John 1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[In the beginning was the Word.] In the beginning; in the same sense with Bereshith, In the beginning, in the history of the creation, Genesis 1:1. For the evangelist proposeth this to himself, viz. to shew how that, by the Word, by which the creation was perfected, the redemption was perfected also: That the second person in the holy Trinity, in the fulness of time, became our Redeemer, as in the beginning of time he had been our Maker. Compare this with verse 14:
Verse 1
In the beginning was the Word.
Was with God.
The Word was God.
Verse 14
The Word was made flesh.
Dwelt among us.
Was made flesh, and we beheld, &c.
[Was the Word.] There is no great necessity for us to make any very curious inquiry, whence our evangelist should borrow this title, when in the history of the creation we find it so often repeated, And God said. It is observed almost by all that have of late undertaken a commentary upon this evangelist, that the Word of the Lord, doth very frequently occur amongst the Targumists, which may something enlighten the matter now before us. "And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the Word of the Lord." "And the Word of the Lord accepted the face of Job." And the Word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn. "They believed in the name of his Word." And my Word spared them. To add no more, Genesis 26:3, instead of "I will be with thee," the Targum hath it And my Word shall be thine help. So Genesis 39:2, "And the Lord was with Joseph": Targ. And the Word of the Lord was Joseph's helper. And so, all along, that kind of phrase is most familiar amongst them...
4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[In him was life.] The evangelist proceeds from the creation by the Word, to the redemption of the world by the same Word. He had declared how this Word had given to all creatures their first being, verse 3; "All things were made by him": and he now sheweth how he restored life to man when he lay dead in trespasses and sins. "Adam called his wife's name Hevah, life," [Eve, AV Chavah, margin] Genesis 3:20: the Greek reads Adam called his wife's name, 'Life.' He called her Life who had brought in death; because he had now tasted a better life in the promise of the woman's seed. To which it is very probable our evangelist had some reference in this place.
[And the life was the light of men.] Life through Christ was light arising in the darkness of man's fall and sin; a light by which all believers were to walk. St. John seems in this clause to oppose the life and light exhibited in the gospel, to that life and light which the Jews boasted of in their law. They expected life from the works of the law, and they knew no greater light than that of the law; which therefore they extol with infinite boasts and praises which they give it. Take one instance for all: "God said, Let there be light. R. Simeon saith, Light is written there five times, according to the five parts of the law [i.e. the Pentateuch], and God said, Let there be light; according to the book of Genesis, wherein God, busying himself, made the world. And there was light; according to the book of Exodus, wherein the Israelites came out of darkness into light. And God saw the light that it was good; according to the Book of Leviticus, which is filled with rites and ceremonies. And God divided betwixt the light and the darkness; according to the Book of Numbers, which divided betwixt those that went out of Egypt, and those that entered into the land. And God called the light, day; according to the Book of Deuteronomy, which is replenished with manifold traditions." A gloss this is upon light, full of darkness indeed!
5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[And the light shineth in darkness.] This light of promise and life by Christ shined in the darkness of all the cloudy types and shadows under the law and obscurity of the prophets. And those dark things 'comprehended it not,' i.e. did not so cloud and suppress it but it would break out; nor yet so comprehended it, but that there was an absolute necessity there should a greater light appear. I do so much the rather incline to such a paraphrase upon this place, because I observe the evangelist here treateth of the ways and means by which Christ made himself known to the world before his great manifestation in the flesh; first, in the promise of life, verse 4; next, by types and prophecies; and lastly, by John Baptist.
9. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
[Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.] All the men that are in the world. "Doth not the sun rise upon all that come into the world?" "All that come into the word are not able to make one fly." "In the beginning of the year, all that come into the world present themselves before the Lord." There are numberless examples of this kind. The sense of the place is, that Christ, shining forth in the light of the gospel, is a light that lightens all the world. The light of the law shone only upon the Jews; but this light spreads wider, even over the face of the whole earth.
12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[He gave them power.] He empowered them, so Ecclesiastes 5:19, and 6:2. He gave them the privilege, the liberty, the dignity, of being called and becoming the sons of God. Israel was once the son and the first-born, Exodus 4:22: but now the adoption of sons to God was open and free to all nations whatever.
13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[Which were born, not of blood.] It may be a question here, whether the evangelist in this place opposeth regeneration to natural generation, or only to those ways by which the Jews fancied men were made the sons of God. Expositors treat largely of the former: let us a little consider the latter.
I. Not of bloods. Observe the plural number: "Our Rabbins say, That all Israel had thrown off circumcision in Egypt--but at length they were circumcised, and the blood of the passover was mingled with the blood of the circumcised, and God accepted every one of them and kissed them." "I said, while thou wert in thy bloods, Live: i.e. in the twofold blood, that of the passover, and that of the circumcision." The Israelites were brought into covenant by three things; by circumcision, by washing, and by offering of sacrifices. In the same manner, a heathen, if he would be admitted into covenant, he must of necessity be circumcised, baptized, and offer sacrifice. We see how of bloods of the passover and circumcision, they say the Israelites were recovered from the degeneracy: and how of the bloods of circumcision and sacrifices (with the addition only of washing), they supposed the Gentiles might become the sons of God, being by their proselytism made Israelites, and the children of the covenant: for they knew of no other adoption or sonship.
II. Of the will of the flesh. In the same sense wherein the patriarchs and other Jews were ambitious by many wives to multiply children of themselves, as being of the seed of Israel and children of the covenant.
III. Of the will of man, in that sense wherein they coveted so many proselytes, to admit them into the religion of the Jews, and so into covenant and sonship with God.
These were the ways by which the Jews thought any became the sons of God, that is, by being made Israelites. But it is far otherwise in the adoption and sonship that accrues to us by the gospel.
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.
[In the beginning was the Word.] In the beginning; in the same sense with Bereshith, In the beginning, in the history of the creation, Genesis 1:1. For the evangelist proposeth this to himself, viz. to shew how that, by the Word, by which the creation was perfected, the redemption was perfected also: That the second person in the holy Trinity, in the fulness of time, became our Redeemer, as in the beginning of time he had been our Maker. Compare this with verse 14:
Verse 1
In the beginning was the Word.
Was with God.
The Word was God.
Verse 14
The Word was made flesh.
Dwelt among us.
Was made flesh, and we beheld, &c.
[Was the Word.] There is no great necessity for us to make any very curious inquiry, whence our evangelist should borrow this title, when in the history of the creation we find it so often repeated, And God said. It is observed almost by all that have of late undertaken a commentary upon this evangelist, that the Word of the Lord, doth very frequently occur amongst the Targumists, which may something enlighten the matter now before us. "And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the Word of the Lord." "And the Word of the Lord accepted the face of Job." And the Word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn. "They believed in the name of his Word." And my Word spared them. To add no more, Genesis 26:3, instead of "I will be with thee," the Targum hath it And my Word shall be thine help. So Genesis 39:2, "And the Lord was with Joseph": Targ. And the Word of the Lord was Joseph's helper. And so, all along, that kind of phrase is most familiar amongst them...
4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[In him was life.] The evangelist proceeds from the creation by the Word, to the redemption of the world by the same Word. He had declared how this Word had given to all creatures their first being, verse 3; "All things were made by him": and he now sheweth how he restored life to man when he lay dead in trespasses and sins. "Adam called his wife's name Hevah, life," [Eve, AV Chavah, margin] Genesis 3:20: the Greek reads Adam called his wife's name, 'Life.' He called her Life who had brought in death; because he had now tasted a better life in the promise of the woman's seed. To which it is very probable our evangelist had some reference in this place.
[And the life was the light of men.] Life through Christ was light arising in the darkness of man's fall and sin; a light by which all believers were to walk. St. John seems in this clause to oppose the life and light exhibited in the gospel, to that life and light which the Jews boasted of in their law. They expected life from the works of the law, and they knew no greater light than that of the law; which therefore they extol with infinite boasts and praises which they give it. Take one instance for all: "God said, Let there be light. R. Simeon saith, Light is written there five times, according to the five parts of the law [i.e. the Pentateuch], and God said, Let there be light; according to the book of Genesis, wherein God, busying himself, made the world. And there was light; according to the book of Exodus, wherein the Israelites came out of darkness into light. And God saw the light that it was good; according to the Book of Leviticus, which is filled with rites and ceremonies. And God divided betwixt the light and the darkness; according to the Book of Numbers, which divided betwixt those that went out of Egypt, and those that entered into the land. And God called the light, day; according to the Book of Deuteronomy, which is replenished with manifold traditions." A gloss this is upon light, full of darkness indeed!
5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[And the light shineth in darkness.] This light of promise and life by Christ shined in the darkness of all the cloudy types and shadows under the law and obscurity of the prophets. And those dark things 'comprehended it not,' i.e. did not so cloud and suppress it but it would break out; nor yet so comprehended it, but that there was an absolute necessity there should a greater light appear. I do so much the rather incline to such a paraphrase upon this place, because I observe the evangelist here treateth of the ways and means by which Christ made himself known to the world before his great manifestation in the flesh; first, in the promise of life, verse 4; next, by types and prophecies; and lastly, by John Baptist.
9. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
[Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.] All the men that are in the world. "Doth not the sun rise upon all that come into the world?" "All that come into the word are not able to make one fly." "In the beginning of the year, all that come into the world present themselves before the Lord." There are numberless examples of this kind. The sense of the place is, that Christ, shining forth in the light of the gospel, is a light that lightens all the world. The light of the law shone only upon the Jews; but this light spreads wider, even over the face of the whole earth.
12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[He gave them power.] He empowered them, so Ecclesiastes 5:19, and 6:2. He gave them the privilege, the liberty, the dignity, of being called and becoming the sons of God. Israel was once the son and the first-born, Exodus 4:22: but now the adoption of sons to God was open and free to all nations whatever.
13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[Which were born, not of blood.] It may be a question here, whether the evangelist in this place opposeth regeneration to natural generation, or only to those ways by which the Jews fancied men were made the sons of God. Expositors treat largely of the former: let us a little consider the latter.
I. Not of bloods. Observe the plural number: "Our Rabbins say, That all Israel had thrown off circumcision in Egypt--but at length they were circumcised, and the blood of the passover was mingled with the blood of the circumcised, and God accepted every one of them and kissed them." "I said, while thou wert in thy bloods, Live: i.e. in the twofold blood, that of the passover, and that of the circumcision." The Israelites were brought into covenant by three things; by circumcision, by washing, and by offering of sacrifices. In the same manner, a heathen, if he would be admitted into covenant, he must of necessity be circumcised, baptized, and offer sacrifice. We see how of bloods of the passover and circumcision, they say the Israelites were recovered from the degeneracy: and how of the bloods of circumcision and sacrifices (with the addition only of washing), they supposed the Gentiles might become the sons of God, being by their proselytism made Israelites, and the children of the covenant: for they knew of no other adoption or sonship.
II. Of the will of the flesh. In the same sense wherein the patriarchs and other Jews were ambitious by many wives to multiply children of themselves, as being of the seed of Israel and children of the covenant.
III. Of the will of man, in that sense wherein they coveted so many proselytes, to admit them into the religion of the Jews, and so into covenant and sonship with God.
These were the ways by which the Jews thought any became the sons of God, that is, by being made Israelites. But it is far otherwise in the adoption and sonship that accrues to us by the gospel.
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.
[The glory as of the only begotten.] This glory in this place imports the same thing as worthy. We saw his glory as what was worthy or became the only-begotten Son of God. He did not glister in any worldly pomp or grandeur according to what the Jewish nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would do; but he was decked with the glory, holiness, grace, truth, and the power of miracles.
16. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[And grace for grace.] He appeared amongst us full of grace and truth; and all we who conversed with him, and saw his glory, "of his fulness did receive" grace and truth. Nay farther, we received grace towards the propagation of grace, i.e. the grace of apostleship, that we might dispense and propagate the grace of the gospel towards others.
21. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
[Art thou that prophet?] That is, Luke 9:8,19, one of the old prophets that was risen again.
I. The Masters of Traditions were wont to say that "the spirit of prophecy departed from Israel after the death of Zechariah and Malachi." So that we do not find they expected any prophet till the days of the Messiah; nor indeed that any, in that interim of time, did pretend to that character.
II. They believed that at the coming of the Messiah the prophets were to rise again.
"'Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice, with the voice together shall they sing,' Isaiah 52:8. R. Chaia Bar Abba and R. Jochanan say, All the prophets shall put forth a song with one voice."
"All the just whom God shall raise from the dead shall not return again into the dust." Gloss, "Those whom he shall raise in the days of the Messiah."
To this resurrection of the saints they apply that of Micah 5:5: "We shall raise against him seven shepherds; David in the middle, Adam, Seth, Methuselah on his right hand; Abraham, Jacob, and Moses on his left. And eight principal men: but who are these? Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah [or rather Hezekiah, as Kimch. in loc.], Messiah and Elijah. But indeed [saith R. Solomon] I do not well know whence they had these things." Nor indeed do I.
The Greek interpreters, instead of eight principal men have eight bitings of men, a very foreign sense.
Hence by how much nearer still the 'kingdom of heaven,' or the expected time of Messiah's coming, drew on, by so much the more did they dream of the resurrection of the prophets. And when any person of more remarkable gravity, piety, and holiness appeared amongst them, they were ready to conceive of him as a prophet raised from the dead, Matthew 16:14. That therefore is the meaning of this question, "Art thou one of the prophets raised from the dead?"
25. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
[Why then baptizest thou?] The Jews likewise expected that the world should be renewed at the coming of the Messiah. "In those years wherein God will renew his world." Aruch, quoting these words, adds, "In those thousand years." So also the Gloss upon the place.
Amongst other things, they expected the purifying of the unclean. R. Solomon upon Ezekiel 36:26; "I will expiate you, and remove your uncleanness, by the sprinkling of the water of purification." Kimchi upon Zechariah 9:6; "The Rabbins of blessed memory have a tradition that Elias will purify the bastards and restore them to the congregation." You have the like in Kiddushin, Elias comes to distinguish the unclean and purify them, &c.
When therefore they saw the Baptist bring in such an unusual rite, by which he admitted the Israelites into a new rule of religion, they ask him by what authority he doth these things if he himself were not either the Messiah or Elias, or one of the prophets raised from the dead.
It is very well known that they expected the coming of Elias, and that, from the words of Malachi 4:5, not rightly understood. Which mistake the Greek version seems to patronise; I will send you Elias the Tishbite; which word the Tishbite, they add of themselves in favour of their own tradition; which indeed is too frequent a usage in that version to look so far asquint towards the Jewish traditions as to do injury to the sacred text.
29. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
[The Lamb of God.] St. John alludes plainly to the lamb of the daily sacrifice. Which in shadow took away the sins of Israel.
I. It was commanded in the law that he that offered the sacrifice should lay his hand upon the head of the sacrifice, Leviticus 1:4, 3:2, 4:4, &c.
II. The reason of which usage was, that he might, as it were, transfer his sins and guilt upon the head of the offering, which is more especially evident in the scapegoat, Leviticus 16:22.
Hence Christ is said "himself to have borne our sins in his own body on the tree," 1 Peter 2:24, as the offering upon the altar was wont to do. He was made by God a "sin for us," 2 Corinthians 5:21; that is, a sacrifice for sin.
III. The same rite was used about the lamb of the daily sacrifice that was offered for all Israel; "The stationary men [as they were called], or the substitutes of the people, laying their hands upon the head of the lamb."
To this therefore the words of the Baptist refer: "The lamb of God, that is, the daily sacrifice, taketh away the sins of the world, as the sacrifice did for all Israel. But behold here the true Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world."
38. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master), where dwellest thou?
[Where dwellest thou?] The proper and most immediate sense of this is, Where dwellest, or, Where lodgest thou? But I could willingly render it as if it had been said, 'Where dost thou keep thy sabbath?' and from thence conjecture that day was the evening of the sabbath. For whereas it is said, "and they abode with him that day," it would be a little hard to understand it of the day that was now almost gone; and therefore we may suppose it meant of the following day, for it is added it was now the tenth hour. It was about the middle of our November when these things fell out in Bethabara, as will easily appear to any one that will be accurate in calculating the times, and that little that was left of that day was then the tenth hour. It was then about sunset, and, as it were, the entrance of a new day: so that it might more properly have been said, "They abode with him that night," rather than that day; only the evangelist seems to point out that they remained with him the next day; which that it was the sabbath I will not so much contend, as (not without some reason) suppose.
"Caesar, for two reasons, would not fight that day; partly because he had no soldiers in the ships, and partly because it was after the tenth hour of the day."
41. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
[He findeth his brother.] So "Rab Nachman Bar Isaac found him with Rab Houna": and many such-like expressions, in the Talmudic authors, as also We have found!
42. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
[The son of Jona.] I do not see any reason why the word Joannes, or Joannas, should be here put for Jona; or why any should contend (as many do) that it should be the same with Joannas.
I. In the third chapter of St. Luke the name of Jochanan is sounded three ways in the Greek pronunciation of it, Janna, verse 24; Joanna, verse 27; and Jonan, verse 30: but never Jona.
II. Jona was a name amongst the Jews very commonly used, and we meet with it frequently in the Talmudic authors written Jonah: why, therefore, should not Peter's father be allowed the name of Jonah as well as that of John?
III. Especially when this son of Jonah imitated the great prophet of that name in this, that both preached to the Gentiles, and both began their journey from Joppa.
[Which is by interpretation, A stone.] So Acts 9:26, "Tabitha, which, being interpreted, is Dorcas": Beza, Caprea, a goat. But what! do the holy penmen of the Scriptures make lexicons, or play the schoolmasters, that they should only teach that the Syriac word Cepha signifies in the Greek language a stone; and Tabitha, Dorcas, that is, a goat? No; they rather teach what Greek proper names answer to those Syriac proper names: for the Syriac proper name is here rendered into the Greek proper name, and not an appellative into an appellative, nor a proper name into an appellative.
But let the Vulgar have what it desires, and be it so, "Thou shalt be called a rock"; yet you will scarce grant that our blessed Saviour should call Simon a rock in the direct and most ordinary sense; "There is no rock save our God," 2 Samuel 22:32: where the Greek interpreters, instead of a rock, have the Creator. Which word St. Peter himself makes use of, 1 Peter 4:19, showing who is that rock indeed.
There is a rock, or 'stone of stumbling,' indeed, as well as a 'foundation-stone'; and this stone of stumbling hath St. Peter been made, to the fall of many thousands; not by any fault of his, but theirs, who, through ignorance or frowardness, or both, will esteem him as a rock upon which the church is built.
If, therefore, they will so pertinaciously adhere to that version, Et tu vocaberis Petra, let it be rendered into English thus, Thou wilt be called a rock: and let us apprehend our blessed Lord speaking prophetically, and foretelling that grand error that should spring up in the church, viz., that Peter is a rock, than which the Christian world hath not known any thing more sad and destructive.
46. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
[Come and see.] Nothing more common in the Talmudic authors than Come and behold, come and see.
47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
[An Israelite indeed.] Compare it with Isaiah 63:8. "I saw thee (saith Christ) when thou wert under the fig tree." What doing there? Doubtless not sleeping, or idling away his time, much less doing any ill thing. This would not have deserved so remarkable an encomium as Christ gave him. We may therefore suppose him, in that recess under the fig tree, as having sequestered himself from the view of men, either for prayer, meditation, reading, or some such religious performance; and so indeed from the view of men, that he must needs acknowledge Jesus for the Messiah for that very reason, that, when no mortal eye could see, he saw and knew that he was there. Our Saviour, therefore, calls him an "Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile," because he sought out that retirement to pray, so different from the usual craft and hypocrisy of that nation, that were wont to pray publicly, and in the streets, that they might be seen of men.
And here Christ gathered to himself five disciples, viz., Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael (who seems to be the same with Bartholomew), and another, whose name is not mentioned, verse 35, 40; whom, by comparing John 21:2, we may conjecture to have been Thomas.
51. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
[Verily, verily.] If Christ doubled his affirmation, as we here find it, why is it not so doubled in the other evangelists? If he did not double it, why is it so here?
I. Perhaps the asseveration he useth in this place may not be to the same things and upon the same occasion to which he useth the single Amen in other evangelists.
II. Perhaps, also, St. John, being to write for the use of the Hellenists, might write the word in the same Hebrew letters wherein Christ used it, and in the same letters also wherein the Greeks used it, retaining still the same Hebrew idiom.
III. But, however, it may be observed, that, whereas by all others the word Amen was generally used in the latter end of a speech or sentence, our Lord only useth it in the beginning, as being himself the Amen, Revelation 3:14; and Isaiah 65:16, the God of truth.
So that that single Amen which he used in the other evangelists contained in it the germination, Amen, Amen. I, the Amen, the true and faithful witness, Amen, i.e. "of a truth do say unto you," &c. Nor did it become any mortal man to speak Amen in the beginning of a sentence in the same manner as our Saviour did. Indeed, the very Masters of Traditions, who seemed to be the oracles of that nation, were wont to say, I speak in truth; but not "Amen, I say unto you."
IV. Amen contains in it Yea and Amen; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Revelation 1:7; i.e. truth and stability, Isaiah 25:1. Interlin. faithfulness and truth. The other evangelists express the word which our Saviour useth: St. John doubles it, to intimate the full sense of it.
I have been at some question with myself, whether I should insert in this place the blasphemous things which the Talmudic authors belch out against the holy Jesus, in allusion (shall I say?) or derision of this word Amen, to which name he entitled himself, and by which asseveration he confirmed his doctrines. But that thou mightest, reader, both know, and with equal indignation abhor, the snarlings and virulency of these men, take it in their own words, although I cannot without infinite reluctancy allege what they with all audaciousness have uttered.
They have a tradition, that Imma Shalom, the wife of R. Eliezer, and her brother Rabban Gamaliel, went to a certain philosopher (the Gloss hath it 'a certain heretic') of very great note for his integrity in giving judgment in matters, and taking no bribes. The woman brings him a golden candlestick, and prayeth him that the inheritance might be divided in part to her. Rabban Gamaliel objects, "It is written amongst us, that the daughter shall not inherit instead of the son. But the philosopher answered, 'Since the time that you were removed from your land, the law of Moses was made void: and Aven was given' [he means the Gospel, but marks it with a scurrilous title]; and in that it is written, The son and the daughter shall inherit together. The next day Rabban Gamaliel brought him, a Libyan ass. Then saith he unto them, 'I have found at the end of Aven [i.e. the Gospel] that it is written there, I, Aven, came not to diminish, but to add to the law of Moses'": where he abuseth both the name of our Saviour and his words too, Matthew 5:17.
And now, after our just detestation of this execrable blasphemy, let us think what kind of judge this must be, to whose judgment Rabban Gamaliel, the president of the Sanhedrim, and his sister, wife to the great Eliezer, should betake themselves. A Christian, as it should seem by the whole contexture of the story; but, alas! what kind of Christian, that should make so light of Christ and his gospel! However, were he a Christian of what kind soever, yet if there be any truth in this passage, it is not unworthy our taking notice of it, both as to the history of those times, and also as to that question, Whether there were any Christian judges at that time?
[Ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God, &c.] There are those that in this place observe an allusion to Jacob's ladder. The meaning of this passage seems to be no other than this: "Because I said, 'I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou?' Did this seem to thee a matter of such wonder? 'Thou shalt see greater things than these.' For you shall in me observe such plenty, both of revelation and miracle, that it shall seem to you as if the heavens were opened and the angels were ascending and descending, to bring with them all manner of revelation, authority, and power from God, to be imparted to the Son of man." Where this also is included, viz., that angels must in a more peculiar manner administer unto him, as in the vision of Jacob the whole host of angels had been showed and promised to him in the first setting out of his pilgrimage.
Of this ladder the Rabbins dream very pleasantly: "The ladder is the ascent of the altar and the altar itself. The angels are princes or monarchs. The king of Babylon ascended seventy steps; the king of the Medes fifty-and-two; the king of Greece one hundred and eighty; the king of Edom, it is uncertain how many," &c. They reckon the breadth of the ladder to have been about eight thousand parasangae, i.e. about two-and-thirty thousand miles; and that the bulk of each angel was about eight thousand English miles in compass. Admirable mathematicians these indeed!
16. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[And grace for grace.] He appeared amongst us full of grace and truth; and all we who conversed with him, and saw his glory, "of his fulness did receive" grace and truth. Nay farther, we received grace towards the propagation of grace, i.e. the grace of apostleship, that we might dispense and propagate the grace of the gospel towards others.
21. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
[Art thou that prophet?] That is, Luke 9:8,19, one of the old prophets that was risen again.
I. The Masters of Traditions were wont to say that "the spirit of prophecy departed from Israel after the death of Zechariah and Malachi." So that we do not find they expected any prophet till the days of the Messiah; nor indeed that any, in that interim of time, did pretend to that character.
II. They believed that at the coming of the Messiah the prophets were to rise again.
"'Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice, with the voice together shall they sing,' Isaiah 52:8. R. Chaia Bar Abba and R. Jochanan say, All the prophets shall put forth a song with one voice."
"All the just whom God shall raise from the dead shall not return again into the dust." Gloss, "Those whom he shall raise in the days of the Messiah."
To this resurrection of the saints they apply that of Micah 5:5: "We shall raise against him seven shepherds; David in the middle, Adam, Seth, Methuselah on his right hand; Abraham, Jacob, and Moses on his left. And eight principal men: but who are these? Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah [or rather Hezekiah, as Kimch. in loc.], Messiah and Elijah. But indeed [saith R. Solomon] I do not well know whence they had these things." Nor indeed do I.
The Greek interpreters, instead of eight principal men have eight bitings of men, a very foreign sense.
Hence by how much nearer still the 'kingdom of heaven,' or the expected time of Messiah's coming, drew on, by so much the more did they dream of the resurrection of the prophets. And when any person of more remarkable gravity, piety, and holiness appeared amongst them, they were ready to conceive of him as a prophet raised from the dead, Matthew 16:14. That therefore is the meaning of this question, "Art thou one of the prophets raised from the dead?"
25. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
[Why then baptizest thou?] The Jews likewise expected that the world should be renewed at the coming of the Messiah. "In those years wherein God will renew his world." Aruch, quoting these words, adds, "In those thousand years." So also the Gloss upon the place.
Amongst other things, they expected the purifying of the unclean. R. Solomon upon Ezekiel 36:26; "I will expiate you, and remove your uncleanness, by the sprinkling of the water of purification." Kimchi upon Zechariah 9:6; "The Rabbins of blessed memory have a tradition that Elias will purify the bastards and restore them to the congregation." You have the like in Kiddushin, Elias comes to distinguish the unclean and purify them, &c.
When therefore they saw the Baptist bring in such an unusual rite, by which he admitted the Israelites into a new rule of religion, they ask him by what authority he doth these things if he himself were not either the Messiah or Elias, or one of the prophets raised from the dead.
It is very well known that they expected the coming of Elias, and that, from the words of Malachi 4:5, not rightly understood. Which mistake the Greek version seems to patronise; I will send you Elias the Tishbite; which word the Tishbite, they add of themselves in favour of their own tradition; which indeed is too frequent a usage in that version to look so far asquint towards the Jewish traditions as to do injury to the sacred text.
29. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
[The Lamb of God.] St. John alludes plainly to the lamb of the daily sacrifice. Which in shadow took away the sins of Israel.
I. It was commanded in the law that he that offered the sacrifice should lay his hand upon the head of the sacrifice, Leviticus 1:4, 3:2, 4:4, &c.
II. The reason of which usage was, that he might, as it were, transfer his sins and guilt upon the head of the offering, which is more especially evident in the scapegoat, Leviticus 16:22.
Hence Christ is said "himself to have borne our sins in his own body on the tree," 1 Peter 2:24, as the offering upon the altar was wont to do. He was made by God a "sin for us," 2 Corinthians 5:21; that is, a sacrifice for sin.
III. The same rite was used about the lamb of the daily sacrifice that was offered for all Israel; "The stationary men [as they were called], or the substitutes of the people, laying their hands upon the head of the lamb."
To this therefore the words of the Baptist refer: "The lamb of God, that is, the daily sacrifice, taketh away the sins of the world, as the sacrifice did for all Israel. But behold here the true Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world."
38. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master), where dwellest thou?
[Where dwellest thou?] The proper and most immediate sense of this is, Where dwellest, or, Where lodgest thou? But I could willingly render it as if it had been said, 'Where dost thou keep thy sabbath?' and from thence conjecture that day was the evening of the sabbath. For whereas it is said, "and they abode with him that day," it would be a little hard to understand it of the day that was now almost gone; and therefore we may suppose it meant of the following day, for it is added it was now the tenth hour. It was about the middle of our November when these things fell out in Bethabara, as will easily appear to any one that will be accurate in calculating the times, and that little that was left of that day was then the tenth hour. It was then about sunset, and, as it were, the entrance of a new day: so that it might more properly have been said, "They abode with him that night," rather than that day; only the evangelist seems to point out that they remained with him the next day; which that it was the sabbath I will not so much contend, as (not without some reason) suppose.
"Caesar, for two reasons, would not fight that day; partly because he had no soldiers in the ships, and partly because it was after the tenth hour of the day."
41. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
[He findeth his brother.] So "Rab Nachman Bar Isaac found him with Rab Houna": and many such-like expressions, in the Talmudic authors, as also We have found!
42. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
[The son of Jona.] I do not see any reason why the word Joannes, or Joannas, should be here put for Jona; or why any should contend (as many do) that it should be the same with Joannas.
I. In the third chapter of St. Luke the name of Jochanan is sounded three ways in the Greek pronunciation of it, Janna, verse 24; Joanna, verse 27; and Jonan, verse 30: but never Jona.
II. Jona was a name amongst the Jews very commonly used, and we meet with it frequently in the Talmudic authors written Jonah: why, therefore, should not Peter's father be allowed the name of Jonah as well as that of John?
III. Especially when this son of Jonah imitated the great prophet of that name in this, that both preached to the Gentiles, and both began their journey from Joppa.
[Which is by interpretation, A stone.] So Acts 9:26, "Tabitha, which, being interpreted, is Dorcas": Beza, Caprea, a goat. But what! do the holy penmen of the Scriptures make lexicons, or play the schoolmasters, that they should only teach that the Syriac word Cepha signifies in the Greek language a stone; and Tabitha, Dorcas, that is, a goat? No; they rather teach what Greek proper names answer to those Syriac proper names: for the Syriac proper name is here rendered into the Greek proper name, and not an appellative into an appellative, nor a proper name into an appellative.
But let the Vulgar have what it desires, and be it so, "Thou shalt be called a rock"; yet you will scarce grant that our blessed Saviour should call Simon a rock in the direct and most ordinary sense; "There is no rock save our God," 2 Samuel 22:32: where the Greek interpreters, instead of a rock, have the Creator. Which word St. Peter himself makes use of, 1 Peter 4:19, showing who is that rock indeed.
There is a rock, or 'stone of stumbling,' indeed, as well as a 'foundation-stone'; and this stone of stumbling hath St. Peter been made, to the fall of many thousands; not by any fault of his, but theirs, who, through ignorance or frowardness, or both, will esteem him as a rock upon which the church is built.
If, therefore, they will so pertinaciously adhere to that version, Et tu vocaberis Petra, let it be rendered into English thus, Thou wilt be called a rock: and let us apprehend our blessed Lord speaking prophetically, and foretelling that grand error that should spring up in the church, viz., that Peter is a rock, than which the Christian world hath not known any thing more sad and destructive.
46. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
[Come and see.] Nothing more common in the Talmudic authors than Come and behold, come and see.
47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
[An Israelite indeed.] Compare it with Isaiah 63:8. "I saw thee (saith Christ) when thou wert under the fig tree." What doing there? Doubtless not sleeping, or idling away his time, much less doing any ill thing. This would not have deserved so remarkable an encomium as Christ gave him. We may therefore suppose him, in that recess under the fig tree, as having sequestered himself from the view of men, either for prayer, meditation, reading, or some such religious performance; and so indeed from the view of men, that he must needs acknowledge Jesus for the Messiah for that very reason, that, when no mortal eye could see, he saw and knew that he was there. Our Saviour, therefore, calls him an "Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile," because he sought out that retirement to pray, so different from the usual craft and hypocrisy of that nation, that were wont to pray publicly, and in the streets, that they might be seen of men.
And here Christ gathered to himself five disciples, viz., Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael (who seems to be the same with Bartholomew), and another, whose name is not mentioned, verse 35, 40; whom, by comparing John 21:2, we may conjecture to have been Thomas.
51. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
[Verily, verily.] If Christ doubled his affirmation, as we here find it, why is it not so doubled in the other evangelists? If he did not double it, why is it so here?
I. Perhaps the asseveration he useth in this place may not be to the same things and upon the same occasion to which he useth the single Amen in other evangelists.
II. Perhaps, also, St. John, being to write for the use of the Hellenists, might write the word in the same Hebrew letters wherein Christ used it, and in the same letters also wherein the Greeks used it, retaining still the same Hebrew idiom.
III. But, however, it may be observed, that, whereas by all others the word Amen was generally used in the latter end of a speech or sentence, our Lord only useth it in the beginning, as being himself the Amen, Revelation 3:14; and Isaiah 65:16, the God of truth.
So that that single Amen which he used in the other evangelists contained in it the germination, Amen, Amen. I, the Amen, the true and faithful witness, Amen, i.e. "of a truth do say unto you," &c. Nor did it become any mortal man to speak Amen in the beginning of a sentence in the same manner as our Saviour did. Indeed, the very Masters of Traditions, who seemed to be the oracles of that nation, were wont to say, I speak in truth; but not "Amen, I say unto you."
IV. Amen contains in it Yea and Amen; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Revelation 1:7; i.e. truth and stability, Isaiah 25:1. Interlin. faithfulness and truth. The other evangelists express the word which our Saviour useth: St. John doubles it, to intimate the full sense of it.
I have been at some question with myself, whether I should insert in this place the blasphemous things which the Talmudic authors belch out against the holy Jesus, in allusion (shall I say?) or derision of this word Amen, to which name he entitled himself, and by which asseveration he confirmed his doctrines. But that thou mightest, reader, both know, and with equal indignation abhor, the snarlings and virulency of these men, take it in their own words, although I cannot without infinite reluctancy allege what they with all audaciousness have uttered.
They have a tradition, that Imma Shalom, the wife of R. Eliezer, and her brother Rabban Gamaliel, went to a certain philosopher (the Gloss hath it 'a certain heretic') of very great note for his integrity in giving judgment in matters, and taking no bribes. The woman brings him a golden candlestick, and prayeth him that the inheritance might be divided in part to her. Rabban Gamaliel objects, "It is written amongst us, that the daughter shall not inherit instead of the son. But the philosopher answered, 'Since the time that you were removed from your land, the law of Moses was made void: and Aven was given' [he means the Gospel, but marks it with a scurrilous title]; and in that it is written, The son and the daughter shall inherit together. The next day Rabban Gamaliel brought him, a Libyan ass. Then saith he unto them, 'I have found at the end of Aven [i.e. the Gospel] that it is written there, I, Aven, came not to diminish, but to add to the law of Moses'": where he abuseth both the name of our Saviour and his words too, Matthew 5:17.
And now, after our just detestation of this execrable blasphemy, let us think what kind of judge this must be, to whose judgment Rabban Gamaliel, the president of the Sanhedrim, and his sister, wife to the great Eliezer, should betake themselves. A Christian, as it should seem by the whole contexture of the story; but, alas! what kind of Christian, that should make so light of Christ and his gospel! However, were he a Christian of what kind soever, yet if there be any truth in this passage, it is not unworthy our taking notice of it, both as to the history of those times, and also as to that question, Whether there were any Christian judges at that time?
[Ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God, &c.] There are those that in this place observe an allusion to Jacob's ladder. The meaning of this passage seems to be no other than this: "Because I said, 'I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou?' Did this seem to thee a matter of such wonder? 'Thou shalt see greater things than these.' For you shall in me observe such plenty, both of revelation and miracle, that it shall seem to you as if the heavens were opened and the angels were ascending and descending, to bring with them all manner of revelation, authority, and power from God, to be imparted to the Son of man." Where this also is included, viz., that angels must in a more peculiar manner administer unto him, as in the vision of Jacob the whole host of angels had been showed and promised to him in the first setting out of his pilgrimage.
Of this ladder the Rabbins dream very pleasantly: "The ladder is the ascent of the altar and the altar itself. The angels are princes or monarchs. The king of Babylon ascended seventy steps; the king of the Medes fifty-and-two; the king of Greece one hundred and eighty; the king of Edom, it is uncertain how many," &c. They reckon the breadth of the ladder to have been about eight thousand parasangae, i.e. about two-and-thirty thousand miles; and that the bulk of each angel was about eight thousand English miles in compass. Admirable mathematicians these indeed!
John 2
1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
[And the third day there was a marriage, &c.] A virgin marries on the fourth day of the week, and a widow on the fifth. "This custom came not in but from the decree of Ezra, and so onward: for the Sanhedrim doth not sit but on the second and the fifth days; but before the decree of Ezra, when the Sanhedrim assembled every day, then was it lawful to take a wife on any day." There is a twofold reason given for this restraint:
I. The virgin was to be married on the fourth day of the week because the assembly of the twenty-three met on the fifth: so that if the husband should find his wife to be no virgin, but already violated, he might have recourse to the consistory in the heat of his displeasure, and procure just punishment for her according to law. But why then might they not as well marry on the first day of the week, seeing the Beth Din met on the second as well as the fifth?
II. Lest the sabbath should be polluted by preparations for the nuptials: for the first, second, and third days of the week are allowed for those kind of preparations. And the reason why the widow was to be married on the fifth day was, that her husband might rejoice with her for three days together, viz. fifth, sixth, and the sabbath day.
If therefore our bride in this place was a virgin, then the nuptials were celebrated on the fourth day of the week, which is our Wednesday: if she was a widow, then she was married on the fifth day of the week, which is our Thursday. Let us therefore number our days according to our evangelist, and let it be but granted that that was the sabbath in which it is said, "They abode with him all that day," chapter 1, verse 39; then on the first day of the week Christ went into Galilee and met with Nathanael. So that the third day from thence is the fourth day of the week; but as to that, let every one reckon as he himself shall think fit.
[A marriage.] I. The virgin to be married cometh forth from her father's house to that of her husband, "in some veil, but with her hair dishevelled, or her head uncovered."
II. If any person meets her upon that day, he gives her the way; which once was done by king Agrippa himself.
III. They carry before her a cup of wine, which they were wont to call the cup of Trumah, which denoted that she, for her unspotted virginity, might have married a priest, and eaten of the Trumah.
IV. Skipping and dancing, they were wont to sing the praises of the bride. In Palestine they used these words "She needs no paint nor stibium, no plaiting of the hair, or any such thing; for she is of herself most beautiful."
V. They scattered some kind of grain or corn amongst the children; that they, if occasion should serve, might bear witness hereafter that they saw that woman a married virgin.
VI. They sprinkled also or sowed barley before them, by that ceremony denoting their fruitfulness. Whether these sports were used at the wedding where our Saviour was present, let others inquire.
VII. In Sotah there is mention of crowns which the bride and bridegroom wore; as also what fashion they were of, and of what materials they were made.
VIII. Because of the mirth that was expected at nuptial solemnities, they forbade all weddings celebrating within the feasts of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, "because there were great rejoicings at nuptials, and they must not intermingle one joy with another"; that is, the joy of nuptials with the joy of a festival.
IX. The nuptial festivity was continued for the whole seven days; which we also see of old, Judges 19:12.
[And the mother of Jesus was there.] The mother of Jesus was there, not invited (as it should seem) with Christ and his disciples, but had been there before the invitation made to them.
You may conceive who were the usual nuptial guests by those words of Maimonides: "The bridegroom and his companions, the children of the bridechamber, are not bound to make a tabernacle."
I. In a more general sense, denotes a friend or companion, as in the Targum, Judges 14:2; 2 Samuel 13:3: but it is more particularly applied to those friends that are the nuptial guests.
II. But in a most strict sense to those two mentioned Chetubb. fol. 12. 1: "Of old they appointed two Shoshbenin, one for the bridegroom, the other for the bride, that they should minister to them especially at their entry into the bridal chamber." They were especially instituted for this end, that they should take care and provide that there should be no fraud nor deceit as to the tokens of the bride's virginity. So Gloss upon the place. The Rabbins very ridiculously (as they almost always do) tell a trifling story, that Michael and Gabriel were the two Shoshbenin at Adam and Eve's wedding.
III. But as to the signification of this nuptial term in a more large sense, we may see farther: "If any amongst the brethren make a Shoshbenuth while the father is yet alive, when the Shoshbenuth returns, that also is returned too; for the Shoshbenuth is required even before the Beth Din; but if any one send to his friend any measures of wine, those are not required before the Beth Din; for this was a deed of gift? or work of charity."
The words are very obscure, but they seem to bear this sense, viz.: This was the manner of the Shoshbenuth: some bachelor or single person, for joy of his friend's marriage, takes something along with him to eat and be merry with the bridegroom: when it comes to the turn of this single person to marry, this bridegroom, to whom he had brought this portion, is bound to return the same kindness again. Nay, if the father should make a wedding for his son, and his friends should bring gifts along with them in honour of the nuptials, and give them to his son [the bridegroom], the father was bound to return the same kindness whenever any of those friends should think fit to marry themselves. But if any one should send the bridegroom to congratulate his nuptials, either wine or oil, or any such gift, and not come himself to eat and make merry with them, this was not of the nature of the Shoshbenuth, nor could be required back again before the tribunal, because that was a free gift.
IV. Christ therefore, and five of his disciples, were not of these voluntary Shoshbenin at this wedding, for they were invited guests, and so of the number of those that were called the children of the bridechamber, distinguished from the Shoshbenin. But whether our Saviour's mother was to be accounted either the one or the other is a vain and needless question. Perhaps she had the care of preparing and managing the necessaries for the wedding, as having some relation either with the bridegroom or the bride.
6. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
[Six waterpots.] Gloss, "If any one have water fit to drink, and that water by chance contract any uncleanness, let him fill the stone vessel with it."
The number of the six waterpots, I suppose, needs not be ascribed to any custom of the nation, but rather to the multitude then present. It is true indeed that at nuptials and other feasts, there were waterpots always set for the guests to wash their hands at; but the number of the vessels and the quantity of water was always proportioned according to the number of the guests; for both the hands and vessels, and perhaps the feet of some of them, were wont to be washed.
Mashicala mashi culla, the greater vessel out of which all wash; maschilta mashia callatha, the lesser vessel in which the bride washes, and (saith the Gloss) the better sort of the guests.
[Firkins.] The Greek version thus expresseth the measure of a bath, 2 Chronicles 4:5: so Haggai 2:16, where the same measure of a bath is to be understood. Now if every one of these waterpots in our story contained two or three baths apiece, how great a quantity of wine must that be which all that water was changed into!
The waterpots of Lydda and Bethlehem: where the Gloss, "They were wont to make pots in Lydda from the measure of the seah to that of the log; and in Bethlehem from the measure of two seahs to that of one." How big were these pots that contained six or nine seahs: for every bath contained three seahs.
As to the washing of the hands, we have this in Jadaim; "they allot a fourth part of a log for the washing of one person's hands, it may be of two; half a log for three or four; a whole log to five or ten, nay, to a hundred; with this provision, saith R. Jose, that the last that washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a log for himself."
7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
[Jesus said, Fill, &c.] I. It is probable that the discourse betwixt Jesus and his mother was not public and before the whole company, but privately and betwixt themselves: which if we suppose, the words of the son towards the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" will not seem so harsh as we might apprehend them if spoken in the hearing of all the guests. And although the son did seem by his first answer to give a plain denial to what was propounded to him, yet perhaps by something which he afterward said to her, (though not expressed by the evangelist,) or some other token, the mother understood his mind so far, that when they came into company again she could intimate to them, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."
II. He answered his mother, "Mine hour is not yet come": for it might be justly expected that the first miracle he would exert should be done in Jerusalem, the metropolis of that nation.
8. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
[The governor of the feast.] This governor of the feast I would understand to have been in the place of chaplain, to give thanks, and pronounce blessings in such kind of feasts as these were. There was the bridegroom's blessing, recited every day for the whole space of the seven days, besides other benedictions during the whole festival time, requisite upon a cup of wine (for over a cup of wine there used to be a blessing pronounced;) especially that which was called the cup of good news, when the virginity of the bride is declared and certified. He, therefore, who gave the blessing for the whole company, I presume, might be called the governor of the feast. Hence to him it is that our Saviour directs the wine that was made of water, as he who, after some blessing pronounced over the cup, should first drink of it to the whole company, and after him the guests pledging and partaking of it.
As to what is contained in verses 14, 15, and 16 of this chapter, I have already discussed that in Matthew 21:12.
18. Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
[What sign showest thou unto us?] "Noah, Hezekiah, &c., require a sign; much more the wicked and ungodly."
Since there had been so many, no less than four hundred years past, from the time that the Holy Spirit had departed from that nation, and prophecies had ceased, in which space there had not appeared any one person that pretended to the gift either of prophesying or working miracles, it is no wonder if they were suspicious of one that now claimed the character, and required a sign of him.
19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
[Destroy this Temple.] I. Christ showeth them no sign that was a mere sign, Matthew 12:39. The turning of Moses' rod into a serpent, and returning the serpent into a rod again; the hand becoming leprous, and restored to its proper temperament again; these were mere signs; but those wonders which Moses afterward wrought in Egypt were not mere signs, but beneficent miracles; and whoever would not believe upon those infinite miracles which he wrought, would much less have believed upon mere signs. And, indeed, it was unbecoming our blessed Lord so far to indulge to their obstinate incredulity, to be showing new signs still at every beck of theirs, who would not believe upon those infinite numbers he put forth upon every proper occasion.
II. Matthew 12:39,40. When they had required a sign, Christ remits them to the sign of the prophet Jonah; and he points at the very same sense in these words, Destroy this Temple, &c.: that is, "My resurrection from the dead will be a sign beyond all denial, proving and affirming, that what I do I act upon divine authority, and that I am he who is to come (Rom 1:4). Further than this you must expect no other sign from me. If you believe me not while I do such works, at least believe me when I arise from the dead."
He acted here, while he is purging the Temple, under that notion as he was the authorized Messiah, Malachi 3:1,3, and expressly calls it "his Father's house," verse 16. Show us therefore some sign, (say the Jews,) by which it may appear that thou art the Messiah the Son of God; at least, that thou art a prophet. I will show you a sufficient sign, saith Christ: destroy this temple, viz. of my body, and I will raise it from the dead again; a thing which was never yet done, nor could be done by any of the prophets.
20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
[Forty-and-six years.] I. That this was spoken of the Temple as beautified and repaired by Herod, not as built by Zorobabel, these reasons seem to sway with me:
1. That these things were done and discoursed betwixt Christ and the Jews in Herod's Temple.
2. That the account, if meant of the Temple of Zorobabel, will not fall in either with the years of the kings of Persia; or those seven weeks mentioned Daniel 9:25, in which Jerusalem was to be built, "even in troublous times." For whoever reckons by the kings of Persia, he must necessarily attribute at least thirty years to Cyrus; which they willingly do that are fond of this account: which thirty years too, if they do not reckon to him after the time that he had taken Babylon, and subverted that monarchy, they prove nothing as to this computation at all.
"Cyrus destroyed the empire of the Medes, and reigned over Persia, having overthrown Astyages, the king of the Medes": and from thence Eusebius reckons to Cyrus thirty years. But by what authority he ascribes the Jews' being set at liberty from their captivity to that very same year, I cannot tell. For Cyrus could not release the Jews from their captivity in Babylon before he had conquered Babylon for himself; and this was a great while after he had subdued the Medes, as appears from all that have treated upon the subversion of that empire: which how they agree with Xenophon, I shall not inquire at this time: content at present with this, that it doth not appear amongst any historians that have committed the acts of Cyrus to memory, that they have given thirty or twenty, no, not ten years to him after he had taken Babylon. Leunclavius gives him but eight years; and Xenophon himself seems to have given him but seven. So that this account of forty-and-six years falls plainly to the ground, as not being able to stand, but with the whole thirty years of Cyrus included into the number.
Their opinion is more probable who make these forty-and-six years parallel with the seven weeks in Daniel 9:25. But the building of the Temple ceased for more years than wherein it was built; and, in truth, if we compute the times wherein any work was done upon the Temple, it was really built within the space of ten years.
II. This number of forty-six years fits well enough with Herod's Temple; for Josephus tells us, that Herod began the work in the eighteenth year of his reign; nor does he contradict himself when he tells us, in the fifteenth year of his reign he repaired the Temple; because the fifteenth year of his reign alone, after he had conquered Antigonus, was the eighteenth year from the time wherein he had been declared king by the Romans. Now Herod (as the same Josephus relates) lived thirty-seven years from the time that the Romans had declared him king; and in his thirty-fifth year Christ was born; and he was now thirty years old when he had this discourse with the Jews. So that between the eighteenth of Herod and the thirtieth of Christ exclusively there were just forty-six years complete.
III. The words of our evangelist therefore may be thus rendered in English: "Forty-and-six years hath this Temple been in building": and this version seems warranted by Josephus, who, beginning the history of G. Florus, the procurator of Judea, about the 11th of Nero, hath this passage; From that time particularly our city began to languish, all things growing worse and worse. He tells us further, that Albinus, when he went off from his government, set open all the gaols and dismissed the prisoners, and so filled the whole province with thieves and robberies. He tells withal, that king Agrippa permitted the Levite singing-men to go about as they pleased in their linen garments: and at length concludes, "And now was the Temple finished [note that]; wherefore the people, seeing the workmen, to the number of eighteen thousand, were at a stand, having nothing to do...besought the king that he would repair the porch upon the east," &c. If therefore the Temple was not finished till that time, then much less was it so when Christ was in it. Whence we may properly enough render those words of the Jews into such a kind of sense as this: "It is forty-and-six years since the repairing of the Temple was first undertook, and indeed to this day is not quite perfected; and wilt thou pretend to build a new one in three days?"
21. But he spake of the temple of his body.
[But he spake of the temple of his body.] If we consider how much the second Temple came behind that of the first, it will the more easily appear why our blessed Saviour should call his body the Temple.
"In the second Temple there wanted the Fire from heaven, the Ark with the Propitiatory and Cherubims, Urim and Thummim, the Divine Glory, the Holy Ghost, and the anointing Oil."
These things were all in Solomon's Temple, which therefore was accounted a full and plenary type of the Messiah: but so long as the second Temple had them not, it wanted what more particularly shadowed and represented him.
I. There was indeed in the second Temple a certain ark in the Holy of Holies; but this was neither Moses' ark nor the ark of the covenant: which may not unfitly come to mind when we read that passage, Revelation 11:19, "The Temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his Temple the ark of his testament." It was not seen, nor indeed was it at all in the second Temple.
The Jews have a tradition, that Josias hid the ark before the Babylonish captivity, lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy, as once it did amongst the Philistines; but there is no mention that it was ever found and restored again.
II. In Moses' Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple the divine presence sat visibly over the Ark in the Propitiatory, in a cloud of glory: but when the destruction of that Temple drew near, it went up from the Propitiatory, Ezekiel 10:4, and never returned into the second Temple, where neither the Ark nor the Propitiatory was ever restored.
III. The high priest, indeed, ministered in the second Temple as in the first, in eight several garments. Amongst these was the pectoral, or breastplate, wherein the precious stones were put (out of which the jasper chanced to fall and was lost): but the oracle by Urim and Thummim was never restored: see Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:63. And if not restored in the days of Ezra or Nehemiah, much less certainly in the ages following, when the spirit of prophecy had forsaken and taken leave of that people. For that is a great truth amongst the Talmudists; "Things are not asked or inquired after now [by Urim and Thummim] by the high priest, because he doth not speak by the Holy Ghost, nor does there any divine afflatus breathe on him."
This, to omit other things, was the state of Zorobabel's Temple with respect to those things which were the peculiar glory of it. And these things being wanting, how much inferior must this needs be to that of Solomon's!
But there was one thing that degraded Herod's Temple still lower; and that was the person of Herod himself, to whom it is ascribed. It was not without scruple, even amongst the Jews themselves, that it was built and repaired by such a one: (and who knew not what Herod was?) and they dispute whether by right such a person ought to have meddled with it; and invent arguments for their own satisfaction as to the lawfulness of the thing.
They object first, It is not permitted to any one to demolish one synagogue till he hath built another: much less to demolish the Temple. But Herod demolished the Temple before he had built another. Ergo,
They answer, "Baba Ben Buta gave Herod that counsel, that he should pull it down." Now this Baba was reckoned amongst the great wise men, and he did not rashly move Herod to such a work; for he saw such clefts and breaches in the Temple that threatened its ruin.
They object, secondly, concerning the person of Herod, that he was a servant to the Asmonean family, that he rose up against his masters and killed them, and had killed the Sanhedrim.
They answer, We were under his power, and could not resist it. And if those hands stained with blood would be building, it was not in their power to hinder it.
These and other things they apologize for their Temple; adding this invention for the greater honour of the thing--that all that space of time wherein it was a building, it never once rained by day, that the work might not be interrupted.
The Rabbins take a great deal of pains, but to no purpose, upon those words, Haggai 2:9, "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former." "R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer say; one, that it was a greater for the fabric; the other, that it was greater for the duration." As if the glory of the Temple consisted in any mathematical reasons of space, dimension, or duration; as if it lay in walls, gilding, or ornament. The glory of the first Temple was the Ark, the divine cloud over the Ark, the Urim and the Thummim, &c. Now where or in what can consist the greater glory of the second Temple when these are gone?
Herein it is indeed that the Lord of the Temple was himself present in his Temple: he himself was present in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Colossian 2:9; as the divine glory of old was over the ark typically, or by way of shadow only.
This is the glory, when he himself is present who is the great High Priest and the Prophet; who, answerably to the Urim and Thummim of old, reveals the counsels and will of God; he who is the true and living Temple, whom that Temple shadowed out. "This Temple of yours, O ye Jews, does not answer its first pattern and exemplar: there are wanting in that, what were the chief glory of the former; which very defect intimates that there is another Temple to be expected, that in all things may fall in with its first type, as it is necessary the antitype should do. And this is the Temple of my body." No further did he think fit to reply to them at that time.
[And the third day there was a marriage, &c.] A virgin marries on the fourth day of the week, and a widow on the fifth. "This custom came not in but from the decree of Ezra, and so onward: for the Sanhedrim doth not sit but on the second and the fifth days; but before the decree of Ezra, when the Sanhedrim assembled every day, then was it lawful to take a wife on any day." There is a twofold reason given for this restraint:
I. The virgin was to be married on the fourth day of the week because the assembly of the twenty-three met on the fifth: so that if the husband should find his wife to be no virgin, but already violated, he might have recourse to the consistory in the heat of his displeasure, and procure just punishment for her according to law. But why then might they not as well marry on the first day of the week, seeing the Beth Din met on the second as well as the fifth?
II. Lest the sabbath should be polluted by preparations for the nuptials: for the first, second, and third days of the week are allowed for those kind of preparations. And the reason why the widow was to be married on the fifth day was, that her husband might rejoice with her for three days together, viz. fifth, sixth, and the sabbath day.
If therefore our bride in this place was a virgin, then the nuptials were celebrated on the fourth day of the week, which is our Wednesday: if she was a widow, then she was married on the fifth day of the week, which is our Thursday. Let us therefore number our days according to our evangelist, and let it be but granted that that was the sabbath in which it is said, "They abode with him all that day," chapter 1, verse 39; then on the first day of the week Christ went into Galilee and met with Nathanael. So that the third day from thence is the fourth day of the week; but as to that, let every one reckon as he himself shall think fit.
[A marriage.] I. The virgin to be married cometh forth from her father's house to that of her husband, "in some veil, but with her hair dishevelled, or her head uncovered."
II. If any person meets her upon that day, he gives her the way; which once was done by king Agrippa himself.
III. They carry before her a cup of wine, which they were wont to call the cup of Trumah, which denoted that she, for her unspotted virginity, might have married a priest, and eaten of the Trumah.
IV. Skipping and dancing, they were wont to sing the praises of the bride. In Palestine they used these words "She needs no paint nor stibium, no plaiting of the hair, or any such thing; for she is of herself most beautiful."
V. They scattered some kind of grain or corn amongst the children; that they, if occasion should serve, might bear witness hereafter that they saw that woman a married virgin.
VI. They sprinkled also or sowed barley before them, by that ceremony denoting their fruitfulness. Whether these sports were used at the wedding where our Saviour was present, let others inquire.
VII. In Sotah there is mention of crowns which the bride and bridegroom wore; as also what fashion they were of, and of what materials they were made.
VIII. Because of the mirth that was expected at nuptial solemnities, they forbade all weddings celebrating within the feasts of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, "because there were great rejoicings at nuptials, and they must not intermingle one joy with another"; that is, the joy of nuptials with the joy of a festival.
IX. The nuptial festivity was continued for the whole seven days; which we also see of old, Judges 19:12.
[And the mother of Jesus was there.] The mother of Jesus was there, not invited (as it should seem) with Christ and his disciples, but had been there before the invitation made to them.
You may conceive who were the usual nuptial guests by those words of Maimonides: "The bridegroom and his companions, the children of the bridechamber, are not bound to make a tabernacle."
I. In a more general sense, denotes a friend or companion, as in the Targum, Judges 14:2; 2 Samuel 13:3: but it is more particularly applied to those friends that are the nuptial guests.
II. But in a most strict sense to those two mentioned Chetubb. fol. 12. 1: "Of old they appointed two Shoshbenin, one for the bridegroom, the other for the bride, that they should minister to them especially at their entry into the bridal chamber." They were especially instituted for this end, that they should take care and provide that there should be no fraud nor deceit as to the tokens of the bride's virginity. So Gloss upon the place. The Rabbins very ridiculously (as they almost always do) tell a trifling story, that Michael and Gabriel were the two Shoshbenin at Adam and Eve's wedding.
III. But as to the signification of this nuptial term in a more large sense, we may see farther: "If any amongst the brethren make a Shoshbenuth while the father is yet alive, when the Shoshbenuth returns, that also is returned too; for the Shoshbenuth is required even before the Beth Din; but if any one send to his friend any measures of wine, those are not required before the Beth Din; for this was a deed of gift? or work of charity."
The words are very obscure, but they seem to bear this sense, viz.: This was the manner of the Shoshbenuth: some bachelor or single person, for joy of his friend's marriage, takes something along with him to eat and be merry with the bridegroom: when it comes to the turn of this single person to marry, this bridegroom, to whom he had brought this portion, is bound to return the same kindness again. Nay, if the father should make a wedding for his son, and his friends should bring gifts along with them in honour of the nuptials, and give them to his son [the bridegroom], the father was bound to return the same kindness whenever any of those friends should think fit to marry themselves. But if any one should send the bridegroom to congratulate his nuptials, either wine or oil, or any such gift, and not come himself to eat and make merry with them, this was not of the nature of the Shoshbenuth, nor could be required back again before the tribunal, because that was a free gift.
IV. Christ therefore, and five of his disciples, were not of these voluntary Shoshbenin at this wedding, for they were invited guests, and so of the number of those that were called the children of the bridechamber, distinguished from the Shoshbenin. But whether our Saviour's mother was to be accounted either the one or the other is a vain and needless question. Perhaps she had the care of preparing and managing the necessaries for the wedding, as having some relation either with the bridegroom or the bride.
6. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
[Six waterpots.] Gloss, "If any one have water fit to drink, and that water by chance contract any uncleanness, let him fill the stone vessel with it."
The number of the six waterpots, I suppose, needs not be ascribed to any custom of the nation, but rather to the multitude then present. It is true indeed that at nuptials and other feasts, there were waterpots always set for the guests to wash their hands at; but the number of the vessels and the quantity of water was always proportioned according to the number of the guests; for both the hands and vessels, and perhaps the feet of some of them, were wont to be washed.
Mashicala mashi culla, the greater vessel out of which all wash; maschilta mashia callatha, the lesser vessel in which the bride washes, and (saith the Gloss) the better sort of the guests.
[Firkins.] The Greek version thus expresseth the measure of a bath, 2 Chronicles 4:5: so Haggai 2:16, where the same measure of a bath is to be understood. Now if every one of these waterpots in our story contained two or three baths apiece, how great a quantity of wine must that be which all that water was changed into!
The waterpots of Lydda and Bethlehem: where the Gloss, "They were wont to make pots in Lydda from the measure of the seah to that of the log; and in Bethlehem from the measure of two seahs to that of one." How big were these pots that contained six or nine seahs: for every bath contained three seahs.
As to the washing of the hands, we have this in Jadaim; "they allot a fourth part of a log for the washing of one person's hands, it may be of two; half a log for three or four; a whole log to five or ten, nay, to a hundred; with this provision, saith R. Jose, that the last that washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a log for himself."
7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
[Jesus said, Fill, &c.] I. It is probable that the discourse betwixt Jesus and his mother was not public and before the whole company, but privately and betwixt themselves: which if we suppose, the words of the son towards the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" will not seem so harsh as we might apprehend them if spoken in the hearing of all the guests. And although the son did seem by his first answer to give a plain denial to what was propounded to him, yet perhaps by something which he afterward said to her, (though not expressed by the evangelist,) or some other token, the mother understood his mind so far, that when they came into company again she could intimate to them, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."
II. He answered his mother, "Mine hour is not yet come": for it might be justly expected that the first miracle he would exert should be done in Jerusalem, the metropolis of that nation.
8. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
[The governor of the feast.] This governor of the feast I would understand to have been in the place of chaplain, to give thanks, and pronounce blessings in such kind of feasts as these were. There was the bridegroom's blessing, recited every day for the whole space of the seven days, besides other benedictions during the whole festival time, requisite upon a cup of wine (for over a cup of wine there used to be a blessing pronounced;) especially that which was called the cup of good news, when the virginity of the bride is declared and certified. He, therefore, who gave the blessing for the whole company, I presume, might be called the governor of the feast. Hence to him it is that our Saviour directs the wine that was made of water, as he who, after some blessing pronounced over the cup, should first drink of it to the whole company, and after him the guests pledging and partaking of it.
As to what is contained in verses 14, 15, and 16 of this chapter, I have already discussed that in Matthew 21:12.
18. Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
[What sign showest thou unto us?] "Noah, Hezekiah, &c., require a sign; much more the wicked and ungodly."
Since there had been so many, no less than four hundred years past, from the time that the Holy Spirit had departed from that nation, and prophecies had ceased, in which space there had not appeared any one person that pretended to the gift either of prophesying or working miracles, it is no wonder if they were suspicious of one that now claimed the character, and required a sign of him.
19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
[Destroy this Temple.] I. Christ showeth them no sign that was a mere sign, Matthew 12:39. The turning of Moses' rod into a serpent, and returning the serpent into a rod again; the hand becoming leprous, and restored to its proper temperament again; these were mere signs; but those wonders which Moses afterward wrought in Egypt were not mere signs, but beneficent miracles; and whoever would not believe upon those infinite miracles which he wrought, would much less have believed upon mere signs. And, indeed, it was unbecoming our blessed Lord so far to indulge to their obstinate incredulity, to be showing new signs still at every beck of theirs, who would not believe upon those infinite numbers he put forth upon every proper occasion.
II. Matthew 12:39,40. When they had required a sign, Christ remits them to the sign of the prophet Jonah; and he points at the very same sense in these words, Destroy this Temple, &c.: that is, "My resurrection from the dead will be a sign beyond all denial, proving and affirming, that what I do I act upon divine authority, and that I am he who is to come (Rom 1:4). Further than this you must expect no other sign from me. If you believe me not while I do such works, at least believe me when I arise from the dead."
He acted here, while he is purging the Temple, under that notion as he was the authorized Messiah, Malachi 3:1,3, and expressly calls it "his Father's house," verse 16. Show us therefore some sign, (say the Jews,) by which it may appear that thou art the Messiah the Son of God; at least, that thou art a prophet. I will show you a sufficient sign, saith Christ: destroy this temple, viz. of my body, and I will raise it from the dead again; a thing which was never yet done, nor could be done by any of the prophets.
20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
[Forty-and-six years.] I. That this was spoken of the Temple as beautified and repaired by Herod, not as built by Zorobabel, these reasons seem to sway with me:
1. That these things were done and discoursed betwixt Christ and the Jews in Herod's Temple.
2. That the account, if meant of the Temple of Zorobabel, will not fall in either with the years of the kings of Persia; or those seven weeks mentioned Daniel 9:25, in which Jerusalem was to be built, "even in troublous times." For whoever reckons by the kings of Persia, he must necessarily attribute at least thirty years to Cyrus; which they willingly do that are fond of this account: which thirty years too, if they do not reckon to him after the time that he had taken Babylon, and subverted that monarchy, they prove nothing as to this computation at all.
"Cyrus destroyed the empire of the Medes, and reigned over Persia, having overthrown Astyages, the king of the Medes": and from thence Eusebius reckons to Cyrus thirty years. But by what authority he ascribes the Jews' being set at liberty from their captivity to that very same year, I cannot tell. For Cyrus could not release the Jews from their captivity in Babylon before he had conquered Babylon for himself; and this was a great while after he had subdued the Medes, as appears from all that have treated upon the subversion of that empire: which how they agree with Xenophon, I shall not inquire at this time: content at present with this, that it doth not appear amongst any historians that have committed the acts of Cyrus to memory, that they have given thirty or twenty, no, not ten years to him after he had taken Babylon. Leunclavius gives him but eight years; and Xenophon himself seems to have given him but seven. So that this account of forty-and-six years falls plainly to the ground, as not being able to stand, but with the whole thirty years of Cyrus included into the number.
Their opinion is more probable who make these forty-and-six years parallel with the seven weeks in Daniel 9:25. But the building of the Temple ceased for more years than wherein it was built; and, in truth, if we compute the times wherein any work was done upon the Temple, it was really built within the space of ten years.
II. This number of forty-six years fits well enough with Herod's Temple; for Josephus tells us, that Herod began the work in the eighteenth year of his reign; nor does he contradict himself when he tells us, in the fifteenth year of his reign he repaired the Temple; because the fifteenth year of his reign alone, after he had conquered Antigonus, was the eighteenth year from the time wherein he had been declared king by the Romans. Now Herod (as the same Josephus relates) lived thirty-seven years from the time that the Romans had declared him king; and in his thirty-fifth year Christ was born; and he was now thirty years old when he had this discourse with the Jews. So that between the eighteenth of Herod and the thirtieth of Christ exclusively there were just forty-six years complete.
III. The words of our evangelist therefore may be thus rendered in English: "Forty-and-six years hath this Temple been in building": and this version seems warranted by Josephus, who, beginning the history of G. Florus, the procurator of Judea, about the 11th of Nero, hath this passage; From that time particularly our city began to languish, all things growing worse and worse. He tells us further, that Albinus, when he went off from his government, set open all the gaols and dismissed the prisoners, and so filled the whole province with thieves and robberies. He tells withal, that king Agrippa permitted the Levite singing-men to go about as they pleased in their linen garments: and at length concludes, "And now was the Temple finished [note that]; wherefore the people, seeing the workmen, to the number of eighteen thousand, were at a stand, having nothing to do...besought the king that he would repair the porch upon the east," &c. If therefore the Temple was not finished till that time, then much less was it so when Christ was in it. Whence we may properly enough render those words of the Jews into such a kind of sense as this: "It is forty-and-six years since the repairing of the Temple was first undertook, and indeed to this day is not quite perfected; and wilt thou pretend to build a new one in three days?"
21. But he spake of the temple of his body.
[But he spake of the temple of his body.] If we consider how much the second Temple came behind that of the first, it will the more easily appear why our blessed Saviour should call his body the Temple.
"In the second Temple there wanted the Fire from heaven, the Ark with the Propitiatory and Cherubims, Urim and Thummim, the Divine Glory, the Holy Ghost, and the anointing Oil."
These things were all in Solomon's Temple, which therefore was accounted a full and plenary type of the Messiah: but so long as the second Temple had them not, it wanted what more particularly shadowed and represented him.
I. There was indeed in the second Temple a certain ark in the Holy of Holies; but this was neither Moses' ark nor the ark of the covenant: which may not unfitly come to mind when we read that passage, Revelation 11:19, "The Temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his Temple the ark of his testament." It was not seen, nor indeed was it at all in the second Temple.
The Jews have a tradition, that Josias hid the ark before the Babylonish captivity, lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy, as once it did amongst the Philistines; but there is no mention that it was ever found and restored again.
II. In Moses' Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple the divine presence sat visibly over the Ark in the Propitiatory, in a cloud of glory: but when the destruction of that Temple drew near, it went up from the Propitiatory, Ezekiel 10:4, and never returned into the second Temple, where neither the Ark nor the Propitiatory was ever restored.
III. The high priest, indeed, ministered in the second Temple as in the first, in eight several garments. Amongst these was the pectoral, or breastplate, wherein the precious stones were put (out of which the jasper chanced to fall and was lost): but the oracle by Urim and Thummim was never restored: see Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:63. And if not restored in the days of Ezra or Nehemiah, much less certainly in the ages following, when the spirit of prophecy had forsaken and taken leave of that people. For that is a great truth amongst the Talmudists; "Things are not asked or inquired after now [by Urim and Thummim] by the high priest, because he doth not speak by the Holy Ghost, nor does there any divine afflatus breathe on him."
This, to omit other things, was the state of Zorobabel's Temple with respect to those things which were the peculiar glory of it. And these things being wanting, how much inferior must this needs be to that of Solomon's!
But there was one thing that degraded Herod's Temple still lower; and that was the person of Herod himself, to whom it is ascribed. It was not without scruple, even amongst the Jews themselves, that it was built and repaired by such a one: (and who knew not what Herod was?) and they dispute whether by right such a person ought to have meddled with it; and invent arguments for their own satisfaction as to the lawfulness of the thing.
They object first, It is not permitted to any one to demolish one synagogue till he hath built another: much less to demolish the Temple. But Herod demolished the Temple before he had built another. Ergo,
They answer, "Baba Ben Buta gave Herod that counsel, that he should pull it down." Now this Baba was reckoned amongst the great wise men, and he did not rashly move Herod to such a work; for he saw such clefts and breaches in the Temple that threatened its ruin.
They object, secondly, concerning the person of Herod, that he was a servant to the Asmonean family, that he rose up against his masters and killed them, and had killed the Sanhedrim.
They answer, We were under his power, and could not resist it. And if those hands stained with blood would be building, it was not in their power to hinder it.
These and other things they apologize for their Temple; adding this invention for the greater honour of the thing--that all that space of time wherein it was a building, it never once rained by day, that the work might not be interrupted.
The Rabbins take a great deal of pains, but to no purpose, upon those words, Haggai 2:9, "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former." "R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer say; one, that it was a greater for the fabric; the other, that it was greater for the duration." As if the glory of the Temple consisted in any mathematical reasons of space, dimension, or duration; as if it lay in walls, gilding, or ornament. The glory of the first Temple was the Ark, the divine cloud over the Ark, the Urim and the Thummim, &c. Now where or in what can consist the greater glory of the second Temple when these are gone?
Herein it is indeed that the Lord of the Temple was himself present in his Temple: he himself was present in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Colossian 2:9; as the divine glory of old was over the ark typically, or by way of shadow only.
This is the glory, when he himself is present who is the great High Priest and the Prophet; who, answerably to the Urim and Thummim of old, reveals the counsels and will of God; he who is the true and living Temple, whom that Temple shadowed out. "This Temple of yours, O ye Jews, does not answer its first pattern and exemplar: there are wanting in that, what were the chief glory of the former; which very defect intimates that there is another Temple to be expected, that in all things may fall in with its first type, as it is necessary the antitype should do. And this is the Temple of my body." No further did he think fit to reply to them at that time.
John 3
1. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
[Nicodemus.] The Talmudists frequently mention Nicodemus. Now the Jews derive this name, not from the Greek original, but from this story:
"Upon a certain time, all Israel ascended up to Jerusalem to the feast, and there wanted water for them. Nicodemus Ben Gorion comes to a great man, and prays him, saying, 'Lend me twelve wells of water, for the use of those that are to come up to the feast, and I will give you back twelve wells again; or else engage to pay you twelve talents of silver': and they appointed a day. When the day of payment came, and it had not yet rained, Nicodemus went to a little oratory, and covered himself, and prayed: and of a sudden the clouds gathered, and a plentiful rain descended, so that twelve wells were filled, and a great deal over. The great man cavilled that the day was past, for the sun was set: Nicodemus goes into his oratory again, covers himself and prays, and the clouds dispersing themselves, the sun breaks out again. Hence that name given him Nicodemus, because the sun shone out for him."
If there be any thing of truth in this part of the story, it should seem Nicodemus was a priest, and that kind of officer whose title was a digger of wells; under whose peculiar care and charge was the provision of water for those that should come up to the feast. His proper name was not Nicodemus, but Bonai; as Taanith in the place above quoted. Now in Sanhedrim, Bonai is reckoned amongst the disciples of Jesus, and accounted one of the three richest men amongst the Jews at that time, when Titus besieged Jerusalem. "There were three the most wealthy men in Jerusalem, Nicodemus Ben Gorion, Calba Sabua, and Zizith Hakkeesoth." But in Echah Rabbathi, "There were then in Jerusalem four counsellors, Ben Zizith, and Ben Gorion, and Ben Nicodemon, and Ben Calba Sabua; men of great wealth," &c.
There is mention also of a "daughter of Nicodemus Ben Gorion, the furniture of whose bed was twelve thousand deniers." But so miserably was she and the whole family impoverished, that "Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccahi saw her gathering barleycorns out of the dung of the Arabs' cattle: saith he to her, 'Who art thou, my daughter?' 'I am (saith she) the daughter of Nicodemus Ben Gorion.' 'What then (saith he) is become of all thy father's wealth?'" &c.
I leave it with the reader to determine with himself whether the Nicodemus mentioned amongst them be the same with this of ours or no. It is not much for the reputation of that Nicodemus (whatever may be supposed in the affirmative), that these authors should all along make so honourable mention of him. However, some passages look as if it might be the same man, viz., the name Bonai, by which he went for a disciple of Jesus; the impoverishment of his family, which may be conceived to fall upon them in the persecution of Christianity, &c.: but it is not tanti that we should labour at all in a thing so very perplexed, and perhaps no less unprofitable.
2. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
[We know.] It may be a question whether Nicodemus, using the plural number [we know], does by that seem to own that the whole Sanhedrim (of which himself was a member) acknowledge the same thing. I am apt to think the fathers of the Sanhedrim could not well tell how indeed to deny it: which will be more largely discussed upon chapter 11:48. But we know may either be the plural or the singular, which in the first person is most commonly used in all languages. Or else, we know, may signify as much as, it is commonly owned and acknowledged.
[Thou art a teacher come from God.] Nicodemus seems to have reference to the long cessation of prophecy which had not been known in that nation for above four hundred years now past; in which space of time there had been no masters or teachers of the people instituted but by men and the imposition of hands; nor had there in that appeared any one person that would pretend to teach them by a spirit of prophecy:--But we see that thou art a teacher sent from God.
3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[Jesus answered, &c.] You may ask how this answer suits with the question that Nicodemus put: it may appear very apposite upon this account: "You seem, O Nicodemus, to see some sign of the approaching kingdom of heaven in these miracles that are done by me. Verily, I say unto thee, No one can see the kingdom of God as he ought, if he be not born from above."
[Except a man be born again.] By what word our Saviour expressed born again in the Jewish language, it is not easy determining. The subject of the question, well considered, may afford us some light in the solution of it.
I. We must not suppose it a set discourse merely, and on purpose directed upon the subject of regeneration, though the doctrine of the new birth may be well enough asserted and explained from hence: but the question is about the aptitude and capacity of the man qualified to be a partaker of the kingdom of God, or of heaven, or of the times or benefits of the Messiah. For that the kingdom of God or of heaven are terms convertible in the evangelist, is obvious to every one that will take the pains to compare them: and that by the kingdom of God or of heaven is meant the kingdom and times of the Messiah, is so plain, that it needs no argument to prove it.
When, therefore, there was so vehement and universal an expectation of the coming and reign of the Messiah amongst the Jews, and when some token and indication of these times might appear to Nicodemus in the miracles that Christ had wrought, our Saviour instructs him by what way and means he may be made apt and capable for seeing and entering into this kingdom, and enjoying the benefits and advantages of Messiah's days. For,
II. The Jews thought that it was enough for them to have been of the seed of Abraham, or the stock of Israel, to make them fit subjects for the kingdom of heaven, and the happiness that should accrue to them from the days of the Messiah. Hence that passage, There is a part allotted to all Israel in the world to come; that is, in the participation of the Messiah. But whence comes it that universal Israel claim such a part? Merely because they are Israelites; i.e. merely because they come of the stock and lineage of Israel. Our Saviour sets himself against this error of theirs, and teacheth that it is not enough for them to be the children of Abraham, or the stock of Israel, to give them any title to or interest in the Messiah; but they must further be born from above; they must claim it by a heavenly, not an earthly birth. These words of his seem to fall in and bear the same kind of sense with those of John Baptist, "Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father."
III. The Jews acknowledged, in order to proselytism, some kind of regeneration or new birth absolutely necessary: but then this was very slightly and easily attainable. If any one become a proselyte, he is like a child new born. But in what sense is he so?
"The Gentile that is made a proselyte, and the servant that is made free, behold, he is like a child new born. And all those relations he had whiles either Gentile or servant, they now cease from being so. By the law it is lawful for a Gentile to marry his mother, or the sister of his mother, if they are proselyted to the Jewish religion. But the wise men have forbidden this, lest it should be said, We go downward from a greater degree of sanctity to a less; and that which was forbidden yesterday is allowable today." Compare this with 1 Corinthians 5:1.
Christ teaches another kind of new birth, requisite for those that partake of the kingdom of the Messiah, beyond what they have either as Israelites or proselytes; viz., that they should be born from above, or by a celestial generation, which only makes them capable of the kingdom of heaven.
4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb?] The common opinion of the Jews about the qualification of an Israelite, qua Israelite, still sticks in the mind of this Pharisee: and although our Saviour useth that term, which in the Jewish language plainly enough intimates the necessity of being born from heaven, yet cannot he easily get off from his first prejudice about the Israelitish generation: "Whereas the Israelites, as they are Israelites, have a right to be admitted into the kingdom of the Messiah, do you therefore mean by this expression of yours, that it is necessary for any to enter a second time into his mother's womb, that he may be an Israelite anew?"
He knew and acknowledged, as we have already said, that there must be a sort of a new birth in those that come over to the Jewish religion; but he never dreamt of any new proselytism requisite in one that had been born an Israelite. He could not therefore conceive the manner of a new birth, that he should be made an Israelite anew, unless it were by entering into the mother's womb a second time; which to him seemed an impossible thing.
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit.] He tells him, that the Jew himself cannot be admitted into the kingdom of the Messiah unless he first strip himself of his Judaism by baptism, and then put off his carnal and put on a spiritual state. That by water here is meant baptism, I make no doubt: nor do I much less question but our Saviour goes on from thence to the second article of the evangelical doctrine. And as he had taught that towards the participation of the benefits to be had by the Messiah, it is of little or of no value for a man to be born of the seed of Abraham, or to be originally an Israelite, unless he was also born from above.
10. Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
[Art thou a master of Israel?] Art thou a Wise man in Israel? It was the answer of a boy to R. Joshua, when he asked him, "Which is the shortest way to the city? The boy answered, 'This is the shortest way though it is the longest: and that is the longest way though it is the shortest.' R. Joshua took that way which was the shortest, though the longest. When he came very near the city, he found gardens and places of pleasure hedged in [so that he could go no further]. He returned therefore to the boy, and said to him, 'My son, is this the shortest way to the city?' The boy answered, 'Art thou a wise man in Israel? did I not thus say to thee, That is the shortest way though the longest?'" &c.
14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
[And as Moses lifted up the serpent, &c.] The Jews dote horribly about this noble mystery. There are those in Bemidbar Rabba, that think that the brazen serpent was not affixed to a pole, but thrown up into the air by Moses, and there to have settled without any other support.
"Moses put up the serpent for a sign; as he that chastiseth his son sticks up the rod in some eminent place, where the child may see it, and remember."
Thou shalt remove the mischief by that which did the mischief; and thou shalt heal the disease by that which made thee sick. The same hath R. Bechai; and both confess that it was a miracle within a miracle. But it is not for a Jew to understand the mystery; this is the Christian's attainment only.
17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[Not to condemn the world.] In what sense (beside that which is most common and proper) the Jewish schools use the word the world, we may see from these and such like instances:
I. The whole world hath forsaken the Misnas, and followed the Gemara. Where something may be noted in the story as well as in the grammar of it.
So John 12:19: Behold the world is gone after him. We very often meet with All the world confesseth, &c. and The whole world doth not dissent, &c. By which kind of phrase, both amongst them and all other languages, is meant a very great number or multitude.
II. When they distinguish, as frequently they do, betwixt the poor of their own city, and the poor of the world; it is easy to discern, that by the poor of the world are meant those poor that come from any other parts.
III. "R. Ulla requires not only that every great man should be worthy of belief, but that the man of the world should be so too." It is easy to conceive, that by the man of the world is meant any person, of any kind or degree.
IV. But it is principally worthy our observation, that they distinguish the whole world into Israel, and the nations of the world; the Israelites and the Gentiles. This distinction, by which they call the Gentiles the nations of the world, occurs almost in every leaf, so that I need not bring instances of this nature. Compare Luke 12:30 with Matthew 6:32; and that may suffice.
V. They further teach us, that the nations of the world are not only not to be redeemed, but to be wasted, destroyed, and trodden underfoot. "This seems to me to be the sense: the rod of the exactor shall not depart from Judah, until his Son shall come to whom belongs the subduing and breaking of the people; for he shall vanquish them all with the edge of his sword." So saith Rambam upon that passage in Genesis 49.
"'The morning cometh, and also the night,' Isaiah 21:12. It will be the morning to Israel [when the Messiah shall come]; but it will be night to the nations of the world."
"R. Abin saith, That the Holy Blessed God will make the elders of Israel sit down in a semicircle, himself sitting president, as the father of the Sanhedrim; and shall judge the nations of the world."
"Then comes the thrashing; the straw they throw into the fire, the chaff into the wind; but the wheat they keep upon the floor: so the nations of the world shall be as the burning of a furnace; but Israel alone shall be preserved."
I could be endless in passages of this nature out of these authors: but that which is very observable in all of them is this; That all those curses and dreadful judgments which God in his holy writ threatens against wicked men, they post it off wholly from themselves and their own nation, as if not at all belonging to them, devolving all upon the Gentiles and the nations of the world. So that it was not without great reason that the apostle asserteth, Romans 3:19, "Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them which are under the law." Which yet they will by no means endure.
Christ, therefore, by this kind of phrase or scheme of speech, well enough known to Nicodemus, teacheth him (contrary to a vulgar opinion, which he also could not be ignorant of), that the Messiah should become a Redeemer and propitiation, as well to the Gentiles as to the Jews. They had taught amongst themselves, that God had no regard to the nations of the world, they were odious to him, and the Messiah, when he came, would destroy and condemn them: but the Truth saith, "God so loved the world, that he hath sent his Son not to condemn, but to save the world." This very evangelist himself is the best commentator upon this expression, 1 John 2:2; "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"; i.e. not for us Jews only, but for the nations of the world.
25. Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.
[A question about purifying.] I. Question, Syriac, inquire: which calls to mind that which is so perpetually in use amongst the Talmudic authors; R. N. inquired of R. N. Whence that also, as familiarly used, If you ask I will tell you. If the word in this place be taken according to this scholastic use of it, as it may very well be, then we may expound this passage thus:
The disciples of John, having heard that Jesus did baptize also, they with the Jews inquire, what sort of purifying resulted from the baptism of Christ; whether that purified more than the baptism of John. They inquire jointly, Doth Jesus superinduce a baptism upon the baptism of John? and John his upon the baptisms or washing of the Jews? Whither will this purifying at last tend? and what virtue hath this of Jesus' beyond that of John's?
II. Or, if you will, suppose we that this be a dispute betwixt the disciples of St. John and the Jews about the legal purifications and the baptism now introduced: there is no doubt but both parties contended to the uttermost of their power.
27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
[A man can receive nothing.] The rendering of this word receive , may be a little questioned. The Syriac hath it to receive. Perhaps it might be more fitly translated to perceive or apprehend. For the Baptist seems in these words to rebuke the incredulity and stupidity of these men: q.d. "Ye see, by this very instance of yourselves, that no man can learn, perceive, or believe, unless it be given him from heaven. For ye yourselves are my witnesses, that I did prefer Jesus before myself, that I testified of him that he was the Son of God, the Lamb of God, &c.; and ye now would cavil against him, and prefer me before him. It is apparent that no one can perceive or discern what he ought to do, unless it be given from heaven." Compare with this, verse 32, "No man receiveth his testimony."
29. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
[But the friend of the bridegroom.] Of which we have already spoken in our notes upon chapter 2.
His friend, that is, his 'shoshebin.' Where the Gloss hath this passage, which at first sight the reader may a little wonder at:
The friend of the bridegroom is not allowed him all the days of the nuptials. The sense is; He is not admitted to be a judge or witness for him all that time, wherein for certain days of the nuptials he is his shoshebin, or the friend of the bridegroom.
31. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
[He that is of the earth is earthly.] Mark but the antithesis, and you will not suspect any tautology:
1. He that is of the earth, and He that cometh from heaven. Where the antithesis is not so much between Christ and John, as betwixt Christ and all mankind.
2. He is of the earth, and He is above all. He that is of the earth is only of earthly degree, or rank: and he that is from heaven is above all degree.
3. He speaks of the earth, and what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth. He that is of the earth speaketh earthly things, and what he hath learned upon the earth; but he that is from heaven speaketh those things which he learned in heaven, viz., those things which he hath seen and heard from God. The Baptist seems to allude to the manner of bearing witness, and teaching. In matter of fact there was need of an eyewitness; in matter of doctrine, they delivered what they had heard from their Master.
[Nicodemus.] The Talmudists frequently mention Nicodemus. Now the Jews derive this name, not from the Greek original, but from this story:
"Upon a certain time, all Israel ascended up to Jerusalem to the feast, and there wanted water for them. Nicodemus Ben Gorion comes to a great man, and prays him, saying, 'Lend me twelve wells of water, for the use of those that are to come up to the feast, and I will give you back twelve wells again; or else engage to pay you twelve talents of silver': and they appointed a day. When the day of payment came, and it had not yet rained, Nicodemus went to a little oratory, and covered himself, and prayed: and of a sudden the clouds gathered, and a plentiful rain descended, so that twelve wells were filled, and a great deal over. The great man cavilled that the day was past, for the sun was set: Nicodemus goes into his oratory again, covers himself and prays, and the clouds dispersing themselves, the sun breaks out again. Hence that name given him Nicodemus, because the sun shone out for him."
If there be any thing of truth in this part of the story, it should seem Nicodemus was a priest, and that kind of officer whose title was a digger of wells; under whose peculiar care and charge was the provision of water for those that should come up to the feast. His proper name was not Nicodemus, but Bonai; as Taanith in the place above quoted. Now in Sanhedrim, Bonai is reckoned amongst the disciples of Jesus, and accounted one of the three richest men amongst the Jews at that time, when Titus besieged Jerusalem. "There were three the most wealthy men in Jerusalem, Nicodemus Ben Gorion, Calba Sabua, and Zizith Hakkeesoth." But in Echah Rabbathi, "There were then in Jerusalem four counsellors, Ben Zizith, and Ben Gorion, and Ben Nicodemon, and Ben Calba Sabua; men of great wealth," &c.
There is mention also of a "daughter of Nicodemus Ben Gorion, the furniture of whose bed was twelve thousand deniers." But so miserably was she and the whole family impoverished, that "Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccahi saw her gathering barleycorns out of the dung of the Arabs' cattle: saith he to her, 'Who art thou, my daughter?' 'I am (saith she) the daughter of Nicodemus Ben Gorion.' 'What then (saith he) is become of all thy father's wealth?'" &c.
I leave it with the reader to determine with himself whether the Nicodemus mentioned amongst them be the same with this of ours or no. It is not much for the reputation of that Nicodemus (whatever may be supposed in the affirmative), that these authors should all along make so honourable mention of him. However, some passages look as if it might be the same man, viz., the name Bonai, by which he went for a disciple of Jesus; the impoverishment of his family, which may be conceived to fall upon them in the persecution of Christianity, &c.: but it is not tanti that we should labour at all in a thing so very perplexed, and perhaps no less unprofitable.
2. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
[We know.] It may be a question whether Nicodemus, using the plural number [we know], does by that seem to own that the whole Sanhedrim (of which himself was a member) acknowledge the same thing. I am apt to think the fathers of the Sanhedrim could not well tell how indeed to deny it: which will be more largely discussed upon chapter 11:48. But we know may either be the plural or the singular, which in the first person is most commonly used in all languages. Or else, we know, may signify as much as, it is commonly owned and acknowledged.
[Thou art a teacher come from God.] Nicodemus seems to have reference to the long cessation of prophecy which had not been known in that nation for above four hundred years now past; in which space of time there had been no masters or teachers of the people instituted but by men and the imposition of hands; nor had there in that appeared any one person that would pretend to teach them by a spirit of prophecy:--But we see that thou art a teacher sent from God.
3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[Jesus answered, &c.] You may ask how this answer suits with the question that Nicodemus put: it may appear very apposite upon this account: "You seem, O Nicodemus, to see some sign of the approaching kingdom of heaven in these miracles that are done by me. Verily, I say unto thee, No one can see the kingdom of God as he ought, if he be not born from above."
[Except a man be born again.] By what word our Saviour expressed born again in the Jewish language, it is not easy determining. The subject of the question, well considered, may afford us some light in the solution of it.
I. We must not suppose it a set discourse merely, and on purpose directed upon the subject of regeneration, though the doctrine of the new birth may be well enough asserted and explained from hence: but the question is about the aptitude and capacity of the man qualified to be a partaker of the kingdom of God, or of heaven, or of the times or benefits of the Messiah. For that the kingdom of God or of heaven are terms convertible in the evangelist, is obvious to every one that will take the pains to compare them: and that by the kingdom of God or of heaven is meant the kingdom and times of the Messiah, is so plain, that it needs no argument to prove it.
When, therefore, there was so vehement and universal an expectation of the coming and reign of the Messiah amongst the Jews, and when some token and indication of these times might appear to Nicodemus in the miracles that Christ had wrought, our Saviour instructs him by what way and means he may be made apt and capable for seeing and entering into this kingdom, and enjoying the benefits and advantages of Messiah's days. For,
II. The Jews thought that it was enough for them to have been of the seed of Abraham, or the stock of Israel, to make them fit subjects for the kingdom of heaven, and the happiness that should accrue to them from the days of the Messiah. Hence that passage, There is a part allotted to all Israel in the world to come; that is, in the participation of the Messiah. But whence comes it that universal Israel claim such a part? Merely because they are Israelites; i.e. merely because they come of the stock and lineage of Israel. Our Saviour sets himself against this error of theirs, and teacheth that it is not enough for them to be the children of Abraham, or the stock of Israel, to give them any title to or interest in the Messiah; but they must further be born from above; they must claim it by a heavenly, not an earthly birth. These words of his seem to fall in and bear the same kind of sense with those of John Baptist, "Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father."
III. The Jews acknowledged, in order to proselytism, some kind of regeneration or new birth absolutely necessary: but then this was very slightly and easily attainable. If any one become a proselyte, he is like a child new born. But in what sense is he so?
"The Gentile that is made a proselyte, and the servant that is made free, behold, he is like a child new born. And all those relations he had whiles either Gentile or servant, they now cease from being so. By the law it is lawful for a Gentile to marry his mother, or the sister of his mother, if they are proselyted to the Jewish religion. But the wise men have forbidden this, lest it should be said, We go downward from a greater degree of sanctity to a less; and that which was forbidden yesterday is allowable today." Compare this with 1 Corinthians 5:1.
Christ teaches another kind of new birth, requisite for those that partake of the kingdom of the Messiah, beyond what they have either as Israelites or proselytes; viz., that they should be born from above, or by a celestial generation, which only makes them capable of the kingdom of heaven.
4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb?] The common opinion of the Jews about the qualification of an Israelite, qua Israelite, still sticks in the mind of this Pharisee: and although our Saviour useth that term, which in the Jewish language plainly enough intimates the necessity of being born from heaven, yet cannot he easily get off from his first prejudice about the Israelitish generation: "Whereas the Israelites, as they are Israelites, have a right to be admitted into the kingdom of the Messiah, do you therefore mean by this expression of yours, that it is necessary for any to enter a second time into his mother's womb, that he may be an Israelite anew?"
He knew and acknowledged, as we have already said, that there must be a sort of a new birth in those that come over to the Jewish religion; but he never dreamt of any new proselytism requisite in one that had been born an Israelite. He could not therefore conceive the manner of a new birth, that he should be made an Israelite anew, unless it were by entering into the mother's womb a second time; which to him seemed an impossible thing.
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit.] He tells him, that the Jew himself cannot be admitted into the kingdom of the Messiah unless he first strip himself of his Judaism by baptism, and then put off his carnal and put on a spiritual state. That by water here is meant baptism, I make no doubt: nor do I much less question but our Saviour goes on from thence to the second article of the evangelical doctrine. And as he had taught that towards the participation of the benefits to be had by the Messiah, it is of little or of no value for a man to be born of the seed of Abraham, or to be originally an Israelite, unless he was also born from above.
10. Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
[Art thou a master of Israel?] Art thou a Wise man in Israel? It was the answer of a boy to R. Joshua, when he asked him, "Which is the shortest way to the city? The boy answered, 'This is the shortest way though it is the longest: and that is the longest way though it is the shortest.' R. Joshua took that way which was the shortest, though the longest. When he came very near the city, he found gardens and places of pleasure hedged in [so that he could go no further]. He returned therefore to the boy, and said to him, 'My son, is this the shortest way to the city?' The boy answered, 'Art thou a wise man in Israel? did I not thus say to thee, That is the shortest way though the longest?'" &c.
14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
[And as Moses lifted up the serpent, &c.] The Jews dote horribly about this noble mystery. There are those in Bemidbar Rabba, that think that the brazen serpent was not affixed to a pole, but thrown up into the air by Moses, and there to have settled without any other support.
"Moses put up the serpent for a sign; as he that chastiseth his son sticks up the rod in some eminent place, where the child may see it, and remember."
Thou shalt remove the mischief by that which did the mischief; and thou shalt heal the disease by that which made thee sick. The same hath R. Bechai; and both confess that it was a miracle within a miracle. But it is not for a Jew to understand the mystery; this is the Christian's attainment only.
17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[Not to condemn the world.] In what sense (beside that which is most common and proper) the Jewish schools use the word the world, we may see from these and such like instances:
I. The whole world hath forsaken the Misnas, and followed the Gemara. Where something may be noted in the story as well as in the grammar of it.
So John 12:19: Behold the world is gone after him. We very often meet with All the world confesseth, &c. and The whole world doth not dissent, &c. By which kind of phrase, both amongst them and all other languages, is meant a very great number or multitude.
II. When they distinguish, as frequently they do, betwixt the poor of their own city, and the poor of the world; it is easy to discern, that by the poor of the world are meant those poor that come from any other parts.
III. "R. Ulla requires not only that every great man should be worthy of belief, but that the man of the world should be so too." It is easy to conceive, that by the man of the world is meant any person, of any kind or degree.
IV. But it is principally worthy our observation, that they distinguish the whole world into Israel, and the nations of the world; the Israelites and the Gentiles. This distinction, by which they call the Gentiles the nations of the world, occurs almost in every leaf, so that I need not bring instances of this nature. Compare Luke 12:30 with Matthew 6:32; and that may suffice.
V. They further teach us, that the nations of the world are not only not to be redeemed, but to be wasted, destroyed, and trodden underfoot. "This seems to me to be the sense: the rod of the exactor shall not depart from Judah, until his Son shall come to whom belongs the subduing and breaking of the people; for he shall vanquish them all with the edge of his sword." So saith Rambam upon that passage in Genesis 49.
"'The morning cometh, and also the night,' Isaiah 21:12. It will be the morning to Israel [when the Messiah shall come]; but it will be night to the nations of the world."
"R. Abin saith, That the Holy Blessed God will make the elders of Israel sit down in a semicircle, himself sitting president, as the father of the Sanhedrim; and shall judge the nations of the world."
"Then comes the thrashing; the straw they throw into the fire, the chaff into the wind; but the wheat they keep upon the floor: so the nations of the world shall be as the burning of a furnace; but Israel alone shall be preserved."
I could be endless in passages of this nature out of these authors: but that which is very observable in all of them is this; That all those curses and dreadful judgments which God in his holy writ threatens against wicked men, they post it off wholly from themselves and their own nation, as if not at all belonging to them, devolving all upon the Gentiles and the nations of the world. So that it was not without great reason that the apostle asserteth, Romans 3:19, "Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them which are under the law." Which yet they will by no means endure.
Christ, therefore, by this kind of phrase or scheme of speech, well enough known to Nicodemus, teacheth him (contrary to a vulgar opinion, which he also could not be ignorant of), that the Messiah should become a Redeemer and propitiation, as well to the Gentiles as to the Jews. They had taught amongst themselves, that God had no regard to the nations of the world, they were odious to him, and the Messiah, when he came, would destroy and condemn them: but the Truth saith, "God so loved the world, that he hath sent his Son not to condemn, but to save the world." This very evangelist himself is the best commentator upon this expression, 1 John 2:2; "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"; i.e. not for us Jews only, but for the nations of the world.
25. Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.
[A question about purifying.] I. Question, Syriac, inquire: which calls to mind that which is so perpetually in use amongst the Talmudic authors; R. N. inquired of R. N. Whence that also, as familiarly used, If you ask I will tell you. If the word in this place be taken according to this scholastic use of it, as it may very well be, then we may expound this passage thus:
The disciples of John, having heard that Jesus did baptize also, they with the Jews inquire, what sort of purifying resulted from the baptism of Christ; whether that purified more than the baptism of John. They inquire jointly, Doth Jesus superinduce a baptism upon the baptism of John? and John his upon the baptisms or washing of the Jews? Whither will this purifying at last tend? and what virtue hath this of Jesus' beyond that of John's?
II. Or, if you will, suppose we that this be a dispute betwixt the disciples of St. John and the Jews about the legal purifications and the baptism now introduced: there is no doubt but both parties contended to the uttermost of their power.
27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
[A man can receive nothing.] The rendering of this word receive , may be a little questioned. The Syriac hath it to receive. Perhaps it might be more fitly translated to perceive or apprehend. For the Baptist seems in these words to rebuke the incredulity and stupidity of these men: q.d. "Ye see, by this very instance of yourselves, that no man can learn, perceive, or believe, unless it be given him from heaven. For ye yourselves are my witnesses, that I did prefer Jesus before myself, that I testified of him that he was the Son of God, the Lamb of God, &c.; and ye now would cavil against him, and prefer me before him. It is apparent that no one can perceive or discern what he ought to do, unless it be given from heaven." Compare with this, verse 32, "No man receiveth his testimony."
29. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
[But the friend of the bridegroom.] Of which we have already spoken in our notes upon chapter 2.
His friend, that is, his 'shoshebin.' Where the Gloss hath this passage, which at first sight the reader may a little wonder at:
The friend of the bridegroom is not allowed him all the days of the nuptials. The sense is; He is not admitted to be a judge or witness for him all that time, wherein for certain days of the nuptials he is his shoshebin, or the friend of the bridegroom.
31. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
[He that is of the earth is earthly.] Mark but the antithesis, and you will not suspect any tautology:
1. He that is of the earth, and He that cometh from heaven. Where the antithesis is not so much between Christ and John, as betwixt Christ and all mankind.
2. He is of the earth, and He is above all. He that is of the earth is only of earthly degree, or rank: and he that is from heaven is above all degree.
3. He speaks of the earth, and what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth. He that is of the earth speaketh earthly things, and what he hath learned upon the earth; but he that is from heaven speaketh those things which he learned in heaven, viz., those things which he hath seen and heard from God. The Baptist seems to allude to the manner of bearing witness, and teaching. In matter of fact there was need of an eyewitness; in matter of doctrine, they delivered what they had heard from their Master.
John 4
4. And he must needs go through Samaria.
[He must needs go through Samaria.] Josephus tells us, It was the custom for the Galileans, in their journeying to Jerusalem to their feasts, to go through Samaria.
Our countryman Biddulph describes the way which he himself travelled from Galilee to Jerusalem, anno Domini 1601: out of whom, for the reader's sake, I will borrow a few passages. He tells us, that on March 24 they rode near the sea of Galilee, and gives the computation of that sea to be in length about eight leagues and in breadth five. Now a league is three miles. After they had gone about seven miles, having the sea of Galilee on their left hands, they went up a hill, not very steep, but very pleasant; which (he saith) is said to be the hill mentioned John 6:3. [Although here indeed either I am mistaken or his guides deceived him; because that mountain was on the other side of the sea.]
However he tells us, that from the top of this hill they discerned Saphetta, the Jews' university. All the way they went was infinitely pleasant, the hills and dales all very fruitful: and that about two o'clock in the afternoon they came to a certain village called by the Arabians 'Inel Tyger,' i.e. 'The merchant's eye.' When they had taken some food and sleep, their mind leaped within them to go up mount Tabor, which was not far off. [I fear his guides deceived him here also concerning this mount.]
On the twenty-fifth of March they spent the whole day in traversing the pleasant fields of Bashan near the hill of Bashan. In the way they saw some rubbish of the tower of Gehazi, 2 Kings 5:24; and came to a town commonly called 'Jenine,' of old 'Engannim,' Joshua 15:34 [more truly, Good man, Joshua 19:21], distant from Tabor two-and-twenty miles; a place of gardens and waters, and places of pleasure. There they stayed all the next day, upon the occasion of a Turkish feast called 'Byram.' March 27, riding by Engannim they were twice in danger; once by thieves, dwelling hard by; another time by the Arabs, in a wood about twelve miles thence. That night they came to Sychar, a city of Samaria, mentioned John 4; distant from Engannim seven-and-twenty miles. They stayed there the next day. It is now called Napolis: Jacob's well is near it, the waters of it sweet as milk.
March 29, they went from Sychar towards Jerusalem; the nearer to which place they came, the more barren and unpleasant they found the soil. At length, coming to a large grove or wilderness full of trees and hills [perhaps this was mount Ephraim], from the top of the hill they saw the sea on the right hand, and little vessels upon it passing to Joppa. About three or four in the afternoon they came to a ruinous town called 'Beere,' of old (as was reported to them) 'Beer-sheba,' a great city [but more probably 'Beeroth,' mentioned Joshua 18:25]. It is said, that was the place where Christ's parents first missed him in their journey, Luke 2:44. They would have lodged there that night, being weary and hungry, and having spent their provision, but they could have nothing fit for themselves or their horses; and being from Jerusalem but ten miles, they went on; and after having travelled five or six miles, had a view of the city. Thus our countryman, a clergyman, tells us in his book.
This interposition of Samaria between Galilee and Judea must be remembered, when we read the borders and portions of the tribes set out, Ezekiel 48; where Manasseh and Ephraim (the country of Samaria) are bounded and set out as formerly, but must not be reckoned under the notion of Samaria, as they had been.
Necessity itself found, or made a way betwixt Judea and Galilee through Samaria; because, indeed, there was no other way they could go, unless a long way about, through the country beyond Jordan. Nor was there any reason why they should make any difficulty of going through Samaria, unless the hostility of the country. For,
"The country of the Cuthites is clean." So that without scruple they might gather of the fruits and products of it. "The gatherings of their waters are clean." So that a Jew might drink, or wash himself in them. "Their dwellings are clean." So that he might enter thereinto, eat or lodge there. "Their roads are clean." So that the dust of them did not defile a Jew's feet.
The method of the story in this place, by comparing it with other evangelists, may be thus put together: Herod had imprisoned John Baptist, under pretence of his growing too popular, and that the multitude of his followers increasing, tended to innovate. Our Saviour understanding this, and withal that the Sanhedrim had heard something of the increase of his disciples too, withdrew from Judea into Galilee, that he might be more remote from that kind of thunderbolt that St. John had been struck with.
5. Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
[Near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.] Genesis 48:22. Jacob had bought a piece of land of the children of Hamor for a hundred lambs, Genesis 33:19. But, after the slaughter of the Shechemites, he with his family being forced to retire to places more remote, viz., to Bethel, Bethlehem, and Hebron; the Amorites thrust themselves into possession, and he fain to regain it with his sword and bow.
6. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
[Now Jacob's well was there.] Of this well doth Jacob seem to speak in those last words of his about Joseph, Genesis 49:22: "Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well." For Joseph's offspring increased to a kingdom in Jeroboam, and that in Sychem, hard by Jacob's well...
[He sat thus.] He sat thus, as one wearied. The evangelist would let us know that Christ did not seemingly, or for fashion's sake, beg water of the Samaritan woman, but in good earnest, being urged to it by thirst and weariness. So 1 Kings 2:7; "Shew kindness to the sons of Barzillai," for so, that is, in a great deal of kindness, they came to me. Acts 7:8, "He gave him the covenant of circumcision," and so [being circumcised] "he begat Isaac."
8. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
[To buy meat.] If the disciples were gone into the city to buy food, how agrees this with verse 9, the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans? and with that rule of the Jews, "Let no Israelite eat one mouthful of any thing that is a Samaritan's; for if he eat but a little mouthful, he is as if he ate swine's flesh." A mouthful, that is, of nothing over which a blessing must be pronounced.
"Ezra, Zorobabel, and Joshua gathered together the whole congregation into the Temple of the Lord; and with three hundred priests, three hundred books of the law, and three hundred children, anathematized, shammatized, excommunicated the Samaritans, in the name of Jehovah, by a writing indented upon tables, and an anathema both of the upper and the lower house: 'Let no Israelite eat one morsel of any thing that is a Samaritan's; let no Samaritan become a proselyte to Israel; nor let them have a part in the resurrection of the dead.' And they sent this curse to all Israel that were in Babylon, who also themselves added their anathema to this," &c.
But Hierosol. Avodah Zara tells us, "R. Jacob Bar Acha, in the name of R. Lazar, saith, That the victuals of the Cuthites are allowed, if nothing of their wine or vinegar be mingled amongst them." Nay, further, we meet with this passage in Bab. Kiddushin; "The unleavened bread of the Cuthites is allowed, and by that a man may rightly enough keep the Passover." If the unleavened bread for the Passover may be had of the Samaritans, much more common bread. And grant that the Samaritans were to the Jews as heathens, yet was it lawful for the Jew to partake of the edibles of the Gentiles, if there was no suspicion that they had been any way polluted, nor been offered to idols; as may be largely made out from Maimonides in his treatise about forbidden meats. Which suspicion was altogether needless as to the Samaritans; because they and the Jews in a manner agreed upon the same things as clean or unclean, and they were very near as free from idolatry.
9. Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
[For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.] I. That translation, the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, which the French and English follow, seems to stretch the sense of the word beyond what it will well bear: for, 1. Granting the Samaritans were mere heathens, (which some of the Rabbins have affirmed,) yet did not this forbid the Jews having any kind of dealings with them; for they did not refuse merchandising with any of the Gentile nations whatever. See Nehemiah 13:16, &c. 2. But if the Samaritans were true proselytes, as R. Akibah asserts, or 'as the Israelites in all things,' as Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith of them; then much more might the Jews have dealing with them.
II. "It is lawful to eat the unleavened bread of the Samaritans, nor is there any suspicion as to their leavened bread neither. This is to be understood, if the Samaritan should knead it in the house of an Israelite." Now if the Samaritan may knead dough in an Israelite's house, it is evident the Israelite might use the Samaritan.
"An Israelite may circumcise a Cuthite; but a Cuthite may not circumcise an Israelite, because he is circumcised into the name of mount Gerizim. R. Josah saith, Let him circumcise him, and let him pass into the name of mount Gerizim till he departs this life." If therefore it was lawful for the Israelite to circumcise the Cuthite or Samaritan, and the Samaritan the Israelite, then the Jews had dealings with, or did use, the Samaritans...
"For three days before the feasts of the idolaters, it is forbidden [the Jews] either to give to or receive from them, to ask, or lend, or borrow of them": but for any other parts of the year it was not forbidden them. But as to the Samaritans, it was not permitted the Jews to borrow or receive any thing from them at any time gratis. Whereas it was lawful for the Jews to converse with the Samaritans, buy of them, use their labour, answer to their benedictions, 'Amen,' as we find in Beracoth, lodge in their towns, Luke 9:52, I would fain know in what sense, after all this, can it be said, For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, but in this only, that they would not be obliged to them for any kindness? which may a little serve to illustrate that of Luke 10:33, &c.; and it does very well agree with the matter in hand.
For the words which we are handling seem to be what the woman speaks, and not what the evangelist: and they spokescoptically, or with sarcasm; "Dost thou, who art a Jew, ask water of me, who am a Samaritan?" for you Jews despise all courtesy of the Samaritans to receive the least kindness of them; and do you ask me for water?
11. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
[From whence then hast thou that living water?] Living water; the woman mistakes our Saviour's meaning, as if he intended only what was usually expressed by bubbling, or springing waters. So that when our Saviour talks to her of a water that he had to give, which whosoever should drink of should thirst no more, the woman [laughs in her sleeve indeed, and] with all the scorn that could be, saith, "Sir, pray give me of this water, that I may never have any thirst, or give myself the trouble of coming hither to draw"; for so we ought to conceive of her answer to be rather by way of scoff, not supplication.
18. For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
[Thou hast had five husbands, &c.] Christ stops her fleering mouth with the dung of her own unchaste conversation, charging her with that infamous sort of life she had hitherto lived: q.d. "Thou, for thy impudent adulteries, hast suffered divorce from five husbands already; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband, but an adulterer."
The Cuthites do not understand the law about betrothings and divorcings. They had their customs of affiancing and divorcing; and perhaps by how much the less accurate they were about their divorces, (I mean with respect to the Jewish rules,) the nearer they might come to the first institution of Moses, who allowed no divorces but in the case of adultery. That this woman was dismissed from her husbands for these infamous faults of hers, seems evident, partly, from the extraordinary number of husbands, partly, that our Saviour mentions her husbands, as well as him that then lived adulterously with her: as if he would intimate, that she lived dishonestly under her husbands, as well as with this man.
20. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
[Worshipped in this mountain.] The story of that Temple on Gerizim, out of Josephus and others, is very well known. It was built in emulation and envy to that at Jerusalem, as of old were Dan and Bethel. Hence that irreconcilable hatred between the two nations, and the apostasy of divers Jews. The Samaritans attributed a certain holiness to the mountain, even after the Temple had been destroyed; but for what reason, they themselves could not well tell. However, for the defence of it, the Samaritan text hath notoriously falsified the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 27:4: for whereas the Hebrew hath it, "Ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal"; the Samaritan text and version hath it in mount Gerizim; as I have elsewhere observed.
"R. Jochanan going to Jerusalem to pray, he passed by that mountain [Gerizim]. A certain Samaritan seeing him, asked him, 'Whither goest thou?' 'I am,' saith he, 'going to Jerusalem to pray.' To whom the Samaritan, 'Were it not better for thee to pray in this holy mountain, than in that cursed house?' 'Whence comes this mountain to be so holy?' saith he: 'Because (saith the other) it was not overflown by the waters of the deluge.'" A doughty reason indeed!
"R. Ismael, the son of R. Joseph, going to Jerusalem to pray, passed by that mountain. A certain Samaritan meeting him, asks, 'Where art thou going?' 'I am going,' saith he, 'to Jerusalem, to pray.' Saith the other, 'Were it not better for thee to pray in this blessed mountain, than in that cursed place?' Saith the R., 'I will tell you what you are like; you are like a dog greedy after carrion: so you when you know that idols are hid under this mountain, as it is said, And Jacob hid them, you are acted with a greedy desire after them.' They said amongst themselves, 'Seeing he knows there are idols hidden in this mountain, he will come in the night and steal them away.' And they consulted together to have killed him, but he, getting up in the night, stole away."
Somewhat akin to this Temple on Gerizim was that built by Onias in Egypt, the story of which you have in Josephus, and the description of it. Of this Temple also the Gemarists discourse, from whom we will borrow a few things.
"Simeon the just dying, said, 'Onias my son shall minister in my stead.' For this, his brother Shimei, being older than he by two years and a half, grew very envious. He saith to his brother, 'Come hither, and I will teach thee the rule and way of ministering.' So he puts him on a leathern garment and girds him, and then setting him by the altar, cries out to his brethren the priests, 'See here what this man hath vowed, and does accordingly perform to his wife, viz., that whenever he ministered in the high priesthood, he would put on her stomacher [pectorale], and be girt about with her girdle.'" The Gloss upon the place saith the leathern garment, but Aruch, from Avodah Zarah, saith the stomacher of the heart. What the word in this place should mean is plain enough from the story itself. Shimei, that he might render his brother both ridiculous and odious to the rest of the priests, persuades him to perform his services with his wife's stomacher, instead of the breastplate of the high priest, and her girdle, instead of that curious one they were wont to be girt with, &c.
The story goes on: "His brethren the priests, upon this, contrive his death; but he, escaping their hands, fled into Alexandria of Egypt; and there building an altar, offered idolatrous sacrifices upon it. These are the words of Meir: but R. Judah tells him the thing was not so: for Onias did not own his brother Shimei to be two years and a half older than himself; but envying him, told him, 'Come, and I will teach thee the rule and method of thy ministry.'" And so, as R. Judah relates the matter, the tables are turned, the whole scene altered; so that Onias persuades his brother Shimei to put on his wife's stomacher, and gird himself with her girdle; and for that reason the priests do plot the death of Shimei. "But when he had declared the whole matter as it was indeed, then they designed to kill Onias. He therefore flying into Alexandria in Egypt, builds there an altar, and offered sacrifices upon it to the name of the Lord, according as it is said, In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt."
And now it is at the reader's choice to determine which of these two Temples, that in Egypt, or this upon Gerizim, is built upon the best foundation; the one, by a fugitive priest, under pretence of a divine prophecy; the other, by a fugitive priest too, under pretence that that mount was the mount upon which the blessings had been pronounced. Let the Jews speak for themselves, whether they believed that Onias, with pure regard to that prophecy, did build his Temple in Egypt; and let every wise man laugh at those that do thus persuade themselves. However, this is certain, they had universally much more favourable thoughts of that in Egypt than of this upon mount Gerizim. Hence that passage in the place before quoted: "If any one say, 'I devote a whole burnt offering,' let him offer it in the Temple at Jerusalem; for if he offer it in the Temple of Onias, he doth not perform his vow. But if any one say, 'I devote a whole burnt offering for the Temple of Onias, though he ought to offer it in the Temple at Jerusalem, yet if he offer it in the Temple of Onias, he acquits himself.' R. Simeon saith, It is no burnt offering. Moreover, if any one shall say, 'I vow myself to be a Nazarite,' let him shave himself in the Temple at Jerusalem; for if he be shaven in the Temple of Onias, he doth not perform his vow. But if he should say, 'I vow myself a Nazarite, so that I may be shaven in the Temple of Onias,' and he do shave himself there, he is a Nazarite."
[And ye say, that in Jerusalem, &c.] What! did not the Samaritans themselves confess that Jerusalem was the place appointed by God himself for his worship? No doubt they could not be ignorant of the Temple which Solomon had built; nor did they believe but that from the times of David and Solomon God had fixed his name and residence at Jerusalem. And as to their preferring their Temple on Gerizim before that in Jerusalem notwithstanding all this, it is probable their boldness and emulation might take its rise from hence, viz., they saw the second Temple falling so short of its ancient and primitive glory; they observed that the divine presence over the ark, the ark itself, the cherubims, the Urim and Thummim, the spirit of prophecy, &c., were no more in that place.
25. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
[I know that Messias cometh.] If the Samaritans rejected all the books of the Old Testament excepting the five Books of Moses, it may be a question whence this woman should know the name of Messias; for that is not to be found throughout the whole Pentateuch. From whence also may further arise a twofold inquiry more; one, whether the Samaritans were of the same opinion with the Sadducees? the other, whether those Sadducees that lived amongst the Jews rejected all the books of the Old Testament, excepting those of Moses only? Perhaps they might so reject them as to forbid their being read in their synagogues, in the same manner as the Jews rejected the Hagiographa from being read in the synagogues: but the question is, whether they did not use them, read them, and believe them, as the Jews did those holy writings?
"They snatch all the sacred books out of the fire [though on the sabbath day], whether they read or whether they read them not." The Gloss is, "Whether they read them, that is, the Prophets; which they are wont to read in their synagogues on the sabbath day; or whether they read them not, that is, the Hagiographa." It is likely that the Sadducees and Samaritans (I mean those Samaritans that lived about our Saviour's time and before) might disown the Prophets and the holy writings much after the same manner, and no more. For is it at all probable that they were either ignorant of the histories of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, and the writings of the prophets, or that they accounted them tales and of no value? There were some amongst the Samaritans, as Eulogius in Photius tells us, who had an opinion, that "Joshua the son of Nun was that prophet of whom Moses spake, that God would raise up to them out of their brethren like to him." Do we think then that the history and Book of Joshua were unknown or disowned by them? However, I cannot omit, without some remarks, some few passages we meet with in Sanhedrim, fol. 90. 2:
"The Sadducees asked Rabban Gamaliel, Whence he could prove it, that God would raise the dead? 'From the Law (saith he), and from the Prophets, and from the holy writings.' And accordingly he allegeth his proofs out of each book, which, I hope, may not be very tedious to the reader to take notice of in this place: I prove it out of the Law, where it is written, And the Lord said to Moses, Deuteronomy 31:16, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise again. They say, Probably it is meant This people will rise up and go a whoring. I prove it out of the Prophets, according as it is written, Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise: awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, Isaiah 26:19. But, perhaps (say they), this may be meant of those dead which Ezekiel raised. I prove it out of the Hagiographa, according as it is written, The roof of thy mouth is like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak, Canticles 7:9. But perhaps (say they), it is meant, they move their lips in the world." I add, say they, though it is not, I confess, in the Gemarist's text, because reason and sense make it evident that this ought to be added, and the Gloss confirms it.
Now it would have been a most absurd thing for Gamaliel to have offered any proofs of the resurrection, either out of the Prophets, or the Hagiographa against the Sadducees, if those books had been either not known or of no authority amongst them...
But further, the Book of Ezekiel is quoted by a Samaritan in this story: "Rabban Jonathan went to Neapolis (i.e. Sychar) of the Samaritans. A certain Samaritan was in his company. When they came to Mount Gerizim, the Samaritan saith unto him, 'How comes it to pass that we are gotten to this holy mountain?' R. Jonathan saith, 'How comes this mountain to be holy?' The Samaritan answered, Because it was never plagued with the waters of the deluge. Saith R. Jonathan, 'How prove you this?' The Samaritan answered, 'Is it not written, Son of man, say unto her, Thou art the land not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation, Ezekiel 22:24.' 'If it were so (saith R. Jonathan), then should the Lord have commanded Noah to have gone up into this mountain, and not have built himself an ark.'" We also meet with a Sadducee quoting the prophet Amos: "A certain Sadducee said to a certain Rabbi, 'He that created the hills did not make a spirit or the wind: and he that created the wind did not make the hills: for it is written, Behold, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind, Amos 5:13.' The Rabbi answered, 'Thou fool, go on but to the end of the verse, and thou wilt find the Lord of hosts is his name.'"
That passage also is remarkable: "They do not snatch the books and volumes of the heretics from the flames; but they may be burnt where they are." The Gloss is, "The books of heretics, i.e. idolaters [or those that use any strange worship], who wrote out the Law, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings, for their own use in the Assyrian character and holy language." If by heretics the Sadducees are to be understood, as the latter Gloss would have it, then comparing it with the former, they had the Law, Prophets, and the Holy Writings writ in the Assyrian character in the holy language.
If by heretics the Christians are understood, as in the former Gloss (for as to the Gentiles, there is no room to understand it of them in this place), then we see what copies of the Old Testament the Hebrew Christians anciently had in use.
It may be objected, That if the Sadducees admitted the books of the Prophets and the Holy Writings with this exception only, that they had them not read in their synagogues, how came they to deny the resurrection from the dead, when it is so plainly asserted in those books?
To this may be answered, That this argument might have something in it, if it had not been one fundamental of the Sadducees' faith, that no article in religion ought to be admitted that cannot be made out plainly from the five books of Moses. Compare this with that of the Pharisees; "However any person may acknowledge the resurrection from the dead, yet if he does not own that there is some indication of it in the law, he denies a fundamental." So that whereas Moses seemed not, clearly and in terminis, to express himself as to the resurrection, the Sadducees would not admit it as an article of their faith, though something like it may have occurred in the Prophets, so long as those expressions in the Prophets may be turned to some other sense, either historical or allegorical. But if they had apprehended any thing plain and express in the books of Moses, the Prophets also asserting and illustrating the same thing, I cannot see why we should not believe they were received by them.
Something of this kind is the passage now in hand, where we find the Samaritan woman using the word Messias; which though it is not to be met with in the books of Moses, yet Moses having clearly spoken of his coming, whom the Prophets afterward signalized by the name of the Messias; this foundation being laid, the Sadducees and the Samaritans do not stick to speak of him in the same manner, and under the same title, wherein the Prophets had mentioned him. But then what kind of conceptions they had of the person, kingdom, and days of the Messiah, whether they expected the forerunner Elias, or the resurrection of the dead at his coming, as the scribes and Pharisees did, is scarcely credible.
27. And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
[They marvelled that he talked with the woman.] They marvel he should talk with a woman, much more with a Samaritan woman. "R. Jose the Galilean being upon a journey [I am much mistaken if it should not be writ] found Berurea in the way: to whom he said, What way must we go to Lydda? She answered, 'O thou foolish Galilean, have not the wise men taught Do not multiply discourse with a woman? Thou oughtest only to have said Which way to Lydda?'"
Upon what occasion this woman should be called Berurea is not our business at present to inquire: but that the reader may know something of her, she was the wife of R. Meir, a learned woman, and a teacher herself: "His wife Berurea was a wise woman, of whom many things are related in Avodah Zarah." Another story we have of her; "Berurea found a certain scholar reading mutteringly, and spurned at him," &c.
"Samuel saith, They do not salute a woman at all." "A certain matron asked R. Eleazar, 'Why, when the sin of the golden calf was but one only, should it be punished with a threefold kind of death?' He answered, A woman ought not to be wise above her distaff. Saith Hyrcanus to him, 'Because you did not answer her a word out of the law, she will keep back from us three hundred measures of tithes yearly.' But he, Let the words of the law be burned rather than committed to women." "Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no, not with his own wife."
28. The women then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
[Left her waterpot.] It was kindly done to leave her waterpot behind her; that Jesus and his disciples, whom she now saw come up to him, might have wherewithal to drink.
29. Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
[Which told me all things that ever I did, &c.] This passage doth something agree with the Jewish notion about their Messiah's smelling:
"It is written, And he shall make him of quick scent or smell in the fear of the Lord, Isaiah 11:3. Rabba saith, He shall be of quick scent, and shall judge, as it is written, He shall not judge by the sight of his eyes, &c. Ben Coziba reigned two years and a half, and said to the Rabbins, 'I am the Messiah.' They say unto him, 'It is said of the Messiah, that he shall be of quick scent and shall judge: let us see if you can smell and judge': which when he could not do, they killed him."
The Samaritan woman perceived that Jesus had smelt out all her clandestine wickednesses, which she had perpetrated out of the view of men; for which very reason she argued it with herself, that this must be the Messiah. And by her report her fellow-citizens are encouraged to come and see him. They see him, hear him, invite him, receive and entertain him, and believe in him. Is it not probable, therefore, that they, as well as the Jews, might have expected the coming of the Messiah about this time? If so, whence should they learn it? from the Jews? or from the Book of Daniel?
35. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.
[There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest.] The beginning of the harvest [that is, the barley-harvest] was about the middle of the month Nisan. Consult Leviticus 23:10, &c., Deuteronomy 16:9.
"Half Tisri, all Marchesvan, and half Chisleu, is the seed time. Half Chisleu, whole Tebeth, and half Shebat, is the winter. Half Shebat, whole Adar, and half Nisan, is the winter solstice. Half Nisan, all Iyar, and half Sivan is the harvest. Half Sivan, all Tammuz, and half Ab, is the summer. Half Ab, all Elul, and half Tisri, is the great heat."
They sowed the wheat and spelt in the month Tisri, and Marchesvan, and so onward. Targum upon Ecclesiastes 11:2; "Give a good portion of thy seed to thy field in the month Tisri, and withhold thou not from sowing also in Chisleu."
They sowed barley in the months Shebat and Adar.
The lateward seed, or that which is hid and lieth long in the earth; "The wheat and the spelt which do not soon ripen, are sown in Marchesvan; the early seed, the barley, which soon ripens, is sown in Shebat and Adar."
"They sow seventy days before the Passover."
The barley, therefore, the hope of a harvest to come after four months, was not yet committed to the ground; and yet our Saviour saith, "Behold the fields are already white unto the harvest." Which thing being a little observed, will help to illustrate the words and design of our Lord. "Lift up your eyes (saith he) and look upon the fields," &c. pointing without doubt towards that numerous crowd of people, that at that time flocked towards him out of the city; q.d. "Behold, what a harvest of souls is here, where there had been no sowing beforehand."
Now let us but reckon the four months backward from the beginning of the barley-harvest, or the middle of the month Nisan, and we shall go back to the middle of the month Chisleu; which will fall in with the beginning of our December, or thereabout: whence it will be easy to conjecture what feast that was of which mention is made, chapter 5:1.
46. So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.
[A nobleman.] This nobleman, probably, might be some Herodian, such as we find mentioned, Matthew 22:16; not merely a servant or attendant upon Herod the tetrarch, who reigned at this time, but one devoted to Herod's family, out of principles of conscience and submission. For we have elsewhere shewn the controversy in that nation about the introducing of Herod the Great into the government, and whether there was not a spice of that quarrel in the differences of the Shammeans and the Hillelites, might be a matter worth our inquiry, but not in this place. But suppose this nobleman at present to have been an attendant upon Herod the tetrarch (setting aside that controversy); and then the words of our blessed Saviour, verse 48, "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe," may have this tendency and design in them: The Jews they required signs, 1 Corinthians 1:22; but Herod's court was especially to be charged with this curiosity, because they had heard John the Baptist, yea, even the tetrarch himself, with some kind of observance and veneration; and yet because John shewed no sign, "did no miracle," John 10:41, he was the easilier thrown into prison and not believed: for the story of his imprisonment immediately follows. Compare that passage with Luke 23:8.
[He must needs go through Samaria.] Josephus tells us, It was the custom for the Galileans, in their journeying to Jerusalem to their feasts, to go through Samaria.
Our countryman Biddulph describes the way which he himself travelled from Galilee to Jerusalem, anno Domini 1601: out of whom, for the reader's sake, I will borrow a few passages. He tells us, that on March 24 they rode near the sea of Galilee, and gives the computation of that sea to be in length about eight leagues and in breadth five. Now a league is three miles. After they had gone about seven miles, having the sea of Galilee on their left hands, they went up a hill, not very steep, but very pleasant; which (he saith) is said to be the hill mentioned John 6:3. [Although here indeed either I am mistaken or his guides deceived him; because that mountain was on the other side of the sea.]
However he tells us, that from the top of this hill they discerned Saphetta, the Jews' university. All the way they went was infinitely pleasant, the hills and dales all very fruitful: and that about two o'clock in the afternoon they came to a certain village called by the Arabians 'Inel Tyger,' i.e. 'The merchant's eye.' When they had taken some food and sleep, their mind leaped within them to go up mount Tabor, which was not far off. [I fear his guides deceived him here also concerning this mount.]
On the twenty-fifth of March they spent the whole day in traversing the pleasant fields of Bashan near the hill of Bashan. In the way they saw some rubbish of the tower of Gehazi, 2 Kings 5:24; and came to a town commonly called 'Jenine,' of old 'Engannim,' Joshua 15:34 [more truly, Good man, Joshua 19:21], distant from Tabor two-and-twenty miles; a place of gardens and waters, and places of pleasure. There they stayed all the next day, upon the occasion of a Turkish feast called 'Byram.' March 27, riding by Engannim they were twice in danger; once by thieves, dwelling hard by; another time by the Arabs, in a wood about twelve miles thence. That night they came to Sychar, a city of Samaria, mentioned John 4; distant from Engannim seven-and-twenty miles. They stayed there the next day. It is now called Napolis: Jacob's well is near it, the waters of it sweet as milk.
March 29, they went from Sychar towards Jerusalem; the nearer to which place they came, the more barren and unpleasant they found the soil. At length, coming to a large grove or wilderness full of trees and hills [perhaps this was mount Ephraim], from the top of the hill they saw the sea on the right hand, and little vessels upon it passing to Joppa. About three or four in the afternoon they came to a ruinous town called 'Beere,' of old (as was reported to them) 'Beer-sheba,' a great city [but more probably 'Beeroth,' mentioned Joshua 18:25]. It is said, that was the place where Christ's parents first missed him in their journey, Luke 2:44. They would have lodged there that night, being weary and hungry, and having spent their provision, but they could have nothing fit for themselves or their horses; and being from Jerusalem but ten miles, they went on; and after having travelled five or six miles, had a view of the city. Thus our countryman, a clergyman, tells us in his book.
This interposition of Samaria between Galilee and Judea must be remembered, when we read the borders and portions of the tribes set out, Ezekiel 48; where Manasseh and Ephraim (the country of Samaria) are bounded and set out as formerly, but must not be reckoned under the notion of Samaria, as they had been.
Necessity itself found, or made a way betwixt Judea and Galilee through Samaria; because, indeed, there was no other way they could go, unless a long way about, through the country beyond Jordan. Nor was there any reason why they should make any difficulty of going through Samaria, unless the hostility of the country. For,
"The country of the Cuthites is clean." So that without scruple they might gather of the fruits and products of it. "The gatherings of their waters are clean." So that a Jew might drink, or wash himself in them. "Their dwellings are clean." So that he might enter thereinto, eat or lodge there. "Their roads are clean." So that the dust of them did not defile a Jew's feet.
The method of the story in this place, by comparing it with other evangelists, may be thus put together: Herod had imprisoned John Baptist, under pretence of his growing too popular, and that the multitude of his followers increasing, tended to innovate. Our Saviour understanding this, and withal that the Sanhedrim had heard something of the increase of his disciples too, withdrew from Judea into Galilee, that he might be more remote from that kind of thunderbolt that St. John had been struck with.
5. Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
[Near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.] Genesis 48:22. Jacob had bought a piece of land of the children of Hamor for a hundred lambs, Genesis 33:19. But, after the slaughter of the Shechemites, he with his family being forced to retire to places more remote, viz., to Bethel, Bethlehem, and Hebron; the Amorites thrust themselves into possession, and he fain to regain it with his sword and bow.
6. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
[Now Jacob's well was there.] Of this well doth Jacob seem to speak in those last words of his about Joseph, Genesis 49:22: "Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well." For Joseph's offspring increased to a kingdom in Jeroboam, and that in Sychem, hard by Jacob's well...
[He sat thus.] He sat thus, as one wearied. The evangelist would let us know that Christ did not seemingly, or for fashion's sake, beg water of the Samaritan woman, but in good earnest, being urged to it by thirst and weariness. So 1 Kings 2:7; "Shew kindness to the sons of Barzillai," for so, that is, in a great deal of kindness, they came to me. Acts 7:8, "He gave him the covenant of circumcision," and so [being circumcised] "he begat Isaac."
8. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
[To buy meat.] If the disciples were gone into the city to buy food, how agrees this with verse 9, the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans? and with that rule of the Jews, "Let no Israelite eat one mouthful of any thing that is a Samaritan's; for if he eat but a little mouthful, he is as if he ate swine's flesh." A mouthful, that is, of nothing over which a blessing must be pronounced.
"Ezra, Zorobabel, and Joshua gathered together the whole congregation into the Temple of the Lord; and with three hundred priests, three hundred books of the law, and three hundred children, anathematized, shammatized, excommunicated the Samaritans, in the name of Jehovah, by a writing indented upon tables, and an anathema both of the upper and the lower house: 'Let no Israelite eat one morsel of any thing that is a Samaritan's; let no Samaritan become a proselyte to Israel; nor let them have a part in the resurrection of the dead.' And they sent this curse to all Israel that were in Babylon, who also themselves added their anathema to this," &c.
But Hierosol. Avodah Zara tells us, "R. Jacob Bar Acha, in the name of R. Lazar, saith, That the victuals of the Cuthites are allowed, if nothing of their wine or vinegar be mingled amongst them." Nay, further, we meet with this passage in Bab. Kiddushin; "The unleavened bread of the Cuthites is allowed, and by that a man may rightly enough keep the Passover." If the unleavened bread for the Passover may be had of the Samaritans, much more common bread. And grant that the Samaritans were to the Jews as heathens, yet was it lawful for the Jew to partake of the edibles of the Gentiles, if there was no suspicion that they had been any way polluted, nor been offered to idols; as may be largely made out from Maimonides in his treatise about forbidden meats. Which suspicion was altogether needless as to the Samaritans; because they and the Jews in a manner agreed upon the same things as clean or unclean, and they were very near as free from idolatry.
9. Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
[For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.] I. That translation, the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, which the French and English follow, seems to stretch the sense of the word beyond what it will well bear: for, 1. Granting the Samaritans were mere heathens, (which some of the Rabbins have affirmed,) yet did not this forbid the Jews having any kind of dealings with them; for they did not refuse merchandising with any of the Gentile nations whatever. See Nehemiah 13:16, &c. 2. But if the Samaritans were true proselytes, as R. Akibah asserts, or 'as the Israelites in all things,' as Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith of them; then much more might the Jews have dealing with them.
II. "It is lawful to eat the unleavened bread of the Samaritans, nor is there any suspicion as to their leavened bread neither. This is to be understood, if the Samaritan should knead it in the house of an Israelite." Now if the Samaritan may knead dough in an Israelite's house, it is evident the Israelite might use the Samaritan.
"An Israelite may circumcise a Cuthite; but a Cuthite may not circumcise an Israelite, because he is circumcised into the name of mount Gerizim. R. Josah saith, Let him circumcise him, and let him pass into the name of mount Gerizim till he departs this life." If therefore it was lawful for the Israelite to circumcise the Cuthite or Samaritan, and the Samaritan the Israelite, then the Jews had dealings with, or did use, the Samaritans...
"For three days before the feasts of the idolaters, it is forbidden [the Jews] either to give to or receive from them, to ask, or lend, or borrow of them": but for any other parts of the year it was not forbidden them. But as to the Samaritans, it was not permitted the Jews to borrow or receive any thing from them at any time gratis. Whereas it was lawful for the Jews to converse with the Samaritans, buy of them, use their labour, answer to their benedictions, 'Amen,' as we find in Beracoth, lodge in their towns, Luke 9:52, I would fain know in what sense, after all this, can it be said, For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, but in this only, that they would not be obliged to them for any kindness? which may a little serve to illustrate that of Luke 10:33, &c.; and it does very well agree with the matter in hand.
For the words which we are handling seem to be what the woman speaks, and not what the evangelist: and they spokescoptically, or with sarcasm; "Dost thou, who art a Jew, ask water of me, who am a Samaritan?" for you Jews despise all courtesy of the Samaritans to receive the least kindness of them; and do you ask me for water?
11. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
[From whence then hast thou that living water?] Living water; the woman mistakes our Saviour's meaning, as if he intended only what was usually expressed by bubbling, or springing waters. So that when our Saviour talks to her of a water that he had to give, which whosoever should drink of should thirst no more, the woman [laughs in her sleeve indeed, and] with all the scorn that could be, saith, "Sir, pray give me of this water, that I may never have any thirst, or give myself the trouble of coming hither to draw"; for so we ought to conceive of her answer to be rather by way of scoff, not supplication.
18. For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
[Thou hast had five husbands, &c.] Christ stops her fleering mouth with the dung of her own unchaste conversation, charging her with that infamous sort of life she had hitherto lived: q.d. "Thou, for thy impudent adulteries, hast suffered divorce from five husbands already; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband, but an adulterer."
The Cuthites do not understand the law about betrothings and divorcings. They had their customs of affiancing and divorcing; and perhaps by how much the less accurate they were about their divorces, (I mean with respect to the Jewish rules,) the nearer they might come to the first institution of Moses, who allowed no divorces but in the case of adultery. That this woman was dismissed from her husbands for these infamous faults of hers, seems evident, partly, from the extraordinary number of husbands, partly, that our Saviour mentions her husbands, as well as him that then lived adulterously with her: as if he would intimate, that she lived dishonestly under her husbands, as well as with this man.
20. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
[Worshipped in this mountain.] The story of that Temple on Gerizim, out of Josephus and others, is very well known. It was built in emulation and envy to that at Jerusalem, as of old were Dan and Bethel. Hence that irreconcilable hatred between the two nations, and the apostasy of divers Jews. The Samaritans attributed a certain holiness to the mountain, even after the Temple had been destroyed; but for what reason, they themselves could not well tell. However, for the defence of it, the Samaritan text hath notoriously falsified the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 27:4: for whereas the Hebrew hath it, "Ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal"; the Samaritan text and version hath it in mount Gerizim; as I have elsewhere observed.
"R. Jochanan going to Jerusalem to pray, he passed by that mountain [Gerizim]. A certain Samaritan seeing him, asked him, 'Whither goest thou?' 'I am,' saith he, 'going to Jerusalem to pray.' To whom the Samaritan, 'Were it not better for thee to pray in this holy mountain, than in that cursed house?' 'Whence comes this mountain to be so holy?' saith he: 'Because (saith the other) it was not overflown by the waters of the deluge.'" A doughty reason indeed!
"R. Ismael, the son of R. Joseph, going to Jerusalem to pray, passed by that mountain. A certain Samaritan meeting him, asks, 'Where art thou going?' 'I am going,' saith he, 'to Jerusalem, to pray.' Saith the other, 'Were it not better for thee to pray in this blessed mountain, than in that cursed place?' Saith the R., 'I will tell you what you are like; you are like a dog greedy after carrion: so you when you know that idols are hid under this mountain, as it is said, And Jacob hid them, you are acted with a greedy desire after them.' They said amongst themselves, 'Seeing he knows there are idols hidden in this mountain, he will come in the night and steal them away.' And they consulted together to have killed him, but he, getting up in the night, stole away."
Somewhat akin to this Temple on Gerizim was that built by Onias in Egypt, the story of which you have in Josephus, and the description of it. Of this Temple also the Gemarists discourse, from whom we will borrow a few things.
"Simeon the just dying, said, 'Onias my son shall minister in my stead.' For this, his brother Shimei, being older than he by two years and a half, grew very envious. He saith to his brother, 'Come hither, and I will teach thee the rule and way of ministering.' So he puts him on a leathern garment and girds him, and then setting him by the altar, cries out to his brethren the priests, 'See here what this man hath vowed, and does accordingly perform to his wife, viz., that whenever he ministered in the high priesthood, he would put on her stomacher [pectorale], and be girt about with her girdle.'" The Gloss upon the place saith the leathern garment, but Aruch, from Avodah Zarah, saith the stomacher of the heart. What the word in this place should mean is plain enough from the story itself. Shimei, that he might render his brother both ridiculous and odious to the rest of the priests, persuades him to perform his services with his wife's stomacher, instead of the breastplate of the high priest, and her girdle, instead of that curious one they were wont to be girt with, &c.
The story goes on: "His brethren the priests, upon this, contrive his death; but he, escaping their hands, fled into Alexandria of Egypt; and there building an altar, offered idolatrous sacrifices upon it. These are the words of Meir: but R. Judah tells him the thing was not so: for Onias did not own his brother Shimei to be two years and a half older than himself; but envying him, told him, 'Come, and I will teach thee the rule and method of thy ministry.'" And so, as R. Judah relates the matter, the tables are turned, the whole scene altered; so that Onias persuades his brother Shimei to put on his wife's stomacher, and gird himself with her girdle; and for that reason the priests do plot the death of Shimei. "But when he had declared the whole matter as it was indeed, then they designed to kill Onias. He therefore flying into Alexandria in Egypt, builds there an altar, and offered sacrifices upon it to the name of the Lord, according as it is said, In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt."
And now it is at the reader's choice to determine which of these two Temples, that in Egypt, or this upon Gerizim, is built upon the best foundation; the one, by a fugitive priest, under pretence of a divine prophecy; the other, by a fugitive priest too, under pretence that that mount was the mount upon which the blessings had been pronounced. Let the Jews speak for themselves, whether they believed that Onias, with pure regard to that prophecy, did build his Temple in Egypt; and let every wise man laugh at those that do thus persuade themselves. However, this is certain, they had universally much more favourable thoughts of that in Egypt than of this upon mount Gerizim. Hence that passage in the place before quoted: "If any one say, 'I devote a whole burnt offering,' let him offer it in the Temple at Jerusalem; for if he offer it in the Temple of Onias, he doth not perform his vow. But if any one say, 'I devote a whole burnt offering for the Temple of Onias, though he ought to offer it in the Temple at Jerusalem, yet if he offer it in the Temple of Onias, he acquits himself.' R. Simeon saith, It is no burnt offering. Moreover, if any one shall say, 'I vow myself to be a Nazarite,' let him shave himself in the Temple at Jerusalem; for if he be shaven in the Temple of Onias, he doth not perform his vow. But if he should say, 'I vow myself a Nazarite, so that I may be shaven in the Temple of Onias,' and he do shave himself there, he is a Nazarite."
[And ye say, that in Jerusalem, &c.] What! did not the Samaritans themselves confess that Jerusalem was the place appointed by God himself for his worship? No doubt they could not be ignorant of the Temple which Solomon had built; nor did they believe but that from the times of David and Solomon God had fixed his name and residence at Jerusalem. And as to their preferring their Temple on Gerizim before that in Jerusalem notwithstanding all this, it is probable their boldness and emulation might take its rise from hence, viz., they saw the second Temple falling so short of its ancient and primitive glory; they observed that the divine presence over the ark, the ark itself, the cherubims, the Urim and Thummim, the spirit of prophecy, &c., were no more in that place.
25. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
[I know that Messias cometh.] If the Samaritans rejected all the books of the Old Testament excepting the five Books of Moses, it may be a question whence this woman should know the name of Messias; for that is not to be found throughout the whole Pentateuch. From whence also may further arise a twofold inquiry more; one, whether the Samaritans were of the same opinion with the Sadducees? the other, whether those Sadducees that lived amongst the Jews rejected all the books of the Old Testament, excepting those of Moses only? Perhaps they might so reject them as to forbid their being read in their synagogues, in the same manner as the Jews rejected the Hagiographa from being read in the synagogues: but the question is, whether they did not use them, read them, and believe them, as the Jews did those holy writings?
"They snatch all the sacred books out of the fire [though on the sabbath day], whether they read or whether they read them not." The Gloss is, "Whether they read them, that is, the Prophets; which they are wont to read in their synagogues on the sabbath day; or whether they read them not, that is, the Hagiographa." It is likely that the Sadducees and Samaritans (I mean those Samaritans that lived about our Saviour's time and before) might disown the Prophets and the holy writings much after the same manner, and no more. For is it at all probable that they were either ignorant of the histories of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Kings, and the writings of the prophets, or that they accounted them tales and of no value? There were some amongst the Samaritans, as Eulogius in Photius tells us, who had an opinion, that "Joshua the son of Nun was that prophet of whom Moses spake, that God would raise up to them out of their brethren like to him." Do we think then that the history and Book of Joshua were unknown or disowned by them? However, I cannot omit, without some remarks, some few passages we meet with in Sanhedrim, fol. 90. 2:
"The Sadducees asked Rabban Gamaliel, Whence he could prove it, that God would raise the dead? 'From the Law (saith he), and from the Prophets, and from the holy writings.' And accordingly he allegeth his proofs out of each book, which, I hope, may not be very tedious to the reader to take notice of in this place: I prove it out of the Law, where it is written, And the Lord said to Moses, Deuteronomy 31:16, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise again. They say, Probably it is meant This people will rise up and go a whoring. I prove it out of the Prophets, according as it is written, Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise: awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, Isaiah 26:19. But, perhaps (say they), this may be meant of those dead which Ezekiel raised. I prove it out of the Hagiographa, according as it is written, The roof of thy mouth is like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak, Canticles 7:9. But perhaps (say they), it is meant, they move their lips in the world." I add, say they, though it is not, I confess, in the Gemarist's text, because reason and sense make it evident that this ought to be added, and the Gloss confirms it.
Now it would have been a most absurd thing for Gamaliel to have offered any proofs of the resurrection, either out of the Prophets, or the Hagiographa against the Sadducees, if those books had been either not known or of no authority amongst them...
But further, the Book of Ezekiel is quoted by a Samaritan in this story: "Rabban Jonathan went to Neapolis (i.e. Sychar) of the Samaritans. A certain Samaritan was in his company. When they came to Mount Gerizim, the Samaritan saith unto him, 'How comes it to pass that we are gotten to this holy mountain?' R. Jonathan saith, 'How comes this mountain to be holy?' The Samaritan answered, Because it was never plagued with the waters of the deluge. Saith R. Jonathan, 'How prove you this?' The Samaritan answered, 'Is it not written, Son of man, say unto her, Thou art the land not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation, Ezekiel 22:24.' 'If it were so (saith R. Jonathan), then should the Lord have commanded Noah to have gone up into this mountain, and not have built himself an ark.'" We also meet with a Sadducee quoting the prophet Amos: "A certain Sadducee said to a certain Rabbi, 'He that created the hills did not make a spirit or the wind: and he that created the wind did not make the hills: for it is written, Behold, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind, Amos 5:13.' The Rabbi answered, 'Thou fool, go on but to the end of the verse, and thou wilt find the Lord of hosts is his name.'"
That passage also is remarkable: "They do not snatch the books and volumes of the heretics from the flames; but they may be burnt where they are." The Gloss is, "The books of heretics, i.e. idolaters [or those that use any strange worship], who wrote out the Law, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings, for their own use in the Assyrian character and holy language." If by heretics the Sadducees are to be understood, as the latter Gloss would have it, then comparing it with the former, they had the Law, Prophets, and the Holy Writings writ in the Assyrian character in the holy language.
If by heretics the Christians are understood, as in the former Gloss (for as to the Gentiles, there is no room to understand it of them in this place), then we see what copies of the Old Testament the Hebrew Christians anciently had in use.
It may be objected, That if the Sadducees admitted the books of the Prophets and the Holy Writings with this exception only, that they had them not read in their synagogues, how came they to deny the resurrection from the dead, when it is so plainly asserted in those books?
To this may be answered, That this argument might have something in it, if it had not been one fundamental of the Sadducees' faith, that no article in religion ought to be admitted that cannot be made out plainly from the five books of Moses. Compare this with that of the Pharisees; "However any person may acknowledge the resurrection from the dead, yet if he does not own that there is some indication of it in the law, he denies a fundamental." So that whereas Moses seemed not, clearly and in terminis, to express himself as to the resurrection, the Sadducees would not admit it as an article of their faith, though something like it may have occurred in the Prophets, so long as those expressions in the Prophets may be turned to some other sense, either historical or allegorical. But if they had apprehended any thing plain and express in the books of Moses, the Prophets also asserting and illustrating the same thing, I cannot see why we should not believe they were received by them.
Something of this kind is the passage now in hand, where we find the Samaritan woman using the word Messias; which though it is not to be met with in the books of Moses, yet Moses having clearly spoken of his coming, whom the Prophets afterward signalized by the name of the Messias; this foundation being laid, the Sadducees and the Samaritans do not stick to speak of him in the same manner, and under the same title, wherein the Prophets had mentioned him. But then what kind of conceptions they had of the person, kingdom, and days of the Messiah, whether they expected the forerunner Elias, or the resurrection of the dead at his coming, as the scribes and Pharisees did, is scarcely credible.
27. And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
[They marvelled that he talked with the woman.] They marvel he should talk with a woman, much more with a Samaritan woman. "R. Jose the Galilean being upon a journey [I am much mistaken if it should not be writ] found Berurea in the way: to whom he said, What way must we go to Lydda? She answered, 'O thou foolish Galilean, have not the wise men taught Do not multiply discourse with a woman? Thou oughtest only to have said Which way to Lydda?'"
Upon what occasion this woman should be called Berurea is not our business at present to inquire: but that the reader may know something of her, she was the wife of R. Meir, a learned woman, and a teacher herself: "His wife Berurea was a wise woman, of whom many things are related in Avodah Zarah." Another story we have of her; "Berurea found a certain scholar reading mutteringly, and spurned at him," &c.
"Samuel saith, They do not salute a woman at all." "A certain matron asked R. Eleazar, 'Why, when the sin of the golden calf was but one only, should it be punished with a threefold kind of death?' He answered, A woman ought not to be wise above her distaff. Saith Hyrcanus to him, 'Because you did not answer her a word out of the law, she will keep back from us three hundred measures of tithes yearly.' But he, Let the words of the law be burned rather than committed to women." "Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no, not with his own wife."
28. The women then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
[Left her waterpot.] It was kindly done to leave her waterpot behind her; that Jesus and his disciples, whom she now saw come up to him, might have wherewithal to drink.
29. Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
[Which told me all things that ever I did, &c.] This passage doth something agree with the Jewish notion about their Messiah's smelling:
"It is written, And he shall make him of quick scent or smell in the fear of the Lord, Isaiah 11:3. Rabba saith, He shall be of quick scent, and shall judge, as it is written, He shall not judge by the sight of his eyes, &c. Ben Coziba reigned two years and a half, and said to the Rabbins, 'I am the Messiah.' They say unto him, 'It is said of the Messiah, that he shall be of quick scent and shall judge: let us see if you can smell and judge': which when he could not do, they killed him."
The Samaritan woman perceived that Jesus had smelt out all her clandestine wickednesses, which she had perpetrated out of the view of men; for which very reason she argued it with herself, that this must be the Messiah. And by her report her fellow-citizens are encouraged to come and see him. They see him, hear him, invite him, receive and entertain him, and believe in him. Is it not probable, therefore, that they, as well as the Jews, might have expected the coming of the Messiah about this time? If so, whence should they learn it? from the Jews? or from the Book of Daniel?
35. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.
[There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest.] The beginning of the harvest [that is, the barley-harvest] was about the middle of the month Nisan. Consult Leviticus 23:10, &c., Deuteronomy 16:9.
"Half Tisri, all Marchesvan, and half Chisleu, is the seed time. Half Chisleu, whole Tebeth, and half Shebat, is the winter. Half Shebat, whole Adar, and half Nisan, is the winter solstice. Half Nisan, all Iyar, and half Sivan is the harvest. Half Sivan, all Tammuz, and half Ab, is the summer. Half Ab, all Elul, and half Tisri, is the great heat."
They sowed the wheat and spelt in the month Tisri, and Marchesvan, and so onward. Targum upon Ecclesiastes 11:2; "Give a good portion of thy seed to thy field in the month Tisri, and withhold thou not from sowing also in Chisleu."
They sowed barley in the months Shebat and Adar.
The lateward seed, or that which is hid and lieth long in the earth; "The wheat and the spelt which do not soon ripen, are sown in Marchesvan; the early seed, the barley, which soon ripens, is sown in Shebat and Adar."
"They sow seventy days before the Passover."
The barley, therefore, the hope of a harvest to come after four months, was not yet committed to the ground; and yet our Saviour saith, "Behold the fields are already white unto the harvest." Which thing being a little observed, will help to illustrate the words and design of our Lord. "Lift up your eyes (saith he) and look upon the fields," &c. pointing without doubt towards that numerous crowd of people, that at that time flocked towards him out of the city; q.d. "Behold, what a harvest of souls is here, where there had been no sowing beforehand."
Now let us but reckon the four months backward from the beginning of the barley-harvest, or the middle of the month Nisan, and we shall go back to the middle of the month Chisleu; which will fall in with the beginning of our December, or thereabout: whence it will be easy to conjecture what feast that was of which mention is made, chapter 5:1.
46. So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.
[A nobleman.] This nobleman, probably, might be some Herodian, such as we find mentioned, Matthew 22:16; not merely a servant or attendant upon Herod the tetrarch, who reigned at this time, but one devoted to Herod's family, out of principles of conscience and submission. For we have elsewhere shewn the controversy in that nation about the introducing of Herod the Great into the government, and whether there was not a spice of that quarrel in the differences of the Shammeans and the Hillelites, might be a matter worth our inquiry, but not in this place. But suppose this nobleman at present to have been an attendant upon Herod the tetrarch (setting aside that controversy); and then the words of our blessed Saviour, verse 48, "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe," may have this tendency and design in them: The Jews they required signs, 1 Corinthians 1:22; but Herod's court was especially to be charged with this curiosity, because they had heard John the Baptist, yea, even the tetrarch himself, with some kind of observance and veneration; and yet because John shewed no sign, "did no miracle," John 10:41, he was the easilier thrown into prison and not believed: for the story of his imprisonment immediately follows. Compare that passage with Luke 23:8.
John 5
1. After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
[After this there was a feast of the Jews.] The other evangelists speak but sparingly of Christ's acts in Judea; this of ours something more copiously. They mention nothing of the Passovers from his baptism to his death, excepting the very last; but St. John points at them all. The first he speaks of chapter 2:13; the third, chapter 6:4; the fourth, chapter 13:1; and the second, in this place. It is true he does not call it by the name of the Passover here, but only a feast in general. However, the words of our Saviour mentioned above, chapter 4:35, do give some kind of light into this matter.
2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
[In the Hebrew tongue.] That is, in the language beyond Euphrates, or the Chaldean.
Aruch: that is, the language of those beyond the flood.
If the Holy Books be written in the Egyptian, or Medes', or Hebrew language. Gloss, In the Hebrew, that is, the language of those beyond Euphrates.
The Hebrew writing is that of those beyond the river.
So that by in the Hebrew tongue they mean the Chaldee language, which, from their return out of Babylon, had been their mother-tongue; and they call it "the language of those beyond Euphrates" (although used also in common with the Syrians on this side Euphrates), that, with respect to the Jews, they might distinguish it from the ancient holy tongue; q.d. "not the tongue they used before they went into captivity, but that which they brought along with them from beyond Euphrates."
The Jews to whom this was the mother-tongue were called Hebrews; and from thence are distinguished from the Hellenists; which every one knows. Whence St. Paul should call himself a Hebrew, 2 Corinthians 11:22, when he was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, might deserve our consideration.
[Having five porches.] It mightily obtains amongst some, that in Bethesda the sacrifices were washed before they offered them: but here I am a little at a stand. For,
I. It is very difficult proving that the sacrifices were washed at all either here or in any place else, before they were offered. The Holy Scriptures are wholly silent as to any such thing; nor, as far as I have yet found, do the traditional writings speak of it. It is confessed, the entrails were washed after the beast had been slain; and for this service there was set apart in the very Temple the washing-room. But for their bodies, their skins, or backs, whether they were washed before they were slain, is justly questionable.
II. Amongst all the blemishes and defects whereby the beast was rendered unfit for sacrifice, we do not read that this was ever reckoned, "that they had not been washed." Do we believe that Abraham washed the ram caught in thicket, Genesis 22, before he sacrificed it? It is said, indeed, "that he took it and wiped it. But this was after he had taken off the skin. He took it, and taking off the skin, he said, 'Behold this, O Lord, as if the skin of thy servant Isaac was taken off before thee.' He wiped it [Gloss, he wiped it with a sponge], and said, 'Behold this, as if Isaac was wiped.' He burnt it, and said," &c.
And let that be well considered in Siphra, fol. 18. 1, where a dispute is had upon those words, Leviticus 6:27; "If the blood of the sacrifice for sin be sprinkled upon a garment, &c. When the discourse is of a garment, I would understand it of nothing but a garment. Whence is to be added, the skin when it is pulled off. The text saith, 'Upon whatsoever the blood shall be sprinkled, ye shall wash.' Perhaps, therefore, one may add the skin before it is pulled off. The text saith, a garment: as a garment that is capable of uncleanness, so whatsoever is capable of uncleanness. Except the skin before it be pulled off. They are the words of R. Judah." Mark, the skin as yet cleaving to the beast's back, and not flayed off, is not capable of uncleanness.
I. I would therefore judge rather, that men, and not beasts, were washed in the pool of Bethesda. I mean the unclean, that by washing they might be purified. For whoever considers the numbers of the unclean that did every day stand in need of being washed, and whoever would a little turn over the Talmudic treatises about purifications, and the gatherings of waters for those purposes, might easily persuade himself that both Bethesda, and all the other pools in Jerusalem, did serve rather for the washing of men, and not of beasts.
I would further judge, that the Syriac interpreter, when he renders that passage, "There was at Jerusalem a certain place of baptistery," that he intended rather the washing unclean person than beasts.
II. "There was not any like to Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, under the second Temple. He one day struck his foot against a dead tortoise, and went down to Siloam, where, breaking all the little particles of hail, he washed himself......This was on the shortest day in winter, the tenth of the month Tebeth."
I do not concern myself for the truth of this story; but must take notice what he hints that telleth it; viz. that in such a case men were wont to wash themselves in Siloam, not the fountain, but the pool.
"Simeon Sicuensis dug wells, cisterns, and caves in Jerusalem. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai saith to him, 'If a woman should come to thee, and ask thee about her menstrua, thou sayest to her, Dip thyself in this well, for the waters thereof will purify.'"
III. Those five porches, therefore, seem to be the several entrances by which the unclean went down into the waters to be washed; and in which, before washing, they might lay up their clothes, and after it put them on again, being there always protected from the rain. And perhaps they had their different entrances and descents according to the different sorts of uncleanness, that all those that were one and the same way defiled should have one and the same entrance and descent into the pool. That this was the first design and use of these porches I do not at all doubt, though afterward there was another use for them brought in. And as to the washing of the unclean in this pool, let me also superadd this one remark: That when they allowed (and that of necessity, because of the multitudes of unclean persons) the lesser gatherings of waters, viz. forty seahs of water in a place fitted on purpose both for breadth and depth, if there was no greater plenty of water, then we must not suppose that they would by any means neglect the ponds and pools.
4. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
[An angel went down at a certain season.] It is hardly imaginable that these impotent people lay day and night throughout the whole year at this pool. It seems rather that the troubling of the waters and healing the sick was usual only at the solemn feasts, probably only the feast of the Passover. And so it may not be amiss to interpret the certain season with this restriction, "It was a feast of the Jews, and an angel went down at that certain season into the pool," &c.
[And troubled the water.] We have this story, or rather this tale, concerning a certain fountain troubled by an evil angel: "It is a story in our city concerning Abba Joses (saith R. Berechiah in the name of R. Simeon), that when he sat at the fountain and required something, there appeared to him the spirit that resided there, and said, 'You know well enough how many years I have dwelt in this place, and how yourselves and your wives have come and returned without any damage done to you. But now you must know, that an evil spirit endeavours to supply my room, who would prove very mischievous amongst you.' He saith to him, 'What must we do then?' He answered him and said, 'Go and tell the townspeople, that whoever hath a hammer and an iron pin or bolt, let him come hither tomorrow morning, and have his eyes intent upon the waters; and when you see the waters troubled, then let them knock with the iron, and say, "The victory is ours": and so let them not go back, till they see thick drops of blood upon the face of the waters.'" The Gloss is: "By this sign it will appear that the spirit was conquered and killed." And the rest of the legend tells us that they did as was commanded, and did not depart till they saw the thick drops of blood upon the waters. Let them enjoy themselves in their doughty victory.
When the time was not afar off wherein "there should be a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness," Zechariah 13:1, viz. the fountain of the blood of Christ; Divine Providence would have it, that a thing of that inconceivable excellency and benefit should not want some notable prognostic and forerunner. And therefore, amongst all the fountains and pools that were in Jerusalem for washing the unclean, he chose the most noble and celebrated pool of Bethesda, or Siloam, that in that might appear some prefiguration of his blood that should heal the world. Those waters, therefore, that had been only cleansing before, were made healing now; that, by their purifying and healing quality, they might prefigure and proclaim that that true and living Fountain was not far off, who should both purge and heal mankind in the highest degree.
How many years before our Saviour's suffering this miraculous virtue of the pool discovered itself, the holy story doth not tell us: and as for the traditional books, I do not find that they once mention the thing, although I have turned over not a few of their writings (if possible) to have met with it. From what epocha, therefore, to date the beginning of it, would seem rashness in us to undertake the determining. Whether from the first structure of the sheepgate by Eliashib, as some persons of great note judge, or whether from the extinction of the Asmonean family, or the rebuilding of the Temple by Herod, or from the nativity of our Saviour, or from any other time, let the reader make his own choice. What if we should date it from that great earthquake of which Josephus hath this passage: "About that time, about the battle of Actium betwixt Caesar and Antony, the seventh year of the reign of king Herod, there was a mighty earthquake in Judea, that made an infinite slaughter of beasts in that country; and near ten thousand people slain by the fall of houses?" Perhaps in that ruin the tower of Siloam fell, of which Luke 13:4; and what if then the angel made his descent first into the pool? as Matthew 28:2, "There was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended," &c. But in this matter I had rather learn than dogmatize.
It might be further inquired, at what time it was first known that the healing quality followed the troubling of the waters; but this is as dark and obscure as the former: especially when the spirit of prophecy, appearance of angels, and working of miracles, had been things so long unwonted in that nation.
The masters attribute such a kind of a healing virtue to the fountain of Miriam, as they call it, in the sea of Tiberias.
"The story is of a certain ulcerous man, who went down to the sea of Tiberias that he might dip himself: and it happened to be the time when the well of Miriam flowed, so that he swam there and was healed."
They have a fiction about a certain well that opened itself to the Israelites in the wilderness for the merits of Miriam, which at her departure disappeared. They suppose, also, as it should seem, that a certain well or gulf in some part of the sea of Gennesaret had obtained this medicinal virtue for her sake. It is a wonder they had not got the story of this pool by the end too, and attributed its virtue to the merits of Solomon, because this once was Solomon's pool.
There was a time when God shewed wonders upon the fountains and rivers about Jerusalem in a very different manner, that is, in great severity and judgment, as now in mercy and compassion.
These are the words of Josephus, exhorting the people to surrender themselves: "Those springs flow abundantly to Titus, which, as to us, had dried away long before. For you know how, before his coming, Siloam and all the springs about the city failed so much, that water was bought by the bottle: but now they bubble up afresh for your enemies, and that in such abundance, that they have sufficient, not only for themselves, but for their cattle and gardens. Which very miracle this nation hath formerly experienced, when this city was taken by the king of Babylon."
If there was such a miracle upon the waters upon the approach of the enemy and destroyer, it is less wonder that there should be some miraculous appearance there, though in a different manner, at the approach of him who was to be our Saviour.
How long the virtue of this pool lasted for healing the impotent, whether to the destruction of Jerusalem, or whether it ceased before, or from this very time, it would be to as little business to inquire, as after the original and first appearance of it, being both so very uncertain and unintelligible.
6. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
[Wilt thou be made whole?] It is no question but he desired to be healed, because for that very end he had lain there so long. But this question of our Saviour hath respect to the sabbath; q.d. "Wouldst thou be healed on the sabbath day?" For that they were infinitely superstitious in this matter, there are several instances in the evangelists, not to mention their own traditions, Mark 3:2; Luke 13:14, 14:3.
8. Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
[Take up thy bed, and walk.] He said elsewhere, "Take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house," Mark 2:11. Whether this be the same with that, it is not so very clear.
I. The common distinction must be observed respecting the sabbath: that is, so that there may be a difference betwixt a private place, or what is any one's peculiar right, and a public place, or what is of more public and common right. Let nothing be carried out on the sabbath out of a private place into a public; and so on the contrary.
"Whoever on the sabbath carries out any thing either from a private place to a public, or from a public place to a private, or brings in, if he do this unadvisedly, he is bound to offer sacrifice for his sin; but if presumptuously, he is punished by cutting off, and being stoned."
II. But it was lawful, within places of private propriety, such as were the porches, entries, and courts, where various families dwelling together might be joined; it was lawful for them to remove and bear from one place to another; but not all things, nor indeed any thing, unless upon very urgent necessity.
"They remove four or five chests of straw or fruits for the sakes of passengers, or want of Beth Midrash; but they remove not their treasure," &c. The Gloss is, "They remove these things if they have need of the place they take up, either for passengers to eat or scholars to learn in; neither are solicitous for their labour on the sabbath," &c.
But why do we speak of these things, when as, by the canons and rules of the scribes, it is forbidden them to carry any thing of the least weight or burden on the sabbath day? So that it would be plainly contrary to those rules to take his bed hither or thither in the porch itself, much more out of the porch into the streets. It is worthy our observing, therefore, that our Saviour did not think it enough merely to heal the impotent man on the sabbath day, which was against their rules; but further commanded him to take up his bed, which was much more against that rule. From whence it is very evident that Christ had determined within himself either to try the faith and obedience of this man; or else, at this time, openly to shake the Jewish sabbath, which, ere long, he knew must be thrown off the hinges it now turned upon; or both.
17. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
[My Father worketh hitherto.] Our Saviour being called before the Sanhedrim, 1, asserts the Messiah to be God: and, 2, that he himself is the Messiah. 'The Son of God' and 'the Messiah' are convertible terms, which the Jews deny not; and yet have very wrong conceptions about 'filiation,' or being made a son.
St. Peter confesseth, Matthew 16:16, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." So also Caiaphas in his interrogatory, Matthew 26:63, "Tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God?" But they hardly agree in the same sense and notion of sonship. Aben Ezra upon Psalm 2:12, Kiss the Son, confesseth that this is properly spoken of the Messiah; but in Midras Tillin there is a vehement dispute against true filiation. The same Aben Ezra likewise confesseth, that in Daniel 3:25, one like the Son of God is to be taken in the same sense with that of Proverbs 31:2, What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? But Saadias and R. Solomon understand it of an angel.
"There is one who hath neither son nor brother; the Holy Blessed; who hath neither brother nor son: he hath no brother, how should he have a son? only that God loved Israel, and so called them his children."
It is not unknown with what obstinacy the Jews deny the Godhead of the Messiah. Whence the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, lays this down as his first foundation of discourse, That the Messiah is truly God, Hebrews 1. Which they, being ignorant of the great mystery of the Trinity, deny; fearing lest, if they should acknowledge Messiah to be God, they should acknowledge more Gods than one. Hence they every day repeated in the recitals of their phylacteries, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." And so, being blind as to the mystery of the Trinity, are the more hardened to deny that.
Our Saviour strenuously asserts here the Godhead of the Son, or Messiah; namely, that he hath the same power with the Father, the same honour due to him as to the Father, that he hath all things in common with the Father. And hence he makes this reply upon them about healing on the sabbath; "My Father worketh on the sabbath day, so do I also."
19. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
[The Son can do nothing of himself.] That is, "The Messiah can do nothing of himself." For he is a servant, and sent by his Father; so that he must work, not of his own will and pleasure, but his Father's, Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant": Targum, Behold my servant the Messiah. So Kimchi in loc. and St. Paul, Philippians 2:7.
The Jew himself, however he may endeavour to elude the sense of that phrase 'the Son of God,' yet cannot deny the truth of this maxim, 'That the Messiah can do nothing, but according to the will and prescription of his Father that sent him.' Which he also will expound, not of the weakness and impotency, but the perfection and obedience, of the Son that he so doeth.
25. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
[The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear, &c.] The Jews, as we have said before, looked for the resurrection of the dead at the coming of Messiah: and that truly, and with great reason, though it was not to be in their sense.
The vision of Ezekiel about the dry bones living, chapter, 37, and those words of Isaiah, "thy dead men shall live," &c., chapter 26:19, suggest to them some such thing, although they grope exceedingly in the dark as to the true interpretation of this matter.
That of R. Eliezer is well enough; The people of the earth [the Gentiles] do not live: which somewhat agrees with that of the apostle, Ephesians 2:1, "Ye were dead in trespasses and sins." Nor does that of Jeremiah Bar Abba sound much differently: "The dry bones [Eze 37] are the sons of men, in whom is not the moisture of the law."
It is true, "many bodies of the saints arose" when Christ himself arose, Matthew 27:52: but as to those places in Scripture which hint the resurrection of the dead at his coming, I would not understand them so much of these, as the raising the Gentiles from their spiritual death of sin, when they lay in ignorance and idolatry, to the light and life of the gospel. Nor need we wholly expound Ezekiel's dry bones recovered to life, of the return of the tribes of Israel from their captivity, (though that may be included in it) but rather, or together with that, the resuscitation of 'the Israel of God' (that is, those Gentiles that were to believe in the Messiah) from their spiritual death.
The words in Revelation 20:5, "This is the first resurrection," do seem to confirm this. Now what, and at what time, is this resurrection? When the great Angel of the covenant, Christ, had bound the old dragon with the chains of the gospel, and shut him up that he should no more seduce the nations by lying wonders, oracles, and divinations, and his false gods, as formerly he had done: that is, when the gospel, being published amongst the heathen nations, had laid open all the devices and delusions of Satan, and had restored them from the death of sin and ignorance to a true state of life indeed. This was 'the first resurrection.'
That our Saviour in this place speaks of this resurrection, I so much the less doubt, because that resurrection he here intends, he plainly distinguishes it from the last and general resurrection of the dead, verses 28, 29; this first resurrection from that last: which he points therefore to, as it were, with his finger, by saying, "The hour is coming, and now is," &c.
27. And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
[To execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.] Daniel 7:13: "Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days...and there was given him dominion, and glory," &c. To this our blessed Saviour seems to have respect in these words, as the thing itself plainly shews. R. Solomon upon the place: "One like the Son of man, this is the King, the Messiah." R. Saadias, this is the Messiah our righteousness. When our Saviour declared before the Sanhedrim, "Ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds"; they all said, "Art thou Christ, the Son of the blessed God?" by which they imply, that the 'Son of God' and 'Christ' are convertible terms: as also are 'Christ' and the Son of man. And it plainly shews that their eyes were intent upon this place: "Art thou that Son of man spoken of in Daniel, who is the Son of God, the Messiah?" So did Christ in these words look that way.
30. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
[As I hear, I judge.] He seems to allude to a custom amongst them. The judge of an inferior court, if he doubts in any matter, goes up to Jerusalem and takes the determination of the Sanhedrim; and according to that he judgeth.
35. He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
[A burning and a shining light.] He speaks according to the vulgar dialect of that nation; who were wont to call any person famous for life or knowledge a candle. "Shuah" [the father-in-law of Judah, Genesis 38] "was the candle or light of the place where he lived." The Gloss is, "One of the most famous men in the city enlightening their eyes." Hence the title given to the Rabbins, the candle of the law: the lamp of light.
39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
[Search the Scriptures.] This seems not to be of the imperative, but indicative mood: "Ye search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
[After this there was a feast of the Jews.] The other evangelists speak but sparingly of Christ's acts in Judea; this of ours something more copiously. They mention nothing of the Passovers from his baptism to his death, excepting the very last; but St. John points at them all. The first he speaks of chapter 2:13; the third, chapter 6:4; the fourth, chapter 13:1; and the second, in this place. It is true he does not call it by the name of the Passover here, but only a feast in general. However, the words of our Saviour mentioned above, chapter 4:35, do give some kind of light into this matter.
2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
[In the Hebrew tongue.] That is, in the language beyond Euphrates, or the Chaldean.
Aruch: that is, the language of those beyond the flood.
If the Holy Books be written in the Egyptian, or Medes', or Hebrew language. Gloss, In the Hebrew, that is, the language of those beyond Euphrates.
The Hebrew writing is that of those beyond the river.
So that by in the Hebrew tongue they mean the Chaldee language, which, from their return out of Babylon, had been their mother-tongue; and they call it "the language of those beyond Euphrates" (although used also in common with the Syrians on this side Euphrates), that, with respect to the Jews, they might distinguish it from the ancient holy tongue; q.d. "not the tongue they used before they went into captivity, but that which they brought along with them from beyond Euphrates."
The Jews to whom this was the mother-tongue were called Hebrews; and from thence are distinguished from the Hellenists; which every one knows. Whence St. Paul should call himself a Hebrew, 2 Corinthians 11:22, when he was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, might deserve our consideration.
[Having five porches.] It mightily obtains amongst some, that in Bethesda the sacrifices were washed before they offered them: but here I am a little at a stand. For,
I. It is very difficult proving that the sacrifices were washed at all either here or in any place else, before they were offered. The Holy Scriptures are wholly silent as to any such thing; nor, as far as I have yet found, do the traditional writings speak of it. It is confessed, the entrails were washed after the beast had been slain; and for this service there was set apart in the very Temple the washing-room. But for their bodies, their skins, or backs, whether they were washed before they were slain, is justly questionable.
II. Amongst all the blemishes and defects whereby the beast was rendered unfit for sacrifice, we do not read that this was ever reckoned, "that they had not been washed." Do we believe that Abraham washed the ram caught in thicket, Genesis 22, before he sacrificed it? It is said, indeed, "that he took it and wiped it. But this was after he had taken off the skin. He took it, and taking off the skin, he said, 'Behold this, O Lord, as if the skin of thy servant Isaac was taken off before thee.' He wiped it [Gloss, he wiped it with a sponge], and said, 'Behold this, as if Isaac was wiped.' He burnt it, and said," &c.
And let that be well considered in Siphra, fol. 18. 1, where a dispute is had upon those words, Leviticus 6:27; "If the blood of the sacrifice for sin be sprinkled upon a garment, &c. When the discourse is of a garment, I would understand it of nothing but a garment. Whence is to be added, the skin when it is pulled off. The text saith, 'Upon whatsoever the blood shall be sprinkled, ye shall wash.' Perhaps, therefore, one may add the skin before it is pulled off. The text saith, a garment: as a garment that is capable of uncleanness, so whatsoever is capable of uncleanness. Except the skin before it be pulled off. They are the words of R. Judah." Mark, the skin as yet cleaving to the beast's back, and not flayed off, is not capable of uncleanness.
I. I would therefore judge rather, that men, and not beasts, were washed in the pool of Bethesda. I mean the unclean, that by washing they might be purified. For whoever considers the numbers of the unclean that did every day stand in need of being washed, and whoever would a little turn over the Talmudic treatises about purifications, and the gatherings of waters for those purposes, might easily persuade himself that both Bethesda, and all the other pools in Jerusalem, did serve rather for the washing of men, and not of beasts.
I would further judge, that the Syriac interpreter, when he renders that passage, "There was at Jerusalem a certain place of baptistery," that he intended rather the washing unclean person than beasts.
II. "There was not any like to Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, under the second Temple. He one day struck his foot against a dead tortoise, and went down to Siloam, where, breaking all the little particles of hail, he washed himself......This was on the shortest day in winter, the tenth of the month Tebeth."
I do not concern myself for the truth of this story; but must take notice what he hints that telleth it; viz. that in such a case men were wont to wash themselves in Siloam, not the fountain, but the pool.
"Simeon Sicuensis dug wells, cisterns, and caves in Jerusalem. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai saith to him, 'If a woman should come to thee, and ask thee about her menstrua, thou sayest to her, Dip thyself in this well, for the waters thereof will purify.'"
III. Those five porches, therefore, seem to be the several entrances by which the unclean went down into the waters to be washed; and in which, before washing, they might lay up their clothes, and after it put them on again, being there always protected from the rain. And perhaps they had their different entrances and descents according to the different sorts of uncleanness, that all those that were one and the same way defiled should have one and the same entrance and descent into the pool. That this was the first design and use of these porches I do not at all doubt, though afterward there was another use for them brought in. And as to the washing of the unclean in this pool, let me also superadd this one remark: That when they allowed (and that of necessity, because of the multitudes of unclean persons) the lesser gatherings of waters, viz. forty seahs of water in a place fitted on purpose both for breadth and depth, if there was no greater plenty of water, then we must not suppose that they would by any means neglect the ponds and pools.
4. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
[An angel went down at a certain season.] It is hardly imaginable that these impotent people lay day and night throughout the whole year at this pool. It seems rather that the troubling of the waters and healing the sick was usual only at the solemn feasts, probably only the feast of the Passover. And so it may not be amiss to interpret the certain season with this restriction, "It was a feast of the Jews, and an angel went down at that certain season into the pool," &c.
[And troubled the water.] We have this story, or rather this tale, concerning a certain fountain troubled by an evil angel: "It is a story in our city concerning Abba Joses (saith R. Berechiah in the name of R. Simeon), that when he sat at the fountain and required something, there appeared to him the spirit that resided there, and said, 'You know well enough how many years I have dwelt in this place, and how yourselves and your wives have come and returned without any damage done to you. But now you must know, that an evil spirit endeavours to supply my room, who would prove very mischievous amongst you.' He saith to him, 'What must we do then?' He answered him and said, 'Go and tell the townspeople, that whoever hath a hammer and an iron pin or bolt, let him come hither tomorrow morning, and have his eyes intent upon the waters; and when you see the waters troubled, then let them knock with the iron, and say, "The victory is ours": and so let them not go back, till they see thick drops of blood upon the face of the waters.'" The Gloss is: "By this sign it will appear that the spirit was conquered and killed." And the rest of the legend tells us that they did as was commanded, and did not depart till they saw the thick drops of blood upon the waters. Let them enjoy themselves in their doughty victory.
When the time was not afar off wherein "there should be a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness," Zechariah 13:1, viz. the fountain of the blood of Christ; Divine Providence would have it, that a thing of that inconceivable excellency and benefit should not want some notable prognostic and forerunner. And therefore, amongst all the fountains and pools that were in Jerusalem for washing the unclean, he chose the most noble and celebrated pool of Bethesda, or Siloam, that in that might appear some prefiguration of his blood that should heal the world. Those waters, therefore, that had been only cleansing before, were made healing now; that, by their purifying and healing quality, they might prefigure and proclaim that that true and living Fountain was not far off, who should both purge and heal mankind in the highest degree.
How many years before our Saviour's suffering this miraculous virtue of the pool discovered itself, the holy story doth not tell us: and as for the traditional books, I do not find that they once mention the thing, although I have turned over not a few of their writings (if possible) to have met with it. From what epocha, therefore, to date the beginning of it, would seem rashness in us to undertake the determining. Whether from the first structure of the sheepgate by Eliashib, as some persons of great note judge, or whether from the extinction of the Asmonean family, or the rebuilding of the Temple by Herod, or from the nativity of our Saviour, or from any other time, let the reader make his own choice. What if we should date it from that great earthquake of which Josephus hath this passage: "About that time, about the battle of Actium betwixt Caesar and Antony, the seventh year of the reign of king Herod, there was a mighty earthquake in Judea, that made an infinite slaughter of beasts in that country; and near ten thousand people slain by the fall of houses?" Perhaps in that ruin the tower of Siloam fell, of which Luke 13:4; and what if then the angel made his descent first into the pool? as Matthew 28:2, "There was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended," &c. But in this matter I had rather learn than dogmatize.
It might be further inquired, at what time it was first known that the healing quality followed the troubling of the waters; but this is as dark and obscure as the former: especially when the spirit of prophecy, appearance of angels, and working of miracles, had been things so long unwonted in that nation.
The masters attribute such a kind of a healing virtue to the fountain of Miriam, as they call it, in the sea of Tiberias.
"The story is of a certain ulcerous man, who went down to the sea of Tiberias that he might dip himself: and it happened to be the time when the well of Miriam flowed, so that he swam there and was healed."
They have a fiction about a certain well that opened itself to the Israelites in the wilderness for the merits of Miriam, which at her departure disappeared. They suppose, also, as it should seem, that a certain well or gulf in some part of the sea of Gennesaret had obtained this medicinal virtue for her sake. It is a wonder they had not got the story of this pool by the end too, and attributed its virtue to the merits of Solomon, because this once was Solomon's pool.
There was a time when God shewed wonders upon the fountains and rivers about Jerusalem in a very different manner, that is, in great severity and judgment, as now in mercy and compassion.
These are the words of Josephus, exhorting the people to surrender themselves: "Those springs flow abundantly to Titus, which, as to us, had dried away long before. For you know how, before his coming, Siloam and all the springs about the city failed so much, that water was bought by the bottle: but now they bubble up afresh for your enemies, and that in such abundance, that they have sufficient, not only for themselves, but for their cattle and gardens. Which very miracle this nation hath formerly experienced, when this city was taken by the king of Babylon."
If there was such a miracle upon the waters upon the approach of the enemy and destroyer, it is less wonder that there should be some miraculous appearance there, though in a different manner, at the approach of him who was to be our Saviour.
How long the virtue of this pool lasted for healing the impotent, whether to the destruction of Jerusalem, or whether it ceased before, or from this very time, it would be to as little business to inquire, as after the original and first appearance of it, being both so very uncertain and unintelligible.
6. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
[Wilt thou be made whole?] It is no question but he desired to be healed, because for that very end he had lain there so long. But this question of our Saviour hath respect to the sabbath; q.d. "Wouldst thou be healed on the sabbath day?" For that they were infinitely superstitious in this matter, there are several instances in the evangelists, not to mention their own traditions, Mark 3:2; Luke 13:14, 14:3.
8. Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
[Take up thy bed, and walk.] He said elsewhere, "Take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house," Mark 2:11. Whether this be the same with that, it is not so very clear.
I. The common distinction must be observed respecting the sabbath: that is, so that there may be a difference betwixt a private place, or what is any one's peculiar right, and a public place, or what is of more public and common right. Let nothing be carried out on the sabbath out of a private place into a public; and so on the contrary.
"Whoever on the sabbath carries out any thing either from a private place to a public, or from a public place to a private, or brings in, if he do this unadvisedly, he is bound to offer sacrifice for his sin; but if presumptuously, he is punished by cutting off, and being stoned."
II. But it was lawful, within places of private propriety, such as were the porches, entries, and courts, where various families dwelling together might be joined; it was lawful for them to remove and bear from one place to another; but not all things, nor indeed any thing, unless upon very urgent necessity.
"They remove four or five chests of straw or fruits for the sakes of passengers, or want of Beth Midrash; but they remove not their treasure," &c. The Gloss is, "They remove these things if they have need of the place they take up, either for passengers to eat or scholars to learn in; neither are solicitous for their labour on the sabbath," &c.
But why do we speak of these things, when as, by the canons and rules of the scribes, it is forbidden them to carry any thing of the least weight or burden on the sabbath day? So that it would be plainly contrary to those rules to take his bed hither or thither in the porch itself, much more out of the porch into the streets. It is worthy our observing, therefore, that our Saviour did not think it enough merely to heal the impotent man on the sabbath day, which was against their rules; but further commanded him to take up his bed, which was much more against that rule. From whence it is very evident that Christ had determined within himself either to try the faith and obedience of this man; or else, at this time, openly to shake the Jewish sabbath, which, ere long, he knew must be thrown off the hinges it now turned upon; or both.
17. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
[My Father worketh hitherto.] Our Saviour being called before the Sanhedrim, 1, asserts the Messiah to be God: and, 2, that he himself is the Messiah. 'The Son of God' and 'the Messiah' are convertible terms, which the Jews deny not; and yet have very wrong conceptions about 'filiation,' or being made a son.
St. Peter confesseth, Matthew 16:16, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." So also Caiaphas in his interrogatory, Matthew 26:63, "Tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God?" But they hardly agree in the same sense and notion of sonship. Aben Ezra upon Psalm 2:12, Kiss the Son, confesseth that this is properly spoken of the Messiah; but in Midras Tillin there is a vehement dispute against true filiation. The same Aben Ezra likewise confesseth, that in Daniel 3:25, one like the Son of God is to be taken in the same sense with that of Proverbs 31:2, What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? But Saadias and R. Solomon understand it of an angel.
"There is one who hath neither son nor brother; the Holy Blessed; who hath neither brother nor son: he hath no brother, how should he have a son? only that God loved Israel, and so called them his children."
It is not unknown with what obstinacy the Jews deny the Godhead of the Messiah. Whence the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, lays this down as his first foundation of discourse, That the Messiah is truly God, Hebrews 1. Which they, being ignorant of the great mystery of the Trinity, deny; fearing lest, if they should acknowledge Messiah to be God, they should acknowledge more Gods than one. Hence they every day repeated in the recitals of their phylacteries, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." And so, being blind as to the mystery of the Trinity, are the more hardened to deny that.
Our Saviour strenuously asserts here the Godhead of the Son, or Messiah; namely, that he hath the same power with the Father, the same honour due to him as to the Father, that he hath all things in common with the Father. And hence he makes this reply upon them about healing on the sabbath; "My Father worketh on the sabbath day, so do I also."
19. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
[The Son can do nothing of himself.] That is, "The Messiah can do nothing of himself." For he is a servant, and sent by his Father; so that he must work, not of his own will and pleasure, but his Father's, Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant": Targum, Behold my servant the Messiah. So Kimchi in loc. and St. Paul, Philippians 2:7.
The Jew himself, however he may endeavour to elude the sense of that phrase 'the Son of God,' yet cannot deny the truth of this maxim, 'That the Messiah can do nothing, but according to the will and prescription of his Father that sent him.' Which he also will expound, not of the weakness and impotency, but the perfection and obedience, of the Son that he so doeth.
25. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
[The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear, &c.] The Jews, as we have said before, looked for the resurrection of the dead at the coming of Messiah: and that truly, and with great reason, though it was not to be in their sense.
The vision of Ezekiel about the dry bones living, chapter, 37, and those words of Isaiah, "thy dead men shall live," &c., chapter 26:19, suggest to them some such thing, although they grope exceedingly in the dark as to the true interpretation of this matter.
That of R. Eliezer is well enough; The people of the earth [the Gentiles] do not live: which somewhat agrees with that of the apostle, Ephesians 2:1, "Ye were dead in trespasses and sins." Nor does that of Jeremiah Bar Abba sound much differently: "The dry bones [Eze 37] are the sons of men, in whom is not the moisture of the law."
It is true, "many bodies of the saints arose" when Christ himself arose, Matthew 27:52: but as to those places in Scripture which hint the resurrection of the dead at his coming, I would not understand them so much of these, as the raising the Gentiles from their spiritual death of sin, when they lay in ignorance and idolatry, to the light and life of the gospel. Nor need we wholly expound Ezekiel's dry bones recovered to life, of the return of the tribes of Israel from their captivity, (though that may be included in it) but rather, or together with that, the resuscitation of 'the Israel of God' (that is, those Gentiles that were to believe in the Messiah) from their spiritual death.
The words in Revelation 20:5, "This is the first resurrection," do seem to confirm this. Now what, and at what time, is this resurrection? When the great Angel of the covenant, Christ, had bound the old dragon with the chains of the gospel, and shut him up that he should no more seduce the nations by lying wonders, oracles, and divinations, and his false gods, as formerly he had done: that is, when the gospel, being published amongst the heathen nations, had laid open all the devices and delusions of Satan, and had restored them from the death of sin and ignorance to a true state of life indeed. This was 'the first resurrection.'
That our Saviour in this place speaks of this resurrection, I so much the less doubt, because that resurrection he here intends, he plainly distinguishes it from the last and general resurrection of the dead, verses 28, 29; this first resurrection from that last: which he points therefore to, as it were, with his finger, by saying, "The hour is coming, and now is," &c.
27. And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
[To execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.] Daniel 7:13: "Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days...and there was given him dominion, and glory," &c. To this our blessed Saviour seems to have respect in these words, as the thing itself plainly shews. R. Solomon upon the place: "One like the Son of man, this is the King, the Messiah." R. Saadias, this is the Messiah our righteousness. When our Saviour declared before the Sanhedrim, "Ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds"; they all said, "Art thou Christ, the Son of the blessed God?" by which they imply, that the 'Son of God' and 'Christ' are convertible terms: as also are 'Christ' and the Son of man. And it plainly shews that their eyes were intent upon this place: "Art thou that Son of man spoken of in Daniel, who is the Son of God, the Messiah?" So did Christ in these words look that way.
30. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
[As I hear, I judge.] He seems to allude to a custom amongst them. The judge of an inferior court, if he doubts in any matter, goes up to Jerusalem and takes the determination of the Sanhedrim; and according to that he judgeth.
35. He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
[A burning and a shining light.] He speaks according to the vulgar dialect of that nation; who were wont to call any person famous for life or knowledge a candle. "Shuah" [the father-in-law of Judah, Genesis 38] "was the candle or light of the place where he lived." The Gloss is, "One of the most famous men in the city enlightening their eyes." Hence the title given to the Rabbins, the candle of the law: the lamp of light.
39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
[Search the Scriptures.] This seems not to be of the imperative, but indicative mood: "Ye search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
John 6
4. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
[And the Passover was nigh.] "It is a tradition. They inquire and discourse about the rites of the Passover, thirty days before the feast."
From the entrance of these thirty days and so onward, this feast was in the eyes and mouth of this people, but especially in the fifteen days immediately before the Passover. Hence, perhaps, we may take the meaning of these words, the Passover was nigh.
From the entrance or beginning of these thirty days, viz. "From the fifteenth day of the month Adar, they repaired the ways, the streets, the bridges, the pools, and despatched all other public business; they painted the sepulchres, and proceeded about matters of a heterogeneous nature."
"These are all the businesses of the public: they judged all pecuniary faults, those also that were capital, and those for which the offenders were scourged. They redeemed devoted things; they made the suspected wife drink; they burnt the red heifer; they bored the ear of the Hebrew servant; they cleansed the lepers, and removed the covers from the well," that every one might be at liberty to drink.
The Gloss is, "And some that were deputed in that affair went abroad to see if the fields were sown with corn, and the vineyards planted with heterogeneous trees."
9. There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
[Five barley loaves.] Compare 2 Kings 4:42, and see Chetub.: where the masters enhance the number of men fed by Elisha to two thousand two hundred. "Every hundred men had their single loaf set before them." The Gloss is, "Twenty loaves, and the loaf of the first fruits, behold one-and-twenty; the green ear, behold two-and-twenty: these were all singly set, each of them before a hundred men; and so behold there were two thousand and two hundred fed." By the same proportion, in our Saviour's miraculous feeding the people, one single loaf must serve for a thousand.
12. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
[The fragments that remain.] It was a custom and rule, that when they ate together, they should leave something to those that served: which remnant was called peah. And it is remarked upon R. Joshua, that, upon a journey, having something provided for him by a hospitable widow, he ate all up, and left nothing to her that ministered. Where the Gloss: "Every one leaves a little portion in the dish, and gives it to those that serve; which is called the servitor's part."
Although I would not confound the fragments that remain with the peah, nor would affirm that what was left was in observation of this rule and custom; yet we may observe, that the twelve baskets full of fragments left at this time answered to the number of the twelve apostles that ministered. It is otherwise elsewhere.
24. When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
[They also took shipping.] They had gone afoot from Capernaum to the desert of Bethsaida, Mark 6:33, by the bridge of Chammath, near Tiberias. But they sail back in ships, partly that they might follow Jesus with the greater speed; and perhaps that they might reach time enough at the synagogue: for that was the day in which they assembled in their synagogues.
27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
[For him hath God the Father sealed.] The Jews speak much of the seal of God; which may not be impertinently remembered at this time. "What is the seal of the holy blessed God? R. Bibai, in the name of R. Reuben, saith, Truth. But what is truth? R. Bon saith, The living God and King eternal. Resh Lachish saith, Aleph is the first letter of the alphabet, Mem the middle, and Tav the last: q.d. I the Lord am the first; I received nothing of any one; and beside me there is no God: for there is not any that intermingles with me; and I am with the last."
There is a story of the great synagogue weeping, praying, and fasting; "At length there was a little scroll fell from the firmament to them, in which was written, Truth. R. Chaninah saith, Hence learn that truth is the seal of God."
We may easily apply all this to Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life," John 14:6: he is the express image of his Father, the truth of the Father; whom the Father, by his seal and diploma, hath confirmed and ratified; as the great ruler both of his kingdom and family.
28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
[What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?] Observe, first, the rule about workmen or labourers: "It is granted by the permission of the law, that the labourer shall eat of those things wherein he laboureth. If he works in the vintage, let him eat of the grapes; if in gathering the fig trees, let him eat of the figs; if in the harvest, let him eat of the ears of the corn," &c.
Nay further; "It is lawful for the workmen to eat of those things wherein he worketh; a melon, to the value of a penny; and dates, to the value of a penny," &c.
Compare these passages with what our Saviour speaks; "Labour (saith he) for that meat which endureth to everlasting life." Now, what is that work of God which we should do, that might entitle us to eat of that food? Believe in Christ, and ye shall feed on him.
31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
[Our fathers did eat manna.] I. They seek a sign of him worthy the Messiah; and in general they seem to look towards those dainties which that nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would bring along with him when he should come; but more particularly they expect manna.
"Ye seek me (saith our Saviour), not because ye did see the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled." Were all these so very poor that they had need to live at another man's charge? or should follow Christ merely for bread? It is possible they might expect other kind of dainties, according to the vain musings of that nation. Perhaps he was such a kind of slave to his belly that said, "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God," Luke 14:15.
"Many affirm that the hope of Israel is, that Messiah shall come and raise the dead; and they shall be gathered together in the garden of Eden, and shall eat and drink, and satiate themselves all the days of the world....and that there are houses built of precious stones, beds of silk, and rivers flowing with wine and spicy oil." "He made manna to descend for them, in which were all manner of tastes; and every Israelite found in it what his palate was chiefly pleased with. If he desired fat in it, he had it. In it the young men tasted bread, the old men honey, and the children oil....So it shall be in the world to come [the days of the Messias]: he shall give Israel peace, and they shall sit down and eat in the garden of Eden; and all nations shall behold their condition; as it is said, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry, Isaiah 65:13."
Alas, poor wretches! how do you deceive yourselves! for it is to you that this passage of being hungry while others eat does directly point.
Infinite are the dreams of this kind, particularly about Leviathan and Behemoth, that are to be served up in these feasts.
II. Compare with this especially what the Jews propound to themselves about their being fed with manna: "The latter Redeemer" [that is, Messiah; for he had spoken of the former redeemer, Moses, immediately before] "shall be revealed against them, &c. And whither will he lead them? Some say into the wilderness of Judah; others, into the wilderness of Sihon and Og." [Note that our Saviour the day before, when he fed such a multitude so miraculously, was in the desert of Og, viz. in Batanea, or Bashan.] And shall make manna descend for them. Note that. So Midras Coheleth: "The former redeemer caused manna to descend for them; in like manner shall our latter Redeemer cause manna to come down, as it is written, 'There shall be a handful of corn in the earth,' Psalm 72:16."
32. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
[Moses gave you not that bread from heaven.] The Gemarists affirm that manna was given for the merits of Moses. "There were three good shepherds of Israel, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam: and there were three good things given us by their hands, a well, a cloud, and manna: the well, for the merits of Miriam; the pillar of the cloud, for the merits of Aaron; manna, for the merits of Moses."
Contrary, therefore, to this opinion of theirs, it may well be said, Moses did not give you this bread: i.e. it was by no means for any merits of his. But what further he might intend by these words, you may learn from the several expositors.
39. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
[Should raise it up again at the last day.] So also verse 40 and 44, the emphasis lies in the last day.
I. They looked (as hath been already said) for the resurrection of the dead at the coming of the Messiah. Take one instance: "R. Jeremiah said, 'When I die, bury me in my shirt, and with my shoes on, &c.; that when Messiah comes I may be ready dressed to meet him.'"
Apply here the words of our Saviour: "Ye look for the resurrection when Messiah comes; and since ye seek a sign of me, perhaps ye have it in your minds that I should raise some from the dead. Let this suffice, that whoever comes to me and believes in me shall be raised up at the last day."
II. This was the opinion of that nation concerning the generation in the wilderness. "The generation in the wilderness have no part in the world to come, neither shall they stand in judgment."
Now as to this generation in the wilderness, there had been some discourse before, verse 31; viz. of those that had eaten manna in the wilderness. "But that manna did not so feed them unto eternal life (as you yourselves confess) as that they shall live again, and have any part in the world to come. But I, the true bread from heaven, do feed those that eat of me to eternal life; and such as do eat of me, i.e. that believe in me, I will raise them up at the last day, so that they shall have part in the world to come."
45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
[And they shall be all taught of God.] Isaiah 54:13: "And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord." The 'children of Israel,' 'of Jerusalem,' and 'of Zion,' are very frequently mentioned by the prophets for those Gentiles that were to be converted to the faith: taught before of the devil, by his idols and oracles; but they should become the children of the church, and be taught of God.
The Rabbins do fondly apply these words of the prophet, when by thy children they understand the disciples of the wise men. "The disciples of the wise men multiply peace in the world; as it is written, 'All thy children shall be taught of God, and great shall be the peace of thy children.' Do not read, thy children; but thy builders."
But who were there among mortals that were more taught of men and less of God, being learned in nothing but the traditions of the fathers? He must be taught of the Father that would come to the Son; not of those sorry fathers: he must be taught of God, not those masters of traditions.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
[The bread that I will give is my flesh.] He tacitly confutes that foolish conceit of theirs about I know not what dainties the Messiah should treat them with; and slights those trifles, by teaching that all the dainties which Christ had provided were himself. Let them not look for wonderful messes, rich feasts, &c.; he will give them himself to eat; bread beyond all other provisions whatever; food from heaven; and such as bringeth salvation.
As to this whole passage of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to premise that of Mark 4:11, 12: "I speak by parables; and all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive," &c. Verse 34: "Without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."
And what can we suppose in this place but parable wholly?
I. There was nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of 'eating and drinking' in a metaphorical sense. And surely it would sound very harsh, if not to be understood here metaphorically, but literally. What! to drink blood? a thing so severely interdicted the Jews once and again. What! to eat man's flesh? a thing abhorrent to human nature; but above all abhorrent to the Jews, to whom it was not lawful to eat a member of a living beast, nor touch the member of a dead man.
"Every eating and drinking of which we find mention in the book of Ecclesiastes is to be understood of the Law and good works," i.e. by way of parable and metaphor. By the Capernaite's leave, therefore, and the Romanist's too, we will understand the eating and drinking in this place figuratively and parabolically.
II. Bread is very frequently used in the Jewish writers for doctrine. So that when Christ talks of eating his flesh, he might perhaps hint to them that he would feed his followers not only with his doctrines, but with himself too.
The whole stay of bread, Isaiah 3:1. "These are the masters of doctrine; as it is written, 'Come, eat of my bread,' Proverbs 9:5." "Feed him with bread, that is, Make him take pains in the warfare of the Law, as it is written, 'Come, eat of my bread.'"
Moses fed you with doctrine and manna, but I feed you with doctrine and my flesh.
III. There is mention, even amongst the Talmudists themselves, of eating the Messiah. "Rabh saith, Israel shall eat the years of Messiah." [The Gloss is, "The plenty and satiety that shall be in the days of the Messiah shall belong to the Israelites."] "Rabh Joseph saith, 'True, indeed: but who shall eat thereof? Shall Chillek and Billek [two judges in Sodom] eat of it?' We must except against that of R. Hillel, who saith, Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah." Those words of Hillel are repeated, fol. 99. 1.
Behold, here is mention of eating the Messiah, and none quarrel the phraseology. They excepted against Hillel, indeed, that he should say that the Messiah was so eaten in the days of Hezekiah, that he was not like to appear again in Israel; but they made no scruple of the scheme and manner of speech at all. For they plainly enough understood what was meant by eating the Messiah; that is, that in the days of Hezekiah they so much partook of the Messiah, they received him so greedily, embraced him so gladly, and in a manner devoured him, that they must look for him no more in the ages to come. Gloss upon the place: "Messiah will come no more to Israel, for Hezekiah was the Messiah."
IV. But the expression seems very harsh, when he speaks of "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood." He tells us, therefore, that these things must be taken in a spiritual sense: "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" That is, "When you shall have seen me ascending into heaven, you will then find how impossible a thing it is to eat my flesh and drink my blood bodily: for how can you eat the flesh of one that is in heaven? You may know, therefore, that I mean eating me spiritually: 'for the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.'"
V. But what sense did they take it in that did understand it? Not in a sacramental sense surely, unless they were then instructed in the death and passion of our Saviour; for the sacrament hath a relation to his death: but it sufficiently appears elsewhere that they knew or expected nothing of that. Much less did they take it in a Jewish sense; for the Jewish conceits were about the mighty advantages that should accrue to them from the Messiah, and those merely earthly and sensual. But to partake of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit; and to live and grow and receive nourishment from that participation of him. Things which the Jewish schools heard little of, did not believe, did not think; but things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
[And the Passover was nigh.] "It is a tradition. They inquire and discourse about the rites of the Passover, thirty days before the feast."
From the entrance of these thirty days and so onward, this feast was in the eyes and mouth of this people, but especially in the fifteen days immediately before the Passover. Hence, perhaps, we may take the meaning of these words, the Passover was nigh.
From the entrance or beginning of these thirty days, viz. "From the fifteenth day of the month Adar, they repaired the ways, the streets, the bridges, the pools, and despatched all other public business; they painted the sepulchres, and proceeded about matters of a heterogeneous nature."
"These are all the businesses of the public: they judged all pecuniary faults, those also that were capital, and those for which the offenders were scourged. They redeemed devoted things; they made the suspected wife drink; they burnt the red heifer; they bored the ear of the Hebrew servant; they cleansed the lepers, and removed the covers from the well," that every one might be at liberty to drink.
The Gloss is, "And some that were deputed in that affair went abroad to see if the fields were sown with corn, and the vineyards planted with heterogeneous trees."
9. There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
[Five barley loaves.] Compare 2 Kings 4:42, and see Chetub.: where the masters enhance the number of men fed by Elisha to two thousand two hundred. "Every hundred men had their single loaf set before them." The Gloss is, "Twenty loaves, and the loaf of the first fruits, behold one-and-twenty; the green ear, behold two-and-twenty: these were all singly set, each of them before a hundred men; and so behold there were two thousand and two hundred fed." By the same proportion, in our Saviour's miraculous feeding the people, one single loaf must serve for a thousand.
12. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
[The fragments that remain.] It was a custom and rule, that when they ate together, they should leave something to those that served: which remnant was called peah. And it is remarked upon R. Joshua, that, upon a journey, having something provided for him by a hospitable widow, he ate all up, and left nothing to her that ministered. Where the Gloss: "Every one leaves a little portion in the dish, and gives it to those that serve; which is called the servitor's part."
Although I would not confound the fragments that remain with the peah, nor would affirm that what was left was in observation of this rule and custom; yet we may observe, that the twelve baskets full of fragments left at this time answered to the number of the twelve apostles that ministered. It is otherwise elsewhere.
24. When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
[They also took shipping.] They had gone afoot from Capernaum to the desert of Bethsaida, Mark 6:33, by the bridge of Chammath, near Tiberias. But they sail back in ships, partly that they might follow Jesus with the greater speed; and perhaps that they might reach time enough at the synagogue: for that was the day in which they assembled in their synagogues.
27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
[For him hath God the Father sealed.] The Jews speak much of the seal of God; which may not be impertinently remembered at this time. "What is the seal of the holy blessed God? R. Bibai, in the name of R. Reuben, saith, Truth. But what is truth? R. Bon saith, The living God and King eternal. Resh Lachish saith, Aleph is the first letter of the alphabet, Mem the middle, and Tav the last: q.d. I the Lord am the first; I received nothing of any one; and beside me there is no God: for there is not any that intermingles with me; and I am with the last."
There is a story of the great synagogue weeping, praying, and fasting; "At length there was a little scroll fell from the firmament to them, in which was written, Truth. R. Chaninah saith, Hence learn that truth is the seal of God."
We may easily apply all this to Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life," John 14:6: he is the express image of his Father, the truth of the Father; whom the Father, by his seal and diploma, hath confirmed and ratified; as the great ruler both of his kingdom and family.
28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
[What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?] Observe, first, the rule about workmen or labourers: "It is granted by the permission of the law, that the labourer shall eat of those things wherein he laboureth. If he works in the vintage, let him eat of the grapes; if in gathering the fig trees, let him eat of the figs; if in the harvest, let him eat of the ears of the corn," &c.
Nay further; "It is lawful for the workmen to eat of those things wherein he worketh; a melon, to the value of a penny; and dates, to the value of a penny," &c.
Compare these passages with what our Saviour speaks; "Labour (saith he) for that meat which endureth to everlasting life." Now, what is that work of God which we should do, that might entitle us to eat of that food? Believe in Christ, and ye shall feed on him.
31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
[Our fathers did eat manna.] I. They seek a sign of him worthy the Messiah; and in general they seem to look towards those dainties which that nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would bring along with him when he should come; but more particularly they expect manna.
"Ye seek me (saith our Saviour), not because ye did see the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled." Were all these so very poor that they had need to live at another man's charge? or should follow Christ merely for bread? It is possible they might expect other kind of dainties, according to the vain musings of that nation. Perhaps he was such a kind of slave to his belly that said, "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God," Luke 14:15.
"Many affirm that the hope of Israel is, that Messiah shall come and raise the dead; and they shall be gathered together in the garden of Eden, and shall eat and drink, and satiate themselves all the days of the world....and that there are houses built of precious stones, beds of silk, and rivers flowing with wine and spicy oil." "He made manna to descend for them, in which were all manner of tastes; and every Israelite found in it what his palate was chiefly pleased with. If he desired fat in it, he had it. In it the young men tasted bread, the old men honey, and the children oil....So it shall be in the world to come [the days of the Messias]: he shall give Israel peace, and they shall sit down and eat in the garden of Eden; and all nations shall behold their condition; as it is said, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry, Isaiah 65:13."
Alas, poor wretches! how do you deceive yourselves! for it is to you that this passage of being hungry while others eat does directly point.
Infinite are the dreams of this kind, particularly about Leviathan and Behemoth, that are to be served up in these feasts.
II. Compare with this especially what the Jews propound to themselves about their being fed with manna: "The latter Redeemer" [that is, Messiah; for he had spoken of the former redeemer, Moses, immediately before] "shall be revealed against them, &c. And whither will he lead them? Some say into the wilderness of Judah; others, into the wilderness of Sihon and Og." [Note that our Saviour the day before, when he fed such a multitude so miraculously, was in the desert of Og, viz. in Batanea, or Bashan.] And shall make manna descend for them. Note that. So Midras Coheleth: "The former redeemer caused manna to descend for them; in like manner shall our latter Redeemer cause manna to come down, as it is written, 'There shall be a handful of corn in the earth,' Psalm 72:16."
32. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
[Moses gave you not that bread from heaven.] The Gemarists affirm that manna was given for the merits of Moses. "There were three good shepherds of Israel, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam: and there were three good things given us by their hands, a well, a cloud, and manna: the well, for the merits of Miriam; the pillar of the cloud, for the merits of Aaron; manna, for the merits of Moses."
Contrary, therefore, to this opinion of theirs, it may well be said, Moses did not give you this bread: i.e. it was by no means for any merits of his. But what further he might intend by these words, you may learn from the several expositors.
39. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
[Should raise it up again at the last day.] So also verse 40 and 44, the emphasis lies in the last day.
I. They looked (as hath been already said) for the resurrection of the dead at the coming of the Messiah. Take one instance: "R. Jeremiah said, 'When I die, bury me in my shirt, and with my shoes on, &c.; that when Messiah comes I may be ready dressed to meet him.'"
Apply here the words of our Saviour: "Ye look for the resurrection when Messiah comes; and since ye seek a sign of me, perhaps ye have it in your minds that I should raise some from the dead. Let this suffice, that whoever comes to me and believes in me shall be raised up at the last day."
II. This was the opinion of that nation concerning the generation in the wilderness. "The generation in the wilderness have no part in the world to come, neither shall they stand in judgment."
Now as to this generation in the wilderness, there had been some discourse before, verse 31; viz. of those that had eaten manna in the wilderness. "But that manna did not so feed them unto eternal life (as you yourselves confess) as that they shall live again, and have any part in the world to come. But I, the true bread from heaven, do feed those that eat of me to eternal life; and such as do eat of me, i.e. that believe in me, I will raise them up at the last day, so that they shall have part in the world to come."
45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
[And they shall be all taught of God.] Isaiah 54:13: "And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord." The 'children of Israel,' 'of Jerusalem,' and 'of Zion,' are very frequently mentioned by the prophets for those Gentiles that were to be converted to the faith: taught before of the devil, by his idols and oracles; but they should become the children of the church, and be taught of God.
The Rabbins do fondly apply these words of the prophet, when by thy children they understand the disciples of the wise men. "The disciples of the wise men multiply peace in the world; as it is written, 'All thy children shall be taught of God, and great shall be the peace of thy children.' Do not read, thy children; but thy builders."
But who were there among mortals that were more taught of men and less of God, being learned in nothing but the traditions of the fathers? He must be taught of the Father that would come to the Son; not of those sorry fathers: he must be taught of God, not those masters of traditions.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
[The bread that I will give is my flesh.] He tacitly confutes that foolish conceit of theirs about I know not what dainties the Messiah should treat them with; and slights those trifles, by teaching that all the dainties which Christ had provided were himself. Let them not look for wonderful messes, rich feasts, &c.; he will give them himself to eat; bread beyond all other provisions whatever; food from heaven; and such as bringeth salvation.
As to this whole passage of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to premise that of Mark 4:11, 12: "I speak by parables; and all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive," &c. Verse 34: "Without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."
And what can we suppose in this place but parable wholly?
I. There was nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of 'eating and drinking' in a metaphorical sense. And surely it would sound very harsh, if not to be understood here metaphorically, but literally. What! to drink blood? a thing so severely interdicted the Jews once and again. What! to eat man's flesh? a thing abhorrent to human nature; but above all abhorrent to the Jews, to whom it was not lawful to eat a member of a living beast, nor touch the member of a dead man.
"Every eating and drinking of which we find mention in the book of Ecclesiastes is to be understood of the Law and good works," i.e. by way of parable and metaphor. By the Capernaite's leave, therefore, and the Romanist's too, we will understand the eating and drinking in this place figuratively and parabolically.
II. Bread is very frequently used in the Jewish writers for doctrine. So that when Christ talks of eating his flesh, he might perhaps hint to them that he would feed his followers not only with his doctrines, but with himself too.
The whole stay of bread, Isaiah 3:1. "These are the masters of doctrine; as it is written, 'Come, eat of my bread,' Proverbs 9:5." "Feed him with bread, that is, Make him take pains in the warfare of the Law, as it is written, 'Come, eat of my bread.'"
Moses fed you with doctrine and manna, but I feed you with doctrine and my flesh.
III. There is mention, even amongst the Talmudists themselves, of eating the Messiah. "Rabh saith, Israel shall eat the years of Messiah." [The Gloss is, "The plenty and satiety that shall be in the days of the Messiah shall belong to the Israelites."] "Rabh Joseph saith, 'True, indeed: but who shall eat thereof? Shall Chillek and Billek [two judges in Sodom] eat of it?' We must except against that of R. Hillel, who saith, Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah." Those words of Hillel are repeated, fol. 99. 1.
Behold, here is mention of eating the Messiah, and none quarrel the phraseology. They excepted against Hillel, indeed, that he should say that the Messiah was so eaten in the days of Hezekiah, that he was not like to appear again in Israel; but they made no scruple of the scheme and manner of speech at all. For they plainly enough understood what was meant by eating the Messiah; that is, that in the days of Hezekiah they so much partook of the Messiah, they received him so greedily, embraced him so gladly, and in a manner devoured him, that they must look for him no more in the ages to come. Gloss upon the place: "Messiah will come no more to Israel, for Hezekiah was the Messiah."
IV. But the expression seems very harsh, when he speaks of "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood." He tells us, therefore, that these things must be taken in a spiritual sense: "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" That is, "When you shall have seen me ascending into heaven, you will then find how impossible a thing it is to eat my flesh and drink my blood bodily: for how can you eat the flesh of one that is in heaven? You may know, therefore, that I mean eating me spiritually: 'for the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.'"
V. But what sense did they take it in that did understand it? Not in a sacramental sense surely, unless they were then instructed in the death and passion of our Saviour; for the sacrament hath a relation to his death: but it sufficiently appears elsewhere that they knew or expected nothing of that. Much less did they take it in a Jewish sense; for the Jewish conceits were about the mighty advantages that should accrue to them from the Messiah, and those merely earthly and sensual. But to partake of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit; and to live and grow and receive nourishment from that participation of him. Things which the Jewish schools heard little of, did not believe, did not think; but things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
John 7
2. Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
[The Jews' feast of Tabernacles.] Tisri. Let us draw down this month from its beginning to this feast of Tabernacles:
1. "The first day of the month Tisri was the beginning of the year, for stating the years, the intermissions of the seventh year, and the jubilees."
Upon this day was the 'blowing of trumpets,' Leviticus 23:24; and persons were sent out to give notice of the beginning of the year. On this day began the year of the world 3960, in the middle of which year Christ was crucified.
2. The second day; observed also as holy by the Jews that were in Babylon, that they might be sure not to miss the beginning of the year.
3. A fast for the murder of Gedaliah: for so they expound those words, (Zech 8:19) "the fast of the seventh month."
4. This day was the high priest in the apartment to which he then betook himself from his own house, that he might inure himself by exercise to the rites of the day of Atonement approaching, and be ready and fitted for the service of that day. "Seven days before the day of Expiation they sequestered the chief priest from his own house, and shut him up into an apartment, substituting to him another priest, lest accidentally there should some sort of uncleanness befall him."
5-8. All those seven days, after he betook himself from his own house to this chamber until the day of atonement, he sprinkles the blood of the daily sacrifice; offers the incense; snuffs the lamps; and brings the head and legs of the sacrifice to the altar, that he may be the more handy in his office upon the Expiation-day. In those seven days they send him some of the elders of the Beth Din, that they may read before him the office of that day. And at length those elders deliver him to the elders of the priesthood, who instruct him in handling the incense; and lead him into the apartment abtines; where they swear him, that he shall perform the service of that day according to rule, and not according to the Sadducees.
9. Whereas for the whole seven days they permitted him to eat according to his usual custom; the evening of this day approaching, they diet him more sparingly, lest a full stomach should occasion sleep. They spend the whole night waking; and when they find him nodding or inclining to sleepiness, then, either by words or some noise, they rouse and waken him.
10. The day of Expiation, a solemn fast. On this day began the year of jubilee, when it came about, Leviticus 25:9. And indeed this year, which is now under our consideration, was the twenty-eighth jubilee, reckoning from the seventh year of Joshua, wherein the land as subdued and rested from war, Joshua 11:23.
11-13. The multitude now gather together towards the feast of Tabernacles, that they might purify themselves before the feast, and prepare necessaries for it, viz. little tents, citrons, bundles of palms and willows, &c. But if any were defiled by the touch of a dead body, such were obliged to betake themselves to Jerusalem, before the feast of Expiation, that they might undergo seven days' purification before the feast of Tabernacles.
14. They were generally cut or trimmed on the vespers of the feast for the honour of it.
15. The first day of the feast of Tabernacles, a feast-day. Thirteen young bullocks offered, &c. Numbers 29:13, and so on. The preparation of the Chagigah. They lodge that night in Jerusalem.
16. The second day of the feast. Twelve young bullocks offered. The appearance of all the males in the court.
17. The third day. Eleven young bullocks.
18. The fourth day. Ten.
19. The fifth day. Nine.
20. The sixth day. Eight.
21. The seventh day. Seven.
22. The eighth day. One young bullock offered.
Upon all these days there was a pouring out of water upon the altar with wine (a thing not used at any other time); and for the sake of that, great joy, and singing, and dancing; such as was not all the year besides.
"At the close of the first day of the feast, they went down into the Court of the Women, and there prepared a great stage." [That is, benches on which the women stood above, and the men below.] "Golden candlesticks were there" fixed to the walls: "over these were golden cups, to which were four ladders set; by which four of the younger priests went up, having bottles in their hands that contained a hundred and twenty logs, which they emptied into every cup. Of the rags of the garments and girdles of the priests, they made wicks to light those lamps; and there was not a street throughout all Jerusalem that did not shine with that light."
"The religious and devout danced before them, having lighted torches in their hands, and sang songs and doxologies. The Levites with harps, psalteries, cymbals, and other instruments of music without number, stood upon those fifteen steps by which they went down from the Court of the Women, according to the fifteen psalms of degrees, and sang. Two priests also stood in the upper gate, which goes down from the Court of Israel to the Court of the Women, with two trumpets in their hands. When the cock crew [or the president gave his signal], the trumpets sounded: when they came to the tenth step, they sounded again: when they came to the court they sounded: when they came to the pavement they sounded: and so went on sounding the trumpets till they came to the east gate of the court. When they came thither, they turned their faces from the east to west, and said, 'Our fathers in this place, turning their backs upon the Temple, and their faces towards the east, worshipped the sun; but we turn our faces to God,'" &c.
"The Rabbins have a tradition. Some of them while they were dancing said, 'Blessed be our youth, for that they have not made our old men ashamed.' These were the religious, and men of good works. And some said, 'Blessed be our old men, that have made atonement for our youth.' And both one and the other said, 'Blessed be he who hath not sinned; and he who hath, let it be forgiven him.'"
As to the reason of this mirth and pleasantness, we shall see more in our notes on verse 38.
4. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world.
[In secret; openly.] these brethren of Christ, whoever they were, did not as yet believe; because they saw him live so obscure, and did not behave himself with that pomp and outward appearance which they expected in the Messiah. And therefore they persuade him to go into Judea, where he had baptized most disciples, John 3:22, that, upon the lustre of his miracles, he might shine with greater splendour and majesty.
8. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
[I go not up yet unto this feast.] That passage in St. Luke, chapter 9:51, "When the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem" must have relation to this story; as will be very evident to any one that will study the harmony of the gospel; especially if they observe, that this evangelist tells us of two journeys after this which Christ took to Jerusalem, viz. chapter 13:22, to the feast of the Dedication; and chapter 17:11, to the feast of the Passover. He had absented himself a long time from Judea, upon the account of those snares that had been laid for him; but now, when he had not above six months to live and converse in this world, he determines resolutely to give all due manifestations of himself, both in Judea, and wherever else he should happen to come. And for this cause he sent those seventy disciples before his face, into every city and place where he himself would come. Luke 10:1.
When therefore he tells his unbelieving brethren, I go not up yet, &c., he does not deny that he would go at all, but only that he would not go yet: partly, because he had no need of those previous cleansings which they had, if they had touched any dead body; partly, that he might choose the most fit season for the manifestation of himself.
But if we take notice how Christ was received into Jerusalem five days before the Passover, with those very rites and solemnities that were used at the feast of Tabernacles, viz. "with branches of palms," &c. chapter 12:13, these words may seem to relate to that time; and so the word feast might not denote the individual feast that was now instant, but the kind of feast, or festival-time. As if he had said, "You would have me go up to this feast, that I may be received by my disciples with applause; but I do not go up to that kind of festivity; the time appointed for that affair is not yet come."
14. Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
[About the midst of the feast.] On some work-day of the feast. But was he not there on the first or second day of the feast, to perform those things that ought to have been performed, making ready the Chagigahs, and appearing in the court? If he was there the second day, he might be well enough said to be there about the midst of the feast, for that day was not a festival; unless perchance at that time it might have been the sabbath: and for absence the first day, there were certain compensations might be made.
"The compensations that might be made for the first day were these: if any one was obliged to offer on the first day, and did not do it, he compensated by offering upon any other day."
But that which is here said, that "he went up into the Temple and taught, about the midst of the feast," need not suppose he was absent from the beginning of it: nor ought we rashly to think that he would neglect any thing that had been prescribed and appointed in the law. But if may be reasonably enough questioned, whether he nicely observed all those rites and usages of the feast that had been invented by the scribes. That is, whether he had a little tent or tabernacle of his own, or made use of some friend's, which was allowed and lawful to be done. Whether he made fourteen meals in that little booth, as is prescribed. Whether he carried bundles of palms and willows about the altar, as also a citron; whether he made his tent for all those seven days his fixed habitation, and his own house only occasional; and many other things, largely and nicely prescribed in the canons and rules about this feast.
19. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
[Why go ye about to kill me?] The emphasis or force of this clause lies chiefly in the word me: "Why go you about to kill me? none of you all perform the law as you ought; and yet your great design is to kill me, as a transgressor of it: why me, and not others?"
22. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
[Ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.] They do all things that are necessary towards circumcision on the sabbath day. "R. Akibah saith, Any work that may be done on the vespers of the sabbath must not be done on the sabbath; but circumcision, when it cannot be done on the vespers of the sabbath, may be done on the sabbath day."
"Danger of life nulleth the sabbath: circumcision also, and its cure, nulleth the sabbath."
But as to this matter, they distinguish in Bereshith Rabba: "Jacob of Nabor taught us in Tsur: It is lawful to circumcise the son of a stranger on the sabbath day. R. Haggai heard this, and sent to him saying, Come and be disciplined," &c. And a little after; "R. Haggai saith to him, Lie down [to take discipline] and I will teach you. If a heathen come to you, and say, I would be made a Jew, so that he would be circumcised on the sabbath day, or on the day of Expiation, will we, for his sake, profane those days? Do we ever profane those days either of the sabbath, or Expiation, for any other than one born of an Israelitess only?" We meet with the same also in Bemidbar Rabba, and Midras Coheleth.
Let us look a little into the way of Christ's arguing in this place: to me it seems thus: "Moses, therefore, gave you circumcision, that you might rightly understand the nature of the sabbath: for, I. Circumcision was to be observed by the fathers before Moses, punctually on the eight day. II. Now, therefore, when Moses established the laws about the sabbath, he did by no means forbid the work of circumcision on the sabbath, if it happened to be the eighth day. III. For this did Moses give and continue circumcision among you, that you might learn from hence to judge of the nature of the sabbath day. And let us, therefore, argue it: If by Moses' institution and allowance it was lawful, for the advantage of the infant, to circumcise him on the sabbath day, is it not warrantable, by Moses' law, for the advantage of a grown man, to heal him on the sabbath day? If it be lawful to wound an infant by circumcision, surely it is equally, if not much more, lawful to heal a man by a word's speaking."
27. Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
[When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.] How doth this agree with verse 42, and with Matthew 2:5, 6? They doubted not, indeed, but he should give the first manifestation of himself from Bethlehem; but then they supposed he would be hid again; and after some space of time make a new appearance, from what place no one could tell.
Jewish authors tell you, that Christ, before their times, had indeed been born in Bethlehem, but immediately snatched away they knew not whither, and so hid that he could not be found. We related the whole story before in our notes at Matthew 2:1.
Their conceptions in this thing we have explained to us in Midras Schir: "'My beloved is like a roe or a young hart,' Canticles 2:9. A roe appears and is hid, appears and is hid again. So our first redeemer [Moses] appeared and was hid, and at length appeared again. So our latter Redeemer [Messiah] shall be revealed to them, and shall be hid again from them; and how long shall he be hid from them?" &c. A little after; "In the end of forty-five days he shall be revealed again, and cause manna to descend amongst them."
They conceive a twofold manifestation of the Messiah; the first, in Bethlehem; but will straightway disappear and lie hid. At length he will shew himself; but from what place and at what time that will be, no one knew. In his first appearance in Bethlehem, he should do nothing that was memorable; in his second was the hope and expectation of the nation. The Jews therefore who tell our Saviour here, that "when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is," whether they knew him to have been born at Bethlehem or no, yet by his wonderful works they conceive this to have been the second manifestation of himself: and therefore only doubt whether he should be the Messiah or no, because they knew the place [Nazareth] from whence he came; having been taught by tradition, that Messiah should come the second time from a place perfectly unknown to all men.
28. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
[He that sent me is true, whom ye know not.] "The men of Judea may be credited as to the purity of the wine and the oil." Gloss: "Even the people of the land, the very vulgar sort, may be credited for the purity of the wine and the oil, which is dedicated by them to the altar in the time of the vintage or pressing."
Men not known by name or face to the priests, yet if they offered wine or oil, were credited as to the purity and fitness of either, from their place of habitation. There are numberless instances of men, though perfectly unknown, yet that may be credited, either as to tithes, or separating the Trumah, or giving their testimony, &c. To the same sense our Saviour, chapter 5:31, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true"; i.e. in your judicatories it is not of any value with you, where no one is allowed to be a witness for himself. And in this place, "'He that hath sent me,' although you know him not, yet 'is he true, or worthy belief,' however I myself may not be so amongst you."
35. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?
[To the dispersed among the Gentiles, &c.] I confess Gentiles, in the apostle's writings, does very frequently denote the Gentiles: to which that of the Rabbins agrees well enough, the wisdom of the Greeks, i.e. the wisdom of the Gentiles. But here I would take Gentiles in its proper signification for the Greeks. It is doubtful, indeed, whether by the dispersed among the Gentiles ought to be understood the dispersed Greeks, or the Jews dispersed amongst the Greeks. There was no nation under heaven so dispersed and diffused throughout the world as both Greeks and Jews were.
In the very heart of all the barbarous nations the Greeks had their cities, and their language spoken amongst the Indians and Persians, &c.
And into what countries the Jews were scattered, the writings, both sacred and profane, do frequently instance. So that if the words are to be taken strictly of the Greeks, they bear this sense with them; "Is he going here and there amongst the Greeks, so widely and remotely dispersed in the world?"
That distinction between the Hebrews and the Hellenists explains the thing. The Jews of the first dispersion, viz. into Babylon, Assyria, and the countries adjacent, are called Hebrews, because they used the Hebrew, or Transeuphratensian language: and how they came to be dispersed into those countries we all know well enough, viz. that they were led away captive by the Babylonians and Persians. But those that were scattered amongst the Greeks used the Greek tongue, and were called Hellenists: and it is not easy to tell upon what account, or by what accident, they came to be dispersed amongst the Greeks, or other nations about. Those that lived in Palestine, they were Hebrews indeed as to their language, but they were not of the dispersion, either to one place or another, because they dwelt in their own proper country. The Babylonish dispersion was esteemed by the Jews the more noble, the more famous, and the more holy of any other. "The land of Babylon is in the same degree of purity with the land of Israel." "The Jewish offspring in Babylon is more valuable than that among the Greeks, even purer than that in Judea itself." Whence for a Palestine Jew to go to the Babylonish dispersion, was to go to a people and country equal, if not superior, to his own: but to go to the dispersion among the Greeks, was to go into unclean regions, where the very dust of the land defiled them: it was to go to an inferior race of Jews, and more impure in their blood; it was to go into nations most heathenized.
37. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
[In the last day, that great day of the feast.] The evangelist speaks according to a received opinion of that people: for from divine institution it does not appear that the last day of the feast had any greater mark set upon it than the first: nay, it might seem of lower consideration than all the rest. For on the first day were offered thirteen young bullocks upon the altar; on the second, twelve; and so fewer and fewer, till on the seventh day it came to seven; and on this eighth and last day of the feast there was but one only. As also for the whole seven days there were offered each day fourteen lambs, but on this eighth day seven only, Numbers 29. So that if the numbers of the sacrifices add any thing to the dignity of the day, this last day, will seem the most inconsiderable, and not like the great day of the feast.
I. But what the Jews' opinion was about this matter and this day, we may learn from themselves:
"There were seventy bullocks, according to the seventy nations of the world. But for what is the single bullock? It is for the singular nation [the Jewish]. A parable. It is like a great king that said to his servants, 'Make ready a great feast'; but the last day said to his friend, 'Make ready some little matter, that I may refresh myself with thee.'" The Gloss is, "I have no advantage or refreshment in that great feast with them, but in this little one with thee."
"On the eighth day it shall be a holy day; for so saith the Scripture, 'For my love they are my adversaries, but my prayer is for them,' Psalm 109. Thou seest, O God, that Israel, in the feast of tabernacles, offers before thee seventy bullocks for the seventy nations. Israel, therefore, say unto thee, O eternal Lord, behold we offer seventy bullocks for these; it is but reasonable, therefore, that they should love us; but on the contrary, as it is written, 'For our love they are our adversaries.' The holy blessed God, therefore, saith to Israel, 'Offer for yourselves on the eighth day.'" A parable. "This is like a king, who made a feast for seven days, and invited all the men in that province, for those seven days of the feast: but when those seven days were past, he saith to his friend, 'We have done what is needful to be done towards these men; let thee and me return to enjoy together whatever comes to hand, be it but one pound of flesh, or fish, or herbs.' So the holy blessed God saith to Israel, 'The eighth day shall be a feast or holy day,'" &c.
[The Jews' feast of Tabernacles.] Tisri. Let us draw down this month from its beginning to this feast of Tabernacles:
1. "The first day of the month Tisri was the beginning of the year, for stating the years, the intermissions of the seventh year, and the jubilees."
Upon this day was the 'blowing of trumpets,' Leviticus 23:24; and persons were sent out to give notice of the beginning of the year. On this day began the year of the world 3960, in the middle of which year Christ was crucified.
2. The second day; observed also as holy by the Jews that were in Babylon, that they might be sure not to miss the beginning of the year.
3. A fast for the murder of Gedaliah: for so they expound those words, (Zech 8:19) "the fast of the seventh month."
4. This day was the high priest in the apartment to which he then betook himself from his own house, that he might inure himself by exercise to the rites of the day of Atonement approaching, and be ready and fitted for the service of that day. "Seven days before the day of Expiation they sequestered the chief priest from his own house, and shut him up into an apartment, substituting to him another priest, lest accidentally there should some sort of uncleanness befall him."
5-8. All those seven days, after he betook himself from his own house to this chamber until the day of atonement, he sprinkles the blood of the daily sacrifice; offers the incense; snuffs the lamps; and brings the head and legs of the sacrifice to the altar, that he may be the more handy in his office upon the Expiation-day. In those seven days they send him some of the elders of the Beth Din, that they may read before him the office of that day. And at length those elders deliver him to the elders of the priesthood, who instruct him in handling the incense; and lead him into the apartment abtines; where they swear him, that he shall perform the service of that day according to rule, and not according to the Sadducees.
9. Whereas for the whole seven days they permitted him to eat according to his usual custom; the evening of this day approaching, they diet him more sparingly, lest a full stomach should occasion sleep. They spend the whole night waking; and when they find him nodding or inclining to sleepiness, then, either by words or some noise, they rouse and waken him.
10. The day of Expiation, a solemn fast. On this day began the year of jubilee, when it came about, Leviticus 25:9. And indeed this year, which is now under our consideration, was the twenty-eighth jubilee, reckoning from the seventh year of Joshua, wherein the land as subdued and rested from war, Joshua 11:23.
11-13. The multitude now gather together towards the feast of Tabernacles, that they might purify themselves before the feast, and prepare necessaries for it, viz. little tents, citrons, bundles of palms and willows, &c. But if any were defiled by the touch of a dead body, such were obliged to betake themselves to Jerusalem, before the feast of Expiation, that they might undergo seven days' purification before the feast of Tabernacles.
14. They were generally cut or trimmed on the vespers of the feast for the honour of it.
15. The first day of the feast of Tabernacles, a feast-day. Thirteen young bullocks offered, &c. Numbers 29:13, and so on. The preparation of the Chagigah. They lodge that night in Jerusalem.
16. The second day of the feast. Twelve young bullocks offered. The appearance of all the males in the court.
17. The third day. Eleven young bullocks.
18. The fourth day. Ten.
19. The fifth day. Nine.
20. The sixth day. Eight.
21. The seventh day. Seven.
22. The eighth day. One young bullock offered.
Upon all these days there was a pouring out of water upon the altar with wine (a thing not used at any other time); and for the sake of that, great joy, and singing, and dancing; such as was not all the year besides.
"At the close of the first day of the feast, they went down into the Court of the Women, and there prepared a great stage." [That is, benches on which the women stood above, and the men below.] "Golden candlesticks were there" fixed to the walls: "over these were golden cups, to which were four ladders set; by which four of the younger priests went up, having bottles in their hands that contained a hundred and twenty logs, which they emptied into every cup. Of the rags of the garments and girdles of the priests, they made wicks to light those lamps; and there was not a street throughout all Jerusalem that did not shine with that light."
"The religious and devout danced before them, having lighted torches in their hands, and sang songs and doxologies. The Levites with harps, psalteries, cymbals, and other instruments of music without number, stood upon those fifteen steps by which they went down from the Court of the Women, according to the fifteen psalms of degrees, and sang. Two priests also stood in the upper gate, which goes down from the Court of Israel to the Court of the Women, with two trumpets in their hands. When the cock crew [or the president gave his signal], the trumpets sounded: when they came to the tenth step, they sounded again: when they came to the court they sounded: when they came to the pavement they sounded: and so went on sounding the trumpets till they came to the east gate of the court. When they came thither, they turned their faces from the east to west, and said, 'Our fathers in this place, turning their backs upon the Temple, and their faces towards the east, worshipped the sun; but we turn our faces to God,'" &c.
"The Rabbins have a tradition. Some of them while they were dancing said, 'Blessed be our youth, for that they have not made our old men ashamed.' These were the religious, and men of good works. And some said, 'Blessed be our old men, that have made atonement for our youth.' And both one and the other said, 'Blessed be he who hath not sinned; and he who hath, let it be forgiven him.'"
As to the reason of this mirth and pleasantness, we shall see more in our notes on verse 38.
4. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world.
[In secret; openly.] these brethren of Christ, whoever they were, did not as yet believe; because they saw him live so obscure, and did not behave himself with that pomp and outward appearance which they expected in the Messiah. And therefore they persuade him to go into Judea, where he had baptized most disciples, John 3:22, that, upon the lustre of his miracles, he might shine with greater splendour and majesty.
8. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
[I go not up yet unto this feast.] That passage in St. Luke, chapter 9:51, "When the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem" must have relation to this story; as will be very evident to any one that will study the harmony of the gospel; especially if they observe, that this evangelist tells us of two journeys after this which Christ took to Jerusalem, viz. chapter 13:22, to the feast of the Dedication; and chapter 17:11, to the feast of the Passover. He had absented himself a long time from Judea, upon the account of those snares that had been laid for him; but now, when he had not above six months to live and converse in this world, he determines resolutely to give all due manifestations of himself, both in Judea, and wherever else he should happen to come. And for this cause he sent those seventy disciples before his face, into every city and place where he himself would come. Luke 10:1.
When therefore he tells his unbelieving brethren, I go not up yet, &c., he does not deny that he would go at all, but only that he would not go yet: partly, because he had no need of those previous cleansings which they had, if they had touched any dead body; partly, that he might choose the most fit season for the manifestation of himself.
But if we take notice how Christ was received into Jerusalem five days before the Passover, with those very rites and solemnities that were used at the feast of Tabernacles, viz. "with branches of palms," &c. chapter 12:13, these words may seem to relate to that time; and so the word feast might not denote the individual feast that was now instant, but the kind of feast, or festival-time. As if he had said, "You would have me go up to this feast, that I may be received by my disciples with applause; but I do not go up to that kind of festivity; the time appointed for that affair is not yet come."
14. Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
[About the midst of the feast.] On some work-day of the feast. But was he not there on the first or second day of the feast, to perform those things that ought to have been performed, making ready the Chagigahs, and appearing in the court? If he was there the second day, he might be well enough said to be there about the midst of the feast, for that day was not a festival; unless perchance at that time it might have been the sabbath: and for absence the first day, there were certain compensations might be made.
"The compensations that might be made for the first day were these: if any one was obliged to offer on the first day, and did not do it, he compensated by offering upon any other day."
But that which is here said, that "he went up into the Temple and taught, about the midst of the feast," need not suppose he was absent from the beginning of it: nor ought we rashly to think that he would neglect any thing that had been prescribed and appointed in the law. But if may be reasonably enough questioned, whether he nicely observed all those rites and usages of the feast that had been invented by the scribes. That is, whether he had a little tent or tabernacle of his own, or made use of some friend's, which was allowed and lawful to be done. Whether he made fourteen meals in that little booth, as is prescribed. Whether he carried bundles of palms and willows about the altar, as also a citron; whether he made his tent for all those seven days his fixed habitation, and his own house only occasional; and many other things, largely and nicely prescribed in the canons and rules about this feast.
19. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
[Why go ye about to kill me?] The emphasis or force of this clause lies chiefly in the word me: "Why go you about to kill me? none of you all perform the law as you ought; and yet your great design is to kill me, as a transgressor of it: why me, and not others?"
22. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
[Ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.] They do all things that are necessary towards circumcision on the sabbath day. "R. Akibah saith, Any work that may be done on the vespers of the sabbath must not be done on the sabbath; but circumcision, when it cannot be done on the vespers of the sabbath, may be done on the sabbath day."
"Danger of life nulleth the sabbath: circumcision also, and its cure, nulleth the sabbath."
But as to this matter, they distinguish in Bereshith Rabba: "Jacob of Nabor taught us in Tsur: It is lawful to circumcise the son of a stranger on the sabbath day. R. Haggai heard this, and sent to him saying, Come and be disciplined," &c. And a little after; "R. Haggai saith to him, Lie down [to take discipline] and I will teach you. If a heathen come to you, and say, I would be made a Jew, so that he would be circumcised on the sabbath day, or on the day of Expiation, will we, for his sake, profane those days? Do we ever profane those days either of the sabbath, or Expiation, for any other than one born of an Israelitess only?" We meet with the same also in Bemidbar Rabba, and Midras Coheleth.
Let us look a little into the way of Christ's arguing in this place: to me it seems thus: "Moses, therefore, gave you circumcision, that you might rightly understand the nature of the sabbath: for, I. Circumcision was to be observed by the fathers before Moses, punctually on the eight day. II. Now, therefore, when Moses established the laws about the sabbath, he did by no means forbid the work of circumcision on the sabbath, if it happened to be the eighth day. III. For this did Moses give and continue circumcision among you, that you might learn from hence to judge of the nature of the sabbath day. And let us, therefore, argue it: If by Moses' institution and allowance it was lawful, for the advantage of the infant, to circumcise him on the sabbath day, is it not warrantable, by Moses' law, for the advantage of a grown man, to heal him on the sabbath day? If it be lawful to wound an infant by circumcision, surely it is equally, if not much more, lawful to heal a man by a word's speaking."
27. Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
[When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.] How doth this agree with verse 42, and with Matthew 2:5, 6? They doubted not, indeed, but he should give the first manifestation of himself from Bethlehem; but then they supposed he would be hid again; and after some space of time make a new appearance, from what place no one could tell.
Jewish authors tell you, that Christ, before their times, had indeed been born in Bethlehem, but immediately snatched away they knew not whither, and so hid that he could not be found. We related the whole story before in our notes at Matthew 2:1.
Their conceptions in this thing we have explained to us in Midras Schir: "'My beloved is like a roe or a young hart,' Canticles 2:9. A roe appears and is hid, appears and is hid again. So our first redeemer [Moses] appeared and was hid, and at length appeared again. So our latter Redeemer [Messiah] shall be revealed to them, and shall be hid again from them; and how long shall he be hid from them?" &c. A little after; "In the end of forty-five days he shall be revealed again, and cause manna to descend amongst them."
They conceive a twofold manifestation of the Messiah; the first, in Bethlehem; but will straightway disappear and lie hid. At length he will shew himself; but from what place and at what time that will be, no one knew. In his first appearance in Bethlehem, he should do nothing that was memorable; in his second was the hope and expectation of the nation. The Jews therefore who tell our Saviour here, that "when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is," whether they knew him to have been born at Bethlehem or no, yet by his wonderful works they conceive this to have been the second manifestation of himself: and therefore only doubt whether he should be the Messiah or no, because they knew the place [Nazareth] from whence he came; having been taught by tradition, that Messiah should come the second time from a place perfectly unknown to all men.
28. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
[He that sent me is true, whom ye know not.] "The men of Judea may be credited as to the purity of the wine and the oil." Gloss: "Even the people of the land, the very vulgar sort, may be credited for the purity of the wine and the oil, which is dedicated by them to the altar in the time of the vintage or pressing."
Men not known by name or face to the priests, yet if they offered wine or oil, were credited as to the purity and fitness of either, from their place of habitation. There are numberless instances of men, though perfectly unknown, yet that may be credited, either as to tithes, or separating the Trumah, or giving their testimony, &c. To the same sense our Saviour, chapter 5:31, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true"; i.e. in your judicatories it is not of any value with you, where no one is allowed to be a witness for himself. And in this place, "'He that hath sent me,' although you know him not, yet 'is he true, or worthy belief,' however I myself may not be so amongst you."
35. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?
[To the dispersed among the Gentiles, &c.] I confess Gentiles, in the apostle's writings, does very frequently denote the Gentiles: to which that of the Rabbins agrees well enough, the wisdom of the Greeks, i.e. the wisdom of the Gentiles. But here I would take Gentiles in its proper signification for the Greeks. It is doubtful, indeed, whether by the dispersed among the Gentiles ought to be understood the dispersed Greeks, or the Jews dispersed amongst the Greeks. There was no nation under heaven so dispersed and diffused throughout the world as both Greeks and Jews were.
In the very heart of all the barbarous nations the Greeks had their cities, and their language spoken amongst the Indians and Persians, &c.
And into what countries the Jews were scattered, the writings, both sacred and profane, do frequently instance. So that if the words are to be taken strictly of the Greeks, they bear this sense with them; "Is he going here and there amongst the Greeks, so widely and remotely dispersed in the world?"
That distinction between the Hebrews and the Hellenists explains the thing. The Jews of the first dispersion, viz. into Babylon, Assyria, and the countries adjacent, are called Hebrews, because they used the Hebrew, or Transeuphratensian language: and how they came to be dispersed into those countries we all know well enough, viz. that they were led away captive by the Babylonians and Persians. But those that were scattered amongst the Greeks used the Greek tongue, and were called Hellenists: and it is not easy to tell upon what account, or by what accident, they came to be dispersed amongst the Greeks, or other nations about. Those that lived in Palestine, they were Hebrews indeed as to their language, but they were not of the dispersion, either to one place or another, because they dwelt in their own proper country. The Babylonish dispersion was esteemed by the Jews the more noble, the more famous, and the more holy of any other. "The land of Babylon is in the same degree of purity with the land of Israel." "The Jewish offspring in Babylon is more valuable than that among the Greeks, even purer than that in Judea itself." Whence for a Palestine Jew to go to the Babylonish dispersion, was to go to a people and country equal, if not superior, to his own: but to go to the dispersion among the Greeks, was to go into unclean regions, where the very dust of the land defiled them: it was to go to an inferior race of Jews, and more impure in their blood; it was to go into nations most heathenized.
37. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
[In the last day, that great day of the feast.] The evangelist speaks according to a received opinion of that people: for from divine institution it does not appear that the last day of the feast had any greater mark set upon it than the first: nay, it might seem of lower consideration than all the rest. For on the first day were offered thirteen young bullocks upon the altar; on the second, twelve; and so fewer and fewer, till on the seventh day it came to seven; and on this eighth and last day of the feast there was but one only. As also for the whole seven days there were offered each day fourteen lambs, but on this eighth day seven only, Numbers 29. So that if the numbers of the sacrifices add any thing to the dignity of the day, this last day, will seem the most inconsiderable, and not like the great day of the feast.
I. But what the Jews' opinion was about this matter and this day, we may learn from themselves:
"There were seventy bullocks, according to the seventy nations of the world. But for what is the single bullock? It is for the singular nation [the Jewish]. A parable. It is like a great king that said to his servants, 'Make ready a great feast'; but the last day said to his friend, 'Make ready some little matter, that I may refresh myself with thee.'" The Gloss is, "I have no advantage or refreshment in that great feast with them, but in this little one with thee."
"On the eighth day it shall be a holy day; for so saith the Scripture, 'For my love they are my adversaries, but my prayer is for them,' Psalm 109. Thou seest, O God, that Israel, in the feast of tabernacles, offers before thee seventy bullocks for the seventy nations. Israel, therefore, say unto thee, O eternal Lord, behold we offer seventy bullocks for these; it is but reasonable, therefore, that they should love us; but on the contrary, as it is written, 'For our love they are our adversaries.' The holy blessed God, therefore, saith to Israel, 'Offer for yourselves on the eighth day.'" A parable. "This is like a king, who made a feast for seven days, and invited all the men in that province, for those seven days of the feast: but when those seven days were past, he saith to his friend, 'We have done what is needful to be done towards these men; let thee and me return to enjoy together whatever comes to hand, be it but one pound of flesh, or fish, or herbs.' So the holy blessed God saith to Israel, 'The eighth day shall be a feast or holy day,'" &c.
"They offer seventy bullocks for the seventy nations, to make atonement for them, that the rain may fall upon the fields of all the world; for, in the feast of tabernacles, judgment is made as to the waters": i.e. God determines what rains shall be for the year following.
Hence, therefore, this last day of the feast grew into such esteem in that nation above the other days; because, on the other seven days they thought supplications and sacrifices were offered not so much for themselves as for the nations of the world, but the solemnities of the eighth day were wholly in their own behalf. And hence the determination and finishing of the feast when the seven days were over, and the beginning, as it were, of a new one on the eighth day. For,
II. They did not reckon the eighth day as included within the feast, but a festival day separately and by itself.
The eighth day is a feast by itself, according to these letters, by which are meant,
1. The casting of lots. Gloss: "As to the bullocks of the seven days, there were no lots cast to determine what course of priests should offer them, because they took it in order, &c.; but on the eighth day they cast lots."
2. A peculiar benediction by itself.
3. A feast by itself. Gloss: "For on this day they did not sit in their tents." Whence that is not unworthy our observation out of Maimonides; "If any one, either through ignorance or presumption, have not made a booth for himself on the first day of the feast [which is holy], let him do it on the next day; nay, at the very end of the seventh day." Note that, "at the very end of the seventh day"; and yet there was no use of booths on the eighth day.
4. A peculiar sacrifice. Not of six bullocks, which ought to have been, if that day were to have been joined to the rest of the feast, but one only.
5. A song by itself. Otherwise sung than on other days.
6. The benediction of the day by itself; or as others, the royal blessing; according to that 1 Kings 8:66, "On the eighth day Solomon sent the people away: and they blessed the king." But the former most obtains.
To all which may be added what follows in the same place about this day; "A man is bound to sing the Hallel" [viz. Psalms 113-118].
He is bound to rejoice; that is, to offer thank-offerings for the joy of that feast.
And he bound is to honour that last day, the eighth day of the feast, as well as all the rest.
On this day they did not use their booths, nor their branches of palms, nor their pome-citrons: but they had their offering of water upon this day as well as the rest.
38. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
[Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.] To this offering of water, perhaps, our Saviour's words may have some respect; for it was only at this feast that it was used, and none other. You have the manner of this service described in the place above quoted, to this purpose:
After what manner is this offering of water? "They filled a golden phial containing three logs out of Siloam. When they came to the water gate" [a gate of the Temple so called, as some would have it, because that water which was fetched from Siloam was brought through it], "they sounded their trumpets and sang. Then a priest goes up by the ascent of the altar, and turns to the left. There were two silver vessels, one with water, the other with wine: he pours some of the water into the wine, and some of the wine into the water, and so performs the service."
"R. Judah saith, They offer one log every of those eight days: and they say to him that offered it, 'Lift up thy hand': for upon a certain time there was one that offered it upon his feet" [Gemar. He was a Sadducee. Gloss: The Sadducees do not approve the offering of water], "and the whole congregation pelted him with their citrons. That day a horn of the altar was broke."
"Whoever hath not seen the rejoicing that was upon the drawing of this water, hath never seen any rejoicing at all."
This offering of water, they say, was a tradition given at mount Sinai: and that the prophet Jonah was inspired by the Holy Ghost upon this offering of water.
If you ask what foundation this usage hath, Rambam will tell us, "There are some kind of remote hints of it in the law. However, those that will not believe the traditional law, will not believe this article about the sacrifice of water."
I. They bring for it the authority of the prophet Isaiah, the house of drawing; for it is written, "With joy shall ye draw water," &c. Isaiah 12:3.
This rejoicing (which we have described before) they called the rejoicing of the law, or for the law: for by waters they often understand the law, Isaiah 55:1, and several other places; and from thence the rejoicing for these waters.
II. But they add moreover, that this drawing and offering of water signifies the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.
"Why do they call it the house of drawing? Because thence they draw the Holy Spirit." Gloss in Succah, ubi supr.: "In the Jerusalem Talmud it is expounded, that they draw there the Holy Spirit, for a divine breathing is upon the man through joy."
Another Gloss: "The flute also sounded for increase of the joy." Drawing of water, therefore, took its rise from the words of Isaiah: they rejoiced over the waters as a symbol and figure of the law; and they looked for the holy Spirit upon this joy of theirs.
III. But still they add further: "Why doth the law command, saying, Offer ye water on the feast of Tabernacles? The holy blessed God saith, Offer ye waters before me on the feast of Tabernacles, that the rains of the year may be blessed to you." For they had an opinion, that God, at that feast, decreed and determined on the rains that should fall the following year. Hence that in the place before mentioned, "In the feast of Tabernacles it is determined concerning the waters."
And now let us reflect upon this passage of our Saviour, "He that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." They agree with what he had said before to the Samaritan woman, chapter 4:14; and both expressions are upon the occasion of drawing of water.
The Jews acknowledge that the latter Redeemer is to procure water for them, as their former redeemer Moses had done. But as to the true meaning of this, they are very blind and ignorant, and might be better taught by the Messiah here, if they had any mind to learn.
I. Our Saviour calls them to a belief in him from their own boast and glorying in the law: and therefore I rather think those words, as the Scripture hath said, should relate to the foregoing clause, "Whosoever believeth in me, as the Scripture hath spoken about believing, Isaiah 28:16, 'I lay in Sion for a foundation a tried stone: he that believeth,' &c.: Habakkuk 2:4. 'The just shall live by his faith.'" And the Jews themselves confess, that six hundred and thirteen precepts of the law may all be reduced to this, "The just shall live by faith"; and to that of Amos 5:6, "Seek the Lord, and ye shall live."
II. Let these words, then, of our Saviour be set in opposition to this right and usage in the feast of Tabernacles of which we have been speaking: "Have you such wonderful rejoicing at drawing a little water from Siloam? He that believes in me, whole rivers of living waters shall flow out of his own belly. Do you think the waters mentioned in the prophets do signify the law? They do indeed denote the Holy Spirit, which the Messiah will dispense to those that believe in him: and do you expect the Holy Spirit from the law, or from your rejoicing in the law? The Holy Spirit is of faith, and not of the law," Galatians 3:2.
39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
[For the Holy Ghost was not yet.] These words have relation to that most received opinion of the Jews about the departure of the Holy Spirit after the death of Zechariah and Malachi. To this also must that passage be interpreted, when those of Ephesus say, Acts 19:2, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost": that is, We have indeed heard of the Holy Ghost's departure after the death of our last prophets, but of his return and redonation of him we have not yet heard. O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known, Habakkuk 3:2. He calls the seventy years of captivity the midst of the years: for, on the one hand, it had been seven times seventy years from the birth of Samuel, the first of the prophets, to the captivity, and, on the other hand, it was seven times seventy years from the end of the captivity to the death of Christ. The prayer is, that the gift of prophecy might not be lost, but preserved, whiles the people should live exiled in a heathen country. And according to the twofold virtue of prophecy, the one of working miracles, the other of foretelling things to come, he uses a twofold phrase, revive thy work, and make known. Nor indeed was that gift lost in the captivity, but was very illustrious in Daniel, Ezekiel, &c. It returned with those that came back from the captivity, and was continued for one generation; but then (the whole canon of the Old Testament being perfected and made up) it departed, not returning till the dawn of the gospel, at what time it appeared in inspiring the blessed Virgin, John Baptist and his parents, &c.: and yet "the Holy Ghost was not yet come," that is, not answerably to that large and signal promise of it in Joel 2:28.
49. But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
[This people, &c.] The people of the earth, in common phrase, opposed to the disciples of the wise men, whom they call the holy people; but the former they call the accursed.
52. They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
[Art thou also of Galilee?] It seems to be spoken scoffingly: "Art thou of those Galileans that believe in this Galilean?"
Hence, therefore, this last day of the feast grew into such esteem in that nation above the other days; because, on the other seven days they thought supplications and sacrifices were offered not so much for themselves as for the nations of the world, but the solemnities of the eighth day were wholly in their own behalf. And hence the determination and finishing of the feast when the seven days were over, and the beginning, as it were, of a new one on the eighth day. For,
II. They did not reckon the eighth day as included within the feast, but a festival day separately and by itself.
The eighth day is a feast by itself, according to these letters, by which are meant,
1. The casting of lots. Gloss: "As to the bullocks of the seven days, there were no lots cast to determine what course of priests should offer them, because they took it in order, &c.; but on the eighth day they cast lots."
2. A peculiar benediction by itself.
3. A feast by itself. Gloss: "For on this day they did not sit in their tents." Whence that is not unworthy our observation out of Maimonides; "If any one, either through ignorance or presumption, have not made a booth for himself on the first day of the feast [which is holy], let him do it on the next day; nay, at the very end of the seventh day." Note that, "at the very end of the seventh day"; and yet there was no use of booths on the eighth day.
4. A peculiar sacrifice. Not of six bullocks, which ought to have been, if that day were to have been joined to the rest of the feast, but one only.
5. A song by itself. Otherwise sung than on other days.
6. The benediction of the day by itself; or as others, the royal blessing; according to that 1 Kings 8:66, "On the eighth day Solomon sent the people away: and they blessed the king." But the former most obtains.
To all which may be added what follows in the same place about this day; "A man is bound to sing the Hallel" [viz. Psalms 113-118].
He is bound to rejoice; that is, to offer thank-offerings for the joy of that feast.
And he bound is to honour that last day, the eighth day of the feast, as well as all the rest.
On this day they did not use their booths, nor their branches of palms, nor their pome-citrons: but they had their offering of water upon this day as well as the rest.
38. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
[Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.] To this offering of water, perhaps, our Saviour's words may have some respect; for it was only at this feast that it was used, and none other. You have the manner of this service described in the place above quoted, to this purpose:
After what manner is this offering of water? "They filled a golden phial containing three logs out of Siloam. When they came to the water gate" [a gate of the Temple so called, as some would have it, because that water which was fetched from Siloam was brought through it], "they sounded their trumpets and sang. Then a priest goes up by the ascent of the altar, and turns to the left. There were two silver vessels, one with water, the other with wine: he pours some of the water into the wine, and some of the wine into the water, and so performs the service."
"R. Judah saith, They offer one log every of those eight days: and they say to him that offered it, 'Lift up thy hand': for upon a certain time there was one that offered it upon his feet" [Gemar. He was a Sadducee. Gloss: The Sadducees do not approve the offering of water], "and the whole congregation pelted him with their citrons. That day a horn of the altar was broke."
"Whoever hath not seen the rejoicing that was upon the drawing of this water, hath never seen any rejoicing at all."
This offering of water, they say, was a tradition given at mount Sinai: and that the prophet Jonah was inspired by the Holy Ghost upon this offering of water.
If you ask what foundation this usage hath, Rambam will tell us, "There are some kind of remote hints of it in the law. However, those that will not believe the traditional law, will not believe this article about the sacrifice of water."
I. They bring for it the authority of the prophet Isaiah, the house of drawing; for it is written, "With joy shall ye draw water," &c. Isaiah 12:3.
This rejoicing (which we have described before) they called the rejoicing of the law, or for the law: for by waters they often understand the law, Isaiah 55:1, and several other places; and from thence the rejoicing for these waters.
II. But they add moreover, that this drawing and offering of water signifies the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.
"Why do they call it the house of drawing? Because thence they draw the Holy Spirit." Gloss in Succah, ubi supr.: "In the Jerusalem Talmud it is expounded, that they draw there the Holy Spirit, for a divine breathing is upon the man through joy."
Another Gloss: "The flute also sounded for increase of the joy." Drawing of water, therefore, took its rise from the words of Isaiah: they rejoiced over the waters as a symbol and figure of the law; and they looked for the holy Spirit upon this joy of theirs.
III. But still they add further: "Why doth the law command, saying, Offer ye water on the feast of Tabernacles? The holy blessed God saith, Offer ye waters before me on the feast of Tabernacles, that the rains of the year may be blessed to you." For they had an opinion, that God, at that feast, decreed and determined on the rains that should fall the following year. Hence that in the place before mentioned, "In the feast of Tabernacles it is determined concerning the waters."
And now let us reflect upon this passage of our Saviour, "He that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." They agree with what he had said before to the Samaritan woman, chapter 4:14; and both expressions are upon the occasion of drawing of water.
The Jews acknowledge that the latter Redeemer is to procure water for them, as their former redeemer Moses had done. But as to the true meaning of this, they are very blind and ignorant, and might be better taught by the Messiah here, if they had any mind to learn.
I. Our Saviour calls them to a belief in him from their own boast and glorying in the law: and therefore I rather think those words, as the Scripture hath said, should relate to the foregoing clause, "Whosoever believeth in me, as the Scripture hath spoken about believing, Isaiah 28:16, 'I lay in Sion for a foundation a tried stone: he that believeth,' &c.: Habakkuk 2:4. 'The just shall live by his faith.'" And the Jews themselves confess, that six hundred and thirteen precepts of the law may all be reduced to this, "The just shall live by faith"; and to that of Amos 5:6, "Seek the Lord, and ye shall live."
II. Let these words, then, of our Saviour be set in opposition to this right and usage in the feast of Tabernacles of which we have been speaking: "Have you such wonderful rejoicing at drawing a little water from Siloam? He that believes in me, whole rivers of living waters shall flow out of his own belly. Do you think the waters mentioned in the prophets do signify the law? They do indeed denote the Holy Spirit, which the Messiah will dispense to those that believe in him: and do you expect the Holy Spirit from the law, or from your rejoicing in the law? The Holy Spirit is of faith, and not of the law," Galatians 3:2.
39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
[For the Holy Ghost was not yet.] These words have relation to that most received opinion of the Jews about the departure of the Holy Spirit after the death of Zechariah and Malachi. To this also must that passage be interpreted, when those of Ephesus say, Acts 19:2, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost": that is, We have indeed heard of the Holy Ghost's departure after the death of our last prophets, but of his return and redonation of him we have not yet heard. O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known, Habakkuk 3:2. He calls the seventy years of captivity the midst of the years: for, on the one hand, it had been seven times seventy years from the birth of Samuel, the first of the prophets, to the captivity, and, on the other hand, it was seven times seventy years from the end of the captivity to the death of Christ. The prayer is, that the gift of prophecy might not be lost, but preserved, whiles the people should live exiled in a heathen country. And according to the twofold virtue of prophecy, the one of working miracles, the other of foretelling things to come, he uses a twofold phrase, revive thy work, and make known. Nor indeed was that gift lost in the captivity, but was very illustrious in Daniel, Ezekiel, &c. It returned with those that came back from the captivity, and was continued for one generation; but then (the whole canon of the Old Testament being perfected and made up) it departed, not returning till the dawn of the gospel, at what time it appeared in inspiring the blessed Virgin, John Baptist and his parents, &c.: and yet "the Holy Ghost was not yet come," that is, not answerably to that large and signal promise of it in Joel 2:28.
49. But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
[This people, &c.] The people of the earth, in common phrase, opposed to the disciples of the wise men, whom they call the holy people; but the former they call the accursed.
52. They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
[Art thou also of Galilee?] It seems to be spoken scoffingly: "Art thou of those Galileans that believe in this Galilean?"
John 8
Expositors, almost with one consent, do note that this story of the woman taken in adultery, was not in some ancient copies; and whiles I am considering upon what accident this should be, there are two little stories in Eusebius that come to mind. The one we have in these words, He [Papias] tells us also another history concerning a woman accused of many crimes before our Lord, which history indeed the Gospel according to the Hebrews makes mention of. All that do cite that story do suppose he means this adulteress. The other story he tells us in his Life of Constantine: he brings in Constantine writing thus to him: "I think good to signify to your prudence, that you would take care that fifty volumes of those Scriptures, whose preparation and use you know so necessary for the church, and which beside may be easily read and carried about, may, by very skilful penmen, be written out in fair parchment."
So indeed the Latin interpreter: but may we not by the word volumes of those Scriptures understand the Gospels compacted into one body by way of harmony? The reason of this conjecture is twofold: partly those Eusebian canons formed into such a kind of harmony; partly because, cap. 37, he tells us that, having finished his work, he sent to the emperor threes and fours: which words if they are not to be understood of the evangelists, sometimes three, sometimes four, (the greater number including the less,) embodied together by such a harmony, I confess I cannot tell what to make of them.
But be it so that it must not be understood of such a harmony; and grant we further that the Latin interpreter hits him right, when he supposes Eusebius to have picked out here and there, according to his pleasure and judgment, some parts of the Holy Scriptures to be transcribed; surely he would never have omitted the evangelists, the noblest and the most profitable part of the New Testament.
If therefore he ascribed this story of the adulteress to the trifler Papias, or at least to the Gospel according to the Hebrews only, without doubt he would never insert it in copies transcribed by him. Hence possibly might arise the omission of it in some copies after Eusebius' times. It is in copies before his age, viz. in Ammonius, Tatianus, &c.
1. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
[Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.] But whether to the town of Bethany, or to some booth fixed in that mount, is uncertain. For because of the infinite multitude that had swarmed together at those feasts, it is probable many of them had made themselves tents about the city, that they might not be too much straitened within the walls, though they kept within the bounds still of a sabbath day's journey.
"'And thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents,' Deuteronomy 16:7. The first night of the feast they were bound to lodge within the city: after that it was lawful for them to abide without the walls; but it must be within the bounds of a sabbath day's journey. Whereas therefore it is said, 'Thou shalt go unto thy tents'; this is the meaning of it. Thou shalt go into thy tents that are without the walls of Jerusalem, but by no means into thine own house."
It is said, chapter 7:53, that "every man went unto his own house"; upon which words let that be a comment that we meet with, After the daily evening sacrifice, the fathers of the Sanhedrim went home.
The eighth day therefore being ended, the history of which we have in chapter 7, the following night was out of the compass of the feast; so that they had done the dancings of which we have spoken before. The evangelist, therefore, does not without cause say that "every man went unto his own house"; for otherwise they must have gone to those dancings, if the next day had not been the sabbath.
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst.
[A woman taken in adultery.] Our Saviour calls the generation an adulterous generation, Matthew 12:39: see also James 4:4, which indeed might be well enough understood in its literal and proper sense.
"From the time that murderers have multiplied amongst us, the beheading of the heifer hath ceased: and since the increase of adultery, the bitter waters have been out of use."
"Since the time that adultery so openly prevailed under the second Temple, the Sanhedrim abrogated that way of trial by the bitter water; grounding it upon what is written, 'I will not visit your daughters when they shall go a whoring, nor your wives when they shall commit adultery.'"
The Gemarists say, That Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai was the author of this counsel: he lived at this very time, and was of the Sanhedrim; perhaps present amongst those that set this adulterous woman before Christ. For there is some reason to suppose that the "scribes and Pharisees" here mentioned were no other than the fathers of the Sanhedrim.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
[That such should be stoned.] Such. Who? what, all adulteresses? or all taken in adultery, in the very act? There is a third qualification still: for the condition of the adulteress is to be considered, whether she was a married woman, or betrothed only.
God punisheth adultery by death, Leviticus 20:10. But the masters of traditions say, that "wherever death is simply mentioned in the law," [that is, where the kind of death is not expressly prescribed,] "there it is to be supposed no other than strangling." Only they except; "a daughter of an Israelite, if she commit adultery after she is married, must be strangled; if only betrothed, she must be stoned. A priest's daughter, if she commit adultery when married, must be stoned; if only betrothed, she must be burnt."
Hence we may conjecture what the condition of this adulteress was: either she was an Israelitess not yet married, but betrothed only; or else she was a priest's daughter, married: rather the former, because they say, "Moses in the law hath commanded us that such should be stoned." See Deuteronomy 22:21. But as to the latter, there is no such command given by Moses.
6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
[Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.] Feigning as though he heard them not, had of old crept into some books: and it is plain enough that it did creep in. For when Christ had given proof enough that he took cognizance of the matter propounded to him by those words, "He that is without sin among you," &c., yet did he stoop down again, and write upon the earth.
Many have offered their conjectures why he used this unusual gesture at this time; and, with the reader's leave, let me also offer mine.
I. The matter in hand was, judging a woman taken in adultery: and therefore our Saviour in this matter applies himself conformably to the rule made and provided for the trial of an adulteress by the bitter water, Numbers 5.
II. Among the Jews, this obtained in the trial of a wife suspected: "If any man shall unlawfully lie with another woman, the bitter water shall not try his wife: for it is said, If the husband be guiltless from iniquity, then shall the woman bear her iniquity."
"When the woman hath drunk the bitter water, if she be guilty, her looks turn pale, her eyes swell up, &c. So they turn her out of the Court of the Women; and first her belly swells, then her thigh rots, and she dies. The same hour that she dies, the adulterer also, upon whose account she drank the water, dies too, wherever he is, being equally seized with a swelling in his belly, rottenness in his thigh, or his pudenda. But this is done only upon condition that the husband hath been guiltless himself: for if he have lain with any unlawfully himself, then this water will not try his wife.
"If you follow whoring yourselves, the bitter waters will not try your wives."
You may see by these passages how directly our Saviour levels at the equity of this sentence, willing to bring these accusers of the woman to a just trial first. You may imagine you hear him thus speaking to them: "Ye have brought this adulterous woman to be adjudged by me: I will therefore govern myself according to the rule of trying such by the bitter waters. You say and you believe, according to the common opinion of your nation, that the woman upon whom a jealousy is brought, though she be indeed guilty, yet if the husband that accuseth her be faulty that way himself, she cannot be affected by those waters, nor contract any hurt or danger by them. If the divine judgment proceeded in that method, so will I at this time. Are you that accuse this woman wholly guiltless in the like kind of sin? Whosoever is so, 'let him cast the first stone,' &c. But if you yourselves stand chargeable with the same crimes, then your own applauded tradition, the opinion of your nation, the procedure of divine judgment in the trial of such, may determine in this case, and acquit me from all blame, if I condemn not this woman, when her accusers themselves are to be condemned."
III. It was the office of the priest, when he tried a suspected wife, to stoop down and gather the dust off the floor of the sanctuary; which when he had infused into the water, he was to give the woman to drink: he was to write also in a book the curses or adjurations that were to be pronounced upon her, Numbers 5:17, 23. In like manner our Saviour stoops down; and making the floor itself his book, he writes something in the dust, doubtless against these accusers whom he was resolved to try, in analogy to those curses and adjurations written in a book by the priest, against the woman that was to be tried.
IV. The priest after he had written these curses in a book blots them out with the bitter water, Numbers 5:23. For the matter transacted was doubtful. They do not make the suspected woman drink, unless in a doubtful case.
The question is, Whether the woman was guilty or not? If guilty, behold the curses writ against her: if not guilty, then behold they are blotted out. But Christ was assured, that those whom he was trying were not innocent: so he does not write and blot out, but writes and writes again.
V. He imitates the gesture of the priest, if it be true what the Jews report concerning it, and it is not unlikely, viz. that he first pronounced the curses; then made the woman drink; and after she had drunk, pronounced the same curses again. So Christ first stoops down and writes; then makes them as it were drink, in that searching reflection of his, "He that is without sin among you"; and then stoops down again and writes upon the earth.
9. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
[Being convicted by their own conscience.] Our Saviour had determined to shame these wicked men before the common people: and therefore adds that peculiar force and energy to what he said that they could not stand it out, but with shame and confusion drawing off and retiring, they confess their guilt before the whole crowd. A thing little less than miracle.
12. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
[I am the light of the world.] "R. Biba Sangorius saith, Light is the name of the Messiah. As it is written, Light dwells with him," Daniel 2:22. We have the same passage in Bereshith Rabba; saving that the author of these words there is R. Abba Serongianus.
They were wont to adorn their Rabbins and doctors with swelling and magnificent titles of Lights.
"A tradition. His name is not R. Meir, but Nehorai. Why therefore is he called R. Meir? Because he enlightens the eyes of wise men by the traditions. And yet his name is not Nehorai neither, but R. Nehemiah. Why then is he called R. Nehorai? Because he enlightens the eyes of wise men by the traditions." O blessed luminaries without light! Begone, ye shades of night! for "the Sun of righteousness" hath now displayed himself.
13. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
[Thou bearest record of thyself.] This and the following passages uttered in dispute, whether Christ was the light or no, bring to mind what was wont to be transacted amongst them in their witnessing about the appearance of the new moon. We have it in Rosh Hashanah.
I. It was to be attested before the Sanhedrim by two persons that they saw the new moon. So Christ mentions two witnesses attesting him to be the light, viz. the Father and himself, verse 18.
II. They did not allow the testimony about the new moon, unless from persons known to the Sanhedrim: or if they were unknown, there were those sent along with them from the magistracy of that city where they lived, that should attest their veracity. Compare verses 18, 19: "I bear witness of myself, and ye know me not. My Father also bears witness of me; but ye have not known my Father."
III. One witness is not to be believed in his own cause. So the Pharisees, verse 13, "Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true."
IV. The father and the son, or any sort of relatives, are fit and credible witnesses: verse 18; "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."
20. These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
[In the treasury.] In the treasury, that is, in the Court of the Women; where he had transacted the matter about the woman taken in adultery. It was called the treasury upon the account of thirteen corban chests placed there. Of which we have spoken in another tract.
25. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
[The same that I said unto you from the beginning.] I. Amongst the several renderings of this place, this seems the most proper; The same that I said unto you from the beginning. So Genesis 43:18: The money returned.....at the first time": and verse 20, We came indeed down at the first time to buy food.
The words thus rendered may refer to that full and open profession which our Saviour made of himself before the Sanhedrim, that he was 'the Son of God,' or 'the Messiah,' chapter 5: "Do you ask me who I am? I am the same that I told you from the beginning, when I was summoned to answer before the Sanhedrim."
II. However, I cannot but a little call to mind the common forms of speech used so much in the Jewish schools, the beginning and the end. Where, by the beginning they meant any thing that was chiefly and primarily to be offered and taken notice of: by the end what was secondary, or of less weight.
The question is, whether it were lawful for the priests to sleep in their holy vestments. The end or the secondary question was, whether it was lawful for them to sleep in them. But the beginning, or the thing chiefly and primarily to be discussed, was, whether it was lawful for them to have them on at all but in divine service. Hence the Gemarists, The tradition is, that they must not sleep in them, if you will explain the end [or secondary question]: but let them put them off and fold them up, and lay them under their heads [when they sleep]: this, 'the beginning' [or chief matter in hand] determines: that is, that it is not lawful for the priest so much as to wear his holy garments but when he is in holy service.
"It is a tradition of the Rabbins. If one, in walking near any city, see lights in it, if the greatest number in that city be Cuthites, let him not bless them; if they be most Israelites, let him bless it. They teach 'the beginning,' when they say, Most Cuthites. They teach 'the end,' when they say, Most Israelites." For the chief and principal scruple was, whether they should pronounce a blessing upon those lights when there might be most Cuthites in the city that lighted them up: the lesser scruple was, whether he should bless them if there were most Israelites in that city.
"There is a dispute upon that precept, Leviticus 17:13, If any one kill a beast or bird upon a holy day, the Shammean school saith, Let him dig with an instrument and cover the blood. The school of Hillel saith, Let him not kill at all, if he have not dust ready by him to cover the blood."
The end, or the secondary question, is about covering the blood if a beast should be killed. The beginning, or the principal question, is about killing a beast or a fowl at all upon a holy day, merely for the labour of scraping up dust, if there be none at hand.
There are numberless instances of this kind: and if our Saviour had any respect to this form or mode of speaking, we may suppose what he said was to this purpose: "You ask who I am? The beginning. That is the chief thing to be inquired into, which I now say, viz. That I am the light of the world, the Messiah, the Son of God, &c. But what works I do, what doctrines I teach, and by what authority, this is an inquiry of the second place, in comparison to that first and chief question, who I am."
26. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
[But he that sent me is true.] "I have many things to say and judge of you; but he that sent me hath of old said and judged of you; 'and he is true,' and they are true things which he hath said of you." Of this kind are those passages, Isaiah 11:10, "Make the heart of this people fat," &c.; and 29:10, "The Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep," &c.: and from such kind of predictions it is, that Christ concludes this concerning them, verse 21, "Ye shall die in your sins."
33. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
[We be Abraham's seed, &c.] They were wont to glory of being Abraham's seed beyond all measure. Take one instance of a thousand:
"It is storied of R. Jochanan Ben Matthias, that he said to his son, 'Go out and hire us some labourers.' He went out and hired them for their victuals. When he came home to his father, his father said to him, 'My son, though thou shouldst make feasts for them, as gaudy as the feasts of Solomon, thou wouldst not do enough for them, because they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'" And yet they confess "the merits of our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ceased from the days of Hosea the prophet, as saith Rabh; or as Samuel, from the days of Hazael."
But how came they to join this, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man?" Is it impossible that one of Abraham's seed should be in bondage? The sense of these two clauses must be distinguished: "We are of the seed of Abraham, who are very fond and tenacious of our liberty; and as far as concerns ourselves, we never were in bondage to any man." The whole nation was infinitely averse to all servitude, neither was it by any means lawful for an Israelite to sell himself into bondage, unless upon the extremest necessity.
"It is not lawful for an Israelite to sell himself for that end merely, that he might treasure up the money, or might trade with it, or buy vessels, or pay a creditor; but barely if he want food and sustenance. Nor may he sell himself, unless when nothing in the world is left, not so much as his clothes, then let him sell himself. And he whom the Sanhedrim sells, or sells himself, must not be sold openly, nor in the public way, as other slaves are sold, but privately."
37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
[But ye seek to kill me.] From this whole period it is manifest that the whole tendency of our Saviour's discourse is to shew the Jews that they are the seed of that serpent that was to bruise the heel of the Messiah: else what could that mean, verse 44, "Ye are of your father the devil," but this, viz. "Ye are the seed of the serpent?"
43. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
[Because ye cannot hear my word.] You may here distinguish between the manner of speaking, or phrases used in speech and the matter or thing spoken. Isaiah 11:4; "He shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth." But they could not bear the smart of his rod; they would not therefore understand the phraseology or way of speech he used.
44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
[A murderer from the beginning.] For so the Hebrew idiom would render he was a murderer from the days of the creation. And so Christ, in saying this, speaks according to the vulgar opinion, as if Adam fell the very first day of his creation.
[He abode not in the truth.] I. He abode not in the truth: i.e. he did not continue true, but found out the way of lying.
II. He did not persist in the will of God which he had revealed concerning man. For the revealed will of God is called truth; especially his will revealed in the gospel. Now when God had pleased to make known his good will towards the first man, partly fixing him in so honourable and happy a station, partly commanding the angels that they should minister to him for his good, Hebrews 1:14; the devil did not abide in this truth, nor persisted in this will and command of God. For he, envying the honour and happiness of man, took this command of God concerning the angels' ministering to him, in so much scorn and contempt, that, swelling with most envenomed malice against Adam, and infinite pride against God, he chose rather to dethrone himself from his own glory and felicity, than he would bear Adam's continuance in so noble a station, or minister any way to the happiness of it. An angel was incapable of sinning either more or less than by pride or malice.
48. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
[Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil.] But what, I pray you, hath a Samaritan to do with the court of your Temple? For this they say to Christ whiles he was yet standing in the Treasury, or in the Court of the Women, verse 20. If you would admit a Samaritan into the court of the Gentiles, where the Gentiles themselves were allowed to come, it were much, and is indeed very questionable; but who is it would bear such a one standing in the Treasury? Which very thing shews how much this was spoken in rancour and mere malice, they themselves not believing, nay, perfectly knowing, that he was no Samaritan at that time when they called him so. And it is observable, that our Saviour made no return upon that senseless reproach of theirs, because he did not think it worth the answering: he only replies upon them, "that he hath not a devil," that is, that he was not mad.
57. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
[Thou art not yet fifty years old.] Apply these words to the time of superannuating the Levites, Numbers 4, and we shall find no need of those knots and difficulties wherewith some have puzzled themselves. Thou art not yet fifty years old, that is, Thou art not yet come to the common years of superannuation: and dost thou talk that "thou hast seen Abraham?"
58. Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
[Before Abraham was, I am.] They pervert the question. Christ had said, 'Abraham saw my day': on the contrary, they ask him, 'Hast thou seen Abraham?'
This phrase, I am, sometimes is rendered from the single word I. So the Greek interpreters in the Books of Judges and Ruth: for you seldom or never meet with it elsewhere.
Judges 6:18; "I will tarry or sit here." Ibid. chapter 11:27; Wherefore I have not sinned against thee. Ibid. verse 35; For I have opened my mouth. Ibid. verse 37; I and my fellows. Ruth 4:4; I will redeem it.
As to this form of speech, let those that are better skilled in the Greek tongue be the judges.
59. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
[Then took they up stones, &c.] Would you also murder another prophet in the very court of the Temple, O ye murderous generation? Remember but Zacharias, and surely that might suffice. But whence could they get stones in the court of the Temple? Let the answer be made from something parallel:
"It is storied of Abba Chalpatha, who, going to Rabban Gamaliel at Tiberias, found him sitting at the table of Jochanan the moneychanger, with the Book of Job in his hand Targumized [that is, rendered into the Chaldee tongue], and reading in it. Saith he to him, 'I remember your grandfather Rabban Gamaliel, how he stood upon Gab in the mountain of the Temple, and they brought unto him the Book of Job Targumized. He calls to the architect, saying, Ram him under the foundation.' R. Jose saith, They whelmed him under a heap of clay. Is there any clay in the mountain of the Temple?" Gloss: "There was mortar which they used in building."
It may be noted, by the by, that they were building in the Temple in the days of the first Gamaliel, who sat president in the Sanhedrim about the latter days of our Saviour; which confirms what I already have noted in chapter 2:20; and further teaches us whence they might have stones in readiness; for they were now building, and they might have pieces of stone enough there.
So indeed the Latin interpreter: but may we not by the word volumes of those Scriptures understand the Gospels compacted into one body by way of harmony? The reason of this conjecture is twofold: partly those Eusebian canons formed into such a kind of harmony; partly because, cap. 37, he tells us that, having finished his work, he sent to the emperor threes and fours: which words if they are not to be understood of the evangelists, sometimes three, sometimes four, (the greater number including the less,) embodied together by such a harmony, I confess I cannot tell what to make of them.
But be it so that it must not be understood of such a harmony; and grant we further that the Latin interpreter hits him right, when he supposes Eusebius to have picked out here and there, according to his pleasure and judgment, some parts of the Holy Scriptures to be transcribed; surely he would never have omitted the evangelists, the noblest and the most profitable part of the New Testament.
If therefore he ascribed this story of the adulteress to the trifler Papias, or at least to the Gospel according to the Hebrews only, without doubt he would never insert it in copies transcribed by him. Hence possibly might arise the omission of it in some copies after Eusebius' times. It is in copies before his age, viz. in Ammonius, Tatianus, &c.
1. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
[Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.] But whether to the town of Bethany, or to some booth fixed in that mount, is uncertain. For because of the infinite multitude that had swarmed together at those feasts, it is probable many of them had made themselves tents about the city, that they might not be too much straitened within the walls, though they kept within the bounds still of a sabbath day's journey.
"'And thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents,' Deuteronomy 16:7. The first night of the feast they were bound to lodge within the city: after that it was lawful for them to abide without the walls; but it must be within the bounds of a sabbath day's journey. Whereas therefore it is said, 'Thou shalt go unto thy tents'; this is the meaning of it. Thou shalt go into thy tents that are without the walls of Jerusalem, but by no means into thine own house."
It is said, chapter 7:53, that "every man went unto his own house"; upon which words let that be a comment that we meet with, After the daily evening sacrifice, the fathers of the Sanhedrim went home.
The eighth day therefore being ended, the history of which we have in chapter 7, the following night was out of the compass of the feast; so that they had done the dancings of which we have spoken before. The evangelist, therefore, does not without cause say that "every man went unto his own house"; for otherwise they must have gone to those dancings, if the next day had not been the sabbath.
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst.
[A woman taken in adultery.] Our Saviour calls the generation an adulterous generation, Matthew 12:39: see also James 4:4, which indeed might be well enough understood in its literal and proper sense.
"From the time that murderers have multiplied amongst us, the beheading of the heifer hath ceased: and since the increase of adultery, the bitter waters have been out of use."
"Since the time that adultery so openly prevailed under the second Temple, the Sanhedrim abrogated that way of trial by the bitter water; grounding it upon what is written, 'I will not visit your daughters when they shall go a whoring, nor your wives when they shall commit adultery.'"
The Gemarists say, That Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai was the author of this counsel: he lived at this very time, and was of the Sanhedrim; perhaps present amongst those that set this adulterous woman before Christ. For there is some reason to suppose that the "scribes and Pharisees" here mentioned were no other than the fathers of the Sanhedrim.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
[That such should be stoned.] Such. Who? what, all adulteresses? or all taken in adultery, in the very act? There is a third qualification still: for the condition of the adulteress is to be considered, whether she was a married woman, or betrothed only.
God punisheth adultery by death, Leviticus 20:10. But the masters of traditions say, that "wherever death is simply mentioned in the law," [that is, where the kind of death is not expressly prescribed,] "there it is to be supposed no other than strangling." Only they except; "a daughter of an Israelite, if she commit adultery after she is married, must be strangled; if only betrothed, she must be stoned. A priest's daughter, if she commit adultery when married, must be stoned; if only betrothed, she must be burnt."
Hence we may conjecture what the condition of this adulteress was: either she was an Israelitess not yet married, but betrothed only; or else she was a priest's daughter, married: rather the former, because they say, "Moses in the law hath commanded us that such should be stoned." See Deuteronomy 22:21. But as to the latter, there is no such command given by Moses.
6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
[Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.] Feigning as though he heard them not, had of old crept into some books: and it is plain enough that it did creep in. For when Christ had given proof enough that he took cognizance of the matter propounded to him by those words, "He that is without sin among you," &c., yet did he stoop down again, and write upon the earth.
Many have offered their conjectures why he used this unusual gesture at this time; and, with the reader's leave, let me also offer mine.
I. The matter in hand was, judging a woman taken in adultery: and therefore our Saviour in this matter applies himself conformably to the rule made and provided for the trial of an adulteress by the bitter water, Numbers 5.
II. Among the Jews, this obtained in the trial of a wife suspected: "If any man shall unlawfully lie with another woman, the bitter water shall not try his wife: for it is said, If the husband be guiltless from iniquity, then shall the woman bear her iniquity."
"When the woman hath drunk the bitter water, if she be guilty, her looks turn pale, her eyes swell up, &c. So they turn her out of the Court of the Women; and first her belly swells, then her thigh rots, and she dies. The same hour that she dies, the adulterer also, upon whose account she drank the water, dies too, wherever he is, being equally seized with a swelling in his belly, rottenness in his thigh, or his pudenda. But this is done only upon condition that the husband hath been guiltless himself: for if he have lain with any unlawfully himself, then this water will not try his wife.
"If you follow whoring yourselves, the bitter waters will not try your wives."
You may see by these passages how directly our Saviour levels at the equity of this sentence, willing to bring these accusers of the woman to a just trial first. You may imagine you hear him thus speaking to them: "Ye have brought this adulterous woman to be adjudged by me: I will therefore govern myself according to the rule of trying such by the bitter waters. You say and you believe, according to the common opinion of your nation, that the woman upon whom a jealousy is brought, though she be indeed guilty, yet if the husband that accuseth her be faulty that way himself, she cannot be affected by those waters, nor contract any hurt or danger by them. If the divine judgment proceeded in that method, so will I at this time. Are you that accuse this woman wholly guiltless in the like kind of sin? Whosoever is so, 'let him cast the first stone,' &c. But if you yourselves stand chargeable with the same crimes, then your own applauded tradition, the opinion of your nation, the procedure of divine judgment in the trial of such, may determine in this case, and acquit me from all blame, if I condemn not this woman, when her accusers themselves are to be condemned."
III. It was the office of the priest, when he tried a suspected wife, to stoop down and gather the dust off the floor of the sanctuary; which when he had infused into the water, he was to give the woman to drink: he was to write also in a book the curses or adjurations that were to be pronounced upon her, Numbers 5:17, 23. In like manner our Saviour stoops down; and making the floor itself his book, he writes something in the dust, doubtless against these accusers whom he was resolved to try, in analogy to those curses and adjurations written in a book by the priest, against the woman that was to be tried.
IV. The priest after he had written these curses in a book blots them out with the bitter water, Numbers 5:23. For the matter transacted was doubtful. They do not make the suspected woman drink, unless in a doubtful case.
The question is, Whether the woman was guilty or not? If guilty, behold the curses writ against her: if not guilty, then behold they are blotted out. But Christ was assured, that those whom he was trying were not innocent: so he does not write and blot out, but writes and writes again.
V. He imitates the gesture of the priest, if it be true what the Jews report concerning it, and it is not unlikely, viz. that he first pronounced the curses; then made the woman drink; and after she had drunk, pronounced the same curses again. So Christ first stoops down and writes; then makes them as it were drink, in that searching reflection of his, "He that is without sin among you"; and then stoops down again and writes upon the earth.
9. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
[Being convicted by their own conscience.] Our Saviour had determined to shame these wicked men before the common people: and therefore adds that peculiar force and energy to what he said that they could not stand it out, but with shame and confusion drawing off and retiring, they confess their guilt before the whole crowd. A thing little less than miracle.
12. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
[I am the light of the world.] "R. Biba Sangorius saith, Light is the name of the Messiah. As it is written, Light dwells with him," Daniel 2:22. We have the same passage in Bereshith Rabba; saving that the author of these words there is R. Abba Serongianus.
They were wont to adorn their Rabbins and doctors with swelling and magnificent titles of Lights.
"A tradition. His name is not R. Meir, but Nehorai. Why therefore is he called R. Meir? Because he enlightens the eyes of wise men by the traditions. And yet his name is not Nehorai neither, but R. Nehemiah. Why then is he called R. Nehorai? Because he enlightens the eyes of wise men by the traditions." O blessed luminaries without light! Begone, ye shades of night! for "the Sun of righteousness" hath now displayed himself.
13. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
[Thou bearest record of thyself.] This and the following passages uttered in dispute, whether Christ was the light or no, bring to mind what was wont to be transacted amongst them in their witnessing about the appearance of the new moon. We have it in Rosh Hashanah.
I. It was to be attested before the Sanhedrim by two persons that they saw the new moon. So Christ mentions two witnesses attesting him to be the light, viz. the Father and himself, verse 18.
II. They did not allow the testimony about the new moon, unless from persons known to the Sanhedrim: or if they were unknown, there were those sent along with them from the magistracy of that city where they lived, that should attest their veracity. Compare verses 18, 19: "I bear witness of myself, and ye know me not. My Father also bears witness of me; but ye have not known my Father."
III. One witness is not to be believed in his own cause. So the Pharisees, verse 13, "Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true."
IV. The father and the son, or any sort of relatives, are fit and credible witnesses: verse 18; "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."
20. These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
[In the treasury.] In the treasury, that is, in the Court of the Women; where he had transacted the matter about the woman taken in adultery. It was called the treasury upon the account of thirteen corban chests placed there. Of which we have spoken in another tract.
25. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
[The same that I said unto you from the beginning.] I. Amongst the several renderings of this place, this seems the most proper; The same that I said unto you from the beginning. So Genesis 43:18: The money returned.....at the first time": and verse 20, We came indeed down at the first time to buy food.
The words thus rendered may refer to that full and open profession which our Saviour made of himself before the Sanhedrim, that he was 'the Son of God,' or 'the Messiah,' chapter 5: "Do you ask me who I am? I am the same that I told you from the beginning, when I was summoned to answer before the Sanhedrim."
II. However, I cannot but a little call to mind the common forms of speech used so much in the Jewish schools, the beginning and the end. Where, by the beginning they meant any thing that was chiefly and primarily to be offered and taken notice of: by the end what was secondary, or of less weight.
The question is, whether it were lawful for the priests to sleep in their holy vestments. The end or the secondary question was, whether it was lawful for them to sleep in them. But the beginning, or the thing chiefly and primarily to be discussed, was, whether it was lawful for them to have them on at all but in divine service. Hence the Gemarists, The tradition is, that they must not sleep in them, if you will explain the end [or secondary question]: but let them put them off and fold them up, and lay them under their heads [when they sleep]: this, 'the beginning' [or chief matter in hand] determines: that is, that it is not lawful for the priest so much as to wear his holy garments but when he is in holy service.
"It is a tradition of the Rabbins. If one, in walking near any city, see lights in it, if the greatest number in that city be Cuthites, let him not bless them; if they be most Israelites, let him bless it. They teach 'the beginning,' when they say, Most Cuthites. They teach 'the end,' when they say, Most Israelites." For the chief and principal scruple was, whether they should pronounce a blessing upon those lights when there might be most Cuthites in the city that lighted them up: the lesser scruple was, whether he should bless them if there were most Israelites in that city.
"There is a dispute upon that precept, Leviticus 17:13, If any one kill a beast or bird upon a holy day, the Shammean school saith, Let him dig with an instrument and cover the blood. The school of Hillel saith, Let him not kill at all, if he have not dust ready by him to cover the blood."
The end, or the secondary question, is about covering the blood if a beast should be killed. The beginning, or the principal question, is about killing a beast or a fowl at all upon a holy day, merely for the labour of scraping up dust, if there be none at hand.
There are numberless instances of this kind: and if our Saviour had any respect to this form or mode of speaking, we may suppose what he said was to this purpose: "You ask who I am? The beginning. That is the chief thing to be inquired into, which I now say, viz. That I am the light of the world, the Messiah, the Son of God, &c. But what works I do, what doctrines I teach, and by what authority, this is an inquiry of the second place, in comparison to that first and chief question, who I am."
26. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
[But he that sent me is true.] "I have many things to say and judge of you; but he that sent me hath of old said and judged of you; 'and he is true,' and they are true things which he hath said of you." Of this kind are those passages, Isaiah 11:10, "Make the heart of this people fat," &c.; and 29:10, "The Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep," &c.: and from such kind of predictions it is, that Christ concludes this concerning them, verse 21, "Ye shall die in your sins."
33. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
[We be Abraham's seed, &c.] They were wont to glory of being Abraham's seed beyond all measure. Take one instance of a thousand:
"It is storied of R. Jochanan Ben Matthias, that he said to his son, 'Go out and hire us some labourers.' He went out and hired them for their victuals. When he came home to his father, his father said to him, 'My son, though thou shouldst make feasts for them, as gaudy as the feasts of Solomon, thou wouldst not do enough for them, because they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'" And yet they confess "the merits of our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ceased from the days of Hosea the prophet, as saith Rabh; or as Samuel, from the days of Hazael."
But how came they to join this, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man?" Is it impossible that one of Abraham's seed should be in bondage? The sense of these two clauses must be distinguished: "We are of the seed of Abraham, who are very fond and tenacious of our liberty; and as far as concerns ourselves, we never were in bondage to any man." The whole nation was infinitely averse to all servitude, neither was it by any means lawful for an Israelite to sell himself into bondage, unless upon the extremest necessity.
"It is not lawful for an Israelite to sell himself for that end merely, that he might treasure up the money, or might trade with it, or buy vessels, or pay a creditor; but barely if he want food and sustenance. Nor may he sell himself, unless when nothing in the world is left, not so much as his clothes, then let him sell himself. And he whom the Sanhedrim sells, or sells himself, must not be sold openly, nor in the public way, as other slaves are sold, but privately."
37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
[But ye seek to kill me.] From this whole period it is manifest that the whole tendency of our Saviour's discourse is to shew the Jews that they are the seed of that serpent that was to bruise the heel of the Messiah: else what could that mean, verse 44, "Ye are of your father the devil," but this, viz. "Ye are the seed of the serpent?"
43. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
[Because ye cannot hear my word.] You may here distinguish between the manner of speaking, or phrases used in speech and the matter or thing spoken. Isaiah 11:4; "He shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth." But they could not bear the smart of his rod; they would not therefore understand the phraseology or way of speech he used.
44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
[A murderer from the beginning.] For so the Hebrew idiom would render he was a murderer from the days of the creation. And so Christ, in saying this, speaks according to the vulgar opinion, as if Adam fell the very first day of his creation.
[He abode not in the truth.] I. He abode not in the truth: i.e. he did not continue true, but found out the way of lying.
II. He did not persist in the will of God which he had revealed concerning man. For the revealed will of God is called truth; especially his will revealed in the gospel. Now when God had pleased to make known his good will towards the first man, partly fixing him in so honourable and happy a station, partly commanding the angels that they should minister to him for his good, Hebrews 1:14; the devil did not abide in this truth, nor persisted in this will and command of God. For he, envying the honour and happiness of man, took this command of God concerning the angels' ministering to him, in so much scorn and contempt, that, swelling with most envenomed malice against Adam, and infinite pride against God, he chose rather to dethrone himself from his own glory and felicity, than he would bear Adam's continuance in so noble a station, or minister any way to the happiness of it. An angel was incapable of sinning either more or less than by pride or malice.
48. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
[Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil.] But what, I pray you, hath a Samaritan to do with the court of your Temple? For this they say to Christ whiles he was yet standing in the Treasury, or in the Court of the Women, verse 20. If you would admit a Samaritan into the court of the Gentiles, where the Gentiles themselves were allowed to come, it were much, and is indeed very questionable; but who is it would bear such a one standing in the Treasury? Which very thing shews how much this was spoken in rancour and mere malice, they themselves not believing, nay, perfectly knowing, that he was no Samaritan at that time when they called him so. And it is observable, that our Saviour made no return upon that senseless reproach of theirs, because he did not think it worth the answering: he only replies upon them, "that he hath not a devil," that is, that he was not mad.
57. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
[Thou art not yet fifty years old.] Apply these words to the time of superannuating the Levites, Numbers 4, and we shall find no need of those knots and difficulties wherewith some have puzzled themselves. Thou art not yet fifty years old, that is, Thou art not yet come to the common years of superannuation: and dost thou talk that "thou hast seen Abraham?"
58. Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
[Before Abraham was, I am.] They pervert the question. Christ had said, 'Abraham saw my day': on the contrary, they ask him, 'Hast thou seen Abraham?'
This phrase, I am, sometimes is rendered from the single word I. So the Greek interpreters in the Books of Judges and Ruth: for you seldom or never meet with it elsewhere.
Judges 6:18; "I will tarry or sit here." Ibid. chapter 11:27; Wherefore I have not sinned against thee. Ibid. verse 35; For I have opened my mouth. Ibid. verse 37; I and my fellows. Ruth 4:4; I will redeem it.
As to this form of speech, let those that are better skilled in the Greek tongue be the judges.
59. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
[Then took they up stones, &c.] Would you also murder another prophet in the very court of the Temple, O ye murderous generation? Remember but Zacharias, and surely that might suffice. But whence could they get stones in the court of the Temple? Let the answer be made from something parallel:
"It is storied of Abba Chalpatha, who, going to Rabban Gamaliel at Tiberias, found him sitting at the table of Jochanan the moneychanger, with the Book of Job in his hand Targumized [that is, rendered into the Chaldee tongue], and reading in it. Saith he to him, 'I remember your grandfather Rabban Gamaliel, how he stood upon Gab in the mountain of the Temple, and they brought unto him the Book of Job Targumized. He calls to the architect, saying, Ram him under the foundation.' R. Jose saith, They whelmed him under a heap of clay. Is there any clay in the mountain of the Temple?" Gloss: "There was mortar which they used in building."
It may be noted, by the by, that they were building in the Temple in the days of the first Gamaliel, who sat president in the Sanhedrim about the latter days of our Saviour; which confirms what I already have noted in chapter 2:20; and further teaches us whence they might have stones in readiness; for they were now building, and they might have pieces of stone enough there.
John 9
2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
[Who did sin, this man, or his parents?] I. It was a received doctrine in the Jewish schools, that children, according to some wickedness of their parents, were born lame, or crooked, or maimed and defective in some of their parts, &c.; by which they kept parents in awe, lest they should grow remiss and negligent in the performance of some rites which had respect to their being clean, such as washings and purifyings, &c. We have given instances elsewhere.
II. But that the infant should be born lame or blind, or defective in any part, for any sin or fault of his own, seems a riddle indeed.
1. Nor do they solve the matter who fly to that principle of the transmigration of souls, which they would have the Jews tinctured with; at least if we will admit Josephus as a just interpreter and judge of that principle. For thus he:
It is the opinion of the Pharisees that "the souls of all are immortal, and do pass into another body; that is, those of the good only [observe this]; but those of the wicked are punished with eternal torments." So that unless you will say that the soul of some good man passing into the body of this man was the cause of his being born blind (a supposition that every one would cry shame of), you say nothing to the case in hand. If the opinion of the transmigration of souls amongst the Jews prevailed only so far, that they supposed 'the souls of good men only' passed into other bodies, the very subject of the present question is taken away; and all suspicion of any punishment or defect happening to the infant upon the account of transmigration wholly vanisheth, unless you will say it could happen upon a good soul's passing out of the body of a good man.
2. There is a solution attempted by some from the soul's preexistency; which, they would pretend, the Jews had some smatch of, from what they say about those souls which are in Goph, or Guph.
"R. Jose saith, The Son of David will not come till the souls that are in Goph are consummated." The same passage is recited also in Niddah, and Jevamoth, where it is ascribed to R. Asi.
"There is a repository (saith R. Solomon), the name of which is Goph: and from the creation, all the souls that ever were to be born were formed together and there placed."
But there is another Rabbin brought in by another commentator, that supposeth a twofold Goph, and that the souls of the Israelites and of the Gentiles are not in one and the same Goph. Nay further, he conceives that in the days of the Messiah there will be a third Goph, and a new race of souls made.
R. Jose deduceth his opinion from Isaiah 57:16, miserably wresting the words of the prophet to this sense, "My will shall hinder for the souls which I have made." For so Aruch and the commentators explain his mind.
Grant now that what I have quoted might be sufficient confirmation that the Jews did entertain the opinion of the soul's preexistence, yet what concern the preexistence of souls hath with this place, I confess I have not so quick an apprehension as any way to imagine.
III. I would therefore seek to untie this knot some other way.
I. I would have that passage observed which we have in Vajicra Rabba: "And the days draw nigh, in the which thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them," Ecclesiastes 12:1. "Those are the days of the Messiah, wherein there shall be neither merit nor demerit": that is, if I mistake not, wherein neither the good deserts of the parents shall be imputed to the children for their advantage, nor their deserts for their fault and punishment. They are the words of R. Akibah in locum, and they are his application of that passage in Ecclesiastes, and indeed his own invention: but the opinion itself, that there shall be neither merit nor demerit in the days of the Messiah, is what is commonly received amongst the Jews. If so, then let me a little enlarge this question of our Saviour's disciples, by way of paraphrase, to this purpose: "Master, we know that thou art the Messiah, and that these are the days of the Messiah; we have also learned from our schools, that there is no imputation of merit or demerit from the parents in the days of the Messiah; whence then is it that this man is born blind? that in these days of the Messiah he should bring into the world with him some mark and imputation of fault or blame somewhere? What, was it his parents' fault? This seems against the received opinion. It seems therefore that he bears some tokens of his own fault: is it so, or not?"
2. It was a conceit amongst the Jews, that the infant, when formed and quickened in the womb, might behave itself irregularly, and do something that might not be altogether without fault.
In the treatise last mentioned, a woman is brought in complaining in earnest of her child before the judge, that it kicked her unreasonably in the womb. In Midras Coheleth and Midras Ruth, cap. iii. 13, there is a story told of Elisha Ben Abujah, who departed from the faith, and became a horrible apostate; and, amongst other reasons of his apostasy, this is rendered for one:
"There are which say, that his mother, when she was big with child of him, passing through a temple of the Gentiles, smelt something very strong, and they gave to her of what she smelt, and she did eat; and the child in the womb grew hot, and swelled into blisters, as in the womb of a serpent."
In which story his apostasy is supposed as originally rooted and grounded in him in the womb, upon the fault of his mother eating of what had been offered to idols. It is also equally presumed, that an infant may unreasonably and irregularly kick and punch in the womb of its mother beyond the rate of ordinary infants. The infants in the womb of Rebecca may be for an instance; where the Jews indeed absolve Jacob from fault, though ht took Esau by the heel; but will hardly absolve Esau for rising up against his brother Jacob.
"Antoninus asked R. Judah, 'At what time evil affections began to prevail in the man? Whether in the first forming of the foetus in the womb, or at the time of its coming forth?' The Rabbi saith unto him, 'From the time of its first coming.' 'Then,' saith Antoninus, 'it will kick in the mother's womb and rush out.' The Rabbi saith, 'This I learned of Antoninus; and the scripture seems to back it when it saith, Sin lieth at the door.'"
It appears from this dispute, whether true or feigned, that the ancient opinion of the Jews was, that the infant, from its first quickening, had some stain of sin upon it. And that great doctor, R. Judah the Holy, was originally of that opinion himself, but had lightly changed his mind upon so paltry an argument. Nay, they went a little further, not only that the infant might have some stain of sin in the womb, but that it might, in some measure, actually sin, and do that which might render it criminal. To which purpose this passage of the disciples seems to have some relation; "Did this man sin, that he was born blind?" That is, Did he, when his mother carried him in her womb, do any foul or enormous thing that might deserve this severe stroke upon him, that he should bring this blindness with him into the world?
6. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
[He spat on the ground, &c.] I. How far spittle was accounted wholesome for weak eyes, we may learn from this ridiculous tale:
"R. Meir sat, and was teaching in the evening of the sabbath day. There was a woman stood by hearing him preach; after he had done she went home and found her candle gone out. Her husband saith to her, 'Where hast thou been?' 'I have been,' saith she, 'standing and hearing the voice of a preacher.' Her husband saith to her, 'Thou shalt not enter in till thou hast gone and spat in the face of him that taught.' After three weeks, her neighbouring women persuading and heartening her to it, she goes to the chapel. Now the whole matter was already made known to R. Meir. He saith therefore to them, 'Is there ever a woman among you skilled in muttering charms over eyes?' [for he feigned a grievous ailment in his eyes:] The woman said, 'R., I am skilled': 'However,' saith he, 'do you spit seven times upon my eyes, and I shall be healed'; which she did." Gloss: "Whenever they muttered any charms over the eyes, it was necessary that they should spit upon them."
II. It was prohibited amongst them to besmear the eyes with spittle upon the sabbath day upon any medicinal account, although it was esteemed so very wholesome for them.
"They do not squirt wine into the eyes on the sabbath day, but they may wash the eyebrows with it: but as to fasting spittle" [which was esteemed exceedingly wholesome], "it is not lawful to put it so much as upon the eyelids." "One saith, that wine is prohibited so far that it may not be injected into the middle of the eyes; upon the eyebrows it may. Another saith that spittle is forbidden so much as upon the eyelids."
So that in this action of our Saviour's we may observe,
I. That he does not heal this sick man with a word, as he did others; but chooseth to do a thing which was against their canonical observation of the sabbath; designing thereby to make a trial of the man, whether he was so superstitious, that he would not admit such things to be done upon him on the sabbath day. He made an experiment not much unlike this upon the man at Bethesda, as we have before observed.
II. Whiles he mingles spittle with dust, and of that makes a clay to anoint the eyes of the blind man, he thereby avoideth the suspicion of using any kind of charm, and gives rather a demonstration of his own divine power, when he heals by a method contrary to nature; for clay laid upon the eyes, we might believe, should rather put out the eyes of one that sees, than restore sight to one that had been blind. Yea and further, he gave demonstration of the divine authority he himself had over the sabbath, when he heals upon that day by the use of means which had been peculiarly prohibited to be used in it.
The connexion of this chapter with the former is such, that the stories in both seem to have been acted on one and the same day. [Going through the midst of them, and so passed by. And as he passed by, he saw a man which was blind.] If it be so, (which I will not much contend about,) then do they bring the adulterous woman before Christ, yea, and attempt to stone him too, on the sabbath day. Jesus hid himself; or perhaps the sense is, he was hidden; that is, by the multitude that had a favour for him, and compassed him about, lest his enemies should have wreaked their malice and displeasure against him.
7. And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
[ Which is by interpretation, Sent.] We have already shewn that the spring of Siloam discharged itself by a double stream into a twofold pool; the Upper pool, which was called the pool of Siloah; and the Lower, which was called the pool of Shelah; Nehemiah 3:15. Now the pool of Siloah, plainly and properly signifies Sent; but Shelah not so, as we have already noted. Probably the evangelist added this parenthesis on purpose to distinguish which of the pools the blind man was sent to wash in; viz. not in the pool Shelah, which signifies fleeces, but in the pool of Siloah, which signifies Sent.
8. The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
[That sat and begged.] This may be opposed to another sort of beggars, viz. those that beg from door to door.
The words used by the beggars were generally these:
Vouchsafe something to me: or rather, according to the letter, Deserve something by me; i.e. Acquire something of merit to yourself by the alms you give me.
O you whoever have a tender heart, do yourself good by me.
Look back and see what I have been; look upon me now, and see what I am.
13. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
[They brought him to the Pharisees.] The Pharisees, in this evangelist, are generally to be understood the Sanhedrim: nor indeed do we find in St. John any mention of the Sadducees at all. Consult John 1:24, 4:1, 8:3, 11:46, &c.
The Pharisees have such a sway amongst the people, that if they should say any thing against the king or high priest, they would be believed. And a little after,
"The Pharisees have given out many rules to the people from the traditions of the fathers which are not written in the laws of Moses: and for that very reason the Sadducees rejected them, saying, They ought to account nothing as law or obligatory but what is delivered by Moses; and what hath no other authority but tradition only ought not to be observed. And hence have arisen questions and mighty controversies; the Sadducees drawing after them the richer sort only, while the multitude followed and adhered to the Pharisees."
Hence we may apprehend the reason why the whole Sanhedrim is sometimes comprehended under the name of the Pharisees; because the common people and the main body of that nation were wholly at the management of the Pharisees, governed by their decrees and laws. But there was once a Sanhedrim that consisted chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees, and what was done then? R. Eliezer Ben Zadok saith, There was a time when they burnt a priest's daughter for whoredom, compassing her about with bundles of young twigs. But the answer is, There was not a Sanhedrim at that time that was well skilled. Rabh Joseph saith, "that Sanhedrim was made up of Sadducees." It is worth our taking notice of this passage.
22. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
[He should be put out of the synagogue.] So chapter 16:2: Granting that this is spoken of excommunication, the question may be, Whether it is to be understood of the ordinary excommunication, that is, from this or that synagogue; or the extraordinary, that is, a cutting off from the whole congregation of Israel.
"Whoever is excommunicated by the president of the Sanhedrim is cut off from the whole congregation of Israel": and if so, then much more if it be by the vote of the whole Sanhedrim. And it seems by that speech, they cast him out, verse 34, that word out, was added for such a signification.
But suppose we, it might be understood of the ordinary excommunication; among all the four-and-twenty reasons of excommunication, which should it be for which this was decreed, viz. that "if any man did confess that Jesus was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue?" The elders of the Sanhedrim, perhaps, would answer, what upon other occasions is frequently said and done by them, "It is decreed for the necessity of the time."
28. Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
[We are Moses' disciples.] The man, as it should seem, had in gentle and persuasive terms asked them, "Will ye also be his disciples?" as if he heartily wished they would. But they as ruggedly, "Be you so: we are Moses' disciples."
"They delivered two disciples of the wise men into the hands of the chief priest" [that they might instruct him about the rites and usages of the day of expiation]; they were of the disciples of Moses. And who are these disciples of Moses? it follows, the very phrase excludes the Sadducees.
The reader may observe, by the way, these disciples of Moses, with what reverence they treat him.
"Moses was angry about three things, and the tradition was accordingly hid from him: I. About the sabbath, Exodus 16:20: while he was angry he forgot to recite to them the traditions about the sabbath. II. About the vessels of metal, Numbers 31:14: while he was angry, he forgot to recite to them the traditions about the vessels of metal. III. About the mourner, Leviticus 10:16: while he was wrath, the tradition was hid from him, which forbade the mourner to eat of the holy things."
Did Moses think it unlawful for the mourner to have eaten of the holy things, when he spake to Eleazar and Ithamar, while they were in the very act of bewailing the death of their two brethren, "Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place?" Yes, but in his passion he forgot both the tradition and himself too. Excellent disciples indeed! that can thus chastise your great master at pleasure, as a man very hasty, apt to be angry, and of a slender memory! Let him henceforward learn from you to temperate his passions and quicken his memory. You have a memory indeed that have recovered the tradition which he himself had forgot.
34. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
[And they cast him out.] I shall note something of this kind of phrase at chapter 16:2. Thus doth this man commence the first confessor in the Christian church, as John the Baptist had been the first martyr in it. He suffered excommunication, and that from the whole congregation of Israel, for the name of Christ. It seems something strange that they did not excommunicate Jesus himself: but they were contriving more bloody things against him.
[Who did sin, this man, or his parents?] I. It was a received doctrine in the Jewish schools, that children, according to some wickedness of their parents, were born lame, or crooked, or maimed and defective in some of their parts, &c.; by which they kept parents in awe, lest they should grow remiss and negligent in the performance of some rites which had respect to their being clean, such as washings and purifyings, &c. We have given instances elsewhere.
II. But that the infant should be born lame or blind, or defective in any part, for any sin or fault of his own, seems a riddle indeed.
1. Nor do they solve the matter who fly to that principle of the transmigration of souls, which they would have the Jews tinctured with; at least if we will admit Josephus as a just interpreter and judge of that principle. For thus he:
It is the opinion of the Pharisees that "the souls of all are immortal, and do pass into another body; that is, those of the good only [observe this]; but those of the wicked are punished with eternal torments." So that unless you will say that the soul of some good man passing into the body of this man was the cause of his being born blind (a supposition that every one would cry shame of), you say nothing to the case in hand. If the opinion of the transmigration of souls amongst the Jews prevailed only so far, that they supposed 'the souls of good men only' passed into other bodies, the very subject of the present question is taken away; and all suspicion of any punishment or defect happening to the infant upon the account of transmigration wholly vanisheth, unless you will say it could happen upon a good soul's passing out of the body of a good man.
2. There is a solution attempted by some from the soul's preexistency; which, they would pretend, the Jews had some smatch of, from what they say about those souls which are in Goph, or Guph.
"R. Jose saith, The Son of David will not come till the souls that are in Goph are consummated." The same passage is recited also in Niddah, and Jevamoth, where it is ascribed to R. Asi.
"There is a repository (saith R. Solomon), the name of which is Goph: and from the creation, all the souls that ever were to be born were formed together and there placed."
But there is another Rabbin brought in by another commentator, that supposeth a twofold Goph, and that the souls of the Israelites and of the Gentiles are not in one and the same Goph. Nay further, he conceives that in the days of the Messiah there will be a third Goph, and a new race of souls made.
R. Jose deduceth his opinion from Isaiah 57:16, miserably wresting the words of the prophet to this sense, "My will shall hinder for the souls which I have made." For so Aruch and the commentators explain his mind.
Grant now that what I have quoted might be sufficient confirmation that the Jews did entertain the opinion of the soul's preexistence, yet what concern the preexistence of souls hath with this place, I confess I have not so quick an apprehension as any way to imagine.
III. I would therefore seek to untie this knot some other way.
I. I would have that passage observed which we have in Vajicra Rabba: "And the days draw nigh, in the which thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them," Ecclesiastes 12:1. "Those are the days of the Messiah, wherein there shall be neither merit nor demerit": that is, if I mistake not, wherein neither the good deserts of the parents shall be imputed to the children for their advantage, nor their deserts for their fault and punishment. They are the words of R. Akibah in locum, and they are his application of that passage in Ecclesiastes, and indeed his own invention: but the opinion itself, that there shall be neither merit nor demerit in the days of the Messiah, is what is commonly received amongst the Jews. If so, then let me a little enlarge this question of our Saviour's disciples, by way of paraphrase, to this purpose: "Master, we know that thou art the Messiah, and that these are the days of the Messiah; we have also learned from our schools, that there is no imputation of merit or demerit from the parents in the days of the Messiah; whence then is it that this man is born blind? that in these days of the Messiah he should bring into the world with him some mark and imputation of fault or blame somewhere? What, was it his parents' fault? This seems against the received opinion. It seems therefore that he bears some tokens of his own fault: is it so, or not?"
2. It was a conceit amongst the Jews, that the infant, when formed and quickened in the womb, might behave itself irregularly, and do something that might not be altogether without fault.
In the treatise last mentioned, a woman is brought in complaining in earnest of her child before the judge, that it kicked her unreasonably in the womb. In Midras Coheleth and Midras Ruth, cap. iii. 13, there is a story told of Elisha Ben Abujah, who departed from the faith, and became a horrible apostate; and, amongst other reasons of his apostasy, this is rendered for one:
"There are which say, that his mother, when she was big with child of him, passing through a temple of the Gentiles, smelt something very strong, and they gave to her of what she smelt, and she did eat; and the child in the womb grew hot, and swelled into blisters, as in the womb of a serpent."
In which story his apostasy is supposed as originally rooted and grounded in him in the womb, upon the fault of his mother eating of what had been offered to idols. It is also equally presumed, that an infant may unreasonably and irregularly kick and punch in the womb of its mother beyond the rate of ordinary infants. The infants in the womb of Rebecca may be for an instance; where the Jews indeed absolve Jacob from fault, though ht took Esau by the heel; but will hardly absolve Esau for rising up against his brother Jacob.
"Antoninus asked R. Judah, 'At what time evil affections began to prevail in the man? Whether in the first forming of the foetus in the womb, or at the time of its coming forth?' The Rabbi saith unto him, 'From the time of its first coming.' 'Then,' saith Antoninus, 'it will kick in the mother's womb and rush out.' The Rabbi saith, 'This I learned of Antoninus; and the scripture seems to back it when it saith, Sin lieth at the door.'"
It appears from this dispute, whether true or feigned, that the ancient opinion of the Jews was, that the infant, from its first quickening, had some stain of sin upon it. And that great doctor, R. Judah the Holy, was originally of that opinion himself, but had lightly changed his mind upon so paltry an argument. Nay, they went a little further, not only that the infant might have some stain of sin in the womb, but that it might, in some measure, actually sin, and do that which might render it criminal. To which purpose this passage of the disciples seems to have some relation; "Did this man sin, that he was born blind?" That is, Did he, when his mother carried him in her womb, do any foul or enormous thing that might deserve this severe stroke upon him, that he should bring this blindness with him into the world?
6. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
[He spat on the ground, &c.] I. How far spittle was accounted wholesome for weak eyes, we may learn from this ridiculous tale:
"R. Meir sat, and was teaching in the evening of the sabbath day. There was a woman stood by hearing him preach; after he had done she went home and found her candle gone out. Her husband saith to her, 'Where hast thou been?' 'I have been,' saith she, 'standing and hearing the voice of a preacher.' Her husband saith to her, 'Thou shalt not enter in till thou hast gone and spat in the face of him that taught.' After three weeks, her neighbouring women persuading and heartening her to it, she goes to the chapel. Now the whole matter was already made known to R. Meir. He saith therefore to them, 'Is there ever a woman among you skilled in muttering charms over eyes?' [for he feigned a grievous ailment in his eyes:] The woman said, 'R., I am skilled': 'However,' saith he, 'do you spit seven times upon my eyes, and I shall be healed'; which she did." Gloss: "Whenever they muttered any charms over the eyes, it was necessary that they should spit upon them."
II. It was prohibited amongst them to besmear the eyes with spittle upon the sabbath day upon any medicinal account, although it was esteemed so very wholesome for them.
"They do not squirt wine into the eyes on the sabbath day, but they may wash the eyebrows with it: but as to fasting spittle" [which was esteemed exceedingly wholesome], "it is not lawful to put it so much as upon the eyelids." "One saith, that wine is prohibited so far that it may not be injected into the middle of the eyes; upon the eyebrows it may. Another saith that spittle is forbidden so much as upon the eyelids."
So that in this action of our Saviour's we may observe,
I. That he does not heal this sick man with a word, as he did others; but chooseth to do a thing which was against their canonical observation of the sabbath; designing thereby to make a trial of the man, whether he was so superstitious, that he would not admit such things to be done upon him on the sabbath day. He made an experiment not much unlike this upon the man at Bethesda, as we have before observed.
II. Whiles he mingles spittle with dust, and of that makes a clay to anoint the eyes of the blind man, he thereby avoideth the suspicion of using any kind of charm, and gives rather a demonstration of his own divine power, when he heals by a method contrary to nature; for clay laid upon the eyes, we might believe, should rather put out the eyes of one that sees, than restore sight to one that had been blind. Yea and further, he gave demonstration of the divine authority he himself had over the sabbath, when he heals upon that day by the use of means which had been peculiarly prohibited to be used in it.
The connexion of this chapter with the former is such, that the stories in both seem to have been acted on one and the same day. [Going through the midst of them, and so passed by. And as he passed by, he saw a man which was blind.] If it be so, (which I will not much contend about,) then do they bring the adulterous woman before Christ, yea, and attempt to stone him too, on the sabbath day. Jesus hid himself; or perhaps the sense is, he was hidden; that is, by the multitude that had a favour for him, and compassed him about, lest his enemies should have wreaked their malice and displeasure against him.
7. And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
[ Which is by interpretation, Sent.] We have already shewn that the spring of Siloam discharged itself by a double stream into a twofold pool; the Upper pool, which was called the pool of Siloah; and the Lower, which was called the pool of Shelah; Nehemiah 3:15. Now the pool of Siloah, plainly and properly signifies Sent; but Shelah not so, as we have already noted. Probably the evangelist added this parenthesis on purpose to distinguish which of the pools the blind man was sent to wash in; viz. not in the pool Shelah, which signifies fleeces, but in the pool of Siloah, which signifies Sent.
8. The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
[That sat and begged.] This may be opposed to another sort of beggars, viz. those that beg from door to door.
The words used by the beggars were generally these:
Vouchsafe something to me: or rather, according to the letter, Deserve something by me; i.e. Acquire something of merit to yourself by the alms you give me.
O you whoever have a tender heart, do yourself good by me.
Look back and see what I have been; look upon me now, and see what I am.
13. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
[They brought him to the Pharisees.] The Pharisees, in this evangelist, are generally to be understood the Sanhedrim: nor indeed do we find in St. John any mention of the Sadducees at all. Consult John 1:24, 4:1, 8:3, 11:46, &c.
The Pharisees have such a sway amongst the people, that if they should say any thing against the king or high priest, they would be believed. And a little after,
"The Pharisees have given out many rules to the people from the traditions of the fathers which are not written in the laws of Moses: and for that very reason the Sadducees rejected them, saying, They ought to account nothing as law or obligatory but what is delivered by Moses; and what hath no other authority but tradition only ought not to be observed. And hence have arisen questions and mighty controversies; the Sadducees drawing after them the richer sort only, while the multitude followed and adhered to the Pharisees."
Hence we may apprehend the reason why the whole Sanhedrim is sometimes comprehended under the name of the Pharisees; because the common people and the main body of that nation were wholly at the management of the Pharisees, governed by their decrees and laws. But there was once a Sanhedrim that consisted chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees, and what was done then? R. Eliezer Ben Zadok saith, There was a time when they burnt a priest's daughter for whoredom, compassing her about with bundles of young twigs. But the answer is, There was not a Sanhedrim at that time that was well skilled. Rabh Joseph saith, "that Sanhedrim was made up of Sadducees." It is worth our taking notice of this passage.
22. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
[He should be put out of the synagogue.] So chapter 16:2: Granting that this is spoken of excommunication, the question may be, Whether it is to be understood of the ordinary excommunication, that is, from this or that synagogue; or the extraordinary, that is, a cutting off from the whole congregation of Israel.
"Whoever is excommunicated by the president of the Sanhedrim is cut off from the whole congregation of Israel": and if so, then much more if it be by the vote of the whole Sanhedrim. And it seems by that speech, they cast him out, verse 34, that word out, was added for such a signification.
But suppose we, it might be understood of the ordinary excommunication; among all the four-and-twenty reasons of excommunication, which should it be for which this was decreed, viz. that "if any man did confess that Jesus was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue?" The elders of the Sanhedrim, perhaps, would answer, what upon other occasions is frequently said and done by them, "It is decreed for the necessity of the time."
28. Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
[We are Moses' disciples.] The man, as it should seem, had in gentle and persuasive terms asked them, "Will ye also be his disciples?" as if he heartily wished they would. But they as ruggedly, "Be you so: we are Moses' disciples."
"They delivered two disciples of the wise men into the hands of the chief priest" [that they might instruct him about the rites and usages of the day of expiation]; they were of the disciples of Moses. And who are these disciples of Moses? it follows, the very phrase excludes the Sadducees.
The reader may observe, by the way, these disciples of Moses, with what reverence they treat him.
"Moses was angry about three things, and the tradition was accordingly hid from him: I. About the sabbath, Exodus 16:20: while he was angry he forgot to recite to them the traditions about the sabbath. II. About the vessels of metal, Numbers 31:14: while he was angry, he forgot to recite to them the traditions about the vessels of metal. III. About the mourner, Leviticus 10:16: while he was wrath, the tradition was hid from him, which forbade the mourner to eat of the holy things."
Did Moses think it unlawful for the mourner to have eaten of the holy things, when he spake to Eleazar and Ithamar, while they were in the very act of bewailing the death of their two brethren, "Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place?" Yes, but in his passion he forgot both the tradition and himself too. Excellent disciples indeed! that can thus chastise your great master at pleasure, as a man very hasty, apt to be angry, and of a slender memory! Let him henceforward learn from you to temperate his passions and quicken his memory. You have a memory indeed that have recovered the tradition which he himself had forgot.
34. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
[And they cast him out.] I shall note something of this kind of phrase at chapter 16:2. Thus doth this man commence the first confessor in the Christian church, as John the Baptist had been the first martyr in it. He suffered excommunication, and that from the whole congregation of Israel, for the name of Christ. It seems something strange that they did not excommunicate Jesus himself: but they were contriving more bloody things against him.
John 10
Amongst all the places in the Old Testament which mention this great Shepherd, there is no one doth so exactly describe him and his pastoral work, as chapter 11 of the prophet Zechariah. We will fetch a few things from thence, that may serve to explain the passage now in hand:
I. He describes this great Shepherd manifesting himself, and applying himself to his great pastoral office, when the nation was now upon the brink of destruction: the prophet had foretold their ruin, and brings in this Shepherd undertaking the care of his sheep, lest they should perish too.
As to the first verse, "Open thy doors, O Lebanon"; take the Jews' own comment upon it, who yet do, by all the skill they can, endeavour to take off the whole prophecy from those proper hinges upon which it turns.
"Forty years before the destruction [of Jerusalem], the gates of the Temple opened themselves of their own accord. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai declaimed upon it, saying, 'O Temple, Temple, why dost thou terrify thyself? I know thy end will be destruction; for so Zechariah, the son of Iddo, hath prophesied concerning thee; Open thy doors, O Lebanon,'" &c.
The rest that follows doth plainly enough speak out desolation and ruin, verses 2, 3: but particularly that is remarkable, verse 6, "I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand": how manifestly doth it agree with those intestine broils and discords, those horrid seditions, stirred up amongst them! "And into the hand of his king"; i.e. of Caesar, concerning whom they may remember they once said, "We have no king but Caesar."
II. He describes the evil shepherds of the people under a triumvirate, verse 8: "Three shepherds also I cut off in one month," &c.; i.e. the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes; which interpretation though it cannot but sound very unpleasingly in Jewish years, yet is it what seems abundantly confirmed, both from the context and the history of things. They therefore would turn the edge of the prophecy another way, the Gemarists understanding the three shepherds of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam: Jarchi would have it the house of Ahab, the house of Ahaziah, and his brethren: Kimchi, the sons of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah. Aben Ezra saith, "Perhaps they are the high priest Joshua, the person anointed to the wars, and the sagan; or perhaps Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi," &c.
But what can be more clear than that the prophet speaks of those shepherds that had wasted and corrupted the flock, and who, when the true Shepherd of the sheep should reveal himself, would do the like again? and who should these be but the principals and chief heads of sects, and the leaders of the people, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes?
Object. But how can these properly be said to be cut off by the great Shepherd when he should come, whereas it is well enough known that these sects lived even after the death of Christ, nay, after the ruins of Jerusalem; not to say that Pharisaism hath its being amongst the Jews to this very day?
Ans. So indeed it is said, that under the gospel, the nations should not learn war any more, Isaiah 2:4; and that there should not be an infant in age, or one under age, in the new Jerusalem, Isaiah 65:20: whereas we find enough of war in every generation, and that infancy or ignorance in divine things abounds still. But nevertheless God had done his part towards the accomplishment of such prophecies; namely, he had brought in the gospel of peace and the gospel of light, that nothing should be wanting on his side that peace might reign on the earth, and infancy in divine things should be no more. So did this great Shepherd bring in the evangelical doctrine, the oracle of truth and religion, which did so beat down and confound all the vain doctrines and institutions of those sects, that, as to what related to the doctrine of Christ, there was nothing wanting to have cut off those heresies and vanities.
III. This great Shepherd broke that covenant that had been made and confirmed with that people, verse 10: "I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people." With all the people; i.e. with all Israel, the ten and the two tribes too. And in verse 14, the affinity and kin which was betwixt Judah and Israel is dissolved; which it would not be amiss for those to take serious notice of, who as yet expect a universal conversion of the whole nation of the Jews. Let them say by virtue of what covenant; if the covenant of grace, that makes no difference betwixt the Jew and the Greek, nor knows any one after the flesh. If by virtue of the covenant peculiarly made with that people, that was broken and dissolved, when God had gathered his flock out of that people. For,
IV. The great Shepherd, when he came, found that there must be a flock gathered in that nation, as Romans 11:5, A remnant according to the election of grace; and these he took care to call and gather before Jerusalem should be destroyed. Zechariah himself calls it the flock of slaughter; and the poor of the flock, verse 7. Where, by the way, whoever compares the Greek version in this place must needs observe, that so the poor is, by those interpreters, jumbled and confounded into one word. For, instead of and so the poor of the flock knew, they read it, the Canaanites shall know the sheep, &c. So instead of for this, or for you, O poor of the flock, verse 7, they read, unto the land of Canaan...I have some suspicion that these interpreters might have had an eye upon the reduction of the dispersed captivity into the land of Canaan, according to the common expectation of that nation. But this only by the by.
That of the apostle ought to be strictly heeded; Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Which indeed is, as it were, the gnomon to that chapter, and, above all other things, does interpret best the apostle's mind. For he propounds to discourse not concerning the universal call of the Jews, but of their not being universally rejected: which may very easily be collected from the very first verse of this chapter, "Hath God cast away his people?" that is, so cast them away that they are universally rejected. "God forbid!" for I myself am an Israelite, and am not cast away. This argument he pursues, and illustrates from the example of those most corrupted times, the age wherein Elijah lived, when they threw down the altars of God, slew his prophets, and not a few worshipped Baal of the Sidonians, whom Ahab had introduced; and almost the whole nation worshipped that golden calf or cow which Jeroboam had set up. And yet, even in that worst state of affairs, saith God, "I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to that golden calf," the common and universal error of that nation, much less to Baal of the Sidonians. "Even so" (saith the apostle), "at this present time also there is a remnant"; plainly intimating, that he does not assert or argue for the calling of the whole nation, but of that remnant only; and that he discourses concerning the present calling of that remnant, and not about any future call of the whole nation.
V. That is a vast mystery the apostle is upon, verse 25 of that chapter; "Blindness hath severally happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." I render severally, or by parts, not without warrant from grammar, and according to the meaning and intention of St. Paul. For the mystery mentioned by him is, that blindness severally, and at several times, happened to the Israelites: first, the ten tribes were blinded through idolatry, and, after many ages, the two tribes, through traditions; and yet both those and these reserved together to that time, wherein the Gentiles, who had been blinded for a longer space, are called, and then both Israelites and Jews and Gentiles, being all called together, do close into one body. It is observable that the apostle, throughout this whole chapter, doth not so much as once make mention of the Jews, but of Israel, that he might include the ten tribes with the two within his discourse.
And, indeed, this great Shepherd had his flock, or his sheep, within the ten tribes, as well as within the two: and to me it is without all controversy that the gospel, in the times of the apostles, was brought and preached as well to the one as the other. Doubtless St. Peter, whilst he was in Babylon, preached to the Israelites dispersed in those countries as well as to the Jews.
VI. Some of the Gemarists do vehemently deny any conversion of the ten tribes under the Messiah: let them beware lest there be not a conversion of their own.
"The ten tribes shall never return, as it is written, 'And he cast them into another land, as it is this day,' Deuteronomy 29:28. 'As this day passeth and shall never return, so they are gone and shall not return again.' They are the words of R. Akibah."
"It is a tradition of the Rabbins, that the ten tribes shall not have a part in the world to come; as it is written, 'The Lord rooted them out of their land in anger and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them out into another land. He rooted them out of their own land in this world, and cast them out into another land in the world to come.' They are the words of Rabbi."
But, in truth, when the true Messiah did appear, the ten tribes were more happily called (if I may so speak), that is, with more happy success than the Jews; because amongst those Jews that had embraced the gospel, there happened a sad and foul apostasy, the like to which we read not of concerning the ten tribes that were converted.
1. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
[By the door into the sheepfold, &c.] The sheepfold amongst the Talmudists is some enclosure or pen: wherein,
I. The sheep were all gathered together in the night, lest they should stray; and where they might be safe from thieves or wild beasts.
II. In the day time they were milked: as,
The Trojans, as the rich man's numerous flocks,
Stand milked in the field.
III. There the lambs were tithed.
"How is it that they tithe the lambs? They gather the flock into the sheepfold; and making a little door at which two cannot go out together, they number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and the tenth that goes out they mark with red, saying, 'This is the tithe.' The ewes are without and the lambs within; and at the bleating of the ewes the lambs get out."
So that there was in the sheepfold one larger door, which gave ingress and egress to the flock and shepherds; and a lesser, by which the lambs passed out for tithing.
[Is a thief and a robber.] In Talmudic language: "Who is a thief? He that takes away another man's goods when the owner is not privy to it: as when a man puts his hand into another man's pocket, and takes away his money, the man not seeing him; but if he takes it away openly, publicly, and by force. This is not a thief, but a robber."
3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
[The porter.] I am mistaken if the servants that attend about the flock under the shepherd are not called by the owner of them, Ecclesiastes 12:11, those that fold the sheep: at least if the sheepfold itself be not so called. And I would render the words by way of paraphrase thus: "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by those that gather the flock into the fold: goads, to drive away the thief or the wild beast; and nails, to preserve the sheepfold whole and in good repair: which goads and nails are furnished by the chief shepherd, the master of the flock, for these uses." Now one of these servants that attended about the flock was called the porter. Not that he always sat at the door; but the key was committed to his charge, that he might look to it that no sheep should stray out of the fold, nor any thing hurtful should get or be let in.
7. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
[I am the door.] Pure Israelitism among the Jews was the fold, and the door, and all things. For if any one was of the seed of Israel, and the stock of Abraham, it was enough (themselves being the judges) for such a one to be made a sheep, admitted into the flock, and be fed and nourished to eternal life. But in Christ's flock the sheep had another original, introduction, and mark.
8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
[All that ever came before me are thieves.] Our Saviour speaks agreeably with the Scripture; where, when there is any mention of the coming of this great Shepherd to undertake the charge of the flock, the evil shepherds that do not feed but destroy the flock are accused, Jeremiah 23:1, &c. Ezekiel 34:2, &c. Zechariah 11:16. And our Saviour strikes at those three shepherds before mentioned, that hated him, and were hated by him, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Essenes, under whose conduct the nation had been so erroneously led for some ages.
I should have believed that those words, All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers, might be understood of those who, having arrogated to themselves the name of the Messiah, obtruded themselves upon the people; but that we shall hardly, or not at all, find an instance of any that ever did so before the true Messiah came. After his coming (it is true) there were very many that assumed the name and title; but before it hardly one. Judas the Galilean did not arrive to that impudence, as you have his story in Josephus. Nor yet Theudas, by any thing that may be gathered from the words of Gamaliel, Acts 5.
An argument of no mean force, which we may use against the Jews, that the time when our Jesus did appear was the very time wherein the nation looked for the coming of Messiah. For why did no one arrogate that name to himself before the coming of our Jesus? Because they knew the fore-appointed and the expected time of the Messiah was not yet come. And why, after Jesus had come, did so many give themselves out for Messiah, according to what our Saviour foretold, Matthew 24? Because the agreeableness of the time, and the expectation of the people, might serve and assist their pretences.
9. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
[Find pasture.] How far is the beasts' pasture? Sixteen miles. The Gloss is, "The measure of the space that the beasts go when they go forth to pasture." A spacious pasture indeed!
13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
[The hireling fleeth.] The Rabbins suppose that some such thing may be done by the hireling, when they allot a mulct, if a sheep should happen to perish through the neglect of its keeper.
"How far is the keeper for hire bound to watch his flock? Till he can say truly, 'In the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night.'"
"But if, whilst he is going to the city or any ways absent, the wolf or the lion should come and tear the flock, what then?....He ought to have met them with shepherds and clubs," and not to have fled.
15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
[I lay down my life, &c.] I deliver, or I give, my life for the flock. Judah gave up his life for Benjamin. Hur gave his life for the holy blessed God. For they have a tradition, that Hur underwent martyrdom, because he opposed the golden calf.
22. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
[It was the feast of the Dedication.] I. The rise and original of this feast must be fetched from the story, 1 Maccabees 4:52, &c., of which we have noted something already. The Jewish masters have these passages about it:
"They were seized with such infinite pleasure in the restoration of their sacred rites, being, after so long a time, so unexpectedly possessed of their religion again, that they bound it by a law to posterity, that they should celebrate the restitution of their sacred rites by a feast of eight days' continuance. And from that time to this do we still celebrate this feast, calling it by the name of 'Lights': giving that name to this feast, as I suppose, because we obtained such a liberty so much beyond all hope."
One would believe that the name only of lights, or candles, was given to this feast: I say a name only; for we have no mention here of the 'lighting of candles.' One would believe also that the eight days decreed for the celebration of this feast was done after the pattern of the eight days' feast of Tabernacles: but you will find in the Talmudic authors that it is far otherwise, and they have a cunning way of talking concerning it.
"The Rabbins have a tradition: From the five-and-twentieth day of the month Chisleu there are eight days of the Encaenia [or feast of Dedication], in which time it is not lawful either to weep or fast. For when the Greeks entered into the Temple, they defiled all the oil that was there. But when the kingdom of the Asmoneans had conquered them, they sought and could not find but one single vial of oil that had been laid up under the seal of the chief priest; nor was there enough in it but to light for one day. There was a great miracle: for they lighted up the lamps from that oil for eight days together: so that, the year after, they instituted the space of eight days for the solemnizing that feast."
Maimonides relates the same things, and adds more: "Upon this occasion the wise men of that generation appointed, that eight days from the 25th of the month Chisleu should be set apart for days of rejoicing and the Hallel: and that they should light up candles at the doors of every house each evening of those days, to keep up the memory of that miracle. Those days are called Dedication; and it is forbidden upon all those days either to weep or fast, as in the days of Purim," &c.
Again: "How many candles do they light? It is commanded that every house should set up at least one, let the inhabitants there be more or one only. But he that does honour to the command sets up his candles according to the number of the persons that are in the house. And he again that does more honour to it still sets up one candle for every person in the house the first night, and doubles it the second night. For example, if there be ten persons in the house, the first night there are ten candles lighted; the second night, twenty; the third night, thirty; so that on the eighth night it comes to fourscore."
It would be too tedious to transcribe what he relates about singing the Hallel upon that feast: the place where the candle is fixed, which ordinarily is without doors, but in time of danger or persecution it is within, &c. Let what I have already quoted suffice, with the addition of this one instance more:
"The wife of Tarchinus (whose bones may they be crushed!) brought forth a son the evening of the ninth day of the month Ab, and then all Israel mourned. The child died upon the feast of Dedication. Then said the Israelites, 'Shall we light up candles, or not?' They said, 'We will light them, come what will come.' So they lighted them. Upon which, there were some that went and accused them before the wife of Tarchin, saying, 'The Jews mourned when thou broughtest forth a son; and when that son died they set up candles.'" Who this Tarquinus or Tarquinius was, whether they meant the emperor Trajan or some other, we will not make any inquiry, nor is it tanti. However, the story goes on and tells us, that the woman, calling her husband, accused the Jews, stirring him up to revenge, which he executed accordingly by a slaughter amongst them.
[The feast of the Dedication.] In the title of the thirtieth Psalm, the Greek interpreters translate Dedication: by which the Jewish masters seem to understand the dedication of the Temple: whereas really it was no other than the lustration and cleansing of David's house after Absalom had polluted it by his wickedness and filthiness: which indeed we may not unfitly compare with the purging again of the Temple after that the Gentiles had polluted it.
[At Jerusalem.] It was at Jerusalem the feast of the Dedication. Not as the Passover, Pentecost, and feast of Tabernacles, were wont to be at Jerusalem, because those feasts might not be celebrated in any other place: but the Encaenia was kept everywhere throughout the whole land.
They once proclaimed a fast within the feast of Dedication at Lydda.
The feast of Dedication at Lydda? this was not uncustomary, for that feast was celebrated in any place: but the fast in the time of that feast, this was uncustomary.
"One upon his journey, upon whose account they set up a candle at his own house, hath no need to light it for himself in the place where he sojourneth": for in what country soever he sojourns, there the feast of Dedication and lighting up of candles is observed; and if those of his own household would be doing that office for him, he is bound to make provision accordingly, and take care that they may do it.
Maimonides goes on; "The precept about the lights in the feast of Dedication is very commendable; and it is necessary that every one should rub up his memory in this matter, that he may make known the great miracle, and contribute towards the praises of God, and the acknowledgment of those wonders he doth amongst us. If any one hath not wherewithal to eat, unless of mere alms, let him beg, or sell his garments to buy oil and lights for this feast. If he have only one single farthing, and should be in suspense whether he should spend it in consecrating the day, or setting up lights, let him rather spend it in oil for the candles than in wine for consecration of the day. For when as they are both the prescription of the scribes, it were better to give the lights of the Encaenia the preference, because you therein keep up the remembrance of the miracle."
Now what was this miracle? It was the multiplication of the oil. The feast was instituted in commemoration of their Temple and religion being restored to them: the continuance of the feast for eight days was instituted in commemoration of that miracle: both by the direction of the scribes, when there was not so much as one prophet throughout the whole land.
"There were eighty-five elders, above thirty of which were prophets too, that made their exceptions against the feast of Purim, ordained by Esther and Mordecai, as some kind of innovation against the law." And yet that feast was but to be of two days' continuance. It is a wonder then how this feast of Dedication, the solemnity of which was to be kept up for eight days together, that had no other foundation of authority but that of the scribes, should be so easily swallowed by them.
Josephus, as also the Book of Maccabees, tells us, that this was done about the hundred and forty-eighth year of the Seleucidae: and at that time, nay, a great while before, the doctrine of traditions and authority of the traditional scribes had got a mighty sway in that nation. So that every decree of the Sanhedrim was received as oracular, nor was there any the least grudge or complaint against it. So that, though the traditional masters could not vindicate the institution of such a feast from any tradition exhibited to Moses upon mount Sinai, yet might they invent something as traditional to prove the lawfulness of such an institution.
Who had the presidency in the Sanhedrim at this time cannot be certainly determined. That which is told of Joshua Ben Perachiah, how he fled from Janneus the king, carries some probability along with it, that Joses Ben Joezer of Zeredai, and Joses Ben Jochanan of Jerusalem, to whom Joshua Ben Perachiah and Nittai the Arbelite succeeded in their chairs, sat president and vice-president at that time in the Sanhedrim. But this is not of much weight, that we should tire ourselves in such an inquiry.
The masters tell us (but upon what authority it is obscure), that the work of the tabernacle was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Chisleu (that is, the very day of the month of which we are now speaking); "but it was folded up till the first day of the month Nisan, and then set up."
[And it was winter.] The eight days begun from the 25th of the month Chisleu fell in with the winter solstice. Whence, meeting with that in the Targumist upon 1 Chronicles 11:22, I question whether I should render it the shortest day, or a short day (i.e. one of the short winter days), viz. the tenth of the month Tebeth: if he did not calculate rather according to our than the Jewish calendar.
The Rabbins (as we have already observed upon chapter 5:35) distinguish their winter months into winter and mid-winter: intimating, as it should seem, the more remiss and more intense cold. Half Chisleu, all Tebeth, and half Shebat was the winter. Ten days therefore of the winter had passed when on the 25th of the month Chisleu the feast of the Dedication came in.
It was winter, and Jesus walked in the porch. He walked there because it was winter, that he might get and keep himself warm: and perhaps he chose Solomon's porch to walk in, either that he might have something to do with the fathers of the Sanhedrim who sat there; or else that he might correct and chastise the buyers and sellers who had their shops in that place.
24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
[How long dost thou make us to doubt?] It is not ill rendered, How long dost thou suspend our mind? although not an exact translation according to the letter. But what kind of doubt and suspension of mind was this? Was it that they hoped this Jesus was the Messiah? or that they rather feared he was so? It seems, they rather feared than hoped it. For whereas they looked for a Messias that should prove a mighty conqueror, should deliver the people from the heathen yoke, and should crown himself with all earthly glory; and saw Jesus infinite degrees below such pomp; yet by his miracles giving such fair specimens of the Messias; they could not but hang in great suspense, whether such a Messiah were to be wished for or no.
31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[Then the Jews took up stones again.] The blasphemer by judicial process of the Sanhedrim was to be stoned; which process they would imitate here without judgment.
"These are the criminals that must be stoned; he that lieth with his own mother, or with the wife of his father. He that blasphemes or commits idolatry." Now, however, the Rabbins differed in the definition of blasphemy or a blasphemer, yet this all of them agreed in, as unquestionable blasphemy, that which denies the foundation. This they firmly believed Jesus did, and none could persuade them to the contrary, when he affirmed, "I and my Father are one." A miserable besotted nation, who, above all persons or things, wished and looked for the Messiah, and yet was perfectly ignorant what kind of a Messiah he should be!
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
[If he called them gods, &c.] The Jews interpret those words of the Psalmist, "I have said, Ye are gods," to a most ridiculous sense.
"Unless our fathers had sinned, we had never come into the world; as it is written, I have said, 'Ye are gods, and the children of the Most High: but ye have corrupted your doings; therefore ye shall die like men.'" And a little after; "Israel had not received the law, only that the angel of death might not rule over them; as it is said, 'I have said, Ye are gods: but ye have corrupted your doings; therefore ye shall die like men.'"
The sense is, If those who stood before mount Sinai had not sinned in the matter of the golden calf, they had not begot children, nor had been subject to death, but had been like the angels. So the Gloss: "If our fathers had not sinned by the golden calf, we had never come into the world; for they would have been like the angels, and had never begot ten children."
The Psalmist indeed speaks of the magistracy, to whom the word of God hath arrived, ordaining and deputing them to the government by an express dispensation and diploma, as the whole web and contexture of the psalm doth abundantly shew. But if we apply the words as if they were spoken by our Saviour according to the common interpretation received amongst them, they fitly argue thus: "If he said they were angels or gods, to whom the law and word of God came on mount Sinai, as you conceive; is it any blasphemy in me then, whom God in a peculiar manner hath sanctified and sent into the world that I might declare his word and will, if I say that I am the Son of God?"
40. And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
[Where John at first baptized.] That is, Bethabara: for the evangelist speaks according to his own history: which to the judicious reader needs no proof.
I. He describes this great Shepherd manifesting himself, and applying himself to his great pastoral office, when the nation was now upon the brink of destruction: the prophet had foretold their ruin, and brings in this Shepherd undertaking the care of his sheep, lest they should perish too.
As to the first verse, "Open thy doors, O Lebanon"; take the Jews' own comment upon it, who yet do, by all the skill they can, endeavour to take off the whole prophecy from those proper hinges upon which it turns.
"Forty years before the destruction [of Jerusalem], the gates of the Temple opened themselves of their own accord. Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai declaimed upon it, saying, 'O Temple, Temple, why dost thou terrify thyself? I know thy end will be destruction; for so Zechariah, the son of Iddo, hath prophesied concerning thee; Open thy doors, O Lebanon,'" &c.
The rest that follows doth plainly enough speak out desolation and ruin, verses 2, 3: but particularly that is remarkable, verse 6, "I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand": how manifestly doth it agree with those intestine broils and discords, those horrid seditions, stirred up amongst them! "And into the hand of his king"; i.e. of Caesar, concerning whom they may remember they once said, "We have no king but Caesar."
II. He describes the evil shepherds of the people under a triumvirate, verse 8: "Three shepherds also I cut off in one month," &c.; i.e. the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes; which interpretation though it cannot but sound very unpleasingly in Jewish years, yet is it what seems abundantly confirmed, both from the context and the history of things. They therefore would turn the edge of the prophecy another way, the Gemarists understanding the three shepherds of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam: Jarchi would have it the house of Ahab, the house of Ahaziah, and his brethren: Kimchi, the sons of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah. Aben Ezra saith, "Perhaps they are the high priest Joshua, the person anointed to the wars, and the sagan; or perhaps Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi," &c.
But what can be more clear than that the prophet speaks of those shepherds that had wasted and corrupted the flock, and who, when the true Shepherd of the sheep should reveal himself, would do the like again? and who should these be but the principals and chief heads of sects, and the leaders of the people, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes?
Object. But how can these properly be said to be cut off by the great Shepherd when he should come, whereas it is well enough known that these sects lived even after the death of Christ, nay, after the ruins of Jerusalem; not to say that Pharisaism hath its being amongst the Jews to this very day?
Ans. So indeed it is said, that under the gospel, the nations should not learn war any more, Isaiah 2:4; and that there should not be an infant in age, or one under age, in the new Jerusalem, Isaiah 65:20: whereas we find enough of war in every generation, and that infancy or ignorance in divine things abounds still. But nevertheless God had done his part towards the accomplishment of such prophecies; namely, he had brought in the gospel of peace and the gospel of light, that nothing should be wanting on his side that peace might reign on the earth, and infancy in divine things should be no more. So did this great Shepherd bring in the evangelical doctrine, the oracle of truth and religion, which did so beat down and confound all the vain doctrines and institutions of those sects, that, as to what related to the doctrine of Christ, there was nothing wanting to have cut off those heresies and vanities.
III. This great Shepherd broke that covenant that had been made and confirmed with that people, verse 10: "I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people." With all the people; i.e. with all Israel, the ten and the two tribes too. And in verse 14, the affinity and kin which was betwixt Judah and Israel is dissolved; which it would not be amiss for those to take serious notice of, who as yet expect a universal conversion of the whole nation of the Jews. Let them say by virtue of what covenant; if the covenant of grace, that makes no difference betwixt the Jew and the Greek, nor knows any one after the flesh. If by virtue of the covenant peculiarly made with that people, that was broken and dissolved, when God had gathered his flock out of that people. For,
IV. The great Shepherd, when he came, found that there must be a flock gathered in that nation, as Romans 11:5, A remnant according to the election of grace; and these he took care to call and gather before Jerusalem should be destroyed. Zechariah himself calls it the flock of slaughter; and the poor of the flock, verse 7. Where, by the way, whoever compares the Greek version in this place must needs observe, that so the poor is, by those interpreters, jumbled and confounded into one word. For, instead of and so the poor of the flock knew, they read it, the Canaanites shall know the sheep, &c. So instead of for this, or for you, O poor of the flock, verse 7, they read, unto the land of Canaan...I have some suspicion that these interpreters might have had an eye upon the reduction of the dispersed captivity into the land of Canaan, according to the common expectation of that nation. But this only by the by.
That of the apostle ought to be strictly heeded; Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Which indeed is, as it were, the gnomon to that chapter, and, above all other things, does interpret best the apostle's mind. For he propounds to discourse not concerning the universal call of the Jews, but of their not being universally rejected: which may very easily be collected from the very first verse of this chapter, "Hath God cast away his people?" that is, so cast them away that they are universally rejected. "God forbid!" for I myself am an Israelite, and am not cast away. This argument he pursues, and illustrates from the example of those most corrupted times, the age wherein Elijah lived, when they threw down the altars of God, slew his prophets, and not a few worshipped Baal of the Sidonians, whom Ahab had introduced; and almost the whole nation worshipped that golden calf or cow which Jeroboam had set up. And yet, even in that worst state of affairs, saith God, "I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to that golden calf," the common and universal error of that nation, much less to Baal of the Sidonians. "Even so" (saith the apostle), "at this present time also there is a remnant"; plainly intimating, that he does not assert or argue for the calling of the whole nation, but of that remnant only; and that he discourses concerning the present calling of that remnant, and not about any future call of the whole nation.
V. That is a vast mystery the apostle is upon, verse 25 of that chapter; "Blindness hath severally happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." I render severally, or by parts, not without warrant from grammar, and according to the meaning and intention of St. Paul. For the mystery mentioned by him is, that blindness severally, and at several times, happened to the Israelites: first, the ten tribes were blinded through idolatry, and, after many ages, the two tribes, through traditions; and yet both those and these reserved together to that time, wherein the Gentiles, who had been blinded for a longer space, are called, and then both Israelites and Jews and Gentiles, being all called together, do close into one body. It is observable that the apostle, throughout this whole chapter, doth not so much as once make mention of the Jews, but of Israel, that he might include the ten tribes with the two within his discourse.
And, indeed, this great Shepherd had his flock, or his sheep, within the ten tribes, as well as within the two: and to me it is without all controversy that the gospel, in the times of the apostles, was brought and preached as well to the one as the other. Doubtless St. Peter, whilst he was in Babylon, preached to the Israelites dispersed in those countries as well as to the Jews.
VI. Some of the Gemarists do vehemently deny any conversion of the ten tribes under the Messiah: let them beware lest there be not a conversion of their own.
"The ten tribes shall never return, as it is written, 'And he cast them into another land, as it is this day,' Deuteronomy 29:28. 'As this day passeth and shall never return, so they are gone and shall not return again.' They are the words of R. Akibah."
"It is a tradition of the Rabbins, that the ten tribes shall not have a part in the world to come; as it is written, 'The Lord rooted them out of their land in anger and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them out into another land. He rooted them out of their own land in this world, and cast them out into another land in the world to come.' They are the words of Rabbi."
But, in truth, when the true Messiah did appear, the ten tribes were more happily called (if I may so speak), that is, with more happy success than the Jews; because amongst those Jews that had embraced the gospel, there happened a sad and foul apostasy, the like to which we read not of concerning the ten tribes that were converted.
1. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
[By the door into the sheepfold, &c.] The sheepfold amongst the Talmudists is some enclosure or pen: wherein,
I. The sheep were all gathered together in the night, lest they should stray; and where they might be safe from thieves or wild beasts.
II. In the day time they were milked: as,
The Trojans, as the rich man's numerous flocks,
Stand milked in the field.
III. There the lambs were tithed.
"How is it that they tithe the lambs? They gather the flock into the sheepfold; and making a little door at which two cannot go out together, they number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and the tenth that goes out they mark with red, saying, 'This is the tithe.' The ewes are without and the lambs within; and at the bleating of the ewes the lambs get out."
So that there was in the sheepfold one larger door, which gave ingress and egress to the flock and shepherds; and a lesser, by which the lambs passed out for tithing.
[Is a thief and a robber.] In Talmudic language: "Who is a thief? He that takes away another man's goods when the owner is not privy to it: as when a man puts his hand into another man's pocket, and takes away his money, the man not seeing him; but if he takes it away openly, publicly, and by force. This is not a thief, but a robber."
3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
[The porter.] I am mistaken if the servants that attend about the flock under the shepherd are not called by the owner of them, Ecclesiastes 12:11, those that fold the sheep: at least if the sheepfold itself be not so called. And I would render the words by way of paraphrase thus: "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by those that gather the flock into the fold: goads, to drive away the thief or the wild beast; and nails, to preserve the sheepfold whole and in good repair: which goads and nails are furnished by the chief shepherd, the master of the flock, for these uses." Now one of these servants that attended about the flock was called the porter. Not that he always sat at the door; but the key was committed to his charge, that he might look to it that no sheep should stray out of the fold, nor any thing hurtful should get or be let in.
7. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
[I am the door.] Pure Israelitism among the Jews was the fold, and the door, and all things. For if any one was of the seed of Israel, and the stock of Abraham, it was enough (themselves being the judges) for such a one to be made a sheep, admitted into the flock, and be fed and nourished to eternal life. But in Christ's flock the sheep had another original, introduction, and mark.
8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
[All that ever came before me are thieves.] Our Saviour speaks agreeably with the Scripture; where, when there is any mention of the coming of this great Shepherd to undertake the charge of the flock, the evil shepherds that do not feed but destroy the flock are accused, Jeremiah 23:1, &c. Ezekiel 34:2, &c. Zechariah 11:16. And our Saviour strikes at those three shepherds before mentioned, that hated him, and were hated by him, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Essenes, under whose conduct the nation had been so erroneously led for some ages.
I should have believed that those words, All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers, might be understood of those who, having arrogated to themselves the name of the Messiah, obtruded themselves upon the people; but that we shall hardly, or not at all, find an instance of any that ever did so before the true Messiah came. After his coming (it is true) there were very many that assumed the name and title; but before it hardly one. Judas the Galilean did not arrive to that impudence, as you have his story in Josephus. Nor yet Theudas, by any thing that may be gathered from the words of Gamaliel, Acts 5.
An argument of no mean force, which we may use against the Jews, that the time when our Jesus did appear was the very time wherein the nation looked for the coming of Messiah. For why did no one arrogate that name to himself before the coming of our Jesus? Because they knew the fore-appointed and the expected time of the Messiah was not yet come. And why, after Jesus had come, did so many give themselves out for Messiah, according to what our Saviour foretold, Matthew 24? Because the agreeableness of the time, and the expectation of the people, might serve and assist their pretences.
9. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
[Find pasture.] How far is the beasts' pasture? Sixteen miles. The Gloss is, "The measure of the space that the beasts go when they go forth to pasture." A spacious pasture indeed!
13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
[The hireling fleeth.] The Rabbins suppose that some such thing may be done by the hireling, when they allot a mulct, if a sheep should happen to perish through the neglect of its keeper.
"How far is the keeper for hire bound to watch his flock? Till he can say truly, 'In the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night.'"
"But if, whilst he is going to the city or any ways absent, the wolf or the lion should come and tear the flock, what then?....He ought to have met them with shepherds and clubs," and not to have fled.
15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
[I lay down my life, &c.] I deliver, or I give, my life for the flock. Judah gave up his life for Benjamin. Hur gave his life for the holy blessed God. For they have a tradition, that Hur underwent martyrdom, because he opposed the golden calf.
22. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
[It was the feast of the Dedication.] I. The rise and original of this feast must be fetched from the story, 1 Maccabees 4:52, &c., of which we have noted something already. The Jewish masters have these passages about it:
"They were seized with such infinite pleasure in the restoration of their sacred rites, being, after so long a time, so unexpectedly possessed of their religion again, that they bound it by a law to posterity, that they should celebrate the restitution of their sacred rites by a feast of eight days' continuance. And from that time to this do we still celebrate this feast, calling it by the name of 'Lights': giving that name to this feast, as I suppose, because we obtained such a liberty so much beyond all hope."
One would believe that the name only of lights, or candles, was given to this feast: I say a name only; for we have no mention here of the 'lighting of candles.' One would believe also that the eight days decreed for the celebration of this feast was done after the pattern of the eight days' feast of Tabernacles: but you will find in the Talmudic authors that it is far otherwise, and they have a cunning way of talking concerning it.
"The Rabbins have a tradition: From the five-and-twentieth day of the month Chisleu there are eight days of the Encaenia [or feast of Dedication], in which time it is not lawful either to weep or fast. For when the Greeks entered into the Temple, they defiled all the oil that was there. But when the kingdom of the Asmoneans had conquered them, they sought and could not find but one single vial of oil that had been laid up under the seal of the chief priest; nor was there enough in it but to light for one day. There was a great miracle: for they lighted up the lamps from that oil for eight days together: so that, the year after, they instituted the space of eight days for the solemnizing that feast."
Maimonides relates the same things, and adds more: "Upon this occasion the wise men of that generation appointed, that eight days from the 25th of the month Chisleu should be set apart for days of rejoicing and the Hallel: and that they should light up candles at the doors of every house each evening of those days, to keep up the memory of that miracle. Those days are called Dedication; and it is forbidden upon all those days either to weep or fast, as in the days of Purim," &c.
Again: "How many candles do they light? It is commanded that every house should set up at least one, let the inhabitants there be more or one only. But he that does honour to the command sets up his candles according to the number of the persons that are in the house. And he again that does more honour to it still sets up one candle for every person in the house the first night, and doubles it the second night. For example, if there be ten persons in the house, the first night there are ten candles lighted; the second night, twenty; the third night, thirty; so that on the eighth night it comes to fourscore."
It would be too tedious to transcribe what he relates about singing the Hallel upon that feast: the place where the candle is fixed, which ordinarily is without doors, but in time of danger or persecution it is within, &c. Let what I have already quoted suffice, with the addition of this one instance more:
"The wife of Tarchinus (whose bones may they be crushed!) brought forth a son the evening of the ninth day of the month Ab, and then all Israel mourned. The child died upon the feast of Dedication. Then said the Israelites, 'Shall we light up candles, or not?' They said, 'We will light them, come what will come.' So they lighted them. Upon which, there were some that went and accused them before the wife of Tarchin, saying, 'The Jews mourned when thou broughtest forth a son; and when that son died they set up candles.'" Who this Tarquinus or Tarquinius was, whether they meant the emperor Trajan or some other, we will not make any inquiry, nor is it tanti. However, the story goes on and tells us, that the woman, calling her husband, accused the Jews, stirring him up to revenge, which he executed accordingly by a slaughter amongst them.
[The feast of the Dedication.] In the title of the thirtieth Psalm, the Greek interpreters translate Dedication: by which the Jewish masters seem to understand the dedication of the Temple: whereas really it was no other than the lustration and cleansing of David's house after Absalom had polluted it by his wickedness and filthiness: which indeed we may not unfitly compare with the purging again of the Temple after that the Gentiles had polluted it.
[At Jerusalem.] It was at Jerusalem the feast of the Dedication. Not as the Passover, Pentecost, and feast of Tabernacles, were wont to be at Jerusalem, because those feasts might not be celebrated in any other place: but the Encaenia was kept everywhere throughout the whole land.
They once proclaimed a fast within the feast of Dedication at Lydda.
The feast of Dedication at Lydda? this was not uncustomary, for that feast was celebrated in any place: but the fast in the time of that feast, this was uncustomary.
"One upon his journey, upon whose account they set up a candle at his own house, hath no need to light it for himself in the place where he sojourneth": for in what country soever he sojourns, there the feast of Dedication and lighting up of candles is observed; and if those of his own household would be doing that office for him, he is bound to make provision accordingly, and take care that they may do it.
Maimonides goes on; "The precept about the lights in the feast of Dedication is very commendable; and it is necessary that every one should rub up his memory in this matter, that he may make known the great miracle, and contribute towards the praises of God, and the acknowledgment of those wonders he doth amongst us. If any one hath not wherewithal to eat, unless of mere alms, let him beg, or sell his garments to buy oil and lights for this feast. If he have only one single farthing, and should be in suspense whether he should spend it in consecrating the day, or setting up lights, let him rather spend it in oil for the candles than in wine for consecration of the day. For when as they are both the prescription of the scribes, it were better to give the lights of the Encaenia the preference, because you therein keep up the remembrance of the miracle."
Now what was this miracle? It was the multiplication of the oil. The feast was instituted in commemoration of their Temple and religion being restored to them: the continuance of the feast for eight days was instituted in commemoration of that miracle: both by the direction of the scribes, when there was not so much as one prophet throughout the whole land.
"There were eighty-five elders, above thirty of which were prophets too, that made their exceptions against the feast of Purim, ordained by Esther and Mordecai, as some kind of innovation against the law." And yet that feast was but to be of two days' continuance. It is a wonder then how this feast of Dedication, the solemnity of which was to be kept up for eight days together, that had no other foundation of authority but that of the scribes, should be so easily swallowed by them.
Josephus, as also the Book of Maccabees, tells us, that this was done about the hundred and forty-eighth year of the Seleucidae: and at that time, nay, a great while before, the doctrine of traditions and authority of the traditional scribes had got a mighty sway in that nation. So that every decree of the Sanhedrim was received as oracular, nor was there any the least grudge or complaint against it. So that, though the traditional masters could not vindicate the institution of such a feast from any tradition exhibited to Moses upon mount Sinai, yet might they invent something as traditional to prove the lawfulness of such an institution.
Who had the presidency in the Sanhedrim at this time cannot be certainly determined. That which is told of Joshua Ben Perachiah, how he fled from Janneus the king, carries some probability along with it, that Joses Ben Joezer of Zeredai, and Joses Ben Jochanan of Jerusalem, to whom Joshua Ben Perachiah and Nittai the Arbelite succeeded in their chairs, sat president and vice-president at that time in the Sanhedrim. But this is not of much weight, that we should tire ourselves in such an inquiry.
The masters tell us (but upon what authority it is obscure), that the work of the tabernacle was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Chisleu (that is, the very day of the month of which we are now speaking); "but it was folded up till the first day of the month Nisan, and then set up."
[And it was winter.] The eight days begun from the 25th of the month Chisleu fell in with the winter solstice. Whence, meeting with that in the Targumist upon 1 Chronicles 11:22, I question whether I should render it the shortest day, or a short day (i.e. one of the short winter days), viz. the tenth of the month Tebeth: if he did not calculate rather according to our than the Jewish calendar.
The Rabbins (as we have already observed upon chapter 5:35) distinguish their winter months into winter and mid-winter: intimating, as it should seem, the more remiss and more intense cold. Half Chisleu, all Tebeth, and half Shebat was the winter. Ten days therefore of the winter had passed when on the 25th of the month Chisleu the feast of the Dedication came in.
It was winter, and Jesus walked in the porch. He walked there because it was winter, that he might get and keep himself warm: and perhaps he chose Solomon's porch to walk in, either that he might have something to do with the fathers of the Sanhedrim who sat there; or else that he might correct and chastise the buyers and sellers who had their shops in that place.
24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
[How long dost thou make us to doubt?] It is not ill rendered, How long dost thou suspend our mind? although not an exact translation according to the letter. But what kind of doubt and suspension of mind was this? Was it that they hoped this Jesus was the Messiah? or that they rather feared he was so? It seems, they rather feared than hoped it. For whereas they looked for a Messias that should prove a mighty conqueror, should deliver the people from the heathen yoke, and should crown himself with all earthly glory; and saw Jesus infinite degrees below such pomp; yet by his miracles giving such fair specimens of the Messias; they could not but hang in great suspense, whether such a Messiah were to be wished for or no.
31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[Then the Jews took up stones again.] The blasphemer by judicial process of the Sanhedrim was to be stoned; which process they would imitate here without judgment.
"These are the criminals that must be stoned; he that lieth with his own mother, or with the wife of his father. He that blasphemes or commits idolatry." Now, however, the Rabbins differed in the definition of blasphemy or a blasphemer, yet this all of them agreed in, as unquestionable blasphemy, that which denies the foundation. This they firmly believed Jesus did, and none could persuade them to the contrary, when he affirmed, "I and my Father are one." A miserable besotted nation, who, above all persons or things, wished and looked for the Messiah, and yet was perfectly ignorant what kind of a Messiah he should be!
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
[If he called them gods, &c.] The Jews interpret those words of the Psalmist, "I have said, Ye are gods," to a most ridiculous sense.
"Unless our fathers had sinned, we had never come into the world; as it is written, I have said, 'Ye are gods, and the children of the Most High: but ye have corrupted your doings; therefore ye shall die like men.'" And a little after; "Israel had not received the law, only that the angel of death might not rule over them; as it is said, 'I have said, Ye are gods: but ye have corrupted your doings; therefore ye shall die like men.'"
The sense is, If those who stood before mount Sinai had not sinned in the matter of the golden calf, they had not begot children, nor had been subject to death, but had been like the angels. So the Gloss: "If our fathers had not sinned by the golden calf, we had never come into the world; for they would have been like the angels, and had never begot ten children."
The Psalmist indeed speaks of the magistracy, to whom the word of God hath arrived, ordaining and deputing them to the government by an express dispensation and diploma, as the whole web and contexture of the psalm doth abundantly shew. But if we apply the words as if they were spoken by our Saviour according to the common interpretation received amongst them, they fitly argue thus: "If he said they were angels or gods, to whom the law and word of God came on mount Sinai, as you conceive; is it any blasphemy in me then, whom God in a peculiar manner hath sanctified and sent into the world that I might declare his word and will, if I say that I am the Son of God?"
40. And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
[Where John at first baptized.] That is, Bethabara: for the evangelist speaks according to his own history: which to the judicious reader needs no proof.
John 11
1. Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
[Lazarus.] So in the Jerusalem Talmud, R. Lazar for R. Eleazar. For in the Jerusalem dialect, it is not unusual in some words that begin with Aleph, to cut off that letter.
[Martha.] This name of Martha is very frequent in the Talmudic authors. "Isaac Bar Samuel, Bar Martha." "Abba Bar Martha, the same with Abba Bar Minjomi." "Joshua Ben Gamla married Martha the daughter of Baithus." She was a very rich widow.
She is called also Mary the daughter of Baithus, with this story of her: "Mary the daughter of Baithus, whom Joshua Ben Gamla married, he being preferred by the king to the high priesthood. She had a mind, upon a certain day of Expiation, to see how her husband performed his office. So they laid tapestry all along from the door of her own house to the Temple, that her foot might not touch the ground. R. Eleazar Ben R. Zadok saith, 'So let me see the consolation [of Israel], as I saw her bound to the tails of Arabian horses by the hair of her head, and forced to run thus from Jerusalem to Lydda. I could not but repeat that versicle, The tender and delicate woman, in thee,'" &c. Deuteronomy 28:56.
Martha the daughter of Baisuth (whether Baisuth and Baithus were convertible, or whether it was a mistake of the transcriber, let him that thinks fit make the inquiry), whose son was a mighty strong man among the priests.
2. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
[It was that Mary which anointed, &c.] That is, which had anointed the Lord formerly. For,
I. It is fit the Aorist should have its full force. Whoever will not grant this, let him give a reason why Bethany, which was Lazarus' town, should not be called by his name; but by the name of Mary and her sister Martha. Was it not because those names had been already well known in the foregoing story, whereas till now there had not been one word mentioned of their brother Lazarus? So that anointed respects a noted story that was past, viz. that which is related Luke 7:37.
II. There can be no reason given why the evangelist should say this proleptically, as if he had respect to that passage in chapter 12:3, when he was to relate that story so soon after this. But there may be a sufficient one given why it should have relation to an anointing that had been formerly done: and that is, that it might appear how that familiarity arose betwixt Christ and the family of Lazarus, so far that they could so confidently send for Jesus when Lazarus was sick: for Mary, Lazarus' sister, had some time before anointed his feet.
11. These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
[Sleepeth.] The apostles having heard the report that Lazarus was sick, and that Christ told them now that he was fallen asleep; they apprehend that the edge of the disease which had hitherto taken away all rest from him was now taken off; so that they say, "If he sleep, he shall do well": having not rightly understood the word our Saviour used. The fallacy of the word is not unpleasantly expressed in Bereshith Rabba; "Rachel said to Leah, 'He shall sleep with thee tonight,' Genesis 30:19: He shall sleep with thee, he shall not sleep with me; i.e. Thou and he shall lie together in one sepulchre, so shall not he and I."
18. Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:
[About fifteen furlongs.] That is, two miles. For the Jewish miles did not hold out full eight furlongs, as other miles do, but seven and a half.
One of those seven and a half which make up a mile is a furlong.
"They do not lay the net for pigeons any less distance from the houses than thirty furlongs," i.e. four miles.
"What is furlong? It is a flight-shot. And why is furlong called a flight-shot? It is according to the numeral value of the letters, which is two hundred sixty-six: for two hundred sixty-six [cubits] make a flight shot. Now count, and you will thus find it: Seven times [Resh] two hundred make one thousand four hundred. Seven times [Samek] sixty make four hundred and twenty. Number them together, and they mount to one thousand eight hundred and twenty. Seven times [Vav] six make forty-two: half a furlong one hundred thirty-three: number them together, and the whole amounts to one thousand nine hundred ninety-five. Behold two thousand cubits excepting five."
19. And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.
[To comfort them.] "When they return from the burial they stand about weeping, and say [a little prayer] comforting the mourner, and accompanying him to his own house."
"When they return from the grave they stand in a circle about the mourner comforting him." Gloss: "The circle about him consists of ten at least." But usually it is very crowded and numerous. Hence that passage:
"As to those that stood about in that circle, those that were on the inside of it were not obliged to repeat the phylacteries; but those that were on the outside were bound."
"The Rabbins deliver: The seven standings and sittings for the dead must not be diminished." Where the Gloss is; "When they returned from the grave, they went forward a little, and then sat down; partly to comfort the mourners, partly to weep themselves, and partly to meditate upon the subject of mortality. Then they stood up again, and went on a little, and sat down again, and so for seven times. But I have seen it written, that they did this upon the account of the evil spirits who accompanied them from the grave. They ordained these standings and sittings, that within that time the evil spirits might depart."
So that we see they were wont to comfort the mourners in the way as they were returning from the grave, and they would bring them back to their own house the day that the party deceased was interred. They comforted them also all the remaining days of mourning, which we find done in this place.
Thirty days were allotted for the time of mourning: but, "We must not weep for the dead beyond the measure. The three first days are for weeping; seven days for lamentation: thirty days for the intermission from washing their clothes, and shaving themselves."
I. When those that were to comfort the mourners came, they found all the beds in the house taken down, and laid upon the ground. "From what time do they take their beds lower? R. Eleazar saith, 'From the time that the deceased party is carried out of the court gate.' R. Joshua saith, 'From the time that the cover of the coffin is shut down.' When Rabban Gamaliel died, and the corpse was carried out of the court gate, saith R. Eleazar to his disciples, 'Take down the beds.' But when the coffin was closed, R. Joshua said, 'Take down the beds.' On the evening of the sabbath they set up their beds; at the going out of the sabbath they take them down."
What is to be understood by taking down their beds we may conjecture by what follows. "Whence came the custom of taking down the beds? R. Crispa in the name of R. Jochanan saith, From what is written, And they sat with him near the ground. It is not said, upon the ground, but near the ground; that is, not far off from the earth. Hence is it that they sat upon beds taken lower."
But Rabbenu Asher saith thus; "Rabh saith, Those that comfort ought to sit nowhere but upon the floor."
II. The mourner himself sits chief. A custom taken from these words, Job 29:25, "I chose out their way and sat chief....like him who comforts the mourners."
III. It was not lawful for the comforters to speak a word till the mourner himself break silence first. The pattern taken from Job's friends, Job 2.
IV. "R. Jochanan saith, If the mourner nod his head, the comforters are to sit by him no longer." The Gloss is, "If, by nodding his head, he signify to them that he hath comforted himself." Hence that frequently said of some, They would not receive comfort; that is, they gave signs by nodding their head that they had sufficiently comforted themselves.
These and many other things about this matter do occur in Moed Katon; and Rabbenu Asher: as also in Massecheth Semacoth; where, by the way, take notice, that that treatise, which hath for its subject the mourners for the dead, is called A treatise of gladness. So the sepulchres of the dead are often called, The houses of the living.
Let us take a little taste of the way of consolation they used: "The Rabbins deliver. When the sons of R. Ishmael died, four of the elders went in to him to comfort him; viz. R. Tarphon, and R. Jose the Galilean, and R. Eliezer Ben Azariah, and R. Akibah. R. Tarphon saith unto them, 'Ye must know that this is a very wise man, well skilled in exposition. Let not any of you interrupt the words of his fellow.' Saith R. Akibah, 'I am the last.' R. Ishmael began and said" [the mourner here breaks silence], "'His iniquities are multiplied, his griefs have bound him, and he hath wearied his masters.' Thus he said once and again. Then answered R. Tarphon and said, 'It is said, And your brethren of the house of Israel shall bewail the burning, Leviticus 10:6. May we not argue from the less to the greater? If Nadab and Abihu, who never performed but one command, as it is written, And the sons of Aaron brought blood to him; then much more may the sons of R. Ishmael be bewailed.' R. Jose the Galilean answered, saying, 'All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him,' 1 Kings 14:13. And must we not argue from the greater to the less? If they wept so for Abijah the son of Jeroboam, who did but one good thing, as it is said, Because in him there is found some good thing; how much more for the sons of R. Ishmael!" Of the same nature are the words of R. Eliezer and R. Akibah: but this is enough, either to raise laughter, or make a man angry. In the same page we have several forms of speech used by the women, that either were the mourners or the comforters. As,
The grave is as the robe of circumcision to an ingenuous man, whose provisions are spent.
The death of this man is as the death of all, and diseases are like putting money to usury.
He ran, and he fell in his passage, and hath borrowed a loan. With other passages very difficult to be understood.
The first three days of weeping were severer than the other: because "on the first day it was not lawful for the mourner to wear his phylacteries, to eat of holy things, nor indeed to eat any thing of his own. All the three days he might do no servile work, no, not privately: and if any one saluted him, he was not to salute him again."
"The first seven days let all the beds in the house be laid low. Let not the man use his wife. Let him not put on his sandals. Let him do no servile work publicly. Let him not salute any man. Let him not wash himself in warm water, nor his whole body in cold. Let him not anoint himself. Let him not read in the Law, the Misna, or the Talmud. Let him cover his head."
"All the thirty days let him not be shaved. Let him not wear any clothing that is white, or whitened, or new. Neither let him sew up those rents which he made in his garments for the deceased party," &c.
25. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
[I am the resurrection.] Be it so, O Jew (if you will, or it can be), that the little bone luz, in the backbone, is the seed and principle of your resurrection: as to us, our blessed Jesus, who hath raised himself from the dead, is the spring and principle of ours.
"Hadrian (whose bones may they be ground, and his name blotted out!) asked R. Joshua Ben Hananiah, 'How doth a man revive again in the world to come?' He answered and said, 'From luz in the backbone.' Saith he to him, 'Demonstrate this to me.' Then he took luz, a little bone out of the backbone, and put it in water, and it was not steeped: he put it into the fire, and it was not burnt: he brought it to the mill, and that could not grind it: he laid it on the anvil, and knocked it with a hammer, but the anvil was cleft, and the hammer broken," &c. Why do ye not maul the Sadducees with this argument?
31. The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.
[Followed her.] "It is a tradition. Let no man follow a woman upon the way, no, not his own wife." If this grain of salt may be allowed in the explication of this passage, then, either all that followed Mary were women: or if men, they followed her at a very great distance: or else they had a peculiar dispensation at such solemn times as these, which they had not in common conversation. But the observation indeed is hardly worth a grain of salt.
39. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
[For he hath been dead four days.] The three days of weeping were now past, and the four days of lamentation begun: so that all hope and expectation of his coming to himself was wholly gone.
"They go to the sepulchres, and visit the dead for three days. Neither are they solicitous lest they should incur the reproach of the Amorites." The story is, They visited a certain person, and he revived again, and lived five-and-twenty years, and then died. They tell of another that lived again, and begot children, and then died.
"It is a tradition of Ben Kaphra's: The very height of mourning is not till the third day. For three days the spirit wanders about the sepulchre, expecting if it may return into the body. But when it sees that the form or aspect of the face is changed, then it hovers no more, but leaves the body to itself."
"They do not certify of the dead" [that this is the very man, and not another] 'but within the three days after his decease': for after three days his countenance is changed."
44. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
[With graveclothes, &c.] The evangelist seems so particular in mentioning the graveclothes, wherewith Lazarus was bound hand and foot, and also the napkin that had covered his face, on purpose to hint us a second miracle in this great miracle. The dead man came forth, though bound hand and foot with his graveclothes, and blinded with the napkin.
48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
[And the Romans shall come.] I could easily believe that the fathers of the Sanhedrim had either a knowledge or at least some suspicion that Jesus was the true Messiah.
I. This seems plainly intimated by the words of the vine-dressers in the parable, Mark 12:7: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." They knew well enough he was the heir: and it was come to this in the struggle betwixt them, Either he will inherit with his doctrine, or we will with ours: come therefore, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
II. They could not but know that Daniel's weeks were now fully accomplished, and that the time of the Messiah's appearing was now come. This that conflux of Jews from all nations into Jerusalem, Acts 2, doth testify, being led by Daniel's prophecy, and the agreeableness of the time, to fix their residence there, in expectation of the Messiah now ready to be revealed. Compare also Luke 19:2.
III. When therefore they saw Jesus working miracles so very stupendous, and so worthy the character of the Messiah, and that in the very time wherein the manifestation of the Messiah had been foretold, they could not but have a strong suspicion that this was He. But then it is a wonderful thing that they should endeavour his death and destruction. What! destroy the Messiah, the expectation and desire of that nation!
Such mischiefs could religious zeal persuade.
But it was a most irreligious religion, made up of traditions and human inventions; a strange kind of bewitchery rather than religion; that they should choose rather that the Messiah should be cut off than that religion be changed. They had been taught, or rather seduced by their traditions to believe, 1. That the kingdom of the Messiah should be administered in all imaginable pomp and worldly glory. 2. That their Judaism, or the religion properly so called, should be wonderfully promoted by him, confirmed, and made very glorious. 3. The whole nation should be redeemed from the heathen yoke. But when he, who by the force of his miracles asserted himself so far to be the Messiah, that they could not but inwardly acknowledge it, appeared notwithstanding so poor and contemptible, that nothing could be less expected or hoped for of such a one than a deliverance from their present mean and slavish state; and so distant seemed he from it, that he advised to pay tribute to Caesar, taught things contrary to what the scribes and Pharisees had principled them in, shook and seemed to abrogate the religion itself, and they had no prospect at all of better things from him; let Jesus perish, though he were the true Messiah, for any thing that they cared, rather than Judaism and their religion should be abolished.
Obj. But it is said, that what they did was through ignorance, Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17, 13:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8.
Ans. True indeed, through ignorance of the person: for they did not know and believe the Messiah to be God as well as man; they apprehended him mere man. Though they suspected that Jesus might be the Messiah, yet did they not suspect that this Jesus was the true God.
Let it then be taken for granted, that the fathers of the Sanhedrim, under some strong conviction that this was the true Messiah, might express themselves in this manner, "All men will believe on him, and the Romans will come," &c. and so what Caiaphas said, "It is expedient that one man should die," &c. But where does the consequence lie in all this? "All men will believe on him"; ergo, "the Romans will come," &c.
I. It is not altogether wide of the mark, what is commonly returned upon this question: The Romans will come against our nation, taking us for rebels to the emperor, in that, without his consent, our people have entertained this Jesus for the King Messiah.
II. Nor is it impertinent to this purpose what was the ancient observation of the Jews from that of the prophet Isaiah, chapter 10:34, 11:1: "Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one--and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse," viz. That the coming of the Messiah, and the destruction of the Temple, should be upon the heels one of another.
The story is of an Arabian telling a certain Jew, while he was at plough, that the Temple was destroyed, and the Messiah was born; which I have already told at large upon Matthew 2:1. But the conclusion of it is, "R. Bon saith; 'What need we learn from an Arabian? is it not plainly enough written, Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one? And what follows immediately? There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.'"
If, therefore, the Sanhedrim suspected Jesus to be the Messiah, they might, by the same reason, from thence also gather that the destruction of the city and nation was not far off; especially when they see the people falling off from Judaism to the religion of Jesus.
III. The fathers of the Sanhedrim judge that the nation would contract hereby an unspeakable deal of guilt, such as would subject them to all those curses mentioned Deuteronomy 28; particularly that their turning off from Judaism would issue in the final overthrow of the whole nation; and if their religion should be deserted, neither the city nor the commonwealth could possibly survive it long. So rooted was the love and value they had for their wretched traditions.
Let us therefore frame their words into this paraphrase: "It does seem that this man can be no other than the true Messiah; the strange wonders he doth, speak no less. What must we do in this case? On the one hand, it were a base and unworthy part of us to kill the Messiah: but then, on the other hand, it is infinitely hazardous for us to admit him: for all men will believe on him; and then our religion is at an end; and when that is once gone, what can we look for less than that our whole nation should perish under the arms and fury of the Romans?"
"'I beg your pardon for that,' saith Caiaphas; 'you know nothing, neither consider; for, be he the Messiah or be he not, it is expedient, nay, it is necessary, he should die rather than the whole nation should perish,'" &c.
51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
[He prophesied.] Is Caiaphas among the prophets? There had not been a prophet among the chief priests, the priests, the people, for these four hundred years and more; and does Caiaphas now begin to prophesy? It is a very foreign fetch that some would make, when they would ascribe this gift to the office he then bore, as if by being made high priest he became a prophet. The opinion is not worth confuting. The evangelist himself renders the reason when he tells us being high priest that same year. Which words direct the reader's eye rather to the year than to the high priest.
I. That was the year of pouring out the Spirit of prophecy and revelation beyond whatever the world had yet seen, or would see again. And why may not some drops of this great effusion light upon a wicked man, as sometimes the children's crumbs fall from the table to the dog under it; that a witness might be given to the great work of redemption from the mouth of our Redeemer's greatest enemy. There lies the emphasis of the words that same year; for Caiaphas had been high priest some years before, and did continue so for some years after.
II. To say the truth, by all just calculation, the office of the high priest ceased this very year; and the high priest prophesies while his office expires.
What difference was there, as to the execution of the priestly office, between the high priest and the rest of the priesthood? None certainly, only in these two things: 1. Asking counsel by Urim and Thummim. 2. In performing the service upon the day of Expiation. As to the former, that had been useless many ages before, because the spirit of prophecy had so perfectly departed from them. So that there remained now no other distinction, only that on the day of Expiation the high priest was to perform the service which an ordinary priest was not warranted to do. The principal ceremony of that day was, that he should enter into the Holy of Holies with blood. When, therefore, our great High Priest should enter, with his own blood, into the Holiest of all, what could there be left for this high priest to do? When, at the death of our great High Priest, the veil that hung between the Holy and the Holy of Holies was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, there was clear demonstration that all those rites and services were abolished; and that the office of the high priest, which was distinguished from the other priests only by those usages, was now determined and brought to its full period. The pontificate therefore drawing its last breath prophesies concerning the redemption of mankind by the great High Priest and Bishop of souls, "that he should die for the people," &c.
That of the apostle, Acts 23:5, "I wist not that he was the high priest," may perhaps have some such meaning as this in it, "I knew not that there was any high priest at all"; because the office had become needless for some time. For grant indeed that St. Paul did not know the face of Ananias, nor that Ananias was the high priest, yet he must needs know him to have been a magistrate, because he had his seat amongst the fathers of the Sanhedrim. Now those words which he quoted out of the law, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people," forbade all indecent speeches towards any magistrate, as well as the high priest. The apostle, therefore, knowing Ananias well enough, both who he was, and that he sat there under a falsely assumed title of the high priest, does on purpose call him 'whited wall,' because he only bore the colour of the high priesthood, when as the thing and office itself was now abolished.
Caiaphas, in this passage before us, speaketh partly as Caiaphas and partly as a prophet. As Caiaphas, he does, by an impious and precipitate boldness, contrive and promote the death of Christ: and what he uttered as a prophet, the evangelist tells us, he did it not of himself; he spoke what himself understood not the depth of.
The greatest work of the Messiah, according to the expectation of the Jews, was the reduction or gathering together the captivities. The high priest despairs that ever Jesus, should he live, could do this. For all that he either did or taught seemed to have a contrary tendency, viz. to seduce the people from their religion, rather than recover them from their servile state of bondage. So that he apprehended this one only remedy left, that care might be taken, so as by the death of this man the hazard of that nation's ruin might blow over: "If he be the Messiah (which I almost think even Caiaphas himself did not much question), since he can have no hope of redeeming the nation, let him die for it himself, that it perish not upon his account."
Thus miserably are the great masters of wisdom deceived in almost all their surmises; they expect the gathering together of the children of God in one by the life of the Messiah, which was to be accomplished by his death. They believe their traditional religion was the establishment of that nation; whereas it became its overthrow. They think to secure themselves by the death of Christ, when by that very death of his their expected security was chiefly shaken. O blind and stupid madness!
55. And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.
[To purify themselves.] "R. Isaac saith, Every man is bound to purify himself for the feast." Now there were several measures of time for purifying. He that was unclean by the touch of a dead body required a whole week's time, that he might be sprinkled with the water of purification mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, burnt the third and the seventh days.
Other purifyings were speedilier performed: amongst others, shaving themselves and washing their garments were accounted necessary, and within the laws of purifying. "These shave themselves within the feast: he who cometh from a heathen country, or from captivity, or from prison. Also he who hath been excommunicated, but now absolved by the wise men. These same also wash their garments within the feast."
It is supposed that these were detained by some necessity of affairs, that they could not wash and be shaved before the feast; for these things were of right to be performed before, lest any should, by any means, approach polluted unto the celebration of this feast; but if, by some necessity, they were hindered from doing it before, then it was done on a common day of the feast, viz. after the first day of the feast.
[Lazarus.] So in the Jerusalem Talmud, R. Lazar for R. Eleazar. For in the Jerusalem dialect, it is not unusual in some words that begin with Aleph, to cut off that letter.
[Martha.] This name of Martha is very frequent in the Talmudic authors. "Isaac Bar Samuel, Bar Martha." "Abba Bar Martha, the same with Abba Bar Minjomi." "Joshua Ben Gamla married Martha the daughter of Baithus." She was a very rich widow.
She is called also Mary the daughter of Baithus, with this story of her: "Mary the daughter of Baithus, whom Joshua Ben Gamla married, he being preferred by the king to the high priesthood. She had a mind, upon a certain day of Expiation, to see how her husband performed his office. So they laid tapestry all along from the door of her own house to the Temple, that her foot might not touch the ground. R. Eleazar Ben R. Zadok saith, 'So let me see the consolation [of Israel], as I saw her bound to the tails of Arabian horses by the hair of her head, and forced to run thus from Jerusalem to Lydda. I could not but repeat that versicle, The tender and delicate woman, in thee,'" &c. Deuteronomy 28:56.
Martha the daughter of Baisuth (whether Baisuth and Baithus were convertible, or whether it was a mistake of the transcriber, let him that thinks fit make the inquiry), whose son was a mighty strong man among the priests.
2. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
[It was that Mary which anointed, &c.] That is, which had anointed the Lord formerly. For,
I. It is fit the Aorist should have its full force. Whoever will not grant this, let him give a reason why Bethany, which was Lazarus' town, should not be called by his name; but by the name of Mary and her sister Martha. Was it not because those names had been already well known in the foregoing story, whereas till now there had not been one word mentioned of their brother Lazarus? So that anointed respects a noted story that was past, viz. that which is related Luke 7:37.
II. There can be no reason given why the evangelist should say this proleptically, as if he had respect to that passage in chapter 12:3, when he was to relate that story so soon after this. But there may be a sufficient one given why it should have relation to an anointing that had been formerly done: and that is, that it might appear how that familiarity arose betwixt Christ and the family of Lazarus, so far that they could so confidently send for Jesus when Lazarus was sick: for Mary, Lazarus' sister, had some time before anointed his feet.
11. These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
[Sleepeth.] The apostles having heard the report that Lazarus was sick, and that Christ told them now that he was fallen asleep; they apprehend that the edge of the disease which had hitherto taken away all rest from him was now taken off; so that they say, "If he sleep, he shall do well": having not rightly understood the word our Saviour used. The fallacy of the word is not unpleasantly expressed in Bereshith Rabba; "Rachel said to Leah, 'He shall sleep with thee tonight,' Genesis 30:19: He shall sleep with thee, he shall not sleep with me; i.e. Thou and he shall lie together in one sepulchre, so shall not he and I."
18. Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:
[About fifteen furlongs.] That is, two miles. For the Jewish miles did not hold out full eight furlongs, as other miles do, but seven and a half.
One of those seven and a half which make up a mile is a furlong.
"They do not lay the net for pigeons any less distance from the houses than thirty furlongs," i.e. four miles.
"What is furlong? It is a flight-shot. And why is furlong called a flight-shot? It is according to the numeral value of the letters, which is two hundred sixty-six: for two hundred sixty-six [cubits] make a flight shot. Now count, and you will thus find it: Seven times [Resh] two hundred make one thousand four hundred. Seven times [Samek] sixty make four hundred and twenty. Number them together, and they mount to one thousand eight hundred and twenty. Seven times [Vav] six make forty-two: half a furlong one hundred thirty-three: number them together, and the whole amounts to one thousand nine hundred ninety-five. Behold two thousand cubits excepting five."
19. And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.
[To comfort them.] "When they return from the burial they stand about weeping, and say [a little prayer] comforting the mourner, and accompanying him to his own house."
"When they return from the grave they stand in a circle about the mourner comforting him." Gloss: "The circle about him consists of ten at least." But usually it is very crowded and numerous. Hence that passage:
"As to those that stood about in that circle, those that were on the inside of it were not obliged to repeat the phylacteries; but those that were on the outside were bound."
"The Rabbins deliver: The seven standings and sittings for the dead must not be diminished." Where the Gloss is; "When they returned from the grave, they went forward a little, and then sat down; partly to comfort the mourners, partly to weep themselves, and partly to meditate upon the subject of mortality. Then they stood up again, and went on a little, and sat down again, and so for seven times. But I have seen it written, that they did this upon the account of the evil spirits who accompanied them from the grave. They ordained these standings and sittings, that within that time the evil spirits might depart."
So that we see they were wont to comfort the mourners in the way as they were returning from the grave, and they would bring them back to their own house the day that the party deceased was interred. They comforted them also all the remaining days of mourning, which we find done in this place.
Thirty days were allotted for the time of mourning: but, "We must not weep for the dead beyond the measure. The three first days are for weeping; seven days for lamentation: thirty days for the intermission from washing their clothes, and shaving themselves."
I. When those that were to comfort the mourners came, they found all the beds in the house taken down, and laid upon the ground. "From what time do they take their beds lower? R. Eleazar saith, 'From the time that the deceased party is carried out of the court gate.' R. Joshua saith, 'From the time that the cover of the coffin is shut down.' When Rabban Gamaliel died, and the corpse was carried out of the court gate, saith R. Eleazar to his disciples, 'Take down the beds.' But when the coffin was closed, R. Joshua said, 'Take down the beds.' On the evening of the sabbath they set up their beds; at the going out of the sabbath they take them down."
What is to be understood by taking down their beds we may conjecture by what follows. "Whence came the custom of taking down the beds? R. Crispa in the name of R. Jochanan saith, From what is written, And they sat with him near the ground. It is not said, upon the ground, but near the ground; that is, not far off from the earth. Hence is it that they sat upon beds taken lower."
But Rabbenu Asher saith thus; "Rabh saith, Those that comfort ought to sit nowhere but upon the floor."
II. The mourner himself sits chief. A custom taken from these words, Job 29:25, "I chose out their way and sat chief....like him who comforts the mourners."
III. It was not lawful for the comforters to speak a word till the mourner himself break silence first. The pattern taken from Job's friends, Job 2.
IV. "R. Jochanan saith, If the mourner nod his head, the comforters are to sit by him no longer." The Gloss is, "If, by nodding his head, he signify to them that he hath comforted himself." Hence that frequently said of some, They would not receive comfort; that is, they gave signs by nodding their head that they had sufficiently comforted themselves.
These and many other things about this matter do occur in Moed Katon; and Rabbenu Asher: as also in Massecheth Semacoth; where, by the way, take notice, that that treatise, which hath for its subject the mourners for the dead, is called A treatise of gladness. So the sepulchres of the dead are often called, The houses of the living.
Let us take a little taste of the way of consolation they used: "The Rabbins deliver. When the sons of R. Ishmael died, four of the elders went in to him to comfort him; viz. R. Tarphon, and R. Jose the Galilean, and R. Eliezer Ben Azariah, and R. Akibah. R. Tarphon saith unto them, 'Ye must know that this is a very wise man, well skilled in exposition. Let not any of you interrupt the words of his fellow.' Saith R. Akibah, 'I am the last.' R. Ishmael began and said" [the mourner here breaks silence], "'His iniquities are multiplied, his griefs have bound him, and he hath wearied his masters.' Thus he said once and again. Then answered R. Tarphon and said, 'It is said, And your brethren of the house of Israel shall bewail the burning, Leviticus 10:6. May we not argue from the less to the greater? If Nadab and Abihu, who never performed but one command, as it is written, And the sons of Aaron brought blood to him; then much more may the sons of R. Ishmael be bewailed.' R. Jose the Galilean answered, saying, 'All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him,' 1 Kings 14:13. And must we not argue from the greater to the less? If they wept so for Abijah the son of Jeroboam, who did but one good thing, as it is said, Because in him there is found some good thing; how much more for the sons of R. Ishmael!" Of the same nature are the words of R. Eliezer and R. Akibah: but this is enough, either to raise laughter, or make a man angry. In the same page we have several forms of speech used by the women, that either were the mourners or the comforters. As,
The grave is as the robe of circumcision to an ingenuous man, whose provisions are spent.
The death of this man is as the death of all, and diseases are like putting money to usury.
He ran, and he fell in his passage, and hath borrowed a loan. With other passages very difficult to be understood.
The first three days of weeping were severer than the other: because "on the first day it was not lawful for the mourner to wear his phylacteries, to eat of holy things, nor indeed to eat any thing of his own. All the three days he might do no servile work, no, not privately: and if any one saluted him, he was not to salute him again."
"The first seven days let all the beds in the house be laid low. Let not the man use his wife. Let him not put on his sandals. Let him do no servile work publicly. Let him not salute any man. Let him not wash himself in warm water, nor his whole body in cold. Let him not anoint himself. Let him not read in the Law, the Misna, or the Talmud. Let him cover his head."
"All the thirty days let him not be shaved. Let him not wear any clothing that is white, or whitened, or new. Neither let him sew up those rents which he made in his garments for the deceased party," &c.
25. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
[I am the resurrection.] Be it so, O Jew (if you will, or it can be), that the little bone luz, in the backbone, is the seed and principle of your resurrection: as to us, our blessed Jesus, who hath raised himself from the dead, is the spring and principle of ours.
"Hadrian (whose bones may they be ground, and his name blotted out!) asked R. Joshua Ben Hananiah, 'How doth a man revive again in the world to come?' He answered and said, 'From luz in the backbone.' Saith he to him, 'Demonstrate this to me.' Then he took luz, a little bone out of the backbone, and put it in water, and it was not steeped: he put it into the fire, and it was not burnt: he brought it to the mill, and that could not grind it: he laid it on the anvil, and knocked it with a hammer, but the anvil was cleft, and the hammer broken," &c. Why do ye not maul the Sadducees with this argument?
31. The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.
[Followed her.] "It is a tradition. Let no man follow a woman upon the way, no, not his own wife." If this grain of salt may be allowed in the explication of this passage, then, either all that followed Mary were women: or if men, they followed her at a very great distance: or else they had a peculiar dispensation at such solemn times as these, which they had not in common conversation. But the observation indeed is hardly worth a grain of salt.
39. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
[For he hath been dead four days.] The three days of weeping were now past, and the four days of lamentation begun: so that all hope and expectation of his coming to himself was wholly gone.
"They go to the sepulchres, and visit the dead for three days. Neither are they solicitous lest they should incur the reproach of the Amorites." The story is, They visited a certain person, and he revived again, and lived five-and-twenty years, and then died. They tell of another that lived again, and begot children, and then died.
"It is a tradition of Ben Kaphra's: The very height of mourning is not till the third day. For three days the spirit wanders about the sepulchre, expecting if it may return into the body. But when it sees that the form or aspect of the face is changed, then it hovers no more, but leaves the body to itself."
"They do not certify of the dead" [that this is the very man, and not another] 'but within the three days after his decease': for after three days his countenance is changed."
44. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
[With graveclothes, &c.] The evangelist seems so particular in mentioning the graveclothes, wherewith Lazarus was bound hand and foot, and also the napkin that had covered his face, on purpose to hint us a second miracle in this great miracle. The dead man came forth, though bound hand and foot with his graveclothes, and blinded with the napkin.
48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
[And the Romans shall come.] I could easily believe that the fathers of the Sanhedrim had either a knowledge or at least some suspicion that Jesus was the true Messiah.
I. This seems plainly intimated by the words of the vine-dressers in the parable, Mark 12:7: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." They knew well enough he was the heir: and it was come to this in the struggle betwixt them, Either he will inherit with his doctrine, or we will with ours: come therefore, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
II. They could not but know that Daniel's weeks were now fully accomplished, and that the time of the Messiah's appearing was now come. This that conflux of Jews from all nations into Jerusalem, Acts 2, doth testify, being led by Daniel's prophecy, and the agreeableness of the time, to fix their residence there, in expectation of the Messiah now ready to be revealed. Compare also Luke 19:2.
III. When therefore they saw Jesus working miracles so very stupendous, and so worthy the character of the Messiah, and that in the very time wherein the manifestation of the Messiah had been foretold, they could not but have a strong suspicion that this was He. But then it is a wonderful thing that they should endeavour his death and destruction. What! destroy the Messiah, the expectation and desire of that nation!
Such mischiefs could religious zeal persuade.
But it was a most irreligious religion, made up of traditions and human inventions; a strange kind of bewitchery rather than religion; that they should choose rather that the Messiah should be cut off than that religion be changed. They had been taught, or rather seduced by their traditions to believe, 1. That the kingdom of the Messiah should be administered in all imaginable pomp and worldly glory. 2. That their Judaism, or the religion properly so called, should be wonderfully promoted by him, confirmed, and made very glorious. 3. The whole nation should be redeemed from the heathen yoke. But when he, who by the force of his miracles asserted himself so far to be the Messiah, that they could not but inwardly acknowledge it, appeared notwithstanding so poor and contemptible, that nothing could be less expected or hoped for of such a one than a deliverance from their present mean and slavish state; and so distant seemed he from it, that he advised to pay tribute to Caesar, taught things contrary to what the scribes and Pharisees had principled them in, shook and seemed to abrogate the religion itself, and they had no prospect at all of better things from him; let Jesus perish, though he were the true Messiah, for any thing that they cared, rather than Judaism and their religion should be abolished.
Obj. But it is said, that what they did was through ignorance, Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17, 13:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8.
Ans. True indeed, through ignorance of the person: for they did not know and believe the Messiah to be God as well as man; they apprehended him mere man. Though they suspected that Jesus might be the Messiah, yet did they not suspect that this Jesus was the true God.
Let it then be taken for granted, that the fathers of the Sanhedrim, under some strong conviction that this was the true Messiah, might express themselves in this manner, "All men will believe on him, and the Romans will come," &c. and so what Caiaphas said, "It is expedient that one man should die," &c. But where does the consequence lie in all this? "All men will believe on him"; ergo, "the Romans will come," &c.
I. It is not altogether wide of the mark, what is commonly returned upon this question: The Romans will come against our nation, taking us for rebels to the emperor, in that, without his consent, our people have entertained this Jesus for the King Messiah.
II. Nor is it impertinent to this purpose what was the ancient observation of the Jews from that of the prophet Isaiah, chapter 10:34, 11:1: "Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one--and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse," viz. That the coming of the Messiah, and the destruction of the Temple, should be upon the heels one of another.
The story is of an Arabian telling a certain Jew, while he was at plough, that the Temple was destroyed, and the Messiah was born; which I have already told at large upon Matthew 2:1. But the conclusion of it is, "R. Bon saith; 'What need we learn from an Arabian? is it not plainly enough written, Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one? And what follows immediately? There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.'"
If, therefore, the Sanhedrim suspected Jesus to be the Messiah, they might, by the same reason, from thence also gather that the destruction of the city and nation was not far off; especially when they see the people falling off from Judaism to the religion of Jesus.
III. The fathers of the Sanhedrim judge that the nation would contract hereby an unspeakable deal of guilt, such as would subject them to all those curses mentioned Deuteronomy 28; particularly that their turning off from Judaism would issue in the final overthrow of the whole nation; and if their religion should be deserted, neither the city nor the commonwealth could possibly survive it long. So rooted was the love and value they had for their wretched traditions.
Let us therefore frame their words into this paraphrase: "It does seem that this man can be no other than the true Messiah; the strange wonders he doth, speak no less. What must we do in this case? On the one hand, it were a base and unworthy part of us to kill the Messiah: but then, on the other hand, it is infinitely hazardous for us to admit him: for all men will believe on him; and then our religion is at an end; and when that is once gone, what can we look for less than that our whole nation should perish under the arms and fury of the Romans?"
"'I beg your pardon for that,' saith Caiaphas; 'you know nothing, neither consider; for, be he the Messiah or be he not, it is expedient, nay, it is necessary, he should die rather than the whole nation should perish,'" &c.
51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
[He prophesied.] Is Caiaphas among the prophets? There had not been a prophet among the chief priests, the priests, the people, for these four hundred years and more; and does Caiaphas now begin to prophesy? It is a very foreign fetch that some would make, when they would ascribe this gift to the office he then bore, as if by being made high priest he became a prophet. The opinion is not worth confuting. The evangelist himself renders the reason when he tells us being high priest that same year. Which words direct the reader's eye rather to the year than to the high priest.
I. That was the year of pouring out the Spirit of prophecy and revelation beyond whatever the world had yet seen, or would see again. And why may not some drops of this great effusion light upon a wicked man, as sometimes the children's crumbs fall from the table to the dog under it; that a witness might be given to the great work of redemption from the mouth of our Redeemer's greatest enemy. There lies the emphasis of the words that same year; for Caiaphas had been high priest some years before, and did continue so for some years after.
II. To say the truth, by all just calculation, the office of the high priest ceased this very year; and the high priest prophesies while his office expires.
What difference was there, as to the execution of the priestly office, between the high priest and the rest of the priesthood? None certainly, only in these two things: 1. Asking counsel by Urim and Thummim. 2. In performing the service upon the day of Expiation. As to the former, that had been useless many ages before, because the spirit of prophecy had so perfectly departed from them. So that there remained now no other distinction, only that on the day of Expiation the high priest was to perform the service which an ordinary priest was not warranted to do. The principal ceremony of that day was, that he should enter into the Holy of Holies with blood. When, therefore, our great High Priest should enter, with his own blood, into the Holiest of all, what could there be left for this high priest to do? When, at the death of our great High Priest, the veil that hung between the Holy and the Holy of Holies was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, there was clear demonstration that all those rites and services were abolished; and that the office of the high priest, which was distinguished from the other priests only by those usages, was now determined and brought to its full period. The pontificate therefore drawing its last breath prophesies concerning the redemption of mankind by the great High Priest and Bishop of souls, "that he should die for the people," &c.
That of the apostle, Acts 23:5, "I wist not that he was the high priest," may perhaps have some such meaning as this in it, "I knew not that there was any high priest at all"; because the office had become needless for some time. For grant indeed that St. Paul did not know the face of Ananias, nor that Ananias was the high priest, yet he must needs know him to have been a magistrate, because he had his seat amongst the fathers of the Sanhedrim. Now those words which he quoted out of the law, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people," forbade all indecent speeches towards any magistrate, as well as the high priest. The apostle, therefore, knowing Ananias well enough, both who he was, and that he sat there under a falsely assumed title of the high priest, does on purpose call him 'whited wall,' because he only bore the colour of the high priesthood, when as the thing and office itself was now abolished.
Caiaphas, in this passage before us, speaketh partly as Caiaphas and partly as a prophet. As Caiaphas, he does, by an impious and precipitate boldness, contrive and promote the death of Christ: and what he uttered as a prophet, the evangelist tells us, he did it not of himself; he spoke what himself understood not the depth of.
The greatest work of the Messiah, according to the expectation of the Jews, was the reduction or gathering together the captivities. The high priest despairs that ever Jesus, should he live, could do this. For all that he either did or taught seemed to have a contrary tendency, viz. to seduce the people from their religion, rather than recover them from their servile state of bondage. So that he apprehended this one only remedy left, that care might be taken, so as by the death of this man the hazard of that nation's ruin might blow over: "If he be the Messiah (which I almost think even Caiaphas himself did not much question), since he can have no hope of redeeming the nation, let him die for it himself, that it perish not upon his account."
Thus miserably are the great masters of wisdom deceived in almost all their surmises; they expect the gathering together of the children of God in one by the life of the Messiah, which was to be accomplished by his death. They believe their traditional religion was the establishment of that nation; whereas it became its overthrow. They think to secure themselves by the death of Christ, when by that very death of his their expected security was chiefly shaken. O blind and stupid madness!
55. And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.
[To purify themselves.] "R. Isaac saith, Every man is bound to purify himself for the feast." Now there were several measures of time for purifying. He that was unclean by the touch of a dead body required a whole week's time, that he might be sprinkled with the water of purification mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, burnt the third and the seventh days.
Other purifyings were speedilier performed: amongst others, shaving themselves and washing their garments were accounted necessary, and within the laws of purifying. "These shave themselves within the feast: he who cometh from a heathen country, or from captivity, or from prison. Also he who hath been excommunicated, but now absolved by the wise men. These same also wash their garments within the feast."
It is supposed that these were detained by some necessity of affairs, that they could not wash and be shaved before the feast; for these things were of right to be performed before, lest any should, by any means, approach polluted unto the celebration of this feast; but if, by some necessity, they were hindered from doing it before, then it was done on a common day of the feast, viz. after the first day of the feast.
2. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
[They made him a supper.] If we count the days back from the Passover, and take notice that Christ suffered the next day after the eating of the Passover, which is our Friday; it will appear that this supper was on the evening of the sabbath, that is, the sabbath now going out.
Let us measure the time in this scheme:
Nisan 9. The sabbath.--Six days before the Passover Jesus sups with Lazarus at the going out of the sabbath, when, according to the custom of that country, their suppers were more liberal.
10. Sunday.--Five days before the Passover Jesus goes to Jerusalem, sitting on an ass; and on the evening returns to Bethany, Mark 11:11. On this day the lamb was taken and kept till the Passover, Exodus 12; on which day this Lamb of God presented himself, which was the antitype of that rite.
11. Monday.--Four days before the Passover he goes to Jerusalem again; curseth the unfruitful fig tree, Matthew 21:18; Mark 11:12: in the evening he returns again to Bethany, Mark 11:19.
12. Tuesday.--Three days before the Passover he goes again to Jerusalem. His disciples observe how the fig tree was withered, Mark 11:20. In the evening, going back to Bethany, and sitting on the mount of Olives, he foretelleth the destruction of the Temple and city, Matthew 24, and discourses those things which are contained in Matthew 25.
This night he sups with 'Simon the leper,' Matthew 26:1, &c.; John 13.
13. Wednesday.--This day he passeth away in Bethany. At the coming in of this night the whole nation apply themselves to put away all leaven.
14. Thursday.--He sends two of his disciples to get ready the Passover. He himself enters Jerusalem in the afternoon; in the evening eats the Passover, institutes the eucharist; is taken, and almost all the night had before the courts of judicature.
15. Friday.--Afternoon, he is crucified.
16. Saturday.--He keeps the sabbath in the grave.
17. The Lord's day.--He riseth again.
3. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
[Then Mary, &c.] In that contest, whether Mary the sister of Lazarus was the same with Mary Magdalene, this passage will help a little towards the affirmative, that there was a town called Magdala very near Jerusalem.
"A clerk or scribe at Magdala set his candles in order every evening of the sabbath, went up to Jerusalem, prayed there, returned and lighted up his candles when the sabbath was now coming in."
It seems plain by this, that Magdala and Jerusalem were not very far distant from one another, when all this was done so quickly, and in so short a space of time. Only we may learn this from the Gloss, that that Magdala was Magdala Zebaim: concerning which that sad and direful passage is related, that "it was destroyed for its adulteries."
"There were three cities whose customs were carried to Jerusalem": Gloss: "In wagons, because of their great weight. The names of these three cities were Cabul, Sichin, and Magdala. Why was Cabul destroyed? Because of their discords. Why was Sichin destroyed? Because of the magic arts they used. And why was Magdala destroyed? Because of their whoredoms." The Hierosol. say it was Magdala Zabaaia. To this place it was that R. Jonathan once betook himself for some cure to his baldness.
Now therefore what should hinder but that Mary the sister of Lazarus of Bethany might be called Magdalene, both for the nearness of the town, where perhaps she was married, and also for the lascivious manners of the townsfolks, with which spot it is commonly believed Mary Magdalene had been tainted?
[Anointed the feet of Jesus.] In this passage there were two things very unusual:
I. It was indeed a very common thing to anoint the feet with oil; but to do it with aromatical ointment, this was more rarely done. And it is charged by the Gemarists as a great crime, that the Jerusalem women of old anointed their shoes with perfumed ointment, to entice the young men to wantonness.
"Make a tinkling with their feet, Isaiah 3:16. R. Isaac saith, that by this is intimated that they put myrrh and balsam in their shoes; and when they met the young men of Israel, they kicked with their feet, and so stirred up in them evil and loose affections."
II. It was accounted an immodest thing for women to dishevel and unloose their hair publicly: The priest unlooseth the hairs of the women suspected of adultery, when she was to be tried by the bitter water, which was done for greater disgrace.
"Kamitha had seven sons, who all performed the office of high priest: they ask of he how she came to this honour? She answered, 'The rafters of my house never saw the hairs of my head.'"
[And wiped them with her hair.] Did she not wash his feet before she anointed them? I do not ask whether she did not wash them with her tears, as before, Luke 7: for as to that, the evangelist is silent; but did she not wash his feet at all? I ask this, because the custom of the country seems to persuade she should do so.
"The maid brought him a little vessel of warm water, with which he washed his hands and his feet: then she brought a golden vessel of oil, in which he dipped his hands and his feet." There was first washing, then anointing.
Either therefore this word she wiped must relate to some previous washing of his feet: or if it ought to refer to the ointment, it scarcely would suppose wiping off the ointment now laid on; but rather, that with the hairs of her head she rubbed and chafed it. Which brings to mind that passage, "If a woman in labour should have need of oil [on the sabbath day], let her neighbour bring it her in the hollow of her hand; but if that should not be sufficient, let her bring it in the hairs of her head." The Gloss is, "Let her dip her own hair in oil, and when she comes to the woman in travail, let her rub it upon her, and by that action she doth not break the sabbath."
[And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.] "A good name is better than precious ointment. Good ointment [by its smell] passeth out of the bed into the dining room; but a good name, from one end of the world unto the other."
6. This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
[The bag.] We meet with this word in the Greek interpreters, 2 Chronicles 24; and it is set there for a chest or corban box, verse 8: let a purse or bag be made. The Hebrew is, they shall make a chest. So verses 10, 11, &c. Amongst the Talmudists we meet with gloskema [that is the word the Syriac useth in this place], and dloskema. For as the Aruch, gloskema is the same with dloskema, and is a Greek word. It is used commonly for a coffin.
"As Phrynichus writes it, a case of wood to keep relics in; a coffin, a chest, a box, a purse, or rather a coffer (note that) in which they used to lay up their money. It is used, John 12, to signify a purse." And why may it not be read there also for a chest or coffer? for Judas is not said to carry the bag; but that he had the bag, and bare what was put therein. So that nothing hinders but that, even in this place, may signify a chest or coffer of money, fixed at home; the keys of which were in Judas' keeping, and he carried the gifts that were to be put into it.
7. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
[Against the day of my burying hath she kept this.] Baronius proves from this place that this Mary was Mary Magdalene, because she is named amongst those that anointed Christ for his interment; and Christ saith in this place, that she reserved some of this ointment for this use: which I have had occasion to mention elsewhere. If this exposition do not take, then add this clause, "Let her alone": for this may be an argument and sign that she hath not done this vainly, luxuriously, or spent so costly an ointment upon me upon any delicacy; because she hath reserved it for this time, wherein I am so near my grave and funeral, and poured it not on me before.
12. On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
[Much people that were come to the feast.] It is not greatly to our present purpose to enlarge in counting the multitude that flocked to the Passover. However, let the reader take this story in his way, and judge of it as he thinks fit:
"King Agrippa, desirous to know how great a multitude was at Jerusalem at the Passover, commanded the priests, saying, 'Lay me aside one kidney of every lamb.' They laid him aside six hundred thousand pair of kidneys: double the number to those that went out of Egypt. Now there was not any paschal lamb but was divided among more than ten persons. R. Chaija saith, 'Forty, nay fifty persons.' One time they went into the Mountain of the Temple, and it could not contain them. But there was a certain old man amongst them whom they trod under their feet. Wherefore they called that Passover the Crowded Passover."
Although this be an account (according to the loose Rabbinical way of talking) that exceeds all belief or modesty, yet might the reader, without a monitor, take notice of something in it not unworthy observation. It is true, indeed, that the multitude of those that celebrated the Passover at every feast could hardly be numbered, it was so great; yet had Jerusalem hardly ever seen such a conflux of people as was at this very feast which we are now upon, they being gathered thither from all nations of the world, Acts 2: for that they were at the Passover as well as at Pentecost, there are hardly any, I believe, but will suppose.
13. Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
[Took branches of palm trees.] We have made our notes upon this part of the story in Matthew 21: but because here is mention of branches of palm trees, let us add only in this place, what is discoursed by the Rabbins concerning the 'ivy of the palm trees,' much used in the Passover. "I have heard from him that they perform their service by Arkablin. But what is Arkablin? Resh Lachish saith, A twig twined about." Gloss: "A thick sprig that grows up about the palm tree, folds about it, and runs upon it." I could not tell better how to render this than by the 'ivy of the palm tree.' They used, as it should seem, the leaves of that frequently amongst, or instead of, the bitter herbs which they were to eat with the paschal lamb. So far they had to do with the palm tree in all other Passovers, viz. to crop the ivy off of them: but here they use the palm branches themselves, as in the feast of Tabernacles. A matter not to be passed over without wonder, and cannot but bring to mind Zechariah 14:16, and John 7:8.
19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.
[The world is gone after him.] The Talmudists would say, All the world is gone after him.
20. And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
[There were certain Greeks.] That these Greeks were Gentiles, as the Vulgar renders it, I do not question; and perhaps they were Syro-Grecians; and those either of Decapolis, or Gadara, or Hippo: the reason of this conjecture is, partly, that they apply themselves to Philip of Bethsaida, as known to them, because of his neighbourhood; partly, which is more probable, that those Greeks that bordered upon Galilee and the places where Christ wrought his miracles, might seem more prone both to embrace the Jewish religion, and also to see Jesus, than those that lived further off.
However be they other Gentiles, and not Greeks; or be they Greeks come from more remote countries, what had the one or the other to do with the feast, or the religion of the Jews? As to this, let the Jewish writers inform us.
I. "If a heathen send a burnt offering out of his own country, and withal send drink offerings, the drink offerings are offered: but if he send no drink offerings, drink offerings are offered at the charge of the congregation." Observe that. We have the same elsewhere. And it is every where added, that this is one of the seven things that were ordained by the great council; and that the sacrifice of a Gentile is only a whole burnt offering, The thank offerings of a Gentile are whole burnt offerings. And the reason is given, The mind of that Gentile is towards heaven. Gloss: "He had rather that his sacrifice should be wholly consumed by fire to God, than [as his thank offerings] be eaten by men."
That of Josephus is observable; "Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest, a bold young man, persuaded those that ministered in holy things, that they should accept of no sacrifice at the hands of a stranger. This was the foundation of the war with the Romans." For they refused a sacrifice for Caesar.
The elders, that they might take off Eleazar and his followers from this resolution of theirs, making a speech to them, among other things, say this, "That their forefathers had greatly beautified and adorned the Temple, from things devoted by the Gentiles: always receiving the gifts from foreign nations, not having ever made any difference in the sacrifices of any whomsoever; for that would be irreligious," &c. When they had spoken this and many more things to this purpose, "they produced several priests skilled in the ancient customs of their forefathers, who shewed that all their ancestors received offerings from the Gentiles."
II. Nor did the Gentiles only send their gifts and sacrifices, but came themselves personally sometimes to the Temple, and there worshipped. Hence the outward court of the Temple was called the Court of the Gentiles, and the Common Court; to which that in the Book of the Revelation alludes, chapter 11:2, "But the court which is without the Temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles." And of those there shall innumerable numbers come and worship. "And the holy city shall they tread forty and two months." It is not they shall tread it under foot as enemies and spoilers, but they shall tread it as worshippers. So Isaiah 1:12.
The Syrians, and those that are unclean by the touch of a dead body, entered into the Mountain of the Temple.
"Rabban Gamaliel, walking in the Court of the Gentiles, saw a heathen woman, and blessed concerning her."
"They would provoke the Roman arms, espouse a war with them, introduce a new worship, and persuade an impiety with the hazard of the city, if not stranger, but the Jews only, may be allowed to sacrifice or worship."
Hence that suspicion about Trophimus being brought by Paul into the Temple, is not to be supposed to have been with reference to this court, but to the Court of the Women, in which Paul was purifying himself.
There is a story of a certain Gentile that ate the Passover at Jerusalem; but when they found him out to be a heathen, they slew him; for the Passover ought not to be eaten by any one that is uncircumcised. But there was no such danger that an uncircumcised person could run by coming into the Court of the Gentiles, and worshipping there.
24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
[Except a corn of wheat.] How doth this answer of our Saviour's agree with the matter propounded? Thus: "Is it so indeed? do the Gentiles desire to see me? The time draws on wherein I must be glorified in the conversion of the Gentiles; but as a corn of wheat doth not bring forth fruit, except it be first thrown into the ground and there die; but if it die it will bring forth much fruit; so I must die first and be thrown into the earth: and then a mighty harvest of the Gentile world will grow up, and be the product of that death of mine."
Isaiah 26:19: "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise": so our translation, with which also the French agrees, They shall rise with my body. But it is properly, They shall arise my body: so the Interlineary version. "The Gentiles being dead in their sins shall, with my dead body, when it rises again, rise again also from their death: nay, they shall rise again my body, that is, as part of myself, and my body mystical."
28. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
[I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.] This petition of our Saviour's, "Father, glorify thy name," was of no light consequence, when it had such an answer from heaven by an audible voice: and what it did indeed mean we must guess by the context. Christ, upon the Greeks' desire to see him, takes that occasion to discourse about his death, and to exhort his followers, that from his example they would not love their life, but by losing it preserve it to life eternal. Now by how much the deeper he proceeds in the discourse and thoughts of his approaching death, by so much the more is his mind disturbed, as himself acknowledgeth, verse 27.
But whence comes this disturbance? It was from the apprehended rage and assault of the devil. Whether our Lord Christ, in his agony and passion, had to grapple with an angry God, I question: but I am certain he had to do with an angry devil. When he stood, and stood firmly, in the highest and most eminent point and degree of obedience, as he did in his sufferings, it doth not seem agreeable that he should then be groaning under the pressures of divine wrath; but it is most agreeable he should under the rage and fury of the devil. For,
I. The fight was now to begin between the serpent and the seed of the woman, mentioned Genesis 3:15, about the glory of God and the salvation of man. In which strife and contest we need not doubt but the devil would exert all his malice and force to the very uttermost.
II. God loosed all the reins, and suffered the devil without any kind of restraint upon him to exercise his power and strength to the utmost of what he either could or would, because he knew his champion Christ was strong enough, not only to bear his assaults, but to overcome them.
III. He was to overcome, not by his divine power, for how easy a matter were it for an omnipotent God to conquer the most potent created being; but his victory must be obtained by his obedience, his righteousness, his holiness.
IV. Here then was the rise of that trouble and agony of Christ's soul, that he was presently to grapple with the utmost rage of the devil; the divine power in the mean time suspending its activity, and leaving him to manage the conflict with those weapons of obedience and righteousness only.
It was about this, therefore, that that petition of our Saviour and the answer from heaven was concerned: which may be gathered from what follows, verse 31, "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out."
"Now is my soul troubled (saith he), and what shall i say? It is not convenient for me to desire to be saved from this hour; for this very purpose did I come: that therefore which I would beg of thee, O Father, is, that thou wouldst glorify thy name, thy promise, thy decree, against the devil, lest he should boast and insult."
The answer from heaven to this prayer is, "I have already glorified my name in that victory thou formerly obtaindest over his temptations in the wilderness; and I will glorify my name again in the victory thou shalt have in this combat also."
Luke 4:13; "When the devil had ended all the temptations, he departed from him for a season." He went away baffled then: but now he returns more insolent, and much more to be conquered.
And thus now, the third time, by a witness and voice from heaven, was the Messiah honoured according to his kingly office; as he had been according to his priestly office when he entered upon his ministry at his baptism, Matthew 3:17; and according to his prophetic office when he was declared to be he that was to be heard, Matthew 17:5, compared with Deuteronomy 18:15.
31. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
[The prince of this world.] The prince of this world: a sort of phrase much used by the Jewish writers; and what they mean by it we may gather from such passages as these: "When God was about to make Hezekiah the Messiah, saith the prince of the world to him, 'O eternal Lord, perform the desire of this just one.'" Where this Gloss is; "The prince of this world is the angel into whose hands the whole world is delivered."
Who this should be, the masters tell out: "When the law was delivered, God brought the angel of death, and said unto him, The whole world is in thy power, excepting this nation only [the Israelites], which I have chosen for myself. R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose the Galilean, saith, 'The angel of death said before the holy blessed God, I am made in the world in vain. The holy blessed God answered and said, I have created thee that thou shouldst overlook the nations of the world, excepting this nation over which thou hast no power.'"
"If the nations of the world should conspire against Israel the holy blessed God saith to them, Your prince could not stand before Jacob," &c.
Now the name of the angel of death amongst them is Samael. "And the women saw Samael, the angel of death, and she was afraid," &c. The places are infinite where this name occurs amongst the Rabbins, and they account him the prince of the devils.
The wicked angel Samael is the prince of all Satans. The angel of death, he that hath the power of death, that is, the devil, Hebrews 2:14. They call indeed Beelzebul the prince of the devils, Matthew 12; but that is under a very peculiar notion, as I have shewn in that place.
They conceive it to be Samael that deceived Eve. So the Targumist before. And so Pirke R. Eliezer: "The serpent, what things soever he did, and what words soever he uttered, he did and uttered all from the suggestion of Samael."
Some of them conceive that it is he that wrestled with Jacob. Hence that which we have quoted already: "The holy blessed God saith to the nations of the world, Your prince could not stand before him." Your prince, that is, the prince of the nations, whom the Rabbins talk of as appearing to Jacob in the shape of Archilatro, or a chief robber. And R. Chaninah Bar Chama saith, he was the prince of Esau, i.e. the prince of Edom. Now "the prince of Edom was Samael."
They have a fiction that the seventy nations of the world were committed to the government of so many angels [they will hardly allow the Gentiles any good ones]: which opinion the Greek version favours in Deuteronomy 32:8; "When the Most High divided the nations" [into seventy, say they], "when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God." Over these princes they conceive one monarch above them all, and that is Samael, the angel of death, the arch-devil.
Our Saviour therefore speaks after their common way when he calls the devil the prince of this world: and the meaning of the phrase is made the more plain, if we set it in opposition to that Prince 'whose kingdom is not of this world,' that is, the Prince of the world to come. Consult Hebrews 2:5.
How far that prince of the nations of the world had exercised his tyranny amongst the Gentiles, leading them captive into sin and perdition, needs no explaining. Our Saviour therefore observing at this time some of the Greeks, that is, the Gentiles, pressing hard to see him, he joyfully declares, that the time is coming on apace wherein this prince must be unseated from his throne and tyranny: "And I, when I shall be lifted up upon the cross, and by my death shall destroy him who hath the power of death, then will I draw all nations out of his dominion and power after me."
34. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
[We have heard out of the law.] Out of the law; that is, as the phrase is opposed to the words of the scribes. So we often meet with This is out of the law, or Scripture, to which is opposed This is out of the Rabbins.
"That Christ abideth for ever." How then came the Rabbins to determine his time and years? some to the space of forty years, some to seventy, and others to three generations? After the days of Messiah, they expected that eternity should follow.
39. Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
[Therefore they could not believe, &c.] They were not constrained in their infidelity, because Isaiah had said, "Their heart is waxen gross," &c.; but because those things were true which that prophet had foretold concerning them: which prophecy, if I understand them aright, they throw off from themselves, and pervert the sense of it altogether.
"R. Jochanan saith, Repentance is a great thing; for it rescinds the decree of judgment determined against man: as it is written, 'The heart of this people is made fat, their ears heavy, and their eyes are closed, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart: but they shall be converted and healed,'" For to that sense do they render these last words, diametrically contrary to the mind of the prophet.
They have a conceit that Isaiah was cut in two, either by the saw or the axe, by Manasseh the king, principally for this very vision and prophecy:
"It is a tradition. Simeon Ben Azzai saith, I found a book at Jerusalem......in which was written how Manasses slew Isaiah. Rabba saith he condemned and put him to death upon this occasion: he saith to him, Thy master Moses saith, 'No man can see God and live': but thou sayest, 'I have seen the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.' Thy master Moses saith, 'Who is like our God in all things that we call upon him for?' Deuteronomy 4:7: but thou sayest, 'Seek ye the Lord while he may be found,' Isaiah 55:6. Moses thy master saith, 'The number of thy days I will fulfil,' Exodus 13:26: but thou sayest, 'I will add unto thy days fifteen years,' Isaiah 38:5. Isaiah answered and said, 'I know he will not hearken to me in any thing I can say to him: if I should say any thing to the reconciling of the Scriptures, I know he will deal contemptuously in it.' He said therefore, 'I will shut myself up in this cedar.' They brought the cedar, and sawed it asunder. And when the saw touched his mouth, he gave up the ghost. This happened to him because he said, 'I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.'"
Manasseh slew Isaiah, and, as it should seem, the Gemarists do not dislike the fact, because he had accused Israel for the uncleanness of their lips. No touching upon Israel by any means!
41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
[When he saw his glory.] Isaiah 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne." Where the Targum, I saw the Lord's glory, &c. So Exodus 24:10: "They saw the God of Israel." Targum, "They saw the glory of the God of Israel." And verse 11; "And they saw God." Targum, "And they saw the glory of God." So the Targumists elsewhere very often: commended therefore by their followers for so rendering it, Because no man could see God.
It might be therefore thought that our evangelist speaks with the Targumist and the nation when he saith, that "Isaiah saw his glory"; whereas the prophet himself saith, "He saw the Lord."
But there is a deeper meaning in it: nor do I doubt but this glory of our Saviour which Isaiah saw was that kind of glory by which he is described when he was to come to avenge himself and punish the Jewish nation. As when he is said, "to come in his kingdom," and "in his glory," and "in the clouds," &c. viz. in his vindictive glory. For observe,
1. The prophet saw "the posts of the door shaken and removed," as hastening to ruin. 2. "The Temple itself filled with smoke": not with the cloud as formerly, the token of the divine presence, but with smoke, the forerunner and prognostic of that fire that should burn and consume it. 3. He saw the seraphim, angels of fire, because of the predetermined burning. 4. He heard the decree about blinding and hardening the people till the cities be wasted, and the land desolate.
[They made him a supper.] If we count the days back from the Passover, and take notice that Christ suffered the next day after the eating of the Passover, which is our Friday; it will appear that this supper was on the evening of the sabbath, that is, the sabbath now going out.
Let us measure the time in this scheme:
Nisan 9. The sabbath.--Six days before the Passover Jesus sups with Lazarus at the going out of the sabbath, when, according to the custom of that country, their suppers were more liberal.
10. Sunday.--Five days before the Passover Jesus goes to Jerusalem, sitting on an ass; and on the evening returns to Bethany, Mark 11:11. On this day the lamb was taken and kept till the Passover, Exodus 12; on which day this Lamb of God presented himself, which was the antitype of that rite.
11. Monday.--Four days before the Passover he goes to Jerusalem again; curseth the unfruitful fig tree, Matthew 21:18; Mark 11:12: in the evening he returns again to Bethany, Mark 11:19.
12. Tuesday.--Three days before the Passover he goes again to Jerusalem. His disciples observe how the fig tree was withered, Mark 11:20. In the evening, going back to Bethany, and sitting on the mount of Olives, he foretelleth the destruction of the Temple and city, Matthew 24, and discourses those things which are contained in Matthew 25.
This night he sups with 'Simon the leper,' Matthew 26:1, &c.; John 13.
13. Wednesday.--This day he passeth away in Bethany. At the coming in of this night the whole nation apply themselves to put away all leaven.
14. Thursday.--He sends two of his disciples to get ready the Passover. He himself enters Jerusalem in the afternoon; in the evening eats the Passover, institutes the eucharist; is taken, and almost all the night had before the courts of judicature.
15. Friday.--Afternoon, he is crucified.
16. Saturday.--He keeps the sabbath in the grave.
17. The Lord's day.--He riseth again.
3. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
[Then Mary, &c.] In that contest, whether Mary the sister of Lazarus was the same with Mary Magdalene, this passage will help a little towards the affirmative, that there was a town called Magdala very near Jerusalem.
"A clerk or scribe at Magdala set his candles in order every evening of the sabbath, went up to Jerusalem, prayed there, returned and lighted up his candles when the sabbath was now coming in."
It seems plain by this, that Magdala and Jerusalem were not very far distant from one another, when all this was done so quickly, and in so short a space of time. Only we may learn this from the Gloss, that that Magdala was Magdala Zebaim: concerning which that sad and direful passage is related, that "it was destroyed for its adulteries."
"There were three cities whose customs were carried to Jerusalem": Gloss: "In wagons, because of their great weight. The names of these three cities were Cabul, Sichin, and Magdala. Why was Cabul destroyed? Because of their discords. Why was Sichin destroyed? Because of the magic arts they used. And why was Magdala destroyed? Because of their whoredoms." The Hierosol. say it was Magdala Zabaaia. To this place it was that R. Jonathan once betook himself for some cure to his baldness.
Now therefore what should hinder but that Mary the sister of Lazarus of Bethany might be called Magdalene, both for the nearness of the town, where perhaps she was married, and also for the lascivious manners of the townsfolks, with which spot it is commonly believed Mary Magdalene had been tainted?
[Anointed the feet of Jesus.] In this passage there were two things very unusual:
I. It was indeed a very common thing to anoint the feet with oil; but to do it with aromatical ointment, this was more rarely done. And it is charged by the Gemarists as a great crime, that the Jerusalem women of old anointed their shoes with perfumed ointment, to entice the young men to wantonness.
"Make a tinkling with their feet, Isaiah 3:16. R. Isaac saith, that by this is intimated that they put myrrh and balsam in their shoes; and when they met the young men of Israel, they kicked with their feet, and so stirred up in them evil and loose affections."
II. It was accounted an immodest thing for women to dishevel and unloose their hair publicly: The priest unlooseth the hairs of the women suspected of adultery, when she was to be tried by the bitter water, which was done for greater disgrace.
"Kamitha had seven sons, who all performed the office of high priest: they ask of he how she came to this honour? She answered, 'The rafters of my house never saw the hairs of my head.'"
[And wiped them with her hair.] Did she not wash his feet before she anointed them? I do not ask whether she did not wash them with her tears, as before, Luke 7: for as to that, the evangelist is silent; but did she not wash his feet at all? I ask this, because the custom of the country seems to persuade she should do so.
"The maid brought him a little vessel of warm water, with which he washed his hands and his feet: then she brought a golden vessel of oil, in which he dipped his hands and his feet." There was first washing, then anointing.
Either therefore this word she wiped must relate to some previous washing of his feet: or if it ought to refer to the ointment, it scarcely would suppose wiping off the ointment now laid on; but rather, that with the hairs of her head she rubbed and chafed it. Which brings to mind that passage, "If a woman in labour should have need of oil [on the sabbath day], let her neighbour bring it her in the hollow of her hand; but if that should not be sufficient, let her bring it in the hairs of her head." The Gloss is, "Let her dip her own hair in oil, and when she comes to the woman in travail, let her rub it upon her, and by that action she doth not break the sabbath."
[And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.] "A good name is better than precious ointment. Good ointment [by its smell] passeth out of the bed into the dining room; but a good name, from one end of the world unto the other."
6. This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
[The bag.] We meet with this word in the Greek interpreters, 2 Chronicles 24; and it is set there for a chest or corban box, verse 8: let a purse or bag be made. The Hebrew is, they shall make a chest. So verses 10, 11, &c. Amongst the Talmudists we meet with gloskema [that is the word the Syriac useth in this place], and dloskema. For as the Aruch, gloskema is the same with dloskema, and is a Greek word. It is used commonly for a coffin.
"As Phrynichus writes it, a case of wood to keep relics in; a coffin, a chest, a box, a purse, or rather a coffer (note that) in which they used to lay up their money. It is used, John 12, to signify a purse." And why may it not be read there also for a chest or coffer? for Judas is not said to carry the bag; but that he had the bag, and bare what was put therein. So that nothing hinders but that, even in this place, may signify a chest or coffer of money, fixed at home; the keys of which were in Judas' keeping, and he carried the gifts that were to be put into it.
7. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
[Against the day of my burying hath she kept this.] Baronius proves from this place that this Mary was Mary Magdalene, because she is named amongst those that anointed Christ for his interment; and Christ saith in this place, that she reserved some of this ointment for this use: which I have had occasion to mention elsewhere. If this exposition do not take, then add this clause, "Let her alone": for this may be an argument and sign that she hath not done this vainly, luxuriously, or spent so costly an ointment upon me upon any delicacy; because she hath reserved it for this time, wherein I am so near my grave and funeral, and poured it not on me before.
12. On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
[Much people that were come to the feast.] It is not greatly to our present purpose to enlarge in counting the multitude that flocked to the Passover. However, let the reader take this story in his way, and judge of it as he thinks fit:
"King Agrippa, desirous to know how great a multitude was at Jerusalem at the Passover, commanded the priests, saying, 'Lay me aside one kidney of every lamb.' They laid him aside six hundred thousand pair of kidneys: double the number to those that went out of Egypt. Now there was not any paschal lamb but was divided among more than ten persons. R. Chaija saith, 'Forty, nay fifty persons.' One time they went into the Mountain of the Temple, and it could not contain them. But there was a certain old man amongst them whom they trod under their feet. Wherefore they called that Passover the Crowded Passover."
Although this be an account (according to the loose Rabbinical way of talking) that exceeds all belief or modesty, yet might the reader, without a monitor, take notice of something in it not unworthy observation. It is true, indeed, that the multitude of those that celebrated the Passover at every feast could hardly be numbered, it was so great; yet had Jerusalem hardly ever seen such a conflux of people as was at this very feast which we are now upon, they being gathered thither from all nations of the world, Acts 2: for that they were at the Passover as well as at Pentecost, there are hardly any, I believe, but will suppose.
13. Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
[Took branches of palm trees.] We have made our notes upon this part of the story in Matthew 21: but because here is mention of branches of palm trees, let us add only in this place, what is discoursed by the Rabbins concerning the 'ivy of the palm trees,' much used in the Passover. "I have heard from him that they perform their service by Arkablin. But what is Arkablin? Resh Lachish saith, A twig twined about." Gloss: "A thick sprig that grows up about the palm tree, folds about it, and runs upon it." I could not tell better how to render this than by the 'ivy of the palm tree.' They used, as it should seem, the leaves of that frequently amongst, or instead of, the bitter herbs which they were to eat with the paschal lamb. So far they had to do with the palm tree in all other Passovers, viz. to crop the ivy off of them: but here they use the palm branches themselves, as in the feast of Tabernacles. A matter not to be passed over without wonder, and cannot but bring to mind Zechariah 14:16, and John 7:8.
19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.
[The world is gone after him.] The Talmudists would say, All the world is gone after him.
20. And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
[There were certain Greeks.] That these Greeks were Gentiles, as the Vulgar renders it, I do not question; and perhaps they were Syro-Grecians; and those either of Decapolis, or Gadara, or Hippo: the reason of this conjecture is, partly, that they apply themselves to Philip of Bethsaida, as known to them, because of his neighbourhood; partly, which is more probable, that those Greeks that bordered upon Galilee and the places where Christ wrought his miracles, might seem more prone both to embrace the Jewish religion, and also to see Jesus, than those that lived further off.
However be they other Gentiles, and not Greeks; or be they Greeks come from more remote countries, what had the one or the other to do with the feast, or the religion of the Jews? As to this, let the Jewish writers inform us.
I. "If a heathen send a burnt offering out of his own country, and withal send drink offerings, the drink offerings are offered: but if he send no drink offerings, drink offerings are offered at the charge of the congregation." Observe that. We have the same elsewhere. And it is every where added, that this is one of the seven things that were ordained by the great council; and that the sacrifice of a Gentile is only a whole burnt offering, The thank offerings of a Gentile are whole burnt offerings. And the reason is given, The mind of that Gentile is towards heaven. Gloss: "He had rather that his sacrifice should be wholly consumed by fire to God, than [as his thank offerings] be eaten by men."
That of Josephus is observable; "Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest, a bold young man, persuaded those that ministered in holy things, that they should accept of no sacrifice at the hands of a stranger. This was the foundation of the war with the Romans." For they refused a sacrifice for Caesar.
The elders, that they might take off Eleazar and his followers from this resolution of theirs, making a speech to them, among other things, say this, "That their forefathers had greatly beautified and adorned the Temple, from things devoted by the Gentiles: always receiving the gifts from foreign nations, not having ever made any difference in the sacrifices of any whomsoever; for that would be irreligious," &c. When they had spoken this and many more things to this purpose, "they produced several priests skilled in the ancient customs of their forefathers, who shewed that all their ancestors received offerings from the Gentiles."
II. Nor did the Gentiles only send their gifts and sacrifices, but came themselves personally sometimes to the Temple, and there worshipped. Hence the outward court of the Temple was called the Court of the Gentiles, and the Common Court; to which that in the Book of the Revelation alludes, chapter 11:2, "But the court which is without the Temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles." And of those there shall innumerable numbers come and worship. "And the holy city shall they tread forty and two months." It is not they shall tread it under foot as enemies and spoilers, but they shall tread it as worshippers. So Isaiah 1:12.
The Syrians, and those that are unclean by the touch of a dead body, entered into the Mountain of the Temple.
"Rabban Gamaliel, walking in the Court of the Gentiles, saw a heathen woman, and blessed concerning her."
"They would provoke the Roman arms, espouse a war with them, introduce a new worship, and persuade an impiety with the hazard of the city, if not stranger, but the Jews only, may be allowed to sacrifice or worship."
Hence that suspicion about Trophimus being brought by Paul into the Temple, is not to be supposed to have been with reference to this court, but to the Court of the Women, in which Paul was purifying himself.
There is a story of a certain Gentile that ate the Passover at Jerusalem; but when they found him out to be a heathen, they slew him; for the Passover ought not to be eaten by any one that is uncircumcised. But there was no such danger that an uncircumcised person could run by coming into the Court of the Gentiles, and worshipping there.
24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
[Except a corn of wheat.] How doth this answer of our Saviour's agree with the matter propounded? Thus: "Is it so indeed? do the Gentiles desire to see me? The time draws on wherein I must be glorified in the conversion of the Gentiles; but as a corn of wheat doth not bring forth fruit, except it be first thrown into the ground and there die; but if it die it will bring forth much fruit; so I must die first and be thrown into the earth: and then a mighty harvest of the Gentile world will grow up, and be the product of that death of mine."
Isaiah 26:19: "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise": so our translation, with which also the French agrees, They shall rise with my body. But it is properly, They shall arise my body: so the Interlineary version. "The Gentiles being dead in their sins shall, with my dead body, when it rises again, rise again also from their death: nay, they shall rise again my body, that is, as part of myself, and my body mystical."
28. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
[I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.] This petition of our Saviour's, "Father, glorify thy name," was of no light consequence, when it had such an answer from heaven by an audible voice: and what it did indeed mean we must guess by the context. Christ, upon the Greeks' desire to see him, takes that occasion to discourse about his death, and to exhort his followers, that from his example they would not love their life, but by losing it preserve it to life eternal. Now by how much the deeper he proceeds in the discourse and thoughts of his approaching death, by so much the more is his mind disturbed, as himself acknowledgeth, verse 27.
But whence comes this disturbance? It was from the apprehended rage and assault of the devil. Whether our Lord Christ, in his agony and passion, had to grapple with an angry God, I question: but I am certain he had to do with an angry devil. When he stood, and stood firmly, in the highest and most eminent point and degree of obedience, as he did in his sufferings, it doth not seem agreeable that he should then be groaning under the pressures of divine wrath; but it is most agreeable he should under the rage and fury of the devil. For,
I. The fight was now to begin between the serpent and the seed of the woman, mentioned Genesis 3:15, about the glory of God and the salvation of man. In which strife and contest we need not doubt but the devil would exert all his malice and force to the very uttermost.
II. God loosed all the reins, and suffered the devil without any kind of restraint upon him to exercise his power and strength to the utmost of what he either could or would, because he knew his champion Christ was strong enough, not only to bear his assaults, but to overcome them.
III. He was to overcome, not by his divine power, for how easy a matter were it for an omnipotent God to conquer the most potent created being; but his victory must be obtained by his obedience, his righteousness, his holiness.
IV. Here then was the rise of that trouble and agony of Christ's soul, that he was presently to grapple with the utmost rage of the devil; the divine power in the mean time suspending its activity, and leaving him to manage the conflict with those weapons of obedience and righteousness only.
It was about this, therefore, that that petition of our Saviour and the answer from heaven was concerned: which may be gathered from what follows, verse 31, "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out."
"Now is my soul troubled (saith he), and what shall i say? It is not convenient for me to desire to be saved from this hour; for this very purpose did I come: that therefore which I would beg of thee, O Father, is, that thou wouldst glorify thy name, thy promise, thy decree, against the devil, lest he should boast and insult."
The answer from heaven to this prayer is, "I have already glorified my name in that victory thou formerly obtaindest over his temptations in the wilderness; and I will glorify my name again in the victory thou shalt have in this combat also."
Luke 4:13; "When the devil had ended all the temptations, he departed from him for a season." He went away baffled then: but now he returns more insolent, and much more to be conquered.
And thus now, the third time, by a witness and voice from heaven, was the Messiah honoured according to his kingly office; as he had been according to his priestly office when he entered upon his ministry at his baptism, Matthew 3:17; and according to his prophetic office when he was declared to be he that was to be heard, Matthew 17:5, compared with Deuteronomy 18:15.
31. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
[The prince of this world.] The prince of this world: a sort of phrase much used by the Jewish writers; and what they mean by it we may gather from such passages as these: "When God was about to make Hezekiah the Messiah, saith the prince of the world to him, 'O eternal Lord, perform the desire of this just one.'" Where this Gloss is; "The prince of this world is the angel into whose hands the whole world is delivered."
Who this should be, the masters tell out: "When the law was delivered, God brought the angel of death, and said unto him, The whole world is in thy power, excepting this nation only [the Israelites], which I have chosen for myself. R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose the Galilean, saith, 'The angel of death said before the holy blessed God, I am made in the world in vain. The holy blessed God answered and said, I have created thee that thou shouldst overlook the nations of the world, excepting this nation over which thou hast no power.'"
"If the nations of the world should conspire against Israel the holy blessed God saith to them, Your prince could not stand before Jacob," &c.
Now the name of the angel of death amongst them is Samael. "And the women saw Samael, the angel of death, and she was afraid," &c. The places are infinite where this name occurs amongst the Rabbins, and they account him the prince of the devils.
The wicked angel Samael is the prince of all Satans. The angel of death, he that hath the power of death, that is, the devil, Hebrews 2:14. They call indeed Beelzebul the prince of the devils, Matthew 12; but that is under a very peculiar notion, as I have shewn in that place.
They conceive it to be Samael that deceived Eve. So the Targumist before. And so Pirke R. Eliezer: "The serpent, what things soever he did, and what words soever he uttered, he did and uttered all from the suggestion of Samael."
Some of them conceive that it is he that wrestled with Jacob. Hence that which we have quoted already: "The holy blessed God saith to the nations of the world, Your prince could not stand before him." Your prince, that is, the prince of the nations, whom the Rabbins talk of as appearing to Jacob in the shape of Archilatro, or a chief robber. And R. Chaninah Bar Chama saith, he was the prince of Esau, i.e. the prince of Edom. Now "the prince of Edom was Samael."
They have a fiction that the seventy nations of the world were committed to the government of so many angels [they will hardly allow the Gentiles any good ones]: which opinion the Greek version favours in Deuteronomy 32:8; "When the Most High divided the nations" [into seventy, say they], "when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God." Over these princes they conceive one monarch above them all, and that is Samael, the angel of death, the arch-devil.
Our Saviour therefore speaks after their common way when he calls the devil the prince of this world: and the meaning of the phrase is made the more plain, if we set it in opposition to that Prince 'whose kingdom is not of this world,' that is, the Prince of the world to come. Consult Hebrews 2:5.
How far that prince of the nations of the world had exercised his tyranny amongst the Gentiles, leading them captive into sin and perdition, needs no explaining. Our Saviour therefore observing at this time some of the Greeks, that is, the Gentiles, pressing hard to see him, he joyfully declares, that the time is coming on apace wherein this prince must be unseated from his throne and tyranny: "And I, when I shall be lifted up upon the cross, and by my death shall destroy him who hath the power of death, then will I draw all nations out of his dominion and power after me."
34. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
[We have heard out of the law.] Out of the law; that is, as the phrase is opposed to the words of the scribes. So we often meet with This is out of the law, or Scripture, to which is opposed This is out of the Rabbins.
"That Christ abideth for ever." How then came the Rabbins to determine his time and years? some to the space of forty years, some to seventy, and others to three generations? After the days of Messiah, they expected that eternity should follow.
39. Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
[Therefore they could not believe, &c.] They were not constrained in their infidelity, because Isaiah had said, "Their heart is waxen gross," &c.; but because those things were true which that prophet had foretold concerning them: which prophecy, if I understand them aright, they throw off from themselves, and pervert the sense of it altogether.
"R. Jochanan saith, Repentance is a great thing; for it rescinds the decree of judgment determined against man: as it is written, 'The heart of this people is made fat, their ears heavy, and their eyes are closed, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart: but they shall be converted and healed,'" For to that sense do they render these last words, diametrically contrary to the mind of the prophet.
They have a conceit that Isaiah was cut in two, either by the saw or the axe, by Manasseh the king, principally for this very vision and prophecy:
"It is a tradition. Simeon Ben Azzai saith, I found a book at Jerusalem......in which was written how Manasses slew Isaiah. Rabba saith he condemned and put him to death upon this occasion: he saith to him, Thy master Moses saith, 'No man can see God and live': but thou sayest, 'I have seen the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.' Thy master Moses saith, 'Who is like our God in all things that we call upon him for?' Deuteronomy 4:7: but thou sayest, 'Seek ye the Lord while he may be found,' Isaiah 55:6. Moses thy master saith, 'The number of thy days I will fulfil,' Exodus 13:26: but thou sayest, 'I will add unto thy days fifteen years,' Isaiah 38:5. Isaiah answered and said, 'I know he will not hearken to me in any thing I can say to him: if I should say any thing to the reconciling of the Scriptures, I know he will deal contemptuously in it.' He said therefore, 'I will shut myself up in this cedar.' They brought the cedar, and sawed it asunder. And when the saw touched his mouth, he gave up the ghost. This happened to him because he said, 'I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.'"
Manasseh slew Isaiah, and, as it should seem, the Gemarists do not dislike the fact, because he had accused Israel for the uncleanness of their lips. No touching upon Israel by any means!
41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
[When he saw his glory.] Isaiah 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne." Where the Targum, I saw the Lord's glory, &c. So Exodus 24:10: "They saw the God of Israel." Targum, "They saw the glory of the God of Israel." And verse 11; "And they saw God." Targum, "And they saw the glory of God." So the Targumists elsewhere very often: commended therefore by their followers for so rendering it, Because no man could see God.
It might be therefore thought that our evangelist speaks with the Targumist and the nation when he saith, that "Isaiah saw his glory"; whereas the prophet himself saith, "He saw the Lord."
But there is a deeper meaning in it: nor do I doubt but this glory of our Saviour which Isaiah saw was that kind of glory by which he is described when he was to come to avenge himself and punish the Jewish nation. As when he is said, "to come in his kingdom," and "in his glory," and "in the clouds," &c. viz. in his vindictive glory. For observe,
1. The prophet saw "the posts of the door shaken and removed," as hastening to ruin. 2. "The Temple itself filled with smoke": not with the cloud as formerly, the token of the divine presence, but with smoke, the forerunner and prognostic of that fire that should burn and consume it. 3. He saw the seraphim, angels of fire, because of the predetermined burning. 4. He heard the decree about blinding and hardening the people till the cities be wasted, and the land desolate.
John 13
1. Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
[Now before the feast of the Passover.] The Vulgar, Beza, and the Interlinear read, Now before the feast day of the Passover: but by what authority they add day it concerns them to make out. For,
I. In the common language of the Jews, the whole festivity and time of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, no part of that time being excepted; nor does the word feast, occur anywhere throughout the whole Bible in another signification.
II. It is something harsh to exclude the paschal supper out of the title of the feast of the Passover, because the name of the whole feast takes its original from it. This they do who imagine this supper mentioned in this place to have been the paschal supper, and yet it was before the feast of the Passover.
We have therefore shewn, by many arguments in our notes upon Matthew 26:2,6, that the supper here mentioned was the same with that at Bethany, in the house of 'Simon the leper,' two days before the Passover.
2. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
[And supper being ended.] I acknowledge the aorist, and yet do not believe the supper was now ended. We have the very same word in the story of the same supper, Matthew 26:6; and Jesus being in Bethany: which in St. Mark is and being in Bethany, chapter 14:3: so that supper being ended is no more than 'being' supper.
Let us join the full story together. While Jesus was at supper in the house of Simon the leper two days before the Passover, a woman comes and pours very precious ointment upon his head. When some murmured at the profuseness of the expense, he defends the woman and the action by an apology: and having finished his apology, he rises immediately from the table, as it were, in the very midst of supper, and girds himself to wash his disciples' feet: so that while they are grumbling at the anointing of his head, he does not disdain to wash their feet.
The reason of this extraordinary action of his we may in some measure spell out from those little prefaces the evangelist uses before he tells the story.
I. "When Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world, &c." [There is an expression not unlike this in Bemidbar Rabba; "Abraham said, 'I am flesh and blood, tomorrow I shall go out of this world.'"]
It had a little rubbed up the memory of his departure out of this world, that the woman had as it were anointed him for his funeral: and therefore he riseth immediately from the table, that he might give them some farewell token of his humility and charity, and leave them an example for the practice of these virtues one amongst another.
II. "The devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him," it was but seasonable for him to shew his disciples that he would strengthen and vindicate them against the wolf who had now stolen, I will not say a sheep, but a goat, and that out of his own flock. It must not pass unobserved, that 'his disciples' murmured at the lavish use of the ointment, Matthew 26:8; as if the murmuring humour was crept in amongst others also as well as Judas; which perhaps moved Christ the more earnestly to meet the beginnings of that distemper by this action.
III. "Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands," verse 3, he gave the traitor over to Satan, and confirms the rest to himself: signifying, by the external washing, that his should be secured from the devil by the washing of Christ. Whosoever shall attempt the determination, whether he washed the feet of Judas or not, let him see how he will free himself of this dilemma:
If he washed Judas' feet, why had not he his part in Christ, as well as the rest of his disciples? For supposing that true, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me," why should not this be so too, "If I do wash thee, thou hast a part with me?"
If he did not wash Judas with the rest, but left him out, how could the rest be ignorant who was the unclean person? verse 10, which they were altogether ignorant of.
5. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
[Into a basin.] "On that day, [when they made R. Eleazar Ben Azariah president of the council] the votes were numbered; and they determined concerning the basin wherein they were to wash their feet, that it should contain from two logs to ten."
[He began to wash the feet, &c.] As to this action of our Saviour's washing his disciples' feet, it may be observed,
I. It was an unusual thing for superiors to wash the feet of inferiors. Amongst the duties required from a wife towards a husband this was one, that she should wash his face, his hands, and his feet. The same was expected by a father from his son. The same from a servant towards his master, but not vice versa. Nor, as I remember, was it expected from the disciple towards his master, unless included in that rule, "That the disciple is to honour his master more than his father."
II. The feet were never washed merely under the notion of legal purification. The hands were wont to be washed by the Pharisees merely under that notion, but not the feet: and the hands and the feet by the priests, but the feet not merely upon that account. That what was said before, concerning the basin wherein the feet were to be washed, must not be understood as if the feet were to be washed upon any score of a legal cleansing; but only care was taken by that tradition, lest through defect of a just quantity of water the feet and the person should contract some sort of uncleanness whilst they were washing.
So that by how much distant this action of Christ's was from the common usage and custom, by so much the more instructive was it to his followers, propounded to them not only for example, but doctrine too.
III. As to the manner of the action. It is likely he washed their feet in the same manner as his own were, Luke 7:38; viz. while they were leaning at the table (as the Jewish custom of eating was) he washed their feet, as they were stretched out behind them. And if he did observe any order, he began with Peter, who sat in the next place immediately to himself. This Nonnus seems to believe; to which opinion also there are others that seem inclined; and then the words he began to wash, must be taken in some such sense as if he made ready and put himself into a posture to wash. But perhaps this way of expression may intimate, as if he began to wash some of his disciples, but did not wash them all; which for my own part I could easily enough close with. For whereas Christ did this for example and instruction merely, and not with any design of cleansing them, his end was answered in washing two or three of them, as well as all. And so indeed I would avoid being entangled in the dilemma I lately mentioned, by saying, he did not only leave Judas unwashed, but several others also. What if he washed Peter and James and John only? And as he had before made some distinction betwixt these three and the rest of his disciples by admitting them into his more inward privacies, so perhaps he distinguisheth them no less in this action. These he foretold how they were to suffer martyrdom: might he not, therefore, by this washing, prefigure to them that they must be baptized with the same baptism that he himself was to be baptized with? and as the woman had anointed him for his burial, so he, by this action, might have washed them for that purpose.
13. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
[Master and Lord.] Rabbi, and Mar, are titles amongst the doctors very frequently used, both those of Jerusalem and those of Babylon.
23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
[Leaning on Jesus' bosom.] "They were wont to eat leaning on the left side, with their feet to the ground, every one singly, upon their distinct beds."
"But when there were two beds, he that was chief sat highest: and he that was second to him sat above him." Gloss: "The bed of him that sat second was by the bolster of him that sat first."
"When there were three, the worthiest person lay in the middle; and the second lay above him; and the third below him." Gloss: "The third lay at the feet of him that was first."
"And if he would talk with him, he raised himself, and sitting upright talks with him." Gloss: "If he that sits chief would talk with him that is second to him, he raiseth himself and sits upright: for so long as he leans, or lies down, he cannot talk with him; because he that lies second lies behind the head of him that lies first, and the face of him that lies first is turned from him: so that it were better for the second to sit below him, because then he may hear his words while he sits leaning." So Lipsius writes of the Roman custom. "This was the manner of their sitting at table: they lay with the upper part of their body leaning on the left elbow; the lower part stretched at length, the head a little raised, and the back had cushions under. The first lay at the head of the bed, and his feet stretched out at the back of him that sat next," &c. To all which he adds, "That the Jews had the very same way of lying down at meals in Christ's time, appears evidently from John, Luke," &c.
So that while Christ and his disciples were eating together, Peter lay at the back of Christ, and John in his bosom: John in the bosom of Christ, and Christ in the bosom of Peter. Christ, therefore, could not readily talk with Peter in his ear (for all this discourse was by way of whispering). Peter, therefore, looking over Christ's head towards John, nods to him; and, by that, signs to him to ask Christ about this matter.
So the Gemara concerning the Persians (I suppose he means the Jews in Persia); when they could not, because of their way of leaning at meals, discourse amongst themselves, they talked by signs either with their hands or upon their fingers.
We must not omit what the Gloss said, that they were wont to sit at table leaning on their left side, with their "feet upon the ground"; this is to be understood when one sat alone, or two at the table only. And the Gemara tells us, that the order was otherwise when but two sat down: for then he that was the second sat below him that was the chief, and not at his pillow.
There was also a diversity of tables: for the ordinary table of the Pharisee, or one of the disciples of the wise men, was but little, where three at most could sit down; and there were tables which would hold more.
The ordinary table is described in Bava Bathra: "What kind of table is that of the disciples of the wise men? Two thirds of the table were spread with a tablecloth; and one third was uncovered, and on this were set the dishes and the herbs."
The ring of the table was on the outside. Gloss: "They were wont to put a ring upon the edge of the table to hang it by." That hanging up the table when they had done using it, seems to have been only to set it out of danger of contracting any defilement; and argues it was but small and light. Now the ring of the table was ab extra, when that part of the table where the ring was was naked, not covered with a tablecloth: so that it was not amongst the guests, but without, viz. in that void place where nobody sat down. We have more in the same place about the ring being placed within or without. Gloss: "If a child sit at table with his father, the ring was without, not among the guests, lest the child, playing with the ring, should shake the table." If a servant be waiting at the table, then the table is so placed (especially if it be night), that the ring is within, lest the servant, in moving to and fro, should happen to touch upon it.
[Whom Jesus loved.] We have touched upon this phrase before in our notes upon Mark 10:21; where, upon those words, "Jesus looking upon him loved him," let us add something omitted there. 2 Chronicles 18:2: and persuaded him to go up to Ramoth-Gilead. Greek: where he loved him is put for "he persuaded him to go up with him to Ramoth in Gilead": and so the Complutensian Bible hath it. Where Nobilius, "He loved him, that is, did him all good offices, and shewed him tokens of great kindness." So Jesus, earnestly beholding this young man, persuaded him, encouraged him, used all mild and gentle words and actions towards him, that he might urge and stir him up to the ways of godliness.
26. Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
[And when he had dipped the sop.] This was a very unusual thing, to dip a sop and reach it to any one: and what could the rest of the disciples think of it? It is probable they took it as if Christ had said to Judas, "What thou doest, do quickly: do not stay till the supper be done and the tables withdrawn; but take this sop to make up your supper, and begone about the business you are to despatch." So they might apprehend the matter; only John, indeed, understood what it meant: unless perhaps Peter, being not ignorant of the question John asked our Saviour, might not be ignorant of what Christ answered him by that action.
27. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
[And after the sop, &c.] Satan knew well enough what Christ meant by it: for when he saw that by giving the sop Christ had declared which of them should betray him, the devil makes his entry. For as he had entered into the serpent that deceived the first Adam, so he knew the second Adam could not be betrayed but by one into whom he should first enter.
[That thou doest, do quickly.] I would take this expression for a tacit severe threatening pronounced, not without some scorn and indignation against him: q.d. "I know well enough what thou art contriving against me; what thou doest, therefore, do quickly: else thy own death may prevent thee, for thou hast but a very short time to live, thy own end draws on apace." So Psalm 109:8, "Let his days be few." And, indeed, within two days and three nights after this, Judas died.
30. He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
[Went immediately out: and it was night.] So the traitor goes forth to his work of darkness under the conduct of the devil, the shelter of the night. He was to go two miles, viz. from Bethany to Jerusalem; then was he to seek out and get the chief priests together, to make his bargain with them for betraying Christ. Whether he did all this this very night or the day following, as the holy Scripture saith nothing of it, so is it of no great moment for us to make a business of inquiring about it. It is not so difficult to shew how many difficulties they involve themselves in that would have all this done the very same night wherein the paschal supper was celebrated, as it is a wonder that the favourers of this opinion should take no notice thereof themselves.
33. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
[Little children.] "'Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me,' Isaiah 8:18. Were they indeed his sons, or were they not rather his disciples? Hence you may learn that any one's disciple is called his son." Nor is it unlikely but that Christ in calling his disciples here My little children might have an eye to that place in Isaiah: for when the traitor, the son of perdition, had removed himself from them, he could then properly enough say, "Behold, I and the children which thou hast given me."
38. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
[The cock shall not crow.] We must not understand this as if the cock should not crow at all before Peter had denied Christ thrice: this had not been true, because the cock had crowed twice before Peter had denied him. But we must understand it, The cock shall not have finished his crowing, &c. Nor indeed was that time above half over before Peter had denied his Master.
The Jewish doctors distinguished the cockcrowing into the first, second, and third. The first they call the cockcrowing. The second, when he repeats it. The third, when he does it a third time. The distinction also amongst other nations is not unknown. When the time indeed was near, and the very night wherein this was to happen, then Christ saith, This very night the cock shall not crow his second time, &c. But here, two days before this night, he only saith, The cock shall not crow, that is, shall not have done all his crowing, before thou deny me. And thus our Saviour meets with the arrogance of Peter, foretelling him that he should not have the courage he so confidently assumed to himself, but should within the time and space of cockcrowing deny him thrice.
[Now before the feast of the Passover.] The Vulgar, Beza, and the Interlinear read, Now before the feast day of the Passover: but by what authority they add day it concerns them to make out. For,
I. In the common language of the Jews, the whole festivity and time of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, no part of that time being excepted; nor does the word feast, occur anywhere throughout the whole Bible in another signification.
II. It is something harsh to exclude the paschal supper out of the title of the feast of the Passover, because the name of the whole feast takes its original from it. This they do who imagine this supper mentioned in this place to have been the paschal supper, and yet it was before the feast of the Passover.
We have therefore shewn, by many arguments in our notes upon Matthew 26:2,6, that the supper here mentioned was the same with that at Bethany, in the house of 'Simon the leper,' two days before the Passover.
2. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
[And supper being ended.] I acknowledge the aorist, and yet do not believe the supper was now ended. We have the very same word in the story of the same supper, Matthew 26:6; and Jesus being in Bethany: which in St. Mark is and being in Bethany, chapter 14:3: so that supper being ended is no more than 'being' supper.
Let us join the full story together. While Jesus was at supper in the house of Simon the leper two days before the Passover, a woman comes and pours very precious ointment upon his head. When some murmured at the profuseness of the expense, he defends the woman and the action by an apology: and having finished his apology, he rises immediately from the table, as it were, in the very midst of supper, and girds himself to wash his disciples' feet: so that while they are grumbling at the anointing of his head, he does not disdain to wash their feet.
The reason of this extraordinary action of his we may in some measure spell out from those little prefaces the evangelist uses before he tells the story.
I. "When Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world, &c." [There is an expression not unlike this in Bemidbar Rabba; "Abraham said, 'I am flesh and blood, tomorrow I shall go out of this world.'"]
It had a little rubbed up the memory of his departure out of this world, that the woman had as it were anointed him for his funeral: and therefore he riseth immediately from the table, that he might give them some farewell token of his humility and charity, and leave them an example for the practice of these virtues one amongst another.
II. "The devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him," it was but seasonable for him to shew his disciples that he would strengthen and vindicate them against the wolf who had now stolen, I will not say a sheep, but a goat, and that out of his own flock. It must not pass unobserved, that 'his disciples' murmured at the lavish use of the ointment, Matthew 26:8; as if the murmuring humour was crept in amongst others also as well as Judas; which perhaps moved Christ the more earnestly to meet the beginnings of that distemper by this action.
III. "Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands," verse 3, he gave the traitor over to Satan, and confirms the rest to himself: signifying, by the external washing, that his should be secured from the devil by the washing of Christ. Whosoever shall attempt the determination, whether he washed the feet of Judas or not, let him see how he will free himself of this dilemma:
If he washed Judas' feet, why had not he his part in Christ, as well as the rest of his disciples? For supposing that true, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me," why should not this be so too, "If I do wash thee, thou hast a part with me?"
If he did not wash Judas with the rest, but left him out, how could the rest be ignorant who was the unclean person? verse 10, which they were altogether ignorant of.
5. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
[Into a basin.] "On that day, [when they made R. Eleazar Ben Azariah president of the council] the votes were numbered; and they determined concerning the basin wherein they were to wash their feet, that it should contain from two logs to ten."
[He began to wash the feet, &c.] As to this action of our Saviour's washing his disciples' feet, it may be observed,
I. It was an unusual thing for superiors to wash the feet of inferiors. Amongst the duties required from a wife towards a husband this was one, that she should wash his face, his hands, and his feet. The same was expected by a father from his son. The same from a servant towards his master, but not vice versa. Nor, as I remember, was it expected from the disciple towards his master, unless included in that rule, "That the disciple is to honour his master more than his father."
II. The feet were never washed merely under the notion of legal purification. The hands were wont to be washed by the Pharisees merely under that notion, but not the feet: and the hands and the feet by the priests, but the feet not merely upon that account. That what was said before, concerning the basin wherein the feet were to be washed, must not be understood as if the feet were to be washed upon any score of a legal cleansing; but only care was taken by that tradition, lest through defect of a just quantity of water the feet and the person should contract some sort of uncleanness whilst they were washing.
So that by how much distant this action of Christ's was from the common usage and custom, by so much the more instructive was it to his followers, propounded to them not only for example, but doctrine too.
III. As to the manner of the action. It is likely he washed their feet in the same manner as his own were, Luke 7:38; viz. while they were leaning at the table (as the Jewish custom of eating was) he washed their feet, as they were stretched out behind them. And if he did observe any order, he began with Peter, who sat in the next place immediately to himself. This Nonnus seems to believe; to which opinion also there are others that seem inclined; and then the words he began to wash, must be taken in some such sense as if he made ready and put himself into a posture to wash. But perhaps this way of expression may intimate, as if he began to wash some of his disciples, but did not wash them all; which for my own part I could easily enough close with. For whereas Christ did this for example and instruction merely, and not with any design of cleansing them, his end was answered in washing two or three of them, as well as all. And so indeed I would avoid being entangled in the dilemma I lately mentioned, by saying, he did not only leave Judas unwashed, but several others also. What if he washed Peter and James and John only? And as he had before made some distinction betwixt these three and the rest of his disciples by admitting them into his more inward privacies, so perhaps he distinguisheth them no less in this action. These he foretold how they were to suffer martyrdom: might he not, therefore, by this washing, prefigure to them that they must be baptized with the same baptism that he himself was to be baptized with? and as the woman had anointed him for his burial, so he, by this action, might have washed them for that purpose.
13. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
[Master and Lord.] Rabbi, and Mar, are titles amongst the doctors very frequently used, both those of Jerusalem and those of Babylon.
23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
[Leaning on Jesus' bosom.] "They were wont to eat leaning on the left side, with their feet to the ground, every one singly, upon their distinct beds."
"But when there were two beds, he that was chief sat highest: and he that was second to him sat above him." Gloss: "The bed of him that sat second was by the bolster of him that sat first."
"When there were three, the worthiest person lay in the middle; and the second lay above him; and the third below him." Gloss: "The third lay at the feet of him that was first."
"And if he would talk with him, he raised himself, and sitting upright talks with him." Gloss: "If he that sits chief would talk with him that is second to him, he raiseth himself and sits upright: for so long as he leans, or lies down, he cannot talk with him; because he that lies second lies behind the head of him that lies first, and the face of him that lies first is turned from him: so that it were better for the second to sit below him, because then he may hear his words while he sits leaning." So Lipsius writes of the Roman custom. "This was the manner of their sitting at table: they lay with the upper part of their body leaning on the left elbow; the lower part stretched at length, the head a little raised, and the back had cushions under. The first lay at the head of the bed, and his feet stretched out at the back of him that sat next," &c. To all which he adds, "That the Jews had the very same way of lying down at meals in Christ's time, appears evidently from John, Luke," &c.
So that while Christ and his disciples were eating together, Peter lay at the back of Christ, and John in his bosom: John in the bosom of Christ, and Christ in the bosom of Peter. Christ, therefore, could not readily talk with Peter in his ear (for all this discourse was by way of whispering). Peter, therefore, looking over Christ's head towards John, nods to him; and, by that, signs to him to ask Christ about this matter.
So the Gemara concerning the Persians (I suppose he means the Jews in Persia); when they could not, because of their way of leaning at meals, discourse amongst themselves, they talked by signs either with their hands or upon their fingers.
We must not omit what the Gloss said, that they were wont to sit at table leaning on their left side, with their "feet upon the ground"; this is to be understood when one sat alone, or two at the table only. And the Gemara tells us, that the order was otherwise when but two sat down: for then he that was the second sat below him that was the chief, and not at his pillow.
There was also a diversity of tables: for the ordinary table of the Pharisee, or one of the disciples of the wise men, was but little, where three at most could sit down; and there were tables which would hold more.
The ordinary table is described in Bava Bathra: "What kind of table is that of the disciples of the wise men? Two thirds of the table were spread with a tablecloth; and one third was uncovered, and on this were set the dishes and the herbs."
The ring of the table was on the outside. Gloss: "They were wont to put a ring upon the edge of the table to hang it by." That hanging up the table when they had done using it, seems to have been only to set it out of danger of contracting any defilement; and argues it was but small and light. Now the ring of the table was ab extra, when that part of the table where the ring was was naked, not covered with a tablecloth: so that it was not amongst the guests, but without, viz. in that void place where nobody sat down. We have more in the same place about the ring being placed within or without. Gloss: "If a child sit at table with his father, the ring was without, not among the guests, lest the child, playing with the ring, should shake the table." If a servant be waiting at the table, then the table is so placed (especially if it be night), that the ring is within, lest the servant, in moving to and fro, should happen to touch upon it.
[Whom Jesus loved.] We have touched upon this phrase before in our notes upon Mark 10:21; where, upon those words, "Jesus looking upon him loved him," let us add something omitted there. 2 Chronicles 18:2: and persuaded him to go up to Ramoth-Gilead. Greek: where he loved him is put for "he persuaded him to go up with him to Ramoth in Gilead": and so the Complutensian Bible hath it. Where Nobilius, "He loved him, that is, did him all good offices, and shewed him tokens of great kindness." So Jesus, earnestly beholding this young man, persuaded him, encouraged him, used all mild and gentle words and actions towards him, that he might urge and stir him up to the ways of godliness.
26. Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
[And when he had dipped the sop.] This was a very unusual thing, to dip a sop and reach it to any one: and what could the rest of the disciples think of it? It is probable they took it as if Christ had said to Judas, "What thou doest, do quickly: do not stay till the supper be done and the tables withdrawn; but take this sop to make up your supper, and begone about the business you are to despatch." So they might apprehend the matter; only John, indeed, understood what it meant: unless perhaps Peter, being not ignorant of the question John asked our Saviour, might not be ignorant of what Christ answered him by that action.
27. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
[And after the sop, &c.] Satan knew well enough what Christ meant by it: for when he saw that by giving the sop Christ had declared which of them should betray him, the devil makes his entry. For as he had entered into the serpent that deceived the first Adam, so he knew the second Adam could not be betrayed but by one into whom he should first enter.
[That thou doest, do quickly.] I would take this expression for a tacit severe threatening pronounced, not without some scorn and indignation against him: q.d. "I know well enough what thou art contriving against me; what thou doest, therefore, do quickly: else thy own death may prevent thee, for thou hast but a very short time to live, thy own end draws on apace." So Psalm 109:8, "Let his days be few." And, indeed, within two days and three nights after this, Judas died.
30. He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
[Went immediately out: and it was night.] So the traitor goes forth to his work of darkness under the conduct of the devil, the shelter of the night. He was to go two miles, viz. from Bethany to Jerusalem; then was he to seek out and get the chief priests together, to make his bargain with them for betraying Christ. Whether he did all this this very night or the day following, as the holy Scripture saith nothing of it, so is it of no great moment for us to make a business of inquiring about it. It is not so difficult to shew how many difficulties they involve themselves in that would have all this done the very same night wherein the paschal supper was celebrated, as it is a wonder that the favourers of this opinion should take no notice thereof themselves.
33. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
[Little children.] "'Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me,' Isaiah 8:18. Were they indeed his sons, or were they not rather his disciples? Hence you may learn that any one's disciple is called his son." Nor is it unlikely but that Christ in calling his disciples here My little children might have an eye to that place in Isaiah: for when the traitor, the son of perdition, had removed himself from them, he could then properly enough say, "Behold, I and the children which thou hast given me."
38. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
[The cock shall not crow.] We must not understand this as if the cock should not crow at all before Peter had denied Christ thrice: this had not been true, because the cock had crowed twice before Peter had denied him. But we must understand it, The cock shall not have finished his crowing, &c. Nor indeed was that time above half over before Peter had denied his Master.
The Jewish doctors distinguished the cockcrowing into the first, second, and third. The first they call the cockcrowing. The second, when he repeats it. The third, when he does it a third time. The distinction also amongst other nations is not unknown. When the time indeed was near, and the very night wherein this was to happen, then Christ saith, This very night the cock shall not crow his second time, &c. But here, two days before this night, he only saith, The cock shall not crow, that is, shall not have done all his crowing, before thou deny me. And thus our Saviour meets with the arrogance of Peter, foretelling him that he should not have the courage he so confidently assumed to himself, but should within the time and space of cockcrowing deny him thrice.
John 14
1. Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
[Let not your heart be troubled.] They could not but be exceedingly concerned at the departure of their Master drawing on so very near. But there were other things beside his departure that grieved and perplexed their minds.
I. They had run along with their whole nation in that common expectation, that the kingdom should be restored unto Israel through the Messiah, Acts 1:8. They had hoped to have been rescued by him from the Gentile yoke, Luke 24:21. They had expected he would have entertained his followers with all imaginable pomp and magnificence, splendour and triumph, Matthew 20:20. But they found, alas! all things fall out directly contrary; they had got little hitherto by following him but poverty, contempt, reproach, and persecution: and now that their Master was to leave them so suddenly, they could have no prospect or hope of better things. Is this the kingdom of the Messiah?
Against this depression and despondency of mind he endeavours to comfort them, by letting them know that in his Father's house in heaven, not in these earthly regions below, their mansions were prepared for them; and there it was that he would receive and entertain them indeed.
II. Christ had introduced a new rule and face of religion, which his disciples embracing did in a great measure renounce their old Judaism; and therefore they could not but awaken the hatred of the Jews, and a great deal of danger to themselves, which now (they thought) would fall severely upon them when left to themselves, and their Master was snatched from them.
That was dreadful, if true, which we find denounced: "Epicurus" (that is, one that despises the disciples and doctrine of the wise men) "has no part in the world to come, and those that separate themselves from the customs of the synagogue go down into hell, and are there condemned for all eternity."
These are direful things, and might strangely affright the minds of the disciples, who had in so great a measure bid adieu to the customs of the synagogues and the whole Jewish religion: and for him that had led them into all this now to leave them! What could they think in this matter?
To support the disciples against discouragements of this nature:
I. He lays before them his authority, that they ought equally to believe in him as in God himself: where he lays down two of the chief articles of the Christian faith: 1. Of the divinity of the Messiah, which the Jews denied: 2. As to true and saving faith, wherein they were blind and ignorant.
II. He tells them that in his Father's house were many mansions; and that there was place and admission into heaven for all saints that had lived under different economies and administrations of things. Let not your heart be troubled for this great change brought upon the Judaic dispensation, nor let it disquiet you that you are putting yourselves under a new economy of religion so contrary to what you have been hitherto bred up in; for "in my Father's house are many mansions"; and you may expect admission under this new administration of things, as well as any others, either before or under the law.
2. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
[I go to prepare a place for you.] Compare this with Numbers 10:33; "And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them, to search out a resting place for them."
6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
[I am the way, the truth, and the life.] Why is this superadded of truth and the life, when the question was only about the way?
I. It may be answered that this was perhaps by a Hebrew idiosyncrasy; by which the way, the truth, and the life, may be the same with the true and living way.
Jeremiah 29:11: To give you an end and hope, or expectation: that is, a hoped or expected end. So Kimchi in loc.; "A good end even as you expect."
II. Our Saviour seems to refute that opinion of the Jews concerning their law, as if it were the way, the truth, and the life, and indeed every thing: and to assert his own authority and power of introducing a new rule of religion, because himself is the way, the truth, and the life, in a sense much more proper and more sublime than the law could be said to be.
It had been happier for the Jew if he could have discerned more judiciously concerning the law; if he could have distinguished between coming to God in the law and coming to God by the law: as also between living in the law and living by the law. It is beyond all doubt, there is no way of coming to God but in his law: for what outlaw, or one that still wanders out of the paths of God's commandments, can come unto him? So also it is impossible that any one should have life but in the law of God. For who is it can have life that doth not walk according to the rule of his laws? But to obtain admission to the favour of God by the law, and to have life by the law; that is, to be justified by the works of the law; this sounds quite another thing: for it is by Christ only that we live and are justified; by him alone that we have access to God.
These are the fictions of the Rabbins: "There was one shewed a certain Rabbin the place where Corah and his company were swallowed up, and, 'Listen,' saith he, 'what they say.' So they heard them saying, Moses and his law are the truth. Upon the calends of every month hell rolls them about, as flesh rolls in the caldron, hell still saying, Moses and his law are truth."
It is, indeed, a great truth, what is uttered in this most false and ridiculous legend, that "the law of Moses is truth." But the Jews might (if they would) attain to a much more sound way of judging concerning the truth of it, and consider that the law is not the sum and ultimate of all truth, but that Christ is the very truth of the truth of Moses: John 1:17, "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
[If ye had known me, &c.] It was a very difficult thing to spell out the knowledge of the Messiah from the law and the prophets under the first Temple; but it was doubly more difficult under the second. For, under the first Temple, Moses had only his own veil over him, and the prophets only their own proper and original obscurity: but under the second Temple, the obscurity is doubled by the darkness and smoke of traditions; which had not only beclouded the true doctrines of faith and religion, but had also brought in other doctrines diametrically contrary to the chief and principal articles of faith: those for instance concerning justification, the person, reign, and office of the Messiah, &c.
With what measures of darkness these mists of tradition had covered the minds of the apostles, it is both difficult, and might be presumptuous, to determine. They did indeed own Jesus for the true Messiah, John 1:41; Matthew 16:16: but if in some things they judged amiss concerning his office, undertaking, and government, we must put it upon the score of that epidemical distemper of the whole nation which they still did in some measure labour under. And to this may this clause have some reference, "If ye had known me, and had judged aright concerning the office, undertaking, and authority of the Messiah, ye would, in all these things which I teach and do, have known the will, command, and authority of the Father."
[And from henceforth ye know him.] We may render it, Henceforward therefore know him: "Henceforward acknowledge the Father in all that I have done, brought in, and am to introduce still, and set your hearts to rest in it: believing that you see the Father in me, and in the things that I do."
8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[Shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.] "When the law was given to Moses, the Israelites saw God in his glory: do thou, therefore, now that thou art bringing in a new law and economy amongst us, do thou shew us the Father, and his glory, and it will suffice us; so that we will have no more doubt about it."
16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
[He shall give you another Comforter.] I. Amongst all the names and titles given to the Messiah in the Jewish writers, that of Menahem, or the Comforter, hath chiefly obtained; and the days of the Messiah amongst them are styled the days of 'consolation.' The names of Messiah are reckoned up, viz. Shiloh, Jinnon, Chaninah, Menahem. And in Jerusalem Berac. we are told how the Messiah had been born in Bethlehem under the name of Menahem.
Luke 2:25; "Waiting for the consolation of Israel." Targumist upon Jeremiah 31:6: "Those that desire or long for the years of consolation to come." This they were wont to swear by, viz. the desire they had of seeing this consolation. So let me see the consolation.
Now, therefore, bring these words of our Saviour to what hath been said: q.d. "You expect, with the rest of this nation, the consolation in the Messiah and in his presence. Well; I must depart, and withdraw my presence from you; but I will send you in my stead 'another Comforter.'"
II. The minds of the disciples at present were greatly distressed and troubled, so that the promise of a Comforter seems more suitable than that of an Advocate, to their present state and circumstances.
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
[The Spirit of truth.] Let us but observe how the whole world at this time lay in falsehood and error: the Gentiles under a spirit of delusion; the Jews under the cheat and imposture of traditions: and then the reason of this title of the Spirit of truth will appear; as also how seasonable and necessary a thing it was that such a Spirit should be sent into the world.
26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
[He shall teach you all things.] So chapter 16:13: "He shall lead you into all truth." Here it might be very fitly inquired, whether any ever, besides the apostles themselves, were "taught all things," or "led into all truth." It is no question but that every believer is led into all truth necessary for himself and his own happiness; but it was the apostles' lot only to be led into all truth necessary both for themselves and the whole church.
30. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
[The prince of this world cometh.] Seeing this kind of phrase, the prince of this world, was, in the common acceptation of the Jewish nation, expressive of the devil ruling among the Gentiles, it may very well be understood so in these words; because the very moment of time was almost come about, wherein Christ and the devil were to enter the lists for the dominion and government, which of those two should have the rule over the Gentiles.
31. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
[Arise, let us go hence.] These words plainly set out the time and place wherein our Saviour had the discourse which is contained in this fourteenth chapter. The place was Bethany; the time, the very day of the Passover, when they were now about to walk to Jerusalem.
Those things which Christ had discoursed in chapter 13 were said two nights before the Passover; and that at Bethany, where Christ supped at the house of 'Simon the leper.' He abode there the day following, and the night after; and now, when the feast day was come, and it was time for them to be making towards Jerusalem to the Passover, he saith, Arise, let us go hence. What he did or said the day before the Passover, while he stayed at Bethany, the evangelist makes no mention. He only relates what was said in his last farewell before the paschal supper, and upon his departure from Bethany. All that we have recorded in chapters 15, 16, and 17, was discoursed to them after the paschal supper, and after that he had instituted the holy eucharist.
[Let not your heart be troubled.] They could not but be exceedingly concerned at the departure of their Master drawing on so very near. But there were other things beside his departure that grieved and perplexed their minds.
I. They had run along with their whole nation in that common expectation, that the kingdom should be restored unto Israel through the Messiah, Acts 1:8. They had hoped to have been rescued by him from the Gentile yoke, Luke 24:21. They had expected he would have entertained his followers with all imaginable pomp and magnificence, splendour and triumph, Matthew 20:20. But they found, alas! all things fall out directly contrary; they had got little hitherto by following him but poverty, contempt, reproach, and persecution: and now that their Master was to leave them so suddenly, they could have no prospect or hope of better things. Is this the kingdom of the Messiah?
Against this depression and despondency of mind he endeavours to comfort them, by letting them know that in his Father's house in heaven, not in these earthly regions below, their mansions were prepared for them; and there it was that he would receive and entertain them indeed.
II. Christ had introduced a new rule and face of religion, which his disciples embracing did in a great measure renounce their old Judaism; and therefore they could not but awaken the hatred of the Jews, and a great deal of danger to themselves, which now (they thought) would fall severely upon them when left to themselves, and their Master was snatched from them.
That was dreadful, if true, which we find denounced: "Epicurus" (that is, one that despises the disciples and doctrine of the wise men) "has no part in the world to come, and those that separate themselves from the customs of the synagogue go down into hell, and are there condemned for all eternity."
These are direful things, and might strangely affright the minds of the disciples, who had in so great a measure bid adieu to the customs of the synagogues and the whole Jewish religion: and for him that had led them into all this now to leave them! What could they think in this matter?
To support the disciples against discouragements of this nature:
I. He lays before them his authority, that they ought equally to believe in him as in God himself: where he lays down two of the chief articles of the Christian faith: 1. Of the divinity of the Messiah, which the Jews denied: 2. As to true and saving faith, wherein they were blind and ignorant.
II. He tells them that in his Father's house were many mansions; and that there was place and admission into heaven for all saints that had lived under different economies and administrations of things. Let not your heart be troubled for this great change brought upon the Judaic dispensation, nor let it disquiet you that you are putting yourselves under a new economy of religion so contrary to what you have been hitherto bred up in; for "in my Father's house are many mansions"; and you may expect admission under this new administration of things, as well as any others, either before or under the law.
2. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
[I go to prepare a place for you.] Compare this with Numbers 10:33; "And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them, to search out a resting place for them."
6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
[I am the way, the truth, and the life.] Why is this superadded of truth and the life, when the question was only about the way?
I. It may be answered that this was perhaps by a Hebrew idiosyncrasy; by which the way, the truth, and the life, may be the same with the true and living way.
Jeremiah 29:11: To give you an end and hope, or expectation: that is, a hoped or expected end. So Kimchi in loc.; "A good end even as you expect."
II. Our Saviour seems to refute that opinion of the Jews concerning their law, as if it were the way, the truth, and the life, and indeed every thing: and to assert his own authority and power of introducing a new rule of religion, because himself is the way, the truth, and the life, in a sense much more proper and more sublime than the law could be said to be.
It had been happier for the Jew if he could have discerned more judiciously concerning the law; if he could have distinguished between coming to God in the law and coming to God by the law: as also between living in the law and living by the law. It is beyond all doubt, there is no way of coming to God but in his law: for what outlaw, or one that still wanders out of the paths of God's commandments, can come unto him? So also it is impossible that any one should have life but in the law of God. For who is it can have life that doth not walk according to the rule of his laws? But to obtain admission to the favour of God by the law, and to have life by the law; that is, to be justified by the works of the law; this sounds quite another thing: for it is by Christ only that we live and are justified; by him alone that we have access to God.
These are the fictions of the Rabbins: "There was one shewed a certain Rabbin the place where Corah and his company were swallowed up, and, 'Listen,' saith he, 'what they say.' So they heard them saying, Moses and his law are the truth. Upon the calends of every month hell rolls them about, as flesh rolls in the caldron, hell still saying, Moses and his law are truth."
It is, indeed, a great truth, what is uttered in this most false and ridiculous legend, that "the law of Moses is truth." But the Jews might (if they would) attain to a much more sound way of judging concerning the truth of it, and consider that the law is not the sum and ultimate of all truth, but that Christ is the very truth of the truth of Moses: John 1:17, "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
[If ye had known me, &c.] It was a very difficult thing to spell out the knowledge of the Messiah from the law and the prophets under the first Temple; but it was doubly more difficult under the second. For, under the first Temple, Moses had only his own veil over him, and the prophets only their own proper and original obscurity: but under the second Temple, the obscurity is doubled by the darkness and smoke of traditions; which had not only beclouded the true doctrines of faith and religion, but had also brought in other doctrines diametrically contrary to the chief and principal articles of faith: those for instance concerning justification, the person, reign, and office of the Messiah, &c.
With what measures of darkness these mists of tradition had covered the minds of the apostles, it is both difficult, and might be presumptuous, to determine. They did indeed own Jesus for the true Messiah, John 1:41; Matthew 16:16: but if in some things they judged amiss concerning his office, undertaking, and government, we must put it upon the score of that epidemical distemper of the whole nation which they still did in some measure labour under. And to this may this clause have some reference, "If ye had known me, and had judged aright concerning the office, undertaking, and authority of the Messiah, ye would, in all these things which I teach and do, have known the will, command, and authority of the Father."
[And from henceforth ye know him.] We may render it, Henceforward therefore know him: "Henceforward acknowledge the Father in all that I have done, brought in, and am to introduce still, and set your hearts to rest in it: believing that you see the Father in me, and in the things that I do."
8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[Shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.] "When the law was given to Moses, the Israelites saw God in his glory: do thou, therefore, now that thou art bringing in a new law and economy amongst us, do thou shew us the Father, and his glory, and it will suffice us; so that we will have no more doubt about it."
16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
[He shall give you another Comforter.] I. Amongst all the names and titles given to the Messiah in the Jewish writers, that of Menahem, or the Comforter, hath chiefly obtained; and the days of the Messiah amongst them are styled the days of 'consolation.' The names of Messiah are reckoned up, viz. Shiloh, Jinnon, Chaninah, Menahem. And in Jerusalem Berac. we are told how the Messiah had been born in Bethlehem under the name of Menahem.
Luke 2:25; "Waiting for the consolation of Israel." Targumist upon Jeremiah 31:6: "Those that desire or long for the years of consolation to come." This they were wont to swear by, viz. the desire they had of seeing this consolation. So let me see the consolation.
Now, therefore, bring these words of our Saviour to what hath been said: q.d. "You expect, with the rest of this nation, the consolation in the Messiah and in his presence. Well; I must depart, and withdraw my presence from you; but I will send you in my stead 'another Comforter.'"
II. The minds of the disciples at present were greatly distressed and troubled, so that the promise of a Comforter seems more suitable than that of an Advocate, to their present state and circumstances.
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
[The Spirit of truth.] Let us but observe how the whole world at this time lay in falsehood and error: the Gentiles under a spirit of delusion; the Jews under the cheat and imposture of traditions: and then the reason of this title of the Spirit of truth will appear; as also how seasonable and necessary a thing it was that such a Spirit should be sent into the world.
26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
[He shall teach you all things.] So chapter 16:13: "He shall lead you into all truth." Here it might be very fitly inquired, whether any ever, besides the apostles themselves, were "taught all things," or "led into all truth." It is no question but that every believer is led into all truth necessary for himself and his own happiness; but it was the apostles' lot only to be led into all truth necessary both for themselves and the whole church.
30. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
[The prince of this world cometh.] Seeing this kind of phrase, the prince of this world, was, in the common acceptation of the Jewish nation, expressive of the devil ruling among the Gentiles, it may very well be understood so in these words; because the very moment of time was almost come about, wherein Christ and the devil were to enter the lists for the dominion and government, which of those two should have the rule over the Gentiles.
31. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
[Arise, let us go hence.] These words plainly set out the time and place wherein our Saviour had the discourse which is contained in this fourteenth chapter. The place was Bethany; the time, the very day of the Passover, when they were now about to walk to Jerusalem.
Those things which Christ had discoursed in chapter 13 were said two nights before the Passover; and that at Bethany, where Christ supped at the house of 'Simon the leper.' He abode there the day following, and the night after; and now, when the feast day was come, and it was time for them to be making towards Jerusalem to the Passover, he saith, Arise, let us go hence. What he did or said the day before the Passover, while he stayed at Bethany, the evangelist makes no mention. He only relates what was said in his last farewell before the paschal supper, and upon his departure from Bethany. All that we have recorded in chapters 15, 16, and 17, was discoursed to them after the paschal supper, and after that he had instituted the holy eucharist.
John 15
1. I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
[I am the true vine.] We may take these words in opposition to what is spoken concerning Israel. Israel is called a vine, Psalm 80:8; Isaiah 5:7; Jeremiah 2:21, &c. In Vajicra Rabba, the parallel is drawn between Israel and a vine; and the similitude is carried on to sixteen particulars, for the most part improper and unsuitable enough.
But that which is principally to be regarded in this place is this, that hitherto, indeed, Israel had been the vine, into which every one that would betake himself to the worship of the true God was to be set and grafted in. But from henceforward they were to be planted no more into the Jewish religion, but into the profession of Christ. To which that in Acts 11:26 hath some reference, where the disciples were first called 'Christians,' that is, no longer Jews or Israelites.
Our Saviour, as we have said before, discoursed these things immediately after that he had instituted the holy eucharist: while he was ordaining that holy sacrament he had said, "This is the new testament in my blood"; and from thence immediately adds, I am the true vine: so that for the future the church is to be under the administration of a new testament, and not, as the Jewish church, under that of the old; and from henceforward I am the true vine, into which all the branches of the church must be ingrafted, and not into the Israelitish vine any more.
3. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
[Now ye are clean.] Christ having discoursed of the vine and of the branches, these words seem to have an allusion to that law concerning the circumcision of the tree when first planted, Leviticus 19:23. For the first three years the fruit was to be accounted as uncircumcised, unclean, and not to be eaten; "But you, O my branches, now are clean through my word; that word which I have been preaching to you for these three years."
4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
[Abide in me.] Indeed, a true fixing and abiding in Christ is by a true faith. But may we not suppose our Saviour here more peculiarly warning them against apostasy, or falling back from the gospel into Judaism, a plague likely to rage exceedingly in the church?
6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
[As a branch.] See Ezekiel 15:2, where D. Kimchi paraphrases in this manner: "O Son of man, I do not ask thee concerning the vine that beareth fruit (for so it ought to be accounted), but concerning the branch which is amongst the trees of the wood, unfruitful, even as the trees themselves are." Where, by branch (for so it is commonly rendered), we are to understand the wild vine. So R. Solomon in loc.: "I do not speak (saith God) of the vine in the vineyard that bears fruit, but of the branch of the wild vine that grows in the woods." So that the sense of the prophet is, "O son of man, what is the vine tree more than any tree?" viz. a branch of the wild vine which grows amongst the trees of the forest, which is unfruitful, even as they are.
And this is our Saviour's meaning; "Every branch in me that bringeth not forth fruit is cast forth like the branch in the vine that grows wild in the forest, which is good for nothing but to be burned"...
12. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
[That ye love one another.] "Every sabbath they added that blessing towards that course of priests who, having performed their service the last week, were gone off. Let him who dwells in this house plant among you brotherhood, love, peace, and friendship."
Our Saviour once and again repeats that command, "Love one another": he calls it 'a new commandment,' chapter 13:34: for their traditions had in a great measure put that command of loving one another out of date; and that particularly by very impious vows they would be making. We have a little hint of it, Matthew 15:5, and more in the treatise Nedarim. See also Matthew 5:43, "Thou shalt hate thine enemy": this rule obtained in the Jewish schools. And upon that precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," let us see the mighty charitable Gloss in Chetubb. "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," that is, decree him to an easy death: namely, when he is adjudged by the Sanhedrim to die.
When you consider the frequent repetition of this precept, "Love one another," consider also that passage, Matthew 10:34, "I came not to send peace, but a sword": and then having reflected on those horrid seditions and mutual slaughters, wherewith the Jewish nation, raging with itself in most bloody discords and intestine broils, was, even by itself, wasted and overwhelmed, you will more clearly see the necessity and reasonableness of this command of loving one another, as also the great truth of that expression, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
15. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
[But I have called you friends, for all things, &c.] Thus is it said of Abraham the 'friend of God,' Genesis 18:17.
16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
[Ye have not chosen me.] For it was a custom amongst the Jews that the disciple should choose to himself his own master. "Joshua Ben Perachiah said, 'Choose to thyself a master, and get a colleague.'"
22. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.
[They had not had sin.] So also verse 24: in both places the passage is to be understood of that peculiar sin of rejecting the Messiah: "If I had not spoken to them, and done those things that made it demonstrably evident that I was the Messiah, they had not had sin, that is, they had not been guilty of this sin of rejecting me. But when I have done such things amongst them, it is but too plain that they do what they do in mere hatred to me and to my Father." Our Saviour explains what sin he here meaneth in chapter 16:9.
[I am the true vine.] We may take these words in opposition to what is spoken concerning Israel. Israel is called a vine, Psalm 80:8; Isaiah 5:7; Jeremiah 2:21, &c. In Vajicra Rabba, the parallel is drawn between Israel and a vine; and the similitude is carried on to sixteen particulars, for the most part improper and unsuitable enough.
But that which is principally to be regarded in this place is this, that hitherto, indeed, Israel had been the vine, into which every one that would betake himself to the worship of the true God was to be set and grafted in. But from henceforward they were to be planted no more into the Jewish religion, but into the profession of Christ. To which that in Acts 11:26 hath some reference, where the disciples were first called 'Christians,' that is, no longer Jews or Israelites.
Our Saviour, as we have said before, discoursed these things immediately after that he had instituted the holy eucharist: while he was ordaining that holy sacrament he had said, "This is the new testament in my blood"; and from thence immediately adds, I am the true vine: so that for the future the church is to be under the administration of a new testament, and not, as the Jewish church, under that of the old; and from henceforward I am the true vine, into which all the branches of the church must be ingrafted, and not into the Israelitish vine any more.
3. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
[Now ye are clean.] Christ having discoursed of the vine and of the branches, these words seem to have an allusion to that law concerning the circumcision of the tree when first planted, Leviticus 19:23. For the first three years the fruit was to be accounted as uncircumcised, unclean, and not to be eaten; "But you, O my branches, now are clean through my word; that word which I have been preaching to you for these three years."
4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
[Abide in me.] Indeed, a true fixing and abiding in Christ is by a true faith. But may we not suppose our Saviour here more peculiarly warning them against apostasy, or falling back from the gospel into Judaism, a plague likely to rage exceedingly in the church?
6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
[As a branch.] See Ezekiel 15:2, where D. Kimchi paraphrases in this manner: "O Son of man, I do not ask thee concerning the vine that beareth fruit (for so it ought to be accounted), but concerning the branch which is amongst the trees of the wood, unfruitful, even as the trees themselves are." Where, by branch (for so it is commonly rendered), we are to understand the wild vine. So R. Solomon in loc.: "I do not speak (saith God) of the vine in the vineyard that bears fruit, but of the branch of the wild vine that grows in the woods." So that the sense of the prophet is, "O son of man, what is the vine tree more than any tree?" viz. a branch of the wild vine which grows amongst the trees of the forest, which is unfruitful, even as they are.
And this is our Saviour's meaning; "Every branch in me that bringeth not forth fruit is cast forth like the branch in the vine that grows wild in the forest, which is good for nothing but to be burned"...
12. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
[That ye love one another.] "Every sabbath they added that blessing towards that course of priests who, having performed their service the last week, were gone off. Let him who dwells in this house plant among you brotherhood, love, peace, and friendship."
Our Saviour once and again repeats that command, "Love one another": he calls it 'a new commandment,' chapter 13:34: for their traditions had in a great measure put that command of loving one another out of date; and that particularly by very impious vows they would be making. We have a little hint of it, Matthew 15:5, and more in the treatise Nedarim. See also Matthew 5:43, "Thou shalt hate thine enemy": this rule obtained in the Jewish schools. And upon that precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," let us see the mighty charitable Gloss in Chetubb. "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," that is, decree him to an easy death: namely, when he is adjudged by the Sanhedrim to die.
When you consider the frequent repetition of this precept, "Love one another," consider also that passage, Matthew 10:34, "I came not to send peace, but a sword": and then having reflected on those horrid seditions and mutual slaughters, wherewith the Jewish nation, raging with itself in most bloody discords and intestine broils, was, even by itself, wasted and overwhelmed, you will more clearly see the necessity and reasonableness of this command of loving one another, as also the great truth of that expression, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
15. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
[But I have called you friends, for all things, &c.] Thus is it said of Abraham the 'friend of God,' Genesis 18:17.
16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
[Ye have not chosen me.] For it was a custom amongst the Jews that the disciple should choose to himself his own master. "Joshua Ben Perachiah said, 'Choose to thyself a master, and get a colleague.'"
22. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.
[They had not had sin.] So also verse 24: in both places the passage is to be understood of that peculiar sin of rejecting the Messiah: "If I had not spoken to them, and done those things that made it demonstrably evident that I was the Messiah, they had not had sin, that is, they had not been guilty of this sin of rejecting me. But when I have done such things amongst them, it is but too plain that they do what they do in mere hatred to me and to my Father." Our Saviour explains what sin he here meaneth in chapter 16:9.
John 16
2. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
[They shall put you out of the synagogues.] This, I presume, must be understood of a casting out from the whole congregation of Israel, because I know the Jews always proceeded in that manner against the Samaritans; and certainly the disciples of Jesus were full as hateful to them as the Samaritans could be. Nay, they often call the Christians by the name of Cuthites, as well as those.
Those that were cast out of the church they despoiled of all their goods, according to Ezra 10:8: which they also did to those that were shammatized. Whence it may be a question, whether shammatizing did not cast out of the whole congregation; and again, whether one cast out of the whole congregation might be ever readmitted.
We may take notice of what is said in Avodah Zarah. No one that relapseth may be received again for ever. The Gloss tells us that the passage concerns the plebeians or laics, who having taken upon themselves any religious rule of life, go back again from that profession: they do not admit them into that order and society again. Whether therefore those that fell off from the gospel, returning to their Judaism again, were ever admitted into the Jewish church after they had voluntarily forsaken it, might be an inquiry. But these things only by the by.
There was, in truth, a twofold epocha of the persecution of the apostolical church, namely, both before that apostasy of which we have such frequent mention, and also after it. Our Saviour had foretold the apostasy in that tremendous parable about the unclean spirit cast out, and returning again with seven worse. "So shall it be also (saith he) unto this wicked generation," Matthew 12:45. The footsteps of this we may discern almost in every epistle of the apostles.
It is worthy observation, that of 2 Thessalonians 2:3: "The day of the Lord shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed." The day of the Lord here spoken of was that wherein Christ should come and reveal himself in that remarkable vengeance against Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, of which kind of expression we shall say more on chapter 21:22. The 'apostasy' or 'falling away,' and revelation of 'the man of sin,' was to precede that day: which might be easily made out by a history of those times, if I were to do the business either of a historian or a chronologer.
When therefore the severe and cruel persecution was first raised by the unbelieving Jews before this falling away of Christians, it must needs be greatly increased afterward by them and the apostates together: which distinction we may easily observe out of this verse.
[Will think that he doeth God service.] So the zealots, of whom we have mention in Sanhedrim; the zealots kill him. Gloss: "These are those good men who are endued with zeal in the cause of God." Such who with their own hands immediately slew the transgressor, not staying for the judgment of the Sanhedrim. So in the place before quoted, "The priest that ministers at the altar in his uncleanness, they do not bring before the Sanhedrim; but they bring him out into the court, and there brain him with the pieces of wood" provided to maintain the fire upon the altar.
What infinite mischiefs and effusion of blood such pretexts of zeal towards God might occasion, it is easy to imagine, and very direful instances have already witnessed to the world. Hence was it that they so often went about to have stoned our Saviour. Hence those forty and more that had conspired against St. Paul. And those zealots whose butcherly cruelties are so infamous in the Jewish story took the occasion of their horrid madness first from this liberty.
From such kind of villains as these the disciples of Christ could have little safeguard: indeed, they were greatly endangered upon a threefold account: I. From the stroke of excommunication, by which they were spoiled of their goods and estates, Hebrews 10:34. II. From the sentence of the Sanhedrim, dooming them either to be scourged or slain. III. From these assassins; for by this name (a name too well known in Europe) we will call them. We pronounce assassin and assassination; Gul. Tyrius calls them assysins, whom it may be worth the while to consult about the original of that name.
8. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
[They shall put you out of the synagogues.] This, I presume, must be understood of a casting out from the whole congregation of Israel, because I know the Jews always proceeded in that manner against the Samaritans; and certainly the disciples of Jesus were full as hateful to them as the Samaritans could be. Nay, they often call the Christians by the name of Cuthites, as well as those.
Those that were cast out of the church they despoiled of all their goods, according to Ezra 10:8: which they also did to those that were shammatized. Whence it may be a question, whether shammatizing did not cast out of the whole congregation; and again, whether one cast out of the whole congregation might be ever readmitted.
We may take notice of what is said in Avodah Zarah. No one that relapseth may be received again for ever. The Gloss tells us that the passage concerns the plebeians or laics, who having taken upon themselves any religious rule of life, go back again from that profession: they do not admit them into that order and society again. Whether therefore those that fell off from the gospel, returning to their Judaism again, were ever admitted into the Jewish church after they had voluntarily forsaken it, might be an inquiry. But these things only by the by.
There was, in truth, a twofold epocha of the persecution of the apostolical church, namely, both before that apostasy of which we have such frequent mention, and also after it. Our Saviour had foretold the apostasy in that tremendous parable about the unclean spirit cast out, and returning again with seven worse. "So shall it be also (saith he) unto this wicked generation," Matthew 12:45. The footsteps of this we may discern almost in every epistle of the apostles.
It is worthy observation, that of 2 Thessalonians 2:3: "The day of the Lord shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed." The day of the Lord here spoken of was that wherein Christ should come and reveal himself in that remarkable vengeance against Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, of which kind of expression we shall say more on chapter 21:22. The 'apostasy' or 'falling away,' and revelation of 'the man of sin,' was to precede that day: which might be easily made out by a history of those times, if I were to do the business either of a historian or a chronologer.
When therefore the severe and cruel persecution was first raised by the unbelieving Jews before this falling away of Christians, it must needs be greatly increased afterward by them and the apostates together: which distinction we may easily observe out of this verse.
[Will think that he doeth God service.] So the zealots, of whom we have mention in Sanhedrim; the zealots kill him. Gloss: "These are those good men who are endued with zeal in the cause of God." Such who with their own hands immediately slew the transgressor, not staying for the judgment of the Sanhedrim. So in the place before quoted, "The priest that ministers at the altar in his uncleanness, they do not bring before the Sanhedrim; but they bring him out into the court, and there brain him with the pieces of wood" provided to maintain the fire upon the altar.
What infinite mischiefs and effusion of blood such pretexts of zeal towards God might occasion, it is easy to imagine, and very direful instances have already witnessed to the world. Hence was it that they so often went about to have stoned our Saviour. Hence those forty and more that had conspired against St. Paul. And those zealots whose butcherly cruelties are so infamous in the Jewish story took the occasion of their horrid madness first from this liberty.
From such kind of villains as these the disciples of Christ could have little safeguard: indeed, they were greatly endangered upon a threefold account: I. From the stroke of excommunication, by which they were spoiled of their goods and estates, Hebrews 10:34. II. From the sentence of the Sanhedrim, dooming them either to be scourged or slain. III. From these assassins; for by this name (a name too well known in Europe) we will call them. We pronounce assassin and assassination; Gul. Tyrius calls them assysins, whom it may be worth the while to consult about the original of that name.
8. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
[He will reprove the world of sin, &c.] The Holy Spirit had absented himself from that nation now for the space of four hundred years, or thereabout: and therefore, when he should be given and poured out in a way and in measures so very wonderful, he could not but evince it to the world that "Jesus was the true Messiah," the Son of God, who had so miraculously poured out the Holy Spirit amongst them; and consequently could not but reprove and redargue the world of sin, because they believed not in him.
10. Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
[Of righteousness, &c.] That this righteousness here mentioned is to be understood of the righteousness of Christ, hardly any but will readily enough grant: but the question is, what sort of righteousness of his is here meant? whether his personal and inherent, or his communicated and justifying righteousness? We may say that both may be meant here.
I. Because he went to the Father, it abundantly argued him a just and righteous person, held under no guilt at all, however condemned by men as a malefactor.
II. Because he poured out the Spirit, it argued the merit of his righteousness; for otherwise he could not, in that manner, have given the Holy Spirit. And, indeed, that what is chiefly meant here is that righteousness of his by which we are justified, this may persuade us, that so many and so great things are spoken concerning it in the Holy Scriptures. Isaiah 56:1, "My salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed": Daniel 9:29, "To bring in everlasting righteousness": Jeremiah 23:6, "This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness." And in the Epistles of the apostles, especially those of St. Paul, this righteousness is frequently and highly celebrated, seeming, indeed, the main and principal subject of the doctrines of the gospel.
In the stead of many others, let this serve for all; Romans 1:17, "For therein" [viz. in the gospel] "is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith": which words may be a good comment upon the foregoing clause.
I. The law teacheth faith; that is, that we believe in God. But the gospel directs us to proceed 'from faith to faith,' viz. from faith in God to faith in Christ: for true and saving faith is not a mere naked recumbency immediately upon God, which faith the Jews were wont to profess, but faith in God by the mediation of faith in Christ.
II. In the law the righteousness of God was revealed condemning, but in the gospel it was revealed justifying the sinner. And this is the great mystery of the gospel, that sinners are justified not only through the grace and mere compassion and mercy of God, but through divine justice and righteousness too, that is, through the righteousness of Christ, who is Jehovah, "the Lord our Righteousness."
And the Spirit of truth when he came did reprove and instruct the world concerning these two great articles of faith, wherein the Jews had so mischievously deceived themselves; that is, concerning true saving faith, faith in Christ; and also concerning the manner or formal cause of justification, viz. the righteousness of Christ.
But then, how can we form the argument? "I go unto the Father; therefore the world shall be convinced of my justifying righteousness."
I. Let us consider that the expression, "I go unto the Father," hath something more in it than "I go to heaven." So that by this kind of phrase our Saviour seems to hint, "That work being now finished, for the doing of which my Father sent me into the world, I am now returning to him again." Now the work which Christ had to do for the Father was various: the manifestation of the Father; preaching the gospel; vanquishing the enemies of God, sin, death, and the devil: but the main and chief of all, and upon which all the rest did depend, was, that he might perform a perfect obedience or obediential righteousness to God.
God had created man, that he might obey his Maker: which when he did not do, but being led away by the devil grew disobedient, where was the Creator's glory? The devil triumphs that the whole human race in Adam had kicked against God, proved a rebel, and warred under the banners of Satan. It was necessary, therefore, that Christ, clothing himself in the human nature, should come into the world and vindicate the glory of God, by performing an entire obedience due from mankind and worthy of his Maker. He did what weighed down for all the disobedience of all mankind, I may say, of the devil's too; for his obedience was infinite. He fulfilled a righteousness by which sinners might be justified, which answered that justice that would have condemned them; for the righteousness was infinite. This was the great business he had to do in this world, to pay such an obedience, and to fulfil such a righteousness; and this righteousness is the principal and noble theme and subject of the evangelical doctrine, Romans 1:17: of this the world must primarily and of necessity be convinced and instructed to the glory of him that justifieth, and the declaration of the true doctrine of justification. And this righteousness of his was abundantly evidenced by his going to the Father, because he could not have been received there, if he had not fully accomplished that work for which he had been sent.
II. It is added, not without reason, "and ye see me no more"; i.e. "Although you are my nearest and dearest friends, yet you shall no more enjoy my presence on earth; by which may be evinced, that you shall partake of my merits; especially when the world shall see you enriched so gloriously with the gifts of my Spirit."
11. Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
[Of judgment, because the prince, &c.] It is well known that the prince of this world was judged when our Saviour overcame him by the obedience of his death, Hebrews 2:14: and the first instance of that judgment and victory was when he arose from the dead: the next was when he loosed the Gentiles out of the chains and bondage of Satan by the gospel, and bound him himself, Revelation 20:1,2: which place will be a very good comment upon this passage.
And both do plainly enough evince that Christ will be capable of judging the whole world, viz. all those that believe not on him, when he hath already judged the prince of this world. This may call to mind the Jewish opinion concerning the judgment that should be exercised under the Messiah, that he should not judge Israel at all, but the Gentiles only; nay, that the Jews were themselves rather to judge the Gentiles, than that they were to be judged. But he that hath judged the prince of this world, the author of all unbelief, will also judge every unbeliever too.
12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
[Ye cannot bear them now.] Those things which he had to say, and they could not bear yet, were the institution of the Christian sabbath, and the abolishing of the Jewish (the reason and foundation of which, viz. his resurrection, they yet understood not); the rejection of the Jewish nation, when they expected 'that the kingdom should be restored to Israel,' Acts 1:6; the entire change of the whole Mosaic dispensation, and the bringing in of all nations in common within the pale of the church: these and such like things as these belonging to the kingdom of God, Acts 1:3, they could not yet bear. For though he had plainly enough discoursed to them the destruction of Jerusalem, Matthew 24, yet it is a question, whether they apprehended either that their whole nation must be utterly cast off, or that the rites of Moses should be antiquated, although he had hinted something of this nature to them more than once.
13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
[Whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.] And verse 14, he shall receive of mine. He speaks according to the dialect and custom of the nation, and so to the capacity of his auditors: If they have heard, they teach: it is spoken of a judge in the lower Sanhedrim consulting a higher court, first, that of the triumvir: and if they hear, they teach; if not, then he goes to the supreme court of all.
The latter clause, he shall receive of mine, seems taken from Isaiah 11:2. And it should seem he inclined rather to this sense, because he does not say, he shall receive of mine and give; but he shall receive and shew it unto you: by which the Jew would understand he shall receive of my doctrine, or from my instructions. For the Holy Spirit is sent as an instructor from the Son, as the Son is sent as a Redeemer from the Father.
16. A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
[And ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.] "A little while, and ye shall not see me, because I go to the Father; and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father"; i.e. "Ye shall not see me personally, but virtually." It is true, they did not see him when he lay in the grave; and they did see him when he rose again: but I question whether these words ought to be taken in this sense, because it would sound somewhat harshly here what is added, "Ye shall see me, because I go to the Father." I would therefore rather understand it of his ascending into heaven; after which they saw him, indeed, no more personally, but they did see him in the influences and gift of his Holy Spirit. And so what follows agrees well enough with this sense of the words, verse 23; "In that day ye shall ask me nothing" [as ye were now about to inquire of me, verse 19]: "ask the Father in my name; and he shall reveal to you whatever you shall ask of him."
24. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
[Hitherto have ye asked noting in my name.] Understand this clause of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and then all things will be easy. All the faithful did pray in the name of the Messiah; and these disciples, acknowledging Jesus to be the Messiah, did pray in the name of Jesus the Messiah. But hitherto they had asked nothing extraordinary in his name: not the power of working miracles; not the revelation of mysteries and of future things; not the spirit of prophecy, &c.: for it was not necessary for them, as yet, to ask these things in his name whilst he was present with them, who could dispense it to them according to their instant necessities; but for the future, when himself should be gone from them, whatsoever they should ask the Father in his name, he would give it them. That prayer of the apostle's, Acts 4:29,30, is a good comment upon these words: "Ask such things as these in my name; and whatsoever you ask you shall receive, that your joy may be full, when you shall find by experience that I am still present with you when gone from you."
Those things which both here and elsewhere in the discourses of our Saviour might give occasion for scholastical discussion, I leave wholly to the schools, omitting many passages about which a great deal might be said, because they have been already the labours of other pens. It was my design and undertaking only to note some things which were not obvious, and which others had not yet taken notice of; and not forgetting the title of this little work, I have the more sparingly run out into scholastic or theological disputes.
10. Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
[Of righteousness, &c.] That this righteousness here mentioned is to be understood of the righteousness of Christ, hardly any but will readily enough grant: but the question is, what sort of righteousness of his is here meant? whether his personal and inherent, or his communicated and justifying righteousness? We may say that both may be meant here.
I. Because he went to the Father, it abundantly argued him a just and righteous person, held under no guilt at all, however condemned by men as a malefactor.
II. Because he poured out the Spirit, it argued the merit of his righteousness; for otherwise he could not, in that manner, have given the Holy Spirit. And, indeed, that what is chiefly meant here is that righteousness of his by which we are justified, this may persuade us, that so many and so great things are spoken concerning it in the Holy Scriptures. Isaiah 56:1, "My salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed": Daniel 9:29, "To bring in everlasting righteousness": Jeremiah 23:6, "This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness." And in the Epistles of the apostles, especially those of St. Paul, this righteousness is frequently and highly celebrated, seeming, indeed, the main and principal subject of the doctrines of the gospel.
In the stead of many others, let this serve for all; Romans 1:17, "For therein" [viz. in the gospel] "is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith": which words may be a good comment upon the foregoing clause.
I. The law teacheth faith; that is, that we believe in God. But the gospel directs us to proceed 'from faith to faith,' viz. from faith in God to faith in Christ: for true and saving faith is not a mere naked recumbency immediately upon God, which faith the Jews were wont to profess, but faith in God by the mediation of faith in Christ.
II. In the law the righteousness of God was revealed condemning, but in the gospel it was revealed justifying the sinner. And this is the great mystery of the gospel, that sinners are justified not only through the grace and mere compassion and mercy of God, but through divine justice and righteousness too, that is, through the righteousness of Christ, who is Jehovah, "the Lord our Righteousness."
And the Spirit of truth when he came did reprove and instruct the world concerning these two great articles of faith, wherein the Jews had so mischievously deceived themselves; that is, concerning true saving faith, faith in Christ; and also concerning the manner or formal cause of justification, viz. the righteousness of Christ.
But then, how can we form the argument? "I go unto the Father; therefore the world shall be convinced of my justifying righteousness."
I. Let us consider that the expression, "I go unto the Father," hath something more in it than "I go to heaven." So that by this kind of phrase our Saviour seems to hint, "That work being now finished, for the doing of which my Father sent me into the world, I am now returning to him again." Now the work which Christ had to do for the Father was various: the manifestation of the Father; preaching the gospel; vanquishing the enemies of God, sin, death, and the devil: but the main and chief of all, and upon which all the rest did depend, was, that he might perform a perfect obedience or obediential righteousness to God.
God had created man, that he might obey his Maker: which when he did not do, but being led away by the devil grew disobedient, where was the Creator's glory? The devil triumphs that the whole human race in Adam had kicked against God, proved a rebel, and warred under the banners of Satan. It was necessary, therefore, that Christ, clothing himself in the human nature, should come into the world and vindicate the glory of God, by performing an entire obedience due from mankind and worthy of his Maker. He did what weighed down for all the disobedience of all mankind, I may say, of the devil's too; for his obedience was infinite. He fulfilled a righteousness by which sinners might be justified, which answered that justice that would have condemned them; for the righteousness was infinite. This was the great business he had to do in this world, to pay such an obedience, and to fulfil such a righteousness; and this righteousness is the principal and noble theme and subject of the evangelical doctrine, Romans 1:17: of this the world must primarily and of necessity be convinced and instructed to the glory of him that justifieth, and the declaration of the true doctrine of justification. And this righteousness of his was abundantly evidenced by his going to the Father, because he could not have been received there, if he had not fully accomplished that work for which he had been sent.
II. It is added, not without reason, "and ye see me no more"; i.e. "Although you are my nearest and dearest friends, yet you shall no more enjoy my presence on earth; by which may be evinced, that you shall partake of my merits; especially when the world shall see you enriched so gloriously with the gifts of my Spirit."
11. Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
[Of judgment, because the prince, &c.] It is well known that the prince of this world was judged when our Saviour overcame him by the obedience of his death, Hebrews 2:14: and the first instance of that judgment and victory was when he arose from the dead: the next was when he loosed the Gentiles out of the chains and bondage of Satan by the gospel, and bound him himself, Revelation 20:1,2: which place will be a very good comment upon this passage.
And both do plainly enough evince that Christ will be capable of judging the whole world, viz. all those that believe not on him, when he hath already judged the prince of this world. This may call to mind the Jewish opinion concerning the judgment that should be exercised under the Messiah, that he should not judge Israel at all, but the Gentiles only; nay, that the Jews were themselves rather to judge the Gentiles, than that they were to be judged. But he that hath judged the prince of this world, the author of all unbelief, will also judge every unbeliever too.
12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
[Ye cannot bear them now.] Those things which he had to say, and they could not bear yet, were the institution of the Christian sabbath, and the abolishing of the Jewish (the reason and foundation of which, viz. his resurrection, they yet understood not); the rejection of the Jewish nation, when they expected 'that the kingdom should be restored to Israel,' Acts 1:6; the entire change of the whole Mosaic dispensation, and the bringing in of all nations in common within the pale of the church: these and such like things as these belonging to the kingdom of God, Acts 1:3, they could not yet bear. For though he had plainly enough discoursed to them the destruction of Jerusalem, Matthew 24, yet it is a question, whether they apprehended either that their whole nation must be utterly cast off, or that the rites of Moses should be antiquated, although he had hinted something of this nature to them more than once.
13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
[Whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.] And verse 14, he shall receive of mine. He speaks according to the dialect and custom of the nation, and so to the capacity of his auditors: If they have heard, they teach: it is spoken of a judge in the lower Sanhedrim consulting a higher court, first, that of the triumvir: and if they hear, they teach; if not, then he goes to the supreme court of all.
The latter clause, he shall receive of mine, seems taken from Isaiah 11:2. And it should seem he inclined rather to this sense, because he does not say, he shall receive of mine and give; but he shall receive and shew it unto you: by which the Jew would understand he shall receive of my doctrine, or from my instructions. For the Holy Spirit is sent as an instructor from the Son, as the Son is sent as a Redeemer from the Father.
16. A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
[And ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.] "A little while, and ye shall not see me, because I go to the Father; and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father"; i.e. "Ye shall not see me personally, but virtually." It is true, they did not see him when he lay in the grave; and they did see him when he rose again: but I question whether these words ought to be taken in this sense, because it would sound somewhat harshly here what is added, "Ye shall see me, because I go to the Father." I would therefore rather understand it of his ascending into heaven; after which they saw him, indeed, no more personally, but they did see him in the influences and gift of his Holy Spirit. And so what follows agrees well enough with this sense of the words, verse 23; "In that day ye shall ask me nothing" [as ye were now about to inquire of me, verse 19]: "ask the Father in my name; and he shall reveal to you whatever you shall ask of him."
24. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
[Hitherto have ye asked noting in my name.] Understand this clause of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and then all things will be easy. All the faithful did pray in the name of the Messiah; and these disciples, acknowledging Jesus to be the Messiah, did pray in the name of Jesus the Messiah. But hitherto they had asked nothing extraordinary in his name: not the power of working miracles; not the revelation of mysteries and of future things; not the spirit of prophecy, &c.: for it was not necessary for them, as yet, to ask these things in his name whilst he was present with them, who could dispense it to them according to their instant necessities; but for the future, when himself should be gone from them, whatsoever they should ask the Father in his name, he would give it them. That prayer of the apostle's, Acts 4:29,30, is a good comment upon these words: "Ask such things as these in my name; and whatsoever you ask you shall receive, that your joy may be full, when you shall find by experience that I am still present with you when gone from you."
Those things which both here and elsewhere in the discourses of our Saviour might give occasion for scholastical discussion, I leave wholly to the schools, omitting many passages about which a great deal might be said, because they have been already the labours of other pens. It was my design and undertaking only to note some things which were not obvious, and which others had not yet taken notice of; and not forgetting the title of this little work, I have the more sparingly run out into scholastic or theological disputes.
John 18
1. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
[Over the brook Cedron.] There is a question among expositors about the article in the plural number, and the accent in Cedron; and that upon this occasion, that it might not be thought as if any relation were to be had here to Cedars, wherein one hath been deceived when he thus comments upon it: "It is called the brook Cedron, that is, of Cedars, that grow there." So also the Arab. Interp. in this place, over the brook of Cedar. But in 2 Samuel 15:23, and 1 Kings 2:37, he retains the word Cedron.
Amongst the Talmudists, kedar signifies dung: where the Gloss renders kedar by the easing of nature. Aruch renders it by dung: and the sense of that clause is, More die of inconvenient easing nature than of hunger. I would not affirm that the word kedar was used in this sense in the primitive denomination of the brook Kidron; but rather that the brook was called so from blackness; the waters being blackened by the mud and dirt that ran into it; it being, indeed, rather the sink or common sewer of the city than a brook.
But when the word kedar was used for dung, which it might be at that time when the Greek version was made, perhaps those interpreters might translate the Hebrew word into Greek, which is not unusual with them; so that the brook Cedron might be the same with them as the brook of filth.
[Where was a garden.] The grandees of the nation had their gardens and places of pleasure about the city, yea, even in the mount of Olives: for there were none within the city itself. "The blood that was over and above, after the sprinkling of the inward altar, was poured out towards the foundation on the west of the outward altar. And the blood that was over and above at the outward altar was poured out at the foot of it on the south side: and both the one and the other meeting together ran down through a conveyance under ground into the brook Kidron; and was sold to the gardeners to dung their gardens with; which having bought they used for that purpose."
For the blood, having been once dedicated to sacred use, might not be put to any common use without trespass; so that the gardeners paid so much money for it as would purchase a trespass offering.
3. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
[With lanterns and torches.] Out of Succah; "They danced" [that is, in the feast of Tabernacles], "holding in their hand burning torches." The Gloss is: "They threw up their torches into the air, and caught them again in their hands; and some there were so great artists in this exercise, they could do it, some with four, others with eight torches at once, throwing up one and catching another."
10. Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
[Malchus.] A name very much in use amongst the Jews; Malluch, Nehemiah 10:4,27: Malchus the Arabian. This was also the name of that implacable enemy to Christianity Porphyrius, and of his father before him. So Luke Holsteine in the Life of Porphyrius, where he reckons up more of that name.
Christ had struck those to the ground that came to apprehend him, by the power of his word, that he might thereby provide for the flight of his disciples, and shew his own divine power. They, getting up again, accost him; Judas kisseth him; they lay hands upon him; and then Peter draws his sword, &c.
13. And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
[To Annas first.] For "Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas," as also the sagan of the priests, Luke 3:2: Targum in 2 Kings 23:4. Now sagan was the same with the prefect or ruler, which we have so frequent mention of amongst the Rabbins.
The 'ruler' saith unto them. Gloss: The 'ruler' is the 'sagan.' 'Sagan' is the same with 'ruler.'
There is frequent mention amongst the Talmudists, of R. Ananias, the sagan of the priests. He was destroyed, with Rabban Simeon and Ismael, at the siege of Jerusalem. But I am apt to think he was that sharp and unjust judge that St. Paul had to do with, Acts 23, rather than our Annas in this place.
Why they should carry our Saviour, when they had taken him, before Annas the sagan, sooner than to Caiaphas the high priest, the evangelist gives us one reason, viz. "because he was father-in-law to Caiaphas"; under which another reason may be deduced, viz. that he was the older man, of greater experience and skill in the law: for there were sometimes some high priests that were very unlearned fellows, as may be gathered from that supposition in Joma; "If the high priest be a wise man, he expounds; if not, they expound to him. If he be accustomed to reading, he reads himself; if not, they read before him."
But for the sagan of the priests, it was very necessary he should be a man of learning, because his charge was about the things and service of the Temple, and was bound to be always assistant and present there, when the high priest was seldom there, or conversed in those affairs.
Juchasin and Aruch; No one could by right be promoted to the high priesthood, unless he had first been sagan. A good cautelous provision indeed, that so in the time of their saganship they might gain experience in the laws and rituals, and might be the better fitted for the high priest's chair. But when it came to that pass, that persons were made high priests for their money, and not for their deserts, it might easily happen that very unlearned wretches might sometimes possess that seat. And perhaps Caiaphas himself was of this stamp.
It seems therefore that they led Jesus to Annas first, that Caiaphas might be directed by his counsel; and, himself being but little versed in things of this nature, might proceed in this affair by the steerage of his father-in-law. And let this high priest pardon me if I ascribe that sentence of his, "It is expedient that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish," not to his prudence and gravity, but to his rashness and cruelty; although the Holy Spirit directed it to its proper end, which the high priest himself did not dream of.
There might be another reason why they led Christ before Annas first, but that I shall speak of anon.
[Which was the high priest that same year.] If the Gloss which I had upon these very same words, chapter 11:51, will not so well fit here as they did there, we may add this also, which will suit well enough in both places; that is, that there was so great a vicissitude and change in the high priesthood, there being a new high priest almost every year, that it was not unnecessary to set down this particular circumstance, Caiaphas was high priest for that year.
"In the second Temple, which stood but four hundred and twenty years, there were more than three hundred high priests within that time. Of these four hundred and twenty years, deduct those forty wherein Simeon the Just ministered, and those eighty wherein Jochanan sat, and those ten wherein Ismael Ben Phabi, and (as it is said) those eleven wherein Eleazar Ben Harsom governed; and then reckon, and you will find that hardly any other high priest sat out his whole year."
But this number of high priests is very much lessened in Vajicra Rabba: "under the first Temple, because they that served therein served in the truth, there were but eighteen high priests, the father, the son, and grandson successively. But under the second Temple, when that honour came to be obtained by money [there are also that say how they murdered one another by charms and witchcrafts], there were fourscore high priests served in that time: fourscore and one, say some; fourscore and two, say others; and there are that say fourscore and four. Amongst these, Simeon the Just sat forty years: but when the place was bought and sold, the years of enjoying it were cut short. The story goes of one that sent his son with two bushels of silver [to purchase the high priest's office], and the bushels themselves were silver. Another sent his son with two bushels of gold, and the bushels themselves were of gold too."
As to this difference of numbers, we will not much trouble our heads about it: perhaps the Gemarists might reckon the sagans together with the high priests, for they were indeed deputed to minister in their stead, if any uncleanness had happened to them. Let there be fourscore high priests, or thereabouts, it is certain that so frequent were the changes and successions amongst them, that the high priest of this year was hardly so the year that went before or that followed after. Although indeed in this Caiaphas it was something otherwise, yet did the evangelist justly and properly enough add this clause, that he was the high priest that same year; tacitly noting the common state of affairs as to the office of high priest at that time.
15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
[And Simon Peter followed Jesus, &c.] There are some that apprehend in this place some interruption in the order of the story: they would therefore have the twenty-fourth verse weaved in here, "Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas": because what is here related and so on seems all to have been done in Caiaphas' hall, and not in Annas'.
This order the Syr., Arab., Vulg. interpreters, and others do still observe: Nonnus, [Dionysius] Carthusianus, Beza, and, as he quotes him, St. Cyril, invert it. It is true there is here a tacit transition, and a trajection of the words in verse 24, which is not very usual; but neither the one nor the other seems to be without some reason for it.
I. It is told us, Matthew 26:56, and Mark 14:50, that "all the disciples forsook him, and fled." So that probably 'Peter and that other disciple' was amongst the number when it is said they all fled. The transition of our evangelist therefore seems to teach us that neither 'Peter nor the other disciple' followed Christ to Annas' house; but being surprised and confounded with a very great fear, hid themselves for a while; and (not till after some time) recollecting themselves, they put forward amongst the crowd to Caiaphas' hall, or else came thither after them.
II. Annas alone could determine nothing judicially concerning Christ: for when an inquiry must be made concerning his disciples, and the nature of his doctrines, when witnesses must be produced pro and con, this necessarily required a session of the Sanhedrim. He sent him therefore to Caiaphas, where the Sanhedrim also was; and the evangelist lets the mention of that alone till he came to relate their way of proceeding.
But why, or by what right, should Annas be absent from the Sanhedrim? Could there be any right or legal proceeding in the great council, if the whole number of seventy-one elders were not complete? Let Maimonides give the answer: "It is not necessary that the whole bench of seventy-one should all sit together in their places in the Temple; but when it is necessary for them all to meet, let them be called together. But at other times, if any one of them have any business of his own, he may go out and do his affairs and return again. This provision is made, that there might never be fewer than twenty-three sitting together during the whole session. If any have occasion to go forth, let him look about him and see if there be twenty-three of his colleagues in the court, then he may go out; if not, he must stay till some other enter." We give another reason of Annas' absence by and by.
[That disciple was known unto the high priest.] Nonnus supposes that other disciple known to the high priest, from his fishing trade. Others guess other reasons; but to determine any thing in this matter would look rashly. However this knowledge of the high priest came about, it is certain this disciple had the greater opportunity to have stood in the defence of his Master as a witness in his behalf. For,
"Capital judgments begin always on the defendant's side, and not on the accuser's. It is lawful for all to plead on the defendant's side, not so on the accuser's."
"They begin on the defendant's side. One of the witnesses saith, I have something to say in his defence. If any of his disciples say, 'I have wherewith to accuse him,' they enjoin him silence. If the disciple say, 'I can offer something in his defence,' they call him up and place him among themselves, and suffer him not to go down thence the whole day after."
Did they thus proceed with our Saviour? did they endeavour first for the clearing his innocency? and were there any witnesses produced for this purpose? If so, then here were 'Peter and that other disciple,' who could have witnessed in his behalf: but Peter denies that he ever knew him.
18. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
[For it was cold.] It was the very dead of night, almost at cockcrowing. Our countryman Biddulph, who was at Jerusalem at the very time when they were wont to celebrate the Passover, gives us the reason of this cold by his own experience. He acknowledgeth indeed that he found it so hot at that time as we usually feel it in our own country about midsummer, that he could not but wonder how Peter, at that time of the year, should be so cold. But within a few days his doubt was resolved, for there were mighty dews fell, which not being wholly dried up by the sun made it very cold, especially in the night, &c.
[Over the brook Cedron.] There is a question among expositors about the article in the plural number, and the accent in Cedron; and that upon this occasion, that it might not be thought as if any relation were to be had here to Cedars, wherein one hath been deceived when he thus comments upon it: "It is called the brook Cedron, that is, of Cedars, that grow there." So also the Arab. Interp. in this place, over the brook of Cedar. But in 2 Samuel 15:23, and 1 Kings 2:37, he retains the word Cedron.
Amongst the Talmudists, kedar signifies dung: where the Gloss renders kedar by the easing of nature. Aruch renders it by dung: and the sense of that clause is, More die of inconvenient easing nature than of hunger. I would not affirm that the word kedar was used in this sense in the primitive denomination of the brook Kidron; but rather that the brook was called so from blackness; the waters being blackened by the mud and dirt that ran into it; it being, indeed, rather the sink or common sewer of the city than a brook.
But when the word kedar was used for dung, which it might be at that time when the Greek version was made, perhaps those interpreters might translate the Hebrew word into Greek, which is not unusual with them; so that the brook Cedron might be the same with them as the brook of filth.
[Where was a garden.] The grandees of the nation had their gardens and places of pleasure about the city, yea, even in the mount of Olives: for there were none within the city itself. "The blood that was over and above, after the sprinkling of the inward altar, was poured out towards the foundation on the west of the outward altar. And the blood that was over and above at the outward altar was poured out at the foot of it on the south side: and both the one and the other meeting together ran down through a conveyance under ground into the brook Kidron; and was sold to the gardeners to dung their gardens with; which having bought they used for that purpose."
For the blood, having been once dedicated to sacred use, might not be put to any common use without trespass; so that the gardeners paid so much money for it as would purchase a trespass offering.
3. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
[With lanterns and torches.] Out of Succah; "They danced" [that is, in the feast of Tabernacles], "holding in their hand burning torches." The Gloss is: "They threw up their torches into the air, and caught them again in their hands; and some there were so great artists in this exercise, they could do it, some with four, others with eight torches at once, throwing up one and catching another."
10. Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
[Malchus.] A name very much in use amongst the Jews; Malluch, Nehemiah 10:4,27: Malchus the Arabian. This was also the name of that implacable enemy to Christianity Porphyrius, and of his father before him. So Luke Holsteine in the Life of Porphyrius, where he reckons up more of that name.
Christ had struck those to the ground that came to apprehend him, by the power of his word, that he might thereby provide for the flight of his disciples, and shew his own divine power. They, getting up again, accost him; Judas kisseth him; they lay hands upon him; and then Peter draws his sword, &c.
13. And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
[To Annas first.] For "Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas," as also the sagan of the priests, Luke 3:2: Targum in 2 Kings 23:4. Now sagan was the same with the prefect or ruler, which we have so frequent mention of amongst the Rabbins.
The 'ruler' saith unto them. Gloss: The 'ruler' is the 'sagan.' 'Sagan' is the same with 'ruler.'
There is frequent mention amongst the Talmudists, of R. Ananias, the sagan of the priests. He was destroyed, with Rabban Simeon and Ismael, at the siege of Jerusalem. But I am apt to think he was that sharp and unjust judge that St. Paul had to do with, Acts 23, rather than our Annas in this place.
Why they should carry our Saviour, when they had taken him, before Annas the sagan, sooner than to Caiaphas the high priest, the evangelist gives us one reason, viz. "because he was father-in-law to Caiaphas"; under which another reason may be deduced, viz. that he was the older man, of greater experience and skill in the law: for there were sometimes some high priests that were very unlearned fellows, as may be gathered from that supposition in Joma; "If the high priest be a wise man, he expounds; if not, they expound to him. If he be accustomed to reading, he reads himself; if not, they read before him."
But for the sagan of the priests, it was very necessary he should be a man of learning, because his charge was about the things and service of the Temple, and was bound to be always assistant and present there, when the high priest was seldom there, or conversed in those affairs.
Juchasin and Aruch; No one could by right be promoted to the high priesthood, unless he had first been sagan. A good cautelous provision indeed, that so in the time of their saganship they might gain experience in the laws and rituals, and might be the better fitted for the high priest's chair. But when it came to that pass, that persons were made high priests for their money, and not for their deserts, it might easily happen that very unlearned wretches might sometimes possess that seat. And perhaps Caiaphas himself was of this stamp.
It seems therefore that they led Jesus to Annas first, that Caiaphas might be directed by his counsel; and, himself being but little versed in things of this nature, might proceed in this affair by the steerage of his father-in-law. And let this high priest pardon me if I ascribe that sentence of his, "It is expedient that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish," not to his prudence and gravity, but to his rashness and cruelty; although the Holy Spirit directed it to its proper end, which the high priest himself did not dream of.
There might be another reason why they led Christ before Annas first, but that I shall speak of anon.
[Which was the high priest that same year.] If the Gloss which I had upon these very same words, chapter 11:51, will not so well fit here as they did there, we may add this also, which will suit well enough in both places; that is, that there was so great a vicissitude and change in the high priesthood, there being a new high priest almost every year, that it was not unnecessary to set down this particular circumstance, Caiaphas was high priest for that year.
"In the second Temple, which stood but four hundred and twenty years, there were more than three hundred high priests within that time. Of these four hundred and twenty years, deduct those forty wherein Simeon the Just ministered, and those eighty wherein Jochanan sat, and those ten wherein Ismael Ben Phabi, and (as it is said) those eleven wherein Eleazar Ben Harsom governed; and then reckon, and you will find that hardly any other high priest sat out his whole year."
But this number of high priests is very much lessened in Vajicra Rabba: "under the first Temple, because they that served therein served in the truth, there were but eighteen high priests, the father, the son, and grandson successively. But under the second Temple, when that honour came to be obtained by money [there are also that say how they murdered one another by charms and witchcrafts], there were fourscore high priests served in that time: fourscore and one, say some; fourscore and two, say others; and there are that say fourscore and four. Amongst these, Simeon the Just sat forty years: but when the place was bought and sold, the years of enjoying it were cut short. The story goes of one that sent his son with two bushels of silver [to purchase the high priest's office], and the bushels themselves were silver. Another sent his son with two bushels of gold, and the bushels themselves were of gold too."
As to this difference of numbers, we will not much trouble our heads about it: perhaps the Gemarists might reckon the sagans together with the high priests, for they were indeed deputed to minister in their stead, if any uncleanness had happened to them. Let there be fourscore high priests, or thereabouts, it is certain that so frequent were the changes and successions amongst them, that the high priest of this year was hardly so the year that went before or that followed after. Although indeed in this Caiaphas it was something otherwise, yet did the evangelist justly and properly enough add this clause, that he was the high priest that same year; tacitly noting the common state of affairs as to the office of high priest at that time.
15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
[And Simon Peter followed Jesus, &c.] There are some that apprehend in this place some interruption in the order of the story: they would therefore have the twenty-fourth verse weaved in here, "Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas": because what is here related and so on seems all to have been done in Caiaphas' hall, and not in Annas'.
This order the Syr., Arab., Vulg. interpreters, and others do still observe: Nonnus, [Dionysius] Carthusianus, Beza, and, as he quotes him, St. Cyril, invert it. It is true there is here a tacit transition, and a trajection of the words in verse 24, which is not very usual; but neither the one nor the other seems to be without some reason for it.
I. It is told us, Matthew 26:56, and Mark 14:50, that "all the disciples forsook him, and fled." So that probably 'Peter and that other disciple' was amongst the number when it is said they all fled. The transition of our evangelist therefore seems to teach us that neither 'Peter nor the other disciple' followed Christ to Annas' house; but being surprised and confounded with a very great fear, hid themselves for a while; and (not till after some time) recollecting themselves, they put forward amongst the crowd to Caiaphas' hall, or else came thither after them.
II. Annas alone could determine nothing judicially concerning Christ: for when an inquiry must be made concerning his disciples, and the nature of his doctrines, when witnesses must be produced pro and con, this necessarily required a session of the Sanhedrim. He sent him therefore to Caiaphas, where the Sanhedrim also was; and the evangelist lets the mention of that alone till he came to relate their way of proceeding.
But why, or by what right, should Annas be absent from the Sanhedrim? Could there be any right or legal proceeding in the great council, if the whole number of seventy-one elders were not complete? Let Maimonides give the answer: "It is not necessary that the whole bench of seventy-one should all sit together in their places in the Temple; but when it is necessary for them all to meet, let them be called together. But at other times, if any one of them have any business of his own, he may go out and do his affairs and return again. This provision is made, that there might never be fewer than twenty-three sitting together during the whole session. If any have occasion to go forth, let him look about him and see if there be twenty-three of his colleagues in the court, then he may go out; if not, he must stay till some other enter." We give another reason of Annas' absence by and by.
[That disciple was known unto the high priest.] Nonnus supposes that other disciple known to the high priest, from his fishing trade. Others guess other reasons; but to determine any thing in this matter would look rashly. However this knowledge of the high priest came about, it is certain this disciple had the greater opportunity to have stood in the defence of his Master as a witness in his behalf. For,
"Capital judgments begin always on the defendant's side, and not on the accuser's. It is lawful for all to plead on the defendant's side, not so on the accuser's."
"They begin on the defendant's side. One of the witnesses saith, I have something to say in his defence. If any of his disciples say, 'I have wherewith to accuse him,' they enjoin him silence. If the disciple say, 'I can offer something in his defence,' they call him up and place him among themselves, and suffer him not to go down thence the whole day after."
Did they thus proceed with our Saviour? did they endeavour first for the clearing his innocency? and were there any witnesses produced for this purpose? If so, then here were 'Peter and that other disciple,' who could have witnessed in his behalf: but Peter denies that he ever knew him.
18. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
[For it was cold.] It was the very dead of night, almost at cockcrowing. Our countryman Biddulph, who was at Jerusalem at the very time when they were wont to celebrate the Passover, gives us the reason of this cold by his own experience. He acknowledgeth indeed that he found it so hot at that time as we usually feel it in our own country about midsummer, that he could not but wonder how Peter, at that time of the year, should be so cold. But within a few days his doubt was resolved, for there were mighty dews fell, which not being wholly dried up by the sun made it very cold, especially in the night, &c.
Nay, the traditional fathers suppose there may be frost and snow in the time of Passover, by that canon of theirs: "They do not intercalate the year either for snow or for frost."
The intercalation of the year respected chiefly the Paschal solemnity; namely, that by the interposing of the intercalated month all things might be ripe and fit for that feast. If when it came to the month Nisan the barley was not yet ripe enough to offer the sheaf of the first fruits, then they put a month between, which they called the second Adar. So if the ways were so bad that people could not travel up to Jerusalem, if the bridges were so broken that they could not pass the rivers, they intercalated or put a month between, that at the coming in of the month Nisan every thing might be ready that was requisite for the Paschal solemnity. But if frost or snow should happen when Nisan was entering in its ordinary course, they did not put a month between upon that account. From whence it is plain that frost and snow did sometimes happen at that time.
21. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
[Ask them which heard me.] Does not Jesus here appeal to the common right and rule amongst themselves? viz. that the witnesses in behalf of the defendant might be heard first. But who, alas! was there that durst witness for him? It is said, indeed, that "the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against him," Matthew 26:59. But did they seek any true witness for him? or did they indeed deal with the witnesses against him as their customs obliged them to have done? did they search their testimony by a strict and severe examination? did they terrify them, or by grave exhortations admonish them to say nothing but the truth? This by right ought to have been done: but we have reason to suppose it was not done.
28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
[But that they might eat the Passover.] I. We have already shewn, in our notes upon Mark 14:12, that the eating of the Paschal lamb was never, upon any occasion whatever, transferred from the evening of the fourteenth day, drawing to the close of it; no, not by reason of the sabbath, or any uncleanness that had happened to the congregation; so that there needs little argument to assure us that the Jews ate the lamb at the same time wherein Christ did...
II. The Passover, therefore here doth not signify the Paschal lamb, but the Paschal Chagigah: of which we will remark these two or three things:
1. Deuteronomy 16:2, "Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd." Where R. Solomon; "The flocks are meant of the lambs and the kids; the herd of the Chagigah." And R. Bechai in locum: "The flocks are for the due of the Passover; the herd, for the sacrifices of the Chagigah." So also R. Nachmanid: "The herd, for the celebration of the 'Chagigah.'" Pesachin: The flock for the Passover, the oxen for the Chagigah.
Where the Gloss, p. 1: "Doth not the Passover consist wholly of lambs and kids? Exodus 12:5. If so, why is it said oxen? To equal every thing that is used in the Passover. As the Passover [i.e. the Paschal lamb ] is of due, and is not taken but out of the common flocks," neither from the first-born nor from the tenths]; "so this also [i.e. of the oxen] is of due, and not taken but out of the common herd." See 2 Chronicles 30:24, &c., and 35:8,9.
2. The Chagigah was for joy and mirth, according to that in Deuteronomy 16:14, "And thou shalt rejoice in the feast," &c. Hence the sacrifices that were prepared for that use are called sacrifices of peace or eucharistic offerings, sacrifices of joy and mirth.
3. The proper time of bringing the Chagigah was the fifteenth day of the month. Aruch: "They ate, and drank, and rejoiced, and were bound to bring their sacrifice of Chagigah on the fifteenth day"; i.e. the first day of the feast, &c.
There might be a time, indeed, when they brought their Chagigah on the fourteenth day; but this was not so usual; and then it was under certain conditions. "When is it that they bring the Chagigah at the same time with the lamb? When it comes on another day in the week, and not on the sabbath; when it is clean, and when it is small." Let the Gloss explain the last clause; and for the two former, we shall do that ourselves.
"If the lamb be less than what will satisfy the whole company, then they make ready their Chagigah, eating that first, and then the lamb," &c. And the reason is given by another Glosser; viz. that the appetites of those that eat might be pretty well satisfied before they begin the lamb: for if they should fall upon the lamb first, it being so very small, and the company numerous and hungry, they would be in danger of breaking the bones, whiles they gnaw it so greedily.
For this and other reasons the Rabbins account the Chagigah of the fourteenth day to be many degrees less perfect than that of the fifteenth; but it would be very tedious to quote their ventilations about it. Take only these few instances:
"R. Issai saith, 'The Chagigah on the fourteenth day is not our duty.'" And a little after: "R. Eliezer saith, 'By the peace offerings which they slay on the evening of the feast, a man doth not his duty, either as to rejoicing, or as to Chagigah.'"
And now let us return to the words of our evangelist.
III. It was the fifteenth day of the month when the fathers of the council refused to enter into the praetorium, lest they should be defiled; for they would eat the Passover, that is, the Chagigah.
1. The evangelist expresseth it after the common way of speaking, when he calls it the Passover. "It is written, Observe the month of Abib: and keep the Passover: that all that you do may go under the denomination of the Passover." The calf and the young bullock which they kill in the name of the Passover, or for the Passover. Whence we may observe, the calf is the Passover as well as the lamb.
2. The elders of the Sanhedrim prepare and oblige themselves to eat the Chagigah [the Passover] on that day, because the next day was the sabbath; and the Chagigah must not make void the sabbath.
The Chagigah doth not set aside the sabbath. Hence that we quoted before, that the Chagigah was not to be brought upon the sabbath day, as also not in case of uncleanness: because however the Chagigah and defilement might set aside the Passover, yet it might not the sabbath.
31. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
[It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.] Doth Pilate jest or deride them, when he bids them "take him, and judge him according to their own law?" It cannot be denied but that all capital judgment, or sentence upon life, had been taken from the Jews for above forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as they oftentimes themselves confess. But how came this to pass? It is commonly received, that the Romans, at this time the Jews' lords and masters, had taken from all their courts a power and capacity of judging the capital matters. We have spoken largely upon this subject in our notes upon Matthew 26:3. Let us superadd a few things here:
"Rabh Cahna saith, When R. Ismael Bar Jose lay sick, they sent to him saying, 'Pray, sir, tell us two or three things which thou didst once tell us in the name of thy father.' He saith to them, 'A hundred and fourscore years before the destruction of the Temple, the wicked kingdom' [the Rome empire] reigned over Israel. Fourscore years before the destruction of the Temple, they" [the fathers of the Sanhedrim] "determined about the uncleanness of the heathen land, and about glass vessels. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrim removed and sat in the Tabernae. What is the meaning of this tradition? Rabh Isaac Bar Abdimi saith, 'They did not judge judgments of mulcts.'" The Gloss is: "Those are the judgments about finding any that offered violence, that entice a maid, and the price of a servant. When, therefore, they did not sit in the room Gazith, they did not judge about these things; and so those judgments about mulcts or fines ceased."
Here we have one part of their judiciary power lost, not taken away from them by the Romans, but falling of itself, as it were, out of the hands of the Sanhedrim. Nor did the Romans indeed take away their power of judging in capital matters, but they, by their own oscitancy, supine and unreasonable lenity, lost it themselves. For so the Gemara goes on:
"Rabh Nachman Bar Isaac saith, 'Let him not say that they did not judge judgments of mulcts, but that they did not judge capital judgments. And whence comes this? When they saw that so many murderers multiplied upon them, that they could not well judge and call them to account, they said, It is better for us that we remove from place to place, for how can we otherwise" [sitting here and not punishing them] "not contract a guilt upon ourselves?'"
They thought themselves obliged to punish murderers while they sat in the room Gazith: for the place itself engaged them to it. They are the words of the Gemarists. Upon which the Gloss: "The room Gazith was half of it within and half of it without the Holy Place. The reason of which was, that it was requisite that the council should sit near the Divine Majesty. Hence it is that they say, 'Whoever constitutes an unfit judge, is as if he planted a grove by the altar of the Lord: as it is written, Judges and officers shalt thou make thee': and it follows presently after, 'Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God,' Deuteronomy 16:18,21. They removed therefore from Gazith, and sat in the Tabernae. Now though the Tabernae were upon the Mountain of the Temple, yet they did not sit so near the Divine Majesty there as they did when they sat in the room Gazith."
Let us now, in order, put the whole matter together:
I. The Sanhedrim were most stupidly and unreasonably remiss in their punishment of capital offenders, going upon this reason especially, that they accounted it so horrible a thing to sentence an Israelite to death. Forsooth, he is of the seed of Abraham, of the blood and stock of Israel; and you must have a care how you touch such a one!
"R. Eliezer Bar R. Simeon had laid hold on some thieves. R. Joshua Bar Korchah sent to him, saying, 'O thou vinegar, the son of good wine'" [i.e. O thou wicked son of a good father], "'how long wilt thou deliver the people of God to the slaughter?' He answered and said, 'I root the thorns out of the vineyard.' To whom the other, 'Let the Lord of the vineyard come and root them out himself.'" It is worth nothing that the very thieves of Israel are the people of God: and O! they must not be touched by any means, but referred to the judgment of God himself.
"When R. Ismael Bar R. Jose was constituted a magistrate by the king, there happened some such thing to him; for Elias himself rebuked him, saying, 'How long wilt thou deliver over the people of God to slaughter?'" Hence that which we alleged elsewhere: "The Sanhedrim that happens to sentence any one to death within the space of seven years is called 'a destroyer.' R. Eleazar Ben Azariah saith, 'It is so, if they should but condemn one within seventy years.'"
II. It is obvious to any one, how this foolish remissness and letting loose the reins of judgment would soon increase the number of robbers, murderers, and all kind of wickedness: and, indeed, they did so abundantly multiply, that the Sanhedrim neither could nor durst, as it ought, call the criminals to account. The laws slept while wickedness was in the height of its revels; and punitive justice was so out of countenance, that, as to uncertain murders, they made no search; and certain ones they framed no judgment against.
"Since the time that homicides multiplied, the beheading the heifer ceased." And in the place before quoted in Avodah; "When they saw the number of murderers so greatly increase, that they could not sit in judgment upon them, they said, 'Let us remove,'" &c.
So in the case of adultery, which we also observed in our notes upon chapter 8. "Since the time that adultery so openly advanced under the second Temple, they let off trying the adulteress by the bitter water," &c.
So that we see the liberty of judging in capital matters was no more taken from the Jews by the Romans than the beheading of the heifer or the trial of the suspected wife by the bitter waters was taken away by them; which no one will affirm. But rather,
III. When the Sanhedrim saw that it was in vain to struggle against the mighty torrent and inundation of all manner of wickedness, that played rex and encroached so fast upon them, and that the interposure of their authority could do nothing in suppressing them, they being incapable of passing judgment as they ought, they determine not to sit in judgment at all. And whereas they thought themselves bound by the majesty and awfulness of the place, while they sat in the room Gazith [in the very Court of Israel before the altar], to judge according to the sacredness of the place, but could not indeed do it by reason of the daring pride and resolution of the criminals, they threw themselves out of that apartment, and went further off into the place where the exchangers' shops were kept in the Court of the Gentiles, and so to other places, which we find mentioned in Rosh hashanah.
IV. It is disputed whether they ever returned to their first place Gazith, or no. It is affirmed by the Gloss in Avodah Zarah: "When for a time they found it absolutely necessary, they betook themselves again to that room." We have the same also elsewhere upon this tradition:
"It is a tradition of R. Chaia. From the day wherein the Temple was destroyed, though the Sanhedrim ceased, yet the four kinds of death" [which were wont to be inflicted by the Sanhedrim] "did not cease. For he that had deserved to be stoned to death, he either fell off from some house, or some wild beast tore and devoured him. He that had deserved burning, he either fell into some fire or some serpent bit him. He that had deserved to be slain: [i.e. with the sword], was either delivered into the hands of a heathen king, or was murdered by robbers. He that had deserved strangling was either drowned in some river, or choked by a squinancy [angina]."
But it may be objected, Why is it said, "From the time that the Temple was destroyed," and not, "forty years before the destruction of the Temple?" To this the Gloss answereth: "Sometimes, according to the urgency and necessity of the time, the Sanhedrim returned to the room Gazith," &c. It is further excepted "But they never returned to sit in capital causes, or to try murders. For the reason of their removal at first was because the numbers of homicides so increased upon them," &c.
V. When the great council did not sit in Gazith, all courts for capital matters ceased everywhere else. One Gloss saith thus: "They took no cognizance of capital matters in any of the lesser sessions, so long as the great Sanhedrim did not sit in the room Gazith." Another saith; "What time the great Sanhedrim sat in its proper place, where it ought, near the altar, then thou shalt make thee judges in all thy gates, to judge in capital causes: but when that removed, then all cognizance about those matters ceased."
VI. The Sanhedrim removed, as we have already seen, from Gazith, forty years before Jerusalem was destroyed: and this is the very thing that was said, "Forty years before the destruction of the city, judgment in capital causes was taken away from them." And now let the reader judge what should be the reason of their being deprived of this privilege: whether the Romans were in fault; or whether rather the Jews, nay, the Sanhedrim itself, had not brought it upon themselves. When the Sanhedrim flitted from Gazith: all judgment of this kind vanished, and upon what reasons they did thus flit we have learned from their own pens.
We will not contend about the time when these forty years should first begin: though I am apt to think they might begin about half a year before Christ's death. The words which we have under consideration, spoken by the Sanhedrim to Pilate, seem to refer wholly to the reason we have already mentioned: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." Why is it not lawful? Because, being forced by the necessity of the times, we retired from the room Gazith, where if we sit not, neither we ourselves nor any court under us can take any cognizance of causes of life and death.
But what necessity of times could urge you to remove? So greatly did the criminals multiply, and grew to such a head, that we neither could not durst animadvert upon them, according to what the majesty of the place might expect and require from us if we should sit in Gazith.
That must be observed in the evangelists, that when they had had Christ in examination in the palace of the high priest all night, in the morning the whole Sanhedrim met, that they might pass sentence of death upon him. Where then was this that they met? Questionless in the room Gazith; at least if they adhered to their own rules and constitutions: "Thither they betook themselves sometimes upon urgent necessity." The Gloss before quoted excepts "only the case of murder"; which, amongst all their false accusations, they never charged Christ with.
But however suppose it were granted that the great council met either in the Tabernae or some other place, (which yet by no means agreed with their own tradition,) did they deal truly, and as the matter really and indeed was, with Pilate, when they tell him, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death?" He had saith to them, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." We have indeed judged and condemned him, but we cannot put any one to death. Was this that they said in fact true? How came they then to stone the protomartyr Stephen? How came they to stone Ben Satda at Lydda? How came they to burn the priest's daughter alive that was taken in adultery?
It is probable they had not put any one to death as yet, since the time that they had removed out of Gazith; and so might the easilier persuade Pilate in that case. But their great design was to throw off the odium of Christ's death from themselves, at least amongst the vulgar crowd, fearing them, if the council themselves should have decreed his execution. They seek this evasion, therefore, which did not altogether want some colour and pretext of truth: and it succeeded according to what they did desire; Divine Providence so ordering it, as the evangelist intimates, verse 32, "That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die": that is, be crucified, according to the custom of the Romans.
Whilst I am upon this thought, I cannot but reflect upon that passage, than which nothing is more worthy observation, in the whole description of the Roman beast in the Revelation, chapter 13:4: "The dragon which gave power unto the beast." We cannot say this of the Assyrian, Babylonish, or any other monarchy; for the Holy Scriptures do not say it. But reason dictates, and the event itself tells us, that there was something acted by the Roman empire in behalf of the dragon which was not compatible with any other, that is, the putting of the Son of God to death. Which thing we must remember, as often as we recite that article of our creed, "He suffered under Pontius Pilate"; that is, was put to death by the Roman empire.
38. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
[What is truth?] Christ had said, "For this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth": q.d. "I will not deny but that I am a king, as thou hast said; for for this end I came, that I should bear witness to the truth, whatever hazards I should run upon that account." Upon this Pilate asks him, What is truth? that is, "What is the true state of this affair? that thou, who art so poor a wretch, shouldst call thyself a king, and at the same time that thou callest thyself a king, yet sayest thy kingdom is not of this world? Where lies the true sense and meaning of this riddle?"
But supposing when Christ said, he came "that he should bear witness to the truth," he meant in general the gospel; then Pilate asks him, What is that truth? However, the evangelist mentions nothing, either whether our Saviour gave him any answer to that question, or whether indeed Pilate stayed in expectation of any answer from him.
The intercalation of the year respected chiefly the Paschal solemnity; namely, that by the interposing of the intercalated month all things might be ripe and fit for that feast. If when it came to the month Nisan the barley was not yet ripe enough to offer the sheaf of the first fruits, then they put a month between, which they called the second Adar. So if the ways were so bad that people could not travel up to Jerusalem, if the bridges were so broken that they could not pass the rivers, they intercalated or put a month between, that at the coming in of the month Nisan every thing might be ready that was requisite for the Paschal solemnity. But if frost or snow should happen when Nisan was entering in its ordinary course, they did not put a month between upon that account. From whence it is plain that frost and snow did sometimes happen at that time.
21. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
[Ask them which heard me.] Does not Jesus here appeal to the common right and rule amongst themselves? viz. that the witnesses in behalf of the defendant might be heard first. But who, alas! was there that durst witness for him? It is said, indeed, that "the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against him," Matthew 26:59. But did they seek any true witness for him? or did they indeed deal with the witnesses against him as their customs obliged them to have done? did they search their testimony by a strict and severe examination? did they terrify them, or by grave exhortations admonish them to say nothing but the truth? This by right ought to have been done: but we have reason to suppose it was not done.
28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
[But that they might eat the Passover.] I. We have already shewn, in our notes upon Mark 14:12, that the eating of the Paschal lamb was never, upon any occasion whatever, transferred from the evening of the fourteenth day, drawing to the close of it; no, not by reason of the sabbath, or any uncleanness that had happened to the congregation; so that there needs little argument to assure us that the Jews ate the lamb at the same time wherein Christ did...
II. The Passover, therefore here doth not signify the Paschal lamb, but the Paschal Chagigah: of which we will remark these two or three things:
1. Deuteronomy 16:2, "Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd." Where R. Solomon; "The flocks are meant of the lambs and the kids; the herd of the Chagigah." And R. Bechai in locum: "The flocks are for the due of the Passover; the herd, for the sacrifices of the Chagigah." So also R. Nachmanid: "The herd, for the celebration of the 'Chagigah.'" Pesachin: The flock for the Passover, the oxen for the Chagigah.
Where the Gloss, p. 1: "Doth not the Passover consist wholly of lambs and kids? Exodus 12:5. If so, why is it said oxen? To equal every thing that is used in the Passover. As the Passover [i.e. the Paschal lamb ] is of due, and is not taken but out of the common flocks," neither from the first-born nor from the tenths]; "so this also [i.e. of the oxen] is of due, and not taken but out of the common herd." See 2 Chronicles 30:24, &c., and 35:8,9.
2. The Chagigah was for joy and mirth, according to that in Deuteronomy 16:14, "And thou shalt rejoice in the feast," &c. Hence the sacrifices that were prepared for that use are called sacrifices of peace or eucharistic offerings, sacrifices of joy and mirth.
3. The proper time of bringing the Chagigah was the fifteenth day of the month. Aruch: "They ate, and drank, and rejoiced, and were bound to bring their sacrifice of Chagigah on the fifteenth day"; i.e. the first day of the feast, &c.
There might be a time, indeed, when they brought their Chagigah on the fourteenth day; but this was not so usual; and then it was under certain conditions. "When is it that they bring the Chagigah at the same time with the lamb? When it comes on another day in the week, and not on the sabbath; when it is clean, and when it is small." Let the Gloss explain the last clause; and for the two former, we shall do that ourselves.
"If the lamb be less than what will satisfy the whole company, then they make ready their Chagigah, eating that first, and then the lamb," &c. And the reason is given by another Glosser; viz. that the appetites of those that eat might be pretty well satisfied before they begin the lamb: for if they should fall upon the lamb first, it being so very small, and the company numerous and hungry, they would be in danger of breaking the bones, whiles they gnaw it so greedily.
For this and other reasons the Rabbins account the Chagigah of the fourteenth day to be many degrees less perfect than that of the fifteenth; but it would be very tedious to quote their ventilations about it. Take only these few instances:
"R. Issai saith, 'The Chagigah on the fourteenth day is not our duty.'" And a little after: "R. Eliezer saith, 'By the peace offerings which they slay on the evening of the feast, a man doth not his duty, either as to rejoicing, or as to Chagigah.'"
And now let us return to the words of our evangelist.
III. It was the fifteenth day of the month when the fathers of the council refused to enter into the praetorium, lest they should be defiled; for they would eat the Passover, that is, the Chagigah.
1. The evangelist expresseth it after the common way of speaking, when he calls it the Passover. "It is written, Observe the month of Abib: and keep the Passover: that all that you do may go under the denomination of the Passover." The calf and the young bullock which they kill in the name of the Passover, or for the Passover. Whence we may observe, the calf is the Passover as well as the lamb.
2. The elders of the Sanhedrim prepare and oblige themselves to eat the Chagigah [the Passover] on that day, because the next day was the sabbath; and the Chagigah must not make void the sabbath.
The Chagigah doth not set aside the sabbath. Hence that we quoted before, that the Chagigah was not to be brought upon the sabbath day, as also not in case of uncleanness: because however the Chagigah and defilement might set aside the Passover, yet it might not the sabbath.
31. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
[It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.] Doth Pilate jest or deride them, when he bids them "take him, and judge him according to their own law?" It cannot be denied but that all capital judgment, or sentence upon life, had been taken from the Jews for above forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as they oftentimes themselves confess. But how came this to pass? It is commonly received, that the Romans, at this time the Jews' lords and masters, had taken from all their courts a power and capacity of judging the capital matters. We have spoken largely upon this subject in our notes upon Matthew 26:3. Let us superadd a few things here:
"Rabh Cahna saith, When R. Ismael Bar Jose lay sick, they sent to him saying, 'Pray, sir, tell us two or three things which thou didst once tell us in the name of thy father.' He saith to them, 'A hundred and fourscore years before the destruction of the Temple, the wicked kingdom' [the Rome empire] reigned over Israel. Fourscore years before the destruction of the Temple, they" [the fathers of the Sanhedrim] "determined about the uncleanness of the heathen land, and about glass vessels. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrim removed and sat in the Tabernae. What is the meaning of this tradition? Rabh Isaac Bar Abdimi saith, 'They did not judge judgments of mulcts.'" The Gloss is: "Those are the judgments about finding any that offered violence, that entice a maid, and the price of a servant. When, therefore, they did not sit in the room Gazith, they did not judge about these things; and so those judgments about mulcts or fines ceased."
Here we have one part of their judiciary power lost, not taken away from them by the Romans, but falling of itself, as it were, out of the hands of the Sanhedrim. Nor did the Romans indeed take away their power of judging in capital matters, but they, by their own oscitancy, supine and unreasonable lenity, lost it themselves. For so the Gemara goes on:
"Rabh Nachman Bar Isaac saith, 'Let him not say that they did not judge judgments of mulcts, but that they did not judge capital judgments. And whence comes this? When they saw that so many murderers multiplied upon them, that they could not well judge and call them to account, they said, It is better for us that we remove from place to place, for how can we otherwise" [sitting here and not punishing them] "not contract a guilt upon ourselves?'"
They thought themselves obliged to punish murderers while they sat in the room Gazith: for the place itself engaged them to it. They are the words of the Gemarists. Upon which the Gloss: "The room Gazith was half of it within and half of it without the Holy Place. The reason of which was, that it was requisite that the council should sit near the Divine Majesty. Hence it is that they say, 'Whoever constitutes an unfit judge, is as if he planted a grove by the altar of the Lord: as it is written, Judges and officers shalt thou make thee': and it follows presently after, 'Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God,' Deuteronomy 16:18,21. They removed therefore from Gazith, and sat in the Tabernae. Now though the Tabernae were upon the Mountain of the Temple, yet they did not sit so near the Divine Majesty there as they did when they sat in the room Gazith."
Let us now, in order, put the whole matter together:
I. The Sanhedrim were most stupidly and unreasonably remiss in their punishment of capital offenders, going upon this reason especially, that they accounted it so horrible a thing to sentence an Israelite to death. Forsooth, he is of the seed of Abraham, of the blood and stock of Israel; and you must have a care how you touch such a one!
"R. Eliezer Bar R. Simeon had laid hold on some thieves. R. Joshua Bar Korchah sent to him, saying, 'O thou vinegar, the son of good wine'" [i.e. O thou wicked son of a good father], "'how long wilt thou deliver the people of God to the slaughter?' He answered and said, 'I root the thorns out of the vineyard.' To whom the other, 'Let the Lord of the vineyard come and root them out himself.'" It is worth nothing that the very thieves of Israel are the people of God: and O! they must not be touched by any means, but referred to the judgment of God himself.
"When R. Ismael Bar R. Jose was constituted a magistrate by the king, there happened some such thing to him; for Elias himself rebuked him, saying, 'How long wilt thou deliver over the people of God to slaughter?'" Hence that which we alleged elsewhere: "The Sanhedrim that happens to sentence any one to death within the space of seven years is called 'a destroyer.' R. Eleazar Ben Azariah saith, 'It is so, if they should but condemn one within seventy years.'"
II. It is obvious to any one, how this foolish remissness and letting loose the reins of judgment would soon increase the number of robbers, murderers, and all kind of wickedness: and, indeed, they did so abundantly multiply, that the Sanhedrim neither could nor durst, as it ought, call the criminals to account. The laws slept while wickedness was in the height of its revels; and punitive justice was so out of countenance, that, as to uncertain murders, they made no search; and certain ones they framed no judgment against.
"Since the time that homicides multiplied, the beheading the heifer ceased." And in the place before quoted in Avodah; "When they saw the number of murderers so greatly increase, that they could not sit in judgment upon them, they said, 'Let us remove,'" &c.
So in the case of adultery, which we also observed in our notes upon chapter 8. "Since the time that adultery so openly advanced under the second Temple, they let off trying the adulteress by the bitter water," &c.
So that we see the liberty of judging in capital matters was no more taken from the Jews by the Romans than the beheading of the heifer or the trial of the suspected wife by the bitter waters was taken away by them; which no one will affirm. But rather,
III. When the Sanhedrim saw that it was in vain to struggle against the mighty torrent and inundation of all manner of wickedness, that played rex and encroached so fast upon them, and that the interposure of their authority could do nothing in suppressing them, they being incapable of passing judgment as they ought, they determine not to sit in judgment at all. And whereas they thought themselves bound by the majesty and awfulness of the place, while they sat in the room Gazith [in the very Court of Israel before the altar], to judge according to the sacredness of the place, but could not indeed do it by reason of the daring pride and resolution of the criminals, they threw themselves out of that apartment, and went further off into the place where the exchangers' shops were kept in the Court of the Gentiles, and so to other places, which we find mentioned in Rosh hashanah.
IV. It is disputed whether they ever returned to their first place Gazith, or no. It is affirmed by the Gloss in Avodah Zarah: "When for a time they found it absolutely necessary, they betook themselves again to that room." We have the same also elsewhere upon this tradition:
"It is a tradition of R. Chaia. From the day wherein the Temple was destroyed, though the Sanhedrim ceased, yet the four kinds of death" [which were wont to be inflicted by the Sanhedrim] "did not cease. For he that had deserved to be stoned to death, he either fell off from some house, or some wild beast tore and devoured him. He that had deserved burning, he either fell into some fire or some serpent bit him. He that had deserved to be slain: [i.e. with the sword], was either delivered into the hands of a heathen king, or was murdered by robbers. He that had deserved strangling was either drowned in some river, or choked by a squinancy [angina]."
But it may be objected, Why is it said, "From the time that the Temple was destroyed," and not, "forty years before the destruction of the Temple?" To this the Gloss answereth: "Sometimes, according to the urgency and necessity of the time, the Sanhedrim returned to the room Gazith," &c. It is further excepted "But they never returned to sit in capital causes, or to try murders. For the reason of their removal at first was because the numbers of homicides so increased upon them," &c.
V. When the great council did not sit in Gazith, all courts for capital matters ceased everywhere else. One Gloss saith thus: "They took no cognizance of capital matters in any of the lesser sessions, so long as the great Sanhedrim did not sit in the room Gazith." Another saith; "What time the great Sanhedrim sat in its proper place, where it ought, near the altar, then thou shalt make thee judges in all thy gates, to judge in capital causes: but when that removed, then all cognizance about those matters ceased."
VI. The Sanhedrim removed, as we have already seen, from Gazith, forty years before Jerusalem was destroyed: and this is the very thing that was said, "Forty years before the destruction of the city, judgment in capital causes was taken away from them." And now let the reader judge what should be the reason of their being deprived of this privilege: whether the Romans were in fault; or whether rather the Jews, nay, the Sanhedrim itself, had not brought it upon themselves. When the Sanhedrim flitted from Gazith: all judgment of this kind vanished, and upon what reasons they did thus flit we have learned from their own pens.
We will not contend about the time when these forty years should first begin: though I am apt to think they might begin about half a year before Christ's death. The words which we have under consideration, spoken by the Sanhedrim to Pilate, seem to refer wholly to the reason we have already mentioned: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." Why is it not lawful? Because, being forced by the necessity of the times, we retired from the room Gazith, where if we sit not, neither we ourselves nor any court under us can take any cognizance of causes of life and death.
But what necessity of times could urge you to remove? So greatly did the criminals multiply, and grew to such a head, that we neither could not durst animadvert upon them, according to what the majesty of the place might expect and require from us if we should sit in Gazith.
That must be observed in the evangelists, that when they had had Christ in examination in the palace of the high priest all night, in the morning the whole Sanhedrim met, that they might pass sentence of death upon him. Where then was this that they met? Questionless in the room Gazith; at least if they adhered to their own rules and constitutions: "Thither they betook themselves sometimes upon urgent necessity." The Gloss before quoted excepts "only the case of murder"; which, amongst all their false accusations, they never charged Christ with.
But however suppose it were granted that the great council met either in the Tabernae or some other place, (which yet by no means agreed with their own tradition,) did they deal truly, and as the matter really and indeed was, with Pilate, when they tell him, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death?" He had saith to them, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." We have indeed judged and condemned him, but we cannot put any one to death. Was this that they said in fact true? How came they then to stone the protomartyr Stephen? How came they to stone Ben Satda at Lydda? How came they to burn the priest's daughter alive that was taken in adultery?
It is probable they had not put any one to death as yet, since the time that they had removed out of Gazith; and so might the easilier persuade Pilate in that case. But their great design was to throw off the odium of Christ's death from themselves, at least amongst the vulgar crowd, fearing them, if the council themselves should have decreed his execution. They seek this evasion, therefore, which did not altogether want some colour and pretext of truth: and it succeeded according to what they did desire; Divine Providence so ordering it, as the evangelist intimates, verse 32, "That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die": that is, be crucified, according to the custom of the Romans.
Whilst I am upon this thought, I cannot but reflect upon that passage, than which nothing is more worthy observation, in the whole description of the Roman beast in the Revelation, chapter 13:4: "The dragon which gave power unto the beast." We cannot say this of the Assyrian, Babylonish, or any other monarchy; for the Holy Scriptures do not say it. But reason dictates, and the event itself tells us, that there was something acted by the Roman empire in behalf of the dragon which was not compatible with any other, that is, the putting of the Son of God to death. Which thing we must remember, as often as we recite that article of our creed, "He suffered under Pontius Pilate"; that is, was put to death by the Roman empire.
38. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
[What is truth?] Christ had said, "For this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth": q.d. "I will not deny but that I am a king, as thou hast said; for for this end I came, that I should bear witness to the truth, whatever hazards I should run upon that account." Upon this Pilate asks him, What is truth? that is, "What is the true state of this affair? that thou, who art so poor a wretch, shouldst call thyself a king, and at the same time that thou callest thyself a king, yet sayest thy kingdom is not of this world? Where lies the true sense and meaning of this riddle?"
But supposing when Christ said, he came "that he should bear witness to the truth," he meant in general the gospel; then Pilate asks him, What is that truth? However, the evangelist mentions nothing, either whether our Saviour gave him any answer to that question, or whether indeed Pilate stayed in expectation of any answer from him.
John 19
2. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
[Platted a crown of thorns, &c.] A most unquestionable token this, that Christ's kingdom was not of this world, when he was crowned only with thorns and briers, which were the curse of this earth, Genesis 3:18. Herod had put upon him a purple robe, Luke 23:11; and the soldiers added this crown. It is likewise said, that they also clothed him with this robe, that is, after he had been stripped, in order to be scourged.
13. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabatha.
[In a place that is called the Pavement.] What is it could be objected against it, should we say, that the evangelist, by this title of the Pavement, should mean the room Gazith, where the Sanhedrim sat? and that, when the Jews would not go into Pilate's judgment hall, he would himself go into theirs?
Aristeas tells us concerning the Temple, "that it looked towards the east, the back parts of it towards the west; but the floor was all paved with stone." To this the Talmudists all witness; and to the Pavement especially Josephus by a memorable story: "One Julian, a centurion in Titus' army, pursuing and killing the Jews with infinite hardness and strength, in the very court of the Temple, having many and very sharp nails fastened to the bottom of his shoes, as every other soldier had, and running along upon the pavement, his heels tripped up, and he fell backward," &c.
But had not the room Gazith a pavement laid in a more than ordinary manner? Whence else had it its name? "It is called the room Gazith (saith Aruch), because it was paved with smooth square stone." Were not all the other places so too?
They distinguish between bricks, half bricks, squared hewn stones, and rough or unhewn. Now, therefore, when there were so many apartments about the courts, were those all paved with rough stone or bricks, and this only of square and hewn stone? Without doubt the whole building was much more uniform. And then we shall hardly find out any more probable reason why this place was particularly and above all other rooms called Gazith, but that it was laid with a more noble and rich pavement than all the rest. And, therefore, what should forbid that the Pavement, should not in this place be meant of the room Gazith?
Obj. But Gazith was in the holy place; and it was not lawful for Pilate, being a Gentile, to enter there.
Sol. I. If he would do it 'per fas et nefas' who could hinder him?
II. It is a question whether he could not sit in that room, and yet be within the bounds of the Court of the Gentiles, into which it was lawful for a Gentile to enter. Half of that room, indeed, was within the court of Israel; but there the fathers of the council themselves did not sit, because it was lawful for none to sit in that court but the king only. The other half part in which they sat was in Chel, and extended itself, as it should seem, into the Court of the Gentiles. For if Chel was but ten cubits' breadth within the walls, it would be much too narrow a room for seventy men to sit in, if the Gazith did not extend itself a little within the Court of the Gentiles.
[But in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.] The Syriac renders it by a mound or fence: which may fall in with what we have said: for Chel, which was part of this room, was the fence to all the courts, excepting the Court of the Gentiles.
That Gab, amongst other things, signifies a surface, doth not stand in need of much proof: and so the pavement and surface of the floor are convertible...What if that in Jerusalem Sanhedrim [fol. 18. 3.] should be rendered, the elders that sit in the upper 'Gab' in the Mount of the Temple. But we will not contend.
14. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
[And it was, &c.] The preparation of the Passover; that is, of the Chagigah, as we have already noted at chapter 18:28; and more largely at Mark 14:12; where also we took notice of the following passage, About the sixth hour.
20. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
[In the Hebrew.] That is, in the Chaldee tongue, or the language of those Jews on the other side Euphrates [lingua Trans-euphratensium], as before at chapter 5.
22. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
[What I have written I have written.] this was a common way of speaking amongst the Rabbins. "A widow if she take" [or occupy] "the moveables" of her husband deceased for her own maintenance, What she takes she takes; i.e. that which she hath done stands good, and the moveables go to her.
"If any one shall say, I bind myself to offer an oblation out of the frying pan, and offers indeed something from a gridiron, and so on the contrary; that which he hath offered he hath offered." That is (and indeed it is frequently used amongst them), that which is done is done, and cannot be recalled.
"If the putting off the shoe of the husband's brother be before the spitting in his face, or the spitting in his face before the putting off the shoe, that which is done is done," and it stands good.
Pilate doth almost act the prophet as well as Caiaphas. What I have written [Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews] I have written, and it shall stand and obtain; nor shall they have any other king Messiah than this for ever.
23. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
[They took his garments--and coat, &c.] By the word garments, we are to understand all his clothes, excepting his coat, or upper garment; for which, because it was without seam, they cast lots.
Targumist upon Psalm 22:18. They cast lots upon my sindon, or linen. Proverbs 31:24: that is, sindon, as it is the same with talith, the upper coat.
Matthew 5:40: "If any man will take away thy coat," or outward garment, "let him have thy inward garment also."
25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
[There stood by the cross, &c.] He stood under the cross [or the gallows] and wept. It is told of R. Eliezer Ben R. Simeon, who, being very angry, had commanded a fuller to be hanged; but his wrath abating, and he coming to himself, went after him to have freed him, but could not; for they had hanged the man before he came. He therefore repeated that passage, "He that keepeth his lips and his tongue keepeth his soul from trouble. He stood under the gallows and wept," &c.
[Mary of Cleophas.] That is, 'Mary the wife of Cleophas,' or Alpheus. For,
I. Consult Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses." Now it is well enough known that Alpheus was the father of James the less and of Joses, Matthew 10:3.
II. We very oftentimes meet with the name amongst the Talmudists, which, in the reading, may be turned either into Alphai or Cleophi.
26. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
[Woman, behold thy son!] I. "The widow is maintained by the goods of the heirs" [of him that is deceased] "so long as she remain a widow, till she receive her dower."
II. Joseph being deceased, and Jesus now dying, there were no heirs, and probably no goods or estate, for the support and maintenance of his mother Mary. This, Christ at his last breath takes particular care of; and probably had made provision before; for it is hardly conceivable that this was the first overture he had with St. John in this affair, but that he had obtained a promise from him, in his mother's behalf, some time before this. And hence perhaps that peculiar love he bore to him beyond all the rest. So that those words, Woman, behold thy son! and on the other side to him, Behold thy mother! seem no other than as if he had said, "This man, from the time that thou art now deprived of thy son, shall be in the stead of a son to thee, and shall cherish and provide for thee": and so, vice versa, to his disciple John.
29. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
[There was set a vessel full of vinegar.] but was not this an unusual and uncustomary thing, that there should be a vessel filled with vinegar? Should it not have been rather with myrrhate wine, or wine mingled with myrrh? as it is Mark 15:23.
It seems evident, from the other evangelists, that our Saviour had the proffer of something to drink at two several times.
I. Before he was nailed to the cross, Matthew 27:33,34, "When they were come unto a place called Golgotha, they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall," verse 35, "and they crucified him." It was the custom towards those that were condemned by the Sanhedrim to allow them a cup, but it was of wine mingled with myrrh or frankincense; that by drinking that their brains might intoxicate, and themselves become the more insensible of their torments, and less apprehensive of their death.
When any one was leading out to execution, they gave them to drink a little frankincense in a cup of wine. And they gave it for this reason, as it immediately follows, that their understanding might be disordered. It was a narcotic draught, on purpose to disguise and stupefy the senses.
"Wine mingled with myrrh," saith Mark;--"vinegar mingled with gall," saith Matthew. Perhaps both these were administered; for it follows, in the place above quoted, The women of quality in Jerusalem were wont to bring them this cup of their own accord. And no doubt there were women in Jerusalem enough that would not be wanting in this good office towards Jesus: but he, saith St. Mark, would not receive it. After this, it is probable, the soldiers, or some of the Jews, might, in scorn and derision, offer him a draught of vinegar and gall, of which he also refused to drink. But be it so, that there was but one cup given him, and that of vinegar mingled with gall, yet we have observed, in our notes upon Matthew 27:34, how easily these two evangelists may be reconciled.
II. As to those that were condemned by the Sanhedrim, there was no need that they should have any other drink than the intoxicating wine; for they were quickly dead, and felt no thirst. But the cross kept the wretch a long time in exquisite torment, and those torments provoked a mighty thirst. So that perhaps there might be a vessel, full either of water or something else that was drinkable, placed near the cross, by which he that was crucified might allay his thirst, as need should require. Whether this vinegar might be according to the custom of the Romans, or whether only offered at this time in sport and mockery, I will make no inquiry at present. Christ knew beforehand that vinegar would be given him when he should say, "I thirst"; and therefore did he on purpose say, "I thirst," that vinegar might be given him, and the prophecy fulfilled.
[And they filled a sponge with vinegar.] The sponge which sucks up the drink. "The sponge that drinks up any moisture that is unclean, though it be dry on the outside, yet if it fall into a furnace it defileth it."
[And put it upon hyssop.] Matthew 27:48; put it on a reed. So also St. Mark.
I. If hyssop, as the nearness of sound might persuade us it doth, then there are several kinds of it. Whatever hyssop hath an adjunct [or an epithet] is not fit; that is, to sprinkle the unclean. For there was, as it follows afterward, Grecian hyssop: fucous hyssop, perhaps of the colour of blacklead: Roman hyssop, and wild hyssop.
II. Now, that there was a sort of hyssop that grew into stalks, like canes or reeds, is evident from that which immediately follows in the next halach, where it is thus distinguished; He gathers hyssop for food, and he gathered it for wood. Partly also from Succah, where, amongst the mention that is made of canes and reeds and twigs, wherewith they were wont to cover the booths they made at the feast of Tabernacles, this hyssop is reckoned up for one.
31. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[That sabbath day was an high day] Because, 1. It was the sabbath. 2. It was the day when all the people presented themselves in the Temple, according to that command in Exodus 23:17. 3. That was the day when the sheaf of the first fruits was offered according to that command, Leviticus 23:10,11.
I. On the fifteenth day of the month was a holy day, the first day of the feast, wherein they made ready their Chagigah, with which they feasted together for joy of the feast. That is worth our noting; "Every day they swept the ashes of the altar at the time of cockcrowing: only on the day of Expiation they did it at midnight; and on the three feasts they did it after the first watch." A little after: "In the three feasts, when infinite numbers of Israelites assembled, and numberless sacrifices were offered, they swept the ashes off the altar just after the first watch. For before cockcrowing, the court was crowded with Israelites." I do not scruple here the rendering of cockcrowing; although in the very place alleged, it is under the controversy, whether it signify cockcrowing, or the proclamation of the sagan, or ruler of the Temple; viz. that proclamation mentioned, "The sagan saith unto them, 'Go and see whether the time for slaying the sacrifices be at hand.' If it were time, then he that was sent out to see returned with this answer, 'The day begins to break,'" &c.
If the phrase the cockcrowing be to be taken in this sense, then however we see that the people were assembled together before morning light: and yet I do not doubt but it ought to be rendered the cockcrowing, which might be made clear by many good proofs, if there were place or leisure for it. Now the people's assembling in the court thus soon in the morning on these feast days was upon this account; because on the first day of the feast, innumerable peace offerings were to be made, which were the Chagigah; and on the second day, as many burnt offerings for the appearance of the people before the Lord.
It is true indeed the victims were not slain before the morning light; but we may very well suppose that before they could be slain they must be searched and examined by the Mumcheh, or any that were deputed to that office, to see whether the beasts allotted for sacrifice were without blemish, and fit for the altar, yea or no. And upon this account they assembled, and the sacrifices were brought into the court so early in the morning. And now let us call a little to mind Annas the sagan, or ruler of the Temple. Might not he also be in the Temple very early in the morning? Did not his charge require it, to see that all things might be provided and put into a readiness for the service of that day? Let us consider what hath been newly quoted; "The sagan or ruler saith, 'Go and see if the time for killing the sacrifice be come'"; i.e. whether daylight appear or no. And from hence, it may be, we may gather the reason why Annas was not amongst the rest in Caiaphas' palace; and why they brought our Saviour before him first; viz. because his affairs in the Temple would not permit him to sit at that time with the Sanhedrim; and yet they had a mind Christ should be carried before him, before he himself should be called away into the Temple for the necessary discharge of his office there.
At the due time the sacrifices appointed for the Chagigah were slain: those parts of them that pertained to the altar or to the priest were given to them; the rest of the beast was shared amongst the owners that had offered it; and from thence proceeded their feastings together, and their great mirth and rejoicings, according to the manner of that festival.
This was the preparation of the Passover, verse 14, and that was the Passover to which the elders of the council reserving themselves would by no means enter into the judgment hall, chapter 18:28.
II. That day drawing towards night, those that were deputed by the Sanhedrim to reap the sheaf of the first fruits went out: "Those that were deputed by the Sanhedrim to reap went forth in the evening of the feast day" [the first day of the feast], "and bound their corn in sheafs pretty near the ground, that the reaping might be the easier. All the neighbouring towns about gathered together, that it might be done with the greater pomp. When it grew duskish, he that was about to reap said, 'The sun is set'; and they answered, 'Well.' 'The sun is set'; and they answered, 'Well.' 'With this sickle'; 'Well.' 'With this sickle'; 'Well.' 'In this basket'; 'Well.' 'In this basket'; 'Well.' And if it happened to be on the sabbath day he said, 'On this sabbath'; and they answered, 'Well.' 'On this sabbath'; Well.' 'I will reap,' and they said, 'Reap.' 'I will reap'; 'Reap.' And so as he said these things thrice over, they answered thrice to every one of them, 'Well, Well, Well.' And all this upon the account of the Baithuseans, who said, 'The sheaf of the first fruits ought not to be reaped on the close of the feast day.'"
About that hour of the day wherein our Saviour was buried, they went forth to this reaping; and when the sabbath was now come, they began the work; for the sabbath itself did not hinder this work.
"R. Ananias, the sagan of the priests, saith, 'On the sabbath day they reaped the sheaf only to the measure of one seah, with one sickle, in one basket': but upon a common day they reaped three seahs, with three sickles, in three baskets. But the wise men say, 'The sabbath days and other days as to this matter are alike.'"
III. This night they were to lodge in Jerusalem, or in booths about, so near the city that they might not exceed the bounds of a sabbath day's journey.
In the morning, again, they met very early in the court, as the day before, and the sacrifices are brought for the people's appearing before the Lord: the sheaf of first fruits is offered in its turn: the rites and usages of which offering are described in the place above quoted. So that upon this 'high day' there happened to be three great solemnities in one, viz. the sabbath, the sheaf offering, and the appearing of the people in the court before the Lord, according to the command, Exodus 23:17.
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
[With a spear pierced his side.] The Arabic version of the Erpenian edition adds the word, he pierced his right side; afraid (as it should seem) lest the miracle should not be great enough, if the blood and water should have been supposed to have issued from his left side because of the water that is said to be contained in the pericardium: which being pierced, it is conceived blood and water could not but upon natural reasons flow out of it. But this issue of blood and water had something of mystery in it beyond nature: if nothing preternatural had been in it, I hardly imagine the evangelist would have used that threefold asseveration concerning the truth of the thing as we see he doth; "And he that saw it bare record," &c.
[Came there out blood and water.] It is commonly said that the two sacraments of the new testament, water and blood, flowed out of this wound: but I would rather say that the antitype of the old testament might be here seen.
I. The apostle teacheth us that the ratification of the old covenant was by blood and water, Hebrews 9:19; "Moses took the blood of calves and of goats, with water," &c. I confess, indeed, that Moses makes no mention of water, Exodus 24: but the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, does not write without such authority as they could not tell how to gainsay. And if my memory do not fail me, I think I have read somewhere among some of the Jewish authors (but the place itself has unhappily slipped from me), that when there was some pause to be made betwixt the slaying of the sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar (such a kind of pause as Moses made when he read to the people the articles of their covenant), they mingled water with the blood, lest it should congeal and coagulate. However, the authority is sufficient that the apostle tells us that the first testament was dedicated by blood and water. The antitype of which is clearly exhibited in this ratification of the new testament: and hence it is that the evangelist, by so vehement asseverations, confirms the truth of this passage, because it so plainly answers the type, and gives such assurance of the fulfilling of it.
II. It must not by any means let pass that in Shemoth Rabba; "'He smote the rock, and the waters gushed out,' Psalm 78:20, but the word yod-zayin-vav-bet- yod signifies nothing else but blood; as it is said, 'The woman that hath an issue of blood upon her,' Leviticus 15:20. Moses therefore smote the rock twice, and first it gushed out blood, then water."
"That rock was Christ," 1 Corinthians 10:4. Compare these two together: Moses smote the rock, and blood and water, saith the Jew, flowed out thence: the soldier pierced our Saviour's side with a spear, and water and blood, saith the evangelist, flowed thence.
St. John concludes this asseveration of his, that ye might believe. It is not without moment what is commonly said, viz. that by this flowing out of water and blood, it is evident his pericardium was pierced; and so there was an undoubted assurance given of his death: but I hardly believe the evangelist in this clause had any direct eye towards it; for would he be so vehement in asserting, "He that saw bare record: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe" that Jesus was indeed dead? Surely there was no need of such mighty asseverations for that. Questionless, therefore, he would intimate something else, viz. that you may believe that this is the true blood of the new covenant, which so directly answers the type in the confirmation of the old. Nor do I think that the water itself, which issued from his side, was that only which was contained in the pericardium, but that something supernatural was in this matter.
36. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
[A bone of him shall not be broken.] These words may have some reference to that of Psalm 34:20: but they are more commonly referred by expositors to that law about the Paschal lamb, Exodus 12:46: for "Christ is our Passover," 1 Corinthians 5:7.
"If any one break a bone of the Passover, let him receive forty stripes." "The bones, the sinews, and what remains of the flesh, must all be burned on the sixteenth day. If the sixteenth day should happen on the sabbath" [and so indeed it did happen in this year wherein Christ was crucified], "then let them be burned on the seventeenth: for they drive away neither the sabbath nor any holy day."
37. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
[They shall look on him whom they pierced.] It is observed by all expositors, how the Greek version in that place of Zechariah [12:10], from whence this passage is taken, doth vary: for they have it, they shall look towards me, because they have insulted. So the Roman edition, and so some others. Hence,
It is questioned whether those interpreters did so render the words; or whether this were not an interpolation. To pass by the testimonies of the ancients that ascribe it to the Seventy, let us observe these two things:
I. It is no unusual thing for the Greek interpreters in their renderings sometimes to favour the Jewish traditions, and sometimes the common interpretation of the nation. There want not instances of both kinds: it is the latter we have to do with at this time; wherein take one or two examples, instead of many that might be reckoned up.
What reason can be given that they should render Caphtorim, Cappadocians, and Caphtor, Cappadocia, Deuteronomy 2:23, but only because the Pelusiotes and Pelusium were commonly so termed by the Jews? Who could have imagined any reason why they say of Eli, that he judged Israel 'twenty' years, when in the original it is forty, 1 Samuel 4:18, but that they favoured the common figment of that nation, that the Philistines had such a dread of Samson, that for twenty years after his death they stood in as much awe of him as if he was then alive and judged Israel? Of this nature is their rendering son by instruction, (Psa 2:12)...
II. The Chaldee paraphrast thus renders the words They shall ask after me, because they are carried away. Which R. Solomon thus interprets: "They shall look back to mourn, because the Gentiles have pierced some of them and killed them in their captivity." Which agrees so well with the sense of the Greek version, "They shall look on me [mourning], because the Gentiles have insulted over my people in their captivity," that I cannot suspect any interpolation in the Greek copies...
Think you that figment about Messiah Ben Joseph (to which the Talmudists apply these words of Zechariah, as also doth Aben Ezra upon the place) was invented when the Greek version was first framed? If not, which is my opinion, then it is probable that the Chaldee paraphrast gave the sense that most obtained in the nation at that time, with which that of the Greek accords well enough...
[Platted a crown of thorns, &c.] A most unquestionable token this, that Christ's kingdom was not of this world, when he was crowned only with thorns and briers, which were the curse of this earth, Genesis 3:18. Herod had put upon him a purple robe, Luke 23:11; and the soldiers added this crown. It is likewise said, that they also clothed him with this robe, that is, after he had been stripped, in order to be scourged.
13. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabatha.
[In a place that is called the Pavement.] What is it could be objected against it, should we say, that the evangelist, by this title of the Pavement, should mean the room Gazith, where the Sanhedrim sat? and that, when the Jews would not go into Pilate's judgment hall, he would himself go into theirs?
Aristeas tells us concerning the Temple, "that it looked towards the east, the back parts of it towards the west; but the floor was all paved with stone." To this the Talmudists all witness; and to the Pavement especially Josephus by a memorable story: "One Julian, a centurion in Titus' army, pursuing and killing the Jews with infinite hardness and strength, in the very court of the Temple, having many and very sharp nails fastened to the bottom of his shoes, as every other soldier had, and running along upon the pavement, his heels tripped up, and he fell backward," &c.
But had not the room Gazith a pavement laid in a more than ordinary manner? Whence else had it its name? "It is called the room Gazith (saith Aruch), because it was paved with smooth square stone." Were not all the other places so too?
They distinguish between bricks, half bricks, squared hewn stones, and rough or unhewn. Now, therefore, when there were so many apartments about the courts, were those all paved with rough stone or bricks, and this only of square and hewn stone? Without doubt the whole building was much more uniform. And then we shall hardly find out any more probable reason why this place was particularly and above all other rooms called Gazith, but that it was laid with a more noble and rich pavement than all the rest. And, therefore, what should forbid that the Pavement, should not in this place be meant of the room Gazith?
Obj. But Gazith was in the holy place; and it was not lawful for Pilate, being a Gentile, to enter there.
Sol. I. If he would do it 'per fas et nefas' who could hinder him?
II. It is a question whether he could not sit in that room, and yet be within the bounds of the Court of the Gentiles, into which it was lawful for a Gentile to enter. Half of that room, indeed, was within the court of Israel; but there the fathers of the council themselves did not sit, because it was lawful for none to sit in that court but the king only. The other half part in which they sat was in Chel, and extended itself, as it should seem, into the Court of the Gentiles. For if Chel was but ten cubits' breadth within the walls, it would be much too narrow a room for seventy men to sit in, if the Gazith did not extend itself a little within the Court of the Gentiles.
[But in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.] The Syriac renders it by a mound or fence: which may fall in with what we have said: for Chel, which was part of this room, was the fence to all the courts, excepting the Court of the Gentiles.
That Gab, amongst other things, signifies a surface, doth not stand in need of much proof: and so the pavement and surface of the floor are convertible...What if that in Jerusalem Sanhedrim [fol. 18. 3.] should be rendered, the elders that sit in the upper 'Gab' in the Mount of the Temple. But we will not contend.
14. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
[And it was, &c.] The preparation of the Passover; that is, of the Chagigah, as we have already noted at chapter 18:28; and more largely at Mark 14:12; where also we took notice of the following passage, About the sixth hour.
20. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
[In the Hebrew.] That is, in the Chaldee tongue, or the language of those Jews on the other side Euphrates [lingua Trans-euphratensium], as before at chapter 5.
22. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
[What I have written I have written.] this was a common way of speaking amongst the Rabbins. "A widow if she take" [or occupy] "the moveables" of her husband deceased for her own maintenance, What she takes she takes; i.e. that which she hath done stands good, and the moveables go to her.
"If any one shall say, I bind myself to offer an oblation out of the frying pan, and offers indeed something from a gridiron, and so on the contrary; that which he hath offered he hath offered." That is (and indeed it is frequently used amongst them), that which is done is done, and cannot be recalled.
"If the putting off the shoe of the husband's brother be before the spitting in his face, or the spitting in his face before the putting off the shoe, that which is done is done," and it stands good.
Pilate doth almost act the prophet as well as Caiaphas. What I have written [Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews] I have written, and it shall stand and obtain; nor shall they have any other king Messiah than this for ever.
23. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
[They took his garments--and coat, &c.] By the word garments, we are to understand all his clothes, excepting his coat, or upper garment; for which, because it was without seam, they cast lots.
Targumist upon Psalm 22:18. They cast lots upon my sindon, or linen. Proverbs 31:24: that is, sindon, as it is the same with talith, the upper coat.
Matthew 5:40: "If any man will take away thy coat," or outward garment, "let him have thy inward garment also."
25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
[There stood by the cross, &c.] He stood under the cross [or the gallows] and wept. It is told of R. Eliezer Ben R. Simeon, who, being very angry, had commanded a fuller to be hanged; but his wrath abating, and he coming to himself, went after him to have freed him, but could not; for they had hanged the man before he came. He therefore repeated that passage, "He that keepeth his lips and his tongue keepeth his soul from trouble. He stood under the gallows and wept," &c.
[Mary of Cleophas.] That is, 'Mary the wife of Cleophas,' or Alpheus. For,
I. Consult Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses." Now it is well enough known that Alpheus was the father of James the less and of Joses, Matthew 10:3.
II. We very oftentimes meet with the name amongst the Talmudists, which, in the reading, may be turned either into Alphai or Cleophi.
26. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
[Woman, behold thy son!] I. "The widow is maintained by the goods of the heirs" [of him that is deceased] "so long as she remain a widow, till she receive her dower."
II. Joseph being deceased, and Jesus now dying, there were no heirs, and probably no goods or estate, for the support and maintenance of his mother Mary. This, Christ at his last breath takes particular care of; and probably had made provision before; for it is hardly conceivable that this was the first overture he had with St. John in this affair, but that he had obtained a promise from him, in his mother's behalf, some time before this. And hence perhaps that peculiar love he bore to him beyond all the rest. So that those words, Woman, behold thy son! and on the other side to him, Behold thy mother! seem no other than as if he had said, "This man, from the time that thou art now deprived of thy son, shall be in the stead of a son to thee, and shall cherish and provide for thee": and so, vice versa, to his disciple John.
29. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
[There was set a vessel full of vinegar.] but was not this an unusual and uncustomary thing, that there should be a vessel filled with vinegar? Should it not have been rather with myrrhate wine, or wine mingled with myrrh? as it is Mark 15:23.
It seems evident, from the other evangelists, that our Saviour had the proffer of something to drink at two several times.
I. Before he was nailed to the cross, Matthew 27:33,34, "When they were come unto a place called Golgotha, they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall," verse 35, "and they crucified him." It was the custom towards those that were condemned by the Sanhedrim to allow them a cup, but it was of wine mingled with myrrh or frankincense; that by drinking that their brains might intoxicate, and themselves become the more insensible of their torments, and less apprehensive of their death.
When any one was leading out to execution, they gave them to drink a little frankincense in a cup of wine. And they gave it for this reason, as it immediately follows, that their understanding might be disordered. It was a narcotic draught, on purpose to disguise and stupefy the senses.
"Wine mingled with myrrh," saith Mark;--"vinegar mingled with gall," saith Matthew. Perhaps both these were administered; for it follows, in the place above quoted, The women of quality in Jerusalem were wont to bring them this cup of their own accord. And no doubt there were women in Jerusalem enough that would not be wanting in this good office towards Jesus: but he, saith St. Mark, would not receive it. After this, it is probable, the soldiers, or some of the Jews, might, in scorn and derision, offer him a draught of vinegar and gall, of which he also refused to drink. But be it so, that there was but one cup given him, and that of vinegar mingled with gall, yet we have observed, in our notes upon Matthew 27:34, how easily these two evangelists may be reconciled.
II. As to those that were condemned by the Sanhedrim, there was no need that they should have any other drink than the intoxicating wine; for they were quickly dead, and felt no thirst. But the cross kept the wretch a long time in exquisite torment, and those torments provoked a mighty thirst. So that perhaps there might be a vessel, full either of water or something else that was drinkable, placed near the cross, by which he that was crucified might allay his thirst, as need should require. Whether this vinegar might be according to the custom of the Romans, or whether only offered at this time in sport and mockery, I will make no inquiry at present. Christ knew beforehand that vinegar would be given him when he should say, "I thirst"; and therefore did he on purpose say, "I thirst," that vinegar might be given him, and the prophecy fulfilled.
[And they filled a sponge with vinegar.] The sponge which sucks up the drink. "The sponge that drinks up any moisture that is unclean, though it be dry on the outside, yet if it fall into a furnace it defileth it."
[And put it upon hyssop.] Matthew 27:48; put it on a reed. So also St. Mark.
I. If hyssop, as the nearness of sound might persuade us it doth, then there are several kinds of it. Whatever hyssop hath an adjunct [or an epithet] is not fit; that is, to sprinkle the unclean. For there was, as it follows afterward, Grecian hyssop: fucous hyssop, perhaps of the colour of blacklead: Roman hyssop, and wild hyssop.
II. Now, that there was a sort of hyssop that grew into stalks, like canes or reeds, is evident from that which immediately follows in the next halach, where it is thus distinguished; He gathers hyssop for food, and he gathered it for wood. Partly also from Succah, where, amongst the mention that is made of canes and reeds and twigs, wherewith they were wont to cover the booths they made at the feast of Tabernacles, this hyssop is reckoned up for one.
31. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[That sabbath day was an high day] Because, 1. It was the sabbath. 2. It was the day when all the people presented themselves in the Temple, according to that command in Exodus 23:17. 3. That was the day when the sheaf of the first fruits was offered according to that command, Leviticus 23:10,11.
I. On the fifteenth day of the month was a holy day, the first day of the feast, wherein they made ready their Chagigah, with which they feasted together for joy of the feast. That is worth our noting; "Every day they swept the ashes of the altar at the time of cockcrowing: only on the day of Expiation they did it at midnight; and on the three feasts they did it after the first watch." A little after: "In the three feasts, when infinite numbers of Israelites assembled, and numberless sacrifices were offered, they swept the ashes off the altar just after the first watch. For before cockcrowing, the court was crowded with Israelites." I do not scruple here the rendering of cockcrowing; although in the very place alleged, it is under the controversy, whether it signify cockcrowing, or the proclamation of the sagan, or ruler of the Temple; viz. that proclamation mentioned, "The sagan saith unto them, 'Go and see whether the time for slaying the sacrifices be at hand.' If it were time, then he that was sent out to see returned with this answer, 'The day begins to break,'" &c.
If the phrase the cockcrowing be to be taken in this sense, then however we see that the people were assembled together before morning light: and yet I do not doubt but it ought to be rendered the cockcrowing, which might be made clear by many good proofs, if there were place or leisure for it. Now the people's assembling in the court thus soon in the morning on these feast days was upon this account; because on the first day of the feast, innumerable peace offerings were to be made, which were the Chagigah; and on the second day, as many burnt offerings for the appearance of the people before the Lord.
It is true indeed the victims were not slain before the morning light; but we may very well suppose that before they could be slain they must be searched and examined by the Mumcheh, or any that were deputed to that office, to see whether the beasts allotted for sacrifice were without blemish, and fit for the altar, yea or no. And upon this account they assembled, and the sacrifices were brought into the court so early in the morning. And now let us call a little to mind Annas the sagan, or ruler of the Temple. Might not he also be in the Temple very early in the morning? Did not his charge require it, to see that all things might be provided and put into a readiness for the service of that day? Let us consider what hath been newly quoted; "The sagan or ruler saith, 'Go and see if the time for killing the sacrifice be come'"; i.e. whether daylight appear or no. And from hence, it may be, we may gather the reason why Annas was not amongst the rest in Caiaphas' palace; and why they brought our Saviour before him first; viz. because his affairs in the Temple would not permit him to sit at that time with the Sanhedrim; and yet they had a mind Christ should be carried before him, before he himself should be called away into the Temple for the necessary discharge of his office there.
At the due time the sacrifices appointed for the Chagigah were slain: those parts of them that pertained to the altar or to the priest were given to them; the rest of the beast was shared amongst the owners that had offered it; and from thence proceeded their feastings together, and their great mirth and rejoicings, according to the manner of that festival.
This was the preparation of the Passover, verse 14, and that was the Passover to which the elders of the council reserving themselves would by no means enter into the judgment hall, chapter 18:28.
II. That day drawing towards night, those that were deputed by the Sanhedrim to reap the sheaf of the first fruits went out: "Those that were deputed by the Sanhedrim to reap went forth in the evening of the feast day" [the first day of the feast], "and bound their corn in sheafs pretty near the ground, that the reaping might be the easier. All the neighbouring towns about gathered together, that it might be done with the greater pomp. When it grew duskish, he that was about to reap said, 'The sun is set'; and they answered, 'Well.' 'The sun is set'; and they answered, 'Well.' 'With this sickle'; 'Well.' 'With this sickle'; 'Well.' 'In this basket'; 'Well.' 'In this basket'; 'Well.' And if it happened to be on the sabbath day he said, 'On this sabbath'; and they answered, 'Well.' 'On this sabbath'; Well.' 'I will reap,' and they said, 'Reap.' 'I will reap'; 'Reap.' And so as he said these things thrice over, they answered thrice to every one of them, 'Well, Well, Well.' And all this upon the account of the Baithuseans, who said, 'The sheaf of the first fruits ought not to be reaped on the close of the feast day.'"
About that hour of the day wherein our Saviour was buried, they went forth to this reaping; and when the sabbath was now come, they began the work; for the sabbath itself did not hinder this work.
"R. Ananias, the sagan of the priests, saith, 'On the sabbath day they reaped the sheaf only to the measure of one seah, with one sickle, in one basket': but upon a common day they reaped three seahs, with three sickles, in three baskets. But the wise men say, 'The sabbath days and other days as to this matter are alike.'"
III. This night they were to lodge in Jerusalem, or in booths about, so near the city that they might not exceed the bounds of a sabbath day's journey.
In the morning, again, they met very early in the court, as the day before, and the sacrifices are brought for the people's appearing before the Lord: the sheaf of first fruits is offered in its turn: the rites and usages of which offering are described in the place above quoted. So that upon this 'high day' there happened to be three great solemnities in one, viz. the sabbath, the sheaf offering, and the appearing of the people in the court before the Lord, according to the command, Exodus 23:17.
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
[With a spear pierced his side.] The Arabic version of the Erpenian edition adds the word, he pierced his right side; afraid (as it should seem) lest the miracle should not be great enough, if the blood and water should have been supposed to have issued from his left side because of the water that is said to be contained in the pericardium: which being pierced, it is conceived blood and water could not but upon natural reasons flow out of it. But this issue of blood and water had something of mystery in it beyond nature: if nothing preternatural had been in it, I hardly imagine the evangelist would have used that threefold asseveration concerning the truth of the thing as we see he doth; "And he that saw it bare record," &c.
[Came there out blood and water.] It is commonly said that the two sacraments of the new testament, water and blood, flowed out of this wound: but I would rather say that the antitype of the old testament might be here seen.
I. The apostle teacheth us that the ratification of the old covenant was by blood and water, Hebrews 9:19; "Moses took the blood of calves and of goats, with water," &c. I confess, indeed, that Moses makes no mention of water, Exodus 24: but the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, does not write without such authority as they could not tell how to gainsay. And if my memory do not fail me, I think I have read somewhere among some of the Jewish authors (but the place itself has unhappily slipped from me), that when there was some pause to be made betwixt the slaying of the sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar (such a kind of pause as Moses made when he read to the people the articles of their covenant), they mingled water with the blood, lest it should congeal and coagulate. However, the authority is sufficient that the apostle tells us that the first testament was dedicated by blood and water. The antitype of which is clearly exhibited in this ratification of the new testament: and hence it is that the evangelist, by so vehement asseverations, confirms the truth of this passage, because it so plainly answers the type, and gives such assurance of the fulfilling of it.
II. It must not by any means let pass that in Shemoth Rabba; "'He smote the rock, and the waters gushed out,' Psalm 78:20, but the word yod-zayin-vav-bet- yod signifies nothing else but blood; as it is said, 'The woman that hath an issue of blood upon her,' Leviticus 15:20. Moses therefore smote the rock twice, and first it gushed out blood, then water."
"That rock was Christ," 1 Corinthians 10:4. Compare these two together: Moses smote the rock, and blood and water, saith the Jew, flowed out thence: the soldier pierced our Saviour's side with a spear, and water and blood, saith the evangelist, flowed thence.
St. John concludes this asseveration of his, that ye might believe. It is not without moment what is commonly said, viz. that by this flowing out of water and blood, it is evident his pericardium was pierced; and so there was an undoubted assurance given of his death: but I hardly believe the evangelist in this clause had any direct eye towards it; for would he be so vehement in asserting, "He that saw bare record: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe" that Jesus was indeed dead? Surely there was no need of such mighty asseverations for that. Questionless, therefore, he would intimate something else, viz. that you may believe that this is the true blood of the new covenant, which so directly answers the type in the confirmation of the old. Nor do I think that the water itself, which issued from his side, was that only which was contained in the pericardium, but that something supernatural was in this matter.
36. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
[A bone of him shall not be broken.] These words may have some reference to that of Psalm 34:20: but they are more commonly referred by expositors to that law about the Paschal lamb, Exodus 12:46: for "Christ is our Passover," 1 Corinthians 5:7.
"If any one break a bone of the Passover, let him receive forty stripes." "The bones, the sinews, and what remains of the flesh, must all be burned on the sixteenth day. If the sixteenth day should happen on the sabbath" [and so indeed it did happen in this year wherein Christ was crucified], "then let them be burned on the seventeenth: for they drive away neither the sabbath nor any holy day."
37. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
[They shall look on him whom they pierced.] It is observed by all expositors, how the Greek version in that place of Zechariah [12:10], from whence this passage is taken, doth vary: for they have it, they shall look towards me, because they have insulted. So the Roman edition, and so some others. Hence,
It is questioned whether those interpreters did so render the words; or whether this were not an interpolation. To pass by the testimonies of the ancients that ascribe it to the Seventy, let us observe these two things:
I. It is no unusual thing for the Greek interpreters in their renderings sometimes to favour the Jewish traditions, and sometimes the common interpretation of the nation. There want not instances of both kinds: it is the latter we have to do with at this time; wherein take one or two examples, instead of many that might be reckoned up.
What reason can be given that they should render Caphtorim, Cappadocians, and Caphtor, Cappadocia, Deuteronomy 2:23, but only because the Pelusiotes and Pelusium were commonly so termed by the Jews? Who could have imagined any reason why they say of Eli, that he judged Israel 'twenty' years, when in the original it is forty, 1 Samuel 4:18, but that they favoured the common figment of that nation, that the Philistines had such a dread of Samson, that for twenty years after his death they stood in as much awe of him as if he was then alive and judged Israel? Of this nature is their rendering son by instruction, (Psa 2:12)...
II. The Chaldee paraphrast thus renders the words They shall ask after me, because they are carried away. Which R. Solomon thus interprets: "They shall look back to mourn, because the Gentiles have pierced some of them and killed them in their captivity." Which agrees so well with the sense of the Greek version, "They shall look on me [mourning], because the Gentiles have insulted over my people in their captivity," that I cannot suspect any interpolation in the Greek copies...
Think you that figment about Messiah Ben Joseph (to which the Talmudists apply these words of Zechariah, as also doth Aben Ezra upon the place) was invented when the Greek version was first framed? If not, which is my opinion, then it is probable that the Chaldee paraphrast gave the sense that most obtained in the nation at that time, with which that of the Greek accords well enough...
John 20
5. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
[He stooping down, &c.] Standing within the cave, he bowed himself to look down into the place where the body was laid, which was four cubits lower than the floor of the cave itself. See Bava Bathra about places of burial; which place I have quoted and explained, Century Chorograph.
12. And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
[The one at the head, and the other at the feet.] So were the cherubims placed at each end of the mercy seat, Exodus 25:18,19. As to those cherubims that were in Solomon's Temple, 2 Chronicles 3:10, I cannot but by the way observe what I meet with in Bava Bathra: "Onkelos the proselyte saith, 'The cherubims are like children going from their master.'" That is, with their faces turned partly towards their master, and partly towards the way wherein they were to go. For as the Gemarists, "When Israel obeyed the will of God, the cherubims looked towards one another; but when they did not, then they turned their faces towards the walls."
Thus Onkelos comments upon this place of the Chronicles. I hardly think he Targumizeth on the book; for the Targum, at least that which is in our hands, renders it, Both the cherubim are made of lily work.
17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
[Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended, &c.] These words relate to what he had spoken formerly about sending the Comforter, and that he would not leave them comfortless, &c. And this probably Mary Magdalene's mind was intent upon when she fell at his feet and would have embraced them. But he, "I must first ascend to my Father before I can bestow those things upon you which I have promised: do not therefore touch me and detain me upon any expectation of that kind; but wait for my ascension rather; and go and tell the same things to my brethren for their encouragement."
23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
[Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted.] He had formerly given them a power of 'binding and loosing'; and therefore probably bestows something more upon them now than what he had conferred before. For,
I. It would seem a little incongruous for our Saviour to use an action so new and unwonted, such as was his 'breathing upon them,' to vest them only with that power which he had before given them.
II. The power of 'binding and loosing' was concerned only in the articles and decisions of the law; this power which he now gives them reached to the sins of mankind. That power concerned the doctrines; this, the persons of men.
Now that we may understand the words that are before us, let us a little consider what is said, Luke 24:46: "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Which words we may suppose he spoke before he uttered what is in this verse. And so might there not, upon the occasion of those words, arise some such scruple as this in the apostles' breasts: "Is it so indeed? must remission of sins be preached to those in Jerusalem who have stained themselves with the blood of the Messiah himself? 'Yes,' saith he, 'for whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.'" To this those words of his upon the cross have some reference, Luke 23:34; "Father, forgive them," &c. And, indeed, upon what foundation, with what confidence could the apostles have preached remission of sins to such wretched men, who had so wickedly, so cruelly, murdered their own Lord, the Lord of life, unless authorized to it by a peculiar commission granted to them from their Lord himself?
[Whose soever ye retain, they are retained.] Besides the negative included in these words, that is, "If you do not remit them, they shall not be remitted," there is something superadded that is positive. That is,
I. There is granted to them a power of smiting the rebellious with present death, or some bodily stroke.
II. A power of delivering them over to Satan. Whence had St. Peter that power of striking Ananias and Sapphira with so fatal a bolt, whence St. Paul that of striking Elymas blind, whence of delivering over Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, if not from this very commission given them by Christ? Christ himself never exercised this power himself. There was not one person whom he struck either with death or any afflictive disease: some indeed he raised, when they had been dead, and infinite numbers of the sick and diseased, whom he cured: he snatched several from the power of the devils; he delivered none to them. That the apostles therefore might be capable of performing things of so high a nature, it was necessary they should be backed and encouraged by a peculiar authority: which if we find not in this clause, "Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained," where should we look for it? And therefore, when he endows his apostles with a power which he never thought fit to exercise in his own person, no wonder if he does it by a singular and unusual action; and that was 'breathing upon them,' verse 22.
But we must know, that whereas, amongst other mighty powers conferred, we reckon that as one, viz. 'delivering over unto Satan,' we are far from meaning nothing else by it but 'excommunication.' What the Jews themselves meant by that kind of phrase, let us see by one instance:
"Those two men of Cush that stood before Solomon, Elihoreph and Ahijah the scribes, sons of Shausha. On a certain day Solomon saw the angel of death weeping: he said, 'Why weepest thou?' He answered, 'Because these two Cushites entreat me that they may continue here.' Solomon delivered them over to the devil, who brought them to the borders of Luz; and when they were come to the borders of Luz they died."
Gloss: "He calls them Cushites [ironically], because they were very beautiful. They 'entreat me that they might continue here.' For the time of their death was now come: but the angel of death could not take their souls away, because it had been decreed that they should not die but at the gates of Luz. Solomon therefore delivered them over to the devils; for he reigned over the devils, as it is written, 'And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord, for he reigned over those things that are above, and those things that are below.'"
Josephus also makes mention of the power that Solomon had over the devils. God taught him an art against demons. The belief of either of these stories is at the liberty of the reader. Only from the former we may make this observation, That a power of 'delivering over to Satan' was, even in the Jews' opinion, divine and miraculous. We acknowledge this to have been in the apostles, and in the apostles only: and I know nowhere, if not in the words we are now treating of, from whence otherwise the original of this power and authority can be derived.
III. It seems further, that at this very time was granted to the apostles a commission to confer the Holy Spirit on those whom they found qualified, and that in these words, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost": i.e. "Receive ye it to distribute it to others." For although it cannot be denied but that they received the Holy Ghost for other reasons also, and to others ends, of which we have already discoursed; yet is not this great end to be excluded, which seemed the highest and noblest endowment of all, viz. that Christ breathing upon them inspired them with the Holy Ghost, with this mighty authority and privilege, that they should be capable of dispensing it to others also.
24. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
[But Thomas, called Didymus, was not with them.] I. The evangelist does not here, as the writers of lexicons, render the signification of a Hebrew name into Greek, when he tells us, "Thomas is also called Didymus"; but only lets us know that as he was called Thomas among the Hebrews, so was he called Didymus among the Greeks. There is not another amongst the twelve apostles of whom this is said. Simon indeed is called Peter; but these are really two distinct names: so was Nathanael called Bartholomew: but Thomas and Didymus both one name, of one signification in different languages. Perhaps Thomas was born in some place where the Jews and the Greeks promiscuously inhabited: such a place was the region of Decapolis; and so by the Hebrews he might be called by his Hebrew name, and the Greek by the Greeks.
II. The disciples had all fled and were dispersed when Christ was apprehended, Mark 14:50, except Peter and John. Whence it is said in verse 2 of this chapter, that Mary Magdalene came to Peter, and "to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved"; for she knew where she might find them; and so she could not for the rest. And thus scattered, as it should seem, they passed over the sabbath day; but when they heard that their Lord was risen, then they begin to associate again. But as yet Thomas had not got amongst them; and indeed Peter himself had been absent too, but that having seen the Lord he returned from Emmaus.
III. Thomas therefore not being present when our Saviour breathed on the rest and gave them the Holy Ghost, are we to suppose that he, by his absence, was deprived of this gift and privilege? No surely, for it was a privilege common to the whole apostolate, and peculiar to them as Apostles: so that however by his absence he might have missed of it, yet by reason of his apostolacy he could not. St. Paul, distant with a witness while these things happened, both from the apostleship and religion too, yet when made an apostle, was withal adorned with this privilege.
25. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[Except I shall see, &c.] They judge Moses once to have been thus weak and wavering in his faith: "When the holy blessed God said to Moses, Go down, for the people have corrupted themselves; he took the tables, and would not believe that Israel had sinned, saying, 'If I do not see, I will not believe.'"
"Thou Racha, wouldest thou not have believed if thou hadst not seen?"
26. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
[The doors being shut.] I would not easily believe that the intention of the evangelist in this place was to let us know that Christ penetrated the doors with his body; but rather that the doors were shut for fear of the Jews, as verse 19; which he also reiterates in this verse, that he might let us know the disciples were still at Jerusalem, where their greatest danger lay. On the morrow, probably, they were to make towards Galilee.
29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
[Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.] "R. Simeon Ben Lachish saith, 'The proselyte is more beloved by the holy blessed God than that whole crowd that stood before mount Sinai. For unless they had heard the thunderings, and seen the flames and lightnings, the hills trembling, and the trumpets sounding, they had not received the law. But the proselyte hath seen nothing of all this, and yet hath come in, devoting himself to the holy blessed God, and hath taken upon him the kingdom of heaven."
[He stooping down, &c.] Standing within the cave, he bowed himself to look down into the place where the body was laid, which was four cubits lower than the floor of the cave itself. See Bava Bathra about places of burial; which place I have quoted and explained, Century Chorograph.
12. And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
[The one at the head, and the other at the feet.] So were the cherubims placed at each end of the mercy seat, Exodus 25:18,19. As to those cherubims that were in Solomon's Temple, 2 Chronicles 3:10, I cannot but by the way observe what I meet with in Bava Bathra: "Onkelos the proselyte saith, 'The cherubims are like children going from their master.'" That is, with their faces turned partly towards their master, and partly towards the way wherein they were to go. For as the Gemarists, "When Israel obeyed the will of God, the cherubims looked towards one another; but when they did not, then they turned their faces towards the walls."
Thus Onkelos comments upon this place of the Chronicles. I hardly think he Targumizeth on the book; for the Targum, at least that which is in our hands, renders it, Both the cherubim are made of lily work.
17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
[Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended, &c.] These words relate to what he had spoken formerly about sending the Comforter, and that he would not leave them comfortless, &c. And this probably Mary Magdalene's mind was intent upon when she fell at his feet and would have embraced them. But he, "I must first ascend to my Father before I can bestow those things upon you which I have promised: do not therefore touch me and detain me upon any expectation of that kind; but wait for my ascension rather; and go and tell the same things to my brethren for their encouragement."
23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
[Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted.] He had formerly given them a power of 'binding and loosing'; and therefore probably bestows something more upon them now than what he had conferred before. For,
I. It would seem a little incongruous for our Saviour to use an action so new and unwonted, such as was his 'breathing upon them,' to vest them only with that power which he had before given them.
II. The power of 'binding and loosing' was concerned only in the articles and decisions of the law; this power which he now gives them reached to the sins of mankind. That power concerned the doctrines; this, the persons of men.
Now that we may understand the words that are before us, let us a little consider what is said, Luke 24:46: "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Which words we may suppose he spoke before he uttered what is in this verse. And so might there not, upon the occasion of those words, arise some such scruple as this in the apostles' breasts: "Is it so indeed? must remission of sins be preached to those in Jerusalem who have stained themselves with the blood of the Messiah himself? 'Yes,' saith he, 'for whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.'" To this those words of his upon the cross have some reference, Luke 23:34; "Father, forgive them," &c. And, indeed, upon what foundation, with what confidence could the apostles have preached remission of sins to such wretched men, who had so wickedly, so cruelly, murdered their own Lord, the Lord of life, unless authorized to it by a peculiar commission granted to them from their Lord himself?
[Whose soever ye retain, they are retained.] Besides the negative included in these words, that is, "If you do not remit them, they shall not be remitted," there is something superadded that is positive. That is,
I. There is granted to them a power of smiting the rebellious with present death, or some bodily stroke.
II. A power of delivering them over to Satan. Whence had St. Peter that power of striking Ananias and Sapphira with so fatal a bolt, whence St. Paul that of striking Elymas blind, whence of delivering over Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, if not from this very commission given them by Christ? Christ himself never exercised this power himself. There was not one person whom he struck either with death or any afflictive disease: some indeed he raised, when they had been dead, and infinite numbers of the sick and diseased, whom he cured: he snatched several from the power of the devils; he delivered none to them. That the apostles therefore might be capable of performing things of so high a nature, it was necessary they should be backed and encouraged by a peculiar authority: which if we find not in this clause, "Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained," where should we look for it? And therefore, when he endows his apostles with a power which he never thought fit to exercise in his own person, no wonder if he does it by a singular and unusual action; and that was 'breathing upon them,' verse 22.
But we must know, that whereas, amongst other mighty powers conferred, we reckon that as one, viz. 'delivering over unto Satan,' we are far from meaning nothing else by it but 'excommunication.' What the Jews themselves meant by that kind of phrase, let us see by one instance:
"Those two men of Cush that stood before Solomon, Elihoreph and Ahijah the scribes, sons of Shausha. On a certain day Solomon saw the angel of death weeping: he said, 'Why weepest thou?' He answered, 'Because these two Cushites entreat me that they may continue here.' Solomon delivered them over to the devil, who brought them to the borders of Luz; and when they were come to the borders of Luz they died."
Gloss: "He calls them Cushites [ironically], because they were very beautiful. They 'entreat me that they might continue here.' For the time of their death was now come: but the angel of death could not take their souls away, because it had been decreed that they should not die but at the gates of Luz. Solomon therefore delivered them over to the devils; for he reigned over the devils, as it is written, 'And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord, for he reigned over those things that are above, and those things that are below.'"
Josephus also makes mention of the power that Solomon had over the devils. God taught him an art against demons. The belief of either of these stories is at the liberty of the reader. Only from the former we may make this observation, That a power of 'delivering over to Satan' was, even in the Jews' opinion, divine and miraculous. We acknowledge this to have been in the apostles, and in the apostles only: and I know nowhere, if not in the words we are now treating of, from whence otherwise the original of this power and authority can be derived.
III. It seems further, that at this very time was granted to the apostles a commission to confer the Holy Spirit on those whom they found qualified, and that in these words, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost": i.e. "Receive ye it to distribute it to others." For although it cannot be denied but that they received the Holy Ghost for other reasons also, and to others ends, of which we have already discoursed; yet is not this great end to be excluded, which seemed the highest and noblest endowment of all, viz. that Christ breathing upon them inspired them with the Holy Ghost, with this mighty authority and privilege, that they should be capable of dispensing it to others also.
24. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
[But Thomas, called Didymus, was not with them.] I. The evangelist does not here, as the writers of lexicons, render the signification of a Hebrew name into Greek, when he tells us, "Thomas is also called Didymus"; but only lets us know that as he was called Thomas among the Hebrews, so was he called Didymus among the Greeks. There is not another amongst the twelve apostles of whom this is said. Simon indeed is called Peter; but these are really two distinct names: so was Nathanael called Bartholomew: but Thomas and Didymus both one name, of one signification in different languages. Perhaps Thomas was born in some place where the Jews and the Greeks promiscuously inhabited: such a place was the region of Decapolis; and so by the Hebrews he might be called by his Hebrew name, and the Greek by the Greeks.
II. The disciples had all fled and were dispersed when Christ was apprehended, Mark 14:50, except Peter and John. Whence it is said in verse 2 of this chapter, that Mary Magdalene came to Peter, and "to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved"; for she knew where she might find them; and so she could not for the rest. And thus scattered, as it should seem, they passed over the sabbath day; but when they heard that their Lord was risen, then they begin to associate again. But as yet Thomas had not got amongst them; and indeed Peter himself had been absent too, but that having seen the Lord he returned from Emmaus.
III. Thomas therefore not being present when our Saviour breathed on the rest and gave them the Holy Ghost, are we to suppose that he, by his absence, was deprived of this gift and privilege? No surely, for it was a privilege common to the whole apostolate, and peculiar to them as Apostles: so that however by his absence he might have missed of it, yet by reason of his apostolacy he could not. St. Paul, distant with a witness while these things happened, both from the apostleship and religion too, yet when made an apostle, was withal adorned with this privilege.
25. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[Except I shall see, &c.] They judge Moses once to have been thus weak and wavering in his faith: "When the holy blessed God said to Moses, Go down, for the people have corrupted themselves; he took the tables, and would not believe that Israel had sinned, saying, 'If I do not see, I will not believe.'"
"Thou Racha, wouldest thou not have believed if thou hadst not seen?"
26. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
[The doors being shut.] I would not easily believe that the intention of the evangelist in this place was to let us know that Christ penetrated the doors with his body; but rather that the doors were shut for fear of the Jews, as verse 19; which he also reiterates in this verse, that he might let us know the disciples were still at Jerusalem, where their greatest danger lay. On the morrow, probably, they were to make towards Galilee.
29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
[Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.] "R. Simeon Ben Lachish saith, 'The proselyte is more beloved by the holy blessed God than that whole crowd that stood before mount Sinai. For unless they had heard the thunderings, and seen the flames and lightnings, the hills trembling, and the trumpets sounding, they had not received the law. But the proselyte hath seen nothing of all this, and yet hath come in, devoting himself to the holy blessed God, and hath taken upon him the kingdom of heaven."
John 21
2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.
[Simon Peter, and Thomas, &c.] Here are seven of the disciples mentioned, and but five of them named. Those two whose names are not recited probably were Philip and Andrew; as the four that were absent at the time were the sons of Alpheus, Matthew, Judas, Simeon, and James. Compare those that are mentioned, chapter 1; and you may reasonably suppose the person not named there, verses 37, 40, might be Thomas.
3. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.
[I go a fishing.] Christ had ordered his apostles to meet him at a mountain in Galilee, Matthew 28:16. It is plain, verse 14, that he had not yet appeared to them there: so that it is something strange how they durst keep away from that mountain, and how the four newly mentioned durst be absent from the rest of their number. They knew the mountain without doubt; and if they knew not the time wherein Christ would make his appearance amongst them, why should they not abide continually there in attendance for him?
It should seem, that they did not look for him till the Lord's day, which had not yet been since they were come into Galilee. And perhaps the sons of Alpheus had, in their return from Jerusalem, betaken themselves amongst their relations, determining to be at that mountain on the Lord's day. These seven dwelt not far off the mountain, which was near Capernaum, and hard by the sea of Galilee: only Nathanael, who dwelt more remote in Cana, towards the extreme north parts of that sea. He was not yet gone home, but, waiting the appointed time, stayed here. Peter and Andrew dwelt in Capernaum, and so, probably, did James and John: Philip in Bethsaida, and Thomas (as we may conjecture from his Greek name Didymus) probably lived amongst the Syro-Grecians in Gadara, or Hippo, or some place in that country of Decapolis, not very far from Gennesaret.
5. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.
[Children.] By what word soever Christ expressed this children to them, it seems to be a very familiar and gentle compellation, that his disciples, from that very salutation of his, might discern him. They did not know him by sight, as appears, verse 4: he would have them know him, therefore, by the title he gave them.
[Any meat.] Very usual amongst the Rabbins may not unfitly be rendered meat for one single repast: as if Christ should have said, "Children, have ye any meat with you sufficient for a breakfast or a dinner?" But if any meat should signify any sort of meat that must be eaten with bread, as Camerarius thinks, then Christ's words seem to have this meaning: "Here, I have bread with me: have you taken any thing, that we may eat this bread?" and so meat may be distinguished from bread.
15. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
[Lovest thou me more than these?] Why more than these? Might it not have been enough to have said, "as well as these?" For what reason had he to expect that Peter should love him more than the rest did? especially more than St. John, whom Christ himself had so loved, and who had stuck so close to him?
Christ seems, therefore, to reflect upon Peter's late confidence, not without some kind of severity and reproof: q.d. "Thou saidst, O Simon, a little while ago, that thou wouldst never forsake me, no, not though all the other disciples should. Thou didst profess beyond all the rest that thou wouldst rather die than deny me; thou wouldst follow me to prison, to death; nay, lay down thy own life for me. What sayest thou now, Simon? Dost thou yet love me more than these? If thou thinkest thou art provided, and canst hazard thy life for me, feed my sheep; and for my sake do thou expose thy life, yea, and lay it down for them."
[Feed my lambs.] If there be any thing in that threefold repetition, Feed, Feed, Feed, we may most fitly apply it to the threefold object of St. Peter's ministry, viz. the Gentiles, the Jew, and the Israelites of the ten tribes.
I. To him were committed, by his Lord, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 16; that he might open the door of faith and the gospel to the Gentiles, which he did in his preaching it to Cornelius.
II. In sharing out the work of preaching the gospel amongst the three ministers of the circumcision, his lot fell amongst the Jews in Babylon. James's lot was amongst the Jews in Palestine and Syria: and John's amongst the Hellenists in Asia.
III. Now amongst the Jews in Babylon were mixed the Israelites of the ten tribes; and to them did the gospel come by the ministry of St. Peter, as I have shewn more at large in another treatise.
To this, therefore, have the words of our Saviour a plain reference; namely, putting Peter in mind, that whereas he had, with so much confidence and assurance of himself, made such professions of love and constancy beyond the other disciples, pretending to a wonderful resolution of laying down his very life in that behalf, that he would now shew his zeal and courage in 'feeding the sheep' of Christ:--"Thou canst not, Simon, lay down thy life for me, as thou didst once promise; for I have myself laid down my own life, and taken it up again. 'Feed thou my sheep,' therefore; and be ready to lay down thy life for them, when it shall come to be required of thee."
So that what is here said does not so much point out Peter's primacy, as his danger; nor so much the privilege as the bond of his office, and at last his martyrdom: for that our Saviour had this meaning with him, is plain, because, immediately after this, he tells him by what death he should glorify God, verse 18.
24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
[And we know that his testimony is true.] The evangelist had said before, chapter 19:35, "He knoweth that he saith true"; and here in this place he changeth the person, saying, "We know that his testimony is true."
I. One would believe that this was an idiotism in the Chaldee and Syriac tongue, to make 'We' know, and 'I' know, the same thing: which is not unusual in other languages also; Joshua 2:9, I know. The Targumist hath which you would believe to be We know. 1 Samuel 17:28, I know. Targumist, We know.
II. We suppose the evangelist, both here and chapter 19:35, referreth to an eyewitness. For in all judicial causes the ocular testimony prevailed. If any person should testify that he himself saw the thing done, his witness must be received: for true when it is said of any testimony, does not signify barely that which is true, but that which was to be believed and entertained for a sure and irrefragable evidence. So that the meaning of these words is this: "This is the disciple who testifies of these things and wrote them: and we all know that such a testimony obtains in all judgments whatever; for he was an eyewitness, and saw that which he testifies."
[Simon Peter, and Thomas, &c.] Here are seven of the disciples mentioned, and but five of them named. Those two whose names are not recited probably were Philip and Andrew; as the four that were absent at the time were the sons of Alpheus, Matthew, Judas, Simeon, and James. Compare those that are mentioned, chapter 1; and you may reasonably suppose the person not named there, verses 37, 40, might be Thomas.
3. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.
[I go a fishing.] Christ had ordered his apostles to meet him at a mountain in Galilee, Matthew 28:16. It is plain, verse 14, that he had not yet appeared to them there: so that it is something strange how they durst keep away from that mountain, and how the four newly mentioned durst be absent from the rest of their number. They knew the mountain without doubt; and if they knew not the time wherein Christ would make his appearance amongst them, why should they not abide continually there in attendance for him?
It should seem, that they did not look for him till the Lord's day, which had not yet been since they were come into Galilee. And perhaps the sons of Alpheus had, in their return from Jerusalem, betaken themselves amongst their relations, determining to be at that mountain on the Lord's day. These seven dwelt not far off the mountain, which was near Capernaum, and hard by the sea of Galilee: only Nathanael, who dwelt more remote in Cana, towards the extreme north parts of that sea. He was not yet gone home, but, waiting the appointed time, stayed here. Peter and Andrew dwelt in Capernaum, and so, probably, did James and John: Philip in Bethsaida, and Thomas (as we may conjecture from his Greek name Didymus) probably lived amongst the Syro-Grecians in Gadara, or Hippo, or some place in that country of Decapolis, not very far from Gennesaret.
5. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.
[Children.] By what word soever Christ expressed this children to them, it seems to be a very familiar and gentle compellation, that his disciples, from that very salutation of his, might discern him. They did not know him by sight, as appears, verse 4: he would have them know him, therefore, by the title he gave them.
[Any meat.] Very usual amongst the Rabbins may not unfitly be rendered meat for one single repast: as if Christ should have said, "Children, have ye any meat with you sufficient for a breakfast or a dinner?" But if any meat should signify any sort of meat that must be eaten with bread, as Camerarius thinks, then Christ's words seem to have this meaning: "Here, I have bread with me: have you taken any thing, that we may eat this bread?" and so meat may be distinguished from bread.
15. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
[Lovest thou me more than these?] Why more than these? Might it not have been enough to have said, "as well as these?" For what reason had he to expect that Peter should love him more than the rest did? especially more than St. John, whom Christ himself had so loved, and who had stuck so close to him?
Christ seems, therefore, to reflect upon Peter's late confidence, not without some kind of severity and reproof: q.d. "Thou saidst, O Simon, a little while ago, that thou wouldst never forsake me, no, not though all the other disciples should. Thou didst profess beyond all the rest that thou wouldst rather die than deny me; thou wouldst follow me to prison, to death; nay, lay down thy own life for me. What sayest thou now, Simon? Dost thou yet love me more than these? If thou thinkest thou art provided, and canst hazard thy life for me, feed my sheep; and for my sake do thou expose thy life, yea, and lay it down for them."
[Feed my lambs.] If there be any thing in that threefold repetition, Feed, Feed, Feed, we may most fitly apply it to the threefold object of St. Peter's ministry, viz. the Gentiles, the Jew, and the Israelites of the ten tribes.
I. To him were committed, by his Lord, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 16; that he might open the door of faith and the gospel to the Gentiles, which he did in his preaching it to Cornelius.
II. In sharing out the work of preaching the gospel amongst the three ministers of the circumcision, his lot fell amongst the Jews in Babylon. James's lot was amongst the Jews in Palestine and Syria: and John's amongst the Hellenists in Asia.
III. Now amongst the Jews in Babylon were mixed the Israelites of the ten tribes; and to them did the gospel come by the ministry of St. Peter, as I have shewn more at large in another treatise.
To this, therefore, have the words of our Saviour a plain reference; namely, putting Peter in mind, that whereas he had, with so much confidence and assurance of himself, made such professions of love and constancy beyond the other disciples, pretending to a wonderful resolution of laying down his very life in that behalf, that he would now shew his zeal and courage in 'feeding the sheep' of Christ:--"Thou canst not, Simon, lay down thy life for me, as thou didst once promise; for I have myself laid down my own life, and taken it up again. 'Feed thou my sheep,' therefore; and be ready to lay down thy life for them, when it shall come to be required of thee."
So that what is here said does not so much point out Peter's primacy, as his danger; nor so much the privilege as the bond of his office, and at last his martyrdom: for that our Saviour had this meaning with him, is plain, because, immediately after this, he tells him by what death he should glorify God, verse 18.
24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
[And we know that his testimony is true.] The evangelist had said before, chapter 19:35, "He knoweth that he saith true"; and here in this place he changeth the person, saying, "We know that his testimony is true."
I. One would believe that this was an idiotism in the Chaldee and Syriac tongue, to make 'We' know, and 'I' know, the same thing: which is not unusual in other languages also; Joshua 2:9, I know. The Targumist hath which you would believe to be We know. 1 Samuel 17:28, I know. Targumist, We know.
II. We suppose the evangelist, both here and chapter 19:35, referreth to an eyewitness. For in all judicial causes the ocular testimony prevailed. If any person should testify that he himself saw the thing done, his witness must be received: for true when it is said of any testimony, does not signify barely that which is true, but that which was to be believed and entertained for a sure and irrefragable evidence. So that the meaning of these words is this: "This is the disciple who testifies of these things and wrote them: and we all know that such a testimony obtains in all judgments whatever; for he was an eyewitness, and saw that which he testifies."
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה