Mark 1
1. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God:
[The beginning of the gospel.] The preaching and baptism of John were the very gate and entrance into the state and dispensation of the gospel. For,
I. He opened the door of a new church by a new sacrament of admission into the church.
II. Pointing, as it were with the finger, at the Messias that was coming, he shewed the beginning of the world to come.
III. In that manner as the Jews by baptism admitted Gentile proselytes into the Jewish church, he admits both Jews and Gentiles into the gospel church.
IV. For the doctrine of justification by works, with which the schools of the scribes had defiled all religion, he brings in a new (and yet not a new) and truly saving doctrine of faith and repentance.
2. As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
[As it is written in the prophets.] Here a doubt is made of the true meaning: namely, whether it be in the prophets, or in Esaias the prophet. These particulars make for the former:
I. When two places are cited out of two prophets, it is far more congruously said, as it is written in the prophets; than, as it is written in Esaias: but especially when the place first alleged is not in Esaias, but in another prophet.
II. It was very customary among the Jews (to whose custom in this matter it is very probable the apostles conformed themselves in their sermons) to hear many testimonies cited out of many prophets under this form of speech, as it is written in the prophets. If one only were cited, if two, if more, this was the most common manner of citing them, as it is written in the prophets. But it is without all example, when two testimonies are taken out of two prophets, to name only the last, which is done here, if it were to be read, as it is written in Esaias the prophet.
III. It is clear enough, from the scope of the evangelist, that he propounded to himself to cite those two places, both out of Malachi and out of Esaias. For he doth two things most evidently: 1. He mentions the preaching of the Baptist; for the illustrating of which he produceth the same text which both Matthew and Luke do out of Esaias. 2. He saith that that preaching was "the beginning of the gospel," to prove which he very aptly cites Malachi, of "sending a messenger," and of "preparing the way of the Lord."
But what shall we answer to antiquity, and to so many and so great men reading, as it is written in Esaias the prophet? "I wonder (saith the very learned Grotius), that any doubt is made of the truth of this writing, when, beside the authority of copies, and Irenaeus so citing it, there is a manifest agreement of the ancient interpreters, the Syriac, the Latin, the Arabic." True, indeed; nor can it be denied that very many of the ancients so read: but the ancients read also, as it is written in the prophets. One Arabic copy hath, in Isaiah the prophet: but another hath, in the prophets. Irenaeus once reads in Isaiah: but reads twice, in the prophets. And "so we find it written," saith the famous Beza (who yet follows the other reading), "in all our ancient copies except two, and that my very ancient one, in which we read, in Esaias the prophet."
The whole knot of the question lies in the cause of changing the reading; why, as it is written in Esaias the prophet, should be changed into, as it is written in the prophets. The cause is manifest, saith that very learned man, namely, because a double testimony is taken out of two prophets. "But there could be no cause (saith he) of changing of them." For if Mark, in his own manuscript, wrote, as it is written in the prophets, by what way could this reading at last creep in, as it is written in Esaias, when two prophets are manifestly cited?
Reader, will you give leave to an innocent and modest guess? I am apt to suspect that in the copies of the Jewish Christians it was read, in Isaiah the prophet; but in those of the Gentile Christians, in the prophets: and that the change among the Jews arose from hence, that St. Mark seems to go contrary to a most received canon and custom of the Jews: "He that reads the prophets in the synagogues let him not skip from one prophet to another. But in the lesser prophets he may skip; with this provision only, that he skip not backward: that is, not from the latter to the former."
But you see how Mark skips here from a prophet of one rank, namely, from a prophet who was one of the twelve, to a prophet of another rank: and you see also how he skips backward from Malachi to Isaiah. This, perhaps, was not so pleasing to the Christian Jews, too much Judaizing yet: nor could they well bear that this allegation should be read in their churches so differently from the common use. Hence, in Isaiah the prophet, was inserted for in the prophets. And that they did so much the more boldly, because those words which are cited out of Malachi are not exactly agreeable either to the Hebrew original or the Greek version, and those that are cited from Isaiah are cited also by Matthew and Luke; and the sense of them which are cited from Malachi may also be fetched from the place alleged out of Isaiah.
6. And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
[Clothed with camel's hair.] In the Talmudists it would be read camel's wool: "He hath not a garment besides a woolen one; to add wool (or hair) of camels, and wool of hares: wool of sheep, and wool of camels, which they mix, &c." And a little after, "If he make a garment of camel's hair, and weave in it but one thread of linen, it is forbidden, as things of different kinds."
There is one that thinks that those garments of Adam concerning which it is said (Gen 3), that God made for them coats of skins, were of camel's hair: "In the law of R. Meir they found written garments of light. R. Isaac saith that they were like those thin linen garments which come from Bethshan. R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith they were of the wool (or hair) of camels, and the wool of hares."
We cannot pass that by without observation, that it is said, "That in the law of R. Meir they found written garments of light, for garments of skins." The like to which is that, In the law of R. Meir they found it written, instead of Behold, it was very good, And behold death is a good thing Where by the law of R. Meir seems to be understood some volume of the law, in the margin of which, or in some papers put in, that Rabbin had writ his critical toys and his foolish pieces of wit upon the law, or some such trifling commentary of his own upon it.
[Eating locusts.] They who had not nobler provision hunted after locusts for food. The Gemarists feign that there are eight hundred kinds of them, namely, of such as are clean. That lexicographer certainly would be very acute who could describe all these kinds particularly by their names.
"The Rabbins deliver: He that hunts locusts, wasps (a kind of locusts), hornets, and flies, on the sabbath, is guilty"...the Gemara, a little after; "He that hunts locusts in the time of the dew (on the sabbath) is not guilty." The Gloss there writes thus; "The locusts in the time of the dew are purblind, so that if you hunt them at that time they stop their pace." The Gemara goes on, "Eliezer Ben Mabbai saith, 'If they go in flocks he is not guilty.'" The Gloss writes, "If they flock together in troops, and be, as it were, ready to be taken, he is not guilty who hunts them even in the time of heat."
13. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
[And was with the wild beasts.] He was among the wild beasts, but was not touched by them. So Adam first before his fall.
[And angels ministered unto him.] Forty days he was tempted by Satan invisibly, and angels ministered to him visibly. Satan, at last, put on the appearance of an angel of light, and pretending to wait on him, as the rest also did, hid his hook of temptation the more artificially.
24. Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
[Art thou come to destroy us?] Us? Whom? The devils? or those Galileans in the synagogue? See what the masters say: "In that generation, in which the Son of David shall come, saith Rabban Gamaliel, Galilea shall be laid waste, and the Galileans shall wander from city to city, and shall not obtain mercy." If such a report obtained in the nation, the devil thence got a very fit occasion in this possessed man of affrighting the Galileans from receiving Christ, because they were to expect nothing from his coming but devastation.
38. And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
[Towns.] What this word means may be excellently well discovered by searching into the distinction between cities, and villages, and towns in the evangelists:--
I. I render cities: but by what word, you will say, will you render by towns:--"A man cannot compel his wife to follow him to dwell from town to city, nor from city to town." The proper English of which take from what follows: "It is plain why he cannot force her from city to town; because in a city any thing is to be found," or to be had; but in a town any thing is not to be had. The Gloss writes, "'Kerac' is greater than 'Ir,' (that is, a city than a town); and there is a place of broad streets, where all neighbouring inhabitants meet at a market, and there any thing is to be had." So the same Gloss elsewhere; "Kerac is a place of broad streets, where men meet together from many places," &c.
The Gemarists go on: "R. Josi Bar Chaninah saith, Whence is it that dwelling in kerachin (cities) is more inconvenient? For it is said, 'And they blessed all the people who offered themselves willingly to dwell at Jerusalem'" (Neh 11). Note, by the way, that Jerusalem was Kerac. The Gloss there is, "Dwelling in 'Kerachin' is worse, because all dwell there, and the houses are straitened, and join one to another, so that there is not free air: but in a town are gardens, and paradises by the houses, and the air is more wholesome."
Kerachim therefore were, 1. Cities girt with walls. Hence is that distinction, that there were some 'Kerachin' which were girt with walls from the days of Joshua, and some walled afterward. 2. Trading mart cities, and those that were greater and nobler than the rest.
II. Villages or country towns, [had] no synagogue. Hence is that in Megill. cap. 1: A Kerac (a city), in which are not ten men to make a synagogue, is to be reckoned for a village. And Megill. cap. 1, where some of a village are bound to read the Book of Esther in the feast of Purim: It is indulged to them to do it on a synagogue-day: that is, when they had not a synagogue among them, but must resort to some neighbour town where a synagogue was, it was permitted them to go thither on some weekday, appointed for meeting together in the synagogue, and that they might not take the trouble of a journey on another day, however that day was appointed by law for that lection.
III. Urbs, or civitas, a city; denoted generally fortified cities, and towns also not fortified, where synagogues were, and villages, where they were not. Hence is that distinction, "That was a great city where there was a synagogue": "a small city where there was not."
By towns therefore here are to be understood towns where there were synagogues, which nevertheless were not either fortified or towns of trade; among us English called church-towns.
[The beginning of the gospel.] The preaching and baptism of John were the very gate and entrance into the state and dispensation of the gospel. For,
I. He opened the door of a new church by a new sacrament of admission into the church.
II. Pointing, as it were with the finger, at the Messias that was coming, he shewed the beginning of the world to come.
III. In that manner as the Jews by baptism admitted Gentile proselytes into the Jewish church, he admits both Jews and Gentiles into the gospel church.
IV. For the doctrine of justification by works, with which the schools of the scribes had defiled all religion, he brings in a new (and yet not a new) and truly saving doctrine of faith and repentance.
2. As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
[As it is written in the prophets.] Here a doubt is made of the true meaning: namely, whether it be in the prophets, or in Esaias the prophet. These particulars make for the former:
I. When two places are cited out of two prophets, it is far more congruously said, as it is written in the prophets; than, as it is written in Esaias: but especially when the place first alleged is not in Esaias, but in another prophet.
II. It was very customary among the Jews (to whose custom in this matter it is very probable the apostles conformed themselves in their sermons) to hear many testimonies cited out of many prophets under this form of speech, as it is written in the prophets. If one only were cited, if two, if more, this was the most common manner of citing them, as it is written in the prophets. But it is without all example, when two testimonies are taken out of two prophets, to name only the last, which is done here, if it were to be read, as it is written in Esaias the prophet.
III. It is clear enough, from the scope of the evangelist, that he propounded to himself to cite those two places, both out of Malachi and out of Esaias. For he doth two things most evidently: 1. He mentions the preaching of the Baptist; for the illustrating of which he produceth the same text which both Matthew and Luke do out of Esaias. 2. He saith that that preaching was "the beginning of the gospel," to prove which he very aptly cites Malachi, of "sending a messenger," and of "preparing the way of the Lord."
But what shall we answer to antiquity, and to so many and so great men reading, as it is written in Esaias the prophet? "I wonder (saith the very learned Grotius), that any doubt is made of the truth of this writing, when, beside the authority of copies, and Irenaeus so citing it, there is a manifest agreement of the ancient interpreters, the Syriac, the Latin, the Arabic." True, indeed; nor can it be denied that very many of the ancients so read: but the ancients read also, as it is written in the prophets. One Arabic copy hath, in Isaiah the prophet: but another hath, in the prophets. Irenaeus once reads in Isaiah: but reads twice, in the prophets. And "so we find it written," saith the famous Beza (who yet follows the other reading), "in all our ancient copies except two, and that my very ancient one, in which we read, in Esaias the prophet."
The whole knot of the question lies in the cause of changing the reading; why, as it is written in Esaias the prophet, should be changed into, as it is written in the prophets. The cause is manifest, saith that very learned man, namely, because a double testimony is taken out of two prophets. "But there could be no cause (saith he) of changing of them." For if Mark, in his own manuscript, wrote, as it is written in the prophets, by what way could this reading at last creep in, as it is written in Esaias, when two prophets are manifestly cited?
Reader, will you give leave to an innocent and modest guess? I am apt to suspect that in the copies of the Jewish Christians it was read, in Isaiah the prophet; but in those of the Gentile Christians, in the prophets: and that the change among the Jews arose from hence, that St. Mark seems to go contrary to a most received canon and custom of the Jews: "He that reads the prophets in the synagogues let him not skip from one prophet to another. But in the lesser prophets he may skip; with this provision only, that he skip not backward: that is, not from the latter to the former."
But you see how Mark skips here from a prophet of one rank, namely, from a prophet who was one of the twelve, to a prophet of another rank: and you see also how he skips backward from Malachi to Isaiah. This, perhaps, was not so pleasing to the Christian Jews, too much Judaizing yet: nor could they well bear that this allegation should be read in their churches so differently from the common use. Hence, in Isaiah the prophet, was inserted for in the prophets. And that they did so much the more boldly, because those words which are cited out of Malachi are not exactly agreeable either to the Hebrew original or the Greek version, and those that are cited from Isaiah are cited also by Matthew and Luke; and the sense of them which are cited from Malachi may also be fetched from the place alleged out of Isaiah.
6. And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
[Clothed with camel's hair.] In the Talmudists it would be read camel's wool: "He hath not a garment besides a woolen one; to add wool (or hair) of camels, and wool of hares: wool of sheep, and wool of camels, which they mix, &c." And a little after, "If he make a garment of camel's hair, and weave in it but one thread of linen, it is forbidden, as things of different kinds."
There is one that thinks that those garments of Adam concerning which it is said (Gen 3), that God made for them coats of skins, were of camel's hair: "In the law of R. Meir they found written garments of light. R. Isaac saith that they were like those thin linen garments which come from Bethshan. R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith they were of the wool (or hair) of camels, and the wool of hares."
We cannot pass that by without observation, that it is said, "That in the law of R. Meir they found written garments of light, for garments of skins." The like to which is that, In the law of R. Meir they found it written, instead of Behold, it was very good, And behold death is a good thing Where by the law of R. Meir seems to be understood some volume of the law, in the margin of which, or in some papers put in, that Rabbin had writ his critical toys and his foolish pieces of wit upon the law, or some such trifling commentary of his own upon it.
[Eating locusts.] They who had not nobler provision hunted after locusts for food. The Gemarists feign that there are eight hundred kinds of them, namely, of such as are clean. That lexicographer certainly would be very acute who could describe all these kinds particularly by their names.
"The Rabbins deliver: He that hunts locusts, wasps (a kind of locusts), hornets, and flies, on the sabbath, is guilty"...the Gemara, a little after; "He that hunts locusts in the time of the dew (on the sabbath) is not guilty." The Gloss there writes thus; "The locusts in the time of the dew are purblind, so that if you hunt them at that time they stop their pace." The Gemara goes on, "Eliezer Ben Mabbai saith, 'If they go in flocks he is not guilty.'" The Gloss writes, "If they flock together in troops, and be, as it were, ready to be taken, he is not guilty who hunts them even in the time of heat."
13. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
[And was with the wild beasts.] He was among the wild beasts, but was not touched by them. So Adam first before his fall.
[And angels ministered unto him.] Forty days he was tempted by Satan invisibly, and angels ministered to him visibly. Satan, at last, put on the appearance of an angel of light, and pretending to wait on him, as the rest also did, hid his hook of temptation the more artificially.
24. Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
[Art thou come to destroy us?] Us? Whom? The devils? or those Galileans in the synagogue? See what the masters say: "In that generation, in which the Son of David shall come, saith Rabban Gamaliel, Galilea shall be laid waste, and the Galileans shall wander from city to city, and shall not obtain mercy." If such a report obtained in the nation, the devil thence got a very fit occasion in this possessed man of affrighting the Galileans from receiving Christ, because they were to expect nothing from his coming but devastation.
38. And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
[Towns.] What this word means may be excellently well discovered by searching into the distinction between cities, and villages, and towns in the evangelists:--
I. I render cities: but by what word, you will say, will you render by towns:--"A man cannot compel his wife to follow him to dwell from town to city, nor from city to town." The proper English of which take from what follows: "It is plain why he cannot force her from city to town; because in a city any thing is to be found," or to be had; but in a town any thing is not to be had. The Gloss writes, "'Kerac' is greater than 'Ir,' (that is, a city than a town); and there is a place of broad streets, where all neighbouring inhabitants meet at a market, and there any thing is to be had." So the same Gloss elsewhere; "Kerac is a place of broad streets, where men meet together from many places," &c.
The Gemarists go on: "R. Josi Bar Chaninah saith, Whence is it that dwelling in kerachin (cities) is more inconvenient? For it is said, 'And they blessed all the people who offered themselves willingly to dwell at Jerusalem'" (Neh 11). Note, by the way, that Jerusalem was Kerac. The Gloss there is, "Dwelling in 'Kerachin' is worse, because all dwell there, and the houses are straitened, and join one to another, so that there is not free air: but in a town are gardens, and paradises by the houses, and the air is more wholesome."
Kerachim therefore were, 1. Cities girt with walls. Hence is that distinction, that there were some 'Kerachin' which were girt with walls from the days of Joshua, and some walled afterward. 2. Trading mart cities, and those that were greater and nobler than the rest.
II. Villages or country towns, [had] no synagogue. Hence is that in Megill. cap. 1: A Kerac (a city), in which are not ten men to make a synagogue, is to be reckoned for a village. And Megill. cap. 1, where some of a village are bound to read the Book of Esther in the feast of Purim: It is indulged to them to do it on a synagogue-day: that is, when they had not a synagogue among them, but must resort to some neighbour town where a synagogue was, it was permitted them to go thither on some weekday, appointed for meeting together in the synagogue, and that they might not take the trouble of a journey on another day, however that day was appointed by law for that lection.
III. Urbs, or civitas, a city; denoted generally fortified cities, and towns also not fortified, where synagogues were, and villages, where they were not. Hence is that distinction, "That was a great city where there was a synagogue": "a small city where there was not."
By towns therefore here are to be understood towns where there were synagogues, which nevertheless were not either fortified or towns of trade; among us English called church-towns.
Mark 2
4. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
[They uncovered the roof, &c.] Here I recollect that phrase the way of the roof: "When Rabh Houna was dead, his bier could not be carried out through the door," the door being too strait; "therefore they thought good to draw it out and let it down through the roof, or through the way of the roof. But Rabh Chasda said to them, 'Behold, we have learned from him that it redounds to the honour of a wise man to be carried out by the door.'"
"It is written, 'And they shall eat within thy gates' (Deut 26:12); that is, when the entrance into the house is by the gate, to except the way through the roof." "Does he enter into the house, using the way through the gate, or using the way through the roof?" The place treats of a house, in the lower part of which the owner dwells; but the upper part, is let out to another. It is asked, what way he must enter who dwells in an upper room, whether by the door and the lower parts, where the owner dwells; or whether he must climb up to the roof by the way to the roof: that is, as the Gloss hath it, "That he ascend without the house by a ladder set against it for entrance into the upper room, and so go into the upper room."
By ladders set up, or perhaps fastened there before, they first draw up the paralytic upon the roof, Luke 5:19. Then seeing there was a door in every roof through which they went up from the lower parts of the house into the roof, and this being too narrow to let down the bed and the sick man in it, they widen that space by pulling off the tiles that lay about it.
Well, having made a hole through the roof, the paralytic is let down into the upper chamber. There Christ sits, and the Pharisees and the doctors of the law with him, and not in the lower parts of the house. For it was customary for them, when they discoursed of the law or religion, to go up into the upper chamber.
"These are the traditions which they taught in the upper chamber of Hananiah, Ben Hezekiah, Ben Garon." "The elders went up into an upper chamber in Jericho. They went up also into an upper chamber in Jabneh." "Rabh Jochanan and his disciples went up to an upper chamber, and read and expounded." Compare Mark 14:15; Acts 1:13, 20:8.
7. Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
[Who can forgive sins?] "A certain heretic said to Rabh Idith, It is written, 'And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord,' Exodus 24:1. It should rather have been said, 'Come up to me.' He answereth, This is Mitatron, whose name is like the name of his Lord, as it is written, 'My name is in him,' Exodus 23:21. If it be so, then said the other, he is to be worshipped. To whom Idith replied, It is written properly, Do not embitter or provoke him; but they illy and perversely read, Do not change for him, do not exchange me for him. If that be the sense, said the other, what is the meaning of that, 'He will not forgive your sins?' He answered, True indeed, for we received him not so much as for a messenger." The Gloss is, "'He will not forgive your sins'; that is, He cannot pardon your sins; and then, what advantage is there from him? For he had not the power of pardoning our sins; we therefore rejected him," &c. Ye rejected him, indeed, in whom was the name of Jehovah; but alas! how much to your own mischief!
9. Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
[Whether is it easier to say, &c.] He that observes the use of the word it is easy and it is hard, in the Jewish schools (and the schoolmen were now with Christ), cannot think it improper that is it easier should be of the same import with it is easy, which word denotes the thing or the sense plain, smooth, and without scruple; it is hard, denotes the contrary. As if our Saviour had said, "Were not the sense plainer, and more suited to the present business to have said, 'Arise and take up thy bed,' than to say, 'Thy sins are forgiven thee?' But I say thus, that ye may know that the Son of man hath power," &c. He does not speak of the easiness of the pronunciation of the words, but of the easiness of the sense. And I should thus render the words, "It is easier to say to the paralytic, Thy sins are forgiven thee, than to say," &c. 'Whether to say,' as it is vulgarly rendered, hath a sense not to be disapproved of; but, 'than to say,' hath a sense more emphatical. Is not the sense easier as to the present business to say, 'Thy sins are forgiven,' than to say, 'Rise up and walk?'
12. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.
[He went out before them all.] It is very well rendered, "before them all": and it might truly be rendered "against them all," according to another signification of the word. That is, when the multitude was so crowded that there was no way of going out through it, he, being not only made whole, but strong and lusty, pressed through the press of the multitude, and stoutly made his way with his bed upon his shoulders.
16. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
[Please see the excellent treatise by John Bunyan, entitled A Discourse Upon the Pharisee and the Publican, (341k)]
[And sinners.] Who were they? "Dicers, usurers, plunderers, publicans, shepherds of lesser cattle, those that sell the fruit of the seventh year," &c.
26. How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
[In the days of Abiathar the high priest.] It is well enough known what is here said in defence of the purity of the text; namely, that Ahimelech the father was called Abiathar, and Abiathar the son was called also Ahimelech. But I suppose that something more was propounded by our Saviour in these words. For it was common to the Jews under Abiathar to understand the Urim and Thummim. Nor without good reason, when it appears, that under the father and the son, both of that name, the mention of inquiring by Urim and Thummim is more frequent than it is ever anywhere else; and, after Abiathar the son, there is scarcely mention of it at all. Christ therefore very properly adds, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, therein speaking according to a very received opinion in the nation: as though he had said, "David ate the shewbread given him by the high priest, who had the oracle by Urim and thummim present with him, and who acted by the divine direction."
"Ahitophel, that is, a counsellor, Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, that is, the Sanhedrim; Abiathar, that is, Urim and Thummim."
[They uncovered the roof, &c.] Here I recollect that phrase the way of the roof: "When Rabh Houna was dead, his bier could not be carried out through the door," the door being too strait; "therefore they thought good to draw it out and let it down through the roof, or through the way of the roof. But Rabh Chasda said to them, 'Behold, we have learned from him that it redounds to the honour of a wise man to be carried out by the door.'"
"It is written, 'And they shall eat within thy gates' (Deut 26:12); that is, when the entrance into the house is by the gate, to except the way through the roof." "Does he enter into the house, using the way through the gate, or using the way through the roof?" The place treats of a house, in the lower part of which the owner dwells; but the upper part, is let out to another. It is asked, what way he must enter who dwells in an upper room, whether by the door and the lower parts, where the owner dwells; or whether he must climb up to the roof by the way to the roof: that is, as the Gloss hath it, "That he ascend without the house by a ladder set against it for entrance into the upper room, and so go into the upper room."
By ladders set up, or perhaps fastened there before, they first draw up the paralytic upon the roof, Luke 5:19. Then seeing there was a door in every roof through which they went up from the lower parts of the house into the roof, and this being too narrow to let down the bed and the sick man in it, they widen that space by pulling off the tiles that lay about it.
Well, having made a hole through the roof, the paralytic is let down into the upper chamber. There Christ sits, and the Pharisees and the doctors of the law with him, and not in the lower parts of the house. For it was customary for them, when they discoursed of the law or religion, to go up into the upper chamber.
"These are the traditions which they taught in the upper chamber of Hananiah, Ben Hezekiah, Ben Garon." "The elders went up into an upper chamber in Jericho. They went up also into an upper chamber in Jabneh." "Rabh Jochanan and his disciples went up to an upper chamber, and read and expounded." Compare Mark 14:15; Acts 1:13, 20:8.
7. Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
[Who can forgive sins?] "A certain heretic said to Rabh Idith, It is written, 'And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord,' Exodus 24:1. It should rather have been said, 'Come up to me.' He answereth, This is Mitatron, whose name is like the name of his Lord, as it is written, 'My name is in him,' Exodus 23:21. If it be so, then said the other, he is to be worshipped. To whom Idith replied, It is written properly, Do not embitter or provoke him; but they illy and perversely read, Do not change for him, do not exchange me for him. If that be the sense, said the other, what is the meaning of that, 'He will not forgive your sins?' He answered, True indeed, for we received him not so much as for a messenger." The Gloss is, "'He will not forgive your sins'; that is, He cannot pardon your sins; and then, what advantage is there from him? For he had not the power of pardoning our sins; we therefore rejected him," &c. Ye rejected him, indeed, in whom was the name of Jehovah; but alas! how much to your own mischief!
9. Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
[Whether is it easier to say, &c.] He that observes the use of the word it is easy and it is hard, in the Jewish schools (and the schoolmen were now with Christ), cannot think it improper that is it easier should be of the same import with it is easy, which word denotes the thing or the sense plain, smooth, and without scruple; it is hard, denotes the contrary. As if our Saviour had said, "Were not the sense plainer, and more suited to the present business to have said, 'Arise and take up thy bed,' than to say, 'Thy sins are forgiven thee?' But I say thus, that ye may know that the Son of man hath power," &c. He does not speak of the easiness of the pronunciation of the words, but of the easiness of the sense. And I should thus render the words, "It is easier to say to the paralytic, Thy sins are forgiven thee, than to say," &c. 'Whether to say,' as it is vulgarly rendered, hath a sense not to be disapproved of; but, 'than to say,' hath a sense more emphatical. Is not the sense easier as to the present business to say, 'Thy sins are forgiven,' than to say, 'Rise up and walk?'
12. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.
[He went out before them all.] It is very well rendered, "before them all": and it might truly be rendered "against them all," according to another signification of the word. That is, when the multitude was so crowded that there was no way of going out through it, he, being not only made whole, but strong and lusty, pressed through the press of the multitude, and stoutly made his way with his bed upon his shoulders.
16. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
[Please see the excellent treatise by John Bunyan, entitled A Discourse Upon the Pharisee and the Publican, (341k)]
[And sinners.] Who were they? "Dicers, usurers, plunderers, publicans, shepherds of lesser cattle, those that sell the fruit of the seventh year," &c.
26. How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
[In the days of Abiathar the high priest.] It is well enough known what is here said in defence of the purity of the text; namely, that Ahimelech the father was called Abiathar, and Abiathar the son was called also Ahimelech. But I suppose that something more was propounded by our Saviour in these words. For it was common to the Jews under Abiathar to understand the Urim and Thummim. Nor without good reason, when it appears, that under the father and the son, both of that name, the mention of inquiring by Urim and Thummim is more frequent than it is ever anywhere else; and, after Abiathar the son, there is scarcely mention of it at all. Christ therefore very properly adds, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, therein speaking according to a very received opinion in the nation: as though he had said, "David ate the shewbread given him by the high priest, who had the oracle by Urim and thummim present with him, and who acted by the divine direction."
"Ahitophel, that is, a counsellor, Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, that is, the Sanhedrim; Abiathar, that is, Urim and Thummim."
Mark 3
4. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
[But they held their peace.] This reminds me of the like carriage of the Sanhedrim in judging a servant of king Jannaeus, a murderer, when Jannaeus himself was present in the Sanhedrim. It was found sufficiently that he was guilty; but, for fear, they dared not to utter their opinion; when Simeon Ben Sheta, president of the Sanhedrim, required it: "He looked on his right hand, and they fixed their eyes upon the earth; on his left hand, and they fixed their eyes upon the earth," &c.
17. And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
[Boanerges.] I. See what Beza saith here. To which our very learned Hugh Broughton, a man very well exercised in these studies, replies: "The Jews to this very day pronounce Scheva by oa, as Noabhyim for Nebhyim. So Boanerges. When Theodore Beza will have it written Benerges, the very Jews themselves will defend our gospel."
Certainly, it is somewhat hard and bold to accuse the Scripture of St. Mark as corrupt for this manner of pronunciation, when, among the Jews, the pronouncing of some letters, vowels, and words was so different and indifferent, that they pronounced one way in Galilee, another way in Samaria, and another way in Judea. "And I remember (saith the famous Ludovicus de Dieu), that I heard the excellent Erpenius say, that he had it from the mouth of a very learned Maronite, that it could not be taught by any grammatical rules, and hardly by word of mouth, what sound Scheva hath among the Syrians."
That castle of noted fame which is called Masada in Josephus, Pliny, Solinus, and others in Strabo is Moasada, very agreeable to this our sound: They shew some scorched rocks about 'Moasada.' Where, without all controversy, he speaks of Masada.
II. There is a controversy also about the word erges: it is obscure, in what manner it is applied to thunder. But give me your judgment, courteous reader, what Rigsha is in this story: "The father of Samuel sat in the synagogue of Shaph, and Jathib, in Nehardea: the divine glory came; he heard the voice of 'Rigsha,' and went not out: the angels came, and he was affrighted."
Of the word Rigsha, the Glossers say nothing. And we do not confidently render it thunder; nor yet do we well know how to render it better: if so be it doth not denote the sound as of a mighty rushing wind, Acts 2:2: but let the reader judge.
III. As obscure is the reason of the name imposed upon these two disciples, as the derivation of the word. We have only this certain in this business, that we never find them called by this name elsewhere. Christ called Simon Peter, and likewise others called him Peter, and he calls himself so. But you never find James called Boanerges, or John so called, either by themselves or by others. We must trust conjecture for the rest.
IV. It is well enough known what the phrase Bath Kol, the daughter of thunder, means among the Jews. Our Saviour, using another word, seems to respect another etymology of the name. But it is demanded, what that is. He calls Simon Peter with respect had to the work he was to play in building the church of the Gentiles upon a rock. For he first opened the door to let in the gospel among the Gentiles. Whether were James and John called sons of thunder with respect had to their stout discoursing against the Jews, we neither dare to say, nor can we deny it. James did this, as it seems, to the loss of his life, Acts 12.
But what if allusion be here made to the two registrars, or scribes of the Sanhedrim? whereof one sat on the right hand, and the other on the left; one wrote the votes of those that acquitted, the other the votes of those that condemned. Or to the president himself, and the vice-president? whose definitive sentence, summing up the votes of the whole Sanhedrim, was like thunder and lightning to the condemned persons, and seemed to all like the oracles given from Sinai out of lightning and thunder.
V. But whatsoever that was in the mind of our Saviour, that moved him to imprint this name upon them, when these two brethren, above all the other disciples, would have fire fall from heaven upon that town of the Samaritans which refused to give Christ entertainment, Luke 9:54, they seem to act according to the sense of this surname. And when the mother of these desired a place for one of them on Christ's right hand, and for the other on his left, she took the confidence of such a request probably from this, that Christ had set so honourable a name upon them above the other disciples. And when John himself calls himself the elder, and he was sufficiently known to those to whom he writ under that bare title, the elder; I cannot but suspect this distinguishing character arose hence. All the apostles, indeed, were elders, which Peter saith of himself, 1 Peter 5:1: but I ask, whether any of the twelve, besides this our apostle (his brother James being now dead), could be known to those that were absent under this title, the elder, by a proper, not additional name, as he is in his two latter Epistles.
21. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
[He is beside himself.] In the Talmudists it is his judgment is gone, and his understanding is ceased. "If any becomes mute, and yet is of a sound mind, and they say to him, Shall we write a bill of divorce for thy wife? and he nods with his head, they try him thrice, &c. And it is necessary that they make trial of him more exactly, lest, perhaps, he might be deprived of his senses." This is to be understood of a dumb person, made so by some paralytical or apoplectical stroke, which sometimes wounds the understanding.
"The Rabbins deliver: If any one is sick, and in the mean time any of his friends die, they do not make it known to him that such a one is dead, lest his understanding be disturbed." "One thus lamented R. Simeon Ben Lachish; 'Where art thou, O Bar Lachish? Where art thou, O Bar Lachish?' And so cried out until his understanding perished." For so the Gloss renders it.
How fitly this word beside himself expresseth these phrases is readily observed by him who understandeth both languages. And a Jew, reading these words in Mark, would presently have recourse to the sense of those phrases in his nation; which do not always signify madness, or being bereft of one's wits, in the proper sense, but sometimes, and very frequently, some discomposure of the understanding for the present, from some too vehement passion. So say Christ's friends, "His knowledge is snatched away; he hath forgotten himself, and his own health; he is so vehement and hot in discharging his office, and in preaching, that he is transported beyond himself, and his understanding is disturbed, that he neither takes care of his necessary food nor of his sleep." Those his friends, indeed, have need of an apology, that they had no sounder, nor holier, nor wiser conceit of him; but it is scarcely credible that they thought him to be fallen into plain and absolute madness, and pure distraction. For he had conversed among the multitudes before, at all times in all places; and yet his friends to not say this of him. But now he was retired to his own house at Capernaum, where he might justly expect rest and repose; yet the multitudes rush upon him there, so that he could not enjoy his table and his bed at his own home. Therefore his friends and kinsfolk of Nazareth (among whom was his mother, verse 31), hearing this, unanimously run to him to get him away from the multitude; for they said among themselves, He is too much transported beyond himself, and is forgetful of himself.
[But they held their peace.] This reminds me of the like carriage of the Sanhedrim in judging a servant of king Jannaeus, a murderer, when Jannaeus himself was present in the Sanhedrim. It was found sufficiently that he was guilty; but, for fear, they dared not to utter their opinion; when Simeon Ben Sheta, president of the Sanhedrim, required it: "He looked on his right hand, and they fixed their eyes upon the earth; on his left hand, and they fixed their eyes upon the earth," &c.
17. And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
[Boanerges.] I. See what Beza saith here. To which our very learned Hugh Broughton, a man very well exercised in these studies, replies: "The Jews to this very day pronounce Scheva by oa, as Noabhyim for Nebhyim. So Boanerges. When Theodore Beza will have it written Benerges, the very Jews themselves will defend our gospel."
Certainly, it is somewhat hard and bold to accuse the Scripture of St. Mark as corrupt for this manner of pronunciation, when, among the Jews, the pronouncing of some letters, vowels, and words was so different and indifferent, that they pronounced one way in Galilee, another way in Samaria, and another way in Judea. "And I remember (saith the famous Ludovicus de Dieu), that I heard the excellent Erpenius say, that he had it from the mouth of a very learned Maronite, that it could not be taught by any grammatical rules, and hardly by word of mouth, what sound Scheva hath among the Syrians."
That castle of noted fame which is called Masada in Josephus, Pliny, Solinus, and others in Strabo is Moasada, very agreeable to this our sound: They shew some scorched rocks about 'Moasada.' Where, without all controversy, he speaks of Masada.
II. There is a controversy also about the word erges: it is obscure, in what manner it is applied to thunder. But give me your judgment, courteous reader, what Rigsha is in this story: "The father of Samuel sat in the synagogue of Shaph, and Jathib, in Nehardea: the divine glory came; he heard the voice of 'Rigsha,' and went not out: the angels came, and he was affrighted."
Of the word Rigsha, the Glossers say nothing. And we do not confidently render it thunder; nor yet do we well know how to render it better: if so be it doth not denote the sound as of a mighty rushing wind, Acts 2:2: but let the reader judge.
III. As obscure is the reason of the name imposed upon these two disciples, as the derivation of the word. We have only this certain in this business, that we never find them called by this name elsewhere. Christ called Simon Peter, and likewise others called him Peter, and he calls himself so. But you never find James called Boanerges, or John so called, either by themselves or by others. We must trust conjecture for the rest.
IV. It is well enough known what the phrase Bath Kol, the daughter of thunder, means among the Jews. Our Saviour, using another word, seems to respect another etymology of the name. But it is demanded, what that is. He calls Simon Peter with respect had to the work he was to play in building the church of the Gentiles upon a rock. For he first opened the door to let in the gospel among the Gentiles. Whether were James and John called sons of thunder with respect had to their stout discoursing against the Jews, we neither dare to say, nor can we deny it. James did this, as it seems, to the loss of his life, Acts 12.
But what if allusion be here made to the two registrars, or scribes of the Sanhedrim? whereof one sat on the right hand, and the other on the left; one wrote the votes of those that acquitted, the other the votes of those that condemned. Or to the president himself, and the vice-president? whose definitive sentence, summing up the votes of the whole Sanhedrim, was like thunder and lightning to the condemned persons, and seemed to all like the oracles given from Sinai out of lightning and thunder.
V. But whatsoever that was in the mind of our Saviour, that moved him to imprint this name upon them, when these two brethren, above all the other disciples, would have fire fall from heaven upon that town of the Samaritans which refused to give Christ entertainment, Luke 9:54, they seem to act according to the sense of this surname. And when the mother of these desired a place for one of them on Christ's right hand, and for the other on his left, she took the confidence of such a request probably from this, that Christ had set so honourable a name upon them above the other disciples. And when John himself calls himself the elder, and he was sufficiently known to those to whom he writ under that bare title, the elder; I cannot but suspect this distinguishing character arose hence. All the apostles, indeed, were elders, which Peter saith of himself, 1 Peter 5:1: but I ask, whether any of the twelve, besides this our apostle (his brother James being now dead), could be known to those that were absent under this title, the elder, by a proper, not additional name, as he is in his two latter Epistles.
21. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
[He is beside himself.] In the Talmudists it is his judgment is gone, and his understanding is ceased. "If any becomes mute, and yet is of a sound mind, and they say to him, Shall we write a bill of divorce for thy wife? and he nods with his head, they try him thrice, &c. And it is necessary that they make trial of him more exactly, lest, perhaps, he might be deprived of his senses." This is to be understood of a dumb person, made so by some paralytical or apoplectical stroke, which sometimes wounds the understanding.
"The Rabbins deliver: If any one is sick, and in the mean time any of his friends die, they do not make it known to him that such a one is dead, lest his understanding be disturbed." "One thus lamented R. Simeon Ben Lachish; 'Where art thou, O Bar Lachish? Where art thou, O Bar Lachish?' And so cried out until his understanding perished." For so the Gloss renders it.
How fitly this word beside himself expresseth these phrases is readily observed by him who understandeth both languages. And a Jew, reading these words in Mark, would presently have recourse to the sense of those phrases in his nation; which do not always signify madness, or being bereft of one's wits, in the proper sense, but sometimes, and very frequently, some discomposure of the understanding for the present, from some too vehement passion. So say Christ's friends, "His knowledge is snatched away; he hath forgotten himself, and his own health; he is so vehement and hot in discharging his office, and in preaching, that he is transported beyond himself, and his understanding is disturbed, that he neither takes care of his necessary food nor of his sleep." Those his friends, indeed, have need of an apology, that they had no sounder, nor holier, nor wiser conceit of him; but it is scarcely credible that they thought him to be fallen into plain and absolute madness, and pure distraction. For he had conversed among the multitudes before, at all times in all places; and yet his friends to not say this of him. But now he was retired to his own house at Capernaum, where he might justly expect rest and repose; yet the multitudes rush upon him there, so that he could not enjoy his table and his bed at his own home. Therefore his friends and kinsfolk of Nazareth (among whom was his mother, verse 31), hearing this, unanimously run to him to get him away from the multitude; for they said among themselves, He is too much transported beyond himself, and is forgetful of himself.
Mark 4
1. And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.
[He began to teach.] That is, he taught; by a phrase very usual to these holy writers, because very usual to the nation: Rabh Canah began to be tedious in his prayer; that is, he was tedious. That scholar began to weep; that is he wept. "The ox began to low"; that is, he lowed. "When the tyrant's letter was brought to the Rabbins, they began to weep"; that is, they wept.
This our evangelist useth also another word, and that numberless times almost: the others also use it, but not so frequently; namely, the word presently; which answereth to the word out of hand, most common among the Talmudists. We meet with it in this our evangelist seven or eight times in the first chapter, and elsewhere very frequently: and that not seldom according to the custom of the idiom, more than out of the necessity of the thing signified.
4. And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
[And some fell.] According to what falls. The Gloss there, "According to the measure which one sows." And there the Gemarists speak of seed falling out of the hand: that is, that is cast out of the hand of the sower: and of seed falling from the oxen: that is, "that which is scattered and sown" by the sowing oxen. "For (as the Gloss speaks) sometimes they sow with the hand, and sometimes they put the seed into a cart full of holes, and drive the oxen upon the ploughed earth, and the seed falls through the holes."
5. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
[Because it had no depth of earth.] For it was rocky, whose turf nevertheless was thick enough, and very fruitful; but this ground which the parable supposeth wanted that thickness. "You have not a more fruitful land among all lands than the land of Egypt; nor a more fruitful country in Egypt than Zoan. And yet Hebron, which was rocky, exceeded it sevenfold." Note that 'it was rocky, and yet so fruitful.'
7. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
[Among thorns.] The parable supposeth, a field not freed from thorns.
11. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
[Unto them that are without.] Those without, in Jewish speech, were the Gentiles; a phrase taken hence, that they called all lands and countries besides their own without the land. Would you have an exact instance of this distinction? "A tree, half of which grows within the land of Israel, and half without the land, the fruits of it which are to be tithed, and the common fruits are confounded: they are the words of Rabba. But Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, 'That part which grows within the place, that is bound to tithing" [that is, within the land of Israel], "is to be tithed: that which grows in the place free from tithing" (that is, without the land) "is free.'" The Gloss is, "For if the roots of the tree are without the land, it is free, although the tree itself extends itself sixteen cubits within the land."
Hence books that are without, are heathen books: extraneous books of Greek wisdom.
This is the common signification of the phrase. And, certainly it foretells dreadful things, when our blessed Saviour stigmatizeth the Jewish nation with that very name that they were wont to call the heathens by.
The word those without, occurs also in the Talmudists, when it signifies the Jews themselves; that is, some of the Jewish nation. Here the Karaites, who rejected traditions, there those without, are opposed to the wise men: "He that puts his phylacteries on his forehead, or in the palm of his hand, behold! he follows the custom of the Karaites. And he that overlays one of them with gold, and puts it upon his garment which is at his hand, behold! he follows the custom of those that are without." Where the Gloss, "those without are men who follow their own will, and not the judgment of the wise men." They are supposed to wear phylacteries, and to be Jews; but when they do according to their pleasure, and despise the rules of the wise men, they are esteemed as those that are without, or heathens. So was the whole Jewish nation according to Christ's censure, which despised the evangelical wisdom.
[All things are done in parables.] I. How much is the Jewish nation deceived concerning the times of the Messias! They think his forerunner Elias will explain all difficulties, resolve scruples, and will render all things plain; so that when the Messias shall come after him, there shall be nothing obscure or dark in the law and in religion. Hence these expressions, and the like to them: "One found a bill of contracts in his keeping, and knew not what it meant, Let it be laid up till Elias shall come." And more in the same tract, concerning things found, when it is not known to whom they are to be restored, "Let them be laid up till Elias come." "That passage, (Eze 14:18,19 where a burnt offering is called a sacrifice for sin) Elias will unfold." Infinite examples of that sort occur.
II. How those words have wracked interpreters, "Is a candle put under a bushel," &c.; and, "There is nothing hidden," &c.: you may see also without a candle. A very easy sense of them is gathered from the context. When Christ speaks in parables, "A light is put under a bushel": but "the light (saith he) is not come for this end," that it should be so hidden; nor, indeed, were it fit so to hide it, but that the divine justice would have it so, that they who will not see the light should not enjoy the light. But "there is nothing hid" which shall not be made manifest by the brightness of the doctrine of the gospel, so there be eyes that do not refuse the light, nor voluntarily become purblind. Therefore, take you heed how you hear, lest ye be like them, and divine justice mete to you by the same measure as is measured to them; namely, that they shall never hear, because they will not hear.
[He began to teach.] That is, he taught; by a phrase very usual to these holy writers, because very usual to the nation: Rabh Canah began to be tedious in his prayer; that is, he was tedious. That scholar began to weep; that is he wept. "The ox began to low"; that is, he lowed. "When the tyrant's letter was brought to the Rabbins, they began to weep"; that is, they wept.
This our evangelist useth also another word, and that numberless times almost: the others also use it, but not so frequently; namely, the word presently; which answereth to the word out of hand, most common among the Talmudists. We meet with it in this our evangelist seven or eight times in the first chapter, and elsewhere very frequently: and that not seldom according to the custom of the idiom, more than out of the necessity of the thing signified.
4. And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
[And some fell.] According to what falls. The Gloss there, "According to the measure which one sows." And there the Gemarists speak of seed falling out of the hand: that is, that is cast out of the hand of the sower: and of seed falling from the oxen: that is, "that which is scattered and sown" by the sowing oxen. "For (as the Gloss speaks) sometimes they sow with the hand, and sometimes they put the seed into a cart full of holes, and drive the oxen upon the ploughed earth, and the seed falls through the holes."
5. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
[Because it had no depth of earth.] For it was rocky, whose turf nevertheless was thick enough, and very fruitful; but this ground which the parable supposeth wanted that thickness. "You have not a more fruitful land among all lands than the land of Egypt; nor a more fruitful country in Egypt than Zoan. And yet Hebron, which was rocky, exceeded it sevenfold." Note that 'it was rocky, and yet so fruitful.'
7. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
[Among thorns.] The parable supposeth, a field not freed from thorns.
11. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
[Unto them that are without.] Those without, in Jewish speech, were the Gentiles; a phrase taken hence, that they called all lands and countries besides their own without the land. Would you have an exact instance of this distinction? "A tree, half of which grows within the land of Israel, and half without the land, the fruits of it which are to be tithed, and the common fruits are confounded: they are the words of Rabba. But Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, 'That part which grows within the place, that is bound to tithing" [that is, within the land of Israel], "is to be tithed: that which grows in the place free from tithing" (that is, without the land) "is free.'" The Gloss is, "For if the roots of the tree are without the land, it is free, although the tree itself extends itself sixteen cubits within the land."
Hence books that are without, are heathen books: extraneous books of Greek wisdom.
This is the common signification of the phrase. And, certainly it foretells dreadful things, when our blessed Saviour stigmatizeth the Jewish nation with that very name that they were wont to call the heathens by.
The word those without, occurs also in the Talmudists, when it signifies the Jews themselves; that is, some of the Jewish nation. Here the Karaites, who rejected traditions, there those without, are opposed to the wise men: "He that puts his phylacteries on his forehead, or in the palm of his hand, behold! he follows the custom of the Karaites. And he that overlays one of them with gold, and puts it upon his garment which is at his hand, behold! he follows the custom of those that are without." Where the Gloss, "those without are men who follow their own will, and not the judgment of the wise men." They are supposed to wear phylacteries, and to be Jews; but when they do according to their pleasure, and despise the rules of the wise men, they are esteemed as those that are without, or heathens. So was the whole Jewish nation according to Christ's censure, which despised the evangelical wisdom.
[All things are done in parables.] I. How much is the Jewish nation deceived concerning the times of the Messias! They think his forerunner Elias will explain all difficulties, resolve scruples, and will render all things plain; so that when the Messias shall come after him, there shall be nothing obscure or dark in the law and in religion. Hence these expressions, and the like to them: "One found a bill of contracts in his keeping, and knew not what it meant, Let it be laid up till Elias shall come." And more in the same tract, concerning things found, when it is not known to whom they are to be restored, "Let them be laid up till Elias come." "That passage, (Eze 14:18,19 where a burnt offering is called a sacrifice for sin) Elias will unfold." Infinite examples of that sort occur.
II. How those words have wracked interpreters, "Is a candle put under a bushel," &c.; and, "There is nothing hidden," &c.: you may see also without a candle. A very easy sense of them is gathered from the context. When Christ speaks in parables, "A light is put under a bushel": but "the light (saith he) is not come for this end," that it should be so hidden; nor, indeed, were it fit so to hide it, but that the divine justice would have it so, that they who will not see the light should not enjoy the light. But "there is nothing hid" which shall not be made manifest by the brightness of the doctrine of the gospel, so there be eyes that do not refuse the light, nor voluntarily become purblind. Therefore, take you heed how you hear, lest ye be like them, and divine justice mete to you by the same measure as is measured to them; namely, that they shall never hear, because they will not hear.
Mark 5
1. And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
[Into the country of the Gadarenes.] So also Luke: But Matthew, into the country of the Gergesenes. And, which ought not to be passed over without observation, Mark and Luke, who call it the country of the Gadarenes, make mention only of one possessed person; but Matthew, who calls it the country of the Gergesenes, speaks of two. We know what is here said by commentators to reconcile the evangelists. We fetch their reconciliation from the very distinction of the words which the evangelists use, and that from those conclusions:
I. We say the region of the Gergesenes was of broader extent and signification than the region of the Gadarenes was, and that the region of the Gadarenes was included within it. For whether it were called so from the old Gergashite family of the Canaanites, or from the muddy and clayey nature of the soil, which was called Gergishta by the Jews, which we rather believe; it was of wider extension than the country of the Gadarenes; which denoted only one city, and the smaller country about it, and that belonged to Gadara. But this country comprehended within it the country of Gadara, of Hippo, and of Magdala, if not others also.
II. We say Gadara was a city of heathens, (hence it is less marvel if there were swine among them) which we prove also elsewhere, when we treat of the region of Decapolis.
III. We say there were two possessed persons according to Matthew, one a Gadarene, another coming from some other place than the country of Gadara, namely, from some place in the country of the Gergesenes.
IV. We believe that that Gadarene was a heathen; and that Mark and Luke mentioned only him on set purpose, that so they might make the story the more famous. Any one skilled in the chorography of the land of Israel might understand that the country of the Gadarenes was of heathen possession: they therefore mark him with that name, that it might presently be perceived that Christ now had to do with a heathen possessed person; which was somewhat rare, and except the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman, without any example. Matthew would describe the greatness of the miracle; he therefore mentions two most miserably possessed persons: but Mark and Luke choose out only one, and him more remarkable for this very thing, that he was a Gadarene, and by consequence a heathen. These things, well weighed, do not only confirm the concord between the evangelists, but render the story far clearer. For,
First, It is to be marked that the devil adjures Christ not to "torment" him, verse 7, which is not elsewhere done by him: as though he were without Christ's jurisdiction among the heathens. And,
Secondly, Christ does not elsewhere ask any about their name, besides this alone, as being of more singular example and story.
Thirdly, The heathen name legion, argues him a heathen concerning whom the story is.
Fourthly, The devils besought him much that he would not send them out of the country; for being among heathens, they thought they were among their own.
Our Saviour, therefore, healed those two in Matthew together, the one, a Gadarene and heathen, and the other from some other place, a Gergesene and a Jew; and that not without a mystery; namely, that there should be comfort in Christ both to Jews and Gentiles, against the power and tyranny of Satan. Of those two, Mark and Luke mention the more remarkable.
9. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
[My name is Legion.] I. This name speaks a numerous company, the devil himself being the interpreter; "Legion (saith he) is my name, for we are many."
And among the Jews, when a man would express a great number of any thing, it was not unusual to name a legion: "R. Eliezer Ben Simeon saith, It is easier for a man to nourish a legion of olives in Galilee, than to bring up one child in the land of Israel."
II. Among the Talmudists, a legion bespeaks an unclean company; at least, they reckoned all the legions for unclean: "The Rabbins deliver: a legion that passeth from place to place, if it enter into any house, the house is thereby become unclean. For there is no legion which hath not some carcaphalia. And wonder not at this, when the carcaphalion of R. Ismael was fastened to the heads of kings." "'Carcaphal' (saith the Gloss) is the skin of a head pulled off from a dead person, which they make use of in enchantments."
III. What the Romans thought of their legions, take from the words of Caesar to the Spaniards: "Did ye not consider, if I were overthrown, that the people of Rome have ten legions, which could not only resist you, but pull down even heaven itself?" What then is the power of "more than twelve legions of angels"!
14. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
[Told it in the country.] Told it in the fields. But to whom? To them that laboured, or that travelled in the fields? So chapter 6:36: That they may go away into the 'fields' round about, and buy themselves bread. From whom, I pray, should they buy in the fields? And verse 56: And wheresoever they entered into towns or 'fields,' they laid the sick in the streets, or markets. What streets or markets are there in the fields?
"Rabba saith, That food made of meal, of those that dwell in the fields, in which they mingle much meal, over it they give thanks." Dwellers in the field, saith the Gloss, are inhabitants of the villages. And the Aruch saith, "private men who dwell in the fields": that is, in houses scattered here and there, and not built together in one place, as it is in towns and cities.
15. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
[In his right mind.] Firm, or sound of understanding, in Talmudic speech.
23. And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
[My little daughter.] "A daughter from her birthday, until she is twelve years old complete, is called 'little,' or 'a little maid.' But when she is full twelve years old and one day over, she is called 'a young woman.'"
26. And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
[And had suffered many things of many physicians.] And it is no wonder: for see what various and manifold kinds of medicines are prescribed to a woman labouring under a flux: "R. Jochanan saith, Bring (or take) of gum of Alexandria the weight of a zuzee: and of alum, the weight of a zuzee: and of crocus hortensis the weight of a zuzee: let these be bruised together, and be given in wine to the woman that hath an issue of blood, &c.
"But if this does not benefit, take of Persian onions thrice three logs, boil them in wine, and then give it her to drink, and say Arise from thy flux
"But if this does not prevail, set her in a place where two ways meet, and let her hold a cup of wine in her hand; and let somebody come behind her and affright her, and say, Arise from thy flux.
"But if that do no good, take a handful of cummin, and a handful of crocus, and a handful of foenum groecum. Let these be boiled in wine, and give them her to drink, and say, Arise from thy flux."
But if these do not benefit, other doses and others still are prescribed, in number ten or more, which see, if you please, in the place cited [Bab. Schabb. fol. 110.]. Among them I cannot omit this:
"Let them dig seven ditches: in which let them burn some cuttings of such vines as are not circumcised, [that is, that are not yet four years old]. And let her take in her hand a cup of wine. And let them lead her away from this ditch, and make her sit down over that. And let them remove her from that, and make her sit down over another. And in every removal you must say to her, Arise from thy flux," &c.
41. And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
[Talitha kumi.] "Rabbi Jochanan saith, We remember when boys and girls of sixteen and seventeen years old played in the streets, and nobody was offended with them." Where the Gloss is, Tali and Talitha is a boy and a girl.
[Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.] Talitha kumi signifies only Maid, arise. How comes that clause then, I say unto thee, to be inserted?
I. You may recollect here, and perhaps not without profit, that which was alleged before; namely, that it was customary among the Jews, that, when they applied physic to the profluvious woman, they said, "Arise from thy flux"; which very probably they used in other diseases also.
II. Christ said nothing else than what sounded all one with, Maid, arise: but in the pronouncing and uttering those words that authority and commanding power shined forth, that they sounded no less than if he had said, "Maid, I say to thee, or I command thee, arise." They said, "Arise from thy disease"; that is, "I wish thou wouldst arise": but Christ saith, Maid, arise; that is, "I command thee, arise."
43. And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.
[He commanded that something should be given her to eat.] Not as she was alive only, and now in good health, but as she was in a most perfect state of health, and hungry: "The son of Rabban Gamaliel was sick. He sent, therefore, two scholars of the wise men to R. Chaninah Ben Dusa into his city. He saith to them, 'Wait for me, until I go up into the upper chamber.' He went up into the upper chamber, and came down again, and said, 'I am sure that the son of Rabban Gamaliel is freed from his disease.' The same hour he asked for food."
[Into the country of the Gadarenes.] So also Luke: But Matthew, into the country of the Gergesenes. And, which ought not to be passed over without observation, Mark and Luke, who call it the country of the Gadarenes, make mention only of one possessed person; but Matthew, who calls it the country of the Gergesenes, speaks of two. We know what is here said by commentators to reconcile the evangelists. We fetch their reconciliation from the very distinction of the words which the evangelists use, and that from those conclusions:
I. We say the region of the Gergesenes was of broader extent and signification than the region of the Gadarenes was, and that the region of the Gadarenes was included within it. For whether it were called so from the old Gergashite family of the Canaanites, or from the muddy and clayey nature of the soil, which was called Gergishta by the Jews, which we rather believe; it was of wider extension than the country of the Gadarenes; which denoted only one city, and the smaller country about it, and that belonged to Gadara. But this country comprehended within it the country of Gadara, of Hippo, and of Magdala, if not others also.
II. We say Gadara was a city of heathens, (hence it is less marvel if there were swine among them) which we prove also elsewhere, when we treat of the region of Decapolis.
III. We say there were two possessed persons according to Matthew, one a Gadarene, another coming from some other place than the country of Gadara, namely, from some place in the country of the Gergesenes.
IV. We believe that that Gadarene was a heathen; and that Mark and Luke mentioned only him on set purpose, that so they might make the story the more famous. Any one skilled in the chorography of the land of Israel might understand that the country of the Gadarenes was of heathen possession: they therefore mark him with that name, that it might presently be perceived that Christ now had to do with a heathen possessed person; which was somewhat rare, and except the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman, without any example. Matthew would describe the greatness of the miracle; he therefore mentions two most miserably possessed persons: but Mark and Luke choose out only one, and him more remarkable for this very thing, that he was a Gadarene, and by consequence a heathen. These things, well weighed, do not only confirm the concord between the evangelists, but render the story far clearer. For,
First, It is to be marked that the devil adjures Christ not to "torment" him, verse 7, which is not elsewhere done by him: as though he were without Christ's jurisdiction among the heathens. And,
Secondly, Christ does not elsewhere ask any about their name, besides this alone, as being of more singular example and story.
Thirdly, The heathen name legion, argues him a heathen concerning whom the story is.
Fourthly, The devils besought him much that he would not send them out of the country; for being among heathens, they thought they were among their own.
Our Saviour, therefore, healed those two in Matthew together, the one, a Gadarene and heathen, and the other from some other place, a Gergesene and a Jew; and that not without a mystery; namely, that there should be comfort in Christ both to Jews and Gentiles, against the power and tyranny of Satan. Of those two, Mark and Luke mention the more remarkable.
9. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
[My name is Legion.] I. This name speaks a numerous company, the devil himself being the interpreter; "Legion (saith he) is my name, for we are many."
And among the Jews, when a man would express a great number of any thing, it was not unusual to name a legion: "R. Eliezer Ben Simeon saith, It is easier for a man to nourish a legion of olives in Galilee, than to bring up one child in the land of Israel."
II. Among the Talmudists, a legion bespeaks an unclean company; at least, they reckoned all the legions for unclean: "The Rabbins deliver: a legion that passeth from place to place, if it enter into any house, the house is thereby become unclean. For there is no legion which hath not some carcaphalia. And wonder not at this, when the carcaphalion of R. Ismael was fastened to the heads of kings." "'Carcaphal' (saith the Gloss) is the skin of a head pulled off from a dead person, which they make use of in enchantments."
III. What the Romans thought of their legions, take from the words of Caesar to the Spaniards: "Did ye not consider, if I were overthrown, that the people of Rome have ten legions, which could not only resist you, but pull down even heaven itself?" What then is the power of "more than twelve legions of angels"!
14. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
[Told it in the country.] Told it in the fields. But to whom? To them that laboured, or that travelled in the fields? So chapter 6:36: That they may go away into the 'fields' round about, and buy themselves bread. From whom, I pray, should they buy in the fields? And verse 56: And wheresoever they entered into towns or 'fields,' they laid the sick in the streets, or markets. What streets or markets are there in the fields?
"Rabba saith, That food made of meal, of those that dwell in the fields, in which they mingle much meal, over it they give thanks." Dwellers in the field, saith the Gloss, are inhabitants of the villages. And the Aruch saith, "private men who dwell in the fields": that is, in houses scattered here and there, and not built together in one place, as it is in towns and cities.
15. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
[In his right mind.] Firm, or sound of understanding, in Talmudic speech.
23. And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
[My little daughter.] "A daughter from her birthday, until she is twelve years old complete, is called 'little,' or 'a little maid.' But when she is full twelve years old and one day over, she is called 'a young woman.'"
26. And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
[And had suffered many things of many physicians.] And it is no wonder: for see what various and manifold kinds of medicines are prescribed to a woman labouring under a flux: "R. Jochanan saith, Bring (or take) of gum of Alexandria the weight of a zuzee: and of alum, the weight of a zuzee: and of crocus hortensis the weight of a zuzee: let these be bruised together, and be given in wine to the woman that hath an issue of blood, &c.
"But if this does not benefit, take of Persian onions thrice three logs, boil them in wine, and then give it her to drink, and say Arise from thy flux
"But if this does not prevail, set her in a place where two ways meet, and let her hold a cup of wine in her hand; and let somebody come behind her and affright her, and say, Arise from thy flux.
"But if that do no good, take a handful of cummin, and a handful of crocus, and a handful of foenum groecum. Let these be boiled in wine, and give them her to drink, and say, Arise from thy flux."
But if these do not benefit, other doses and others still are prescribed, in number ten or more, which see, if you please, in the place cited [Bab. Schabb. fol. 110.]. Among them I cannot omit this:
"Let them dig seven ditches: in which let them burn some cuttings of such vines as are not circumcised, [that is, that are not yet four years old]. And let her take in her hand a cup of wine. And let them lead her away from this ditch, and make her sit down over that. And let them remove her from that, and make her sit down over another. And in every removal you must say to her, Arise from thy flux," &c.
41. And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
[Talitha kumi.] "Rabbi Jochanan saith, We remember when boys and girls of sixteen and seventeen years old played in the streets, and nobody was offended with them." Where the Gloss is, Tali and Talitha is a boy and a girl.
[Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.] Talitha kumi signifies only Maid, arise. How comes that clause then, I say unto thee, to be inserted?
I. You may recollect here, and perhaps not without profit, that which was alleged before; namely, that it was customary among the Jews, that, when they applied physic to the profluvious woman, they said, "Arise from thy flux"; which very probably they used in other diseases also.
II. Christ said nothing else than what sounded all one with, Maid, arise: but in the pronouncing and uttering those words that authority and commanding power shined forth, that they sounded no less than if he had said, "Maid, I say to thee, or I command thee, arise." They said, "Arise from thy disease"; that is, "I wish thou wouldst arise": but Christ saith, Maid, arise; that is, "I command thee, arise."
43. And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.
[He commanded that something should be given her to eat.] Not as she was alive only, and now in good health, but as she was in a most perfect state of health, and hungry: "The son of Rabban Gamaliel was sick. He sent, therefore, two scholars of the wise men to R. Chaninah Ben Dusa into his city. He saith to them, 'Wait for me, until I go up into the upper chamber.' He went up into the upper chamber, and came down again, and said, 'I am sure that the son of Rabban Gamaliel is freed from his disease.' The same hour he asked for food."
Mark 6
3. Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
[Is not this the carpenter?] Among other things to be performed by the father for his son this was one, to bring him up in some art or trade. "It is incumbent on the father to circumcise his son, to redeem him, to teach him the law, and to teach him some occupation. R. Judah saith, 'Whosoever teacheth not his son to do some work, is as if he taught him robbery.'" "R. Meir saith, 'Let a man always endeavour to teach his son an honest art,'" &c. Joseph instructs and brings up Christ in his carpenter's trade.
8. And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse.
[No scrip.] Concerning the scrip we said somewhat at Matthew 10:10: let us add this story: "The Rabbins deliver: There is a story of a certain man, whose sons behaved not themselves well. He stood forth and assigned over his wealth to Jonathan Ben Uzziel. What did Jonathan Ben Uzziel do? He sold a third part; a third part he dedicated to holy uses; and a third part he gave back to the sons of the deceased. Shammai came to him with his staff and with his scrip." The Gloss saith, "He came to contend with Jonathan, because he had violated the will of the dead." Behold the vice-president of the Sanhedrim carrying a scrip, in which he laid up victuals for his journey.
13. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
[Anointed with oil many that were sick.] "The oil, therefore, was (saith the famous Beza) a symbol of that miraculous power, not a medicament whereby they cured diseases." But the Jews say, and that truly, such an anointing was physical, although it did not always obtain its end. But this anointing of the apostles ever obtained its end: "R. Simeon Ben Eliezer saith, 'R. Meir permitted the mingling of wine and oil, and to anoint the sick on the sabbath. But when he once was sick, and we would do the same to him, he permitted it not.'" This story is recited elsewhere; where for 'R. Simeon Ben Eliezer,' is 'R. Samuel Ben Eliezer.' Perhaps in the manuscript copy it was written with an abbreviation and thence came the ambiguity of the name.
Let it be granted such anointing was medicinal, which cannot possibly be denied; and then there is nothing obscure in the words of James 5:14; "Let the elders of the church be called, and let the sick man be anointed by them, or by others present, that their prayers may be joined with the ordinary means."
27. And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,
[An executioner.] So the Targum of Jonathan upon Genesis 39:1; Rab Speculatoraia. See the Aruch, in the word Speculator.
37. He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?
[Two hundred pence.] I. Denarius and zuz are of the same value among the Rabbins. "The fourth part of a shekel of silver in the Targum is one zuz of silver. For a shekel of the law was selaa. And so in the Targum, a shekel, is selaa, and is worth four denarii," or pence.
But now a penny and zuz are the same: "They call pence, in the language of the Gemara, zuzim."
II. But now two hundred zuzees, or pence, was a sum very famous, and of very frequent mention. "If one of elder years lay with a woman of less years, or if one of less years lay with a woman of elder years, or one that is wounded, their portion is two hundred zuzees." "If one gives another a blow upon the cheek, let him give him two hundred zuzees." "A woman that is now become a widow, or dismissed by a divorce, who was married a virgin, let her have for her portion two hundred zuzees."
Hence, perhaps, is the same number of two hundred pence in the mouth of the disciples, because it was a most celebrated sum, and of very frequent mention in the mouths of all.
40. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties.
[By ranks.] Rank by rank, in Talmudic language. The university of Jabneh is very frequently celebrated under the name of the vineyard in Jabneh. And R. Solomon gives the reason; Because the scholars sat there ranks by ranks, like a vineyard which is planted rank by rank.
[Is not this the carpenter?] Among other things to be performed by the father for his son this was one, to bring him up in some art or trade. "It is incumbent on the father to circumcise his son, to redeem him, to teach him the law, and to teach him some occupation. R. Judah saith, 'Whosoever teacheth not his son to do some work, is as if he taught him robbery.'" "R. Meir saith, 'Let a man always endeavour to teach his son an honest art,'" &c. Joseph instructs and brings up Christ in his carpenter's trade.
8. And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse.
[No scrip.] Concerning the scrip we said somewhat at Matthew 10:10: let us add this story: "The Rabbins deliver: There is a story of a certain man, whose sons behaved not themselves well. He stood forth and assigned over his wealth to Jonathan Ben Uzziel. What did Jonathan Ben Uzziel do? He sold a third part; a third part he dedicated to holy uses; and a third part he gave back to the sons of the deceased. Shammai came to him with his staff and with his scrip." The Gloss saith, "He came to contend with Jonathan, because he had violated the will of the dead." Behold the vice-president of the Sanhedrim carrying a scrip, in which he laid up victuals for his journey.
13. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
[Anointed with oil many that were sick.] "The oil, therefore, was (saith the famous Beza) a symbol of that miraculous power, not a medicament whereby they cured diseases." But the Jews say, and that truly, such an anointing was physical, although it did not always obtain its end. But this anointing of the apostles ever obtained its end: "R. Simeon Ben Eliezer saith, 'R. Meir permitted the mingling of wine and oil, and to anoint the sick on the sabbath. But when he once was sick, and we would do the same to him, he permitted it not.'" This story is recited elsewhere; where for 'R. Simeon Ben Eliezer,' is 'R. Samuel Ben Eliezer.' Perhaps in the manuscript copy it was written with an abbreviation and thence came the ambiguity of the name.
Let it be granted such anointing was medicinal, which cannot possibly be denied; and then there is nothing obscure in the words of James 5:14; "Let the elders of the church be called, and let the sick man be anointed by them, or by others present, that their prayers may be joined with the ordinary means."
27. And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,
[An executioner.] So the Targum of Jonathan upon Genesis 39:1; Rab Speculatoraia. See the Aruch, in the word Speculator.
37. He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?
[Two hundred pence.] I. Denarius and zuz are of the same value among the Rabbins. "The fourth part of a shekel of silver in the Targum is one zuz of silver. For a shekel of the law was selaa. And so in the Targum, a shekel, is selaa, and is worth four denarii," or pence.
But now a penny and zuz are the same: "They call pence, in the language of the Gemara, zuzim."
II. But now two hundred zuzees, or pence, was a sum very famous, and of very frequent mention. "If one of elder years lay with a woman of less years, or if one of less years lay with a woman of elder years, or one that is wounded, their portion is two hundred zuzees." "If one gives another a blow upon the cheek, let him give him two hundred zuzees." "A woman that is now become a widow, or dismissed by a divorce, who was married a virgin, let her have for her portion two hundred zuzees."
Hence, perhaps, is the same number of two hundred pence in the mouth of the disciples, because it was a most celebrated sum, and of very frequent mention in the mouths of all.
40. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties.
[By ranks.] Rank by rank, in Talmudic language. The university of Jabneh is very frequently celebrated under the name of the vineyard in Jabneh. And R. Solomon gives the reason; Because the scholars sat there ranks by ranks, like a vineyard which is planted rank by rank.
Mark 7
3. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
[Except they wash their hands oft.] The fist. When they washed their hands, they washed the fist unto the joining of the arm. The hands are polluted, and made clean unto the joining of the arm. "The Rabbins deliver: The washing of hands as to common things (or common food) was unto the joining of the arm. And the cleansing of hands and feet in the Temple was to the joint." The joining, saith the Aruch, is where the arm is distinguished from the hand. So, also, where the foot is distinguished from the leg.
"The second waters cleanse whatsoever parts of the hands the first waters had washed. But if the first waters had gone above the juncture of the arm, the second waters do not cleanse, because they do not cleanse beyond the juncture. If, therefore, the waters which went above the juncture return upon the hands again, they are unclean."
4. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.
[And when they come from the market, except they wash.] The Jews used the washing of the hands, and the plunging of the hands. And the word wash, in our evangelist seems to answer to the former, and baptize to the latter.
I. That the plunging of the whole body is not understood here, may be sufficiently proved hence; that such plunging is not used but when pollution is contracted from the more principal causes of uncleanness. "A man and vessels contract not uncleanness, but from the father of uncleanness: such as uncleanness from a creeping thing, from the seed in the unclean act, from him that is polluted by the dead, from a leper, from the water of purification, from him that lies with a menstruous woman, from the flux of him that hath the gonorrhea, from his spittle, from his urine, from the blood of a menstruous woman, from a profluvious man," &c. By these a man was so polluted, that it was a day's washing; and he must plunge his whole body. But for smaller uncleannesses it was enough to cleanse the hands.
II. Much less is it to be understood of the things bought; as if they, when they were bought for the market, were to be washed (in which sense some interpreters render the words, "And what they buy out of the market, unless they wash it, they eat it not"), when there were some things which would not endure water, some things which, when bought, were not presently eaten; and the traditional canons distinguish between those things which were lawful as soon as they came from the market, and those which were not.
III. The phrase, therefore, seems to be meant of the immersion, or plunging of the hands only; and the word fist, is here to be understood also in common. Those that remain at home eat not unless they wash the fist. But those that come from the market eat not, unless they plunge their fist into the water, being ignorant and uncertain what uncleanness they came near unto in the market.
"The washing of the hands, and the plunging of the hands, were from the scribes. The hands which had need of plunging, they dipped not but in a fit place; that is, where there was a confluence of forty seahs of water. For in the place where any dipped vessels, it was lawful to dip the hands. But the hands which have need of washing only, if they dip them in the confluence of waters, they are clean; whether they dip them in waters that are drawn, or in vessels, or in the pavement. They do not cleanse the hands [as to washing], until waters are poured upon the hands out of a vessel: for they do not wash the hands but out of a vessel."
[Pots.] It is doubtful whether this word be derived from a sextary (a certain measure), or from vessels planed or engraven. To take it as speaking of sextaries is, indeed, very agreeable to the word, and not much different from the matter. And so also it is, if you derive it from vessels planed or turned, that is, of wood. And perhaps those vessels which are called by the Rabbins flat, and are opposed to such as may contain something within them, are expressed by this word. Of that sort were knives, tables, seats, &c. Concerning which, as capable of pollution, see Maimonides, and the Talmudic Tract Kelim: where are reckoned up, 1. The very table at which they ate. 2. The little table, or the wooden side-table, where wine and fruits were set, that were presently to be brought to table. 3. A seat. 4. The footstool for the feet under the seat.
[Of beds.] Beds contracted uncleanness...One can hardly put these into good English without a paraphrase. [One] was a bed, on which a profluvious man or woman, or a menstruous woman, or a woman in childbirth, or a leper, had either sat or stood, or lain, or leaned, or hung. [The other] was a bed, which any thing had touched, that had been touched before by any of these.
The word, therefore, washings, applied to all these, properly and strictly is not to be taken of dipping or plunging, but, in respect of some things, of washing only, and, in respect of others, of sprinkling only.
11. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
[Corban (that is, 'a gift').] The word a gift, was known and common among the Talmudists: Rabba saith, A burnt sacrifice is 'a gift.' Where the Gloss writes thus; "A burnt sacrifice is not offered to expiate for any deed: but after repentance hath expiated the deed, the burnt sacrifice comes that the man may be received with favour. As when any hath sinned against the king, and hath appeased him by a paraclete [an advocate], and comes to implore his favour, he brings a gift.
Egypt shall bring 'a gift,' to the Messiah.
19. Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
[The draught.] The house of the secret seat.
[Except they wash their hands oft.] The fist. When they washed their hands, they washed the fist unto the joining of the arm. The hands are polluted, and made clean unto the joining of the arm. "The Rabbins deliver: The washing of hands as to common things (or common food) was unto the joining of the arm. And the cleansing of hands and feet in the Temple was to the joint." The joining, saith the Aruch, is where the arm is distinguished from the hand. So, also, where the foot is distinguished from the leg.
"The second waters cleanse whatsoever parts of the hands the first waters had washed. But if the first waters had gone above the juncture of the arm, the second waters do not cleanse, because they do not cleanse beyond the juncture. If, therefore, the waters which went above the juncture return upon the hands again, they are unclean."
4. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.
[And when they come from the market, except they wash.] The Jews used the washing of the hands, and the plunging of the hands. And the word wash, in our evangelist seems to answer to the former, and baptize to the latter.
I. That the plunging of the whole body is not understood here, may be sufficiently proved hence; that such plunging is not used but when pollution is contracted from the more principal causes of uncleanness. "A man and vessels contract not uncleanness, but from the father of uncleanness: such as uncleanness from a creeping thing, from the seed in the unclean act, from him that is polluted by the dead, from a leper, from the water of purification, from him that lies with a menstruous woman, from the flux of him that hath the gonorrhea, from his spittle, from his urine, from the blood of a menstruous woman, from a profluvious man," &c. By these a man was so polluted, that it was a day's washing; and he must plunge his whole body. But for smaller uncleannesses it was enough to cleanse the hands.
II. Much less is it to be understood of the things bought; as if they, when they were bought for the market, were to be washed (in which sense some interpreters render the words, "And what they buy out of the market, unless they wash it, they eat it not"), when there were some things which would not endure water, some things which, when bought, were not presently eaten; and the traditional canons distinguish between those things which were lawful as soon as they came from the market, and those which were not.
III. The phrase, therefore, seems to be meant of the immersion, or plunging of the hands only; and the word fist, is here to be understood also in common. Those that remain at home eat not unless they wash the fist. But those that come from the market eat not, unless they plunge their fist into the water, being ignorant and uncertain what uncleanness they came near unto in the market.
"The washing of the hands, and the plunging of the hands, were from the scribes. The hands which had need of plunging, they dipped not but in a fit place; that is, where there was a confluence of forty seahs of water. For in the place where any dipped vessels, it was lawful to dip the hands. But the hands which have need of washing only, if they dip them in the confluence of waters, they are clean; whether they dip them in waters that are drawn, or in vessels, or in the pavement. They do not cleanse the hands [as to washing], until waters are poured upon the hands out of a vessel: for they do not wash the hands but out of a vessel."
[Pots.] It is doubtful whether this word be derived from a sextary (a certain measure), or from vessels planed or engraven. To take it as speaking of sextaries is, indeed, very agreeable to the word, and not much different from the matter. And so also it is, if you derive it from vessels planed or turned, that is, of wood. And perhaps those vessels which are called by the Rabbins flat, and are opposed to such as may contain something within them, are expressed by this word. Of that sort were knives, tables, seats, &c. Concerning which, as capable of pollution, see Maimonides, and the Talmudic Tract Kelim: where are reckoned up, 1. The very table at which they ate. 2. The little table, or the wooden side-table, where wine and fruits were set, that were presently to be brought to table. 3. A seat. 4. The footstool for the feet under the seat.
[Of beds.] Beds contracted uncleanness...One can hardly put these into good English without a paraphrase. [One] was a bed, on which a profluvious man or woman, or a menstruous woman, or a woman in childbirth, or a leper, had either sat or stood, or lain, or leaned, or hung. [The other] was a bed, which any thing had touched, that had been touched before by any of these.
The word, therefore, washings, applied to all these, properly and strictly is not to be taken of dipping or plunging, but, in respect of some things, of washing only, and, in respect of others, of sprinkling only.
11. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
[Corban (that is, 'a gift').] The word a gift, was known and common among the Talmudists: Rabba saith, A burnt sacrifice is 'a gift.' Where the Gloss writes thus; "A burnt sacrifice is not offered to expiate for any deed: but after repentance hath expiated the deed, the burnt sacrifice comes that the man may be received with favour. As when any hath sinned against the king, and hath appeased him by a paraclete [an advocate], and comes to implore his favour, he brings a gift.
Egypt shall bring 'a gift,' to the Messiah.
19. Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
[The draught.] The house of the secret seat.
Mark 8
12. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign: verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
[Why doth this generation seek after a sign?] Instead of a comment, take a story: "On that day, R. Eliezer answered to all the questions in the whole world, but they hearkened not to him. He said therefore to them, 'If the tradition be according to what I say, let this siliqua [a kind of tree] bear witness.' The siliqua was rooted up, and removed a hundred cubits from its place: there are some who say four hundred. They say to him, 'A proof is not to be fetched from a siliqua.' He saith to them again, 'If the tradition be with me, let the rivers of waters testify': the rivers of waters are turned backward. They say to him, 'A proof is not to be fetched from the rivers of waters.' He said to them again, 'If the tradition be with me, let the walls of the school testify': the walls bowed, as if they were falling. R. Josua chid them, saying, 'If there be a controversy between the disciples of the wise men about tradition, what is that to you?' Therefore the walls fell not in honour of R. Josua. Yet they stood not upright again in honour of R. Eliezer. He said to them, moreover, 'If the tradition be with me, let the heavens bear witness.' The Bath Kol went forth and said, 'Why do ye contend with R. Eliezer, with whom the tradition always is?' R. Jonah rose up upon his feet, and said, 'It is not in heaven' (Deut 30:12). What do these words, 'It is not in heaven,' mean? R. Jeremiah saith, When the law is given from mount Sinai, we do not care for the Bath Kol."
Shall we laugh at the fable, or shall we suspect some truth in the story? For my part, when I recollect with myself, how addicted to and skillful that nation was in art-magic; which is abundantly asserted not only by the Talmudists, but by the Holy Scriptures; I am ready to give some credit to this story, and many others of the same nature: namely, that the thing was really acted by the art and help of the devil by those ensign-bearers and captains of errors, the more to establish their honour and tradition.
Therefore, from the story, be it true or false, we observe these two things:--
I. How tenacious the Jews were of their traditions, and how unmovable in them even beyond the evidence of miracles. That Eliezer was of great fame among them, but he was a follower of Shammai. Hence he is called once and again the Shammean. When, therefore, he taught something against the school of Hillel, although he did miracles (as they themselves relate), they gave not credit to him, nay, they derided him. The same was their practice, the same was their mind, against the miracles of Christ. And to this may these words of our Saviour tend, "Why does this generation seek a sign?" a generation, which is not only altogether unworthy of miracles, but also which is sworn to retain their traditions and doctrines, although infinite miracles be done to the contrary.
II. You see how the last testimony of the miracles of this conjuror is fetched from heaven: "For the Bath Kol went forth," &c. Which the followers of Hillel nevertheless received not: and therein not justly indeed; when they feign such a voice to have come to themselves from heaven, as a definitive oracle for the authority of the school of Hillel, not to be gainsaid: concerning which the Talmudists speak very frequently, and very boastingly.
After the same manner they require a sign from heaven of our Saviour; not content with those infinite miracles that he had done, the healing of disease, the casting out devils, the multiplying of loaves, &c. They would also have somewhat from heaven, either after the example of Moses fetching manna from thence; or of Elias fetching down fire; or of Joshua staying the sun; or of Isaiah bringing it backwards.
[Why doth this generation seek after a sign?] Instead of a comment, take a story: "On that day, R. Eliezer answered to all the questions in the whole world, but they hearkened not to him. He said therefore to them, 'If the tradition be according to what I say, let this siliqua [a kind of tree] bear witness.' The siliqua was rooted up, and removed a hundred cubits from its place: there are some who say four hundred. They say to him, 'A proof is not to be fetched from a siliqua.' He saith to them again, 'If the tradition be with me, let the rivers of waters testify': the rivers of waters are turned backward. They say to him, 'A proof is not to be fetched from the rivers of waters.' He said to them again, 'If the tradition be with me, let the walls of the school testify': the walls bowed, as if they were falling. R. Josua chid them, saying, 'If there be a controversy between the disciples of the wise men about tradition, what is that to you?' Therefore the walls fell not in honour of R. Josua. Yet they stood not upright again in honour of R. Eliezer. He said to them, moreover, 'If the tradition be with me, let the heavens bear witness.' The Bath Kol went forth and said, 'Why do ye contend with R. Eliezer, with whom the tradition always is?' R. Jonah rose up upon his feet, and said, 'It is not in heaven' (Deut 30:12). What do these words, 'It is not in heaven,' mean? R. Jeremiah saith, When the law is given from mount Sinai, we do not care for the Bath Kol."
Shall we laugh at the fable, or shall we suspect some truth in the story? For my part, when I recollect with myself, how addicted to and skillful that nation was in art-magic; which is abundantly asserted not only by the Talmudists, but by the Holy Scriptures; I am ready to give some credit to this story, and many others of the same nature: namely, that the thing was really acted by the art and help of the devil by those ensign-bearers and captains of errors, the more to establish their honour and tradition.
Therefore, from the story, be it true or false, we observe these two things:--
I. How tenacious the Jews were of their traditions, and how unmovable in them even beyond the evidence of miracles. That Eliezer was of great fame among them, but he was a follower of Shammai. Hence he is called once and again the Shammean. When, therefore, he taught something against the school of Hillel, although he did miracles (as they themselves relate), they gave not credit to him, nay, they derided him. The same was their practice, the same was their mind, against the miracles of Christ. And to this may these words of our Saviour tend, "Why does this generation seek a sign?" a generation, which is not only altogether unworthy of miracles, but also which is sworn to retain their traditions and doctrines, although infinite miracles be done to the contrary.
II. You see how the last testimony of the miracles of this conjuror is fetched from heaven: "For the Bath Kol went forth," &c. Which the followers of Hillel nevertheless received not: and therein not justly indeed; when they feign such a voice to have come to themselves from heaven, as a definitive oracle for the authority of the school of Hillel, not to be gainsaid: concerning which the Talmudists speak very frequently, and very boastingly.
After the same manner they require a sign from heaven of our Saviour; not content with those infinite miracles that he had done, the healing of disease, the casting out devils, the multiplying of loaves, &c. They would also have somewhat from heaven, either after the example of Moses fetching manna from thence; or of Elias fetching down fire; or of Joshua staying the sun; or of Isaiah bringing it backwards.
Mark 9
1. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
[The kingdom of God coming in power.] In Matthew, it is the Son of man coming in his kingdom. The coming of Christ in his vengeance and power to destroy the unbelieving and most wicked nation of the Jews is expressed under these forms of speech. Hence the day of judgment and vengeance:
I. It is called "the great and terrible day of the Lord," Acts 2:20; 2 Thess 2:2,3.
II. It is described as "the end of the world," Jeremiah 4:27; Matthew 24:29, &c.
III. In that phrase, "in the last times," Isaiah 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Peter 3:3; that is, in the last times of that city and dispensation.
IV. Thence, the beginning of the "new world," Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13.
V. The vengeance of Christ upon that nation is described as his "coming," John 21:22; Hebrews 10:37: his "coming in the clouds," Revelation 1:7: "in glory with the angels," Matthew 24:30, &c.
VI. It is described as the 'enthroning of Christ, and his twelve apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel,' Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30.
Hence this is the sense of the present place: Our Saviour had said in the last verse of the former chapter, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels," to take punishment of that adulterous and sinful generation. And he suggests, with good reason, that that his coming in glory should be in the lifetime of some that stood there.
2. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
[Into a high mountain.] Now your pardon, reader; I know it will be laughed at if I should doubt whether Christ were transfigured upon mount Tabor; for who ever doubted of this thing? But let me, before I give faith to the thing, reveal my doubts concerning it: and the reader, laying before his eyes some geographical map of Galilee, perhaps, when he shall have heard me, will judge more favorably of my doubting.
I. Let him consider that Christ, in the story next going before, was in the coast of Caesarea Philippi, Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18; and, for any thing that can be gathered out of the evangelists, changed not his place before this story. Who will deny that those words, "There are some that stand here who shall not taste of death," &c., were uttered in those coasts of Caesarea Philippi? And presently the story of the transfiguration followed.
II. Six days indeed came between: in which, you will say, Christ might travel from Caesarea Philippi to Tabor. He might, indeed: but, 1. The evangelists intimate no change from place to place, saying only this, That he led up into the mountain three of his disciples. 2. It seems, indeed, a wonder that our Saviour would tire himself with so long a journey, to choose Tabor whereon to be transfigured, when, as far as we read, he had never before been in that mountain; and there were mountains elsewhere where he conversed frequently. 3. Follow the footsteps of the history, and of Christ in his travel, from his transfiguration onwards. When he came down from the mountain, he healed a child possessed with a devil: and when he betook himself into the house they said, "Why could not we cast out the devil? &c. And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee, and came to Capernaum," Mark 9:28,30,33.
III. And now, reader, look upon the chorographical map, and how incongruous will this travelling seem! 1. From Caesarea Philippi to mount Tabor through the whole length almost of Galilee. 2. Then from mount Tabor by a course back again to Capernaum, a great part of Galilee (especially as the maps place Capernaum) being again passed over. Whereas Capernaum was in the way from Caesarea Philippi to Tabor, and there was a mountain there well known to Christ, and very much frequented by him.
IV. So that it seems far more consonant to the history of the gospel, that Christ was transfigured in some mountain near Caesarea Philippi; perhaps that which, Josephus being witness, was the highest, and hung over the very fountains of Jordan, and at the foot whereof Caesarea was placed.
In that place, formerly called Dan, was the first idolatry set up, and now in the same place the eternal Son of God is shewn, both in the confession of Peter, and in the unspeakably clear and illustrious demonstration of the Messias.
38. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[We saw one casting out devils in thy name.] I. Without doubt he truly did this work, whosoever he were. He cast out devils truly and really, and that by the divine power; otherwise Christ had not said those things which he did, "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me," &c.
II. Whence then could any one that followed not Christ cast out devils? Or whence could any one that cast out devils not follow Christ?
I answer: We suppose,
I. That this man cast not out devils in the name of Jesus, but in the name of Christ, or Messias: and that it was not out of contempt that he followed not Jesus, but out of ignorance; namely, because he knew not yet that Jesus was the Messias.
II. We therefore conjecture that he had been heretofore some disciple of John, who had received his baptism in the name of the Messias now speedily to come, (which all the disciples of John had) but he knew not as yet that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which John himself knew not until it was revealed to him from heaven.
III. It is probable, therefore, that God granted the gifts of miracles to some lately baptized by John, to do them in the name of the Messias; and that, to lay a plainer way for the receiving of the Messias, when he should manifest himself under the name of 'Jesus of Nazareth.'
See verse 41: In my name, because ye belong to Christ; and chapter 13:6, "Many shall come in my name"; not in the name of Jesus, but in the name of the Messias: for those false prophets assumed to themselves the name of the Messias, to bring to nought the name of Jesus. That, John 16:24, "Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name," differs not much from this sense: 'The apostles poured out their prayers, and all the holy men theirs, in the name of the Messias; but ye have as yet asked nothing in my name Jesus,' &c.
43. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[Cut it off.] "Rabh Mona, in the name of R. Judah, saith, A drop of cold water in the morning [applied to the eye], and the washing of the hands and feet in the evening, is good beyond all the collyrium [eyesalve] in the whole world. For he said, The hand applied to the eye [in the morning, before washing], let it be cut off. The hand applied to the nostril, let it be cut off: the hand put to the ear, let it be cut off," &c.
49. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
[For every one shall be salted with fire.] The great Scaliger is well chastised, and not without cause, by John Cloppenberg, because he changed the reading here into every sacrifice shall be salted. See what he saith.
All, is not to be understood of every man, but of every one of them "whose worm dieth not," &c.
The sense of the place is to be fetched from those words, and the sense of those words from Isaiah 66:24: "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Upon which place thus the Jews write; "'They shall go forth and look,' &c. Is not the finger of a man, if it be put into the fire, immediately burnt? But God gives power (or being) to wicked men to receive torments." Kimchi upon the place thus: "They shall see the carcases of them full of worms, and fire burning in them": and yet the worms die not.
The words therefore of our Saviour respect this: "Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched; for every one of them shall be seasoned with fire itself, so as to become unconsumable, and shall endure for ever to be tormented, as salt preserves from corruption."
That very learned man mentioned before called the common reading very improper. For what is it, saith he, to season with fire? Let me retort, And what is it to fire with salt? And yet that sense occurs very frequently in the Talmudists. For in them is to burn, (which it signifies properly indeed) and very frequently it is, to corrupt any thing with too much salting, so that it cannot be eaten: to be fired with salt. So in this place, to be salted with fire, that it cannot be corrupted or consumed.
[And every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.] Here the discourse is of salting, which was done at the altar, see Leviticus 2:13: "In the ascent of the altar, they salted the parts of the sacrifice: and on the top of the altar they salt the handful of meal, of frankincense, of incense, and the mincha of the priests, and the mincha of the anointed priest, and the mincha of the drink-offerings, and the sacrifice of birds." Yea, the very wood is a corban of the mincha, and is to be salted.
But in the former clause, the allusion was not to the fire of the altar, but to the fire in the valley of Hinnom, where dead carcases, bones, and other filthy things were consumed. Carcases crawl with worms; and instead of salt which secures against worms, they shall be cast into the fire, and shall be seasoned with flames, and yet the worms shall not die. But he that is a true sacrifice to God shall be seasoned with the salt of grace to the incorruption of glory.
Our Saviour speaks in this place with Isaiah 66:20: They shall bring your brethren out of all the nations for a gift to the Lord,--as the children of Israel offer their sacrifices to me with psalms in the house of the Lord. And verse 24: And they shall go forth, and look upon the limbs of men that transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, &c.
Every sacrifice, saith our Saviour, concerning holy men seasoned with grace: so the prophet, "They shall bring your brethren for a gift to the Lord, as the children of Israel do the sacrifices."
Shall be seasoned with fire, saith our Saviour of wicked men: in the same sense Isaiah, "They shall be in unquenchable fire, and yet their worm shall not die."
Their fire and their worm: whose? Concerning the former, it is somewhat obscure in our Saviour's words, and so, indeed, that it is without all obscurity that he refers his words only to the words of Isaiah: but who they are in Isaiah is plain enough.
[The kingdom of God coming in power.] In Matthew, it is the Son of man coming in his kingdom. The coming of Christ in his vengeance and power to destroy the unbelieving and most wicked nation of the Jews is expressed under these forms of speech. Hence the day of judgment and vengeance:
I. It is called "the great and terrible day of the Lord," Acts 2:20; 2 Thess 2:2,3.
II. It is described as "the end of the world," Jeremiah 4:27; Matthew 24:29, &c.
III. In that phrase, "in the last times," Isaiah 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Peter 3:3; that is, in the last times of that city and dispensation.
IV. Thence, the beginning of the "new world," Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13.
V. The vengeance of Christ upon that nation is described as his "coming," John 21:22; Hebrews 10:37: his "coming in the clouds," Revelation 1:7: "in glory with the angels," Matthew 24:30, &c.
VI. It is described as the 'enthroning of Christ, and his twelve apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel,' Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30.
Hence this is the sense of the present place: Our Saviour had said in the last verse of the former chapter, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels," to take punishment of that adulterous and sinful generation. And he suggests, with good reason, that that his coming in glory should be in the lifetime of some that stood there.
2. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
[Into a high mountain.] Now your pardon, reader; I know it will be laughed at if I should doubt whether Christ were transfigured upon mount Tabor; for who ever doubted of this thing? But let me, before I give faith to the thing, reveal my doubts concerning it: and the reader, laying before his eyes some geographical map of Galilee, perhaps, when he shall have heard me, will judge more favorably of my doubting.
I. Let him consider that Christ, in the story next going before, was in the coast of Caesarea Philippi, Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18; and, for any thing that can be gathered out of the evangelists, changed not his place before this story. Who will deny that those words, "There are some that stand here who shall not taste of death," &c., were uttered in those coasts of Caesarea Philippi? And presently the story of the transfiguration followed.
II. Six days indeed came between: in which, you will say, Christ might travel from Caesarea Philippi to Tabor. He might, indeed: but, 1. The evangelists intimate no change from place to place, saying only this, That he led up into the mountain three of his disciples. 2. It seems, indeed, a wonder that our Saviour would tire himself with so long a journey, to choose Tabor whereon to be transfigured, when, as far as we read, he had never before been in that mountain; and there were mountains elsewhere where he conversed frequently. 3. Follow the footsteps of the history, and of Christ in his travel, from his transfiguration onwards. When he came down from the mountain, he healed a child possessed with a devil: and when he betook himself into the house they said, "Why could not we cast out the devil? &c. And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee, and came to Capernaum," Mark 9:28,30,33.
III. And now, reader, look upon the chorographical map, and how incongruous will this travelling seem! 1. From Caesarea Philippi to mount Tabor through the whole length almost of Galilee. 2. Then from mount Tabor by a course back again to Capernaum, a great part of Galilee (especially as the maps place Capernaum) being again passed over. Whereas Capernaum was in the way from Caesarea Philippi to Tabor, and there was a mountain there well known to Christ, and very much frequented by him.
IV. So that it seems far more consonant to the history of the gospel, that Christ was transfigured in some mountain near Caesarea Philippi; perhaps that which, Josephus being witness, was the highest, and hung over the very fountains of Jordan, and at the foot whereof Caesarea was placed.
In that place, formerly called Dan, was the first idolatry set up, and now in the same place the eternal Son of God is shewn, both in the confession of Peter, and in the unspeakably clear and illustrious demonstration of the Messias.
38. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[We saw one casting out devils in thy name.] I. Without doubt he truly did this work, whosoever he were. He cast out devils truly and really, and that by the divine power; otherwise Christ had not said those things which he did, "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me," &c.
II. Whence then could any one that followed not Christ cast out devils? Or whence could any one that cast out devils not follow Christ?
I answer: We suppose,
I. That this man cast not out devils in the name of Jesus, but in the name of Christ, or Messias: and that it was not out of contempt that he followed not Jesus, but out of ignorance; namely, because he knew not yet that Jesus was the Messias.
II. We therefore conjecture that he had been heretofore some disciple of John, who had received his baptism in the name of the Messias now speedily to come, (which all the disciples of John had) but he knew not as yet that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which John himself knew not until it was revealed to him from heaven.
III. It is probable, therefore, that God granted the gifts of miracles to some lately baptized by John, to do them in the name of the Messias; and that, to lay a plainer way for the receiving of the Messias, when he should manifest himself under the name of 'Jesus of Nazareth.'
See verse 41: In my name, because ye belong to Christ; and chapter 13:6, "Many shall come in my name"; not in the name of Jesus, but in the name of the Messias: for those false prophets assumed to themselves the name of the Messias, to bring to nought the name of Jesus. That, John 16:24, "Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name," differs not much from this sense: 'The apostles poured out their prayers, and all the holy men theirs, in the name of the Messias; but ye have as yet asked nothing in my name Jesus,' &c.
43. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[Cut it off.] "Rabh Mona, in the name of R. Judah, saith, A drop of cold water in the morning [applied to the eye], and the washing of the hands and feet in the evening, is good beyond all the collyrium [eyesalve] in the whole world. For he said, The hand applied to the eye [in the morning, before washing], let it be cut off. The hand applied to the nostril, let it be cut off: the hand put to the ear, let it be cut off," &c.
49. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
[For every one shall be salted with fire.] The great Scaliger is well chastised, and not without cause, by John Cloppenberg, because he changed the reading here into every sacrifice shall be salted. See what he saith.
All, is not to be understood of every man, but of every one of them "whose worm dieth not," &c.
The sense of the place is to be fetched from those words, and the sense of those words from Isaiah 66:24: "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Upon which place thus the Jews write; "'They shall go forth and look,' &c. Is not the finger of a man, if it be put into the fire, immediately burnt? But God gives power (or being) to wicked men to receive torments." Kimchi upon the place thus: "They shall see the carcases of them full of worms, and fire burning in them": and yet the worms die not.
The words therefore of our Saviour respect this: "Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched; for every one of them shall be seasoned with fire itself, so as to become unconsumable, and shall endure for ever to be tormented, as salt preserves from corruption."
That very learned man mentioned before called the common reading very improper. For what is it, saith he, to season with fire? Let me retort, And what is it to fire with salt? And yet that sense occurs very frequently in the Talmudists. For in them is to burn, (which it signifies properly indeed) and very frequently it is, to corrupt any thing with too much salting, so that it cannot be eaten: to be fired with salt. So in this place, to be salted with fire, that it cannot be corrupted or consumed.
[And every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.] Here the discourse is of salting, which was done at the altar, see Leviticus 2:13: "In the ascent of the altar, they salted the parts of the sacrifice: and on the top of the altar they salt the handful of meal, of frankincense, of incense, and the mincha of the priests, and the mincha of the anointed priest, and the mincha of the drink-offerings, and the sacrifice of birds." Yea, the very wood is a corban of the mincha, and is to be salted.
But in the former clause, the allusion was not to the fire of the altar, but to the fire in the valley of Hinnom, where dead carcases, bones, and other filthy things were consumed. Carcases crawl with worms; and instead of salt which secures against worms, they shall be cast into the fire, and shall be seasoned with flames, and yet the worms shall not die. But he that is a true sacrifice to God shall be seasoned with the salt of grace to the incorruption of glory.
Our Saviour speaks in this place with Isaiah 66:20: They shall bring your brethren out of all the nations for a gift to the Lord,--as the children of Israel offer their sacrifices to me with psalms in the house of the Lord. And verse 24: And they shall go forth, and look upon the limbs of men that transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, &c.
Every sacrifice, saith our Saviour, concerning holy men seasoned with grace: so the prophet, "They shall bring your brethren for a gift to the Lord, as the children of Israel do the sacrifices."
Shall be seasoned with fire, saith our Saviour of wicked men: in the same sense Isaiah, "They shall be in unquenchable fire, and yet their worm shall not die."
Their fire and their worm: whose? Concerning the former, it is somewhat obscure in our Saviour's words, and so, indeed, that it is without all obscurity that he refers his words only to the words of Isaiah: but who they are in Isaiah is plain enough.
Mark 10
1. And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
[Cometh into the coasts of Judea by the further side of Jordan.] Here is need of a discerning eye to distinguish of the true time and method of this story, and of Christ's journey. If you make use of such an eye, you will find half a year, or thereabouts, to come between the uttering of the words immediately before-going, and this travel of our Saviour; however it seems to be intimated by our evangelist, and likewise by Matthew, that when he had finished those words, forthwith he entered upon his journey: when, in truth, he went before to Jerusalem, through the midst of Samaria, to the feast of Tabernacles, Luke 9:51, &c. John 7. And again, from Galilee, after he had returned thither, through the cities and towns to Jerusalem, Luke 13:22; to the feast of Dedication, John 10:22: and again, "beyond Jordan" indeed, John 10:40; but first taking his way into Galilee, and thence beyond Jordan, according to that story which is before us. The studious reader, and that in good earnest employeth his labour upon this business, has not need of further proof; his own eyes will witness this sufficiently. Thus, the wisdom and Spirit of God directed the pens of these holy writers, that some omitted some things to be supplied by others; and others supplied those things which they had omitted: and so a full and complete history was not composed but of all joined and compared together.
I wish the reverend Beza had sufficiently considered this, who rendereth not beyond, but by Jordan, and corrects the Vulgar interpreter and Erasmus, who render it 'beyond Jordan,' properly and most truly: "As if, by Perea (saith he), or the country beyond Jordan, Christ, passing over Jordan or the lake of Tiberias, came into Judea out of Galilee; which is not true." But take heed you do not mistake, reverend old man. For he went over Jordan from Capernaum, as it is very probable, by the bridge built over Jordan between Chammath, near to Tiberias, at the Gadarene country: he betook himself to Bethabara, and stayed some time there, John 10:40: thence he went along Perea to the bank over against Jericho. While he tarrieth there, a messenger, sent from Mary, comes to him concerning the death of Lazarus, John 11; and thence, after two days, he passeth Jordan in Judea.
17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
[Kneeled to him.] So chapter 1:40, Beseeching him, and kneeling to him. This is variously rendered, He fell at his feet, bowing the knee, beseeching upon his knee, falling down at his knees. Which renderings are not improper, but I suspect something more is included. For, 1. It was customary for those that so adored to take hold of the knees or the legs, 2 Kings 4:27; Matthew 28:9. 2. To kiss the knees or the feet. See what we have said at Matthew 28:9.
When R. Akiba had been twelve years absent from his wife, and at last came back, his wife went out to meet him: "and when she came to him, falling upon her face, she kissed his knees." And a little after, when he was entered into the city, his father-in-law not knowing who he was, but suspecting him to be some great Rabbin, went to him, and falling upon his face kissed his knees. Speaking of Job, "Satan came, and he kissed his knees: but in all this Job sinned not with his lips," &c. When a certain Rabbin had discoursed of divers things, Bar Chama rose up and kissed his knees.
21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
[Loved him.] That is, he manifested by some outward gesture that this man pleased him, both in his question and in his answer: when he both seriously inquired concerning attaining eternal life; and seriously professed that he had addicted himself to God's commandments with all care and circumspection.
Let us compare the customs of the Masters among the Jews: Eliezer Ben Erech obtained leave from Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai to discourse of some things before him. He discoursed of Ezekiel's chariot (chapter 1), or, of mystical divinity. "When he had made an end, Rabban Jochanan arose up, and kissed his head." "R. Abba Bar Cahna heard R. Levi disputing profoundly. When he had made an end, R. Abba rose up and kissed his head." There is a story of a certain Nazarite young man that exceedingly pleased Simeon the Just with a certain answer that he gave. Whereupon, said Simeon, "I bowed towards him with my head, and said, O son, let such as you be multiplied in Israel." The story is found elsewhere, where for I bowed towards him with my head, it is I embraced him and kissed his head. "Miriam, before the birth of Moses, had prophesied, My mother shall bring forth a son who shall deliver Israel. When he was born the whole house was filled with light. His father stood forth, and kissed her upon the head, and said, Thy prophecy is fulfilled. And when they cast him into the river, he struck her upon the head."
What if our Saviour used this very gesture towards this young man? And that the more conveniently, when he was now upon his knees before him. Some gesture, at least, he used, whereby it appeared, both to the young man and to the standers-by, that the young man did not a little please him, both by his question and by his answer. So I have loved, Psalm 116:1, in the LXX, I have loved, one may render well, it pleaseth me well. So Josephus of David's soldiers, (1 Sam 30:22): "Those four hundred who went to the battle would not impart the spoils to the two hundred who were faint and weary; and said, That they should 'love' [that is, be well pleased] that they had received their wives safe again."
In some parity of sense, John is called the disciple, whom Jesus loved; not that Jesus loved him more than the rest with his eternal, infinite, saving love, but he favoured him more with some outward kindness and more intimate friendship and familiarity. And why? Because John had promised that he would take care of Christ's mother after his death. For those words of our Saviour upon the cross to John, 'Behold thy mother!' and to his mother, 'Behold thy son!' and that from thence John took her home, do carry a fair probability with them, that that was not the first time that John heard of such a matter, but that long before he had so promised.
I have loved thee, Isaiah 60:10, is the rendering of I have had pity upon thee: which may here also agree very well, "Jesus had pity upon him."
46. And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.
[Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus.] Some suspect the evangelist here guilty of a solecism, by making a tautology: for it was neither necessary, as they think, so to render the Syriac word in Greek; nor is it done so elsewhere in proper names of that nature. For it is not said by any evangelist, Bartholomeus, the son of Tholomeus: Bar Abbas, the son of Abbas: Bar Jesus, the son of Jesus: nor in the like names. True, indeed; but,
I. When the denomination is made from a common name, and not a proper, then it is not so ill sounding to interpret the word: which is done once and again; Mark 3:17, Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: Acts 4:36, Barnabas, which is, A son of consolation.
II. Bar Timai may be rendered otherwise than the son of Timaeus: namely, either a son of admiration; or, which is more proper, a son of profit. The Targum in Esther 3:8; To the king ariseth no profit ('Timai') from them. The evangelist therefore, deservedly, that he might shew that this Bartimaeus was not named from this, or that, or some other etymology, but from his father's name, so interprets his name, Bartimeus, the son of Timeus.
III. Perhaps there was a Timeus of some more noted name in that age, either for some good report or some bad: so that it might not be absurd to the Jews that then conversed there to say, This blind Bartimaeus is the son of the so much famed Timaeus. So it is unknown to us who Alexander and Rufus were, chapter 15:21: but they were without doubt of most eminent fame, either among the disciples, or among the Jews.
IV. What if Thima be the same with Simai, blind, from the use of Thau for Samech among the Chaldeans? so that Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus might sound no more than the blind son of a blind father.
[Cometh into the coasts of Judea by the further side of Jordan.] Here is need of a discerning eye to distinguish of the true time and method of this story, and of Christ's journey. If you make use of such an eye, you will find half a year, or thereabouts, to come between the uttering of the words immediately before-going, and this travel of our Saviour; however it seems to be intimated by our evangelist, and likewise by Matthew, that when he had finished those words, forthwith he entered upon his journey: when, in truth, he went before to Jerusalem, through the midst of Samaria, to the feast of Tabernacles, Luke 9:51, &c. John 7. And again, from Galilee, after he had returned thither, through the cities and towns to Jerusalem, Luke 13:22; to the feast of Dedication, John 10:22: and again, "beyond Jordan" indeed, John 10:40; but first taking his way into Galilee, and thence beyond Jordan, according to that story which is before us. The studious reader, and that in good earnest employeth his labour upon this business, has not need of further proof; his own eyes will witness this sufficiently. Thus, the wisdom and Spirit of God directed the pens of these holy writers, that some omitted some things to be supplied by others; and others supplied those things which they had omitted: and so a full and complete history was not composed but of all joined and compared together.
I wish the reverend Beza had sufficiently considered this, who rendereth not beyond, but by Jordan, and corrects the Vulgar interpreter and Erasmus, who render it 'beyond Jordan,' properly and most truly: "As if, by Perea (saith he), or the country beyond Jordan, Christ, passing over Jordan or the lake of Tiberias, came into Judea out of Galilee; which is not true." But take heed you do not mistake, reverend old man. For he went over Jordan from Capernaum, as it is very probable, by the bridge built over Jordan between Chammath, near to Tiberias, at the Gadarene country: he betook himself to Bethabara, and stayed some time there, John 10:40: thence he went along Perea to the bank over against Jericho. While he tarrieth there, a messenger, sent from Mary, comes to him concerning the death of Lazarus, John 11; and thence, after two days, he passeth Jordan in Judea.
17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
[Kneeled to him.] So chapter 1:40, Beseeching him, and kneeling to him. This is variously rendered, He fell at his feet, bowing the knee, beseeching upon his knee, falling down at his knees. Which renderings are not improper, but I suspect something more is included. For, 1. It was customary for those that so adored to take hold of the knees or the legs, 2 Kings 4:27; Matthew 28:9. 2. To kiss the knees or the feet. See what we have said at Matthew 28:9.
When R. Akiba had been twelve years absent from his wife, and at last came back, his wife went out to meet him: "and when she came to him, falling upon her face, she kissed his knees." And a little after, when he was entered into the city, his father-in-law not knowing who he was, but suspecting him to be some great Rabbin, went to him, and falling upon his face kissed his knees. Speaking of Job, "Satan came, and he kissed his knees: but in all this Job sinned not with his lips," &c. When a certain Rabbin had discoursed of divers things, Bar Chama rose up and kissed his knees.
21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
[Loved him.] That is, he manifested by some outward gesture that this man pleased him, both in his question and in his answer: when he both seriously inquired concerning attaining eternal life; and seriously professed that he had addicted himself to God's commandments with all care and circumspection.
Let us compare the customs of the Masters among the Jews: Eliezer Ben Erech obtained leave from Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai to discourse of some things before him. He discoursed of Ezekiel's chariot (chapter 1), or, of mystical divinity. "When he had made an end, Rabban Jochanan arose up, and kissed his head." "R. Abba Bar Cahna heard R. Levi disputing profoundly. When he had made an end, R. Abba rose up and kissed his head." There is a story of a certain Nazarite young man that exceedingly pleased Simeon the Just with a certain answer that he gave. Whereupon, said Simeon, "I bowed towards him with my head, and said, O son, let such as you be multiplied in Israel." The story is found elsewhere, where for I bowed towards him with my head, it is I embraced him and kissed his head. "Miriam, before the birth of Moses, had prophesied, My mother shall bring forth a son who shall deliver Israel. When he was born the whole house was filled with light. His father stood forth, and kissed her upon the head, and said, Thy prophecy is fulfilled. And when they cast him into the river, he struck her upon the head."
What if our Saviour used this very gesture towards this young man? And that the more conveniently, when he was now upon his knees before him. Some gesture, at least, he used, whereby it appeared, both to the young man and to the standers-by, that the young man did not a little please him, both by his question and by his answer. So I have loved, Psalm 116:1, in the LXX, I have loved, one may render well, it pleaseth me well. So Josephus of David's soldiers, (1 Sam 30:22): "Those four hundred who went to the battle would not impart the spoils to the two hundred who were faint and weary; and said, That they should 'love' [that is, be well pleased] that they had received their wives safe again."
In some parity of sense, John is called the disciple, whom Jesus loved; not that Jesus loved him more than the rest with his eternal, infinite, saving love, but he favoured him more with some outward kindness and more intimate friendship and familiarity. And why? Because John had promised that he would take care of Christ's mother after his death. For those words of our Saviour upon the cross to John, 'Behold thy mother!' and to his mother, 'Behold thy son!' and that from thence John took her home, do carry a fair probability with them, that that was not the first time that John heard of such a matter, but that long before he had so promised.
I have loved thee, Isaiah 60:10, is the rendering of I have had pity upon thee: which may here also agree very well, "Jesus had pity upon him."
46. And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.
[Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus.] Some suspect the evangelist here guilty of a solecism, by making a tautology: for it was neither necessary, as they think, so to render the Syriac word in Greek; nor is it done so elsewhere in proper names of that nature. For it is not said by any evangelist, Bartholomeus, the son of Tholomeus: Bar Abbas, the son of Abbas: Bar Jesus, the son of Jesus: nor in the like names. True, indeed; but,
I. When the denomination is made from a common name, and not a proper, then it is not so ill sounding to interpret the word: which is done once and again; Mark 3:17, Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: Acts 4:36, Barnabas, which is, A son of consolation.
II. Bar Timai may be rendered otherwise than the son of Timaeus: namely, either a son of admiration; or, which is more proper, a son of profit. The Targum in Esther 3:8; To the king ariseth no profit ('Timai') from them. The evangelist therefore, deservedly, that he might shew that this Bartimaeus was not named from this, or that, or some other etymology, but from his father's name, so interprets his name, Bartimeus, the son of Timeus.
III. Perhaps there was a Timeus of some more noted name in that age, either for some good report or some bad: so that it might not be absurd to the Jews that then conversed there to say, This blind Bartimaeus is the son of the so much famed Timaeus. So it is unknown to us who Alexander and Rufus were, chapter 15:21: but they were without doubt of most eminent fame, either among the disciples, or among the Jews.
IV. What if Thima be the same with Simai, blind, from the use of Thau for Samech among the Chaldeans? so that Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus might sound no more than the blind son of a blind father.
Mark 11
11. And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
[And when he had looked round about upon all things.] Compare Mark with the other evangelists concerning the time of casting out the merchants of the Temple, and it will appear that the word he looked about, denotes not a bare beholding or looking upon, but a beholding with reproof and correction; admonition, among the Jews.
13. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
[For the time of figs was not yet.] See what we have said at Matthew 21:19. The sum is this:
I. The time of figs was so far off, that the time of leaves was scarcely yet present.
II. The other fig trees in the mount were of the common kind of fig trees: and on them were not leaves as yet to be seen. But that which Christ saw with leaves on it, and therefore went to it, was a fig tree of an extraordinary kind.
III. For there was a certain fig tree called Benoth Shuach, which never wanted leaves, and never wanted figs. For every year it bare fruit, but that fruit came not to full ripeness before the third year: and such, we suppose, was this fig tree.
16. And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
[And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the Temple.] "What is the reverence of the Temple? That none go into the Mountain of the Temple" [or the Court of the Gentiles] "with his staff, and his shoes, with is purse, and dust upon his feet: and that none make it his common thoroughfare, nor make it a place of spitting."
The same thing is ordered concerning a synagogue; yea, concerning a synagogue that is now laid waste, much more of one that flourisheth: "A synagogue now laid waste, let not men make it a common passage." And "his disciples asked R. Eleazar Ben Shammua, Whence hast thou lived so long? He answered, I never made a synagogue a common thoroughfare."
It is therefore forbid by the masters, that the court of the Temple be not made a passage for a shorter way. And was not this bridle sufficient wherewith all might be kept back from carrying vessels through the Temple? But the 'castle of Antonia' joined to the court; and there were shops in the Court of the Gentiles where many things were sold; and that profane vessels were brought hither is scarcely to be denied. And these vessels might be said to be carried through the Temple; although those that carried them went not through the whole Temple.
[And when he had looked round about upon all things.] Compare Mark with the other evangelists concerning the time of casting out the merchants of the Temple, and it will appear that the word he looked about, denotes not a bare beholding or looking upon, but a beholding with reproof and correction; admonition, among the Jews.
13. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
[For the time of figs was not yet.] See what we have said at Matthew 21:19. The sum is this:
I. The time of figs was so far off, that the time of leaves was scarcely yet present.
II. The other fig trees in the mount were of the common kind of fig trees: and on them were not leaves as yet to be seen. But that which Christ saw with leaves on it, and therefore went to it, was a fig tree of an extraordinary kind.
III. For there was a certain fig tree called Benoth Shuach, which never wanted leaves, and never wanted figs. For every year it bare fruit, but that fruit came not to full ripeness before the third year: and such, we suppose, was this fig tree.
16. And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
[And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the Temple.] "What is the reverence of the Temple? That none go into the Mountain of the Temple" [or the Court of the Gentiles] "with his staff, and his shoes, with is purse, and dust upon his feet: and that none make it his common thoroughfare, nor make it a place of spitting."
The same thing is ordered concerning a synagogue; yea, concerning a synagogue that is now laid waste, much more of one that flourisheth: "A synagogue now laid waste, let not men make it a common passage." And "his disciples asked R. Eleazar Ben Shammua, Whence hast thou lived so long? He answered, I never made a synagogue a common thoroughfare."
It is therefore forbid by the masters, that the court of the Temple be not made a passage for a shorter way. And was not this bridle sufficient wherewith all might be kept back from carrying vessels through the Temple? But the 'castle of Antonia' joined to the court; and there were shops in the Court of the Gentiles where many things were sold; and that profane vessels were brought hither is scarcely to be denied. And these vessels might be said to be carried through the Temple; although those that carried them went not through the whole Temple.
Mark 12
1. And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
[A certain man planted a vineyard.] The priests and Pharisees knew, saith Matthew, that "these things were spoken of them," Matthew 21:45. Nor is it any wonder; for the Jews boasted that they were the Lord's vineyard: and they readily observed a wrong done to that vineyard by any: but how far were they from taking notice, how unfruitful they were, and unthankful to the Lord of the vineyard!
"The matter may be compared to a king that had a vineyard; and there were three who were enemies to it. What were they? One cut down the branches. The second cut off the bunches. And the third rooted up the vines. That king is the King of kings, the Blessed Lord. The vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel. The three enemies are Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Haman," &c.
[A vineyard.] "If a man plants one row of five vines, the school of Shammai saith, That it is a vineyard. But the school of Hillel saith, It is not a vineyard, until there be two rows of vines there."
[Set a hedge about it.] "What is a hedge? Let it be ten handbreadths high": less than so is not a hedge.
[Digged a place for the winefat.] Let the fat be ten handbreadths deep, and four broad.
[Built a tower.] Let the watchhouse, which is in the vineyard, be ten high, and four broad. Cubits are to be understood. For Rambam saith, watchhouse is a high place where the vine-dresser stands to overlook the vineyard.
[Let it out to husbandmen.] "He that lets out his vineyard to a keeper, either as a husbandman, or as one to keep it gratis, and he enters into covenant with him, to dig it, prune it, dress it, at his own cost; but he neglects it, and doth not so; he is guilty, as if he should with his own hand lay the vineyard waste."
2. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
[And at the season he sent to the husbandmen.] That is, in the fourth year after the first planting it: when it now was a vineyard of four years old; at least before that year there was no profit of the fruits. "They paint [or note] a vineyard of four years old by some turf [or clod] of earth, coloured; and that uncircumcised with clay; and sepulchres with chalk."
The Gloss is this: "On a vineyard of four years old they paint some marks out of the turf of the earth, that men may know that it is a vineyard of four years old, and eat not of it, because it is holy, as the Lord saith, Leviticus 19:24; and the owners ought to eat the fruit of it at Jerusalem, as the second tithe. And an uncircumcised vineyard," [that is, which was not yet four years old; see Leviticus 19:23] "they mark with clay, that is, digested in fire. For the prohibition of (a vineyard) uncircumcised, is greater than the prohibition concerning that of four years old: for that of four years old is fit for eating; but that uncircumcised is not admitted to any use. Therefore, they marked not that by the turf, lest the mark might perhaps be defaced, and perish; and men not seeing it might eat of it," &c.
4. And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
[At him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head.] I...They cast stones at the servant, and deriding him, made up the sum with him: saying, perhaps this, or some such thing to him, "Do you come for fruit and rent? Behold this fruit" (casting a stone at him) "behold another fruit," (casting another stone) and so many times together: and so they sent him away derided, and loaded with disgrace.
II. But be it that the word is to be translated as it is commonly rendered, "they wounded him in the head": then this way of stoning is thus distinguished from that whereby they were slain who were stoned by the Sanhedrim. That was called stone-casting: for it was the cast of a stone, indeed, but of one only, and that a very great one; and that upon the heart of the condemned person, when now he lay along upon his back. But this stoning was of many stones, thrown out of the hand through the air, striking him here and there and everywhere. The head of him that was stoned by the Sanhedrim was unhurt, and without any wound; but here, They cast stones at him, and wounded him in the head.
10. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
[The stone which the builders rejected.] The Targum upon Psalm 118, thus the builders rejected the child. And verse 27, "Bind the child to the sacrifice of the solemnity with chains, until ye shall have sacrificed him, and poured out his blood upon the horns of the altar: said Samuel the prophet."
16. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
[Whose is this image? Caesar's.] I. This was a Caesar's penny, denarius Caesareanus. For zuz, among the Jews, was also a penny, as we shewed elsewhere; but we scarce believe it was of the same form and inscription: "A certain heathen sent to R. Judah the prince a Caesarean penny, and that on a certain festival day of the heathens. Resh Lachish sat before him. R. Judah said, What shall I do? If I receive it, I shall consent (to their festival): if I receive it not, enmity will rise against me. Resh Lachish answered, Take the penny, and while he looks upon you cast it into the well," &c.
II. It was a silver penny, not a gold one. Pence, absolutely put, are to be understood silver pence. Where the Gloss is, "Pence, absolutely put, are silver, until it is explained that they are gold."
But now a gold penny was worth five-and-twenty silver pence. "When turtle-doves and young pigeons were sold at Jerusalem sometime for a gold penny, Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, By this Temple, I will not rest this night, unless they are sold for a silver penny." Where the Gloss, "A gold penny is worth five-and-twenty silver pence."
III. It was a Roman penny, not a Jerusalem: for this distinction they sometimes use. The Gloss being witness, are Jerusalem zuzees. But more frequently money of Tzur, and money of Jerusalem. Money of Tzur one may well render Tyrian money. But hear the Aruch, where he had been treating of money of Tzur; at length he brings in this passage: "R. Eliezer saith, Wheresoever in the Scripture Tzur is written full, the Scripture speaks of the city Tyre: but where it is written defectively [without Vau] it speaks of Rome." Be it Tyrian or Roman money, this held among the masters: "Wheresoever any thing is said of the silver money of Jerusalem, it is the eighth part of the Tyrian money."
Hence I should resolve that riddle at which the Glosser himself sticks, if I may have leave to conjecture in a Jewish affair, after a doubting Jew. In the tract now cited there is a discourse concerning Jerusalem Cozbian moneys. A riddle truly. Ben Cozbi, indeed, coined moneys when he made an insurrection against the Romans. But whence is this called Jerusalem money, when, in the days of Ben Cozbi, Jerusalem lay buried in its own rubbish? If I may be the resolver, it was so called, because it was of the same weight and value with the Jerusalem money, and not with that of Tyre.
"The Jerusalem money (say they) is the eighth part of the Tyrian." Here again some words of the masters entangle me in a riddle. The Aruch saith, "A penny and zuz are the same." And elsewhere, "They call pence, in the Gemaristic language, Zuzim"; which we observed at chapter 6:37. 'Zuz' was Jerusalem money: how, then, was it the same with a penny, which was Tyrian money, when it was the eighth part only? And these words spoken by Rambam do add a scruple over and above; a penny contains six zuzim. If he had said eight zuzim, it had been without scruple. But what shall we say now?
The former knot you may thus untie: that zuz, among the Jews, is called also a penny; a Jewish penny, indeed, but different from the Roman: as the Scots have their shilling, but much different from our English. But the second knot let him try to untie that is at leisure.
IV. This money was signed with the image of Caesar; but of the Jerusalem money, thus the Jews write, whom you may believe when you please: "What is the Jerusalem money? David and Solomon were stamped on one side; and on the reverse, Jerusalem the holy city." But the Glosser inquires whether it were lawful to stamp the image of David and Solomon upon money, which he scarcely thinks. He concludes therefore that their names were only inscribed, not their effigies.
"Upon Abraham's money were stamped, on one side, an old man and an old woman; on the other, a young man and a young maid. On Joshua's money, on one side, an ox; on the other, a monoceros. On David's money, on one side, a staff and a scrip; on the other, a tower. On Mardochai's money, on one side, sackcloth and ashes; on the other, a crown." Let the truth of this be upon the credit of the authors.
28. And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
[Which is the first commandment of all?] It is not seldom that this distinction occurs in the Rabbins, between the law, and the precept: by the latter they understand some special or greater rite (themselves being judges); such as circumcision, the repeating of the phylacteries, keeping the sabbath, &c. This question, propounded by the scribe, seems to respect the same: namely, whether those great precepts (as they were esteemed) and other ceremonial precepts of that nature, such as sacrifices, purifications, keeping festivals, were the greatest precepts of the law, or no: and if it were so, which among them was the first?
By his answer he seems to incline to the negative, and to prefer the moral law. Whence Christ saith, "That he was not far from the kingdom of heaven": and while he suits an answer to him from that very passage, which was the first in the reciting of the phylacteries, Hear, O Israel,--he directs the eyes and the minds of those that repeated them to the sense and the marrow of the thing repeated,--and that they rest not in the bare work of repeating them.
41. And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
[The people cast money.] They were casting in small money there. According to his pleasure, any one might cast into the chests how little soever he would; namely, in the chest which was for gold, as little gold as a grain of barley would weigh; and in the chest for frankincense, as much frankincense as weighed a grain of barley. But if he should say, Behold, I vow wood; he shall not offer less than two pieces of a cubit long, and breadth proportionable. Behold, I vow frankincense; he shall not offer less than a pugil of frankincense: that is, not less money than that which will buy so much.
42. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
[Two mites, which make a farthing.] Two prutahs are a farthing. "A prutah is the eighth part of an Italian assarius. An assarius is the twenty-fourth part of a silver penny." We rendered before, "The people cast money, brass," by they were casting in small money: one would think it should rather be rendered, They were casting in brass. But consider well this passage: "He that changeth the 'selaa' of the second tenth, the school of Shammai saith, Let him change the whole 'selaa' into brass." You would perhaps render it, into moneys, or into meahs, but it is properly to be rendered into brass, as appears by what follows: "The school of Hillel saith, into a shekel of silver, and a shekel of brass." So also the Glossers; and the Aruch moreover, "He that changeth a selaa, and receives for it brass money, that is, prutahs."
None might, by the canon even now mentioned, enter into the Temple, no, nor indeed into the Court of the Gentiles, with his purse, therefore much less into the Court of the Women; and yet scarce any entered who carried no money with him to be offered to the Corban, whether in his hand, or in his bosom, or elsewhere, we do not define: so did this very poor woman, who for two mites purchased herself an eternal fame, our Saviour himself setting a value upon the thing above all the gifts of them that offered.
[A certain man planted a vineyard.] The priests and Pharisees knew, saith Matthew, that "these things were spoken of them," Matthew 21:45. Nor is it any wonder; for the Jews boasted that they were the Lord's vineyard: and they readily observed a wrong done to that vineyard by any: but how far were they from taking notice, how unfruitful they were, and unthankful to the Lord of the vineyard!
"The matter may be compared to a king that had a vineyard; and there were three who were enemies to it. What were they? One cut down the branches. The second cut off the bunches. And the third rooted up the vines. That king is the King of kings, the Blessed Lord. The vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel. The three enemies are Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Haman," &c.
[A vineyard.] "If a man plants one row of five vines, the school of Shammai saith, That it is a vineyard. But the school of Hillel saith, It is not a vineyard, until there be two rows of vines there."
[Set a hedge about it.] "What is a hedge? Let it be ten handbreadths high": less than so is not a hedge.
[Digged a place for the winefat.] Let the fat be ten handbreadths deep, and four broad.
[Built a tower.] Let the watchhouse, which is in the vineyard, be ten high, and four broad. Cubits are to be understood. For Rambam saith, watchhouse is a high place where the vine-dresser stands to overlook the vineyard.
[Let it out to husbandmen.] "He that lets out his vineyard to a keeper, either as a husbandman, or as one to keep it gratis, and he enters into covenant with him, to dig it, prune it, dress it, at his own cost; but he neglects it, and doth not so; he is guilty, as if he should with his own hand lay the vineyard waste."
2. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
[And at the season he sent to the husbandmen.] That is, in the fourth year after the first planting it: when it now was a vineyard of four years old; at least before that year there was no profit of the fruits. "They paint [or note] a vineyard of four years old by some turf [or clod] of earth, coloured; and that uncircumcised with clay; and sepulchres with chalk."
The Gloss is this: "On a vineyard of four years old they paint some marks out of the turf of the earth, that men may know that it is a vineyard of four years old, and eat not of it, because it is holy, as the Lord saith, Leviticus 19:24; and the owners ought to eat the fruit of it at Jerusalem, as the second tithe. And an uncircumcised vineyard," [that is, which was not yet four years old; see Leviticus 19:23] "they mark with clay, that is, digested in fire. For the prohibition of (a vineyard) uncircumcised, is greater than the prohibition concerning that of four years old: for that of four years old is fit for eating; but that uncircumcised is not admitted to any use. Therefore, they marked not that by the turf, lest the mark might perhaps be defaced, and perish; and men not seeing it might eat of it," &c.
4. And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
[At him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head.] I...They cast stones at the servant, and deriding him, made up the sum with him: saying, perhaps this, or some such thing to him, "Do you come for fruit and rent? Behold this fruit" (casting a stone at him) "behold another fruit," (casting another stone) and so many times together: and so they sent him away derided, and loaded with disgrace.
II. But be it that the word is to be translated as it is commonly rendered, "they wounded him in the head": then this way of stoning is thus distinguished from that whereby they were slain who were stoned by the Sanhedrim. That was called stone-casting: for it was the cast of a stone, indeed, but of one only, and that a very great one; and that upon the heart of the condemned person, when now he lay along upon his back. But this stoning was of many stones, thrown out of the hand through the air, striking him here and there and everywhere. The head of him that was stoned by the Sanhedrim was unhurt, and without any wound; but here, They cast stones at him, and wounded him in the head.
10. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
[The stone which the builders rejected.] The Targum upon Psalm 118, thus the builders rejected the child. And verse 27, "Bind the child to the sacrifice of the solemnity with chains, until ye shall have sacrificed him, and poured out his blood upon the horns of the altar: said Samuel the prophet."
16. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
[Whose is this image? Caesar's.] I. This was a Caesar's penny, denarius Caesareanus. For zuz, among the Jews, was also a penny, as we shewed elsewhere; but we scarce believe it was of the same form and inscription: "A certain heathen sent to R. Judah the prince a Caesarean penny, and that on a certain festival day of the heathens. Resh Lachish sat before him. R. Judah said, What shall I do? If I receive it, I shall consent (to their festival): if I receive it not, enmity will rise against me. Resh Lachish answered, Take the penny, and while he looks upon you cast it into the well," &c.
II. It was a silver penny, not a gold one. Pence, absolutely put, are to be understood silver pence. Where the Gloss is, "Pence, absolutely put, are silver, until it is explained that they are gold."
But now a gold penny was worth five-and-twenty silver pence. "When turtle-doves and young pigeons were sold at Jerusalem sometime for a gold penny, Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, By this Temple, I will not rest this night, unless they are sold for a silver penny." Where the Gloss, "A gold penny is worth five-and-twenty silver pence."
III. It was a Roman penny, not a Jerusalem: for this distinction they sometimes use. The Gloss being witness, are Jerusalem zuzees. But more frequently money of Tzur, and money of Jerusalem. Money of Tzur one may well render Tyrian money. But hear the Aruch, where he had been treating of money of Tzur; at length he brings in this passage: "R. Eliezer saith, Wheresoever in the Scripture Tzur is written full, the Scripture speaks of the city Tyre: but where it is written defectively [without Vau] it speaks of Rome." Be it Tyrian or Roman money, this held among the masters: "Wheresoever any thing is said of the silver money of Jerusalem, it is the eighth part of the Tyrian money."
Hence I should resolve that riddle at which the Glosser himself sticks, if I may have leave to conjecture in a Jewish affair, after a doubting Jew. In the tract now cited there is a discourse concerning Jerusalem Cozbian moneys. A riddle truly. Ben Cozbi, indeed, coined moneys when he made an insurrection against the Romans. But whence is this called Jerusalem money, when, in the days of Ben Cozbi, Jerusalem lay buried in its own rubbish? If I may be the resolver, it was so called, because it was of the same weight and value with the Jerusalem money, and not with that of Tyre.
"The Jerusalem money (say they) is the eighth part of the Tyrian." Here again some words of the masters entangle me in a riddle. The Aruch saith, "A penny and zuz are the same." And elsewhere, "They call pence, in the Gemaristic language, Zuzim"; which we observed at chapter 6:37. 'Zuz' was Jerusalem money: how, then, was it the same with a penny, which was Tyrian money, when it was the eighth part only? And these words spoken by Rambam do add a scruple over and above; a penny contains six zuzim. If he had said eight zuzim, it had been without scruple. But what shall we say now?
The former knot you may thus untie: that zuz, among the Jews, is called also a penny; a Jewish penny, indeed, but different from the Roman: as the Scots have their shilling, but much different from our English. But the second knot let him try to untie that is at leisure.
IV. This money was signed with the image of Caesar; but of the Jerusalem money, thus the Jews write, whom you may believe when you please: "What is the Jerusalem money? David and Solomon were stamped on one side; and on the reverse, Jerusalem the holy city." But the Glosser inquires whether it were lawful to stamp the image of David and Solomon upon money, which he scarcely thinks. He concludes therefore that their names were only inscribed, not their effigies.
"Upon Abraham's money were stamped, on one side, an old man and an old woman; on the other, a young man and a young maid. On Joshua's money, on one side, an ox; on the other, a monoceros. On David's money, on one side, a staff and a scrip; on the other, a tower. On Mardochai's money, on one side, sackcloth and ashes; on the other, a crown." Let the truth of this be upon the credit of the authors.
28. And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
[Which is the first commandment of all?] It is not seldom that this distinction occurs in the Rabbins, between the law, and the precept: by the latter they understand some special or greater rite (themselves being judges); such as circumcision, the repeating of the phylacteries, keeping the sabbath, &c. This question, propounded by the scribe, seems to respect the same: namely, whether those great precepts (as they were esteemed) and other ceremonial precepts of that nature, such as sacrifices, purifications, keeping festivals, were the greatest precepts of the law, or no: and if it were so, which among them was the first?
By his answer he seems to incline to the negative, and to prefer the moral law. Whence Christ saith, "That he was not far from the kingdom of heaven": and while he suits an answer to him from that very passage, which was the first in the reciting of the phylacteries, Hear, O Israel,--he directs the eyes and the minds of those that repeated them to the sense and the marrow of the thing repeated,--and that they rest not in the bare work of repeating them.
41. And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
[The people cast money.] They were casting in small money there. According to his pleasure, any one might cast into the chests how little soever he would; namely, in the chest which was for gold, as little gold as a grain of barley would weigh; and in the chest for frankincense, as much frankincense as weighed a grain of barley. But if he should say, Behold, I vow wood; he shall not offer less than two pieces of a cubit long, and breadth proportionable. Behold, I vow frankincense; he shall not offer less than a pugil of frankincense: that is, not less money than that which will buy so much.
42. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
[Two mites, which make a farthing.] Two prutahs are a farthing. "A prutah is the eighth part of an Italian assarius. An assarius is the twenty-fourth part of a silver penny." We rendered before, "The people cast money, brass," by they were casting in small money: one would think it should rather be rendered, They were casting in brass. But consider well this passage: "He that changeth the 'selaa' of the second tenth, the school of Shammai saith, Let him change the whole 'selaa' into brass." You would perhaps render it, into moneys, or into meahs, but it is properly to be rendered into brass, as appears by what follows: "The school of Hillel saith, into a shekel of silver, and a shekel of brass." So also the Glossers; and the Aruch moreover, "He that changeth a selaa, and receives for it brass money, that is, prutahs."
None might, by the canon even now mentioned, enter into the Temple, no, nor indeed into the Court of the Gentiles, with his purse, therefore much less into the Court of the Women; and yet scarce any entered who carried no money with him to be offered to the Corban, whether in his hand, or in his bosom, or elsewhere, we do not define: so did this very poor woman, who for two mites purchased herself an eternal fame, our Saviour himself setting a value upon the thing above all the gifts of them that offered.
Mark 13
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
[Upon the mount of Olives, over against the Temple.] "The east gate of the Court of the Gentiles had the metropolis Sushan painted on it. And through this gate the high priest went out to burn the red cow." And, "All the walls of that court were high, except the east wall; because of the priest, when he burnt the red cow, stood upon the top of mount Olivet, and took his aim, and looked upon the gate of the Temple, in that time when he sprinkled the blood." And, "The priest stood with his face turned westward, kills the cow with his right hand, and receives the blood with the left, but sprinkleth it with his right, and that seven times, directly towards the Holy of Holies."
It is true, indeed, the Temple might be well seen from any tract of Olivet: but the word over against, if it doth not direct to this very place, yet to some place certainly in the same line: and it cannot but recall to our mind that action of the high priest.
7. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
[Be not troubled.] Think here, how the traditions of the scribes affrighted the nation with the report of Gog and Magog, immediately to go before the coming of the Messiah:--
"R. Eliezer Ben Abina saith, When you see the kingdoms disturbing one another, then expect the footsteps of the Messiah. And know that this is true from hence, that so it was in the days of Abraham; for kingdoms disturbed one another, and then came redemption to Abraham." And elsewhere; "So they came against Abraham, and so they shall come with Gog and Magog." And again, "The Rabbins deliver. In the first year of that week [of years] that the Son of David is to come, shall that be fulfilled, 'I will rain upon one city, but I will not rain upon another,' Amos 4:7. The second year, the arrows of famine shall be sent forth. The third, the famine shall be grievous, and men and women and children, holy men, and men of good works, shall die. And there shall be a forgetfulness of the law among those that learn it. The fourth year, fulness, and not fulness. The fifth year, great fulness; for they shall eat and drink and rejoice, and the law shall return to its scholars. The sixth year, voices. (The Gloss is, 'A fame shall be spread, that the Son of David comes,' or, 'they shall sound with a trumpet.') The seventh year, wars; and in the going out of that seventh year the Son of David shall come."
8. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
[These are the beginnings of sorrows.] Isaiah 66:7,8: Before she travailed she brought forth; before the labour of pains came she was delivered, and brought forth a male. Who hath heard such a thing? Does the earth bring forth in one day, or is a nation also brought forth at once? For Sion was in travail and brought forth her sons.
The prophet here says two things:--
I. That Christ should be born before the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jews themselves collect and acknowledge this out of this prophecy: "It is in the Great Genesis [Bereshith Rabba] a very ancient book: thus R. Samuel Bar Nachaman said, Whence prove you, that in the day when the destruction of the Temple was, Messias was born? He answered, From this that is said in the last chapter of Isaiah, 'Before she travailed she brought forth; before her bringing forth shall come, she brought forth a male child.' In the same hour that the destruction of the Temple was, Israel cried out as though she were bringing forth. And Jonathan in the Chaldee translation said, Before her trouble came she was saved; and before the pains of childbirth came upon her, Messiah was revealed." In the Chaldee it is, A king shall manifest himself.
"In like manner in the same book: R. Samuel Bar Nachaman said, It happened that Elias went by the way in the day wherein the destruction of the Temple was, and he heard a certain voice crying out and saying, 'The holy Temple is destroyed.' Which when he heard, he imagined how he could destroy the world: but travelling forward he saw men ploughing and sowing, to whom he said, 'God is angry with the world and will destroy his house, and lead his children captives to the Gentiles; and do you labour for temporal victuals?' And another voice was heard, saying, 'Let them work, for the Saviour of Israel is born.' And Elias said, 'Where is he?' And the voice said, 'In Bethlehem of Judah,'" &c. These words this author speaks, and these words they speak.
II. As it is not without good reason gathered, that Christ shall be born before the destruction of the city, from that clause, "Before she travailed she brought forth, before her bringing forth came [the pangs of travail], she brought forth a male child"; so also, from that clause, Is a nation brought forth at once? for Sion travailed and brought forth her children, is gathered as well, that the Gentiles were to be gathered and called to the faith before that destruction; which our Saviour most plainly teacheth, verse 10, "But the gospel must first be preached among all nations." For how the Gentiles, which should believe, are called 'the children of Sion,' and 'the children of the church of Israel,' every where in the prophets, there is no need to show, for every one knows it.
In this sense is the word pangs or sorrows, in this place to be understood; and it agrees not only with the sense of the prophet alleged, but with a most common phrase and opinion in the nation concerning the sorrows of the Messiah, that is, concerning the calamities which they expected would happen at the coming of the Messiah.
"Ulla saith, The Messias shall come, but I shall not see him. So also saith Rabba, Messias shall come, but I shall not see him; that is, he shall not be to be seen. Abai saith to Rabba, Why? Because of the sorrows of the Messias. It is a tradition. His disciples asked R. Eliezer, What may a man do to be delivered from the sorrows of Messias? Let him be conversant in the law and in the works of mercy." The Gloss is, "the terrors and the sorrows which shall be in his days." "He that feasts thrice on the sabbath day shall be delivered from three miseries, from the sorrows of Messiah, from the judgment of hell, and from the war of Gog and Magog." Where the Gloss is this, "'From the sorrows of Messias': for in that age, wherein the Son of David shall come, there will be an accusation of the scholars of the wise men. The word sorrows denotes such pains as women in childbirth endure."
32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
[But of that day and hour knoweth no man.] Of what day and hour? That the discourse is of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident, both by the disciples' question, and by the whole thread of Christ's discourse, that it is a wonder any should understand these words of the day and hour of the last judgment.
Two things are demanded of our Saviour, verse 4: the one is, "When shall these things be, that one stone shall not be left upon another?" And the second is, "What shall be the sign of this consummation?" To the latter he answereth throughout the whole chapter hitherto: to the former in the present words. He had said, indeed, in the verse before, "Heaven and earth shall pass away," &c.; not for resolution to the question propounded (for there was no inquiry at all concerning the dissolution of heaven and earth), but for confirmation of the truth of the thing which he had related. As though he had said, "Ye ask when such an overthrow of the Temple shall happen; when it shall be, and what shall be the signs of it. I answer, These and those, and the other signs shall go before it; and these my words of the thing itself to come to pass, and of the signs going before, are firmer than heaven and earth itself. But whereas ye inquire of the precise time, that is not to be inquired after; for of that day and hour knoweth no man."
We cannot but remember here, that even among the beholders of the destruction of the Temple there is a difference concerning the day of the destruction; that that day and hour was so little known before the event, that even after the event, they who saw the flames disagreed among themselves concerning the day. Josephus, an eyewitness, saw the burning of the Temple, and he ascribed it to the tenth day of the month Ab or Lous. For thus he; "The Temple perished the tenth day of the month Lous (or August), a day fatal to the Temple, as having been on that day consumed in flames by the king of Babylon." Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai saw the same conflagration; and he, together with the whole Jewish nation, ascribes it to the ninth day of that month, not the tenth; yet so that he saith, "If I had not lived in that age I had not judged it but to have happened on the tenth day." For as the Gloss upon Maimonides writes, "It was the evening when they set fire to it, and the Temple burnt until sunset the tenth day. In the Jerusalem Talmud, therefore, Rabbi and R. Joshua Ben Levi fasted the ninth and tenth days." See also the tract Bab. Taanith.
[Neither the angels.] "'For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come,' Isaiah 63:4. What means 'the day of vengeance is in mine heart?' R. Jochanan saith, I have revealed it to my heart, to my members I have not revealed it. R. Simeon Ben Lachish saith, I have revealed it to my heart, but to the ministering angels I have not revealed it." And Jalkut on that place thus: My heart reveals it not to my mouth; to whom should my mouth reveal it?
[Nor the Son.] Neither the angels, nor the Messias. For in that sense the word Son, is to be taken in this place and elsewhere very often: as in that passage, John 5:19, "The Son," that is, the Messias, "can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do": verse 20, "The Father loveth the Messias," &c: verse 26, "He hath given to the Messias to have life in himself," &c. And that the word Son is to be rendered in this sense, appears from verse 27; "He hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." Observe that, "because he is the Son of man."
I. It is one thing to understand "the Son of God" barely and abstractly for the second person in the Holy Trinity; another to understand him for the Messias, or that second person incarnate. To say that the second person in the Trinity knows not something is blasphemous; to say so of the Messias, is not so, who, nevertheless, was the same with the second person in the Trinity: for although the second person, abstractly considered according to his mere Deity, was co-equal with the Father, co-omnipotent, co-omniscient, co-eternal with him, &c.; yet Messias, who was God-man, considered as Messias, was a servant and a messenger of the Father, and received commands and authority from the Father. And those expressions, "The Son can do nothing of himself," &c. will not in the least serve the Arian's turn; if you take them in this sense, which you must necessarily do; "Messias can do nothing of himself, because he is a servant and a deputy."
II. We must distinguish between the excellences and perfections of Christ, which flowed from the hypostatical union of the natures, and those which flowed from the donation and anointing of the Holy Spirit. From the hypostatical union of the natures flowed the infinite dignity of his person, his impeccability, his infinite self-sufficiency to perform the law, and to satisfy the divine justice. From the anointing of the Spirit flowed his power of miracles, his foreknowledge of things to come, and all kind of knowledge of evangelic mysteries. Those rendered him a fit and perfect Redeemer; these a fit and perfect Minister of the gospel.
Now, therefore, the foreknowledge of things to come, of which the discourse here is, is to be numbered among those things which flowed from the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and from immediate revelation; not from the hypostatic union of the natures. So that those things which were revealed by Christ to his church, he had them from the revelation of the Spirit, not from that union. Nor is it any derogation or detraction from the dignity of his person, that he saith, 'He knew not that day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem'; yea, it excellently agrees with his office and deputation, who, being the Father's servant, messenger, and minister, followed the orders of the Father, and obeyed him in all things. "The Son knoweth not," that is, it is not revealed to him from the Father to reveal to the church. Revelation 1:1, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him."
We omit inquiring concerning the knowledge of Christ, being now raised from death: whether, and how far, it exceeded his knowledge, while yet he conversed on earth. It is without doubt, that, being now raised from the dead, he merited all kind of revelation (see Rev 5:9, "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain," &c.); and that he, conversing on earth before his death, acted with the vigour of the Holy Spirit and of that unspeakable holiness which flowed from the union of the human nature with the divine, the divine nature, in the meantime, suspending its infinite activity of omnipotence. So that Christ might work miracles, and know things to come, in the same manner as the prophets also did, namely, by the Holy Ghost, but in a larger measure; and might overcome the devil not so much by the omnipotence of the divine nature, as by the infinite holiness of his person, and of his obedience. So that if you either look upon him as the minister and servant of God; or if you look upon the constitution, as I may so call it, and condition of his person, these words of his, "Of that day and hour knoweth not the Son also," carry nothing of incongruity along with them; yea, do excellently speak out his substitution as a servant, and the constitution of his person as God-man.
The reason why the divine wisdom would have the time of the destruction of Jerusalem so concealed, is well known to itself; but by men, since the time of it was unsearchable, the reason certainly is not easy to be searched. We may conjecture that the time was hid, partly, lest the godly might be terrified with the sound of it, as 2 Thessalonians 2:2; partly, that the ungodly, and those that would be secure, might be taken in the snares of their own security, as Matthew 24:38. But let secret things belong to God.
[Upon the mount of Olives, over against the Temple.] "The east gate of the Court of the Gentiles had the metropolis Sushan painted on it. And through this gate the high priest went out to burn the red cow." And, "All the walls of that court were high, except the east wall; because of the priest, when he burnt the red cow, stood upon the top of mount Olivet, and took his aim, and looked upon the gate of the Temple, in that time when he sprinkled the blood." And, "The priest stood with his face turned westward, kills the cow with his right hand, and receives the blood with the left, but sprinkleth it with his right, and that seven times, directly towards the Holy of Holies."
It is true, indeed, the Temple might be well seen from any tract of Olivet: but the word over against, if it doth not direct to this very place, yet to some place certainly in the same line: and it cannot but recall to our mind that action of the high priest.
7. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
[Be not troubled.] Think here, how the traditions of the scribes affrighted the nation with the report of Gog and Magog, immediately to go before the coming of the Messiah:--
"R. Eliezer Ben Abina saith, When you see the kingdoms disturbing one another, then expect the footsteps of the Messiah. And know that this is true from hence, that so it was in the days of Abraham; for kingdoms disturbed one another, and then came redemption to Abraham." And elsewhere; "So they came against Abraham, and so they shall come with Gog and Magog." And again, "The Rabbins deliver. In the first year of that week [of years] that the Son of David is to come, shall that be fulfilled, 'I will rain upon one city, but I will not rain upon another,' Amos 4:7. The second year, the arrows of famine shall be sent forth. The third, the famine shall be grievous, and men and women and children, holy men, and men of good works, shall die. And there shall be a forgetfulness of the law among those that learn it. The fourth year, fulness, and not fulness. The fifth year, great fulness; for they shall eat and drink and rejoice, and the law shall return to its scholars. The sixth year, voices. (The Gloss is, 'A fame shall be spread, that the Son of David comes,' or, 'they shall sound with a trumpet.') The seventh year, wars; and in the going out of that seventh year the Son of David shall come."
8. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
[These are the beginnings of sorrows.] Isaiah 66:7,8: Before she travailed she brought forth; before the labour of pains came she was delivered, and brought forth a male. Who hath heard such a thing? Does the earth bring forth in one day, or is a nation also brought forth at once? For Sion was in travail and brought forth her sons.
The prophet here says two things:--
I. That Christ should be born before the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jews themselves collect and acknowledge this out of this prophecy: "It is in the Great Genesis [Bereshith Rabba] a very ancient book: thus R. Samuel Bar Nachaman said, Whence prove you, that in the day when the destruction of the Temple was, Messias was born? He answered, From this that is said in the last chapter of Isaiah, 'Before she travailed she brought forth; before her bringing forth shall come, she brought forth a male child.' In the same hour that the destruction of the Temple was, Israel cried out as though she were bringing forth. And Jonathan in the Chaldee translation said, Before her trouble came she was saved; and before the pains of childbirth came upon her, Messiah was revealed." In the Chaldee it is, A king shall manifest himself.
"In like manner in the same book: R. Samuel Bar Nachaman said, It happened that Elias went by the way in the day wherein the destruction of the Temple was, and he heard a certain voice crying out and saying, 'The holy Temple is destroyed.' Which when he heard, he imagined how he could destroy the world: but travelling forward he saw men ploughing and sowing, to whom he said, 'God is angry with the world and will destroy his house, and lead his children captives to the Gentiles; and do you labour for temporal victuals?' And another voice was heard, saying, 'Let them work, for the Saviour of Israel is born.' And Elias said, 'Where is he?' And the voice said, 'In Bethlehem of Judah,'" &c. These words this author speaks, and these words they speak.
II. As it is not without good reason gathered, that Christ shall be born before the destruction of the city, from that clause, "Before she travailed she brought forth, before her bringing forth came [the pangs of travail], she brought forth a male child"; so also, from that clause, Is a nation brought forth at once? for Sion travailed and brought forth her children, is gathered as well, that the Gentiles were to be gathered and called to the faith before that destruction; which our Saviour most plainly teacheth, verse 10, "But the gospel must first be preached among all nations." For how the Gentiles, which should believe, are called 'the children of Sion,' and 'the children of the church of Israel,' every where in the prophets, there is no need to show, for every one knows it.
In this sense is the word pangs or sorrows, in this place to be understood; and it agrees not only with the sense of the prophet alleged, but with a most common phrase and opinion in the nation concerning the sorrows of the Messiah, that is, concerning the calamities which they expected would happen at the coming of the Messiah.
"Ulla saith, The Messias shall come, but I shall not see him. So also saith Rabba, Messias shall come, but I shall not see him; that is, he shall not be to be seen. Abai saith to Rabba, Why? Because of the sorrows of the Messias. It is a tradition. His disciples asked R. Eliezer, What may a man do to be delivered from the sorrows of Messias? Let him be conversant in the law and in the works of mercy." The Gloss is, "the terrors and the sorrows which shall be in his days." "He that feasts thrice on the sabbath day shall be delivered from three miseries, from the sorrows of Messiah, from the judgment of hell, and from the war of Gog and Magog." Where the Gloss is this, "'From the sorrows of Messias': for in that age, wherein the Son of David shall come, there will be an accusation of the scholars of the wise men. The word sorrows denotes such pains as women in childbirth endure."
32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
[But of that day and hour knoweth no man.] Of what day and hour? That the discourse is of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident, both by the disciples' question, and by the whole thread of Christ's discourse, that it is a wonder any should understand these words of the day and hour of the last judgment.
Two things are demanded of our Saviour, verse 4: the one is, "When shall these things be, that one stone shall not be left upon another?" And the second is, "What shall be the sign of this consummation?" To the latter he answereth throughout the whole chapter hitherto: to the former in the present words. He had said, indeed, in the verse before, "Heaven and earth shall pass away," &c.; not for resolution to the question propounded (for there was no inquiry at all concerning the dissolution of heaven and earth), but for confirmation of the truth of the thing which he had related. As though he had said, "Ye ask when such an overthrow of the Temple shall happen; when it shall be, and what shall be the signs of it. I answer, These and those, and the other signs shall go before it; and these my words of the thing itself to come to pass, and of the signs going before, are firmer than heaven and earth itself. But whereas ye inquire of the precise time, that is not to be inquired after; for of that day and hour knoweth no man."
We cannot but remember here, that even among the beholders of the destruction of the Temple there is a difference concerning the day of the destruction; that that day and hour was so little known before the event, that even after the event, they who saw the flames disagreed among themselves concerning the day. Josephus, an eyewitness, saw the burning of the Temple, and he ascribed it to the tenth day of the month Ab or Lous. For thus he; "The Temple perished the tenth day of the month Lous (or August), a day fatal to the Temple, as having been on that day consumed in flames by the king of Babylon." Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai saw the same conflagration; and he, together with the whole Jewish nation, ascribes it to the ninth day of that month, not the tenth; yet so that he saith, "If I had not lived in that age I had not judged it but to have happened on the tenth day." For as the Gloss upon Maimonides writes, "It was the evening when they set fire to it, and the Temple burnt until sunset the tenth day. In the Jerusalem Talmud, therefore, Rabbi and R. Joshua Ben Levi fasted the ninth and tenth days." See also the tract Bab. Taanith.
[Neither the angels.] "'For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come,' Isaiah 63:4. What means 'the day of vengeance is in mine heart?' R. Jochanan saith, I have revealed it to my heart, to my members I have not revealed it. R. Simeon Ben Lachish saith, I have revealed it to my heart, but to the ministering angels I have not revealed it." And Jalkut on that place thus: My heart reveals it not to my mouth; to whom should my mouth reveal it?
[Nor the Son.] Neither the angels, nor the Messias. For in that sense the word Son, is to be taken in this place and elsewhere very often: as in that passage, John 5:19, "The Son," that is, the Messias, "can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do": verse 20, "The Father loveth the Messias," &c: verse 26, "He hath given to the Messias to have life in himself," &c. And that the word Son is to be rendered in this sense, appears from verse 27; "He hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." Observe that, "because he is the Son of man."
I. It is one thing to understand "the Son of God" barely and abstractly for the second person in the Holy Trinity; another to understand him for the Messias, or that second person incarnate. To say that the second person in the Trinity knows not something is blasphemous; to say so of the Messias, is not so, who, nevertheless, was the same with the second person in the Trinity: for although the second person, abstractly considered according to his mere Deity, was co-equal with the Father, co-omnipotent, co-omniscient, co-eternal with him, &c.; yet Messias, who was God-man, considered as Messias, was a servant and a messenger of the Father, and received commands and authority from the Father. And those expressions, "The Son can do nothing of himself," &c. will not in the least serve the Arian's turn; if you take them in this sense, which you must necessarily do; "Messias can do nothing of himself, because he is a servant and a deputy."
II. We must distinguish between the excellences and perfections of Christ, which flowed from the hypostatical union of the natures, and those which flowed from the donation and anointing of the Holy Spirit. From the hypostatical union of the natures flowed the infinite dignity of his person, his impeccability, his infinite self-sufficiency to perform the law, and to satisfy the divine justice. From the anointing of the Spirit flowed his power of miracles, his foreknowledge of things to come, and all kind of knowledge of evangelic mysteries. Those rendered him a fit and perfect Redeemer; these a fit and perfect Minister of the gospel.
Now, therefore, the foreknowledge of things to come, of which the discourse here is, is to be numbered among those things which flowed from the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and from immediate revelation; not from the hypostatic union of the natures. So that those things which were revealed by Christ to his church, he had them from the revelation of the Spirit, not from that union. Nor is it any derogation or detraction from the dignity of his person, that he saith, 'He knew not that day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem'; yea, it excellently agrees with his office and deputation, who, being the Father's servant, messenger, and minister, followed the orders of the Father, and obeyed him in all things. "The Son knoweth not," that is, it is not revealed to him from the Father to reveal to the church. Revelation 1:1, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him."
We omit inquiring concerning the knowledge of Christ, being now raised from death: whether, and how far, it exceeded his knowledge, while yet he conversed on earth. It is without doubt, that, being now raised from the dead, he merited all kind of revelation (see Rev 5:9, "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain," &c.); and that he, conversing on earth before his death, acted with the vigour of the Holy Spirit and of that unspeakable holiness which flowed from the union of the human nature with the divine, the divine nature, in the meantime, suspending its infinite activity of omnipotence. So that Christ might work miracles, and know things to come, in the same manner as the prophets also did, namely, by the Holy Ghost, but in a larger measure; and might overcome the devil not so much by the omnipotence of the divine nature, as by the infinite holiness of his person, and of his obedience. So that if you either look upon him as the minister and servant of God; or if you look upon the constitution, as I may so call it, and condition of his person, these words of his, "Of that day and hour knoweth not the Son also," carry nothing of incongruity along with them; yea, do excellently speak out his substitution as a servant, and the constitution of his person as God-man.
The reason why the divine wisdom would have the time of the destruction of Jerusalem so concealed, is well known to itself; but by men, since the time of it was unsearchable, the reason certainly is not easy to be searched. We may conjecture that the time was hid, partly, lest the godly might be terrified with the sound of it, as 2 Thessalonians 2:2; partly, that the ungodly, and those that would be secure, might be taken in the snares of their own security, as Matthew 24:38. But let secret things belong to God.
Mark 14
3. And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
[Of spikenard.] What if I should render it, nardin of Balanus? "Nardin consists of omphacium, balaninum, bulrush, nard, amomum, myrrh, balsam," &c. And again, "Myrobalanum is common to the Troglodytes, and to Thebais, and to that part of Arabia which divides Judea from Egypt; a growing ointment, as appears by the very name, whereby also is shown that it is the mast [glans] of a tree."
Balanus, as all know among the Greeks, is glans, mast, or an acorn: so also is pistaca, among the Talmudists. There are prescribed by the Talmudists various remedies for various diseases: among others, this; For a pleurisy (or, as others will have it, a certain disease of the head), take to the quantity of the mast of ammoniac. The Gloss is, the mast of ammoniac is the mast of cedar. The Aruch saith, "the mast of ammoniac is the grain of a fruit, which is called glans."
The word nard, is Hebrew from the word nerad; and the word spikenard is Syriac, from the word pistaca. So that the ointment might be called Balanine ointment, in the composition of which, nard and mast, or myrobalane, were the chief ingredients.
[Poured it on his head.] In Talmudic language, "What are the testimonies, that the woman married is a virgin? If she goes forth to be married with a veil let down over her eyes, yet with her head not veiled. The scattering of nuts is also a testimony. These are in Judea; but what are in Babylon? Rabh saith, If ointment be upon the head of the Rabbins." (The Gloss is, "The women poured ointment upon the heads of the scholars, and anointed them.") "Rabh Papa said to Abai, Does that doctor speak of the aromatic ointment used in bridechambers?" (The Gloss is, "Are the Rabbins such, to be anointed with such ointments?") "He answered, O thou unacquainted with the customs, did not thy mother pour out ointment for you (at thy wedding) upon the heads of the Rabbins? Thus, a certain Rabbin got a wife for his son in the house of Rabbah Bar Ulla; and they said to him, Rabbah Bar Ulla also got a wife in the house of a certain Rabbin for his son, and he poured out ointment upon the head of the Rabbins."
From the tradition produced it may be asked, whether it were customary in Judea to wet the heads of the Rabbins with ointments, in the marriages of virgins, as it was in Babylon? Or, whether it were so customary otherwise to anoint their heads; as that such an anointing at weddings were not so memorable a matter as it was in Babylon? Certainly, in both places, however they anointed men's heads for health's sake, it was accounted unfitting for Rabbins to smell of aromatical ointments: "It is indecent (say the Jerusalem Talmudists) for a scholar of the wise men to smell of spices." And you have the judgment of the Babylonians in this very place, when it is inquired among them, and that, as it were, with a certain kind of dissatisfaction, Whether Rabbins be such as that they should be anointed with aromatical ointments, as the more nice sort are wont to be anointed? From this opinion, everywhere received among them, you may more aptly understand, why the other disciples as well as Judas, did bear the lavish of the ointment with some indignation: he, out of wicked covetousness; but they, partly, as not wiling that so precious a thing should be lost, and partly as not liking so nice a custom should be used towards their master, from which the masters of the Jews themselves were so averse. And our Saviour, taking off the envy of what was done, applies this anointing to his burial, both in his intention and in the intention of the woman; that it might not seem to be done out of some delicate niceness.
5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
[More than three hundred pence.] The prices of such precious ointments (as it seems in Pliny) were commonly known. For thus he, "The price of costus is sixteen pounds. The price of spike(nard) is ninety pounds. The leaves have made a difference in the value. From the broadness of them it is called Hadrosphaerum; with greater leaves it is worth X. xxx," that is, thirty pence. "That with a lesser leaf is called Mesosphaerum, it is sold at X. lx," sixty pence. "The most esteemed is that called Microsphaerum, having the least leaf, and the price of it is X. lxxv," seventy-five pence. And elsewhere: "To these the merchants have added that which they call Daphnois, surnamed Isocinnamon, and they make the price of it to be X. ccc" three hundred pence.
II. It is not easy to reduce this sum of three hundred pence to its proper sense; partly because a penny was two-fold, a silver penny, and a gold one: partly because there was a double value and estimation of money, namely, that of Jerusalem and that of Tyre, as we observed before. Let these be silver (which we believe), which are of much less value than gold: and let them be Jerusalem pence (which we also believe), which are cheaper than the Tyrian; yet they plainly speak the great wealth of Magdalene, who poured out an ointment of such a value, when before she had spent some such other.
Which brings to my mind those things which are spoken by the Masters concerning the box of spices, which the husband was bound to give the wife according to the proportion of her dowry: "But this is not spoken, saith Rabh Ishai, but of Jerusalem people. There is an example of a daughter of Nicodemus Ben Gorion, to whom the wise men appointed four hundred crowns of gold for a chest of spices for one day. She said to them, 'I wish you may so appoint for their daughters'; and they answered after her, 'Amen.'" The Gloss is, "The husband was to give to his wife ten zuzees for every manah, which she brought with her to buy spices, with which she used to wash herself," &c. Behold! a most wealthy woman of Jerusalem, daughter of Nicodemus, in the contract and instrument of whose marriage was written, "A thousand thousand gold pence out of the house of her father, besides those she had out of the house of her father-in-law": whom yet you have in the same story reduced to that extreme poverty, that she picked up barley-corns for her food out of the cattle's dung.
7. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
[For ye have the poor with you always.] "Samuel saith, 'There is no difference between this world and the days of the Messias,' unless in regard of the affliction of the heathen kingdoms; as it is said, 'A poor man shall not be wanting out of the midst of the earth,'" Deuteronomy 15:11. Observe a Jew confessing, that there shall be poor men even in the days of the Messias: which how it agrees with their received opinion of the pompous kingdom of the Messias, let him look to it. "R. Solomon and Aben Ezra write, 'If thou shalt obey the words of the Lord, there shall not be a poor man in thee: but thou wilt not obey; therefore a poor man shall never be wanting.'" Upon this received reason of the thing, confess also, O Samuel, that there shall be disobedient persons in the days of the Messias; which, indeed, when the true Messias came, proved too, too true, in thy nation.
12. And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
[And the first day of unleavened bread.] So Matthew 26:17; Luke 22:7. And now let them tell me, who think that Christ indeed kept his Passover the fourteenth day, but the Jews not before the fifteenth, because this year their Passover was transferred unto the fifteenth day by reason of the following sabbath: let them tell me, I say, whether the evangelists speak according to the day prescribed by Moses, or according to the day prescribed by the masters of the traditions, and used by the nation. If according to Moses, then the fifteenth day was the first of unleavened bread, Exodus 12:15,18: but if according to the manner of the nation, then it was the fourteenth. And whether the evangelists speak according to this custom, let us inquire briefly.
Sometime, indeed, the whole seven days' feast was transferred to another month; and that not only from that law, Numbers 9, but from other causes also: concerning which see the places quoted in the margin [Hieros. in Maasar Sheni, fol. 56.3. Maimon. in Kiddush. Hodesh. cap. 4.]. But when the time appointed for the feast occurred, the lamb was always slain on the fourteenth day.
I. Let us begin with a story where an occasion occurs not very unlike that for which they of whom we speak think the Passover this year was transferred; namely, because of the following sabbath. The story is this: "After the death of Shemaiah and Abtalion, the sons of Betira obtained the chief place. Hillel went up from Babylon to inquire concerning three doubts. When he was now at Jerusalem, and the fourteenth day of the first month fell out on the sabbath [observe that], it appeared not to the sons of Betira, whether the Passover drove off the sabbath or no. Which when Hillel had determined in many words, and had added, moreover, that he had learned this from Shemaiah and Abtalion, they laid down their authority, and made Hillel president. When they had chosen him president, he derided them, saying, 'What need have you of this Babylonian? Did you not serve the two chief men of the world, Shemaiah and Abtalion, who sat among you?'" These things which are already said make enough to our purpose, but, with the reader's leave, let us add the whole story: "While he thus scoffed at them, he forgot a tradition. For they said, 'What is to be done with the people if they bring not their knives?' He answered, 'I have heard this tradition, but I have forgot. But let them alone; for although they are not prophets, they are prophets' sons.' Presently every one whose passover was a lamb stuck his knife into the fleece of it; and whose passover was a kid, hung his knife upon the horns of it."
And now let the impartial reader judge between the reason which is given for the transferring the Passover this year unto the fifteenth day, namely, because of the sabbath following, that they might not be forced to abstain from servile work for two days together; and the reason for which it might with good reason be transferred that year concerning which the story is. The fourteenth day fell on a sabbath; a scruple ariseth, whether the sabbath gives way to the Passover, or the Passover to the sabbath. The very chief men of the Sanhedrim, and the oracles of traditions, are not able to resolve the business. A great article of religion is transacting; and what is here to be done! O ye sons of Betira, transfer but the Passover unto the next day, and the knot is untied. Certainly if this had been either usual or lawful, they had provided that the affairs of religion, and their authority and fame, should not have stuck in this strait. But that was not to be suffered.
II. Let us add a tradition which you may justly wonder at: "Five things, if they come in uncleanness, are not eaten in uncleanness: the sheaf of firstfruits, the two loaves, the shewbread, the peace offerings of the congregation, and the goats of the new moons. But the Passover which comes in uncleanness is eaten in uncleanness: because it comes not originally unless to be eaten."
Upon which tradition thus Maimonides: "The Lord saith, 'And there were some that were unclean by the carcase of a man,' Numbers 9:6, and he determines of them, that they be put off from the Passover of the first month to the Passover of the second. And the tradition is, that it was thus determined, because they were few. But if the whole congregation should have been unclean, or if the greatest part of it should have been unclean, yet they offer the Passover, though they are unclean. Therefore they say, 'Particular men are put off to the second Passover, but the whole congregation is not put off to the second Passover.' In like manner all the oblations of the congregation, they offer them in uncleanness if the most are unclean; which we learn also from the Passover. For the Lord saith of the Passover, [Num 9:2] that it is to be offered in its set time [note that]; and saith also of the oblations of the congregation, Ye shall do this to the Lord in your set times, and to them all he prescribes a set time. Every thing, therefore, to which a time is set, is also offered in uncleanness, if so be very many of the congregation, or very many of the priests, be unclean."
"We find that the congregation makes their Passover in uncleanness, in that time when most of them are unclean. And if known uncleanness be thus dispensed with, much more doubted uncleanness." But what need is there of such dispensation? Could ye not put off the Passover, O ye fathers of the Sanhedrim, for one or two days, that the people might be purified? By no means: for the Passover is to be offered in its set time, the fourteenth day, without any dispensation. For,
III. Thus the canons of that church concerning that day: in the light of the fourteenth day, they seek for leaven by candlelight. The Gloss is; "In the night, to which the day following is the fourteenth day." And go to all the commentators, and they will teach, that this was done upon the going out of the thirteenth day. And Maimonides; "From the words of the scribes, they look for and rid away leaven in the beginning of the night of the fourteenth day, and that by the light of the candle. For in the night time all are within their houses, and a candle is most proper for such a search. Therefore, they do not appoint employments in the end of the thirteenth day, nor doth a wise man begin to recite his phylacteries in that time, lest thereby, by reason of their length, he be hindered from seeking for leaven in its season." And the same author elsewhere; "It is forbidden to eat leaven on the fourteenth day from noon and onwards, viz. from the beginning of the seventh hour. Our wise men also forbade eating it from the beginning of the sixth hour. Nay, the fifth hour they eat not leaven, lest perhaps the day be cloudy, and so a mistake arise about the time. Behold, you learn that it is lawful to eat leaven on the fourteenth day, to the end of the fourth hour; but in the fifth hour it is not to be used." The same author elsewhere writes thus; "The passover was not to be killed but in the court, where the other sacrifices were killed. And it was to be killed on the fourteenth day afternoon, after the daily sacrifice."
[For more on the Passover and daily sacrifices, please see The Temple: Its Ministry and Services by Alfred Edersheim.
Also see Chronology of the Crucifixion Week for info regarding Christ as our Passover Lamb.]
And now, reader, tell me what day the evangelists call the first day of unleavened bread: and whether it be any thing probable that the Passover was ever transferred unto the fifteenth day? Much less is it probable that Christ this year kept his Passover one day before the Passover of the Jews.
For the Passover was not to be slain but in the court, where the other sacrifices were slain, as we heard just now from Maimonides: and see the rubric of bringing in the lambs into the court, and of slaying them. And then tell me seriously whether it be credible, that the priests in the Temple, against the set decree of the Sanhedrim that year (as the opinion we contradict imports), would kill Christ's one, only, single lamb; when by that decree it ought not to be killed before tomorrow? When Christ said to his disciples, "Ye know, that after two days is the Passover"; and when he commanded them, "Go ye, and prepare for us the Passover," it is a wonder they did not reply, "True, indeed, Sir, it ought to be after two days; but it is put off this year to a day later, so that now it is after three days; it is impossible therefore that we should obey you now, for the priests will not allow of killing before tomorrow."
We have said enough, I suppose, in this matter. But while I am speaking of the day of the Passover, let me add a few words, although not to the business concerning which we have been treating; and they perhaps not unworthy of our consideration:
"He that mourns washes himself, and eats his Passover in the even. A proselyte, which is made a proselyte on the eve of the Passover, the school of Shammai saith, Let him be baptized, and eat his Passover in the even: the school of Hillel saith, He that separates himself from uncircumcision [that is, from heathens and heathenism] is as if he separated himself from a sepulchre." The Gloss, "And hath need of seven days' purification." "There were soldiers at Jerusalem, who baptized themselves, and ate their Passovers in the even." A thing certainly to be noted, proselytes the same day made proselytes, and eating the Passover; and that as it seems without circumcision, but admitted only by baptism.
The care of the school of Hillel in this case did not so much repulse a proselyte from eating the Passover, who was made a proselyte and baptized on the day of the Passover; as provided for the future, that such a one in following years should not obtrude himself to eat the Passover in uncleanness. For while he was in heathenism, he contracted not uncleanness from the touch of a sepulchre; but being made a proselyte, he contracted uncleanness by it. These are the words of the Gloss.
[That we prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover.] For the Passovers were prepared by the servants for their masters. "If any say to his servant, 'Go and kill me the passover,' and he kills a kid, let him eat of it: if he kill a lamb, let him eat of it: if a kid and a lamb, let him eat of the former," &c.
26. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
[And when they had sung an hymn.] I. "What difference is there between the first Passover and the second?" [that is, the Passover of the first month and of the second, Numbers 9]. "In the first, every one is bound under that law, 'Leaven shall not be seen nor found among you.' In the second, 'Leaven and unleavened bread may be with a man in his house.' In the first, he is bound to a hymn when he eats the Passover. In the second, he is not bound to a hymn when he eats it. In both, he is bound to a hymn while he makes or kills. Both are to be eaten roast, and with unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, and both drive away the sabbath." The Gemarists ask, "Whence this is, that they are bound to a hymn, while they eat the Passover? R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simeon Ben Josedek saith, The Scripture saith, 'You shall have a song, as in the night when a feast is kept,' Isaiah 30:29. The night which is set apart for a feast is bound to a hymn: the night which is not set apart for a feast is not bound to a hymn." The Gloss writes thus; "As ye are wont to sing in the night when a feast is kept: but there is no night wherein they are obliged to a song, besides the night when the Passover is eaten."
II. That hymn is called by the Rabbins the Hallel; and was from the beginning of Psalm 113, to the end of Psalm 118, which they cut in two parts; and a part of it they repeated in the very middle of the banquet, and they reserved a part to the end.
How far the former portion extended, is disputed between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. That of Shammai saith, Unto the end of Psalm 113. That of Hillel saith, Unto the end of Psalm 114. But these things must not stop us. The hymn which Christ now sang with his disciples after meat was the latter part. In which, as the Masters of the Traditions observe, these five things are mentioned: "The going out of Egypt. The cutting in two of the Red Sea. The delivery of the law. The resurrection of the dead: and the sorrows of the Messias. The going out of Egypt, as it is written, 'When Israel went out of Egypt.' The cutting in two of the Red Sea, as it is written, 'The sea saw it, and fled.' The delivery of the law, as it is written, 'The mountains leaped like rams.' The resurrection of the dead, as it is written, 'I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.' And the sorrows of the Messias, as it is written, 'Not unto us, Lord, not unto us.'"
[They went out into the mount of Olives.] They were bound by traditional canons to lodge within Jerusalem. "On the first Passover, every one is bound to lodge also on the second Passover he is bound to lodge." The Gloss thus: "He that keeps the Passover is bound to lodge in Jerusalem the first night." But it is disputed, whether it be the same night wherein the lamb is eaten; or the night first following the feast day. See the place: and let not the lion of the tribe of Judah be restrained in those cobwebs [Pesach. fol. 95 .2.]
36. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
[Abba, Father.] As it is necessary to distinguish between the Hebrew and Chaldee idiom in the words Abi, and Abba, so you may, I had almost said, you must, distinguish of their sense. For the word Abi, signifies indeed a natural father, but withal a civil father also, an elder, a master, a doctor, a magistrate: but the word Abba, denotes only a natural father, with which we comprehend also an adopting father: yea, it denotes, My father.
Let no man say to his neighbour, 'My father' is nobler than thy father. "R. Chaija asked Rabh the son of his brother, when he came into the land of Israel, Doth my father live? And he answereth, And doth your mother live?" As if he should have said, You know your mother is dead, so you may know your father is dead. "Solomon said, Observe ye what my father saith?" So in the Targum infinite times.
And we may observe in the Holy Scriptures, wheresoever mention is made of a natural father, the Targumists use the word Abba: but when of a civil father, they use another word:--
I. Of a natural father.
Genesis 22:7, "And he said, 'Abi,' my father." The Targum reads, "And said, 'Abba,' my father." Genesis 27:34: "Bless me, even me also 'Abi,' O my father." The Targum reads, Bless me also, 'Abba,' my father. Genesis 48:18: Not so, 'Abi,' my father. Targum, Not so, 'Abba,' my father. Judges 11:36: 'Abi,' my father, if thou hast opened thy mouth. Targum, 'Abba,' my father, if thou hast opened thy mouth. Isaiah 8:4: The Targum reads, before the child shall know to cry 'Abba,' my father, and my mother. See also the Targum upon Joshua 2:13, and Judges 14:16, and elsewhere very frequently.
II. Of a civil father.
Genesis 4:20,21: He was 'Abi,' the father of such as dwell in tents. "He was 'Abi,' the father of such as handle the harp," &c. The Targum reads, He was 'Rabba,' the prince or the master of them. 1 Samuel 10:12: But who is 'Abihem,' their father? Targum, Who is their 'Rab,' master or prince? 2 Kings 2:12: 'Abi, Abi,' my father, my father. The Targum, Rabbi, Rabbi. 2 Kings 5:13: And they said, 'Abi,' my father. The Targum, And they said, 'Mari,' my Lord. 2 Kings 6:21: 'Abi,' my father, shall I smite them? Targum, 'Rabbi,' shall I kill, &c.
Hence appears the reason of those words of the apostle, Romans 8:15: Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. And Galatians 4:6: "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father." It was one thing to call God Abi, Father, that is, Lord, King, Teacher, Governor, &c.; and another to call him Abba, My Father. The doctrine of adoption, in the proper sense, was altogether unknown to the Jewish schools (though they boasted that the people of Israel alone were adopted by God above all other nations); and yet they called God Father, and our Father, that is, our God, Lord, and King, &c. But "since ye are sons (saith the apostle), ye cry, Abba, O my Father," in the proper and truly paternal sense.
Thus Christ in this place, however under an unspeakable agony, and compassed about on all sides with anguishments, and with a very cloudy and darksome providence; yet he acknowledges, invokes, and finds God his Father, in a most sweet sense.
We cry, 'Abba,' Father. Did the saints, invoking God, and calling him Abba, add also Father? Did Christ also use the same addition of the Greek word Father, and did he repeat the word Abba or Abi? Father seems rather here to be added by Mark, and there also by St. Paul, for explication of the word 'Abba': and this is so much the more probable also, because it is expressed Father, and not O Father, in the vocative.
51. And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
[Having a linen cloth cast about his naked body.] It is well rendered by the Vulgar clothed in sindon or fine linen: for to that the words have respect: not that he had some linen loosely and by chance cast about him, but that the garment wherewith he always went clothed, was of sindon, that is, of linen. Let us hearken a little to the Talmudists.
"The Rabbins deliver: Sindon [linen] with fringes, what of them? The school of Shammai absolves, the school of Hillel binds, and the wise men determine according to the school of Hillel. R. Eliezer Ben R. Zadok saith, Whosoever wears hyacinth [purple] in Jerusalem, is among those who make men admire." By hyacinthinum [purple] they understand those fringes that were to put them in mind of the law, Numbers 15. And by sindon, linen, is understood a cloak, or that garment, which, as it serves for clothing the body, so it is doubly serviceable to religion. For, 1. To this garment were the fringes fastened, concerning which mention is made, Numbers 15:38. 2. With this garment they commonly covered their heads when they prayed. Hence that in the Gemarists in the place quoted: "talith, or the cloak whereby the boy covereth his head, and a great part of himself; if any one of elder years goes forth clothed with it in a more immodest manner, he is bound to wear fringes." And elsewhere, "The priests who veil themselves when they go up into the pulpit, with a cloak which is not their own," &c.
But now it was customary to wear this cloak, in the summer especially, and in Jerusalem for the most part, made of sindon or of linen. And the question between the schools of Shammai and Hillel arose hence, that when the fringes were woolen, and the cloak linen, how would the suspicion of wearing things of different sorts be avoided? R. Zeira loosed his sindon. The Gloss is: "He loosed his fringes from his sindon [that is, from his talith, which was of 'sindon,' linen], because it was of linen," &c. "The angel found Rabh Ketina clothed in sindon; and said to him, O Ketina, Ketina, sindon in the summer, and a short cloak in the winter."
You see that word which is spoke by the evangelist, about his naked body, carries an emphasis: for it was most usual to be clothed with sindon for an outer garment. What therefore must we say of this young man? I suppose in the first place, that he was not a disciple of Jesus; but that he now followed, as some curious looker on, to see what this multitude would at last produce. And to such a suspicion they certainly do consent, who think him to have been roused from his bed, and hastily followed the rout with nothing but his shirt on, without any other clothes. I suppose, secondly, St. Mark in the phrase having a sindon cast about him, spake according to the known and vulgar dialect of the nation, clothed with a sindon. For none shall ever persuade me that he would use an idiom, any thing uncouth or strange to the nation; and that when he used the very same phrase in Greek with that Jewish one, he intended not to propound the very same sense. But now you clearly see, they themselves being our teachers, what is the meaning of being clothed with a sindon, with them, namely, to have a talith or cloak made of linen; that garment to which the fringes hung. I suppose, in the last place, that this young man, out of religion, or superstition rather, more than ordinary, had put on his sindon, and nothing but that upon his naked body, neglecting his inner garment (commonly called chaluk), and indeed neglecting his body. For there were some amongst the Jews that did so macerate their bodies, and afflict them with hunger and cold, even above the severe rule of other sects.
Josephus in his own Life writes thus: "I was sixteen years old, and I resolved to make trial of the institution of the three sects among us, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes; for I judged I should be able very well to choose the best of them, if I thoroughly learned them all. Afflicting, therefore, and much tormenting myself, I tried them all. But judging with myself that it was not enough to have tried these sects, and hearing of one Banus, that lived in the wilderness, that he used a garment made of leaves, or the bark of trees, and no food but what grew of its own accord, and often by day and by night washing himself in cold water, I became a follower of him, and for three years abode with him."
And in that place in the Talmudists, which we but now produced, at that very story of Rabh Ketina, wearing a sindon in the winter for his talith, we have these words; "The religious in elder times, when they had wove three wings [of the talith], they joined the purple," whereof the fringes were made: "but otherwise, they are religious who impose upon themselves things heavier than ordinary." And immediately follows the story of the angel and Ketina, who did so. There were some who heaped up upon themselves burdens and yokes of religion above the common rule, and that this is to be understood by such as laid upon themselves heavier things than ordinary, both the practice of some Jews persuade, and the word itself speaks it, being used by the Gemarists in the same sense elsewhere.
Such, we suppose, was this young man (as Josephus was, when a young man, of whom before), who, when others armed themselves against the cold with a double garment, namely, an inner garment, and a talith or cloak, clothed himself with a single garment, and that of sindon or linen, and under the show of some more austere religion, neglecting the ordinary custom and care of himself.
The thing, taken in the sense which we propound, speaks the furious madness of this most wicked rout so much the more, inasmuch as they spared not a man, and him a young man, bearing most evident marks of a more severe religion.
56. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
[Their witness agreed not together.] The traditional canons, in these things, divide testimonies into three parts:--
I. There was a vain testimony: which being heard, there is no more inquiry made from that witness, there is no more use made of him, but he is set aside, as speaking nothing to the business.
II. There was a standing testimony, for let me so turn it here, which, although it proved not the matter without doubt, yet it was not rejected by the judges, but admitted to examination by citation, that is, others being admitted to try to disprove it if they could.
III. There was the testimony of the words of them that agreed or fitted together (this also was a standing evidence), when the words of two witnesses agreed, and were to the same purpose: an even evidence. Of these, see the tract Sanhedrin; where also discourse is had concerning exact search and examination of the witnesses by inquisition, and scrutiny, and citation: by which curious disquisition if they had examined the witnesses that babbled and barked against Christ, Oh! the unspeakable and infinite innocence of the most blessed Jesus, which envy and madness itself, never so much sworn together against his life, could not have fastened any crime upon!
It is said, verse 55, they sought for witness against Jesus. This is neither equal, O fathers of the Sanhedrim! nor agreeable to your rule: In judgments about the life of any man, they begin first to transact about quitting the party who is tried; and they begin not with those things which make for his condemnation. Whether the Sanhedrim now followed that canon in their scrutiny about Christ's case, let them look to it: by their whole process it sufficiently appears, whither their disquisition tended. And let it be granted, that they pretended some colour of justice and mercy, and permitted that any one who would, might come forth, and testify something in his behalf, where was any such now to be found? when all his disciples turned their backs upon him, and the Fathers of the Traditions had provided, that whosoever should confess him to be Christ should be struck with the thunder of their excommunication, John 9:22.
[Of spikenard.] What if I should render it, nardin of Balanus? "Nardin consists of omphacium, balaninum, bulrush, nard, amomum, myrrh, balsam," &c. And again, "Myrobalanum is common to the Troglodytes, and to Thebais, and to that part of Arabia which divides Judea from Egypt; a growing ointment, as appears by the very name, whereby also is shown that it is the mast [glans] of a tree."
Balanus, as all know among the Greeks, is glans, mast, or an acorn: so also is pistaca, among the Talmudists. There are prescribed by the Talmudists various remedies for various diseases: among others, this; For a pleurisy (or, as others will have it, a certain disease of the head), take to the quantity of the mast of ammoniac. The Gloss is, the mast of ammoniac is the mast of cedar. The Aruch saith, "the mast of ammoniac is the grain of a fruit, which is called glans."
The word nard, is Hebrew from the word nerad; and the word spikenard is Syriac, from the word pistaca. So that the ointment might be called Balanine ointment, in the composition of which, nard and mast, or myrobalane, were the chief ingredients.
[Poured it on his head.] In Talmudic language, "What are the testimonies, that the woman married is a virgin? If she goes forth to be married with a veil let down over her eyes, yet with her head not veiled. The scattering of nuts is also a testimony. These are in Judea; but what are in Babylon? Rabh saith, If ointment be upon the head of the Rabbins." (The Gloss is, "The women poured ointment upon the heads of the scholars, and anointed them.") "Rabh Papa said to Abai, Does that doctor speak of the aromatic ointment used in bridechambers?" (The Gloss is, "Are the Rabbins such, to be anointed with such ointments?") "He answered, O thou unacquainted with the customs, did not thy mother pour out ointment for you (at thy wedding) upon the heads of the Rabbins? Thus, a certain Rabbin got a wife for his son in the house of Rabbah Bar Ulla; and they said to him, Rabbah Bar Ulla also got a wife in the house of a certain Rabbin for his son, and he poured out ointment upon the head of the Rabbins."
From the tradition produced it may be asked, whether it were customary in Judea to wet the heads of the Rabbins with ointments, in the marriages of virgins, as it was in Babylon? Or, whether it were so customary otherwise to anoint their heads; as that such an anointing at weddings were not so memorable a matter as it was in Babylon? Certainly, in both places, however they anointed men's heads for health's sake, it was accounted unfitting for Rabbins to smell of aromatical ointments: "It is indecent (say the Jerusalem Talmudists) for a scholar of the wise men to smell of spices." And you have the judgment of the Babylonians in this very place, when it is inquired among them, and that, as it were, with a certain kind of dissatisfaction, Whether Rabbins be such as that they should be anointed with aromatical ointments, as the more nice sort are wont to be anointed? From this opinion, everywhere received among them, you may more aptly understand, why the other disciples as well as Judas, did bear the lavish of the ointment with some indignation: he, out of wicked covetousness; but they, partly, as not wiling that so precious a thing should be lost, and partly as not liking so nice a custom should be used towards their master, from which the masters of the Jews themselves were so averse. And our Saviour, taking off the envy of what was done, applies this anointing to his burial, both in his intention and in the intention of the woman; that it might not seem to be done out of some delicate niceness.
5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
[More than three hundred pence.] The prices of such precious ointments (as it seems in Pliny) were commonly known. For thus he, "The price of costus is sixteen pounds. The price of spike(nard) is ninety pounds. The leaves have made a difference in the value. From the broadness of them it is called Hadrosphaerum; with greater leaves it is worth X. xxx," that is, thirty pence. "That with a lesser leaf is called Mesosphaerum, it is sold at X. lx," sixty pence. "The most esteemed is that called Microsphaerum, having the least leaf, and the price of it is X. lxxv," seventy-five pence. And elsewhere: "To these the merchants have added that which they call Daphnois, surnamed Isocinnamon, and they make the price of it to be X. ccc" three hundred pence.
II. It is not easy to reduce this sum of three hundred pence to its proper sense; partly because a penny was two-fold, a silver penny, and a gold one: partly because there was a double value and estimation of money, namely, that of Jerusalem and that of Tyre, as we observed before. Let these be silver (which we believe), which are of much less value than gold: and let them be Jerusalem pence (which we also believe), which are cheaper than the Tyrian; yet they plainly speak the great wealth of Magdalene, who poured out an ointment of such a value, when before she had spent some such other.
Which brings to my mind those things which are spoken by the Masters concerning the box of spices, which the husband was bound to give the wife according to the proportion of her dowry: "But this is not spoken, saith Rabh Ishai, but of Jerusalem people. There is an example of a daughter of Nicodemus Ben Gorion, to whom the wise men appointed four hundred crowns of gold for a chest of spices for one day. She said to them, 'I wish you may so appoint for their daughters'; and they answered after her, 'Amen.'" The Gloss is, "The husband was to give to his wife ten zuzees for every manah, which she brought with her to buy spices, with which she used to wash herself," &c. Behold! a most wealthy woman of Jerusalem, daughter of Nicodemus, in the contract and instrument of whose marriage was written, "A thousand thousand gold pence out of the house of her father, besides those she had out of the house of her father-in-law": whom yet you have in the same story reduced to that extreme poverty, that she picked up barley-corns for her food out of the cattle's dung.
7. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
[For ye have the poor with you always.] "Samuel saith, 'There is no difference between this world and the days of the Messias,' unless in regard of the affliction of the heathen kingdoms; as it is said, 'A poor man shall not be wanting out of the midst of the earth,'" Deuteronomy 15:11. Observe a Jew confessing, that there shall be poor men even in the days of the Messias: which how it agrees with their received opinion of the pompous kingdom of the Messias, let him look to it. "R. Solomon and Aben Ezra write, 'If thou shalt obey the words of the Lord, there shall not be a poor man in thee: but thou wilt not obey; therefore a poor man shall never be wanting.'" Upon this received reason of the thing, confess also, O Samuel, that there shall be disobedient persons in the days of the Messias; which, indeed, when the true Messias came, proved too, too true, in thy nation.
12. And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
[And the first day of unleavened bread.] So Matthew 26:17; Luke 22:7. And now let them tell me, who think that Christ indeed kept his Passover the fourteenth day, but the Jews not before the fifteenth, because this year their Passover was transferred unto the fifteenth day by reason of the following sabbath: let them tell me, I say, whether the evangelists speak according to the day prescribed by Moses, or according to the day prescribed by the masters of the traditions, and used by the nation. If according to Moses, then the fifteenth day was the first of unleavened bread, Exodus 12:15,18: but if according to the manner of the nation, then it was the fourteenth. And whether the evangelists speak according to this custom, let us inquire briefly.
Sometime, indeed, the whole seven days' feast was transferred to another month; and that not only from that law, Numbers 9, but from other causes also: concerning which see the places quoted in the margin [Hieros. in Maasar Sheni, fol. 56.3. Maimon. in Kiddush. Hodesh. cap. 4.]. But when the time appointed for the feast occurred, the lamb was always slain on the fourteenth day.
I. Let us begin with a story where an occasion occurs not very unlike that for which they of whom we speak think the Passover this year was transferred; namely, because of the following sabbath. The story is this: "After the death of Shemaiah and Abtalion, the sons of Betira obtained the chief place. Hillel went up from Babylon to inquire concerning three doubts. When he was now at Jerusalem, and the fourteenth day of the first month fell out on the sabbath [observe that], it appeared not to the sons of Betira, whether the Passover drove off the sabbath or no. Which when Hillel had determined in many words, and had added, moreover, that he had learned this from Shemaiah and Abtalion, they laid down their authority, and made Hillel president. When they had chosen him president, he derided them, saying, 'What need have you of this Babylonian? Did you not serve the two chief men of the world, Shemaiah and Abtalion, who sat among you?'" These things which are already said make enough to our purpose, but, with the reader's leave, let us add the whole story: "While he thus scoffed at them, he forgot a tradition. For they said, 'What is to be done with the people if they bring not their knives?' He answered, 'I have heard this tradition, but I have forgot. But let them alone; for although they are not prophets, they are prophets' sons.' Presently every one whose passover was a lamb stuck his knife into the fleece of it; and whose passover was a kid, hung his knife upon the horns of it."
And now let the impartial reader judge between the reason which is given for the transferring the Passover this year unto the fifteenth day, namely, because of the sabbath following, that they might not be forced to abstain from servile work for two days together; and the reason for which it might with good reason be transferred that year concerning which the story is. The fourteenth day fell on a sabbath; a scruple ariseth, whether the sabbath gives way to the Passover, or the Passover to the sabbath. The very chief men of the Sanhedrim, and the oracles of traditions, are not able to resolve the business. A great article of religion is transacting; and what is here to be done! O ye sons of Betira, transfer but the Passover unto the next day, and the knot is untied. Certainly if this had been either usual or lawful, they had provided that the affairs of religion, and their authority and fame, should not have stuck in this strait. But that was not to be suffered.
II. Let us add a tradition which you may justly wonder at: "Five things, if they come in uncleanness, are not eaten in uncleanness: the sheaf of firstfruits, the two loaves, the shewbread, the peace offerings of the congregation, and the goats of the new moons. But the Passover which comes in uncleanness is eaten in uncleanness: because it comes not originally unless to be eaten."
Upon which tradition thus Maimonides: "The Lord saith, 'And there were some that were unclean by the carcase of a man,' Numbers 9:6, and he determines of them, that they be put off from the Passover of the first month to the Passover of the second. And the tradition is, that it was thus determined, because they were few. But if the whole congregation should have been unclean, or if the greatest part of it should have been unclean, yet they offer the Passover, though they are unclean. Therefore they say, 'Particular men are put off to the second Passover, but the whole congregation is not put off to the second Passover.' In like manner all the oblations of the congregation, they offer them in uncleanness if the most are unclean; which we learn also from the Passover. For the Lord saith of the Passover, [Num 9:2] that it is to be offered in its set time [note that]; and saith also of the oblations of the congregation, Ye shall do this to the Lord in your set times, and to them all he prescribes a set time. Every thing, therefore, to which a time is set, is also offered in uncleanness, if so be very many of the congregation, or very many of the priests, be unclean."
"We find that the congregation makes their Passover in uncleanness, in that time when most of them are unclean. And if known uncleanness be thus dispensed with, much more doubted uncleanness." But what need is there of such dispensation? Could ye not put off the Passover, O ye fathers of the Sanhedrim, for one or two days, that the people might be purified? By no means: for the Passover is to be offered in its set time, the fourteenth day, without any dispensation. For,
III. Thus the canons of that church concerning that day: in the light of the fourteenth day, they seek for leaven by candlelight. The Gloss is; "In the night, to which the day following is the fourteenth day." And go to all the commentators, and they will teach, that this was done upon the going out of the thirteenth day. And Maimonides; "From the words of the scribes, they look for and rid away leaven in the beginning of the night of the fourteenth day, and that by the light of the candle. For in the night time all are within their houses, and a candle is most proper for such a search. Therefore, they do not appoint employments in the end of the thirteenth day, nor doth a wise man begin to recite his phylacteries in that time, lest thereby, by reason of their length, he be hindered from seeking for leaven in its season." And the same author elsewhere; "It is forbidden to eat leaven on the fourteenth day from noon and onwards, viz. from the beginning of the seventh hour. Our wise men also forbade eating it from the beginning of the sixth hour. Nay, the fifth hour they eat not leaven, lest perhaps the day be cloudy, and so a mistake arise about the time. Behold, you learn that it is lawful to eat leaven on the fourteenth day, to the end of the fourth hour; but in the fifth hour it is not to be used." The same author elsewhere writes thus; "The passover was not to be killed but in the court, where the other sacrifices were killed. And it was to be killed on the fourteenth day afternoon, after the daily sacrifice."
[For more on the Passover and daily sacrifices, please see The Temple: Its Ministry and Services by Alfred Edersheim.
Also see Chronology of the Crucifixion Week for info regarding Christ as our Passover Lamb.]
And now, reader, tell me what day the evangelists call the first day of unleavened bread: and whether it be any thing probable that the Passover was ever transferred unto the fifteenth day? Much less is it probable that Christ this year kept his Passover one day before the Passover of the Jews.
For the Passover was not to be slain but in the court, where the other sacrifices were slain, as we heard just now from Maimonides: and see the rubric of bringing in the lambs into the court, and of slaying them. And then tell me seriously whether it be credible, that the priests in the Temple, against the set decree of the Sanhedrim that year (as the opinion we contradict imports), would kill Christ's one, only, single lamb; when by that decree it ought not to be killed before tomorrow? When Christ said to his disciples, "Ye know, that after two days is the Passover"; and when he commanded them, "Go ye, and prepare for us the Passover," it is a wonder they did not reply, "True, indeed, Sir, it ought to be after two days; but it is put off this year to a day later, so that now it is after three days; it is impossible therefore that we should obey you now, for the priests will not allow of killing before tomorrow."
We have said enough, I suppose, in this matter. But while I am speaking of the day of the Passover, let me add a few words, although not to the business concerning which we have been treating; and they perhaps not unworthy of our consideration:
"He that mourns washes himself, and eats his Passover in the even. A proselyte, which is made a proselyte on the eve of the Passover, the school of Shammai saith, Let him be baptized, and eat his Passover in the even: the school of Hillel saith, He that separates himself from uncircumcision [that is, from heathens and heathenism] is as if he separated himself from a sepulchre." The Gloss, "And hath need of seven days' purification." "There were soldiers at Jerusalem, who baptized themselves, and ate their Passovers in the even." A thing certainly to be noted, proselytes the same day made proselytes, and eating the Passover; and that as it seems without circumcision, but admitted only by baptism.
The care of the school of Hillel in this case did not so much repulse a proselyte from eating the Passover, who was made a proselyte and baptized on the day of the Passover; as provided for the future, that such a one in following years should not obtrude himself to eat the Passover in uncleanness. For while he was in heathenism, he contracted not uncleanness from the touch of a sepulchre; but being made a proselyte, he contracted uncleanness by it. These are the words of the Gloss.
[That we prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover.] For the Passovers were prepared by the servants for their masters. "If any say to his servant, 'Go and kill me the passover,' and he kills a kid, let him eat of it: if he kill a lamb, let him eat of it: if a kid and a lamb, let him eat of the former," &c.
26. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
[And when they had sung an hymn.] I. "What difference is there between the first Passover and the second?" [that is, the Passover of the first month and of the second, Numbers 9]. "In the first, every one is bound under that law, 'Leaven shall not be seen nor found among you.' In the second, 'Leaven and unleavened bread may be with a man in his house.' In the first, he is bound to a hymn when he eats the Passover. In the second, he is not bound to a hymn when he eats it. In both, he is bound to a hymn while he makes or kills. Both are to be eaten roast, and with unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, and both drive away the sabbath." The Gemarists ask, "Whence this is, that they are bound to a hymn, while they eat the Passover? R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simeon Ben Josedek saith, The Scripture saith, 'You shall have a song, as in the night when a feast is kept,' Isaiah 30:29. The night which is set apart for a feast is bound to a hymn: the night which is not set apart for a feast is not bound to a hymn." The Gloss writes thus; "As ye are wont to sing in the night when a feast is kept: but there is no night wherein they are obliged to a song, besides the night when the Passover is eaten."
II. That hymn is called by the Rabbins the Hallel; and was from the beginning of Psalm 113, to the end of Psalm 118, which they cut in two parts; and a part of it they repeated in the very middle of the banquet, and they reserved a part to the end.
How far the former portion extended, is disputed between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. That of Shammai saith, Unto the end of Psalm 113. That of Hillel saith, Unto the end of Psalm 114. But these things must not stop us. The hymn which Christ now sang with his disciples after meat was the latter part. In which, as the Masters of the Traditions observe, these five things are mentioned: "The going out of Egypt. The cutting in two of the Red Sea. The delivery of the law. The resurrection of the dead: and the sorrows of the Messias. The going out of Egypt, as it is written, 'When Israel went out of Egypt.' The cutting in two of the Red Sea, as it is written, 'The sea saw it, and fled.' The delivery of the law, as it is written, 'The mountains leaped like rams.' The resurrection of the dead, as it is written, 'I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.' And the sorrows of the Messias, as it is written, 'Not unto us, Lord, not unto us.'"
[They went out into the mount of Olives.] They were bound by traditional canons to lodge within Jerusalem. "On the first Passover, every one is bound to lodge also on the second Passover he is bound to lodge." The Gloss thus: "He that keeps the Passover is bound to lodge in Jerusalem the first night." But it is disputed, whether it be the same night wherein the lamb is eaten; or the night first following the feast day. See the place: and let not the lion of the tribe of Judah be restrained in those cobwebs [Pesach. fol. 95 .2.]
36. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
[Abba, Father.] As it is necessary to distinguish between the Hebrew and Chaldee idiom in the words Abi, and Abba, so you may, I had almost said, you must, distinguish of their sense. For the word Abi, signifies indeed a natural father, but withal a civil father also, an elder, a master, a doctor, a magistrate: but the word Abba, denotes only a natural father, with which we comprehend also an adopting father: yea, it denotes, My father.
Let no man say to his neighbour, 'My father' is nobler than thy father. "R. Chaija asked Rabh the son of his brother, when he came into the land of Israel, Doth my father live? And he answereth, And doth your mother live?" As if he should have said, You know your mother is dead, so you may know your father is dead. "Solomon said, Observe ye what my father saith?" So in the Targum infinite times.
And we may observe in the Holy Scriptures, wheresoever mention is made of a natural father, the Targumists use the word Abba: but when of a civil father, they use another word:--
I. Of a natural father.
Genesis 22:7, "And he said, 'Abi,' my father." The Targum reads, "And said, 'Abba,' my father." Genesis 27:34: "Bless me, even me also 'Abi,' O my father." The Targum reads, Bless me also, 'Abba,' my father. Genesis 48:18: Not so, 'Abi,' my father. Targum, Not so, 'Abba,' my father. Judges 11:36: 'Abi,' my father, if thou hast opened thy mouth. Targum, 'Abba,' my father, if thou hast opened thy mouth. Isaiah 8:4: The Targum reads, before the child shall know to cry 'Abba,' my father, and my mother. See also the Targum upon Joshua 2:13, and Judges 14:16, and elsewhere very frequently.
II. Of a civil father.
Genesis 4:20,21: He was 'Abi,' the father of such as dwell in tents. "He was 'Abi,' the father of such as handle the harp," &c. The Targum reads, He was 'Rabba,' the prince or the master of them. 1 Samuel 10:12: But who is 'Abihem,' their father? Targum, Who is their 'Rab,' master or prince? 2 Kings 2:12: 'Abi, Abi,' my father, my father. The Targum, Rabbi, Rabbi. 2 Kings 5:13: And they said, 'Abi,' my father. The Targum, And they said, 'Mari,' my Lord. 2 Kings 6:21: 'Abi,' my father, shall I smite them? Targum, 'Rabbi,' shall I kill, &c.
Hence appears the reason of those words of the apostle, Romans 8:15: Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. And Galatians 4:6: "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father." It was one thing to call God Abi, Father, that is, Lord, King, Teacher, Governor, &c.; and another to call him Abba, My Father. The doctrine of adoption, in the proper sense, was altogether unknown to the Jewish schools (though they boasted that the people of Israel alone were adopted by God above all other nations); and yet they called God Father, and our Father, that is, our God, Lord, and King, &c. But "since ye are sons (saith the apostle), ye cry, Abba, O my Father," in the proper and truly paternal sense.
Thus Christ in this place, however under an unspeakable agony, and compassed about on all sides with anguishments, and with a very cloudy and darksome providence; yet he acknowledges, invokes, and finds God his Father, in a most sweet sense.
We cry, 'Abba,' Father. Did the saints, invoking God, and calling him Abba, add also Father? Did Christ also use the same addition of the Greek word Father, and did he repeat the word Abba or Abi? Father seems rather here to be added by Mark, and there also by St. Paul, for explication of the word 'Abba': and this is so much the more probable also, because it is expressed Father, and not O Father, in the vocative.
51. And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
[Having a linen cloth cast about his naked body.] It is well rendered by the Vulgar clothed in sindon or fine linen: for to that the words have respect: not that he had some linen loosely and by chance cast about him, but that the garment wherewith he always went clothed, was of sindon, that is, of linen. Let us hearken a little to the Talmudists.
"The Rabbins deliver: Sindon [linen] with fringes, what of them? The school of Shammai absolves, the school of Hillel binds, and the wise men determine according to the school of Hillel. R. Eliezer Ben R. Zadok saith, Whosoever wears hyacinth [purple] in Jerusalem, is among those who make men admire." By hyacinthinum [purple] they understand those fringes that were to put them in mind of the law, Numbers 15. And by sindon, linen, is understood a cloak, or that garment, which, as it serves for clothing the body, so it is doubly serviceable to religion. For, 1. To this garment were the fringes fastened, concerning which mention is made, Numbers 15:38. 2. With this garment they commonly covered their heads when they prayed. Hence that in the Gemarists in the place quoted: "talith, or the cloak whereby the boy covereth his head, and a great part of himself; if any one of elder years goes forth clothed with it in a more immodest manner, he is bound to wear fringes." And elsewhere, "The priests who veil themselves when they go up into the pulpit, with a cloak which is not their own," &c.
But now it was customary to wear this cloak, in the summer especially, and in Jerusalem for the most part, made of sindon or of linen. And the question between the schools of Shammai and Hillel arose hence, that when the fringes were woolen, and the cloak linen, how would the suspicion of wearing things of different sorts be avoided? R. Zeira loosed his sindon. The Gloss is: "He loosed his fringes from his sindon [that is, from his talith, which was of 'sindon,' linen], because it was of linen," &c. "The angel found Rabh Ketina clothed in sindon; and said to him, O Ketina, Ketina, sindon in the summer, and a short cloak in the winter."
You see that word which is spoke by the evangelist, about his naked body, carries an emphasis: for it was most usual to be clothed with sindon for an outer garment. What therefore must we say of this young man? I suppose in the first place, that he was not a disciple of Jesus; but that he now followed, as some curious looker on, to see what this multitude would at last produce. And to such a suspicion they certainly do consent, who think him to have been roused from his bed, and hastily followed the rout with nothing but his shirt on, without any other clothes. I suppose, secondly, St. Mark in the phrase having a sindon cast about him, spake according to the known and vulgar dialect of the nation, clothed with a sindon. For none shall ever persuade me that he would use an idiom, any thing uncouth or strange to the nation; and that when he used the very same phrase in Greek with that Jewish one, he intended not to propound the very same sense. But now you clearly see, they themselves being our teachers, what is the meaning of being clothed with a sindon, with them, namely, to have a talith or cloak made of linen; that garment to which the fringes hung. I suppose, in the last place, that this young man, out of religion, or superstition rather, more than ordinary, had put on his sindon, and nothing but that upon his naked body, neglecting his inner garment (commonly called chaluk), and indeed neglecting his body. For there were some amongst the Jews that did so macerate their bodies, and afflict them with hunger and cold, even above the severe rule of other sects.
Josephus in his own Life writes thus: "I was sixteen years old, and I resolved to make trial of the institution of the three sects among us, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes; for I judged I should be able very well to choose the best of them, if I thoroughly learned them all. Afflicting, therefore, and much tormenting myself, I tried them all. But judging with myself that it was not enough to have tried these sects, and hearing of one Banus, that lived in the wilderness, that he used a garment made of leaves, or the bark of trees, and no food but what grew of its own accord, and often by day and by night washing himself in cold water, I became a follower of him, and for three years abode with him."
And in that place in the Talmudists, which we but now produced, at that very story of Rabh Ketina, wearing a sindon in the winter for his talith, we have these words; "The religious in elder times, when they had wove three wings [of the talith], they joined the purple," whereof the fringes were made: "but otherwise, they are religious who impose upon themselves things heavier than ordinary." And immediately follows the story of the angel and Ketina, who did so. There were some who heaped up upon themselves burdens and yokes of religion above the common rule, and that this is to be understood by such as laid upon themselves heavier things than ordinary, both the practice of some Jews persuade, and the word itself speaks it, being used by the Gemarists in the same sense elsewhere.
Such, we suppose, was this young man (as Josephus was, when a young man, of whom before), who, when others armed themselves against the cold with a double garment, namely, an inner garment, and a talith or cloak, clothed himself with a single garment, and that of sindon or linen, and under the show of some more austere religion, neglecting the ordinary custom and care of himself.
The thing, taken in the sense which we propound, speaks the furious madness of this most wicked rout so much the more, inasmuch as they spared not a man, and him a young man, bearing most evident marks of a more severe religion.
56. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
[Their witness agreed not together.] The traditional canons, in these things, divide testimonies into three parts:--
I. There was a vain testimony: which being heard, there is no more inquiry made from that witness, there is no more use made of him, but he is set aside, as speaking nothing to the business.
II. There was a standing testimony, for let me so turn it here, which, although it proved not the matter without doubt, yet it was not rejected by the judges, but admitted to examination by citation, that is, others being admitted to try to disprove it if they could.
III. There was the testimony of the words of them that agreed or fitted together (this also was a standing evidence), when the words of two witnesses agreed, and were to the same purpose: an even evidence. Of these, see the tract Sanhedrin; where also discourse is had concerning exact search and examination of the witnesses by inquisition, and scrutiny, and citation: by which curious disquisition if they had examined the witnesses that babbled and barked against Christ, Oh! the unspeakable and infinite innocence of the most blessed Jesus, which envy and madness itself, never so much sworn together against his life, could not have fastened any crime upon!
It is said, verse 55, they sought for witness against Jesus. This is neither equal, O fathers of the Sanhedrim! nor agreeable to your rule: In judgments about the life of any man, they begin first to transact about quitting the party who is tried; and they begin not with those things which make for his condemnation. Whether the Sanhedrim now followed that canon in their scrutiny about Christ's case, let them look to it: by their whole process it sufficiently appears, whither their disquisition tended. And let it be granted, that they pretended some colour of justice and mercy, and permitted that any one who would, might come forth, and testify something in his behalf, where was any such now to be found? when all his disciples turned their backs upon him, and the Fathers of the Traditions had provided, that whosoever should confess him to be Christ should be struck with the thunder of their excommunication, John 9:22.
Mark 15
1. And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
[In the morning they held a consultation...and the whole council.] "At what time do the judges sit in judgment? The lesser Sanhedrim and the bench of three sit, after morning prayers are ended, until the end of the sixth hour. But the great Sanhedrim sits after the morning daily sacrifice to the afternoon daily sacrifice. And on sabbaths and feast days" [as this day was that is here spoken of], "it sat in Beth-midrash" (or the chapel), "in the Court of the Gentiles."
"The Sanhedrim of one-and-seventy elders, it is not necessary that they all sit in their place, which is in the Temple. But when it is necessary that all meet together, let all meet together (the whole council)."
"But in other times, he that hath business of his own, let him attend his own business, and then return. With this proviso, that nothing be wanting of the number of three-and-twenty upon the bench continually during the whole time of the session (the consultation). If any must go out, let him look round, whether his colleagues be three-and-twenty: if they be, let him go out: but if not, let him wait till another enter in."
6. Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
[At that feast he released, &c.] The Syriac reads,...; and so the Arab, every feast: Beza, at each of the feasts, which pleases me not at all. For it is plainly said by Pilate himself, "that I should release unto you one at the Passover," John 18:39: and the releasing of a prisoner suits not so well to the other feasts as to the Passover; because the Passover carries with it the memory of the release of the people out of Egypt: but other feasts had other respects...according to the nature and quality of the feast, which was a monument of release...
7. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
[Barabbas.] Let us mention also with him a very famous rogue in the Talmudists, Ben Dinai, whose name also was Eleazar. Of whom they have this passage worthy of chronological observation; "From the time that murderers were multiplied, the beheading the red cow ceased; namely, from the time that Eleazar Ben Dinai came; who was also called Techinnah Ben Perishah: but again they called him, The son of a murderer." Of him mention is made elsewhere, where it is written Ben Donai. See also Ben Nezer, the king of the robbers.
21. And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
[Coming out of the country, or field.] "They bring wood out of the field [on a feast-day], either bound together, or from some place fenced round or scattered." The Gloss there is; "They bring wood on a feast day out of the field, which is within the limits of the sabbath, if it be bound together on the eve of the feast-day, &c. A place watched and fenced in every way." And Rambam writes, "Rabbi Jose saith, If there be a door in such a fenced place, although it be distant from the city almost two thousand cubits, which are the limits of the sabbath, one may bring wood thence."
It may be conceived, that Simon the Cyrenean came out of the field thus loaded with wood; and you may conceive that he had given occasion to the soldiers or executioners, why they would lay the cross upon him, namely, because they saw that he was a strong bearer; and instead of one burden, they laid this other upon him to bear.
25. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
[And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.] But John saith, 19:14, And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; namely, when Pilate delivered him to be crucified. From the former clause, it was the preparation of the Passover, hath sprung that opinion, of which we have said something before concerning the transferring of the eating of the lamb this year to the fifteenth day. For they think by the preparation of the Passover is to be understood the preparation of the lamb, or for the eating of the lamb. For which interpretation they think that makes, which is said by the same John, 18:28, "They would not go into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." And hence it is confidently concluded by them, that however Christ ate his lamb the day before, yet the Jews were to eat theirs this very day.
We will discourse first of the day, as it here occurs under the name of the preparation of the Passover; and then of the hour:--
I. Every Israelite was bound, within that seven day's solemnity, after the lamb was eaten, to these two things: 1. To appear before the Lord in the court, and that with a sacrifice. 2. To solemn joy and mirth, and that also with sacrifices. The former was called by the Jews Appearance. The latter Chagigah, the festival.
"All are bound to appear, except deaf-and-dumb, fools, young children," &c. And a little after; "The school of Shammai saith, Let the Appearance be with two silver pieces of money, and the Chagigah be with a 'meah' of silver. The school of Hillel saith, Let the Appearance be with a meah of silver, and the Chagigah with two pieces of silver." The Gloss writes thus; "All are bound to make their appearance from that precept, 'All thy males shall appear,' &c. Exodus 23:17: and it is necessary that they appear in the court in the feast. He that appears when he placeth himself in the court, let him bring a burnt offering, which is by no means to be of less price than two pieces of silver, that is, of two meahs of silver. They are bound also to the peace offerings of the Chagigah by that law, Ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD," Exodus 12:14. Rambam upon the place thus; "The Lord saith, 'Let them not appear before me empty,' Deuteronomy 16:16. That is, Let him bring an oblation of a burnt sacrifice in his hand when he goes up to the feast. And those burnt sacrifices are called burnt-sacrifices of appearance, and also appearance, without the addition of the word burnt sacrifice. And the Chagigah: From thence, because the Lord saith, 'Ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord,' it means this, That a man bring peace offerings, and these peace offerings are called Chagigah."
II. Of these two, namely, the appearance and the Chagigah, the Chagigah was the greater and more famous. For
First, certain persons were obliged to the Chagigah, who were not obliged to the appearance: "He that indeed is not deaf, but yet is dumb, is not obliged to appearance; but yet he is obliged to rejoice." It is true some of the Gemarists distinguish between Chagigah and rejoicing. But one Glosser upon the place alleged that which he saith of 'rejoicing,' obtains also of the 'Chagigah.' And another saith, "He is bound to rejoicing, namely, to rejoice in the feast; as it is written, 'And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast.' And they say elsewhere, that that rejoicing is over the peace-offerings, namely, in eating flesh."
Secondly, appearance was not tied so strictly to the first day, but the Chagigah was tied to it. "Burnt sacrifices by vow, and free will offerings are offered on the common days of the feast, they are not offered on a feast day: but the burnt sacrifices of appearance may be offered also on a feast day: and when they are offered, let them not be offered but out of common cattle: but the peace offerings of rejoicing also out of the tithes the 'Chagigah' of the first feast day of the Passover. The school of Shammai saith, Let it be of common cattle: the school of Hillel saith, Let it be of the tithes. What is it that it teaches of the Chagigah of the first feast day of the Passover? Rabh Ishai saith, the 'Chagigah' of the fifteenth day is so: the 'Chagigah' of the fourteenth, not." The Gloss is; "The burnt offerings of appearance were not offered the first day of the feast, although they were due to the feast, because compensation might be made by them the day following."
"The 'Chagigah' of the first feast day was without doubt due; although it had flesh enough otherways." For, as it is said a little before, "They offered peace offerings on that feast day because they had need of them for private food": and although there was food enough, yet the Chagigah was to be offered as the due of the day.
"The Chagigah of the fourteenth day was this, when any company was numerous, they joined the Chagigah also with the paschal lamb, that they might eat the passover, even till they were filled. But now the Chagigah of that first day was not but of common cattle: but the Chagigah of the fourteenth day might also be of the tithes."
It was a greater matter to offer of common cattle (or cholin) than of the tithes of the first-born, for they were owing to the Lord by right: but to offer the cholin was the part of further devotion and free will.
That therefore which John saith, that "the Jews would not go into the judgment hall lest they should be polluted, but that they might eat the passover," is to be understood of that Chagigah of the fifteenth day, not of the paschal lamb: for that also is called the passover, Deuteronomy 16:2; "Thou shalt sacrifice the passover to the Lord of thy flocks and of thy herds." Of thy flocks; this indeed, by virtue of that precept, Exodus 12:3: but what have we to do with herds? "'Of thy herds,' saith R. Solomon, for the Chagigah." And Aben Ezra saith, "'Of thy flocks,' according to the duty of the passover; 'of thy herds,' for the peace offerings," and produceth that, 2 Chronicles 30:24, 35:8. The Targum of Jonathan writes; "Ye shall kill the passover before the Lord your God, between the eves, and your sheep and oxen on the morrow, in that very day, in joy of the feast."
In one Glosser mention is made of the less passover; by which if he understands not the passover of the second month, which is very usually called by them the second passover, or the passover of the second month, instruct me what he means by it. However this matter is clear in Moses, that oxen, or the sacrifices offered after the lamb eaten, are called the 'passover,' as well as the lamb itself.
And no wonder, when the lamb was the very least part of the joy, and there were seven feast-days after he was eaten: and when the lamb was a thing rubbing up the remembrance of affliction, rather than denoting gladness and making merry. For the unleavened bread was marked out by the holy Scripture under that very notion, and so also the bitter herbs, which were things that belonged to the lamb. But how much of the solemnity of the feast is attributed to the Chagigah, and the other sacrifices after that, it would be too much to mention, since it occurs everywhere.
Hear the author of the Aruch concerning the Chagigah of Pentecost: "The word chag denotes dancing, and clapping hands for joy. In the Syriac language it is chigah: and from this root it is, because they eat, and drink, and dance [or make holiday]. And the sacrifice of the Chagigah, which they were bound to bring on a feast day, is that concerning which the Scripture saith, and thou shalt make chag, a solemnity of weeks to the Lord thy God, a free will offering of thy hand,'" &c. Deuteronomy 16:10.
And now tell me whence received that feast its denomination, that it should be called the feast of weeks? Not from the offering of the loaves of first fruits, but from the Chagigah, and the feasting on the Chagigah. The same is to be said of the feast of the Passover. So that John said nothing strange to the ears of the Jews, when he said, "They went not into the judgment hall lest they might be polluted, but that they might eat the passover"; pointing with his finger to the Chagigah, and not to the lamb, eaten indeed the day before.
The word passover might sound to the same sense in those words of his also, "It was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour." It was the preparation to the Chagigah, and not to the lamb. But I suspect something more may be understood; namely, that on that day both food was prepared, and the mind too for the mirth of the whole feast. So that the passover denotes the feast, not this or that particular appendage to the feast. The burnt sacrifices which were offered in the appearance, they all became God's, as the masters say truly; and he who offered them carried not back the least part of them with him. But the sacrifices of the Chagigah, whether they were oxen or sheep, the greatest part of them returned to them that offered them; and with them they and their friends made solemn and joyful feastings while they tarried at Jerusalem. So that the oblation of these on the first day of the feast was the preparation of the passover, and the preparation of Pentecost, and the preparation of the feast of Tabernacles: that is, the day and manner of preparing food for the following mirth of the feast. In the same sense was the preparation of the sabbath, namely, the preparation of food and things necessary to the sabbath. Of which we shall speak at verse 42.
Having thus despatched these things, let us now come to the hour itself. "It was the preparation of the passover (saith John), and about the sixth hour," when Pilate delivered Christ to be crucified. "And it was the third hour (saith Mark), and they crucified him."
It is disputed by the Gemarists, how far the evidences of two men may agree and consent, whereof one saith, 'This I saw done in that hour'; and the other saith, 'I saw it done another hour.' "One saith, the second hour; another, the third: their testimony consists together. One saith the third hour, another the fifth; their testimony is vain, as R. Meir saith. But saith R. Judah, their testimony consists together. But if one saith, the fifth hour, another, the seventh hour, their testimony is vain; because in the fifth hour the sun is in the east part of heaven; in the seventh, in the west part." They dispute largely concerning this matter in the place alleged, and concerning evidences differing in words; nevertheless, as to the thing itself, they conclude that both may be true, because witnesses may be deceived in the computation of hours: which to conclude concerning the evangelists, were impious and blasphemous. But there is one supposes the copiers were deceived in their transcription, and would have the computation of John corrected into and it was about the third hour: too boldly, and indeed without any reason, for it is neither credible nor possible indeed, that those things which went before our Saviour's crucifixion should be done (to use the words of the Talmudists) in the three first hours of the day. The harmony therefore of the evangelists is to be fetched elsewhere.
I. Let us repeat that out of Maimonides; "The great Sanhedrim sat from the morning daily sacrifice, until the afternoon daily sacrifice." But now when the morning daily sacrifice was at the third hour, the Sanhedrim sat not before that hour. Take heed, therefore, thou that wouldest have the words of John, "and it was about the sixth hour," to be changed into, "and it was about the third hour," lest thou becomest guilty of a great solecism. For Pilate could not deliver Christ to be crucified about the third hour, when the Sanhedrim sat not before the third hour, and Christ was not yet delivered to Pilate.
But you will say, the words of Mark do obscure these things much more. For if the Sanhedrim that delivered up Christ met not together before the third hour, one can no way say that they crucified him the third hour.
We do here propound two things for the explanation of this matter.
Let the first be taken from the day itself, and from the hour itself. That day was "the preparation of the passover," a day of high solemnity, and when it behoved the priests and the other fathers of the Sanhedrim to be present at the third hour in the Temple, and to offer their Chagigahs that were preparative to the whole seven days' festivity: but they employed themselves in another thing, namely this. You may observe that he saith not, "it was the third hour when"; but "it was the third hour, and they crucified him." That is, when the third hour now was, and was passed, yet they omitted not to prosecute his crucifixion, when indeed, according to the manner of the feast and the obligation of religion, they ought to have been employed otherwise. I indeed should rather sit down satisfied with this interpretation, than accuse the holy text as depraved, or to deprave it more with my amendment. But,
Secondly, there is another sense also not to be despised, if our judgment is any thing, which we fetch from a custom usual in the Sanhedrim, but from which they now swerved. They are treating concerning a guilty person condemned to hanging, with whom they deal in this process: they tarry until sunset approach, and then they finish his judgment and put him to death. Note that: 'They finish not his judgment until sunset draw near.' If you ask the reason, a more general one may be given which respected all persons condemned to die, and a more special one which respected him which was to be hanged.
I. There was that which is called by the Talmudists the affliction of judgment: by which phrase they understand not judgment that is not just, but when he that is condemned, after judgment passed, is not presently put to death. "If you finish his judgment on the sabbath [mark that], and put him to death on the first day of the week, you afflict his judgment." Where the Gloss is, "As long as his judgment is not finished, it is not the affliction of judgment, because he expects every hour to be absolved: but when judgment is ended, he expects death," &c. Therefore they delayed but little between the finishing of judgment and execution.
II. As to those that were to be hanged, "they delayed the finishing his judgment, and they hanged him not in the morning, lest they might grow slack about his burial, and might fall into forgetfulness," and might sin against the law, Deuteronomy 21:23; "but near sunset, that they might presently bury him." So the Gloss. They put him to death not sooner, for this reason; they finished not his judgment sooner for the reason above said.
And now let us resume the words of Mark, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." The Sanhedrim used not to finish the judgment of hanging until they were now ready to rise up and depart from the council and bench after the Mincha, the day now inclining towards sunset: but these men finished the judgment of Jesus, and hastened him to the cross, when they first came into the court at the third hour, at the time of the daily sacrifice, which was very unusual, and different from the custom.
34. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[Eloi, Eloi.] In Matthew it is Eli, Eli, in the very same syllables of Psalm 22:1: Mark, according to the present dialect (namely, the Chaldee), useth at least according to the pronunciation of the word Eloi, Judges 5:5 in the LXX.
42. And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath.
[The preparation, that is, the day of the sabbath.] You will ask, whether any day going before the sabbath was called the preparation. Among the Hebrews, indeed, it is commonly said the eve of the sabbath. But be it granted; whence is it called the preparation? Either that they prepared themselves for the sabbath; or rather, that they prepared provisions to be eaten on the sabbath; and that by the law, "On the sixth day they shall prepare, &c. Whatsoever ye will bake, bake today; and whatsoever ye will seethe, seethe today," &c. Exodus 16:5,23. Hence preparation is a very usual word with them in this sense "a common day prepares for the sabbath, and a common day prepares for a feast day." "But those reasons do not hold good to forbid the preparation, while as yet there remains much of the day": preparation.
But you will say, If a feast day prepares not for the sabbath (which Maimonides saith), such an interpretation will not suit with the words which we are now handling, that it should be called the preparation, in respect of provisions prepared for the sabbath on that day. Let the masters themselves answer.
"On a feast day, which happens on the sabbath eve, let not a man in the beginning seethe food after the feast day for the sabbath day, but let him seethe for the feast day, and if any remain, let it be reserved for the sabbath. But (according to the letter, Let him make a boiling, but the sense is) Let him prepare food on the eve of the feast day, and let him depend upon it for the sabbath. The school of Shammai saith, a twofold food: that of Hillel saith, One food."
Maimonides speaks plainer: "On a feast day that falls in with a sabbath even, they do not bake nor seethe on the feast day what they eat on the sabbath." And this prohibition is from the words of the scribes: namely, That none seethe on a feast day for a common day; for this is arguing from the greater to the less: if a man seethe not for the sabbath day, much less for a common day. But if he provides food on the eve of the feast day, on which he may depend, then if he bake or seethe on the feast day for the sabbath, it is permitted: and that on which he depends is called the mixing of food. And why is it called mixing [a mingling together]? namely, as that mixing which they make concerning the courts or the vestries on the sabbath eve is for acknowledgment, that is, that they should not think that it is lawful to carry any thing from place to place on the sabbath; so this food is for acknowledgment and remembrance, that they should not think or imagine that it is lawful to bake any thing on a feast day which is not eaten that day: therefore this food is called the mixing of food.
Of the mixing of courts, we speak 1 Corinthians 10:16. The sum of the matter is this, many families dwelt by one common court. Now therefore when it was not lawful to carry out any thing on the sabbath from a place which was of one right and condition, to a place which was of another; therefore it was not lawful for any one of those families to carry out any thing out of his house into the court joining to his door, and on the contrary; all partook of the communion and mixture of the right, and that by eating together of that food which was brought together by them all; and then it was lawful. So in this case whereof we are now treating. Since it was not lawful by the canons of the scribes to prepare any food on a feast day for the sabbath that followed on the morrow, and since of necessity something was to be prepared for the sabbath, they mollified the rigour of the canon thus; that first some food should be prepared on the feast day, which was a mixture as it were of right, and depending upon this thus prepared, they might prepare any thing for the morrow sabbath.
Of the mixture of foods, mention occurs in the Talmudists infinite times; and these things which have been spoken concerning them afford not a little light to the clause which we are now handling, and to others where the word preparation occurs; and make those things plainer which we have said concerning the preparation of the Passover; namely, that it denoteth not either the preparation of the Paschal lamb, nor the preparation of the people to eat the lamb; but the preparation of meats to be eaten in the Passover week. Nor in this place, if it be applied to the sabbath, doth it denote any other thing than the preparation of food for the sabbath now approaching. So that that day wherein Christ was crucified was a double preparation in the double sense alleged: namely, the whole day, but especially from the third hour, was the preparation of the Passover, or of the whole week following; and the evening of the day was the preparation of the sabbath following on the morrow.
Of that sabbath John saith, which we cannot let pass, that the day of that sabbath was a great day, chapter 19:31. For it was the day of the people's appearance in the Temple; it was the day of the offering of the sheaf of firstfruits: and I ask, whether before that day Christ's persecutors had offered their Chagigahs?
43. Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
[An honourable counsellor.] The Vulgar reads, a noble officer: Erasmus, an honourable senator: Beza, an honourable senator. The Talmud may serve here instead of a lexicon.
"Was it the chamber of the chief men? Was it not the chamber of the counsellors? First it was called, the chamber of the counsellors: but when the high priesthood was bought with money, and yearly changed, as the chief counsellors of the king are yearly changed, thence it was called the chamber of chief men." The Gloss is, counsellors, denotes princes. True, indeed, and hence noble men and common persons are contradistinguished. But why should one not understand those princes and nobles in the proper sense of the word counsellors? For who sees not that the word is Greek? and so the Aruch; it is a Greek word.
Which fixeth our eyes faster upon the words of the Gloss at the Gemara in the place alleged; "From the beginning, in the days of Simeon the Just, who lived a greater while, they called it the chamber of the counsellors." What? did the Greek language so flourish at Jerusalem in the times of Simeon the Just, that a chamber in the Temple should be called by a Greek name? If that Simeon be he who met Alexander the Great, which the Talmudists suppose, then some reason appears for it; but if not, inquire further. However, that was the chamber of the high priest, as appears often in the Talmudists; not that he always lived there, nor that once in the year he resorted thither; but because it was that place where he sat with the council of the priests, and consulted concerning the public service and affairs of the Temple. Hence in the Jerusalem writers mention is made of Simeon the counsellor. And in this sense is that to be taken, if I mistake not, which occurs once and again in the Babylonian Talmudists, concerning the sons of the high priests, deciding several things; and the house of judgment of the priests.
Hence we think Joseph of Arimathea was called with good reason a counsellor, because he was a priest, and one of that sacerdotal bench. It was called the chamber, (saith the Aruch) of counsellors.
[In the morning they held a consultation...and the whole council.] "At what time do the judges sit in judgment? The lesser Sanhedrim and the bench of three sit, after morning prayers are ended, until the end of the sixth hour. But the great Sanhedrim sits after the morning daily sacrifice to the afternoon daily sacrifice. And on sabbaths and feast days" [as this day was that is here spoken of], "it sat in Beth-midrash" (or the chapel), "in the Court of the Gentiles."
"The Sanhedrim of one-and-seventy elders, it is not necessary that they all sit in their place, which is in the Temple. But when it is necessary that all meet together, let all meet together (the whole council)."
"But in other times, he that hath business of his own, let him attend his own business, and then return. With this proviso, that nothing be wanting of the number of three-and-twenty upon the bench continually during the whole time of the session (the consultation). If any must go out, let him look round, whether his colleagues be three-and-twenty: if they be, let him go out: but if not, let him wait till another enter in."
6. Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
[At that feast he released, &c.] The Syriac reads,...; and so the Arab, every feast: Beza, at each of the feasts, which pleases me not at all. For it is plainly said by Pilate himself, "that I should release unto you one at the Passover," John 18:39: and the releasing of a prisoner suits not so well to the other feasts as to the Passover; because the Passover carries with it the memory of the release of the people out of Egypt: but other feasts had other respects...according to the nature and quality of the feast, which was a monument of release...
7. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
[Barabbas.] Let us mention also with him a very famous rogue in the Talmudists, Ben Dinai, whose name also was Eleazar. Of whom they have this passage worthy of chronological observation; "From the time that murderers were multiplied, the beheading the red cow ceased; namely, from the time that Eleazar Ben Dinai came; who was also called Techinnah Ben Perishah: but again they called him, The son of a murderer." Of him mention is made elsewhere, where it is written Ben Donai. See also Ben Nezer, the king of the robbers.
21. And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
[Coming out of the country, or field.] "They bring wood out of the field [on a feast-day], either bound together, or from some place fenced round or scattered." The Gloss there is; "They bring wood on a feast day out of the field, which is within the limits of the sabbath, if it be bound together on the eve of the feast-day, &c. A place watched and fenced in every way." And Rambam writes, "Rabbi Jose saith, If there be a door in such a fenced place, although it be distant from the city almost two thousand cubits, which are the limits of the sabbath, one may bring wood thence."
It may be conceived, that Simon the Cyrenean came out of the field thus loaded with wood; and you may conceive that he had given occasion to the soldiers or executioners, why they would lay the cross upon him, namely, because they saw that he was a strong bearer; and instead of one burden, they laid this other upon him to bear.
25. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
[And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.] But John saith, 19:14, And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; namely, when Pilate delivered him to be crucified. From the former clause, it was the preparation of the Passover, hath sprung that opinion, of which we have said something before concerning the transferring of the eating of the lamb this year to the fifteenth day. For they think by the preparation of the Passover is to be understood the preparation of the lamb, or for the eating of the lamb. For which interpretation they think that makes, which is said by the same John, 18:28, "They would not go into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." And hence it is confidently concluded by them, that however Christ ate his lamb the day before, yet the Jews were to eat theirs this very day.
We will discourse first of the day, as it here occurs under the name of the preparation of the Passover; and then of the hour:--
I. Every Israelite was bound, within that seven day's solemnity, after the lamb was eaten, to these two things: 1. To appear before the Lord in the court, and that with a sacrifice. 2. To solemn joy and mirth, and that also with sacrifices. The former was called by the Jews Appearance. The latter Chagigah, the festival.
"All are bound to appear, except deaf-and-dumb, fools, young children," &c. And a little after; "The school of Shammai saith, Let the Appearance be with two silver pieces of money, and the Chagigah be with a 'meah' of silver. The school of Hillel saith, Let the Appearance be with a meah of silver, and the Chagigah with two pieces of silver." The Gloss writes thus; "All are bound to make their appearance from that precept, 'All thy males shall appear,' &c. Exodus 23:17: and it is necessary that they appear in the court in the feast. He that appears when he placeth himself in the court, let him bring a burnt offering, which is by no means to be of less price than two pieces of silver, that is, of two meahs of silver. They are bound also to the peace offerings of the Chagigah by that law, Ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD," Exodus 12:14. Rambam upon the place thus; "The Lord saith, 'Let them not appear before me empty,' Deuteronomy 16:16. That is, Let him bring an oblation of a burnt sacrifice in his hand when he goes up to the feast. And those burnt sacrifices are called burnt-sacrifices of appearance, and also appearance, without the addition of the word burnt sacrifice. And the Chagigah: From thence, because the Lord saith, 'Ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord,' it means this, That a man bring peace offerings, and these peace offerings are called Chagigah."
II. Of these two, namely, the appearance and the Chagigah, the Chagigah was the greater and more famous. For
First, certain persons were obliged to the Chagigah, who were not obliged to the appearance: "He that indeed is not deaf, but yet is dumb, is not obliged to appearance; but yet he is obliged to rejoice." It is true some of the Gemarists distinguish between Chagigah and rejoicing. But one Glosser upon the place alleged that which he saith of 'rejoicing,' obtains also of the 'Chagigah.' And another saith, "He is bound to rejoicing, namely, to rejoice in the feast; as it is written, 'And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast.' And they say elsewhere, that that rejoicing is over the peace-offerings, namely, in eating flesh."
Secondly, appearance was not tied so strictly to the first day, but the Chagigah was tied to it. "Burnt sacrifices by vow, and free will offerings are offered on the common days of the feast, they are not offered on a feast day: but the burnt sacrifices of appearance may be offered also on a feast day: and when they are offered, let them not be offered but out of common cattle: but the peace offerings of rejoicing also out of the tithes the 'Chagigah' of the first feast day of the Passover. The school of Shammai saith, Let it be of common cattle: the school of Hillel saith, Let it be of the tithes. What is it that it teaches of the Chagigah of the first feast day of the Passover? Rabh Ishai saith, the 'Chagigah' of the fifteenth day is so: the 'Chagigah' of the fourteenth, not." The Gloss is; "The burnt offerings of appearance were not offered the first day of the feast, although they were due to the feast, because compensation might be made by them the day following."
"The 'Chagigah' of the first feast day was without doubt due; although it had flesh enough otherways." For, as it is said a little before, "They offered peace offerings on that feast day because they had need of them for private food": and although there was food enough, yet the Chagigah was to be offered as the due of the day.
"The Chagigah of the fourteenth day was this, when any company was numerous, they joined the Chagigah also with the paschal lamb, that they might eat the passover, even till they were filled. But now the Chagigah of that first day was not but of common cattle: but the Chagigah of the fourteenth day might also be of the tithes."
It was a greater matter to offer of common cattle (or cholin) than of the tithes of the first-born, for they were owing to the Lord by right: but to offer the cholin was the part of further devotion and free will.
That therefore which John saith, that "the Jews would not go into the judgment hall lest they should be polluted, but that they might eat the passover," is to be understood of that Chagigah of the fifteenth day, not of the paschal lamb: for that also is called the passover, Deuteronomy 16:2; "Thou shalt sacrifice the passover to the Lord of thy flocks and of thy herds." Of thy flocks; this indeed, by virtue of that precept, Exodus 12:3: but what have we to do with herds? "'Of thy herds,' saith R. Solomon, for the Chagigah." And Aben Ezra saith, "'Of thy flocks,' according to the duty of the passover; 'of thy herds,' for the peace offerings," and produceth that, 2 Chronicles 30:24, 35:8. The Targum of Jonathan writes; "Ye shall kill the passover before the Lord your God, between the eves, and your sheep and oxen on the morrow, in that very day, in joy of the feast."
In one Glosser mention is made of the less passover; by which if he understands not the passover of the second month, which is very usually called by them the second passover, or the passover of the second month, instruct me what he means by it. However this matter is clear in Moses, that oxen, or the sacrifices offered after the lamb eaten, are called the 'passover,' as well as the lamb itself.
And no wonder, when the lamb was the very least part of the joy, and there were seven feast-days after he was eaten: and when the lamb was a thing rubbing up the remembrance of affliction, rather than denoting gladness and making merry. For the unleavened bread was marked out by the holy Scripture under that very notion, and so also the bitter herbs, which were things that belonged to the lamb. But how much of the solemnity of the feast is attributed to the Chagigah, and the other sacrifices after that, it would be too much to mention, since it occurs everywhere.
Hear the author of the Aruch concerning the Chagigah of Pentecost: "The word chag denotes dancing, and clapping hands for joy. In the Syriac language it is chigah: and from this root it is, because they eat, and drink, and dance [or make holiday]. And the sacrifice of the Chagigah, which they were bound to bring on a feast day, is that concerning which the Scripture saith, and thou shalt make chag, a solemnity of weeks to the Lord thy God, a free will offering of thy hand,'" &c. Deuteronomy 16:10.
And now tell me whence received that feast its denomination, that it should be called the feast of weeks? Not from the offering of the loaves of first fruits, but from the Chagigah, and the feasting on the Chagigah. The same is to be said of the feast of the Passover. So that John said nothing strange to the ears of the Jews, when he said, "They went not into the judgment hall lest they might be polluted, but that they might eat the passover"; pointing with his finger to the Chagigah, and not to the lamb, eaten indeed the day before.
The word passover might sound to the same sense in those words of his also, "It was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour." It was the preparation to the Chagigah, and not to the lamb. But I suspect something more may be understood; namely, that on that day both food was prepared, and the mind too for the mirth of the whole feast. So that the passover denotes the feast, not this or that particular appendage to the feast. The burnt sacrifices which were offered in the appearance, they all became God's, as the masters say truly; and he who offered them carried not back the least part of them with him. But the sacrifices of the Chagigah, whether they were oxen or sheep, the greatest part of them returned to them that offered them; and with them they and their friends made solemn and joyful feastings while they tarried at Jerusalem. So that the oblation of these on the first day of the feast was the preparation of the passover, and the preparation of Pentecost, and the preparation of the feast of Tabernacles: that is, the day and manner of preparing food for the following mirth of the feast. In the same sense was the preparation of the sabbath, namely, the preparation of food and things necessary to the sabbath. Of which we shall speak at verse 42.
Having thus despatched these things, let us now come to the hour itself. "It was the preparation of the passover (saith John), and about the sixth hour," when Pilate delivered Christ to be crucified. "And it was the third hour (saith Mark), and they crucified him."
It is disputed by the Gemarists, how far the evidences of two men may agree and consent, whereof one saith, 'This I saw done in that hour'; and the other saith, 'I saw it done another hour.' "One saith, the second hour; another, the third: their testimony consists together. One saith the third hour, another the fifth; their testimony is vain, as R. Meir saith. But saith R. Judah, their testimony consists together. But if one saith, the fifth hour, another, the seventh hour, their testimony is vain; because in the fifth hour the sun is in the east part of heaven; in the seventh, in the west part." They dispute largely concerning this matter in the place alleged, and concerning evidences differing in words; nevertheless, as to the thing itself, they conclude that both may be true, because witnesses may be deceived in the computation of hours: which to conclude concerning the evangelists, were impious and blasphemous. But there is one supposes the copiers were deceived in their transcription, and would have the computation of John corrected into and it was about the third hour: too boldly, and indeed without any reason, for it is neither credible nor possible indeed, that those things which went before our Saviour's crucifixion should be done (to use the words of the Talmudists) in the three first hours of the day. The harmony therefore of the evangelists is to be fetched elsewhere.
I. Let us repeat that out of Maimonides; "The great Sanhedrim sat from the morning daily sacrifice, until the afternoon daily sacrifice." But now when the morning daily sacrifice was at the third hour, the Sanhedrim sat not before that hour. Take heed, therefore, thou that wouldest have the words of John, "and it was about the sixth hour," to be changed into, "and it was about the third hour," lest thou becomest guilty of a great solecism. For Pilate could not deliver Christ to be crucified about the third hour, when the Sanhedrim sat not before the third hour, and Christ was not yet delivered to Pilate.
But you will say, the words of Mark do obscure these things much more. For if the Sanhedrim that delivered up Christ met not together before the third hour, one can no way say that they crucified him the third hour.
We do here propound two things for the explanation of this matter.
Let the first be taken from the day itself, and from the hour itself. That day was "the preparation of the passover," a day of high solemnity, and when it behoved the priests and the other fathers of the Sanhedrim to be present at the third hour in the Temple, and to offer their Chagigahs that were preparative to the whole seven days' festivity: but they employed themselves in another thing, namely this. You may observe that he saith not, "it was the third hour when"; but "it was the third hour, and they crucified him." That is, when the third hour now was, and was passed, yet they omitted not to prosecute his crucifixion, when indeed, according to the manner of the feast and the obligation of religion, they ought to have been employed otherwise. I indeed should rather sit down satisfied with this interpretation, than accuse the holy text as depraved, or to deprave it more with my amendment. But,
Secondly, there is another sense also not to be despised, if our judgment is any thing, which we fetch from a custom usual in the Sanhedrim, but from which they now swerved. They are treating concerning a guilty person condemned to hanging, with whom they deal in this process: they tarry until sunset approach, and then they finish his judgment and put him to death. Note that: 'They finish not his judgment until sunset draw near.' If you ask the reason, a more general one may be given which respected all persons condemned to die, and a more special one which respected him which was to be hanged.
I. There was that which is called by the Talmudists the affliction of judgment: by which phrase they understand not judgment that is not just, but when he that is condemned, after judgment passed, is not presently put to death. "If you finish his judgment on the sabbath [mark that], and put him to death on the first day of the week, you afflict his judgment." Where the Gloss is, "As long as his judgment is not finished, it is not the affliction of judgment, because he expects every hour to be absolved: but when judgment is ended, he expects death," &c. Therefore they delayed but little between the finishing of judgment and execution.
II. As to those that were to be hanged, "they delayed the finishing his judgment, and they hanged him not in the morning, lest they might grow slack about his burial, and might fall into forgetfulness," and might sin against the law, Deuteronomy 21:23; "but near sunset, that they might presently bury him." So the Gloss. They put him to death not sooner, for this reason; they finished not his judgment sooner for the reason above said.
And now let us resume the words of Mark, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." The Sanhedrim used not to finish the judgment of hanging until they were now ready to rise up and depart from the council and bench after the Mincha, the day now inclining towards sunset: but these men finished the judgment of Jesus, and hastened him to the cross, when they first came into the court at the third hour, at the time of the daily sacrifice, which was very unusual, and different from the custom.
34. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[Eloi, Eloi.] In Matthew it is Eli, Eli, in the very same syllables of Psalm 22:1: Mark, according to the present dialect (namely, the Chaldee), useth at least according to the pronunciation of the word Eloi, Judges 5:5 in the LXX.
42. And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath.
[The preparation, that is, the day of the sabbath.] You will ask, whether any day going before the sabbath was called the preparation. Among the Hebrews, indeed, it is commonly said the eve of the sabbath. But be it granted; whence is it called the preparation? Either that they prepared themselves for the sabbath; or rather, that they prepared provisions to be eaten on the sabbath; and that by the law, "On the sixth day they shall prepare, &c. Whatsoever ye will bake, bake today; and whatsoever ye will seethe, seethe today," &c. Exodus 16:5,23. Hence preparation is a very usual word with them in this sense "a common day prepares for the sabbath, and a common day prepares for a feast day." "But those reasons do not hold good to forbid the preparation, while as yet there remains much of the day": preparation.
But you will say, If a feast day prepares not for the sabbath (which Maimonides saith), such an interpretation will not suit with the words which we are now handling, that it should be called the preparation, in respect of provisions prepared for the sabbath on that day. Let the masters themselves answer.
"On a feast day, which happens on the sabbath eve, let not a man in the beginning seethe food after the feast day for the sabbath day, but let him seethe for the feast day, and if any remain, let it be reserved for the sabbath. But (according to the letter, Let him make a boiling, but the sense is) Let him prepare food on the eve of the feast day, and let him depend upon it for the sabbath. The school of Shammai saith, a twofold food: that of Hillel saith, One food."
Maimonides speaks plainer: "On a feast day that falls in with a sabbath even, they do not bake nor seethe on the feast day what they eat on the sabbath." And this prohibition is from the words of the scribes: namely, That none seethe on a feast day for a common day; for this is arguing from the greater to the less: if a man seethe not for the sabbath day, much less for a common day. But if he provides food on the eve of the feast day, on which he may depend, then if he bake or seethe on the feast day for the sabbath, it is permitted: and that on which he depends is called the mixing of food. And why is it called mixing [a mingling together]? namely, as that mixing which they make concerning the courts or the vestries on the sabbath eve is for acknowledgment, that is, that they should not think that it is lawful to carry any thing from place to place on the sabbath; so this food is for acknowledgment and remembrance, that they should not think or imagine that it is lawful to bake any thing on a feast day which is not eaten that day: therefore this food is called the mixing of food.
Of the mixing of courts, we speak 1 Corinthians 10:16. The sum of the matter is this, many families dwelt by one common court. Now therefore when it was not lawful to carry out any thing on the sabbath from a place which was of one right and condition, to a place which was of another; therefore it was not lawful for any one of those families to carry out any thing out of his house into the court joining to his door, and on the contrary; all partook of the communion and mixture of the right, and that by eating together of that food which was brought together by them all; and then it was lawful. So in this case whereof we are now treating. Since it was not lawful by the canons of the scribes to prepare any food on a feast day for the sabbath that followed on the morrow, and since of necessity something was to be prepared for the sabbath, they mollified the rigour of the canon thus; that first some food should be prepared on the feast day, which was a mixture as it were of right, and depending upon this thus prepared, they might prepare any thing for the morrow sabbath.
Of the mixture of foods, mention occurs in the Talmudists infinite times; and these things which have been spoken concerning them afford not a little light to the clause which we are now handling, and to others where the word preparation occurs; and make those things plainer which we have said concerning the preparation of the Passover; namely, that it denoteth not either the preparation of the Paschal lamb, nor the preparation of the people to eat the lamb; but the preparation of meats to be eaten in the Passover week. Nor in this place, if it be applied to the sabbath, doth it denote any other thing than the preparation of food for the sabbath now approaching. So that that day wherein Christ was crucified was a double preparation in the double sense alleged: namely, the whole day, but especially from the third hour, was the preparation of the Passover, or of the whole week following; and the evening of the day was the preparation of the sabbath following on the morrow.
Of that sabbath John saith, which we cannot let pass, that the day of that sabbath was a great day, chapter 19:31. For it was the day of the people's appearance in the Temple; it was the day of the offering of the sheaf of firstfruits: and I ask, whether before that day Christ's persecutors had offered their Chagigahs?
43. Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
[An honourable counsellor.] The Vulgar reads, a noble officer: Erasmus, an honourable senator: Beza, an honourable senator. The Talmud may serve here instead of a lexicon.
"Was it the chamber of the chief men? Was it not the chamber of the counsellors? First it was called, the chamber of the counsellors: but when the high priesthood was bought with money, and yearly changed, as the chief counsellors of the king are yearly changed, thence it was called the chamber of chief men." The Gloss is, counsellors, denotes princes. True, indeed, and hence noble men and common persons are contradistinguished. But why should one not understand those princes and nobles in the proper sense of the word counsellors? For who sees not that the word is Greek? and so the Aruch; it is a Greek word.
Which fixeth our eyes faster upon the words of the Gloss at the Gemara in the place alleged; "From the beginning, in the days of Simeon the Just, who lived a greater while, they called it the chamber of the counsellors." What? did the Greek language so flourish at Jerusalem in the times of Simeon the Just, that a chamber in the Temple should be called by a Greek name? If that Simeon be he who met Alexander the Great, which the Talmudists suppose, then some reason appears for it; but if not, inquire further. However, that was the chamber of the high priest, as appears often in the Talmudists; not that he always lived there, nor that once in the year he resorted thither; but because it was that place where he sat with the council of the priests, and consulted concerning the public service and affairs of the Temple. Hence in the Jerusalem writers mention is made of Simeon the counsellor. And in this sense is that to be taken, if I mistake not, which occurs once and again in the Babylonian Talmudists, concerning the sons of the high priests, deciding several things; and the house of judgment of the priests.
Hence we think Joseph of Arimathea was called with good reason a counsellor, because he was a priest, and one of that sacerdotal bench. It was called the chamber, (saith the Aruch) of counsellors.
Mark 16
1. And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[That they might come and anoint him.] "What is that, that is allowed as to the living [on the sabbath day], but as to the dead it is not? It is anointing."
2. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[And very early in the morning, &c.] The distinction of the twilight among the Rabbins was this:
I. The hind [cerva] of the morning: the first appearance of light. "R. Chaija Rabba, and R. Simeon Ben Chalaphta, travelling together in a certain morning, in the valley of Arbel, saw the hind of the morning, that its light spread the sky. R. Chaija said, Such shall be the redemption of Israel. First, It goes forward by degrees, and by little and little; but by how much the more it shall go forward, by so much the more it shall increase."
It was at that time that Christ arose; namely, in the first morning; as may be gathered from the words of Matthew. And to this the title of the two-and-twentieth Psalm seems to have respect. See also Revelation 22:16; "I am the bright and morning star." And now you may imagine the women went out of their houses towards the sepulchre.
II. When one may distinguish between purple colour and white. "From what time do they recite their phylacterical prayers in the morning? From that time, that one may distinguish between purple colour and white. R. Eliezer saith, Between purple colour and green." Before this time was the obscurity of the begun light, as Tacitus' expression is.
III. When the east begins to lighten.
IV. Sunrise. "From the hind of the morning going forth, until the east begins to lighten; and from the time the east begins to lighten, until sunrise," &c.
According to these four parts of time, one might not improperly suit the four phrases of the evangelists. According to the first, Matthew's, as it began to dawn. According to the second, John's, early in the morning, when it was yet dark. To the third, Luke's, very early in the morning. To the fourth, Mark's, very early in the morning, and yet at the rising of the sun.
For the women came twice to the sepulchre, as John teacheth; by whom the other evangelists are to be explained: which being well considered, the reconciling them together is very easy.
13. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
[Neither believed they them.] That in the verses immediately going before the discourse, the question is of the two disciples going to Emmaus, is without all controversy: and then how do these things consist with that relation in Luke, who saith, that "they...returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon," Luke 24:33,34. The word saying, evidently makes those to be the words of the eleven, and of those that were gathered together with them: which, when you read the versions, you would scarcely suspect...in the original Greek, since it is the accusative case, it is plainly to be referred to the eleven disciples, and those that were together with them. As if they had discourse among themselves of the appearance made to Peter, either before, or now in the very access of those two coming from Emmaus. And yet saith this our evangelist, that when those two had related the whole business, they gave credit no not to them. So that according to Luke they believed Christ was risen and had appeared to Simon, before they told their story; but according to Mark, they believed it not, no not when they had told it.
The reconciling, therefore, of the evangelists, is to be fetched thence, that those words pronounced by the eleven, The Lord is risen indeed, &c., doth not manifest their absolute confession of the resurrection of Christ, but a conjectural reason of the sudden and unexpected return of Peter.
I believe that Peter was gong with Cleophas into Galilee, and that being moved with the words of Christ told him by the women, "Say to his disciples and Peter, I go before you into Galilee." Think with yourself, how doubtful Peter was, and how he fluctuated within himself after his threefold denial; and how he gasped to see the Lord again, if he were risen, and to cast himself an humble supplicant at his feet. When, therefore, he heard these things from the women (and he had heard it indeed from Christ himself, while he was yet alive, that "when he arose he would go before them into Galilee"), and when the rest were very little moved with the report of his resurrection, nor as yet stirred from that place, he will try a journey into Galilee, and Alpheus with him. Which when it was well known to the rest, and they saw him return so soon, and so unexpectedly, "Certainly (say they) the Lord is risen, and hath appeared to Peter; otherwise, he had not so soon come back again." And yet when he and Cleophas open the whole matter, they do not yet believe even them.
15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[To every creature.] To every creature, a manner of speech most common among the Jews: by which,
I. Are denoted all men. "The Wise men say, Let the mind of man always be mingled [or complacent] to the 'creatures.'" The Gloss there is; "To do with every man according to complacency." He makes the Holy Spirit to dwell upon the 'creatures': that is, upon men. "In every judge in the bench of three is required prudence, mercy, religion, hatred of money, love of truth, and love of the 'creatures'": that is, the love of mankind.
II. But especially by that phrase the Gentiles are understood. "R. Jose saith, Woe to 'the creatures,' which see, and know not what they see; which stand, and know not upon what they stand; namely, upon what the earth stands," &c. He understands the heathens especially, who were not instructed concerning the creation of things. The speech of all the 'creatures' (that is, of the heathens) "is only of earthly things, And all the prayers of the 'creatures' are for earthly things; 'Lord, let the earth be fruitful, let the earth prosper.' But all the prayers of Israelites are only for the holy place; 'Lord, let the Temple be built,'" &c. Observe, how the creatures are opposed to Israelites.
And the parallel words of Matthew, chapter 28, do sufficiently prove this to be the sense of the phrase, every creature, in this place: that which in Mark is, preach to every creature, in that place in Matthew is, disciple all nations; as those words also of St. Paul, Colossians 1:23, the gospel that was preached in all the creation.
In the same sense you must, of necessity, understand the same phrase, Romans 8:22. Where, if you take the whole passage concerning the Gentiles breathing after the evangelical liberty of the sons of God, you render the sense very easy, and very agreeable to the mind of the apostle, and to the signification of the word creature, or creation: when they who render it otherwise dash upon I know not what rough and knotty sense. Let me, although it is out of my road, thus paraphrase the whole place:--
Romans 8:19: "'For the earnest expectation of the creature, or of the heathen world, waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God.' For God had promised, and had very often pronounced by his prophets, that he would gather together, and adopt to himself, innumerable sons among the Gentiles. Therefore, the whole Gentile world doth now greedily expect the revelation and production of those sons."
Verse 20. "For the creature, the whole heathen world, was subjected to the vanity of their mind (as Romans 1:21, became vain in their imaginations; and Ephesians 4:17, the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind), not willingly, but because of him that subjected it."
Verse 21. "Under hope, because the creature also" (or that heathen world) "shall be freed from the service of" (sinful) "corruption" (which is in the world through lust, 2 Peter 1:4), "into the (gospel) liberty of the sons of God": from the service of Satan, of idols, and of lusts, into the liberty which the sons of God enjoy through the gospel.
Verse 22. "For we know, that the whole creature" (or heathen world) "groaneth together, and travaileth, and, as it were, with a convex weight, boweth down unto this very time, to be born and brought forth."
Verse 23. "Neither the Gentiles only, but we Jews also (however we belong to a nation envious of the heathen), to whom God hath granted the firstfruits of the Spirit, we sigh among ourselves for their sakes, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our mystical body, whereof the Gentiles make a very great part."
[That they might come and anoint him.] "What is that, that is allowed as to the living [on the sabbath day], but as to the dead it is not? It is anointing."
2. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[And very early in the morning, &c.] The distinction of the twilight among the Rabbins was this:
I. The hind [cerva] of the morning: the first appearance of light. "R. Chaija Rabba, and R. Simeon Ben Chalaphta, travelling together in a certain morning, in the valley of Arbel, saw the hind of the morning, that its light spread the sky. R. Chaija said, Such shall be the redemption of Israel. First, It goes forward by degrees, and by little and little; but by how much the more it shall go forward, by so much the more it shall increase."
It was at that time that Christ arose; namely, in the first morning; as may be gathered from the words of Matthew. And to this the title of the two-and-twentieth Psalm seems to have respect. See also Revelation 22:16; "I am the bright and morning star." And now you may imagine the women went out of their houses towards the sepulchre.
II. When one may distinguish between purple colour and white. "From what time do they recite their phylacterical prayers in the morning? From that time, that one may distinguish between purple colour and white. R. Eliezer saith, Between purple colour and green." Before this time was the obscurity of the begun light, as Tacitus' expression is.
III. When the east begins to lighten.
IV. Sunrise. "From the hind of the morning going forth, until the east begins to lighten; and from the time the east begins to lighten, until sunrise," &c.
According to these four parts of time, one might not improperly suit the four phrases of the evangelists. According to the first, Matthew's, as it began to dawn. According to the second, John's, early in the morning, when it was yet dark. To the third, Luke's, very early in the morning. To the fourth, Mark's, very early in the morning, and yet at the rising of the sun.
For the women came twice to the sepulchre, as John teacheth; by whom the other evangelists are to be explained: which being well considered, the reconciling them together is very easy.
13. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
[Neither believed they them.] That in the verses immediately going before the discourse, the question is of the two disciples going to Emmaus, is without all controversy: and then how do these things consist with that relation in Luke, who saith, that "they...returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon," Luke 24:33,34. The word saying, evidently makes those to be the words of the eleven, and of those that were gathered together with them: which, when you read the versions, you would scarcely suspect...in the original Greek, since it is the accusative case, it is plainly to be referred to the eleven disciples, and those that were together with them. As if they had discourse among themselves of the appearance made to Peter, either before, or now in the very access of those two coming from Emmaus. And yet saith this our evangelist, that when those two had related the whole business, they gave credit no not to them. So that according to Luke they believed Christ was risen and had appeared to Simon, before they told their story; but according to Mark, they believed it not, no not when they had told it.
The reconciling, therefore, of the evangelists, is to be fetched thence, that those words pronounced by the eleven, The Lord is risen indeed, &c., doth not manifest their absolute confession of the resurrection of Christ, but a conjectural reason of the sudden and unexpected return of Peter.
I believe that Peter was gong with Cleophas into Galilee, and that being moved with the words of Christ told him by the women, "Say to his disciples and Peter, I go before you into Galilee." Think with yourself, how doubtful Peter was, and how he fluctuated within himself after his threefold denial; and how he gasped to see the Lord again, if he were risen, and to cast himself an humble supplicant at his feet. When, therefore, he heard these things from the women (and he had heard it indeed from Christ himself, while he was yet alive, that "when he arose he would go before them into Galilee"), and when the rest were very little moved with the report of his resurrection, nor as yet stirred from that place, he will try a journey into Galilee, and Alpheus with him. Which when it was well known to the rest, and they saw him return so soon, and so unexpectedly, "Certainly (say they) the Lord is risen, and hath appeared to Peter; otherwise, he had not so soon come back again." And yet when he and Cleophas open the whole matter, they do not yet believe even them.
15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[To every creature.] To every creature, a manner of speech most common among the Jews: by which,
I. Are denoted all men. "The Wise men say, Let the mind of man always be mingled [or complacent] to the 'creatures.'" The Gloss there is; "To do with every man according to complacency." He makes the Holy Spirit to dwell upon the 'creatures': that is, upon men. "In every judge in the bench of three is required prudence, mercy, religion, hatred of money, love of truth, and love of the 'creatures'": that is, the love of mankind.
II. But especially by that phrase the Gentiles are understood. "R. Jose saith, Woe to 'the creatures,' which see, and know not what they see; which stand, and know not upon what they stand; namely, upon what the earth stands," &c. He understands the heathens especially, who were not instructed concerning the creation of things. The speech of all the 'creatures' (that is, of the heathens) "is only of earthly things, And all the prayers of the 'creatures' are for earthly things; 'Lord, let the earth be fruitful, let the earth prosper.' But all the prayers of Israelites are only for the holy place; 'Lord, let the Temple be built,'" &c. Observe, how the creatures are opposed to Israelites.
And the parallel words of Matthew, chapter 28, do sufficiently prove this to be the sense of the phrase, every creature, in this place: that which in Mark is, preach to every creature, in that place in Matthew is, disciple all nations; as those words also of St. Paul, Colossians 1:23, the gospel that was preached in all the creation.
In the same sense you must, of necessity, understand the same phrase, Romans 8:22. Where, if you take the whole passage concerning the Gentiles breathing after the evangelical liberty of the sons of God, you render the sense very easy, and very agreeable to the mind of the apostle, and to the signification of the word creature, or creation: when they who render it otherwise dash upon I know not what rough and knotty sense. Let me, although it is out of my road, thus paraphrase the whole place:--
Romans 8:19: "'For the earnest expectation of the creature, or of the heathen world, waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God.' For God had promised, and had very often pronounced by his prophets, that he would gather together, and adopt to himself, innumerable sons among the Gentiles. Therefore, the whole Gentile world doth now greedily expect the revelation and production of those sons."
Verse 20. "For the creature, the whole heathen world, was subjected to the vanity of their mind (as Romans 1:21, became vain in their imaginations; and Ephesians 4:17, the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind), not willingly, but because of him that subjected it."
Verse 21. "Under hope, because the creature also" (or that heathen world) "shall be freed from the service of" (sinful) "corruption" (which is in the world through lust, 2 Peter 1:4), "into the (gospel) liberty of the sons of God": from the service of Satan, of idols, and of lusts, into the liberty which the sons of God enjoy through the gospel.
Verse 22. "For we know, that the whole creature" (or heathen world) "groaneth together, and travaileth, and, as it were, with a convex weight, boweth down unto this very time, to be born and brought forth."
Verse 23. "Neither the Gentiles only, but we Jews also (however we belong to a nation envious of the heathen), to whom God hath granted the firstfruits of the Spirit, we sigh among ourselves for their sakes, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our mystical body, whereof the Gentiles make a very great part."
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה