with the rest of the Holy Scriptures.
"This is the order of the Hagiographa, Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, the Lamentations, Daniel, the Book of Esther, Ezra, and the Chronicles." It is here disputed, that if Job was in the days of Moses, why then is not his book put in the first place? the answer is, They do not begin with vengeance or affliction; and such is that Book of Job. They reply, Ruth also begins with affliction, viz. with the story of a famine, and the death of Elimelech's sons. "But that was (say they) an affliction that had a joyful ending." So they might have said of the book and affliction of Job too. We see it is disputed there, why the Book of Ruth should be placed the first in that rank, and not the Book of Job. But we might inquire, whether the Book of Psalms ought not to have been placed the first, rather than the Book of Ruth.
IV. In this passage at present before us, who would think otherwise but that our Saviour alludes to the common and most known partition of the Bible? and although he name the Psalms only, yet that under that title he includes that whole volume. For we must of necessity say, that either he excluded all the books of that third division excepting the Book of Psalms, which is not probable; or that he included them under the title of the Prophets, which was not customary; or else that under the title of the Psalms he comprehended all the rest. That he did not exclude them, reason will tell us; for in several books of that division is he himself spoken of, as well as in the Psalms: and that he did not include them in the title of the Prophets reason also will dictate: because we would not suppose him speaking differently from the common and received opinion of that nation. There is very little question, therefore, but the apostles might understand him speaking with the vulgar; and by the Psalms to have meant all the books of that volume, those especially wherein any thing was written concerning himself. For let it be granted that Ruth, as to the time of the history and the time of its writing, might challenge to itself the first place in order (and it is that kind of priority the Gemarists are arguing), yet, certainly, amongst all those books that mention any thing of Christ, the Book of Psalms deservedly obtains the first place; so far that in the naming of this the rest may be understood. So St. Matthew, chapter 27:9, under the name of Jeremiah, comprehends that whole volume of the Prophets, because he was placed the first in that rank: which observation we have made in notes upon that place.
45. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
[Then opened he their understanding.] When it is said, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles the gift of tongues and of prophecy was conferred ("they spake with tongues, and they prophesied," Acts 19:6), by 'prophecy' nothing may be better understood than this very thing, that the minds of such were opened, that they might understand the Scriptures: and perhaps their 'speaking with tongues' might look this way in the first notion of it, viz., that they could understand the original wherein the Scriptures were writ.
50. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
[As far as Bethany.] How many difficulties arise here!
I. This very evangelist (Acts 1:12) tells us, that when the disciples came back from the place where our Lord ascended, "they returned from mount Olivet, distant from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey." But now the town of Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, John 11:18, that is, double a sabbath day's journey.
II. Josephus tells us that the mount of Olives was but five furlongs from the city; and a sabbath day's journey was seven furlongs and a half. "About that time there came to Jerusalem a certain Egyptian, pretending himself a prophet, and persuading the people that they would go out with him to the mount of Olives, which, being situated on the front of the city, is distant five furlongs." These things are all true: 1. That the mount of Olives lay but five furlongs' distance from Jerusalem. 2. That the town of Bethany was fifteen furlongs. 3. That the disciples were brought by Christ as far as Bethany. 4. That when they returned form the mount of Olives they travelled more than five furlongs. And, 5. Returning from Bethany, they travelled but a sabbath day's journey. All which may be easily reconciled, if we would observe that the first space from the city towards this mount was called Bethphage, which I have cleared elsewhere from Talmudic authors, the evangelists themselves also confirming it. That part of that mount was known by that name to the length of about a sabbath day's journey, till it came to that part which was called Bethany. For there was Bethany, a tract of the mount, and the town of Bethany. The town was distance from the city about fifteen furlongs, i.e., two miles, or a double sabbath day's journey: but the first border of this tract (which also bore the name of Bethany) was distant but one mile, or a single sabbath day's journey only.
Our Saviour led out his disciples, when he was about to ascend, to the very first brink of that region or tract of mount Olivet which was called Bethany, and was distant from the city a sabbath day's journey. And so far from the city itself did that tract extend which was called Bethphage: and when he was come to that place where the bounds of Bethphage and Bethany met and touched one another, he there ascended; in that very place where he got upon the ass when he rode into Jerusalem, Mark 11:1. Whereas, therefore, Josephus saith that mount Olivet was but five furlongs from the city, he means the first brink and border of it: but our evangelist must be understood of the place where Christ ascended, where the name of Olivet began, as it was distinguished from Bethphage.
And since we have so frequent mention of a sabbath day's journey, and it is not very foreign from our present purpose to observe something concerning it, let me take notice of these few things:
I. The space of a sabbath day's bound was two thousand cubits. "Naomi and to Ruth, 'We are commanded to observe the sabbaths, and the feasts, but we are not to go beyond two thousand cubits.'" "It is ordained by the scribes, that no man go out of the city beyond two thousands cubits." Instances of this kind are endless. But it is disputed upon what foundation this constitution of theirs is built. "Whence comes it to be thus ordained concerning the two thousand cubits? It is founded upon this, 'Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day,'" Exodus 16:29. "Where are these two thousand cubits mentioned? they have their tradition from hence, Abide ye every man in his place, Exodus 16:29. These are four cubits. Let no man go out of his place: these are two thousand cubits." It is true, indeed, we cannot gain so much as one cubit out of any of these Scriptures, much less two thousand; however, we may learn from hence the pleasant art they have of working any thing out of any thing.
"Asai Ben Akibah saith, 'They are fetched from hence,' in that it is said, Place, place. Here place is said [Let no man go out of his place]. And it is said elsewhere, I will appoint thee a place, Exodus 21:13. As the place that is said elsewhere is two thousand cubits, so the place that is spoken of here is two thousand cubits." But how do they prove that the place mentioned elsewhere is two thousand cubits? "I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee that kills a man unawares: this teaches us that the Israelites in the wilderness" (i.e. those that had slain any one) "betook themselves to a place of refuge. And whither did they flee? To the camp of the Levites."
Now, therefore, when the Israelites' camp in the wilderness was distant from the tabernacle and from the Levites' camp that was pitched about the tabernacle, two thousand cubits, which thing they gather from Joshua 3:4; and whereas it was lawful for them at that distance to approach the tabernacle on the sabbath day; hence they argue for the two thousand cubits as the sabbath day's journey, which we are now inquiring into. But, by the way, let us take notice of the "four cubits," which they gathered from those words, "Abide ye every man in his place." Which must be thus understood: "If any person through ignorance, or by any accident, had gone beyond the limits of the sabbath, and afterward came to know his transgression, he was confined within four cubits, so that he must not stir beyond them till the sabbath was done and over."
They further instance in another foundation for the two thousand cubits: "'Ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits,' Numbers 35:5. But another Scripture saith, 'From the wall of the city and outward ye shall measure a thousand cubits': the thousand cubits are the suburbs of the city, and the two thousand cubits are the sabbatical limits." Maimonides very largely discourseth in what manner and by what lines they measured these two thousand cubits from each city: but it makes very little to our purpose. Only let me add this one thing; that if any one was overtaken in his journeying in the fields or wilderness by the night, when the sabbath was coming in, and did not exactly know the space of two thousand cubits, then he might walk "two thousand ordinary paces: and these were accounted the sabbatical bounds."
So far from the city was that place of mount Olivet, where Christ ascended; viz., that part of the mount where Bethphage ended and Bethany began. Perhaps the very same place mentioned 2 Samuel 15:32; or certainly not far off, where David in his flight taking leave of the ark and sanctuary, looked back and worshipped God. Where if any one would be at the pains to inquire why the Greek interpreters retain the word Ros, both here and in chapter 16:1; and David came unto Ros; and and David passed on a little way from Ros; he will find a knot not easy to be untied. The Talmudists would have it a place of idolatry, but by a reason very far-fetched indeed. The Jewish commentators, with a little more probability, conceive that it was a place from whence David, when he went towards Jerusalem, looking towards the place where the tabernacle was seated, was wont to worship God.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה