UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN|'^ SAN Dl^^^^^^
3 1822 02362 4869
m
ill
:;?«:•,
LIBRARY
'2-/^^/33
UNIVERSITY OP
CALIFORNIA
SAN DIE«0
^ jy
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
3 1822 02362 4869
A7
E3
■in 00
v/. /
JESUS THE MESSIAH
Vol. I.
THE
LIFE AND TIMES
OF
JESUS THE MESSIAH
BY
ALFRED EDERSHEIM, M. A.Oxon, D.D., Ph.D.
GRINFIELD LECTURER ON THE SEPTUAGINT, OXFORD. AND
LATE WARBURTONIAN LECTURER AT LINCOLN'S INN
Author of '' Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah."
BXeTCoftev yap d'pri Si tadnzfjov tv aiviyjtiari
IN TWO VOLUMES
Volume L
NBM'^ AMERICAN EDITION
NEW YORK
E. R. HERRICK & COMPANY
70 Fifth Avknue
THF. OUARANTEE PRESS
I & 3 EAST THIRTEENTH STREET
NEW VOKK
TO
THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS, AND SCHOLARS
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OE OXFORD
THESE VOLUMES
ARE
RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
PREFACE
TO THE
SECOND AND THIRD EDITIONS.
In issuing a new edition of this book I wish, in the first place, again
to record, as tlie expression of permanent convictions and feelings,
some remarks with which I had prefaced the Second Edition,
althougli happily they are not at present so urgently called for.
With the feelings of sincere thankfulness for the kindness with
which this book was received l)y all branches of the Church, only
one element of pain mingled. Although I am well convinced that
a careful or impartial reader could not arrive at any such conclu-
sion, yet it was suggested that a perverse ingenuity might abuse
certain statements and quotations for what in modern parlance are
termed ' Anti-Semitic ' purposes. That any such thoughts could
possibly attach to a book concerning Him, A^'ho was Himself a Jew;
Who in the love of His compassion wept tears of bitter anguish o\ er
the Jerusalem that was about to crucify Him, and Whose first utter-
ance and prayer when nailed to the Cross was: ' Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do ' — would seem terribly incongruous
and painful. Nor can it surely be necessary to point out that tlie
love of Christ, or the understanding of His Work and Mission, must
call forth feelings far different from those to which reference has been
made. To me, indeed, it is diflicult to associate the so-called Anti-
Semitic movement witli any but the lowest causes: envy, jealousy,
and cupidity on the one liand; or, on the other, ignorance, prejudice,
bigotry, and hatred ol' I'ace. But as these are times when it is neces-
sary to speak unmistakably, I avail myself of the present opportunity
to point out the reasons why any Talmudic ipiotations, even it' fair,
can have no application for 'Anti-Semitic' ]Mir]>oses.
viii PREFACE TO THE SECOXI) AND THIRD EDITIONS.
First: It i.s a mistake to regard everything in Taliniulie writiugs
al)Out 'the Gentiles" as presently applying to Christians. Those
spoken of' are characterised as 'the worshippers of idols," 'of stars
and i)lanets.' and by similar designations. That 'the heathens' of
those days and lands should have been suspected of almost any
abomination, deemed capable of any treachery or cruelty towards
Israel — no student of history can deem strange, especially when the
experience of so many terrible wrongs (would they had ])een con-
tined to the heathen and to those times!) would naturally lead to
morbidly excited ^suspicions and apprehensions.
Secondly: We must remember the times, the education, and the
general standpoint of that period as compared with our own. No
one would measure the belief of Christians by certain statements in
the Fathers, nor judge tlie moral principles of Roman Catholics by
prurient quotations from the Casuists; nor yet estimate the Lutherans
by the utterances and deeds of the early successors of Luther, nor
Calvinists by the burning of Servetus. In all such cases the general
standpoint of the times has to be first taken into account. And no
educated Jew would share the follies and superstitions, nor yet sym-
pathise with the suspicions or feelings towards even the most hostile
and dei^raved heathens, that may be quoted from tlie Talmud.
Thirdly: Absolutely the contrary of all this has been again and
again set forth by modern Jewish writers. Even their attenqjts t(j
explain away certain quotations from the Talmud — unsuccessful
thougli. in my view, some of them are — afibrd evidence of their
present repudiation of all such sentiments. I would here specially
refer to such Avork as Dr. Grunehauni's 'Ethics of Judaism' (' Sitten-
lehre d. Judenthums') — a ])ook deeply interesting also as setting
forth the modern Jewish view of Christ and His Teaching, and
accordant (though on ditferent grounds) with some of the conclusions
expressed in this book, as regards certain incidents in the History
of Christ. The principles expressed by Di-. (rrlinebaion, and other
writers, are such as for ever to give the lie to Anti-Semitic charges.
And although he and others, with quite proper loyalty, labour to
explain certain Talnnidic citations, yet it ultimately c-omes to the
admission that Talniudic sayings are not the criterion and rule of
])res('nt duty, even as regards the heathen — still less Christians, to
whom they do not apply.
AVhat has just been stated, while it fully disposes of all 'Anti-
Semitism,' only the more clearly sets forth the argument whicli forms
the main ]))-opositiou of this book. Here also we have the highest
PREFACE TO THE SECOND AND THIRD EDITIONS. IX
exaiiii)le. None loNcd Israel so intensely, even unto death, as Jesus of
Nazareth; none made such withering' denunciations as He of Jewish
Traditionalism, in all its l)ranches, and of its llepresentatives. It is
with Traditionalism, not the Jews, that our controversy lies. And
here we cannot speak too i)lainly nor decidedly. It mig-ht, indeed, l)e
argued, apart from any proposed ditlcrent api)lications, that on one or
another point opinions of a ditferent kind may also be adduced from
other Rabbis. Nor is it intended to convey unanimity of opinion on
every subject. For, indeed, such scarcely existed on any one point —
not on matters of fact, nor even often on Halakhic questions. And
this also is characteristic of Rabbinism. Rut it must be remem-
bered that Ave are here dealing with tlie very text-book of that
sacred and Divine Traditionalism, the l)asis and substance of Rab-
])inism, for which such unlimited authority and al)solute su])mission are
claimed; and hence, that any statement admitted into its pages, even
though a different view were also to be adduced, possesses an authori-
tative and a representative character. And this further appears from
the fact that the same statements are often i-epeated in other docu-
ments, besides that in which they were originally made, and that they
are also supported by other statements, kindred and parallel in spirit.
In truth, it has throughout been my aim to present, not one nor
another isolated statement or aspect of Rabbinism, but its general
teaching and tendency. In so doing I have, however, purposely left
aside certain passages which, while they might have most fully brought
out the sad and strange extravagances to which Rabbinism could go,
would have involved the unnecessary quotation of what is not only
very painful in itself, but might have furnished an occasion to
enemies of Israel. Alike the one and the other it was my most
earnest desire to avoid. And by the side of these extravagances
there is so much in Jewish writings and life — the outcome of Old
Testament training — that is noblest and most touching, especially as
regards the social virtues, such as purity, kindness, and charity, and
the acknowledgment of God in sutferings, as well as their patient
endurance. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that even the
vehement assertions of partisans on the other side, supported liy
isolated sayings, sometimes torn from their context, or by such co-
incidences as are historically to be expected, will persuade those who
keep in view either the words of Christ or His history and that of
the Apostles, that the relation between Christianity in its origin, as
the fullilment of the Old Testament, and Traditionalism, as the exter-
nalised development of its letter, is other than that of which these
X PREFACE TO THE SECOND AND THIRD EDITIONS.
\(»luiii(>s furnish hoth the explanation and the evidence. In point of
fact, the attentive student of history Avill observe that a simiUir protest
against the bare letter underlies Alexandrianism and Philo — although
there from the side of reason and apologetically, in the New Testa-
ment from the aspect of spiritual life and for its full presentation.
Tlius much — somewhat reluctantly written, because approaching
controversy — seemed necessary by way of explanation. The brief
interval between the First and Second Editions rendered only a
superficial revision possible, as then indicated. For the present
edition the whole work has once more been revised, chiefly with the
view of removing from the numerous marginal Talmudic references
such misprints as were observed. In the text and notes, also, a few
errata have been corrected, or else the meaning rendered more clear.
In one or two places fresh notes have been made; some references
have been struck out, and others added. These notes will furnish evi-
dence that the literature of the subject, since the first appearance of
these volumes, has not been neglected, although it seemed unnecessary
to swell the ' List of Authorities ' by the names of all the books since
published or perused. Life is too busy and too short to be always
going back on one's traces. Nor, indeed, would this be profitable.
The further results of reading and study will best be embodied in
further labours, please God, in continuation of those now completed.
Opportunity may then also occur for the discussion of some questions
which had certainly not been overlooked, although this seemed not
the proper place for them: such as that of the composition of the
Apostolic writings.
And so, with great thankfulness for what service this book has
))een already allowed to perform, I would now send it forth on its
new journey, with this as my most earnest hope and desire: that, in
however humble a manner, it may be helpful for the fuller and clearer
setting forth of the Life of Him Who is the Life of all our life.
A. E.
Oxford: March 1886.
PREFACE
TO
THE FIKST EDITION,
In presenting tliese volumes to the reader, I must offer an explana-
tion,— though I would fain hope that such may not be absolutely
necessary. The title of this book must not be understood as implying
any pretence on my part to write a ' Life of Christ ' in the strict sense.
To take the lowest view, the materials for it do not exist. Evidently
the Evangelists did not intend to give a full record of even the
outward events in that History; far less could they have thought of
compassing the sphere or sounding the depths of the Life of Him,
Whom they present to us as the God-Man and the Eternal Son of
the Eternal Father. Rather must the Gospels l^e regarded as four
different aspects in which the Evangelists viewed the historical Jesus
of Nazareth as the fulfilment of the Divine promise of old, the Mes-
siah of Israel and the Saviour of man, and presented Him to the
Jewish and Gentile world for their acknowledgment as the Sent of
God, Who revealed the Father, and Avas Himself the Way to Him,
the Truth, and the Life. And this view of the Gospel-narratives
underlies the figurative representation of the Evangelist in Christian
Symbolism.^
In thus guarding my meaning in the choice of the title. I have
already indicated my own standpoint in this l^ook. But in an-
other respect I wish to disclaim having taken any predetermined
dogmatic standpoint at the outset of my investigations. I wished
^ Comp. tbe historical account of tliese sj'iiibols in Zahn. Forsch. z. Gescb. il.
Neu-Test. Kanons, ii. pp. 257-275.
xii PREFACE TO THE FUIST EUITIOxX.
to write, not lur a (U'tiiiile pur])()se, be it even that of the defence
of the faith — but i-athcr to h't that purpose grow out of the book,
us woukl be pointed out by the course of independent study, in which
ar<>:uinents on both sides should l)e impartially weighed and facts
ascertained. In this manner I hoped best to attain what must be the
first object in all research, l)ut especially in such as the present: to
ascertain, as far as we can, the truth, irrespective of consequences.
And thus also I hoped to help others, by going, as it were, before
them, in the path which their enquiries must take, and removing
the difficulties and entanglements which beset it. So might I
honestly, confidently, and, in such a matter, earnestly, ask them to
follow me, i)ointing to the height to which such enquiries must lead
uj). I know, indeed, that there is something beyond and apart from
this; even the restful sense on that height, and the happy outlook
from it. But this is not within the province of one man to give
to another, nor yet does it come in the way of study, however
earnest and careful; it depends upon, and implies the existence of
a subjective state which comes only by the direction given to our
enquiries by the true odj/yog (St. John xvi. 13).
This statement of the general object in view will explain the
course pursued in these enquiries. First and foremost, this book was
to be a study of the Life of Jesus the Messiah, retaining the
general designation, as best conveying to others the subject to be
treated.
But, secondly, since Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, spoke to, and
moved among Jews, in Palestine, and at a definite period of its
history, it was absolutely necessary to view that Life and Teaching
in all its surroundings of place, society, popular life, and intellectual
or religious development. This would form not only the frame in
which to set the picture of the Christ, but the very background of
tlie picture itself. It is, indeed, most true that Christ spoke not only
to the Jews, to Palestine, and to that time, but — of which history
has given the evidence — to all men and to all times. Still He spoke
first and directly to the Jews, and Tlis words must have been in-
telligible to them. His teaching have reached upwards from their
intellectual and religious stand])oint, even although it infinitely
extended the horizon so as, in its full application, to make it wide as-
the bounds of earth and time. Nay, to explain the bearing of the
religious leaders of Israel, from the first, towards Jesus, it seemed
also necessary to trace the historical development of thought and
religious belief, till it issued in that svstem of Traditionalism, which.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xui
by an internal necessity, was irreconcilably antagonistic to the Christ
of the Gospels.
On other grounds also, sueh a full portraiture of Jewish life,
society, and thinking seemed requisite. It furnishes alike a vin-
dication and an illustration of the Gospel-narratives. A vindication
— because in measure as we transport ourselves into that time, we
feel that the Gospels present to us a real, historical scene; that the
men and the circumstances to which we are introduced are real —
not a fancy i)icture, l)ut just such as we know and now recognize
them, and would expect them to have spoken, or to have been.
Again, we shall thus vividly realise another and most important
aspect of the w(u-ds of Christ. We shall perceive that their form is
wholly of the times, their cast Jewish — while by the side of this
similarity of form there is not only essential ditierence but absolute
contrariety of substance and spirit. Jesus spoke as truly a Jew to
the Jews, but He spoke not as they — no, not as their highest and
best Teachers would have spoken. And this contrariety of spirit
with manifest similarity of form is, to my mind, one of the strongest
evidences of the claims of Christ, since it raises the all-important
question, whence the Teacher of Nazareth — or, shall we say, the
lunnble Child of the Carpenter-home in a far-off little place of Galilee
— had drawn His inspiration? And clearly to set this forth has been
tlie first ol)ject of the detailed Rabbinic quotations in this book.
But their further object, besides this vindication, has been the
illustration of the Gospel-narratives. Even the general reader must
be aware that some knowledge of Jewish life and society at the time
is requisite for the understanding of the Gospel-history. Those who
have consulted the works of Lighffoot, Schottgen, Meuschen, Wetstein
and WfinscJie, or even the extracts from them presented in Com-
ujcntaries, know that the help derived from their Jewish references
is veiT great. And yet, despite the immense learning and industry
of these writers, there are serious drawbacks to their use. Some-
times the references are critically not quite accui'ate; sometimes
they ai-e derived from works that should not have been adduced in
evidence: occasionally, eithei' the i-endering, or the application of
what is separated from its context, is not reliable. A still more
s<'rious objection is, that these ({notations are not unfrequently one-
sided: but chiefly this — perhaps, as the necessary consequence of being
merely illustrative notes to certain verses in the Gospels — that they
do not i)i-esent a full and connecte<l picture. And yet it is this
which so often gives the most varied and welcome illustration of the
XIV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
(iuspcl-iiari'atives. \u truth, we know nut only the leadinji' per-
sonages in Cliurcli and State in Palestine at that time, their views,
teaching, pursuits, and aims; the state of parties; the character of
poi)ular opinion; the proverbs, the customs, the daily life of the
country — but ^ve can, in imagination, enter their dwellings, associate
with them in familiar intercourse, or follow them to the Temple, the
Synagogue, the Academy, or to the market-place and the worksho}).
Wv know what clothes they wore, what dishes they ate, what wines
they drank, what they produced and what they imported: nay, the
cost of every article of their dress or food, the price of houses and
of living: in short, every detail that can give vividness to a picture
of life.
All this is so im[)ortant for the understanding of the Gospel-
history as, I hope, to justify the fulness of archteological detail in
this book. And yet I have used only a portion of the materials which
I had collected for the purpose. And here I must frankly own, as
another reason for this fulness of detail, that nmny erroneous and
misleading statements on this subject, and these even on elementary
points, have of late been made. Supported by references to the
labours of truly learned Gernum writers, they have been sometimes
set forth with such confidence as to impose the laborious and un-
welcome duty of carefully examining and testing them. But to
tills oidy the briefest possible reference has I)een made, and chiefly
in the l)eginning of these volumes.
Another explanation seems more necessary in this connection. In
describing the Traditionalism of the time of Christ, 1 must have said
what, I fear, may, most unwillingly on nn' part, wound the feelings of
some who still cling, if not to the faith of^ yet to what now rei)resents
the ancient Synagogue. But let me appeal to their fairness. I
must needs state what I believe to be the facts; and I could neither
keei) them back nor soften them, since it was of the very essence of
my argument to present Christ as both in contact and in contrast Avith
Jewish Traditionalism. No educated Western Jew would, in these
•daA's, confess himself as occupying the exact standpoint of Rabbinic
Traditionalism. Some will select i)arts of the system; others will
allegorise, exi)lain. or modify it: very many will, in heart — often
also openly — repudiate the whole. And here it is surely not neces-
sary for me to rebut or disown those vile falsehoods about the Jcavs
which ignorance, cupidity, and bigoted hatred have of late again so
strangely raised. But I would go further, and assei't that, in re-
fci-ence to Jesus of Xazareth. no educated Israelite of to-day would
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XV
identify himself with the religious leaders of the people eighteen
centuries ago. Yet is not this diselainier of that Traditionalism
which not only explains the rejection of Jesus, l)ut is the sole logical
raison cVetre of the Synagogue, also its condemnation?
I know, indeed, that from this negative there is a vast step in
advance to the positive in the reception of the Gospel, and that
many continue in the Synagogue, because they are not so convinced
of tlie other as truthfully to profess it. And perhaps the means we
have taken to present it have not always been the wisest. The mere
appeal to the literal fultilmeni, of certain prophetic jiassages in the
Old Testament not only leads chiefly to critical discussions, but rests
the case on what is, after all, a secondary line of argumentation.
In the New Testament prophecies are not made to point to facts,
but facts to point back to prophecies. The New Testament presents
the fultilment ofallprophccy rather than of prophecies, and individual
predictions serve as fingerposts to great outstanding tacts, which
mark where the roads meet and part. And here, as it seems to me,
we are at one with the ancient Synagogue. In proof, I would call
special attention to Appendix IX., which gives a list of all the Old
Testament passages Messianically applied in Jewish writings. We,
as well as they, appeal to all Scripture, to all prophecy, as that of
which the reality is in the Messiah. But we also appeal to the
whole tendency and new direction which the Gospel presents in
opposition to that of Traditionalism; to the new revelation of the
Father, to the new brotherhood of man, and to the satisfaction of the
deei)est wants of the heart, which Christ has brought — in short, to
the Scriptural, the moral, and the spiritual elements; and wc would
ask whether all this could have been only the outcome of a Car-
penter's Son at Nazareth at the time, and amidst the siu'i-oundings
which we so well know.
In seeking to reproduce in detail the life, opinions, and teaching
of the contemporaries of Christ, we have also in great measure
addressed ourselves to what was the third siieckd object in view in
this History. This was to clear the path of difficulties — in other
words, to meet such objections as might be raised to the Gospel-
narratives. And this, as regards principle — not details and minor
questions, which will cause little uneasiness to the thoughtful and
calm reader; quite irrespective also of any theory of insj^iration
which may l)e proposed, antl hence of any harmonistic or kindred
attempts which may be made. Broadly speaking, the attacks on the
Gospel-narratives may be grouped under tliese three particulars:
XVI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
they may l)o represented as inteiiti(^nal fraud hj the writers, and
imposition on the readers; or, secondly, a rationalistic explanation
may V)e sought of them, showing how what originally had been quite
simple and natural was misunderstood by ignorance, or perverted by
superstition; or, thirdly, they ma}^ be represented as the outcome of
ideas and expectations at the time, which gathered around the
beloved Teacher of Nazareth, and, so to speak, found body in legends
that clustered around the Person and Life of Him Who was regarded
as the Messiah. . . . And this is supposed to account for the
preaching of the Apostles, for their life- witness, for their martyr-
death, for the Church, for the course which history has taken, as
well as for the dearest hopes and experiences of Christian life!
Of the three modes of criticism just indicated, importance at-
taches only to the third, which has been liroadly designated as the
mythical theory. The fraud-theory seems — as even Strauss admits
— psychologically so incompatible with admitted facts as regards the
early Disciples and the Church, and it does such violence to the first
requirements of historical enquiry, as to make it — at least to me —
dilRcult to understand how any thoughtful student could In' swayed
l)y objections which too often are merely an appeal to the vulgar,
intellectually and morally, in us. For — to take the historical view
of the question — even if every concession were made to negative
criticism, sufficient would still be left in the Christian documents to
establish a consensus of the earliest belief as to all the great facts of
the Gospel-History, on which both the preaching of the Apostles
and the primitive Church have been historically based. And with
this consensus at least, and its practical outcome, historical enquiry
has to reckon. And here I may take leave to point out the infinite
importance, as regards the very foundation of our faith, attaching to
the historical Church — truly in this also the eKKXrjcria Geov ^(^vro?:,
(TTvXog Ktx\ iSpaiijDj-ia [coluinna et fulcrum^ rr/g aXt/delag; fthe
Church of the Living God, the pillar and stay [support] of the truth).
As regards the second class of interpretation — the rationalistic —
it is altogether so superficial, shadow}' and unreal tliat it can at
most be only regarded as a passing phase of light-niindcil attempts
to set aside felt difficulties.
IJut the third mode of explanation, commonW, tlioiigh ]»('rhai)s
not always ([uite fairly, designated as the mythical. dcsciNcs and
demands, at least in its sober presentation, the serious lonsidcration
of the historical student. Hai)])ily it is also tliat which, in the nature
of it, is most capable of being subjected to the test ot liistoricai ex-
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XVii
amination. For, as previously stated, we possess ample materials for
ascertaining the state ol' thought, belief, and expectancy in the time
of Christ, and of His Apostles. And to this aspect of olyections to
the Gospels the main line of argumentation in this book has been
addressed. For, if the historical analysis here attempted has any
logical force, it leads up to this conclusion, that Jesus Christ was,
alike in the fundamental direction of His teaching and Avork, and in
its details, antithetic to the Synagogue in its doctrine, })ractice, and
expectancies.
But even so, one difficulty — we all feel it — remaineth. It is that
connected with miracles, or rather with the miraculous, since the
designation, and the difficulty to which it points, must not be limited
to outward and tangible phenomena. But herein, I venture to say,
lies also its solution, at least so far as such is possible — since the
difficulty itself, the miraculous, is of the very essence of our thinking
about the Divine, and, therefore one of the conditions of it: at least,
in all religions of which the origin is not from within us, subjective,
but from without us, objective, or, if I may so say, in all that claim
to be universal religions (catholic thinking). But, to my mind, the
evidential value of miracles (as frequently set forth in these volumes)
lies not in what, without intending ofience, I may call their barely
super-naturalistic aspect, but in this, that they are the manifestations
of the miraculous, in the widest sense, as the essential element in
revealed religion. Miracles are of chief evidential value, not in
themselves, but as instances and proof of the direct communication
between Heaven and earth. And such direct communication is, at
least, the postulate and first position in all religions. They all present
to the worshipper some medium of personal communication from
Heaven to earth — some prophet or other channel of the Divine — and
some medium for our communication with Heaven. And this is the
fundamental principle of the miraculous as the essential postulate
in all religion that purposes again to bind num to God. It j)roceeds
on the twofold principle that communication must tirst come to man
fro)ii Heaven, and tlien that it does so come. Rather, perhaps, let
us say, that all religion turns on these two great factors of our inner
experience: man's felt need and (as implied in it, if we are God's
creatures) his felt expectancy. And in the Christian Church this is
not merely matter of the past — it has attained its fullest reality, and
is a constant present in the indwelling of the Paraclete.
Yet another part of the task in writing this book remains to be
mentioned. In the nature of it, such a ])ook must necessarily have
XVlll PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
Ijucii more or Ie.-;ri of a Coininentary on the Gof^pels. But I have
souglit to follow the text of the Gospels throughout, and separately
to eonsider every passage in them, so that, 1 hope, I may truthfully
tlesignate it also a Commentary on the Four Gospels — though an
informal one. And here I nmy be allowed to state that throughout
I have had the general reader in view, reserving for the foot-notes
and Appendices wiiat may be of special interest to students. While
thankfully availing myself of all critical help within my reach —
and here I may perhaps take the liberty of specially singling out
I'rofessor Westcott's Commentary on St. John — I have thought it
right to make the sacred text the subject of fresh and independent
study. The conclusions at which I arrived I would present with
the more deference, that, from my isolated position, I had not, in
writing these volumes, the inestimable advantage of personal contact,
on these subjects, with other students of the sacred text.
It only remains to add a few sentences in regard to other matters
— jierhaps of more interest to myself than to the reader. For many
years I had wished and planned writing such a book, and all my
pi'cvious studies were really in preparation for this. But the task
was actually undertaken at the request of the Publishers, of whose
kindness and patience I must here make public acknowledgment.
For, the original term fixed for writing it was two or three years.
It has taken me seven years of continual and earnest labour — and,
even so, I feel as if I would fain, and ought to, spend other seven
years upon what could, at most, be touching the fringe of this great
subject. What these seven years have been to me I could not at-
tempt to tell. In a remote country parish, entirely isolated from all
social intercourse, and amidst not a few trials, parochial duty has
been diversified and relieved by many hours of daily work and of
study — delightful in and for itself. If any point seemed not clear
to my own mind, or required protracted investigation, I could give
days of undisturbed work to what to others might perhaps seem
secondary, but was all-important to me. And so these seven years
l)assed — with no other companion in study than my daughter, to
whom I am indebted, not only for the Index Berum, but for much
else, especially for a renewed revision, in the proof-sheets, of the
references made throughout these volumes. What labour and pa-
tience this required every reader will perceive — although even so I
cannot hope that no misprint or slip of the pen has escaped our
detection.
And now I part from this book with thankfulness to Almighty
PREFxVCE TO THE FIRST EDITION. -MX
<j(()(l for sparing- iiie to complete it, witli lingering regret that the
task is ended, but also with unfeigned diffidence. I have, indeed,
sought to give my best and most earnest labour to it, and to v.rite
what I believed to be true, irrespective of party or received opinions.
This, in such a book, was only sacred duty. But where study
necessarily extended to so many, and sometimes new, departments,
I cannot hope always to carry the reader with me, or — Avhich is far
more serious — to have escaped all error. My deepest and most
earnest prayer is that He, in Whose Service I have desired to write
this book, would graciously accept the humble service — forgive what
is mistaken and bless what is true. And if anything pers(Muil may
intrude into these concluding lines, I would fain also designate what
I have written as Apologia jy^'O vita itied (alike in its fundamental
direction and even ecclesiastically) — if, indeed, that may be called
an Apologia which is the confession of this inmost conviction of
mind and heart: ' Lord, to Whom shall we go ? The words of
eternal life hast Thou! And we have believed and know that Thou
art the Holy One of God.'
ALFRED EDERSHELM.
S Bradmore Road, Oxford:
September 1883.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
CHIEFLY USED IN WRITING THIS BOOK.
Alford: Greek Testament.
Vonder Aim: Heidn. u. ji'id. Urtheile
iiber Jesii u. die alteii Christen.
Altingius: Dissertationes et Orationes.
Apocrypha: S. P. C. K. Commentary on.
Tlie Apocryplial Gospels.
Auerbach : Beritli Abraham.
Bachev: Die Agada der Babylon. Anio-
raer.
Back: Geschichte des Jiid. Yolkes u.
seiner Literatur.
Baedeker: Syrien u. Palastina.
Bdhr: Gesetz iiber Falsche Zeugen nach
Bible u. Talmud.
Barclay: City of the Great King.
Beer: Leben Abraham's.
Beer: Leben Alosis.
Beer, P. : Geschichte d. relig. Sekten d.
Juden.
Ben/jel: Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
Bengel: Alter der jiidischen Proselyten-
taufe.
Bergel: Naturwissenschaftliche Kenut-
nisse d. Talmudisten.
Bergel: Der Himmel u. seine AVunder.
Bergel: Die Eheverhaltnisse der alteu
Juden.
Berliner, Br. A . : Targum Onkelos.
Bertholdt: Christologia Judfeorum.
Beyschlag: Die Christologie des Neuen
Testaments.
Beyschlag: Zur Johanneischen Frage.
Bickell : Die Entstehung der Liturgie aus
der Einsetzungsfeier.
Bleek: Einleitung in das Neue Testa-
ment, ed. Mangold.
Bleek: Synoptische Erklarung d. drei
Evangelien.
Bloch : Studien z. Gesch. der Sammlung
d althebr. Literatur.
Blocli : Das Mosaisch-talmud. Polizei-
rechl.
Bloch : Civilprocess-Ordnung nach Mos.
rabb. Rechte.
Bochartns: Hierozoicon.
Bodek: Marcus Aurelius u. R. Jehudah.
Bodenschatz: Kircbliche Verfassung der
heutiizren .Juden.
Bbhl: Forschuugen nach einer Volks-
bibel zur Zeit Jesu.
Bbhl: Alttestamentliche Citate im N. T.
Bonar: The Land of Promise.
Braun: DieSohne des Herodes.
Brauri/us: De Vestitu Ilebrajorum.
Brecher : DasTranscendentale iniTalmud.
Bredow: Rabbinische Mytheu, <tc.
Brilckner: Die Versuchuugsgeschichte
unseres Herrn Jesu Christi.
Br tick: Rabbinische Ceremonialgebrau-
che.
Br nil: Fremdsprachliche Redensarten ira
Talmud.
Br nil: Trachten der Juden.
Buber: Pesikta.
Backer: Des Apostels Johannes Lehre
vom Logos.
Burgon : The Last Twelve Verses of St.
Mark.
Buxforf: Exercitationes.
Buxtorf: Synagoga Judaica.
Buxtorf; Lexicon Talmud.
Calvin: Comment, (passim).
Cahen : Repertorium Talmudicum.
Carpzov: Chuppa Hebneorium.
Caspar i: Einleitung in das Leben Jesu
Christi.
Cassel: Das Buch Kusari.
Cassel: Lehrbuch der Jiid. Gesch. u.
Literatur.
Castelli: Commento di Sabbatai Donnolo
sul libro della Creazione.
Castelli: II Messia secondo gli Ebrei.
Cavedoni: Biblische Numismatik.
Charter is : Canonicity.
Chasronoth Hashas.
Cheyne: Prophecies of Isaiah.
Chijs: De Herode Magno.
Cohen: Les Deicides.
Commentaries, Speaker's, on the
Gospels; Camb. Bible on the
Gospels.
Conder: Tent AVork in Palestine.
Couder: Handbook to the Bible.
Conforte: Liber Kore ha-Dorot.
Cook: The Rev. Version of the Gospels.
Creizetuich : Shulcan Ariich.
XXll
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.
Cremer: New Testament Dictionary.
Cureton : Syriac Gospels.
Ddhiie: Ji'ulisch-Alex. Religionsphilos.
Daridson : Introduction to the Study of
tlie New Testament.
DdTiiJson: The Last Things.
Dachx: Codex SuccaTalmudisBabylonici.
I)(tJikn: IIistoriaRevelatlonisDivina?N.T.
Bniiko: De Sacra Scriptura ejusque in-
terpretatione Conuneutarius.
Dehiuiiaji: Moines et Siljylles dans Tau-
tiquite Judeo-Grecque.
Delifzsch : Handwerkerleben zur Zeit
Jesu.
Dditzsch : Geschiciite der jiid. Poesie.
Delitzsrh : Durcli Kraidvheit zur Gene-
sung.
Beb'tzsch : Bin Tag in Capernaum.
Delitzsch: Untersu.chungen iib. die Ent-
steh. u. Aidage d. .Mattii.-Evang.
Delifzsclr, Talniu<1isrhe Studieu.
Delitzsch : Jesus und llillei.
DerenboKi-ij: Essai sur I'Histoire et la
Geograpiiie de la Palestine.
Deiitsch: Literary Remains.
Dp>/liii{/ius : Observationes Sacra?.
DiUmnnn: Das Bucli Henoch.
DoUiiu/er: Heidenthum und Judentluim.
Drummonil: Tlie .Jewisli Messiah.
Diikfs: Zni' Rabbinischen Sprachkunde.
Dukes: Rabbiiiisohe Blumenlese.
Dusch((k: Zur Rotanik des Talmud.
Diischak: Die Moral der Evangelien und
des Talmud.
Duschak: Jiidischer Cultus.
Dnsc/itik : Schulgesetzgebung.
Ebrard: Wissenschaftliehe Kritik der
evangel, (icschichte.
Eders]tfim : History of the .Jewish Nation.
Edersheim: TheTenq)le, its Ministry and
its Services.
EdPTsheim: Sketclies of .Jewish Social
Life.
Ehrmann: Geschichteder Schulen u. der
Cultur unter den .Juden.
EisemnriKicr: Entdecktes Judenthum.
Eislcr: Reitriige zur Rabb. Sprach- u.
Alterthums-kunde.
EUicutt: New Testament Commentary:
Gosi^els.
EUicoft: I^ectures on the I^ife of oui'
Lord.
Encyclopitdia Britannica { passim).
Ether idye: Tlie Targums on the Penta-
teuch.
Euselniis: Ecclesiastical History.
Ewald: Abodah Sai'ah.
Eicald: Geschichte des Volkes Israel.
Ewald: Bibl. Jahrb. ( passim).
Fabric ill s: Codex PseudepigraphusV.T.
Farrar: Life of Christ.
Farrar: Eternal Hope.
Fassi'l: Das Mos. rabb. Civilrecht.
Fassel : Gerichts-Verf.
Field: Otium Norvicense.
Fdipoirski: Lil)er Juchassin.
Fisher: Beginnings of Christianity.
Fraiikel: Targum der Proi)h.
Frankel: Ueb.d. Einfl.d. paliist. Exegese
auf die Alexandr. Hermeneutik.
Frankel: Mouatschrift fiir das Juden-
thum (passim).
Frankel: Vorstudien zu der Septua-
ginta.
Frankel: Einleitung in d. Jerusalem
Talmud.
Era nek: d. Kabbala.
Freudenthal: Hellenistische Studien.
Friedenthal: Jessode haddat weikere
Haeniuna.
Friedlaender: Sittengeschichte Roms.
Friedlaender: Ben Dosa u. seine Zeit.
Friedlaender: Patristische u. Talmud-
ische Studien.
Friedlieb: Oracula Sibyllina.
Friedlieb: Archaologie der Leidensge-
schichte.
Fried/i/an)i: Siphre debe Rab.
Fritzsche ii. Grimm: Handbuch zu den
Ajiokryplien.
Fritzsche n. drimm : Libri V. T. Pseud-
epigraphi Selecti.
Fuller: Harmony of the Four Gospels.
FUrst: Der Kanon des A. T.
Filrst: Ivulturu. Literaturgeschichte der
Juden in x\sien.
Fi(j-st: Biblioth. Jiid. (passim).
Filrstenthal: Menorath Hammaor.
Fiirstetithal: Jessode haddat.
Geier: De Ebra^orum Luctu Lugen-
tiumque Ritibus.
Geiyer: Das Judenthum u. seine Ge-
schichte.
Gei<jer: Beitriige z. Jiid. Literatur-Gesch.
Geir/er: Zeitschrift fur Jud. Theol. (p)as-
sim).
Geii/er: Urschrift n. Uebersetzungen del
Bibel.
Geikie: Life and Words of Christ.
Gelpke: Die Jugendgesch. des Herrn.
Gerlach: Die R:dni. Statthiilter in Syrien
u JudJia.
Gf rarer: T'hilo.
Gfr<')rer: .lahrli. d. Ileils.
(rinsburi/: Ben Chajim's Introd.
Ginslmrfj: Massoreth Ha-Massoreth.
Ginsl)ur<j: Tlie Essenes.
Gi)t.slnirij: The Kabbalah.
Godet: Commentar.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.
XXI 11
Godef: BiljI. Studies.
Goehel: Die Paraijelu Jesu.
Goldherij: The Language of Clirist.
Gruetz: Clescliichte der Juden.
Green: Tlandbiv. to tlie Gnunniar of tlie
Grk. Te8t.
Grhr/m: Die Samariter.
Grimm : Claris N. T.
Grunemann: Die Jonatliaasclie I'enta-
teuch-Uebersetzung.
Griinehaum : Sittenlebre des.Iudeiithuins.
Gnerut : Description do la Palestine et
Saniarie.
Guillemdrd: Hebraisms in the Greelv
Testament.
GiinzbKr'j: Beleuchtuug des alten Ju-
denthums.
II'i infill rijer: Real Encyklopiidie f. Bibel
u. Talmud.
Ilainelsreld: Dissertatio de itdibus vet.
Hebr.
Haneberg: Die relig. Alterth. der Bibel.
Harnoch: De Philouis Judivi Log. In-
quisitio.
Hart nut un : Die Hebraerin am Putztische
u. als Braut.
Harfmrtiu) : Die enge Verbiudung des
A. T. mit dem Neuen.
Hase: Lebeu Jesu.
Hrinpf: Die A. T. Citate in den i Evan-
gelien.
Hans rath: Neutestamentliche Zeitge-
schichte.
Her zf eld: Gescbichte Israels.
Herzfehl: Handelsgescbichte der .Judeu
des Alterthums.
Herzog: Real-Encyklopadie (passim).
UHdesheimer: Der Herod. Tempel n. d.
Talmud u. Josephus.
Uilgenfeld: Jiidische Apokalyptik.
Hirsc/ifeld: Halach. u. Hagad. Exegese.
Hirschfeld: Tractatus Macot.
Hitzig : Geschichte des Volkes Israel.
Hoffmann: Leben Jesu.
Hofmann: Schriftbeweis.
Hofmann: Weissagung u. Erfiillung.
Hoffmann: Abhandluugeu iib. die Pen-
tat. Gesetze.
Holdheim: d. Cerem. Ges.
Hottinger: Juris Hebr. Leges.
Huschke: Ueb. d. Census u. die Steuer-
verf. d. friih. Rom. Kaiserzeit.
Huschke: Ueb. d. z. Zeil d. Geb. Jesu
Christi gehaltenen Census.
Hnvercamp : Flavins Josephus.
Ideler: Chronologie.
Ikenitis: Antiquitates Hebraicse.
Ikenius: Dissertationes Philologieo-theo-
logicae.
Jellinek: Beth ha-Midrasli.
Joel: Blick in <1. Religionsgescii. d. 2teu
Christiiehen Jahrh.
Joel: Kdigiiinsphilos. des iSohar.
Jost: Gesch. d. Judenth. u. seiner Sekten.
Jon-eft: Epistles of St. Paul, Romans,
Galatians, Thessalonians.
Josephus Gorionides: ed. Breithaupt.
JatjnljoU: Comment, in Hist. Gentis
Samaritaiue.
Keil: Einl. in. d. Kanon. u. Ai)okrvph.
Scbriften des A. T.
Keim : Geschichte Jesu von Nazara.
Kennedy: Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Kirchheim : Septem Libri Talmudici
parvi Hierosol.
Kirchner: Jiid. Passahf.
Kitto: Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature
{'passim).
Kofiut: Jiidische Angelologie u. Daemo-
nologie.
Konig: Die Menschwerdung Gottes.
Kosfer: Nachw. d. Spur, einer Trinitats-
lehre vor Christo.
Kraff't: Jiidische Sagen u. Dichtungen.
Krauss: Die Grosse Syuode.
A0-f6.s-: Decreta Athen in honor Hyrcani
P. M. Judfeorum.
Krebs: Decreta Roman, pro Juda^is.
Krehs: Observationes in Nov. Test.
Kuhn: Stadt. u. Inirgerl. Yerfass d.
Rom. Reichs.
Landau: Arukh.
Lange: Bibehverk (on Gospels).
Langen : Judenthum in Paliistina z. Zeit
Christi.
Lange: Leben Jesu.
Langf elder: Symbolik des Judenthums.
Laftes: Saggio di Giunte e Correzzioni al
Lessico Talmudico.
Lavadeur: Krit. Beleucht. d. jiid Kalen-
derwesens.
Lenormant: Chaldean Magic.
I^eti: Historia Religionis jfuda^orum.
Levy: Neuhebr. u. Chaldaisch. AVorter-
buch.
Lery: Chaldaisch. Wiirterb. iiber die
Targumim.
ier^: Gesch. der Jiidiscb. Miinzen.
Lei-yssohii: Disputatio de Jud. sub. Ca's.
Conditione.
Leu-in : Fasti Sacri.
Len-in: Siege of Jerusalem.
Len-yssohn: Zoologie des Talmuds.
Ligidfoof: Hora Hebraica et Talnind-
ica in 4 Evangel.
Ligidfoof: Comnieiitary on Galatians.
Lighffoof: Commentary on Colossians.
Lisco: Die Wnnder .lesu Christi.
X\1V
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.
Loir: Beitriige z. jiid Altorthuniskiuule.
Ao//': Lebeusalter in d. jiid. Literutiir.
Loire: Schulchan Arucd.
Loiry: Biggoreth liii Talniud.
Lucius: Essenisimis in .sein Verhilltn z.
Jutlenth.
Liicke: Johiinnerf (Gorfpel).
Jjundius: Jiulisciio Hoiligtliiinicr.
Lnthardt: Johaun. Evangelium.
Ltiihnrdt: Die modern. Darslell. d. Le-
bens Jesu.
Lutterheck: Neutestamentliche Lelirbe-
grifle.
McLellan: New Testament itxospels).
Madden: Coins of the .Jews.
Maimonides: Yad liaCliazziikali.
Marcus; Padagogiiv des Tahniid.
Marqiiardt: Rom, Staatsverwaltuug.
Martinus: Fidei Pugio.
Maybaum: Die Anthropomoii)!!. u. An-
tliropopatli. bei Onkelos.
Megillath Taauitla.
Meier: Judaica.
MfKscltpu : Nov. Test e.\ Talnmde et
Joseph.
Meyer: Seder 01am Rabba et Suta.
Meyer: Buch Jezira.
Meyer: Kommentar. (ou Gospels).
Meyer: Arbeit u. Ilandwgrk. im Talmud.
Midrash Rabboth.
Midrashim. (See List in Rabb.
Abb rev.)
Mill: On the M\thical Interpretation of
the Gospels.
Mishnah.
Molitor: Philosophic der Geschichte.
Moscovitor: Het N. T. en de Talmud.
Milller: Mess. Erwart. d. Jud. Philo.
Milller: Zur Johann Frage.
Miiller, J. : Massech. Sopher.
Milnter: Stern der Weisen
Naiiz: Die Besessenen im N. T.
Neander: Life of Christ.
Nehe: Leidensgesch. uuser. Herru Jesu
Christi.
Nebe: Auferstehungsgesch. unser. Herru
Jesu Christi.
Neiihnuer: La Geographie du Talmud.
Neubauer and Driver: Jewish Interpre-
ters of Isaiah, liii.
Xeiniuniii: Messian. Erschein. Ijei d.
Juden.
Neumarni: Gesch. d. Mess. Weissag. im
A. T.
New Testament. Ed. Scrivener.
Ed. Westcott and Hort. Ed. Geb-
hardt.
JSlcolai: De Sepulchris Hebra^oram.
Nizzachon Vetus. et Toledotli Jeshu.
Nicholson : Tlie Gospel accord, to the
Hebrews.
Morris: New Testament (Gospels).
Nork: Rabbinische Quellen u. Parallelen.
Nil ft: Samaritan History.
OtJio: Lexicon RaljViin. Philolog.
Outram: De Sacriticiis Judteor et
Christi.
Othijoth de R. Akiba.
Oxlee: Doc. of Trinity on Princips. of
Judaism.
Pag ni 11 us- Thesaurus Lingua^ Sauctte.
Palestine E.xploration Fund Quar-
terly Statements {passim).
Perles: Liechenfeierlichk. im Nachbibl,
Judenth.
Philii)2)soii : Ilaben wirklich die Jud.
Jesuni gekreuzigt ''.
Philippsoii: Israellt. Religionslehre.
Philo Juduius: Opera.
Pictorial Palestine (passim).
Picturesque Palestine.
Pinner: Berachoth.
Pinner: Compend. des Hieros. u. Babyl.
Thalm.
Pirke de R. Elieser.
PI II in pt re: Comment, on the Gospels.
Pliiinplre: Hihle Educator (y;f/s67'w).
Pocock: Porta Mosis.
Prayer-books, Jeirish : i. Arnheim. ii.
Mannheimer. iii. Polak (Frankfort
ed.). iv. Friedliinder. v. F. A. Euchel.
vi. Jacobson. vii. Pesach Haggadah.
viii. Rodelheim ed.
Pressense: Jesus Christ: His Time, Life,
and "Works.
Prideaii.v: Connec. of 0. and N.T.
Pusey: What is of Faith as to Everlasting
Punishment ?
Rabbinowicz: Einleit. in d. Gesetzgeb.
u. Medicin d. Talm.
Earn is: Dissertat. de. aedib. vet. Hebr.
Bedslob: Die Kanonisch. Evangelien.
Eeland: Anticpiit. Sacr. veter. Hebr.
Belaud: Pakvstina.
Remond: Ausbreit. d. Judenthuins.
Renan : L'Antechrist.
Renan : Vie de Jesus.
Renan : Marc-Aurele.
Rhenferdet Vitriiuja: De Decern Otiosis
Syuagoga;.
Riehni: Haudworterb. d. bibl. Alterth.
{2yassi')n).
Riehm: LehrbegritT d. Hebraerbriefs.
Riess: Geburtsjahr Christi.
Ritter: Philo u. die Ilalacha.
Roberts: Discussion on the Gositcls.
LIST OF AUTHUI{IT[K>.
XXV
liohinsoir. Bil)rK-al l{i\st';irclu>s in J'aleci-
tiiie.
Roeth : Epistola ad Hebrteos.
Bohr: Paliistiiia z. Zeit Christi.
Bdiisc//: Bucli Jubilaen.
Rous: Lehreu. Lebeiisgescli. JesuCliri(<ti.
Riisch: Jesus-Mythen d. Talinudist.
Rospjimilller: Biblisch. GeoiiTaphie.
Rossi, Azarjnh de: Meor Eiiajiiii.
Rossi, Giambernnrdo de: Delia Liuji'ua
Propria di Christo.
Sdchs: Beitriigez. SpracU u. Altertlmms-
kuiide.
JSaalsc/niiz: Musik bei d. Hebrileni.
Saalschiitz: Mos. Recht.
Halmidor: Ronierherrscluift in Judiea.
Salvador: Gescb. d. Jiid. Volkes.
Hammter: Baba Mezia.
Schenkel: Bibel-Iiexicoii (jiassim).
JSchleusner: Lexicon Gr. Lat. in N.T.
Hchiner: De Chuppa Ilebraioruni.
Schmilg: Der Siegeskaleuder Megill
Taanitli.
SchnecJierdncrger : Neutestanient. Zeitge-
schiclite.
JSchoetfijf'n : Hora3 Hebraicse et Tal-
niudic;e.
Schreiber: Principien des Judentluims.
Schroedenis: Comment, de Vestitu
Mulier. Hebr.
Schilrer: Neutestam. Zeitgescli.
Sckiirer: Gemeindeverfass. d. Juden in
Rom in d. Kaiserzeit.
Schwab: Le Talmud de Jerusalem.
Schwarz: I). Heilige Land.
Schwarz: Tosifta Shabbath.
Scrivener: Introduction to the Criticism
of the New Testament.
Seder Hadoroth.
Selden : De Synedriis Ebr.
Seidell : De Jure Naturali et Gent. Hebr.
Selden: Uxor Ebraica.
Sej)}}: Leben Jesu.
Sevin : Chronologie des Lebens Jesu.
Sheri/ighani : Jonia.
Siegfried: Philo vou Alexandria.
Singer: Onkelos u. seine Verhaltn. z.
Halacha.
Sion Ledorosh.
Smith : Dictionary of tlie Bible ( passim).
Smith and W((ce: Dictionary of Christian
Biography (passim).
Sohar.
Tikkune haSohar.
Salowetjczyk: Bibel, Talmud, u. Evan-
gelium.
Sommer : Mispar haSohar.
Spencer: De Legib. Hebr. Ritual.
Spiess: Das Jerusalem des Josephus.
Spitzer: Das Mahl bei den Hebriiern.
Staideij: Sinai and I'alesliiic.
Stein rnei/er: Gebiu't des llerrn u. seiii-
erste Schritte im Leben.
Steinmeijer: Die Parabeln des llerrn.
Stein : Schrift des Lebens.
Stern : Die Fran im Talmud.
Stern: Gesch. des Judenthums.
Slier: Reden des Ilerrn Jesu.
Sfrack: Pirke Aboth.
Struck: Proleg. Crit. in V.T. Hebr.
Strauss: Letien Jesu.
Supernatural Religion.
S/irenhiisins: Biblos Katallages.
Surenhnsins: Mishnah.
Talmud, Babylon and Jerusalem.
Targum, the Targumlm in the Mik-
raoth gedoloth.
Taylor: Sayings of the Jewish Fathers
(Pirqe Ab.. &c.). with critical and
illustrative Notes.
Taylor: Great Exemplar.
Taitchuma: Midrash.
Thein : Der Talmud.
Theologische Studieu u. Kritikeu
( passim).
Tholuck: Bergpredigt Christi.
Tholuck: Das' Alt. Test, im Neu. Test.
Tischendorf: When were our Gospels
written ?
Toetterman : R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanu.s.
Traill: Josephus.
Trench : Notes on the Miracles
Trench : Notes on the Parables.
Tristram : Natural History of the Bible.
Tristram: Land of Israel.
Tristram : Land of Moab.
Trusen: Sitten, Gebriiuche u. Krank-
heiten. d. alt. Hebr.
Ugolinus: Thesaurus Anticiuitatum Sac-
rarum {passim).
Unriih: Das alte Jerusalem u. seine
Bauwerke.
Ver))es: Histoire des Idees Messianiques.
Vitringa : De Synagoga Vetere.
Volkmar: Einleitungin die Ai)okryphen.
Volkmar: Marcus.
Volkmar: Mose Prophetic u. Himmel-
fahrt.
Vorstius: De Hebraisms Nov. Test.
Wace: The Gosi)el and its Witnesses.
Wagenseil: Sota.
Wahl: Clavis Nov. Test. Pliilolu-ica.
Warneck: Pontius Pilatus.
Watkins: Gospel of St. John.
Welier: Johannes der Ttiufer u. die
Parteien seiner Zeit.
xxw
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.
W'ahcr: System der nltsyiiiiyot;-. paliist. ;
Theolofcie.
B. Weiss: Lelirli. d. I.ilil. Tlieol. desN.T.
ITe/w: Mecliilta.
UV'/.s'.v: Sii)hrti.
B. ]\'eiss: Mtittliiiiisevaiigeliuin.
B. Weiss: Lel)('n Jesu.
]IV/.s'.s-: Gescliichtc. derjiul. Tradition.
Weizsilcker: Uiitersuch. lib. die evauj^el.
Gescbichte.
Wdllinusen: Die Pharisaer u. die Sad-
duciier.
Wi'stroU: Introduction to the Study of
tlie Gosi)eis.
M'fstcott: On tbe Canon of the New
Testament.
Westrntf: Gospel of St. Jobn.
Wefstfin : Novum Testamentum Gnecuni
(Gospels).
WicJicIhdvs: Kommentar zur Leidens-
geschichte.
Wieseler: Beitriige zuden Evang. u. der
Evangel. Gesch.
Wieseler: Cbronol. Syno])se der 4 Evan-
gelien.
Wiesner: d. Bann in s. Gescb. Entwicke-
lung.
Winer : Bibliscbes Realworterbuch ( pas-
sim).
Winer: De Onkeloso.
Wilson: Recovery of Jerusalem.
Witticheu : Die Idee des Reicbes Gottes.
Wittichen : Leljen Jesu.
Woljiiis: Bibliotbeca Hebnta (pfissim).
Wordswori/i: Commentary (Gospels).
Wnnderbdv: Biljl. talmud. Aledecin.
Wilnsche: Die Leiden des Alessias.
Wilnsche: Neue Beitriige z. Erlilut. der
Evangel.
Wilnsclie: Der .Jerusalemiscbe Talmud.
Wilnsche: Biljliotbeca Rabbinica.
Yalkut Sbimeoni.
Yalkut Rubeni.
Youny: Cbristology of tbe Targums.
Zahn: Forscb. zur Gescb. d. N.T. Kanons.
Zeller: Pbilosopbie der Griechen.
Zemacb David.
Ziminermann : Karten u. Pliine z. Topo-
graphic des alten Jerusalems.
ZocMer: Handb. d.Theol.Wissenscbaften.
Znmjd: Geburtsjaln- Christi.
Zunz: Zur Gescbichte u. Literatur.
Z?/»z:DieGottesdienstl. Yortr. d. .Juden.
Zimz: Synagogale Poesie.
Z'o?2: Ritus d.Synagogalen-Gottesdienst.
Znckermandel : Tosephta.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IX REFERENCE TO
RABBINIC WRITINGS (QUOTED IN THIS WORK.
The Mis/uHi/i iri always quoted according lo Tractate, (lia-ptfr (Pereq) and Para-
ijraph (Mishnah), the Chapter l)ein.ii' marked in Eoman, the paragraph in ordinary
Numerals. Thus Ber. ii. 4 means the .Misimic Tractate Berakhoth, second Chapter,
fourth Paragi-aph.
The Jerusalem TaJvuid is distinguished liy the ai)1)reviation Jer. ijefore the
name of the Tractate. Thus, .Ter. Ber. is the .Jer. Gemara, or Talmud, of the Tractate
Berah-hoth. The edition, from which quotations are made, is that commonly used,
Krotoschin, 1866, 1 vol. fol. The quotations are made either by Chapter and Para-
grapli (.Jer. Ber. ii. 4), or, in these volumes mostly, l)y page and column. It ought
to be noted that in Ilabbinic writings each page is really a double one. distinguished
respectively as a and h: a being the page to the left hand of the readei-, and h the
reverse one (on turning over the page) to the right hand of the reader. But in the
Jerusalem Gemara (and in Yalkut [see below], as in all works where the page and
column {col.) are mentioned) the (luotation is often — in these volumes, mostly — made
by page and column (two columns being on each side of a page). Thus, while .Jer.
Ber. ii. 4 would be Chapter 11. Par. 4, the corresi)onding (luotation by page and col-
umn would in that instance be, .Jer. Ber. 4 d: 0 marking that it is tiie fourth culnmii
in h (or the ofl-side) of iiage 4.
The Babyl. Talminl is. in all its editions, equally jiaged, so that a quotation made
applies to all editions. It is double-paged, and ([uoted with the name of the Tractate,
the number of the page, and a or b according as one or another side of the page is
referred to. The quotations are distinguished from those of the Mishnah ])y this,
that in the Mishnah Roman and ordinary numerals are employed (to mark Chapters
and Paragraphs), while in the Babylon Talmud the name of the Tractate is followed
by an ordinary numeral, indicating the page, together with a or 6, to mark wliich
side of the page is referred to. Thus Ber. 4 a means: Tractate Berachoth. \). 4. first
or left-hand side of the page.
1 have used the Vienna edition, but this, as already explained, is not a point of
any importance. To facilitate the verification of passages quoted I have in very
many instances quoted also the line)^, either from top or bottom.
The abbreviation Tos. {Tosephtn, additamentum) before the name of a Tractate
refers to the additions made to the Mishnah after its redaction. This redaction dates
from the third century of our era. The Tos. extends only over 52 of the Mishnic
Tractates. They are inserted in the Talmud at the end of each Tractate, and are
printed on the doulde pages in double columns (col. a and h on p. a. col. e and
(I on p. h). They are generally quoted by Pereq and Mishnah : thus, Tos. Gitt. i. 1.
or (more rarely) by page and column, Tos. Gitt. p. l.iO a. The ed. 7.uckcrmaiiiM
is, when quoted, specially indicated.
Besides, the Tractate Ahoth de Rabbi Nathan (Ab. de. R. Math.), and the smaller
Tractates, Sopherim (Sopher.). Semarhoth (Seniarh.). Kalhih (Kail, or ChaU.%
1 It is to be noted that in tJiP marginal ami notp-rPterfncPs the olrl mode of indicating a
reference (as in the first ed. of this hook) and tlie. perliai)s, more correct mode of translitera-
tion have been promiscuously employed. But the reader can have no difficulty in under-
standing the reference.
XXVlll I.IST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
JJerekh Erets {Der Er.), Derekh Erets Ziita (commouly Der Er. S.), and Pereg
Shalom {Per. Shal.) are inserted at the close of vol. ix. of the Talmud. They are
printed in four columns (on double pages), and quoted by Pereq and Mishnah.
The so-called Septem Libri Talmudici parvi Hierosolymitani are published
separately (ed. Raphael Kirchheim, Frcf 1851). They are the Massecheth Sepher
Torah {Mass. Se/ph. Tor.), Mass. Mezuzah {Mass. Mesus.), Mass. Tephillin {Mass.
Tephill.), Mass. Tsitsith {Mass. Ziz.), Mass. Ahhadim {Mass. Abaci.), Mass. Kuthlm
{Mass. Cuth.), and Mass. Gerim {Mass. Ger.). They are printed and quoted
according to double pages {a and b).
To these must be added the so-called Vhesronoth haShas, a collection of jjassages
expurgated in the ordinary editions from the various Tractates of the Talmud.
Here we must close, what might else assume undue proportions, by an alphabetical
list of the abbreviations, although only of the principal books referred to: —
Ab. Zar. ' . . The Talmudic Tractate Abhodah Zarah, on Idolatry.
Ab. . . . •' '■ '• PZ/yyey .IfeZ/o^/?, Sayings of the Fathers.
Ab. de P Nath. The Tractate Abhoth de Rabbi Nathan at the close of vol. ix. in
the Bab. Talm.
Arakh. . . The Talmudic Tractate Arakhiii, on the redemption of persons or
things consecrated to the Sanctuary.
Bab. K. . . " " " 5aM« Qaw7«a (' First Gate '), the first,
Bab. Mets. [or Mez.^ " " Babha Metsia ('Middle Gate '), the second,
Bab. B. . . " " " 5a6//rt 5«it/^?-« ('Last Gate'), the third of
the great Tractates on Common Law.
Bechor. . . " " '• i?t'A7;oro^/^ on the consecration to the Sanc-
tuary of the First-born.
Bemid R. . . The Midrash (or Commentary {Bemidbar Rabba. on Numbers.
Ber. . . The Talmudic Tractate Berakhoth, on Prayers and Benedictions.
Ber. R. . . The Midrash (or Commentary) Bereshith Rabba, on Genesis.
Bets, [or Be^.^^ . The Talmudic Tractate Betsah. laws about an egg laid on Sabbath
and Fast-days, and on similar points
connected with the sanctifying of such
seasons.
Biccur. . . " " " Bikkurim, on First-fruits.
Chag. . • " " '■ Ghaijiyali, on the festive ofl'erings at the
three Great Feasts.
Qhall. . . " " " ChaUah, on the tirst of the dough (Numb.
XV. 17).
Chull. . . •■ " " C'A?/////?. the rubric as to the mode of killing
meat and kindred subjects.
Bebar R. . . The Midrash Det/han'/n Rfd/tn/. on Deuteronomy.
Bern. ■ . The Talmudic Tractate Demai. regarding Produce, the tithing of
which is not certain.
Ech. R. . . The Midrash EkJuih Rabbathi. on Lamentations (also (pioted as
Mid. on Lament).
Eduy. . . The Talmudic Tractate Edu//oth (Testimonies), the legal determina-
tions enacted or confirmed on a certain
occasion, decisive in Jewish History.
Er^/b. . . The Talmudic Tractate Endihin. on the conjunction of Sal)bath-
boundaries. (See Ajipendix XVII.)
Midr. Esth. . The ^Ildrash on Estlier.
' Mark the note on previous page.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
XXIX
Giit.
Horay.
The Talimulio Tractate Qittin, on Divorce.
. The Taldniudic Tractate llorai/oth ' Decisions ' on certain uninten-
tional transgressions.
Jnd. [or rad] " " " JTarfw^/m, on the Washing of Hands.
Jebam. [or ) ,, ,, ,,
Yebam.'[ \
Jam. [mostly | .. ,^ ^,
Tom.] ' (
Yebhamoth, on the Levirate.
Yoma, on the Day of Atonement.
Kel. .
Kerith.
Kethuh.
Kidd.
Kil. .
Kinn.
Midr. Kohel.
Maris.
Marts S/i.
Machsh.
Mrtkk: [or
MechiL
Meg ill.
Med.
Menach.
Midd.
Mikv.
Moed K.
Naz. .
Ned. .
Neg. .
Nidd.
Ohol.
Orl.
Par.
Peak
Pes.
Mace
A'e^i'm, on the purification of furniture and
vessels.
Kerithufh, on the inuiishment of 'cutting
off.'
KethubJioth, on marriage-contracts.
" " Qiddushin, on Betrothal.
" " " Kilayhn. on the unlawful commixtures
(Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 9-11).
" " " Qinnim, on the offering of doves (Lev. v.
1-10; xii. 8).
The Midrash on Qoheleth or Eccles.
The Talmudic Tractate Maaseroth, on Levitical Tithes.
" " " Jihftse?* (S/«eM/, on second Tithes (Deut. xiv.
22, &c.).
" " " Makhshirin, on fluids that nuiy render
products ' defiled,' or that leave them
undefiled (Lev. xi. 34, 38).
] " " " Makkoth, on the punishment of Stripes.
" " ife^Virf^rt, a Commentary on part of Exo-
dus, dating at the latest from the first
half of the second century.
" " MegUlah, referring to the reading of the
('roll') Book of Esther and on the
Feast of Esther.
" " MeUah, on the defilement of tilings con-
secrated.
" " Menachoth, on Meat-offerings.
" " Middoth, on the Temple-measurements
and arrangements.
" " MiqvaotJi, on ablutions and immersions.
" " Moed Qatau, on Half-holidays.
" " Nazir, on the Nasirate.
" " Nedavim, on Vowing.
" " Negaim, on Leprosy.
" " Nicldah, on female levitical impurity
{menstruri).
" " Oholoth. on tlie delilement of tents and
houses, si)ecially by death.
" " Orlah, on the ordinances connected with
Lev. xix. 23.
" " Parnh. on the Red Heifer and purificatiou
by its ashes.
" " Peak, on the corner to be left for the poor
in harvesting.
" " Pesachiin, on the Paschal Feast.
XXX
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Pesiqta . . The Book I'esiqta. an exceediii.i;l.v interesting series of Meditations
or brief discussions and Lectures on cer-
tain portions of tiie Lectionary for the
principal Sabbaths and Feast Days.
Firqe de B. Eliez. The Haggadic Pirqe de EahhiEUezer, in 54 cliapters. a discursive
Tractate on tlie History of Israel from
the creation to the time of Moses, with
the insertion of three chapters (xlix.-li. )
oil the history of Hainan and the future
Messianic deliverance.
Bosh haSh. . The Talnuidic Tractate Bosh luiShanah, on the Feast of New Year.
Sab. . . " " " ZrtM(v«, on certain levitically defiling issues.
Sank. . . " " " (S'«H/<ec?r/«, on the Sanhedrim and Criminal
Jurisprudence.
tSebdcIi. . . " " '• Zehhacliiiii. on Sacrifices.
S/i(d)h. . . " " " Shabbath, on Sabbath-observance.
S/iebh. . . " " " . (S7ie6//H7/<, on the Sabbatic Year.
Shebii. . . " " '■ Shebliuoth, on Oaths, &c.
S/ieqal. . . " '• " .S7/e(7«/^/«, on the Temple-Tribute, etc.
>s/iem B. . . The Midrash Shemoth Babba on Exodus.
Shir haSh B. . " " Shir haShirim B(djba. onXhQ iio\\g,o'i^o\omo\\.
Sijihra . . The ancient Commentary on Leviticus, dating from the second
century.
Siphre . . The still somewhat older Commentary on Numb, and Deuter.
Sot. . . The Talniudic Tractate Sotah, on the Woman accused of Adultery.
Snkk. . . " " " 6'mA-A-«/<, on the Feast of Tabernacles.
Taan. . . " " " Taanitlt, on Fasting and Fast-Days.
Tarn- . • " " " Tamid, on the daily Service and Sacrifice
in the Temple.
Teb. Yam. . " " " TeMw/ 1'o/m (■ bathed of the day '), on im-
purities, where there is immersion on
the evening of the same da\'.
Tern. . . " " " Tcmurah, on substitution for things con-
secrated (Lev. xxvii. 10).
Ter. . . " " " T(9r^^??^o//^ on the priestly dues in produce.
Tohnr. . . " " " Tohnrofh, on minor kinds of defilement.
Tnnch. . . The Midrashic Commentary Tanclnima (or Yelmndenv). on the
Pentateuch.
Ukz.
. The Talmudic Tractate Uqtsiit, on the defilement of fruits through
their envelopes, stalks. iSrc.
Vdi/jiik. B. . The Midrash Vai/ijikra B(dib(t. on Leviticus.
Yidk. . . The great codeciiDte ion: Ytdkiif Shimeoni, which is a cre/p^c/ on the
whole Old Testament, containing also
ipuitations from works lost to us.'
1 It will, of course, be understood that we
have only given the briefest, and. Indeed, im-
[lerfect, indications of the contents of the
various Talmudic Tractates. Besides giving
the Laws connected with each of the sub-
jects of which they treat, all kindred topics
are taken up, nay, the discussion often passes
to quite other than the subjects primarily
treated of in a Tractate.
CONTENTS
THE F I R S 1^ A^ 0 L U M E
BOOK I.
INTRODUCTORY.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
The Jewish World in the Days of Christ — Tlie Jewish Dispersion iu the East . 3
CHAPTER H.
The Jewish Dispersion in the West^ — The Hellenists — Origin of Hellenist Litera-
ture in the Greek Translation of the Bible — Character of the Septuagint . 17
CHAPTER HI.
The Ohl Faith preparing for the New — Development of Hellenist Theology:
The Apocrypha, Aristeas, Aristobulus, and the Pseudepigraphic Writings 31
CHAPTER IV.
Philo of Alexandria, the Rabl)is, and the Gospels — The Final Development of
Hellenism in its Relation to Fxabbinism and the Gospel according to St.
John 40
CHAPTER V.
Alexandria and Rome — The Jewisli Comminiities in the Cai)itals of Western
Civilisation 58
CHAPTER VI.
Political and Religious Life of the Jewish Dispersion in the West — Their rnit)n
in tlie Great Hoi)e of the Coming Deliverer .73
XXXU CONTENTS UP^ THE FIRST VOLUME.
CHAPTEU VII.
PAGE
In Palestine — Jews and Gentiles in • the Land" — Their Mutual Relations and
Feelings—- The Wall of Separation ' - . . 84
CHAPTER VIH.
Traditionalism, its Origin, Character, and Literature — The Mishnah and Tal-
mud— The Gospel of Christ — The Dawn of a New Day . . . . 9S
BOOK II.
FROM THE MANGER m BETHLEHEM TO THE
BAPTISM IN JORDAN.
CHAPTER L
In Jerusalem when Herod reigned . . . . . . . .111
CHAPTER 11.
The Personal History of Herod — The Two Worlds in Jerusalem . . . 121
CHAPTER III.
The Annunciation of St. John the Baptist , . 13S
CHAPTER IV.
The Annunciation of Jesus the Messiah, and the Birch of His Forerunner . 144
CHAPTER V.
Wliat Messiah did the Jews expect ? 160
CHAPTER VI.
The Nativity of Jesus the Messiah 180
CHAPTER VII.
The Purification of the Virgin and the Presentation in the Temple . . 191
CHAPTER VIH.
The Visit and Homage of the Magi, and the Flight into Egypt . . . 202
CHAPTER IX.
The Child-Life in Nazareth 217
CHAPTER X.
In the House of His Heavenly, and in the Home of His Earthly Father — The
Temple of Jerusalem — The Retirement at Nazareth .... 235
CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. XXXlll
CHAPTER XI.
PAGE
In the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius Caesar and under the Pontificate of Annas
and Caiaphas — A Voice in the Wilderness 255
CHAPTER XII.
The Baptism of Jesus: Its Higher Meaning 275
BOOK III.
THE ASCENT:
FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF
TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER I.
The Temptation of Jesus 291
CHAPTER II.
The Deputation from Jerusalem — The Three Sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees,
and Essenes — Examination of their distinctive Doctrines . . . 308
CHAPTER HI.
The Twofold Testimony of John — The First Sabbath of Jesus's Ministry —
The First Sunday -The First Disciples 336
CHAPTER IV.
The Marriage-Feast in Cana of Galilee — The Miracle that is ' a Sign ' . . 351
CHAPTER V.
The Cleansing of the Temple — ' The Sign ' which is not a Sign . . . 364
CHAPTER VI.
The Teacher come from God and the Teacher from Jerusalem — Jesus and
Nlcodemus 377
CHAPTER VII.
In Judaja and through Samaria — A Sketch of Samaritan History and Theology
— Jews and Samaritans . 390
CHAPTER Vm.
Jesus at the Well of Sychar . . . . . . . . . .404
XXXIV CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
CHAPTER IX.
PAGE
The Second Visit to Cana — Cure of the ' Nobleman's ' Son at Capernaum . 422
CHAPTER X.
The Synagogue at Nazareth — Synagogue-Worship and Arrangements . . 430
CHAPTER XI.
The First Galilean Ministry 451
CHAPTER XH.
At the • Unknown ' Feast in Jerusalem, and by tlie Pool of Bethesda . . 460
CHAPTER Xm.
By the Sea of Galilee — The final Call of the First Disciples, and the Miraculous
Draught of Fishes 472
CHAPTER XIV.
A Sabbath in Capernaum 478
CHAPTER XV.
Second Journey through Galilee — The Healing of the Leper .... 489
CHAPTER XVI.
The Return to Capernaum — Concerning the Forgiveness of Sins^The Healing
of the Paralysed 499
CHAPTER XVII.
The Call of Matthew — The Saviour's Welcome to Sinners — Rabbinic Theology
as regards the Doctrine of Forgiveness in contrast to the Gospel of Christ
—The call of the Twelve Apostles 507
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Sermon on the Mount — The Kingdom of Christ and Rabbinic Teaching . 524
CHAPTER XIX.
The Return to Capernaum — Healing of the Centurion's Servant . . . 542
CHAPTER XX.
The Raising of the Young Man of Nain — The Meeting of Life and Death . 552
CHAPTER XXI.
The Woman which was a Sinner 561
CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. XXXV
CHAPTER XXn.
PAGE
The Ministry of Love, the Blasphemy of Hatred, and the Mistakes of Earthly
Affection — The Return to Capernaum — Healing of the Demonised Dumb
— Pharisaic Charge against Clu-ist — The Visit of Christ's Mother and
Brethren 570
CHAPTER XXra.
New Teaching ' in Parables ' — The Parables to the People by the Lake of
Galilee, and those to the Disciples in Capernaum . ' . . . . 578
CHAPTER XXIV.
Christ Stills the Storm on the Lake of Galilee 599
CHAPTER XXV.
At Gerasa — The Healing of the Demonised 606
CHAPTER XXVL
The Healing of the Woman — Christ's Personal Appearance — The Raising of
Jairus' Daughter 616
CHAPTER XXVII.
Second Visit to Nazareth — The Mission of the Twelve 635
CHAPTER XXVni.
The Story of John the Baptist, from his Last Testimony to Jesus to his
Beheading in Prison , . . . 654
CHAPTER XXIX.
The Miraculous Feeding of the Five Thousand 676
CHAPTER XXX.
The Night of Miracles on the Lake of Gennesaret. ...... 686
BooJi I.
IN TROD ITCTOR Y.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL:
THE JEWISH WORLD IX THE DAYS OF OHRIST.
All the prophets prophesied not but of the daj's of the Messiah.' — Sanh. 99 a.
' The work! was not created but only for the Messiah.' — Sanh. 98 h.
CHAPTER I.
THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST — THE JEWISH
DISPERSION IN THE EAST.
Among the outward means by which the religion of Israel was pre-
served, one of the most important w^s thecentralisation and localisa-
tion of its worship in Jerusalem. If to some the ordinances of the
Old Testament may in this respect seem narrow and exclusive, it is
at least doubtful, whether without such a provision Monotheism itself
could have continued as a creed or a worship. In view of the state
of the ancient world, and of the tendencies of Israel during the
earlier stages of their history, the strictest isolation was necessary in
order to preserve tlie religion of the Old Testament from tliat mixture
with foreign elements which would speedily have proved fatal to its
existence. And if one source of that danger had ceased after the
seventy years' exile in Babylonia, the dispersion of the greater part
of the nation among those whose manners and civilisation would
necessarily influence them, rendered the continuance of this separa-
tion of as great importance as before. In this r('S})e('t, even tradi-
tionalism had its mission and use, as a hedge around the Law to
render its infringement or modification impossible. q
Wherever a Roman, a Greek, or an Asiatic might wander, he ^ \ /--«^u
could take his gods with him, or find rites kindred to his own. (^^^"^-^-iJ
It was far otherwise with the Jew. He^ had only one Tcm])lo, that ^ ^ ^^
in Jerusalem; only one God, Him Who had once throned there ^/ ^^-<^
between the Cherulnm, and Wlio was still King over Zion. 'I'liat
Temple was the only place where a God-appointed. ])ui-(' pricstliood
could offer acceptable sacrifices, whether for forgiveness of sin, or.lbr
fellowship with God. Here, in the impenetrable gloom of the inner-
most sanctuary, whic^h the High-Priest alone might enter once a year
for most solemn expiation, had stood the Ark, the leader of the people
into the Land of Promise, and the footstool on which the Sliechinah
had rested. From that golden altar rose the sweet cloud of incense,
symbol of Israel's a<?cepted prayers; that seven-branched candlestick
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK shed its perpetual light, indicative of the brightness of God's Covenant-
I Presence; on that table, as it were before the face of Jehovah, was
^■^v — ' laid, week by week, * the Bread of the Face,' ' a constant sacrificial
meal which Israel oflercd unto God, and wherewith God in turn fed
His chosen priesthood. On the great l)lood-sprinkled altar of sacrifice
smoked the daily and festive ))urnt-offerings, brought by all Israel,
and for all Israel, wherever scattered; while the vast courts of the
Temple were thronged not only by native Palestinians, but literally
by ' Jews out of every nation under heaven. ' Around this Temple
gathered the sacred memories of the past; to it clung the yet
brighter hopes of the future. The history of Israel and all their
prospects were intertwined with their religion; so that it may be
said that without their religion they had no history, and without their
history no religion. Thus, history, patriotism, religion, and hope
alike pointed to Jerusalem antl the Temple as the centre of Israel's
unity.
N'or could the depressed state of the nation alter their views or
shake their confidence. What mattered it, tliat the Idumasan, Herod,
had usurped the throne of David, except so far as his own guilt and
their present subjection were concerned? Israel had passed througli
deeper waters, and stood triumphant on the other shore. For
centuries seemingly hopeless bondsmen in Egypt, they had not only
been delivered, but had raised the God-inspired morning-song of
jubilee, as they looked back upon the sea cleft for them, and which
had l)uried their oppressors in their might and pride. Again, for
weary years had their captives hung Zion's harps by the rivers of
that city and empire whose colossal grandeur, wherever they turned,
must have carried to the scattered strangers the desolate feeling of
utter hopelessness. And yet that empire had crumbled into dust,
while Israel had again taken root and sprung up. And now little
more than a century and a half had passed, since a danger greater
even than any of these had threatened the faith and the very existence
of Israel. In his daring madness, the Syrian king, Antiochus lY.
(Epiphanes) had forbidden their religion, sought to destroy their
sacred books, with unsparing ferocity forced on them conformity to
heathen rites, desecrated the Temi)le by dedicating it to ZeusOlympios,
and even reared a heathen altar upon that of burnt-oflfering. '^ Worst
of all, his wicked scheme§ had lieen aided by two apostate High-
Priests, wlio had outvied each other in buying and then prostituting
1 Such is the literal meaiiiiia; of what is translated by 'shewbread.'
^ 1 Mace. i. 54, 59 ; Jos. Ant. xii. 5. 4.
THE JEWISH DISPERSION.
the sacred oflBce of God's anointed,^ Yet far away in the mountains
of Ephraim^ God had raised for them most unlooked-for and unlikely
help. Only three years later, and, after a series of brilliant vietories
by undisciplined men over the flower of the Syrian army, Judas the
Maccabee — truly God's Hammer^ — had purified the Temple, and
restored its altar on the very same day * on which the ' abomination
of desolation ' ^ had been set up in its place. In all their history the
darkest hour of their night had ever preceded the dawn of a morning
])righter than any that had yet broken. It was thus that with one
voice all their prophets had bidden them wait and hope. Their
sayings had been more than fulfilled as regarded the past. Would
they not equally become true in reference to that far more glorious
future for Zion and for Israel, which was to be ushered in by the
coming of the Messiah ?
Nor were such the feelings of the Palestinian Jews only. These
indeed were now a minority. The majoritv of the nation constituted
what was known as the dispersion; a term which, however, no longer
expressed its original meaning of banishment by the judgment of
God,** since absence from Palestine was now entirely voluntary. But
all the more that it referred not to outward sufiering,'' did its continued
use indicate a deep feeling of religious sorrow, of social isolation, and of
p( )lit i(';i I strangership •* in the midst of a heathen world. For although,
as Josephus reminded his countrymen,'' there was 'no nation in the
world which had not among them part of the Jewish people, ' since it
was * widely dispersed over all the world among its inhabitants, ' '' yet
they had nowhere found a real home. A century and a half befor
.5- J
CHAP.^O-?J
I
" Jew. W
ii. 16. 4
b vii. 3. 3
' After the deposition of Onias III.
tlirouf^h tlie bribery of his own brother
Jason, the latter and Menelaus outvied
each otlier in bribery for, and prostitu-
tion of, the holy office.
'^ Modin, the birthplace of the Macca-
bees, has been identified with the modern
El-Medyeh, about sixteen miles north-
west of Jerusalem, in the ancient terri-
tory of Ephraim. Comp. Conder's Hand-
liook of the Bible, p. 291; and for a full
reference to the whole literature of the
subject, see Schurer (Neutest. Zeitgescli.
p. 78, note 1).
^ On the meaning of the name Macca-
bee, comp. Grimm's Kurzgef. E.xeget.
Handb. z. d. Apokr. Lief, iii., i)p. ix. x.
We adopt the derivation from Maqqabha,
a hammer, like Charles MarteJ.
* 1 Mace. iv. .52-54 ; Megill. Taan. 23.
^ 1 Mace. 1. 54.
® Alike the verb ;^'i">, in Hebrew, an
dtaaTtsipco in Greek,* with their deriv-
atives, are used in the Old Testament,
and in the rendering of the LXX., with
reference to punitive banishment. See,
for example, Judg. xviii. 30; 1 Sam. iv.
21; and in the LXX. Deut. xxx. 4; Ps.
cxlvii. 2 ; Is. xlix. 6, and other i)assages.
' There is some truth, although greatly
exaggerated, in the bitter remarks of
Hausrath (Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. p. 93),
as to the sensitiveness of the Jews ia
the dtacTTCopd, and the loud outcry of
all its members at any interference with
them, however trivial. But events
unfortunately too often ]iroved how
real and near was their danger, and
how necessary the caution ' Obsta prin-
cipiis.' _,
8 St. Peter seems to have used it in
that sense, 1 Pet. i. 1. /
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
ROOK
I
our era comes to us from Egypt^ — where the Jews possessed exceptional
privileges — professedly from the heathen, but really from the Jewish^
Sibyl, this lament of Israel: —
Crowding with thy uuiubers every ocean and country —
Yet an ofl'ense to all around thy presence and customs !
:)
;^V
</
0'^
r
Sixty years later the Greek geographer and historian Strabo bears
the like witness to their presence in every land, but in language that
shows how true had been the complaint of the Sibyl.* The reasons
for this state of feeling will by-and-by appear. Suffice it for the
present that, all unconsciously, ^hilo tells its deepest ground, and
that of Israel's loneliness in the heathen world, when speaking, like
the others, of his countrymen as in ^ all the cities of Europe^ in t^he
provinces of Asia and in the isliuids.' he describes them as, wlicrever
sojourning, having but one metropolis — not Alexandria, Antioch, or
Rome — but
High God. '^
the Holy City with its Temple, dedicated to the Most.
A nation, the vast majority of which was dispersed over
the whole inhabited earth, had ceased to be a special, and become a
world-nation.** Yet its heart beat in Jerusalem, and thence the life-
blood passed to its most distant members. And this, indeed, if we
rightly understand it, was the grand object of the ' Jewish dispersion '
throughout the world.
What has been said applies, perhaps, in a special manner, to the
Western, rather than to the Eastern ' dispersion.' The connection of
the latter with Palestine was so close as almost to seem one of con-
tinuity. In the account of the truly representative gathering in
Jerusalem on that ever-memorable Feast of Weeks, ^ the division of
the ' dispersion " into two grand sections — the Eastern or Trans-
Euphratic, and the Western or Hellenist — seems clearly marked.' In
this arrangement the former would include ' the Parthians, Modes,
Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia, ' Judaea standing, so to speak,
in the middle, while ' the Bretes and Arabians ' would typically re-
present the farthest outrunners respectively of the Western and the
Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New Testament,
1 Comp. the remarks of Schneckenbur-
ger (Vorles ii. Neutest. Zeitg. p. 95).
'^ Coiiip. Friedlieb, D. Sibyll. Weissag.
xxii. 39.
» Orac Sibyll. iii. 271, 272, apud Fried-
lieb,
bo apud Jos. Ant. xiv. 7. 2 : 'If
'is not easy to find a place in the world
that has not admitted this race, and is ,
mastered by it.' . — .-^
^ Philo in Flaccum (ed. Francf.), p. 971.
^ Comp. Jos. Ant. xii. 3; xiii. 10. 4;
13. 1; xiv. 6. 2; 8. 1; 10. 8; Sueton.
Cses. 85.
' Grimm (Clavis N. T. p. 113) quotes
two passages from Philo, in one of which
he contradistinguishes ' us,' the Hellenist
Jews, from ' the Hebrews,' and speaks of
the Greek as 'our language.'
'HELLENISTS' AND 'HEBREWS.' 7
commonly bore in Palestine the name of the ' dispersion of the chap.
Greeks,' " and of ' Hellenists ' or ' Grecians.' " On the other han<l, the I
Trans-Euphratic Jews, who ' inhal^ited Babylon and many of the othei- ^ — ^^^ —
satrapies, ' " were included with the Palestinians and the Syrians under !^fj*-3g'^''^"
the term ' Hebrews,' from the connnon language which tliey spoke. '^Actsvi. i;
• • ix ^^9 * xi 20
But the difference between the ' Grecians ' and the ' Hebrews ' was „".,' "
" Philo ad
far deeper than merely of language, and extended to the whole ^o^jj"™^/-
direction of thought. There were mental influences at work in the Aut. xv. 3. i
Greek world from which, in the nature of things, it was impossible • y
even for Jews to withdraw themselves, and which, indeed, were as J/-*^^^^*^^-*^-^-^
necessary for the fulfilment of their mission as their isolation from IUXiZ^^iJL,t.,^
heathenism, and their connection with Jerusalem. At the same
time it was only natural that the Hellenists, placed as they were ^'^*'*'^^*-'*'**-^
in the midst of such hostile elements, sh(nild intensely wish to be l^'X^
Jews, equal to their Eastern brethren. On the other hand, Pharisaism, <^-— «^<-
in its pride of legal purity and of the possession of traditional lore, /^jj-Aji-co-) f
with all that it involved, made no secret of its contempt for the do-^oU-
Hellenists, and openly declared the Grecian far inferior to the Baby-
lonian ' dispersion, ' ^ That such feelings, and the suspicions which
they engendered, had struck deep into the popular mind, appears
from the fact, that even in the Apostolic Church, and that in her
earliest days, disputes could break out between the Hellenists and
the Hebrews, arising from suspicion of unkind and unfair dealings
grounded on these sectional prejudices.'^ 'lActsvi. i
Far other was the estimate in which the Babylonians were held
by the leaders of Judaism. Indeed, according to one view of it.
Babylonia, as well as ' Syria ' as far north as Antioch, was regarded as
forming part of the land of Israel.' Every other country was con-
sidered outside 'the land,' as Palestine was called, with the excep-
tion of Bal)ylonia, which was reckoned as part of it.' For S^^ria and "Emb. 21a
Mesopotamia, eastwards to the banks of the Tigris, were supposed
to have been in the territory whicli King David' had conquered, and
tliis made them ideally for ever like the land of Israel. But it was
just between the Euphrates and the Tigris that the largest and
wealthiest settlements of the Jews were, to such extent that a
later writer actually designated them < the land of Israel.' Here
Nehardaa, on the Nahar MalJca, or royal canal, which passed from the
1 Similarly we have (in Men. 110^/) ends of the earth '—these are the exiles
this curious explanation of Is. xliii. 6: in other lauds, whose minds were not
' My sons from afar '—these are the exiles settled, like women,
in Babylon, whose minds were settled, - Ber. R. 17.
like men, ' and my daughters from the
THE PREPAEATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK Euphrates to the Tigris, was the oldest Jewish settlement. It l)oasted
I of a Synag'ogue, said to have been built ])y King Jechoniah with
— ~-r — -• stones that liad been brought from the Temple.' In this fortified city
the vast contributions intended for the Temple were deposited by the
Eastern Jews, and thence conveyed to their destination under escort
of tliousands of armed men. Another of these Jewish treasure-cities
was Nisibis, in northern Mesopotamia, Even the fact that wealth,
which must have sorely tempted the cupidity of the heathen, could be
safely stored in these cities and transported to Palestine, shows how
large the Jewish population must have been, and how great their
general influence.
In general, it is of the greatest importance to remember in regard
to this Eastern dispersion, tliat only a minoritv of the Jcws^onsistinu-
in all of aljout 50.000, originallv returned from Babylon, first under
ZorubbaJjel and afterwards under Ezra." Xor was their inferiority
)iifin('d to numbers. The wealthiest and most influential of the Jews
remained behind. According to Josephus,'' with whom Philo sub-
stantiallv agrees, vast^numbers, estimated at millions, inhabited the
Trans-Eu])hratic i)rovinces. To judge even by the number of those
slain in popular risings (50,000 in Seleucia alone'^), these figures do
not seem greatly exaggerated. A later tradition had it, that so dense
was the Jewish population in the Persian Empire, that Cyrus forbade
the further return of the exiles, lest the country should be depopulated.^
So large and compact a body soon became a political power. Kindly
treated under the Persian monarchy, they were, after the fall of that
empire,'' favoured by the successors of Alexander, When in turn the
Macedono-Syrian rule gave place to the Parthian Empire, '^ the Jews
formed, from their national opposition to Rome, an important element
in the East. Such was their influence that, as late as the year 40 a.d. ,
the Roman legate shrank from provoking their hostility.* At the
same time it must not be thought that, even in these favoured regions,
they were wholly witliout persecution. Here also history records
more than one tale of bloody strife on the part of those among whom
they dwelt. ^
To the Palestinians, their brethren of the East and of Syria — to
which they had wandered under the fostering rule of the Macedono-
1 Comp. Fiirsf, Kult. u. Literaturgesch.
d. Jud. in Asien, vol. i. p. S.
^ Jos. Ant. xviii. 9. 9.
3 Midrash on Cant. v. 5, ed. Warsh. p.
26 a.
* P/H7oadCaj.
^ The following are the chief passages
in Josephus relating to that part of Jewish
history: Ant. xi. 5. 2; xiv. 13. 5; xv. 2. 7;
3. 1; xvii. 2. 1-3; xviii. 9. 1, &c. ; xx. 4.
Jew. W. i. 13. 3.
H^ i^
PRE-EMINENCE OF THE BABYLONIANS. 9
Syrian monarchs (the Scloiicidae) — were indeed pre-eminently the CHAP.
Golah, or 'dispersion.' To them the Sanhech'in in Jerusalem in- I
timated by tire-signals from mountain-top to mountain-top the com- ^^ — . —
mencement of eacii month for the regulation of the festive calendar,'
even as they afterwards despatched messengers into Syria for the
same purpose.^ In some respects the Eastern dispersion was placed
on the same footing; in others, on even a higher level than the mother-
country. Tithes and Terumot/i, or firet-fruits in n prepared condition,* p -^^
were due from them, while the Blkkurim, or tirst-fruits in a fresh state,
were to be brought from Syria to Jerusalem. Unlike the heathen CLoUZ^^ Q.
countries, whose very dust defiled, the soil of Syria was declared clean,
like that of Palestine itself'' So far as purity of descent was con- ''Oiioi.^
cerned, the Babylonians, indeed, considered themselves superior to
tlieir Palestinian brethren. They had it, that when Ezra took with
him those who went to Palestine, he had left the land behind him as
l)ure as fine Hour.'' To express it in their own fashion: In regard to bKuui. 69 6
the genealogical purity of their Jewish inhabitants, all other countries
were, compared. to Palestine, like dough mixed with leaven; but
Palestine itself was such by the side of Babylonia.* It was even
maintained, that the exact boundaries could be traced in a district,
within which the Jewish population had preserved itself unmixed.
Great merit was in this respect also ascribed to Ezra. In the usual
mode of exaggeration, it was asserted, that, if all the genealogical
studies and researches^ had been put together, they would have
amounted to many hundred camel-loads. There was for it, however, at
least this foundation in truth, that great care and labour were bestowed
on preserving full and accurate records so as to establish purity of
descent. What importance attached to it, w^e know from the action ■
of Ezra*" in that respect, and from the stress which Josephus lays on -^chs. ix. x.
this point.'' Official records of descent as regarded the priesthood were aLifoi. ; Ag.
kept in the Temple. Besides, the Jewish authorities seem to have .
possessed a general official register, which Herod afterwards ordered to
be burnt, from reasons which it is not difficult to infer. But from
that day, laments a Rabbi, the glory of the Jews decreased!"
Nor was it merely purity of descent of which the Eastern dis-
persion could boast. In truth, Palestine owed everything to Ezra,
1 Rosh. haSh. ii. 4; comp. the Jer. ^ As comments upon tlie genealogies
Gemara on it, and in the Bab. Talmud from ' Azol ' in 1 Cbr. viii. 37 to ' Azel' iu
23 b. ix. 44. Pes. 62 b.
■^ Rosh. haSh. i. 4. 6 pes. 62 ft; Sachs, Beitr. vol. ii. p.
^ Shev. vi. jMSsim ; Gitt. 8 a. 157.
* Cheth. in a.
10
THE I'REPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
the Babylonian.' a man so di.stiuguislied that, according to tradition,
the Law would have been given by him, if Moses had not previously
obtained that honor. Putting aside the various traditional ordi-
nances which the Talmud ascribes to him,^ we know from the Scrip-
tures what his activity for good had been. Altered circumstances
had brought many changes to the new Jewish State. Even the
language, spoken and written, was other than formerly. Instead of
the characters anciently employed, the exiles brought with them, on
their return, those now common, the so-called square Hebrew letters,
sauh. 216 which gradually came into general use.''! The language spoken by
the Jews was no longer Hebrew, but Aramaean, both in Palestine and
in Ba])ylonia ; * in the former the Western, in the latter the Eastern
dialect. In fact, the common people were ignorant of pure Hebrew,
which henceforth became the language of students and of the
Syna'gogue. Even there a Methurgeman, or interpreter, had to be
employed to translate into the vernacular the portions of Scripture
read in the public services,^ and the addresses delivered by the Rabbis.
This was the origin of the so-called Targumim, or paraphrases of
Scripture. In earliest times, indeed, it was forbidden to the Me-
thurgeman to read his translation or to write down a Targum, lest
' According to tradition he returned to
Babylon, and died tliere. Jo3ephu3 says
that he died in Jerusalem (Ant. xi. 5. 5).
2 Herzfeld has given a very clear his-
torical arrangement of the order in which,
and the persons by whom, the various
legal determinations were supposed to
have been given. See Gesch. d. V. Isr.
vol. iii. pp. 240 &c.
^ Although thus introduced under Ezra,
the ancient Hebrew characters, which re-
semble the Samaritan, only very gradu-
ally gave way. They are found ou monu-
ments and coins.
* Herzfeld (u. s. vol. iii. i). 46) happily
designates the Palestinian as the Hebrajo-
Aramaic, from its Hebraistic tinge. The
Hebrew, as well as the Aramaean, belongs
to the Semitic group of languages, which
has thus been arranged: 1. North Semi-
tic: Punico-Phoenician. Hebrew, and
Aramaic (Western and Eastern dialects).
2. South Semitic: Arabic. Himyaritic.
and Ethiopian. 3. East Semitic: The
Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform. When we
speak of the dialect used in Palestine, we
do not, of course, forget the great in-
fluence of Syria, exerted long before and
after the Exile. Of these three branches
the Aramaic is the most closelv connected
with the Hebrew. Hebrew occupies an
intermediate position between the Ara-
maic and tlie x\rabic, and may be said to
be the oldest, certainly from a literary
point of view. Together with the intro-
duction of the new dialect into Palestine,
we mark that of the new, or square,
characters of writing. The Mishnah and
all tlie kindred literature up to the fourth
century are in Hebrew, or rather in a
modern development and adaptation of
that language ; the Talmud is in Aramaean.
Comp.on this subject : Be Wefte-^chrader,
Lehrb.d. hist. kr. Einl. (8 ed.) i)p. 71-88;
Herzof/'s Real-Encykl. vol. i. 4f,fi. 468 ; v.
614&C., 710; Zi^//z,"Gottesd.yortr. d- Jud.
pp. 7-9; llerzfehJ, u. s. pp. 44 kQ.. 38 &c.
" Could St. pani have had this in mind
when, in referring to the miraculous gift of
speaking in other languaijes, he directs
that one shall always interpret d Cor. xiv.
27)? At any rate, the word fargtim in
Ezra iv. 7 is rendered in tlie LXX. by
apurtvEVGo. The followins from the
Talmud fBer. 8 a and h) afforils a cu-
rious illustration of 1 Cor. xiv. 27: 'Let
a man always finish his Parashah (the
daily lesson from the Law) with the
congregation (at the same time) — twice
the text, and once targum.'
BABYLONLVN INFLUENCE ON THEOLOGY. n
the paraphrase should be regarded as of equal authority with the CHAP.
orig'iual. It was said that, when Jonathan brought out his Targuui I
on the Prophets, a voice from heaveu was heard to utter: ' Who is ^- — ~r — '
this that has revealed My secrets to men? ' " Still, such Targii- "Megiii.sa
mim seem to have existed from a very early period, and, amid
the varying and often incorrect renderings, their necessity must
have made itself increasingly felt. Accordingly, their use was
authoritatively sanctioned before the end of the second century after
Christ. This is the origin of our two oldest extant Tarcjinnim:
that of Onkelos (as it is called), on the Pentateuch; and that on
the Proi)hets, attributed to Jonathan the son of Uzziel. These names
do not, indeed, accurately represent the authorship of the oldest Tar-
guniim, which may more correctly be regarded as later and authorita-
tive recensions of what, in some form, had existed before. But
although these works had tlieir origin in Palestine, it is noteworthy
that, in the form in which at present we possess them, they are the
outcome of the schools of Babylon.
But Palestine owed, if possible, a still greater debt to Babylonia.
The new circumstances in which the Jews were placed on their
return seemed to render necessary an adaptation of the Mosaic Law,
if not new legislation. Besides, piety and zeal now attached them-
selves to the outward observance and study of the letter of the Law.
This is the origin of the JlisJinah, or Second Law, which was intended
to explain and supplement the first. This constituted the only
Jewish dogmatics, in the real sense, in the study of which the sage,
Rabbi, scholar, scribe, and Darshan,^ were engaged. The result of
it was the llldrash, or investigation, a term which afterwards was
popularly applied to commentaries on the Scriptures and preaching.
From the outset, Jewish theology divided into two branches: the
HalakJiah and the Haggadah. Tlrc former (from halakk, to go) was,
so to speak, the Rule of the Spiritual Road, and, when tixed, had
even greater authority than the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
since it explained and applied them. On the other hand, the
Haggadah^ (from nagad, to tell) was only the personal saying of
the teacher, more or less valuable according to his learning and
populnrity, or the authorities which he could quote in his support.
Fnlike the EaJoMah, the Haggadal} had no absolute authority,
either as to doctrine practice, or exegesis. But all the greater would
' From clavasih. to searcli out, literally, = The TIalnkhali miijlit be described as
to tread out. The preacher was after- the apoer>i)hal Pentateuch, the Hagga-
wards called the Darshan. dab as the apocryphal Prophets.
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
be its popular influence,' and all the more dangerous the doctrinal
license which it allowed. In fact, strange as it may sound, almost
all the doctrinal teaching of the Synagogue is to be derived from the
Haggadah — and this also is characteristic of Jewish traditionalism.
But, alike in Halakhah and Haggadah, Palestine was under the
deepest obligation to Babylonia. For the father of Halakhic study
was Hillel, the Babylonian, and among the popular Haggadists there
is not a name better known than that of Eleazar the Mede, who
flourished in the first century of our era.
After this, it seems almost idle to inquire whether, during the
first period after the return of the exiles from Babylon, there were
regular theological academies in Babylon. Although it is, of course,
impossible to furnish historical proof, we can scarcely doubt that a
community so large and so intensely Hebrew would not have been
indiftercnt to that study, which constituted the main thought and
engagement of their brethren in Palestine. We can understand that,
since the great Sanhedrin in Palestine exercised supreme spiritual
authority, and in that capacity ultimately settled all religious
questions — at least for a time^the study and discussion of these
subjects should also have been chiefly carried on in the schools of
Palestine; and that even the great Hillel himself, when still a poor
and unknown student, should have wandered thither to acquire the
learning and authority, which at that period he could not have found
in his own country. But even this circumstance implies, that such
studies were at least carried on and encouraged in Babylonia. How
rapidly soon afterwards the authority of the Babylonian schools
increased, till they not only overshadowed those of Palestine, but
finally inherited their prerogatives, is well known. However, there-
fore, the Palestinians in their pride or jealousy might sneer, ^ that the
Babylonians were stupid, proud,- and poor ( ' they ate bread upon
bread '),^ even they had to acknowledge that, ' when the Law had
fallen into oblivion, it was restored by Ezra of Babylon; when it was
a second time forgotten, Hillel the Babylonian came and recovered
it; and when yet a third time it fell into oblivion, Rabbi Cliija came
from Babylon and gave it back once more. ' *
1 We may here remind ourselves of 1 is mentioned as a reason wliy the Shekhi-
Tim. V. 17. St. Paul, as always, writes nah could not rest upon a certain Ral)lji.
with the familiar Jewish phrases ever ■' Pes. 34 b; Men. 52 (t; Sanh. 24 n;
recurring to his mind. The expression Bets. 16 n — apud Neiihauer, Geog. du
SiSadKaXia seems to be equivalent to Talmud, ]). 32.3. In Keth. 75 a, they
Halakhic teaching. Comp. (/?•»???», Cla- are styled the 'silly Babylonians.' See
vis N. T. pp. 98, 99. also Jer. Pes. 32 a. "
■^ In Moed Q. 25 (i. sojourn in Babylon * Sukk. 20 a. R. Chija, one of the
JEWISH WANDERERS IN THE FAR EA8T.
13
CHAP.
I
tLX
Sucli tlii'ii was that Hebrew dispersion which, t'roiii tlie tirst, eoii-
stitute(l really the chief part and the strength of the .Jewish nation,
and with which its religious future was also to lie. For it is one of
those strangely signiticant, almost symbolical, facts in history, that
after the destruction of Jerusalem the spiritual sujjremacy of Palestine
passed to Babylonia, and that Rabbinical Judaism, under the stress
of political adversity, voluntarily transferred itself to the seats of
Israel's ancient disi^ersion, as if to ratify by its o^^ai act what the
judgment of God had formerly executed. But long before that time
the Babylonian '■ dispersion ' had already stretched out its hands in
every direction. Northwards, it had spread through Armenia, the
Caucasus, and to the shores of the Black Sea, and through Media to
those of the Caspian. Soutlnvards, it had extended to the Persian Gulf
and through the vast extent of Arabia, although Arabia Felix and the
land of the Ilomerites may have received their first Jewish colonies
from the opposite shores of Ethiopia. Eastwards it had passed as far ^ ., .
as India.' Ever3'where we have distinct notices of these wanderers, i^u^tA ^
and everywhere they appear as in closest connection with the Rabbi- O,
nical hierarchy of Palestine. Thus the Mishnah, in an extremely
curious section, Hells.us how on Sabbaths the Jewesses of Arabia might
wear their long veils, and those of India the kerchief round the head,
customary in those countries, without incurring the guilt of desecrating
the holy day by needlessly carrying what, in the eyes of the law, would be
a burden;-' while in the rubric for the Day of Atonement we have it
noted that the dress which the High-Priest wore '■ between the even-
ings' of the great fast — that is, as afternoon darkened into evening —
was of most costly 'Indian' stuflt'.''
That among such a vast community there should have been poverty,
and that at one time, as the Palestinians sneered, learning may have
been left to pine in want, we can readily believe. For, as one of the
Rabbis had it in explanation of Dent. xxx. 1.3: 'Wisdom is not
" beyond the sea " — that is, it will not be found among |;raders or
merchants,'" whose mind must be engrossed by gain. And it was
•' Shabb.
vi. 6
'Yomanl.
teachers of the second century, is among
llie most-celebrated Rabbinical authori-
ties, around whose memorj' legend has
thrown a special halo.
' In this, as in so many respects. Dr.
Nenharier has collated very interesting
information, to which we refer. See his
Geogr. du Talm., pp. 369-399.
2 The whole section gives a most
curious glimpse of the dress and orna-
ments worn by the Jews at that time.
The reader interested in the subject will
find special information in the tlnee little
volumes of Ihirtmann (Die Heliriierin
am Putztische), in 3". G. Sc/ifbder'stiome-
what heavy work: De Vestitu Mulier.
Hel)r., and especially in that interesting
tractate, Trachten d. Juden, ])y Dr. A.
Briin, of whicli, unfortunately, only one
part has appeared.
14 THE Pliin'AKATION FOR THE GUSPEI..
BOOK trade and commerce which procured to the 13al)yl()iiiaiis their wealth
I and influence, although agriculture was not neglected. Their cara-
■ — ~. — ' vans — of whose camel drivers, l)y the way, no very flattering account
''Kicui. iv. is given" — carried the rich carpets and woven stuff's of the East, as
well as its precious spices, to the West: generally through Palestine
to the Phoenician harbours, where a fleet of merchantmen belonging
to Jewish bankers and shippers lay ready to convey them to every
quarter of the world. These merchant i)rinces were keenly alive to
all that passed, not only in the flnancial, but in the political world.
We know that they were in possession of State secrets, and entrusted
with the intricacies of diplomacy. Yet, whatever its condition, this
Eastern Jewish community was intensely Hebi-ew. Only eight days'
journey — though, according to Philo's western ideas of it, by a diffi-
cult road' — separated them from Palestine; and every pulsation there
vibrated in Babylonia. It was in the most outlying part of that
colony, in the wide plains of Arabia, that Saul of Tarsus spent those
three years of silent thought and unknown labour, which preceded his
re-appearance in Jerusalem, when from the burning longing to labour
among his brethren, kindled by long residence among these Hebrews
of the Hebrews, he was directed to that strange work which was his
KGai. i. 17; Ufe's missiou." And it was among the same community that Peter
«ipet. V. 13 wrote and laboured,'^ amidst discouragements of which we can form
some conception from the sad boast of Nehardaa, that up to the end
of the third century it had nut numbered among its members any
convert to Christianity. -
In what has been said, no notice has been taken of those wan-
derers of the ten tribes, whose trackless footsteps seem as mysterious
as their after-fate. The Talmudists name four countries as their seats.
But, even if we were to attach historic creilence to their vague state-
ments, at least two of these localities cannot with any certainty be
identified.^ Only thus far all agree as to point us northwards, through
India, Armenia, the Kurdish mountains, and the Caucasus. And with
this tallies a curious reference in what is known as IV. Esdras,
which locates them in a land called Arzareth. a term which has,
with some probability, l)een identified with the land of Ararat,*
1 rhilo ad Cajuni, ed. Frcf. p. 1023. For the i-easons there stated. I prefer tliis
- Pes. 56 a, apud Xeubauer, u. s., p. to the inii;eiiious interpretation proi)osed
351. liy Dr. Scliilh'r-Szinessy (.lourn. of Philol.
3 Comp. Neiihduer, jtp. 315, 372 ; Hum- for ls70, p)). 113. 114), who re,2;aTds it as
bur'jp.r, Real-Enoykl. ]). 135. a contraction of Erez acheretJi, 'an-
* Comp. Vri//,-i)i(ir, Handl). d. Einl. in other land.' referred to in Deut. xxix. 27
d. Apol<r. ii"^^ Abth.. pp. 193, 194, notes. (28).
TIIK 'IJ)ST' TRIBES.
15
Josc'phus' describes tlu'Ui as ;i 11 iiiiiimici'able miiltitiKlc, and \a,nii('ly
locates them beyond the Eiipliiates. Tlie Mishiiali is sihuit as to
their seats, but discusses their liiture restorati(Ju; ilablji Akiba deny-
ing- and Ilabbi Eliezer auticii)atin,iA' it.'' Another Jewish tradition'
locates tliem by the t'abk'd river Habbatyon, which was sui)})osed to
cease its tiow on tlie weekly Sabbath. This, of course, is an implied
admission of ignorance of their seats. Similarly, the Talmud ' sjjcaks
of three localities whither they had been Ijanished : the district
around the river Sat)batyon; I)ai)hne, near Antioch; while the tliird
was overshadowed and hidden by a cloud.
Later Jewish notices connect the tinal discovery and the return
of the Most tribes" with their conversion under that second Messiah
who, in contradistinction to ' the Son of David ' is styled ' the Son of
Joseph,' to whom Jewish tradition ascribes what it cannot reconcile
with the royal dignity of 'the Son of David,' and which, if applied
to Ilim, would almost inevitably lead up to the most wide concessions
in the Christian argument.*' As regards the ten tribes there is this
truth underlying the strange hypothesis, that, as their persistent
apostacy from the God of Israel and His worship had cut them otf
from his people, so the fultihuent of the Divine promises to them in
the latter days would imj^ly, as it were, a second birth to make them
once more Israel. Beyond this wc are travelling chietly into the
region of conjecture. Modern investigations have pointed to the
Nestorians,^ and latterly with almost convincing evidence (so far as
such is possible) to the Afghans, as descended from the lost tribes.*
Such mixture with, and lapse into, Gentile nationalities seems to have
been before the minds of those Rabbis who ordered that, if at present
a non-Jew weds a Jewess, such a union was to be respected, since
the stranger might be a descendant of the ten tribes.' Besides,
there is reason to believe that part of them, at least, had coalesced
with their brethren of the later exile; ^^ while we know that indi-
viduals who had settled in Palestine and, presumably, elsewhere, Avere
ClIAI'.
1
"Ant. xi.5. 'J
■ Sanh. X. :i
Ber. R. 7:{
e Yebam.
16 6
1 R. Eliezer seems to connect their
return with the dawn of the new Mes-
sianic day.
'^ This is not the place to discuss the
later Jewish fiction of a second or ' suf-
ferins;' Messiah, 'the son of Joseph,'
wliose special mission it would lie to
lirine: back the ten tribes, and to subject
them to Messiah, 'the son of David,' but
who would perish in the war against
Goa; and Maa;o£r.
^ Comp. the work of Dr. Asahel Grant
on the Nestorians. His ariiunients have
been well summarised and exi)andt'(l iu
an interesting note in Mr. Sii/t's Sketch
of Samaritan History, pi). 2-4.
* I would here call special attention
to a; most interesting paper on the sub-
ject ('A New Afghan Question '), by Mr.
H. W. Bellexr, 'n\ the •Journal of the
United Service Institutidii of India,' for
1881. pp. 49-97. ■' Kidd. (59 b.
16 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOrfPEl..
able to trace descent from them.' Still the great mass of the teu
tribes was in the days of Christ, as in our own, lost to the Hebrew
nation.
1 So Anna' from the tribe of Aser, St. ments are not convincing, and iiis opin-
Luke ii. 'M\. Lutterheck (Neutest. Lehr- ion was certainly not that of those who
begr. pp. 102, 103) argues that the ten lived in the time of Christ, or who re-
tribes had become wholly undistinguish- fleeted their ideas,
able from the other two. But his argu-
GREEK INFLUENCES ON THE HELLENIST JEWS. 17
^JuL^u^-^Ul^^^-^^^^^^^^
CHAPTER II.
THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE WEST — THE HELLENISTS — ORIGIN OF
HELLENIST LITERATURE IN THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE
BIBLE — CHARACTER OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
When wc turn from the Jewish ' dispersion ' in the East to that in CHAP.
the West, we seem to breathe quite a ditiercnt atmosphere. Despite H
tlicir intense nationalism, all unconsciously to themselves, their mental "^ — "y- — ^
characteristics and tendencies were in the opposite direction from
those of their brethren. With those of the East rested the future of
Judaism; with them of the West, in a sense, that of the world.
The one represented old Israel groping back into the darkness of the
]mst; the other young Israel, stretching forth its hands to where
the dawn of a new day was a])out to break. These Jews of the
West are known by the term HeJ1c)il>its — from eK.Xtfvi8,8iv^ to conform
to the language and manners of the Greeks. ^
Whatever their religious and social isolation, it was, in the nature
of t hings, impossible that the Jewish communities in the West should
remain unati'ccted by Grecian cultuje and modes of thought: just as,
on the other hand, the Greek world. des})ite popular hatred and the
contempt of the higher classes,\ould not wholly withdraw itself from
Jewish intluences/.- Witness hei'e the many convei'ts to .Iinhn'suj
among the (jjentiles ; - witness also t he evident i)reparedness of the lands
of this ' dispersion ' for the new doctrine which was to conu* from
Judaea. Many causes contributed to render the Jews of the West ^
accessible to Greek intluenccs. They had not a long local liistory to -^^^-'^^^-^ /
look ]);i(',k ii])on. nor did thev form a eoinp;ict body, like tlieii- liivtluvr 'wTa2U
in the East. Thev were craftsmen, traders, merchants, settled for a a
-T^ ^^^ ' ^ (5Vl^ ^
1 Indeed, the word Ahiisti (or Aln- j Test.) on Acts vi. 1, agTeeiiig- with Dr.
nistin) — 'Greek' — actually occurs, as in j Roberts, argue.s that the term 'Hellenist'
.Ter. Sot. 21 I), line 14 from bottom. Bold \ indicated only principles, and not birth-
place, and that there were Hebrews and
Hellenists in and out of Palestine. But
this view is untenable.
^ An account of this proiiaganda of
Judaism and of its results will be given
in another connection.
(Forsch. n. ein. Volksb. p. 7) quotes Philo j
(l^eg. ad Caj. \). 102;?) in proof that he
i-egarded the Eastern dispersion as a
branch separate from the Palestinians.
But the passage does not convey to me
the inference whicli he draws from it.
Di'. Guiliemard (Hebraisms in the (Jreek
S..>UL
18
THE PREPAKATION FOl! THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
I
\?
time hero or there — units which niigiit combine into communities,
])ut could not I'oi'iii one ))e()))h-. Then tlieir V)Ositi(jn was not favour-
able to tlie sway of traditionalisnw/ Their occupatii ns, the verv
reasons for their being in a ' strange land,' were purely secular. That
jofty absorjition of thought and life in the study of the Law, writteB^
and oral, which characterised the East, was to them something in the
dim distance, sacred, like the/soi^ and the institutions of Palestine, but
unattainable. In Palestine or Babylonia numberless influences from
his earliest years, all that he saw and heard, the very force of circum-
stances, would tend to make an earnest Jew a disciple of the Rabbis;
in the West it vrould lead him to Miellenise.' It was, so to speak,
'in the air'; and he could no more shut his mind against Greek
thought than he could withdraw his body from atmospheric influences.
That restless, searching, sul^tle Greek intellect would penetrate ever}^-
where, and flash its light into the innermost recesses of his home
and Synagogue.
To be sure, they were intensely Jewish, these communities of
strangers. Like our scattered colt)nists in distant lands, they would
cling with double atFection to the customs of their home, and invest
with the halo of tender memories the sacred traditions of their faith.
The Grecian Jew might well look with contempt, not unmingled with
pity, on the idolatrous rites practised around, from which long ago
the pitiless irony of Isaiah had torn the veil of beauty, to show the
hideousness and unreality beneath. The dissoluteness of public and
])i-ivate life, the frivolity and aimlessness of their pursuits, political
aspirations, popular assemblies, amusements — in short, the utter decay
of society, in all its phases, would lie open to his gaze. It is in
terms of lofty scorn, not unmingled with indignation, which only
occasionally gives way to the softer mood of warning, or even invita-
tion, that Jewish Hellenistic literature, whether in the Apocrypha or
in its Apocalyptic utterances, addresses heathenism.
From that spectacle the Grecian Jew would turn Avith infinite
satisfaction — not to say, pride — to his own community, to think of
its spiritual enlightenment, and to pass in revicAv its exclusive
]mvileges\ It was with no uncertain steps that he would go past
those si)lendid temples to his own humbler Synagogue, pleased to find
himself there surrounded by those who shared his descent, his faith,
his liopes; and gratified to see their number swelled by many who,
heathens l)y birth, had learned the error of their ways, and now, so to
speak, humlily stood as suppliant 'strangers of the gate,' to seek
' St. Paul fully describes tliese feelings in tlie Epistle to the Romans.
CHAP.
TI
a De Vita
Mosl8,
p. 68") ; Leg.
ad Oaj.
I). 1014
'■ Leg. ad
Caj. p. 1035
« Ag. Aplon
li. 17
THK IIKLLENIST SYNAGOqUES:_ , 19
uduiit^sit)!! into hi.s sauctuni'j.' Hoav ditl'erent were the rites which he
l)ractisc(l, hallowed in their Divine origin, rational in themselves, and
at the same time deei)ly sigiiilicant,,'tn)ni the absurd superstitions
around. Who could have c()nii)ared with the voiceless, meaningless,
blasphemous heathen worshi}), if it deserved the name, that of the
Synagogue, with its i)athetic hymns, its sublime liturgy, its Divine
Scriptures, and tliose ' stated sermons ' which ' instructed in virtue and
l)iety,' of which not only I'hilo," Agri])pa,'' and Josephns," speak as a
regular institution, but whose antiquity and general prevalence is
attested in Jewish writings,^ and nowiiere more strongly tlian in the
book of the Acts of the Apostles?
And in these Synagogues, how" would ' l)rotherly love ' be called
out, since, if one member suffere<l, all might soon be affected, and the
danger whicli threatened one community would, unless averted, ere
long overwiielin the rest. There was little need for the admonition
not to 'forget the love of strangers.'* To entertain them was not
merely a virtue; in the Hellenist dispersion it w^as a religious
necessity. And by such means not a few whom they would regard
as ' heavenly messengers ' might be welcomed. From the Acts of the
Apostles we knew with what eagerness they would receive, and with
what readiness they would invite, the passing Rabbi or teacher, Avho
came_from the home of tlieir faith^ to speak, if there were in them a
word of comforting exhortation for the people.'* We ~caiT scarcely
douV)t, considering the state of things, that this often bore on 'the
consolation of Israel.' But, indeed, all that came from Jerusalem, all Acts.xm. iPj
that helped them to realise their living connection with it, or bound
it more closely, was precious. 'Letters out of Judaea,' the tidings
which someone might bring on liis return from festive pilgrimage or
business journey, especially about anything connected with that grand
expectaticni — the star which w^as to rise on the Eastern sky — would
soon spread, till the Jewish i)edlar in his wanderings had carried the
news to the most distant and isolated Jewish home, wdicre he might
tind a Sabbath-welcome and Sabbath-rest.
'* A6y09 TTa-
paKArjo-eo)?
TTpb? TOf
1 The ' Gerey haShaar,^ proselytes of
the gate, a designation whicli some have
derived from the circumstance that Gen-
tiles were not allowed to advance be-
yond the Tenii)le Court, but more likely
to be traced to such passages as Ex. xx.
10; Deut. xiv. 21; xxiv. 14.
^ Comp. here Targ. Jon. on Judg. v.
2, 9. I feel more hesitation in appeal-
ing to such passages as Ber. 19 a, where
we read of a Rabbi in Rome, Thodos
(Theudos?), who llourislied several gen-
erations before Hillel. for reasons which
the passage itself will suggest to the
student. At the time of Philo. however,
such instructions in th(> Synagogues at
Rome were a long-established institution
(Ad Caj. p. lOU).
^ (piXo^Evia, Hebr. .\iii. 2.
20
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
c^-
BOOK Such undoubtedly was t\ui case. And yet, when the Jew stej2l3e<l
I out of tlie naiT()wcircle wliich he had drawuuaround liini, he was
^~'^fSi'^^ C(ml'routed on eveFy side by Greciaujsni. Jt was in the Ibi-uni, in the
n-ket, in tlie counting-house, in the street; in all that he saw, and
in all to whom he spoke. It was retined; it was elegant; it was
profound; it was supremely attractive. He might resist, but he could
not i)ush it aside. Even in resisting, he had already yielded to it.
For, once o\)Qn the door to the questions which it brought, if it were
only to expel, or repel them, he must give n\) that principle of simple
authority on whicli traditionalism as a system rested. Hellenic
criticism could not so he silenced, nor its searching light be extin-
guished by the breath of a Rabbi. U he attempt(,Ml this, the truth
would not only ])e worsted before its enemies, but suffer detriment in
his own eyes. He must meet argument with argument, and that not
only for those who were without, but in order to be liimself quite sure
of what he believed. He must be able to hold it, not only in con-
troversy with others, where pride might l)id him stand fast, but in
that much more serious contest Avithin. wlnire a man meets the old
la of his own niiud. and has to
lit, in which hcJjiunchcered by
V^
adversary alone in the secret ai'cn
sustaTiTthat terrible hand-to-hand tii
outwar*! hel)). ]>ut A\hy slioiihl he shrink from the contest, wlien he
was sure that his was Divine truth, and that therefore victory must
be on his side? As in our nujdern conHicts against the onesided in-
ferences from i^hysical investigations we are wont to say that the
truths of nature cannot contradict those of revelation — both l)eing of
God — and as we are apt to regard as truths of nature what sometimes
are only deductions from paitially ascertained facts, and as truths of
revelation what, after all, may ))e only our own inferences, sometimes
from imperfectly apprehended premises, so the Hellenist would seek
to conciliate the truths of Divine revelation with those others which,
Tic~thought, he recognised m llelieiTism. hut what A\ere the truths
of Divine revelatu)n? Was it only the substance of Scripture, or
also its form — the truth itself which was conveyed, or the manner in
which it was presented to the Jews; oi-, if both, then did the two
stand on exactly the same footing? On the answer to these questions
Avould depend how little or how much he would 'hellenise.'
One thing at any rate was quite certain. The Old Testament,
leastwise, the La\v of Moses, was directly and wholly from God; and
if so, then its form also — its letter — must be authentic and authorita-
tive. Thus much on the surface, and Ibr all. \\\\\ the student must
search deeper into it, his senses, as it were, quickened by Greek
HELLENIST VIEWS OF SCRII'TrUE. 21
criticism; he must 'meditate' and penetrate into the Divine mys- CHAP,
teries. The Palestinian also searched into them, and the I'csult was the H
Midrash. But, whichever of his methods he had ai)plicd — the Peshat^ ' 1 —
or simple criticism of the words, the DerusJi, or search into the i)Os-
sibie api)lications of the text, what might be 'trodden out' of it; or
the Sod, the hidden, m3Stical, sui)ranatural bearinii- of the words — it
was still only the letter of the text that had been studied. There was,
indeed, yet another understanding' of the Scriptures, to Avhicli St.l'aul
directed his disci})les: the spiritual bearing of its spiritual truths.
Hut that needed another qualitication, and tended in another direction
from those of which the Jewish student knew. On the other hand,
there was the intellectual view of the Scriptures — their philosophical
understanding, the application to them of the results of Grecian
thought and criticism. It was this which was peculiarly Hellenistic.
Apply that method, and the deei)er the explorer proceeded in his
search, the more would he feel himself alone, far from the outside
crowd; but the brighter also would that light of criticism, which he
carried, shine in the growing darkness, or, as he held it u]), would
the precious ore, Avliich he laid bare, glitter and sparkle with a
thousand varying hues of brilliancy. What was Jewish, Palestinian,
individual, concrete in the Scriptures, was only the outside — true in
itself, but not the truth. There were depths beneath. Strip these
stories of their nationalism; idealise the individual of the })ersons
introduced, and you came upon abstract ideas and realities, true to all
tiine and to all nations. But this deep syml)olism was Pythagorean;
this pre-existence of ideas which were the types of all outward
actuality, was Platonism! Broken rays in them, but the focus of
truth in the Scriptures. Yet these were rays, and could only have
come from the Sun. All truth was of God; hence theirs nnist have
been of that origin. Then were the sages of the heathen also in a
sense God-taught — and God-teaching, or inspiration, was rather a
question of degree than of kind !
One step only remained; and that, as we imagine, if not the
easiest, yet, as we reflect upon it, that which in practice would be
most readily taken. It was simply to advance towards Grccianism:
frankly to recognise truth in the resvdts of Greek jt bought. There is
that within us, name it mental consciousness, or as you will, which,
all unbidden, rises to answer to the voice of intellectual truth, come
whence it may, just as conscience answers to the cause of moral truth
or duty. But in this case there was more. There was jthe mighty
six'll which Greek i)hilosophy exercised on all kindred minds, and the
■7
- 6n^
u
2 Till-: PRKl'AKATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK jripecial adaptation of the Jewisli intellect to such subtle, if not deep,
1 thinking. And, in general, and more powerful than the rest, because
^^ ,- — penetrating everywhere, \v^j_llie. charm of (Jreek literatuxe, with its
brilliancy; of Greek civilisation and culture^jvith. their pQlisbjamL
attractiveness^^ and of what, in one word, we may call the '■ time-
spirit,' that tyrannos, who rules all in their thinking, speaking, doing,
/r\ whether they list or not.
'--' — ' Why, his sway extended even to Talestine itself, and was felt in
the innermost circle of the most exclusive Rabbinisni. We are not
li(;re referring to the fact that the very language spoken in Palestine
caine to be very largely charged with Greek, and even Latin, words
Ilebraised, since this is easily accounted for by the new circumstances,
and the necessities of intercourse with the dominant or resident
foreigners. Nor is it requisite to point out how impossible it would
have been, in presence of so many from the Greek and Roman world,
and after the long and persistent struggle of their rulers to Grecianise
Palestine, nay, even in view of so many magnificent heathen temples
on the very soil of Palestine, to exclude all knowledge of, or contact
with Grecianism. But not to be able to exclude was to have in sight
the dazzle of that unknown, which as such, and in itself, must have
luul peculiar attractions to the Jewish mind. It needed stern
principle to repress the curiosity thus awakened. When a young
Ral)l)i, BeriDama, asked his uncle whether he might not study Greek
philosophy, since he had mastered the 'Law' in every aspect of it,
the older Rabbi replied by a reference to Josh. i. 8: 'Go and search
what is the hour which is neither of the day nor of the night, and in
"Men. 99;., it thou maycst study Greek philosophy.'" Yet even the Jewish
end })atriarch, Gamaliel IL, who may have sat with Saul 01 Tarsus at the
feet of his grandfather, was said to have busied himself with Greek,
as he certainly held liberal views on many points connected with
Grecianism. To be sure, tradition justified him on the ground that
his position brought hiin into contact with the ruling powers, and,
perhaps, to further vindicate him, ascribed similar pursuits to the
elder Gamaliel, although groundlessly, to judge from the circumstance
that he was so impressed even with the wrong of possessing a Targum
on .lob in Aramaean, that he had it buried deep in the ground.
But all these are indications of a tendency existing. How wide
it must have spread, appears from the fact that the ban had to be
pronounced on all who studied 'Greek wisdom.' One of the greatest
Rabbis, Elisha ben Abujah, seems to have been actually led to
apostacy by such studies. True, he appears as the ^Acher'' — the
'other' — in Talmudic writings, Avhom it was not proper even to
THE SEPTUAGINT AS THE PEOPLE'S BIIJLE. 23
naiuo. But he was not yet an apostate tVoni the Synagogue when CHAP.
tlu).se ' Greek songs ' ever tlowed from his lips; and it was in the veiy H
Beth-lia-Midrash. ov theologieal aeadeniy, tliat a multitude of SipJireij '^ — .' —
3IiiiiiH (heretical l)ooks) Hew Irom his breast, where they had lain
concealed/' It nmy be so, tluit the expression ^ Hiplirty Homeros^ -jcr. chag.
(Homeric writings), which occur not only in the Talmud ''but even ciiag.^i™^'
in the Mishnah' reterred pre-eminently, it not exclusively, to the ''Jer. sanh.
' _ • ' -^ ' X. 28 a
religious (u- semi-religious Jewish Hellenistic literat.ure, outside even <•• vad. iv. g
the Apocrypha.' But its occurrence proves, at any rate, that the
Hellenists were credited with the study of Greek literature, and tliat
through tliem, il' not moi-e directly, the Palestinia.ns had become
acciuainted with it.
This sketch will pre})are us for a rapid survey of that Hellenistic
literature which Judasa so mucli drea<}ed. Its importance, not only to
the Hellenists but to the world at large, can scarcely be over-estimated.
First and foremost, we have here the Greek translation of the Old
Testament, veneral)le not only as the oldest, but as that which at the
time of Jesus held the place of our * Authorized Aversion,' and as
such is so often, although freely, quoted, in the New Testament. Nor
need we wonder that it slioidd have been the people's Bible, not
merely among the Hellenists, but in Galilee, and even in Judaea. It
was not only, as already exjilained, that Hebrew was no longer tlie
' vulgar tongue ' in Palestine, and that written Targuinim were pro-
liibited. But most, if not all — at least in towns — would understand
the Greek version; it might be quoted in intercourse with Hellenist
In-ethren or with the Gentiles; and, what was perhaps equally, if not
more important, it was the most readily procurable. From the extreme
labour and care bestowed on them, Hebrew manuscrii)ts of the Bible
were enormously dear, as we infer from a curious Talmudical notice,'' 'iGut.a^x.
1 11 1 • 1 r 1 last line,
where a connnon woollen wra}), which ot course yvas very cheap, a coj)y ana u
of the Psalms, of Job, and torn pieces from Proverbs, are together
valued at tive nianeh — say, about 19?. Although this notice dates from
the third or fourth century, it is not likely that the cost of Hebrew
BiVdical MSS. was much lower at the lime of Jesus. This would, of
course, put their possession well nigh out of common reach. On the
' Throu<2;h tliis literature, whicli as Bibel u. Talmud, vol. ii. pp. 68, 69), the
bein<!; .Jewisli might have i)assed unsus- expre.-^rfion Siphroy Ilomeros applies
peeted, a dangerous acquaintance might exchisively to the Juda^o-AIexandvian
have been introduced with Greek writ- heretical writings; according to Fur>it
ings — the more readily, that for example (Kanon d. A. Test. p. 98), simjjly to
Aristobulus described Homer and Ilesiod Homeric literature. But see the discus-
as having 'drawn from our liooks' (ap. sion in Xer//, Neuhebr. u. Chald.Worterb.,
Euseh. Pra^par. Evang. xiii. 12). Ac- vol. i. p. 176 ii and l>.
cording to Ilamhin-r/er (Real-Encykl. fiir
24 THE PREPARATION P^OR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK other hand, we are able to Un-\n an idea of the cheainics.s of Greek
I manuscripts from what we know of the price of l)ooks in Rome at the
"*— ^v — he.iiinning- of our era. Hunch-eds of slaves were there engaged copying
what one dictated. The result was not only the publication of as
large editions as in our days, but their production at only about double
the cost of what are now known as 'cheap' or ' })eople's editions.'
Probably it would be safe to compute, that as much matter as would
cover sixteen pages of small print might, in such cases, be sold at the
rate of about sixpence, and in that ratio.' Accordingly, manuscripts
in Greek or Latin, although often incorrect, must have been easily
attainable, and this would have considerable influence on nuiking the
Greek version of the Old Testament the 'people's Bible. -
The Greek version, like the Targum of the Palestinians, originated,
no doubt, in the first place, in a felt national want on the part of the
Hellenists, who as a body were ignorant of- Hebrew. Hence we find
notices of very early Greek versions of at least parts of the Penta-
teuch.^ But this, of course, could not suffice. On the other hand,
there existed, as Ave may suppose, a natural curiosity on the part of
students, especially in Alexandria, which had so large a Jewish popu-
lation, to know the sacred liooks on which the religion and history of
Israel were founded. Even more than this, we must take into
account the literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors in
Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour which
the Jews for a time enjoyed. Ptolemy I. (Lagi) was a great patron
of learning. He projected the Museum in Alexandria, which was a
liome for literature and study, and founded the great library.' In
these undertakings Demetrius Phalereus was his chief adviser. The
tastes of the first Ptolemy were inherited by his son, Ptolemy II.
^286-284B.c. (Philadelphus), who had for two years been co-regent.^ In fact,
ultimately that monarch became literally book-mad, and the sums
spent on rare MSS., which too often proved spurious, almost pass
belief. The same may be said of the third of these monarchs,
Ptolemy III. (Euergetes). It would have been strange, indeed, if
these monarchs had not sought to enrich their library with an
authentic rendering of the Jewish sacred books, or not encouraged
such a translation.
' Comp. Frif^dUiridar, gitteiii;-. Roins, ^ i^.,-,>,./,^/,„//,.,. in -p^gp), Pi-ajpjii-.Evanfr.
vol. iii. p. 31.'). ix. f>; xiii. 12. Tlie douhts raised by
2 To these calL^es there should perhaps //^qc/?/ aijaiust this testimony have been
be added the attempt to iiiti'odiice Gre- li-enerally repudiated by critics since the
danism by force inlo Palestine, the con- treatise ijy Fa?fe??aer (Diatr. de Aristob.
sequences which it may have left, and the .Tud. appended to Gai'sford's eA. of the
existence of a Grecian i)arty in the land. Pnepar. Evang.).
ORIGIN OF THE 8EPTITAGINT. 25
These circuiiistauces will account for the ditt'erent elements which CHAP,
we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and explain il
the historical, or rather legendary, notices which we have of its - — .' — '
composition. To Ix'gin with the latter. Josephiis has preserved
what, no doubt in its present form, is a spurious letter from one
Aristeas to his brother Philocrates,' in which we are told how, by the
advice of his librarian (?), Demetrius Phalereus, Ptolemy II. had
sent by him (Aristeas) and another officer, a letter, with rich presents,
to Eleazar, the High-Priest at Jerusalem; who in turn had selected
seventy-two translators (six out of each tribe), and furnished them
with a most valuable manuscript of the Old Testament. The letter
then gives further details of their splendid reception at the E]gyptian
court, and of their sojourn in the island of Pharos, where they ac-
complished their work in seventy-two days, when they returned to
.lerusalom laden with rich presents, their translation having received
the formal approval of the Jewish Sanhedrin at Alexandria. From
this account we may at least derive as historical these facts: that
the Pentateuch — for to it only the testimony refers — was translated
into Greek, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalereus, in the reign
and under the patronage — if not by direction — of Ptolemy II,
(Philadelphus).' With this the Jewish accounts agree, which describe
the translation of the Pentateuch under Ptolemy — the Jerusalem Tal-
mud ''in a simpler narrative, the Babylonian" w^tli additions apparently '' ^^^s- *•
derived from the Alexandrian legends; the former expressly noting
thirteen, the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original text. '^
The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more likely
by several persons/ the other books of the Old Testament would
1 Comp. Joseplii Opera, ed. Haver- KeiJ, Lelirb. d. hist. kr. Eiul. d. A. T.,
camp, vol. ii. App. pp. 103-132. The p.. 551, note 5.
best and most critical edition of this ^ It is scarcely worth while to refute
letter by Prof. M. Schmidt, in Merx' the view of Tychsen, Jost (Gescli. d.
Archiv. i. pp. 252-310. The story is Judenth.), and others, that the Jewish
found in Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 2; Ag. Ap. ii. writers only wrote down for Ptolemy
4; Philo, de Vita Mosis, lib. ii. § 5-7. the Hebrew words in Greek letters.
The extracts are most fully given in But the word ^ji'i cannot possibly bear
Easeh. Pra.>par. Evang. Some of the that meaning in this connection. Comp.
Fathers give the story, with additional also Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 31.
embellishments. It was first critically * According to Sopher. i. 8, by five
called in question by Body (Contra His- persons, but that seems a round number
toriam Aristene de L. X. interpret, dissert. to correspond to the five books of Moses.
Oxon. 1685), and has since been generally Fninkel (Ueber d. Eiiitl. d. iialiist. Exeg.)
regarded as legendary. But its founda- labours, however, to sliow in detail the
tion in fact has of late been recognized differences between the difierent trans-
by well nigh all critics, tliongh the letter lators. But his criticism is often strained,
itself is pseudonymic, and full of fabuhnis and the solution of the question is ap-
details. parently impossible.
~ This is also otherwise attested. See
Meg. 9 a
26 THE PREPARATION FOR THE (JOSPEL.
l!()(»K nntiii-nlly soon receive the same treatnicnt. They were evidently
' rendei'cd by a number of})ersons, who possessed very different qualiti-
"- — ^. cations for their work — the transhition of tlie J3ook of Daniel having
l)een so defective, that in its i)lace another by Theodotion was after-
v/ards substituted. The version, as a whole, bears tiie name of the
LXX. — as some have sui)i)osed irom the nund>erof its translators ac-
cording to Aristcas' account — only that in that case it should have
been seventy-two; or from the approval of tlie Alexandrian San-
hedriu' — although in tliat case it should have been seventy-one; or
perhaps because, in the ])oj)ular idea, the number of the Gentile
nations, of which the Greek (Japheth) was regarded as typical, was
seventy. We have, however, one tixed date by which to compute the
completion of this translation. Fromthei)rologueto the Apocryphal
' Wisdom of Jesus the son of Siracli,' we learn that in his days the
Canon of Scripture was closed; and tliat on his arrival, in his thirty-
eighth year," in Egypt, which was then under the rule of p]uergetes,
he found the so-called LXX. version completed, when he set himself
to a similar translation of the Hebrew work of his grandfather. But
in the 50th chapter of that work we have a description of the High-
Priest Simon, which is evidently written by an eye-witness. We
have therefore as one term the pontificate of Simon, during which
the earlier Jesus lived; and as the other, the reign of Euergetes, in
which the grandson was at Alexandria. Now, although there were
two High-Priests who bore the name Simon, and two Egyptian kings
with the surname Euergetes, yet on purely historical grounds, and
apart from critical prejudices, we conclude that the Simon of J]cclus.
L. was Simon I., the Just, one of the greatest names in Jewish
traditional history; and similarly, that the Euergetes of the younger
Jesus was the first of that name, Ptolemy III., who reigned Irom
247 to 221 B.C.-* In his reign, therefore, we must regard the LXX.
version as, at least substantially, completed.
' _B6/^/ would have it, 'the Jerusalem it tiear on the question of the 8o-calhHl
Sanhedrin!' 'Maccabean Psahns,'and the autliorsiiip
'■^ But the expression has also been and date of the ]?ook of Daniel. But liis-
referred to the thirty-eighth year of the torical ((uestloiis should ]w treated inde-
reign of Euergetes. pendently <jf critical prejudices. Winer
•^ To ray niiud, at least, the historical (Bibl. Reahvorterb. i. p. 555), and others
evidence, ai)art from critical considera- after him admit that the Simon of
tions, seems very strong. Modern writers Ecclus. ch. L. was indeed Simon the .Just
on the other side have confessedly been (i.), but maintain that the Euergetes of
influenced Ijy the consideration that the tlie Prologue was the second of tliat
earlier date of tlie Book of Siracli would luime, Ptohuiiy YII., popularly nick-
also involve a mucli (>arlier date for the named Kakergetes. Comp. the remarks
close of till' (). T. Canon than they are dis- of Frifzsche on this view in tlie Knrzgef.
posed to achnit. More especially would Exeg. Haudb. z. d.Apokr.nte Lief. p. xvii.
TEXT, OllDEK, AND ClIAKAOTEH UK THE HEFTLACJINT.
27
From tliis it would, of course, follow that tho Cauou of the Old CHAP.
Testaoieut was then i)ractically fixed in Palestine. ' That Cauoii was II
accepted by the Alexandrian translators, althou^'h the more loose ^ — . —
views of the Hellenists on ' inspiration,' and the absence of that close
watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and
alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Ai)ocryi)ha
into the G]"eek liible. Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text
into the Law, the Prophets,- and the (sacred) Writings, or Ilagio-
grapha, the LXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical, and
l)oetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet,
instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both these
may have been later arrangements, since Philo evidently knew the
Jewish order of the books." What text the translators may have "Devua
used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable sa
instances from our own, though the more important deviations ai"e
comparatively few.^ In the great majority of the lesser variati(nis
our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text.*
Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making
allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note
^certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It
bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use of Egyptian
words and references, and £!C|jLially evident_traces of its Jewish coni-
position. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great
liberty, Jf^not licence, in handling the ^original; gi'oss mist;ikcs occur
along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting
the aid of some a))le scholars. I^j^tjjii't Jewish elemenls ;ire un-
draiably there, which can only be explained by refcicui-e In Jewish
tradition, although they arc nuich fewer than some critics have
sujj^oacd.' Tliis we can easily understand, since only those tradi-
• Comp. liere, besides the passages
fiuoted in the i)i'evious note, Baba B. 13 b
and 14 6; for the cessation of revela-
tion in the Maccabean period, 1 Mace. iv.
4fi ; ix. 27 ; xiv. 41 ; and, in general, for
the Jewish view on the subject at the
time of Christ, Jns. Ag. Aj). i. 8.
'^ Anterior: .Tosh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam.
1 and 2 Kings. Posterior: Major: Is.,
Jer., and Ezek. ; and the Minor Pro-
phets.
■' They occur chiefly in 1 Kings, tlie
books of Esther, Job, Proverbs, Jeremiah,
and Daniel. In the Pentateuch we find
them only in four passages in the Book of
Exodus.
* There is also a curious correspondence
between the Samaritan version of the
Pentateuch and that of the LXX., which
in no less than about 2,000 passages agree
as against our Hebrew, although in other
instances the Greek text either agrees
with the Hebrew against the Samaritan,
or else is independent of both. On tho
connection between Samaritan literature
and Hellenism there are some very inte-
resting notices in FreudenthaJ ,\le\\.i^i\ii\.
pp. 82-103, 130-136, 186, &c.
•■' The extravagant computations in
this respect of Frankel (Ijoth in his work,
Ueber d. Einfl. d. Palast. Exeg., and
also in the Yorstud. z. Se])t. pp. 189-191)
have been rectiti('(l l)y Ufrz/eld (Gesch.
d. Vol. Isr. vol. iii.),who, perhaps, goes to
oy THE PREPARATION FOR THE (JOSPKl..
BOOK tioiis would tiud a place which at that early time were not only
1 received, but in general circulation. The distinctively Grecianjele-^
^— ^.^ — ' ments, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist^f
allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adai)tations of Greek phi-
losophical ideas. However few, ' even one well-authenticated instance
would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version
the character of Jewish Hcllenising. In the same class we reckon
what constitutes the prouiiueiit characteristic of the LXX. version,
which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic
and apologetic. Difficulties — or what seemed such — are removed by
the most l)old UK'tliods, and by free handling of the text; it need
scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially a
strenuous eff'ort is made to banish all anthro})omori)hisms, as incon-
sistent with their ideas of the Deity. The supertlcial observer might
be tempted to regard this as not strictly Hellenistic, since the same
may be noted, and indeed is much more consistently carried out, in
the Targum of Onkelos. Perhaps such alterations had even been
introduced into the Hebrew text itself.^ But there is this vital
difft'rence between Palestinianism and Alexandriaiiism, that, broadly
speaking, the Hebrew avoidance of anthropomorphisms depends on
objective — theological and dogmatic — the Hellenistii; on subjective
— philosophical and apologetic — grounds. The Hebrew avoids them
as he does wluit seems to him inconsistent with the dignity of Biblical
heroes and of Israel. ' Great js the power of the prophets,' he writes,
■ Mechuta ' wlio likcu the Creator to the creature; ' or else"" ' a thing is written
only to break it to the ear ' — to adapt it to our human modes of
speaking and understanding; and again," the ' Avords of the Torah
are like the speech of the children of men.' But for tliis very pur-
pose the words of Scripture may be presented in another form, if need
the other extreme. Herzfekl (pp. 548- this is not tlie sole Instance of the kind.
650) admits — and even this with hesita- ''■ As in the so-called ' Tiqquney ISa-
tion — of only six distinct references to 'pherim,^ ov 'emendations of the scribes.'
Halakhoth in the following- passages in Comp. here generally the investigations
the LXX.: Gen. ix. 4; xxxii. 32; Lev. of Geiger (Urschrift n. tleberse z. d.
xix. 19; xxiv. 7; Deut. xxv. 5; xxvi. 12. Bibel). But these, however learned and
As instances of Haggadah we may men- ingenious, require, like so many of the
tion the renderings in Gen. v. 24 and dicta of modern Jewish criticism, to be
Ex. X. 23. taken with the utmost caution, and in
1 Dahne and Gfrorer have in this each case subjected to fresh examination,
resi)ect gone to the same extreme as since so large a i)roportion of tlieir writ-
Frankel on the Jewish side. But even ings are what is best designated by the
SiP[ifried{^\\\\.o v. Alex. p. S) is obliged to German Tendenz-Schriften, and their in-
admit that the LXX. rendering, i) deyi) ferences Tendenz-Schlilssf. But the critic
7JV dopcxro- (XKai KaraaKsvaaroi and the historian should have no Tfe//-
Gen. i. 2), bears undeniable mark of Gre- druz — except towards simi>le fact and
cian philosophic views. And certainly historical truth.
on Ex. xix.
ALEXANDRIAN VIEWS ON INTEKrilETATION AND INSIMIJATION. 09
he even inoditicd, so as to obviate possible inisuiiderstaiulin^-, or doy,- CHAP.
niatic error. The Alexandrians arrived at the same eonelusion, but II
from an opposite direction. The}' had not theological but philo- ^^-^r — '
sophieal axioms in their minds — truths which the hhjhest truth could
not, and, as they held, did not contravene. Only dig deeper; get
beyond the letter to that to which it pointed; divest abstract truth of
its concrete, national, Judaistic envelope — penetrate through the dim
porch into the temple, and you were surrounded by a blaze of light,
of which, as its portals had been thrown open, single rays had fallen
into the night of heathendom. And so the truth would appear -7^
glorious — more than vindicated in their own sight, triumphant in Xj^
that of others! ^^"^^
Iu_such manner the LXX. version became really the people's /^'-*--
Bible to that large Jewish world through which Christianity was L^ ^
afterwards to address itself to mankind. It was part of the case, that ^ /-^^^^^
the original. Otherwise it would have been impossible to make final ^^^'.
this translation should be regariled by the Hellenists as inspired like
appeal to the very words of the Greek; still less, to tind in them a ' ' '■ d
mystical and allegorical meaning. Only that we must not regard -^VX -
their views of inspiration — except as applying to Moses, and even
-2^
t lierc only partially — as identical Avitli ours. To their minds inspira-
tion differed quantitatively, not qualitatively, from what the rapt soul '^^'~'*^^
might at any time experience, so that even heathen philosophers /Z^ ^^^
might ultimately be regarded as at times inspired. So far as the 4 «^- 7^^
version of the Bible was concerned (and probably on like grounds),
similar views obtained at a later period even in Hebrew circles, where .e>^ " m^j
it was laid down that the Chaldee Targum on the Pentateuch had ^^ . ^^
been originally spoken to Moses on Sinai,-' thou2:h afterwards for- '» Ned. 37 6:
gotten, till restored and re-mtroduced.'' laieg. 3 a
Whether or not the LXX. was read in the Hellenist Synagogues,
and the worship conducted, wiiolly or partly, in Greek, must l)e
matter of conjecture. We tind, however, a significant notice'' to the "Jer. Meg.
effect that among those who spoke a barbarous language (not Hebrew Ki-ot. p.Vs.r
—the terra referring specially to Greek), it was the custom for one
person to read the whole Parashah (oi' lesson for the day), while
among the Hebrew-speaking Jews this was done by seven persons,
successively called up. This seems to imply that either the Greek
text alone was read, or that it followed a Hebrew reading, like the Tar-
gum of the Easterns. More probably, however, the former would be
the case, since both Hebrew manuscripts, and persons qualified to
read them, would be ditRcult to procure. At any rate, we know that
0 THH I'RKI'AKATIOX l'i)\l THE GOSPKI..
i;{,(»K t lie Greek Scriptures wcic authoritatively acknowledged in Palef!tiiiej2_
I and tliat the ordinary daily prayers iiught be said in (ireek.- The
— ■;' — LXX. deserved this distinction I'roni its general faithfulness — at least,
in regard to the I'eiitateuch — and from its preservation of ancient
doctrine, 'rtius. without further referring to its full acknowledgment
of the doctrine of Angels (comp. Deut. xxxii. H, xxxiii. 2). we s})eeially
mark that it preserved the Messianic interpretation of (irn. xlix. 10,
and Numb. xxi\. T. IT, 2:;, bringing us evidence of what had been
the generally received view two and a half centuries before the birth
of Jesus. It must have been on the ground of the use made of the
LXX. in argument, that later voices in the Synagogue declared this
version to have ])een as gi-eat a calamity to Israel as the making of
the gohlen caHV and that its eompletion had been followed l)y the
terril)le omen of an eclijjse, that lasted three days.'' For the Ral)l)is
declared that upon investigation it had been found that the Torah
could lie adetpiately translated (udy into Greek, and they are most
extravagant in their i)raise of the Greek version of Aky/as, or Aquila,
the i)roselyte, Avhich was made to counteract the influence of the
LXX.' I)Ut in Egypt the anniversaiw of the completion of the LXX.
was celebrated by a feast in the island of Pharos, in which ultimately
even heathens seem to have taken i)ait.''
/ ^ Meii". i. S. It i.<. Iiowt'ver. fair to con-
fess strong douljt, on my part, wlictliei-
this pa-ssuiiie may not refer to tlie Greek
translation of AkyUts. At tlie same time
it simply speaks of a translation into
(rreek. And l)efore the version of Aquila
the LXX. alone held that place. It is
one of the most darini:: modern .Tewisli
perversions of history to identify tliis
Akylas, wlio Hourislied about KJO after
Christ, with the Aquila of the Book of
Acts. It wants even the excuse of a
(■olourai)le ])erversion of the confused
story about Akylas. whicli EpipfidniKs
who is so jjenerallv inaccurate, uives in
De I'ond. el .Mensur. c. .\lv.
- The -Shema" (.Jewish creed), with its
collects, tlie eif^hteen 'bene(rictious,' and
■ the ,2:race at meat. ' A later Ilabtji vindi-
cated the use of the ' Shema ' in Greek
l)y tlie ariiumeiit that tlie word Slipmn
meant not only -Hear,' l)Ut also 'un-
derstand ■ (.Ter. Sotali vii. l.)Conip. .Sotah
vii. 1. 2. In P>er. 40 h. it is said that
tlie I'arashah connected witli the woman
suspected of adultery, the jirayer and
confession at tlie brin<;inii: of the tithes,
and the various beneilictions over food,
may l)e said not only in Hebrew, but in
any other lanii'nases.
AI'OCRVniAI, IJTKHATUUE, 31
riTAPTEK III.
THK OLl> FAITH I'KKl'A H IM; KoK TIIK XKW — I>K\'KL<)I'M KXT oF IIF1,LK\I8T
THKOLOfiV: THK Al'OCin I'll A. AIMSTKAS. A ItlSTOlU'IA'S, AX D IIIK I'SKl'lr
KIMKIJAIMIIC W KITIX(;s.
'VuK ti;nislati()ii of the OhMVstaiucu.t Iiitii Greek AiiLiOu_l)i::.ll'ganie<l CHAP.
jis the staitiiuj;-j)j>iiit ol" HelleuisiiK It rendered ^)ossil)le tlie lioix' m
that what ill its original torni hadjjceu eontined to tlu' few. might ^ — ^"^
become aeeessible to the world at large.' l>ut much yet remained to '/'/»/<-, <i6
he done. If the religion of the Old Testament had been bronght near ea. Man-'
gey. ii- v-
to the (irecian world of tlKtnght, the latter had still to be brought near n^"
to Judaism. Some intermediate stage must be tbund; some eonnnon
ground on which the two might meet: some original kindredness
of s})irit to which their later divergences might be carried l)ack. and
where they might finally be reconciled. As the first attemjjt in this
dii-ection — first in order, if not always in time — Ave mark the so-
called Apocryphal literature, most of which was cither written in
(Jreek, or is the product of llellenising Jews.' ^jts general object
wa.s twofold. First, of course, it was a])ologetic — intended to fill gajis
in Jewish llistoi-y oi' tiiouglil. but e.-pecially to stl-eilgthen the J(A\isll
mind against attacks from without, an<l. generally to extol the dignity
of Israel. Thus, more withering sarcasm could scaicely be jjoured
(tn heathenism than in the apocryphal story of • Bel and the Di-agon,'
or in the so-called • Kpistle of Jeremy." with which the I>ook of
• ilarucir closes, 'i'he same strain, only in more lotty tones, resounds
through the Hook of the • ^^■isdonl of Solomon. ' '' along with the '■ comp. s.-
constantly implied contrast l)etwi'en the righteous, or l>rael. anil
sinners, or the heatlien. Ijut the next o1>ject was to show that the
decpcrjind ])urer thinking of heathenism in its highest i)hiIoso|)]ry
supported- -nay. in some respects, was identical with the funda-
nicntal teaching of the Old Testament. This, of coui'se, was
apologt>tii' of the Old Testament, but it also i)repared the way for a
' All ttie -Apocrypha were ori,i;iiially course, -tiu^ • Wisdom of Jesus tlie Sou of
written in Greek, e.xcept 1 Mace, .Judith. Sirach."
part of Bariich, probably Tobit. aud. of
XX.
.^:
32 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEI..
HOOK reconciliation with Greek philosophy. We notice this cspccdally in
I tli(! so-called Fourth Book ofMaccabees, so lon,ii: erroneously attributed
^- — ^1^—^ to Josephus/ and in the 'Wisdom of Solomon." The first postulate
here would be the acknowledgment of truth among the Gentiles,
which was the outcome of Wisdom — and Wisdom was the revelation
of God. This seems already implied in so thoroughly Jewish a book
«comi,. for as that of Jesus the Son of Sirach.'' Of course there could be no
ex. Ef'i'lus. .....
xxiv. f, alliance with Epicureanism, which was at the opposite })ole of the Ohl
Testament. But the brilliancy of Plato's speculations would charm,
while the stern self-abnegation of Stoicism would prove almost
equally attractive. The one would show why they believed, the other
why they lived, as they did. Thus the theology of the Old Testament
would find a rational basis in the ontology of Plato, and its ethics
in the moral philosophy of the Stoics. Indeed, this is the very line
of argument which Joscphus follows in the conclusion of his treatise
"11.39,40 against Apion.'' This, then, was an unassailable position to take:
« comp. ai- contempt poured on heathenism as such," and a rational philoso-
SO Jos. Ag. ^ ' ' ^.
Ap. 11. 34 pliical basis for Judaism. They were not deep, only acute thinkers,
these Alexandrians, and the result of their speculations was a curious
Eclecticism, in which Platcmism and Stoicism are found, often hetero-
geneously, side by side. Thus, without further details, it may be said
that the Fourth Book of Maccabees is a Jewish Stoical treatise on
the Stoical theme of ' the supremacy of reason' — the proposition,
stated at the outset, that * pious reason bears absolute sway over the
passions, ' being illustrated by the story oi' the martyrdom of Eleazar,
dcomp. 2 and of the mother and her seven sons.'' On the other hand, that
vinV^'" sublime work, the 'Wisdom of Solomon,' contains Platonic and Stoic
elements ^ — chiefly perhaps the latter — the two occurring side by side.
■^ ch. vii. 22- Thus'' ' Wisdom,' which is so concretely presented as to be almost
27
fvv. 22-24 hypostatised,^ is first described in the language of Stoicism, "^ and
fVv. 25-29 afterwards set forth, in that of Platonism,- as 'the breath of the
power of God:' as 'a pure influence floAving from the glory of the
Almighty;' ' the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted
mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness.' Siini-
' It is jirhited in Havercami)'s edition -^ Compare especially ix. 1; xviii. 14-
of .losephus, vol. ii. pp. 497-520. The 16, where the ideaofcro</>/<:i- passes into
best edition is in Fnyzsc/ip, 'LWm A\)o- that of theXoyo?. Of course the" above
cryplii Vet. Test. (Lips. 1871). remarks are not intended to dei)reciate
■^ AVr/A/lCJosch. d. Volkes Isr., vol. iv. the .2;reat value of this book, alike in
pp. 62()-(;:{2) lias ^iven a ,2;lowinf!: sketch itself, and in its practical teaching, in
of it. Ewald rightly says that its Grecian its clear enunciation of a retribution as
elements have been exaggerated; but B?^- awaiting man, and in it,s important
c/ier (Lehre vom Logos, pp. .59-62) utterly bearing on the New Testament revela-
fails in denying their i)resence altogether. tion of Me Adyoi.
HERETICAL AND 'OUTSIDE' BOOKS. 33
Inrly, we have'' a Stoical eiiuiucration of the four cardinal virtues, chap.
temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude, and close b}^ it the HI
riatonic idea of the soul's pre-existence.'' and of earth and matter ' — -r — '
|)ressing it down." How such views would point in the direction of i^hkJ'- vui.
the need of a perfect revelation from on hig-h, as in the Bible, and of 1. in w. 19,
its rational possibility, need scarcely be shown. ". .
But how did Eastern Judaism bear itself towards this Apocryphal
literature ? We lind it described by a term which seems to corre-
spond to our 'Apocrypha,' as Sephay'im Genuzim,^ 'hidden books,'
i.e., (uther such whose origin was hidden, or, more likely, books
withdrawn from common or congregational use. Although they were,
of course, carefully distinguished from the canonical Scrii)tures, as not
being sacred, their use was not only allowed, l>ut many of them are
(pioted in Talmudical writings.' In this respect they are placed on
a very ditt'erent footing from the so-called Sepharim Chitsonim^ or
' outside books, ' which probably included both the products of a
certain class of Je^^■ish Hellenistic literature, and the Siphrey Minim, or
writings of the heretics. Against these Rabbinism can scarcely find
terms of sufficient violence, even debarring from share in the world to
come those who read them." This, not only because they were used in ■' sanh. 100
controversy, but because their, secret influence on orthodox Judaism
WHS dreaded. For similar reasons, later Judaism forbade the use of
the Apocrypha in the same manner as that of the Sepharim Chitsonlm.
But their influence had already made itself felt. The Apocrypha, the
more greedily perused, not only for their glorification of Judaism, but
that they were, so to speak, doubtful reading, which yet afforded a
glimpse into that forbidden Greek Avorld, opened the way for other
Hellenistic literature, of which unacknowledged but frequent traces
occur in Talmudical writings.-/
To those who thus sought to wekl Grecian thought with Hebrew
revelation, two objects would naturally present themselves. They
must try to connect their Greek philosophers with the Bible, and they
must find beneath the letter of Scripture a deeper meaning, which
would accord with i)hilosophic truth./- So far as the text of Scrip-
ture was concerned, they had a method ready to hand. Tlie Stoic
])hilosophers had busied themselves in finding a deeper aUegirricul
meaning, especially in the Avritings of Homer. By applying it to
' Some Apocryphal books whicli have biiyger, vol. ii. pp. 6()-70.
not been preserved to ns are mentioned - Com]). Siajfried, Pbilo von Alex. i)p.
in Talmndiciil writin^-Hi, amonj;' tlieni 27r)-29!l, wiio, liowever, perhaps over-
one, 'The roll of tlie bnildini;; of the states the matter.
Temple,' alas, lost to us! Comp. Ham-
34
Till-: pi;i-;i'Ai;.\Ti<)\ i-oi; tiik (josi-kt..
]!()()K mythical stories. <ir to tl.c popular hclicts. and In traciii;^:' the supposed
I syml)()li('al iiicaiiiiiLi' of names, nnmhei's. ikr.. it hecaiue easy to prove
■ — .■ — almost anythin.u'. or to extract tVoni these i)hilosophical truths (ethical
priiicii)les. ami e\cn the later results of natural science.' .Such a.
|)rocess was ix'culiarly pleasinii' to the ima.ii'inat ion. and The results
alike astouudinii' and <at istactoi-y. since as they could not he j)rove(l,
so neither c()uld t hey he di>pro\ cd. This alleii'orical met lux P was the
welcome key by which the Hellenists nii.LiiiT uid(»ck the hidden
treasury of Scriptui-e. In point of fact, we liml it appli<'d -o early as
in the ■ ^^'isdom of Solomon." '
But as yet Hellenism had scarcely lel't the donmin of sol>ei- iuter-
l)retation. It is otherwise in the letter of the Pseudo-Aristeas, to
which reference has already heen made.' Here the wildest syinbolism
is put into tin' mouth of the 11 iiih-1'riest Kleazar, to eonvinee Aristeas
and his hdlow-ambassador that tiie ^Tosaic ordiiunieeseoneernin,t^l"o<»d
had not only a political i-eason —to keej) Isi-ael separate from impious
nations — and a sanitary one. hut chiefly a mystical nieauiui^. The
hirds allowed foi' food wei'e all tame and ])Ui('. and they fe<l on corn
or veg'etahle pi'oducts. the op|)osite hein.ii' the case wit h t hose torbiddeii.
The first less(m which this was inten(h:'(l to teach was. that Israel must
lie just, and not seek to obtain au,Si"ht from others by \i(»lence; l)ut, so
to si)eak. imitate the habits of those birds Avhich were allowed th<Mu.
The next lesson would be, that eaeii must learn to *i'overn his passions
and inclinations. Similarly, the direction al)out cloven hoofs })ointed
to the need of makina: separation — that is. between uood and <'vil:
and that about chewiuii" the cud to the nee(l of remembei-iiiL;'. viz. (Jod
' Comp. Sii'i/fried, pp. !)-!() : Hmi-
vKiiuK Eiise Verb. tl. A. Tpst. iiiit il. X..
pp. 568-.572.
- This is to l)e carefully 'listliiiiUL^heil
from the ty|)ical uilenn-etation ami from
the mystical — the type tjein-j; proplietic.
tlie mystery spiritually umlerstooil.
■' Not to .^peak of such sounder inter-
pretations as that of the t)razen serpent
(Wis(h xvi. (), 7), and of the Fall (ii. 24).
or of the view presented of the early
history of the chosen race in eh. x.. we
may mention as instances of alleiijorical
interpretation that of the manna (xvi.
2() 2S). and of the hif<h-i)riestly dre.^s
(xviii. 24). to wliioji, no dou])t. others
miij;ht l)e added. P.ut I caimot lind suf-
ficient evidence of this allegorical method
in the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Siracli.
The reasoninic of Ha /(man n (n. .<., ])p.
")42-.i47) .seems to me irreatlv strained.
Of tlie existence <jf allegorical inter-
pretations in the Synoi)tic Gospels, or of
any connection with Hellenism, nuch as
Ilartmann. Siegfried, and Loesner (0])s.
ad. X.T. e Phil. Alex. ) put into them, 1
cannot, on examination, discover any
evidence. Similarity of expressions, or
even of thouglit. afford no evidence of
inward comiectlon. Of the Go.spel ])v
St. John we shall speak in the sequel.
In the Paul ne Epistles we find, as might
be expected, some allegorical interpre-
tations, chiefly in those to tlie Corin-
thians, perhai)s owing to the connection
of that church witli Apollos. Comp.
here 1 Cor. ix. 0; x. 4 (Phllo, Quod de-
ter. i)Otiori insid. ?>\]: 1 Cor. iii. 1(1:
Gal. iv. 21. Of the Epi.slle to the H«'.-
brews ami tlie Ajiocalypse we cannot
here speak.
< See )). 2.").
Ai,iJ-;r;(>i;icAi. intki!Imm-:tati(>ns.
35
.•111(1 His will.' Ill siicli iiiaiiiici-. nccoi-dini:- to Aristcns. did tlic Iliiiii
J'ricst go tlii'oiiuii t lie ciitiili tunc df things lorliiddcii. ;iiid of ;niiiii;ds to
l)e sacriticcd, sliDwiug TrDiii their • ]iid(h'ii iiicniiing ' llic iiinjcsty ;iiid
sanctity ol" the Law . '
Tliis was ail iiiii)()rtaiit line to take, and it diU'crcd in |)riuciple
IVom tlic allegorical method adopteil by the i^astein .lews. Xot only
the horslicij llcsli n iiii)th."' <)\' >i'x\vv\\in-^ out ol'tlie suhtielies oi' ScripturO,
ofthcir indications, hut e\'eii theoi'dinai'V llaggadist employed, indeed,
allegoric interpretations. Thereby Akiba vindicated tor the -Song of
Songs" its place in the Canon. Did not Script ure say : -One thing-
spake (iod, twofold is what I heard,' ' and did not this ini])ly a twofold
meaning; nay, could not the Torali be exi)laiiied by many ditferent
niethods?' AVhat, for exami)le. was the Avater which Israel sought in
the wilderness, orthe bread and raiment which .lacoli aske(l in Bethel,
but the Tuvdli and the dignity which it conferred y But in all these,
and inminieralile similar instances, the allegorical intcr])retation was
only an ap]>lication of Scrii)ture for homiletical imrposes, not a search-
ing into a rdtioiutlc beneath, such as that of the Jlellenists. The
latter the Rabbis would have utterly repudiated, on their express jirin-
cil)le that •S(jiptnre goes not lieyond its jilain meaning. "•' They
sternly insisted, that we ought not to search into the ulterior object
and rationale of a law, but simply obey it. Hut it was this very
/■(itioiKifc of tho Law which the Alexandrians sought to tind under its
letter. It was in this sense that Aristobulus. a Hellenist Jew of
Alexandria,'' sought to explain Scrii»ture. Only a fragment of his
' A sniiilar jn-inciiile applied to tlif of God it^ like a liaiiinier that breaks llic
l)r<)liibitioii of siicii .«pecie.s as the mouse rock hi a tliou.saiid i)ii'('es. Coiiip.
or the weasel, not only because tliey Kasbi on Gen. .xxxiii. 20
CHAl'.
destroyetl everythuig, but l)ecause the
latter, from its mode of coiiceiviiiii- and
bearing, symbolized listening' to evil
tales, and exaggerated, lyiiiii. or mali-
cious sjieeoh.
- Of course this iiietlnxl is conslaiiliy
ailopted l)y .losephus. Coinp. for exani-
l)le, Ant. iii. 1. (i: 7. 7.
■' Or Dorshp.ji ('luimiiroth, searchers of
dlfticult passages, '/.miz. Gottesd. \'orlr.
p. .'52:^, note J).
^ The seventy lan2;ua,2;es in wliicli tlie
■' Pei'haiis we on.iiht here to point out,
tuie of the most imiiortant principles of
Katibinism, which has ])een almost en-
tirely overlookeil in modern criticism of
the Talmud. It is tliis: tJiat any ordi-
nance, not only of the l)iviiH> law, iiut of
tlie Ivabbis. even thoui;;]! only ^-iveii for
a particular time or occasion, or for a
speciid reason, remains in full force for
all time unless it be expressly recalled
I IJetsah a A). Tlius Maimonides (8ei)lier
la .Mitsv.) declares the law to extiriiatn
T.aw was sui)|iosed to have lieen written tlie ranaanites as continuinij: in its obii
below Mount Kbal (Sotah vii. 5). lean- .tiations. The inferences as to the pcr-
not help feeling' this may in part also pctxal ohJi'idtloii. not only of the cere-
refer to the various modes of interpret- monial law. but of sacrifices, will Ix*
inij; Holy Scriiiture. and that there is obvious, and their bearing- on the Jewish
an allusion to this in Shabb. 88 b, where controversy need not be explained.
I's. Ixviii. 12. and Jer. xxiii. 29. are Conip. Chief Rabbi IlohJheim. A. Cere-
ipioted. the latter to siiow that Ilie woivl monial Geset/. in Messiasreicli. ]s4.^.
"Ps. LNii.ll;
Saiili. ::4 .'
THE TREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK work, which seems to have been a Coinineutary on the Pentateuch,
1 iledicated to King Ptolemy (Philometor), has been preserved to us (by
— -,- — Clement of Alexandria, and l)y J^usebius") . According to Clement
of Alexandria, his aim was, ' to bring the Peripatetic philosophy out
of the law of Moses, and out of the other prophets.' Thus, when avc
read that God stood, it meant the stable order of the world; that He
created the world in six days, the orderly succession of tinu^; the rest
of the Sabbath, the preservation of what was created. And in such
manner could the whole system of Aristotle be found in the Bil)le.
But how was this to be accounted for? Of course, the Bible had not
learned from Aristotle, but he and all the other philosophers had learned
from the Bible. Thus, according to Aristobulus, Pythagoras, Plato,
and all the other sages had really learned from Moses, and thel)r()ken
rays found in their writings were united in all their glory in thcTorah.
It was a tempting path on which to enter, and one on which there
was no standing still. It only remained to give fixedness to the allegori-
cal method by reducing it to certain principles, or canons of criticism,
and to form the heterogeneous mass of Grecian philosoi)hemes and
Jewish theologuraena into a compact, if not homogeneous system.
This was the work of Pliilo of Alexandria, born about 20 B.C. It
concerns us not here to inquire what were the intermediate links be-
tween Aristobulus and Philo. Another :md more important point
claims our attention. If ancient Greek ])hil()so])hy knew the teacliing
of Moses, where was the historic evidence for it? If such did not
exist, it must someh(3w be invented. Orpheus was a name which had
always lent itself to literary fraud, ''and so Aristobulus boldly produces
(whether of his o^v^n or of others' making) a number of spurious
citations from Hesiod, Homer, Linus, but especially from Orpheus, all
Biblical and Jewish in their cast. Aristobulus was neither the first
nor the last to commit such fraud. The Jewish Sibyl boldly, and,
as we shall see, successfully personated the heathen oracles. And
tliis opens, generally, quite a vista of Jewish-Grecian literature.
In the second, and even in the tliird century before Christ, there were
Hellenist historians, such as Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, and
Aristeas; tragic and epic poets, such as p]zekiel, Pseudo-Philo, and
Theodotus, who, after the manner of t)ie ancient classical writers, but
for their own i)urposes, described certain periods of Jewish history, or
sang of such themes as the Exodus, Jerusalem, or the rape of Dinah.
The mention of these spurious quotations naturally leads >is to
another class of spurious literature, which, although not Hellenistic,
has many elements in common with it, and, even Avhen originating
PSEUl)KPI(il{Al'HlC LITEKATURE. 37
with Palestinian Jew!^ is not Palestinian, nor yet has been i)res('rve(l in chap.
its language. We allude to what are known as the I'seudcijigraphie, HI
or Pseudonymic Writings, so called because, with one exception, they ^- — ^.^-^
bear false names of authorship. It is difficult to arrange thcni
otherwise than chronologically — and even here the greatest dirt'ei-ence
of opinions prevails. Their general character (with one exception)
may be described as anti-heathen, perliai)s missionary, hut chietly as
Apocalyptic. They are attempts at taking up the key-note struck
in the prophecies of Daniel; rather, we should say, to lift the veil
only partially raised by him, and to point — alike as concerned Israel,
and the kingdoms of the world — to the past, the present, and the
future, in the light of the Kingship of the Messiah. Here, if any-
where, we might expect to find traces of New Testament teaching;
:ind yet, side by side with frequent similarity of form, the greatest
ditierence — we had almost said contrast — in spirit, prevails.
Many of these works must have perished. In one of the latest
of them ^ they are put down at seventy, probably a round number, MEsdras
having reference to the supposed number of the nations of the earth,
or to every possible mode of inter])reting Scripture. They are de-
scribed as intended for 'the wise among the people,' probably those
whom St. Paul, in the Christian sense, designates as ' knowing the
time'"^ of the Advent of the Messiah. Viewed in this light, they ''Rom.xm.
embody the ardent aspirations and the inmost hopes ^ of those who
l(»ngcd for the 'consolation of Israel,' as they understood it. Nor
should we judge their personations of authorship according to our
Western ideas.'' Pseudonymic writings were common in that age,
and a Jew might perhaps plead that, even in the Old Testament,
l)ooks had been headed by names which confessedly were not those
of their authors (such as Samuel, Ruth, Esther). If those inspired
poets who sang in the spirit, and echoed the strains, of Asaph, adoi)te(l
that designation, and the sons of Korah preferred to be known l)y
that title, might not they, who couhl no longer claim the authority
of inspiration seek attention for tlieir utterances by adopting the
names of those in whose spirit they professed to write if
The most interesting as well as the oldest of these l)ooks arc
' The Katpo? of St. Paul seems here the Psendepisrapha. Their ardour of
u.-(ed HI exactly the .same sense as iu later expectancy ill ac;rees with the modem
Hel)rew ]'^t. The LXX. render it so in theories, which would eliminate, if pos-
tive passages (Ezr. v. 8; Dan. iv. .'5:^; vi. sible, the Messianic hope from ancient
10 ; vii. 22, 25). Judaism.
- Of course, it suits .Jewish writers. ^ Comp. Dnimimn iu Ilerzoij's Real-
like Dr. .Tost, to dei)recate the value of Kncykl. vol. xii. p. :*>(>1.
11
38
TiiK ri;i:i"Ai;ATi(»N foi; tiik cospkl.
BOOK tliosc known sis I lie Hook of Enoch, the Sibij/Jiiic Oracles. tln'Rsalter
I of Solomon, ;iinl tlic Jlook of ■tifbilccs. or Lilflc dciicsis. ( hily the
■ — , — • bricrcst notice of tluMU cjin here find w jjliicc'
Tlic Hook of KuocJk the oldest ]);ii-t,< of wliicli date a criitui-y and
a hair Ix'forc Christ, comes to lis from Palestine. It jirofesscs to be
a vision vouchsafed to tlmt I'ati-iai'cli. and tells of the fall of the Angels
and its ('(msequeiices, and of what he saw and heard in his ra])t
journeys throtiii-h heaven and earth. Of dee])est, thouii-h otlen sad,
interest, is winit it says of tlie Kin.u'dom of Heaven, of the advent
of .Messiah and His Kin,irdom. and of the last tliinji-s.
On the other hand, the Sibi/lli/ic Oracles, of which the oldest ))or-
tions date trom about KiO B.C. come to us from K«>Ti)t. it is to the
latter only that we here i-efer. 'fheir most interestini-- i)ai'ts are also
the most characteristic. In them the ancient heathen myths of the
first a.ii'es of man are wehhnl toiicther with Old Testament notices,
while the heathen Theoii'ony is recast in a .lewisli mould. Thus Noah
becomes Uranos, Sheni Saturn, Jlam Titan, and Jai)lieth Japetus.
Similarly, we have fraiiinents of ancient heathen oracles, so to speak,
recast in a Jewish edition. The straiiii'est circumstance is, that the
utterances of this .hidaisin.i;- and .lewish Sibyl seem to have passe<|
as the oracles of the ancient Krythr;ean, which had i)redicted the fall
of Troy, and as those of the Sibyl of Cunue, which, in the infancy of
Rome, Tarquinius Superlnis had deposited in the Cai)itoI.
The collection of eighteen hymns known as the Psalter of Solon 1.011
dates from more than half a century before our era. N<j doubt the
original was Hebrew, though they breathe a somewhat Hellenistic
spirit. They express ardent Messianic asi)irations. and a tiini faith
in the Resurrection, and in eternal i-ewards and i)unishments.
Diticrent in character from the preceding woiks is Tin- flook of
Jubilees — so called from its chi'onological arrangement into •.Jtd>ilee-
periods ■ — or • fJttle Genesis.' It is chiefly a kind of legendary suj)-
plenient to the Hook of (irenesis, intended to e.xjdain some of its historic
difficulties, and to till \\\) its historic Incnna'. It was probably written
about the time of Christ — and this gives it a sp(M'ial interest — by a
ralestinian, and in Hebrew, m rathei- Aranuean. But. like tlie rest
of the Apocryphal and Pseudei)igra])hic literature which conu^s from
Palestine, or was originally written in Hebrew, we ])ossess it no longer
in that language, but only in translaticm.
If from this brief review ol' Hellenist and Pseudepigraphic lite-
rature we turn to take a reti-os})eci. we can scarcely fail to })er<MMve,
' Fdl- Jl lirict' review of the • I'>eu<le)rn;l:i|iliic WritilliTS,' StH' Appelltliv !.
TIIK OLD AND TIIK NKW.
89
on the one hiiud. llic (IcvclopnuMit <»l the old. iiiid on tlic otlicr tlic ciiAl'.
])i'('i)iii-ation foi- tlic new — in otlici- words, the iiirand oxpcctiincv HI
iiwnkcncd. jind the li'i'and propai'ation made. One stc]) only ri'iiniincd —
to coniplctc what llcllcnisin had already bcii-uii. That coniplction
cauic thi'oniih one who. althonii-h hiniself nntonchcd 1)\ the (iospcl.
pci'liaps more than any othor prepared alike his co-reli^ionisls flu^
Jews, and his eonntrynien the (Jreeks, for the new teaehinii-. wliieh,
indeed, was presented by many of its early advocates in the Ibrins
which they had learned trom him. That man was IMiilo the Jew. of
Alexandria.
40 THE PKEPAKATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
CHAPTER IV.
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, THE KABBLS, AND THE GOSPELS — THE FINAL DE-
VELOPMENT OF HELLENISM IN ITS RELATION TO RABBINISM AND THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.
BOOK It is strange how little we know ot the personal history of the
I greatest ot" uninsi)ire(l Jewish writers of old, though he occupied so
/prominent a position in his time.' Philo was born in Alexandria,
atK)ut the year 20 l)efore Christ. He was a descendant of Aaron, and
belonged to one of the wealthiest and most intluential families among
jjo^. the Jewish merchant-princes of Egypt. His l)rother was the politi-
^^/>n •'*fcal head of that community in Alexandria, and he himself on one
I %\ fl5>^ occasion represented his co-religionists — though unsuccessful!}' — at
A^-Wmio Rome,'' as the head of an embassy to entreat the Emperor Caligula
for protection from the persecutions consequent on the Jewish re-
^ 2;^ sistance to placing statues of the Emperor in their Synagogues. But
it is not with Philo, the wealthy aristocratic Jew of Alexandria, but
with the great writer and thinker who, so to speak, completed Jew-
ish Hellenism, that we have here to do. Let us see what was his
relation alike to heathen philosophy and to the Jewish faith, of both
of which he was the ardent advocate, and how in his system he com-
bined the teaching of the two.
To begin with. Philo united in rare measure Greek learning with
Jewish enthusiasm. In his writings he very frequently uses classi-
cal modes of expression: - he names not fewer than sixty-four Greek
wi-iters;^ and he either alludes to, or quotes frequently from, such
sources as Homer, Hesiod. Pindar, Solon, thegreat Greek tragedians,
Plato, and others. But to him these men were scarcely 'heathen.'
He had sat at their feet, and learned to weave a system from Pytha-
goras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. The gatherings of these
• Hausrath (N.T. Zeitjr. vol. ii. p. 222 collected a vast number of iiarallel ex-
Ac.) has given a hiijiily imaginative pressions, cliiefly from Plato anrl Plntarch
picture of Philo — as, indeed, of many (p)). .30-47).
other persons and things. " •■ Comi). Grossmroiu, Qua'st. Phil. 1. \\
- Siegfried has, witli immense lal)oi-, 5 &c.
PHILO'S CANONS OF INTERPRETATION. 41
philosophers were ' holy,' and riato was ' the great.' But holier than cHAP.
all was the gathering of the true Israel; and incomparably greater TV
than any, Moses. From him had all sages learned, and with him — .' — '
alone was all truth to be found — not, indeed, in the letter, but under
the letter, of Holy Scripture. If in Numb, xxiii. 19 we read 'God
is not a man,' and in Deut. i. 81 that the Lord was * as a man,' did
it 'not imply, on the one hand, the revelation of absolute truth bj^ ~/2jZ.
God, and, on the other, accommodation to those who were weak?>-i^^ '
Here, then, was the principle of a twofold interpretation of the Word^ ^^^^*'*^
of God — the literal and the allegorical. The letter of the text must^7*^^^!f'*^
be held fast; and Bil)lical personages and histories were real. But^JS^^^*'^^?''^
only narrow-minded slaves of the letter would stop here; the more so, *-'*''^**j^^"*^
as sometimes the literal meaning alone would be tame, even absurd ;^*^^
while the allegorical interpretation gave the true sense, even thougl^^i^^^T^;**'*^
it might occasionally run counter to the letter. Thus, the patriarchs ^*'*'^^n^~' T ^
represented states of the soul; and, whatever the letter might bear, ^^^* ^**
Joseph represented one given to the fleshly, whom his brothers rightly
hated; Simeon the soul aiming after the higher; the killing of the
Egyptian by Moses, the subjugation of passion, and so on. But this
allegorical interpretation — l)y the side of the literal (the Peshat of the
Palestinians) — though only for the few, was not arbitrary. It had its
' laws, ' and ' canons ' — some of which excluded the literal interpreta-
tion, while others admitted it by the side of the higher meaning.'
To begin with the former: the literal sense must be wholly set
aside, when it implied anything unworthy of the Deity, anything un-
meaning, impossible, or contrary to reason. Manifestly, this canon,
if strictly a])plied, would do away not only with all anthropomorphisms,
l)utcutthc knot wherever difficulties seemed insupera])le. Again, Philo
would find an allegorical, along with the literal, interpretation indicated
in the reduplication of a word, and in seemingly superfluous words,
particles, or expressions.- These could, of course, only bear such a
meaning on Philo's assumption of the actual inspiration of the LXX.
version. Similarlv, inexact accordance with a Talmudical canon,'' 'BabaK.
any repetition of what had been already stated would point to some-
thing new. These were comparatively sober rules of exegesis. Not
so the licence Avhich he claimed of freely altering the i)unctuation ^ of
' In this sketch of the system of Phih) ing to some special meaning, since there
I iiave Uirii:ely availed myself of the was not a word or particle in Scrip-
careful analysis of Siegfried. tare without a detinite meaning and
^ It should be noted that these are object,
also Talmudical canons, not indeed for -^ To illusti'ate what use might be
allegorical interpretation, but as point- made of such alterations, the Midrasb
w a
42
■I'liK i'i.'i:i'AiiATi().\ I'oi; TiiK (;(»si'i:l.
IJOOl
scutciici's. :iii(l his notion tlinl, ifonc I'loni ;iiuon<i' several synonymous
words was chosen in a |»assa^'e, this pointed to some si)ecial meauing
attaeliini"' to it. Kven more extruva^'nnt was the iden^ thi\t_ii_w(.>21^
whic_Uj^-etirred in the LXX. mi<i'ht beititerijreted according to every
shade jjt' meaning which it bore in the Greek, and that even another
meaning might lie given it by slightly altering tlie letters. However,
like otiier of Philo"s allegorical canons, these were also adoptcil by the
l\alil)is. and Ilaggadic interi)retations were Ircquentl}' i)reiaced by:
■ Head not thus — but thus.' If sucli violence might l)e done to the
text, we need not wonder at interpretations based on a })lay upon
words, or even upon ])arts of a W(n*d. Of course, all seemingly strange
or [x'cuiiar modes of ex])ression, or of designation, occurring in
Scriptui-e, must have their special nu^aning. and so also every particle,
adverb, or i)reposition. Again, the position of a verse, its succes.sion
by another, the ajjparently unaccountable i)rescnce or absence of a
word, might furnish hints for some deeper meaning, and so would
an unexpected singular for a i)]ural, or vice versa, the use of a tense,
even the gender of a word. Most serious of all, an allegorical inter-
pretation might l)e again employed as the basis of another. •
We repeat, that these allegorical canons of Philo are essentially
the sanu' as tlu)se of Jewish traditionalism in the Haggadah,^ only
tlie latter were not rationalising, and far more brilliant in their api)li-
cation.-' In another resjjcct also the ralestinian had the advantage
of the Alexandrian exegesis. Reverently and cautiously it indicated
what might be omitted in public reading, and Avliy; what expressions
of the original might be moditied by the Meturgenuin. and how; so
as to avoid alike one danger by giving a passage in its literality, and
another l)y adding to the sacred text, or conveying a wrong impres-
sion of the Divine Being, or else giving occasion to the unlearned and
(Ber. 11. (ij) would have us puuctuatc
Gen. xxvii. 19, as follows: 'Aud Jacob
said unto his father, I (viz. am he who
will receive the ten conniiandmeuts) —
(V»ut) Esau (is) thy firstborn.' In Yalkut
there is the still more curious exiilauation
that in heaven the soul of Jacob was the
firstborn!
' Kach of these positions is capable of
ample proof from Philo's writini^s. as
shown by Siet:;fried. But only a Ijare
statement of these canons was here pos-
sible.
'•' Comp. our above outline with the
'XXV. thesi's demodis et formulis (piibus
pr. ib'hr. doctorcs SS. intei-pretari etc.
soliti fuei'uiit." in Surcnhusius, BifJXoi
KaraXXayi}?, pf). 57-88.
^ For a comparison between Philo and
Rabbinic theolof2:y, see Api)endix II.:
' Philo and Rabbinic Theology.' Freuden-
thal (Hellen. Studien, pp. 67 &c.) ai)tly
designates this mixture of the two as
'Hellenistic Midrash,' it beinjz; dittlcult
sometimes to distinguish whether if
originated in Palestine or in Egvpt. or
else in both independently. Freudenthal
ijives a number of curious instances in
whicli Hellenism and Rabl)inism agree in
their interpretations. For other iiUe-
restinji; conu'tirisons ])etween Haj;'<:;adic
interprt^talions and those of Philo, see
Joel, Bliek in d. Ueliiiions<?esch. i. p. lis
«fec.
niii.o AM) THK i;ai;i!Is. 43
iitivv.MT ol' I )(■(•( tmiiiij,- ciitaii.iihMl in (Ijiii^croiis sprciihitioiis. .Icwisli cilAl'.
tiiiditinii Iktc hivs down some |)i-iiici[)l('s uliicli would Ix- of uTCiit >^'
|»riH'tical use. Tlius we uvv told.' tluit Scripliiic uses t lie modes of - — —
('X|>n\ssioii ('oiiiiiiou Jiiiioiiii' iiKMi. 'I'liis would, of course, iurlude nil " '''i- -1 '-
iiiitliropoiiiorpliisuis. A^aiii. soinetiiues witli coiisidei-nble iii,u-eniiit_\ .
a suggcstiiMi is taken tr(»ui a word, -iieli as that .Moses knew the
s(!r[>(Mit was to bo made of brass from the simihirity of the two word.-
{nachfish. a serpent, and iicchD.shrf/i, brass.'' Similarh. it is uoteil 'isn. 1;. :ii
that Scripture uses eiiplieniistie lan.iiuaiic so as to preserve the ^ui-eat-
e.st delicacy.' Tliese instances miuiit lie niidt iplie(l, but the above ■ u.'i-. u. th
will Huttice.
In his symlx^lical interpretation- i'hilo only paitially took the
same road as the Rabbis. The .symbolism of nnmlx'i's and. so far as
the Sanctuary was concerned, that of colours, and even materials,
may, indeed, be said to have its foundation in the Old Testament
itself. The same remark a])plies partially to that of names. The
Ilabbis cei'tainly so inti-i'preted them.' iSut the api)lication which
I'hilo nnnle of this symbolism was very ditlerent. Everythinji' became
synd)olicaI in his hands, if it suited his pur])ose: numbers (in a very
arbitrary nmnner),V)easts. birds, fowls, ci-eejiinu' thing-s, ])lants. stones,
elements, substances, conditions, e\en >c\ — ;ind so a term or an ex-
]H'Ossion miii'ht even have several and contradictory im-aninii's. from
which the intei'jjreter was at liberty to choose.
From the consideration of the method by which Philo derived
Irom Scriptures his theological views, we turn to a brief analysis of
these views.'-'
1. Theology. — In reference to Uod, we tind, side by side, the
apparently contradictory views of the Platonic and the Stoic schools.
Following- the former, the sharpest distinction was drawn between
(rod and the world, (xod existed neither in space, nor in time; He
had neither Inunan ipialities nor atiections: in fact. He was without
' Ttius, to give only a few out <tf many is tlie curious .<ynil)olical derivation of
examples, Ruth is derived from rc<r?v///, to MfphfhosJK'th. wiio is sujjposed to have
satiate to give to drink, because David, set David ritflit on lialai<liio ([uestions.
her descendant, satiated God with his -At-. MippihosJiefh: ' frommynioutli sluiin-
Psalms of in-aise (Ber. 1 h). Here the in<;.' 'l)ecause he put to slumu' tiie face
principle of the significance of Bible- of David in tlie Halakliah." Similarly in
names is deduced from Ps. xlvi. 8 (9 in Siphre (Par. Beliaalotlieklia. od. Fritnl-
the Hebrew): 'Come, beliold the works mann, p. 20 r/) we liave very tjeautiful
of the Lord, who hath made names on and inijeuious interpretations of the
earth,' the word 'desolations,' snaMoTU. names liet'el. Hohuh and Jethro.
being altered to shcmoth, 'names.' In - It would be imi)ossil)Ie here to give
i;eneral, that section, from Ber. :'. h. to tiie references, wliicli woidd occui»y too
tlie end of 8 (/, is full of Hafi<i;adic Scrip- much space,
ture interpretations. On fol. 4 a there
44 THE PKEPAKATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
IJOOK any qualities {aTtoios), and even without any name {apprfTog)'^
I lienee, \vlu)lly uncognisable by man {cxKaraKifTtrog). Thus, clianging
^ -r — the punctuation and the accents, the LXX. of Gen. iii. 9 was made to
read: 'Adam, thou art somewhere;' but God liad no somewhere, as
Adam seemed to think when he hid himsell' from Him. In the
above sense, also, V.x. iii. 14, and vi. .3, were explained, and the two
names Elolihit and Jehova](Aw\o\v^Q\\ really to the two supreme Divine
'Potencies,' while the fact ofGod'sl:)eing uncognisable appeared from
Ex. XX. 21.
But side by side with this we have, to save the Jewish, or rather
Old Testament, idea of creation and providence, the Stoic notion of
God as immanent in the world — in fact, as that alone which is real
in it, as always working: in short, to use his own Pantheistic expres-
sion, as ' Himself one and the all ' {eig Kai to nav). Chief in His
Being is His goodness, the forthgoing of which was the ground of
creation. Only the good comes from Him. AVith matter He can
have nothing to do — hence the plural number in the account of
creation. (Jod only created the soul, and that only of the good.
In the sense of being 'immanent,' God is everywhere — nay, all
things are really only in Him, or rather He is the real in all. But
chiefly is God the wellspring and the light of the soul — its 'Saviour'
from the ' Egypt ' of passion. Two things follow. With Pliilo's ideas
of the separation between God and matter, it was impossible always
to account for miracles or interpositions. Accordingly, these are
sometimes allegorised, sometimes rationalistically explained. Furthei',
the God of Philo, whatever he might say to the coutrai-y, was not
the God of that Israel Avhicli was His chosen people.
2. Intermediary Beings. — Potencies {dwdi^ieig, \6yoi). If, in
what has preceded, we have once and again noticed a remarkable simi-
larity between Philo and the Rabbis, there is a still more curious
analogy between his teaching and that of Jewish Mysticism, as ul-
timately fidly developed in the 'Kabbalah.' The very term Kabbalah
(from qibbel,to hand down) seems to point out not only its Ascent by
oral tradition, 1)ut also its ascent to ancient sources.' Its existence is
• chaaii. 1 presupposed, and its leading ideas are sketched in the Mishnah." The
Targums also bear at least one remarkable trace of it. May it not
be, that as Philo frequently refers to ancient tradition, so both .
Eastern and Western Judaism may here have drawn from one and
the same source — we will not venture to suggest, how high up —
1 For want of liandier material I must the Kabl)alali in the 'History of the
take leave to refer to my brief sketch of Jewish Nation,' pp. 434-446.
PHILO AND THE KABBALAH. 45
while each made sueh use of it as suited their distinctive tendencies? CHAP.
At any rate the Kabbalah also, likening Scripture to a person, com- JV
pares those who study merely the letter, to them who attend only to ^ ^< — -"
the dress; those who consider the moral of a fact, to them who attend
to the body; while the initiated alone, who regard the hidden
meaning, are those who attend to the soul. Again, as Philo, so the
oldest part of the Mishnah " designates God as Maqom — ' the place '— " ^^- ^- *
the TOTtog, the all-comprehending, what the Kabbalists called i\\Q En-
Soph^ 'the boundless,' that God, without any quality, Who becomes
cognisable only by His manifestations.'
The manifestations of God! But neither Eastern mystical
Judaism, nor the philosophy of Philo, could admit of any direct
contact between God and creation. The Kabbalah solved the diffi-
culty by their Sephiroth,'^ or emanations from God, through which
this contact was ultimately l)rought about, and of which the En-
SopjJij or crown, was the spring: 'the source from which the intlnite
light issued.' If Philo found greater difficulties, he had also more
ready help from the philosophical systems to hand. His SepJdrotJi
were 'Potencies' (dwdpieig), ' Words' (Ao;>/oi), intermediate powers:
'Potencies,' as we imagine, when viewed Godwards; 'Words,' as
viewed creationwards. They were not emanations, but, according to
Plato, 'archetypal ideas,' on the model of which all that exists was
formed; and also, according to the Stoic idea, the cause of all, per-
vading all, forming all, and sustaining all. Thus these ' Potencies '
were wholly in God, and yet wholly out of God. If we divest all
this of its philosophical colouring, did not Eastern Judaism also
teach that there Avas a distinction between the Unapproachable God,
and God manifest?^
Another remark will show the parallelism between Philo and
Rabbinism.^ As the latter speaks of the two qualities {Mlddoth) of
Mercy and Judgment in the Divine Being,'' and distinguishes l)etween bjer.Ber.
Elohlm. as the God of Justice, and Jeliovah as the God of Mercy
and Grace, so Philo places next to the Divine Word {Ssiog Xoyog),
Goodness {ayaSoryjg), as the Creative Potency {noiijTiKrj 6vva/.iig),
' In short, the \dyoi aTteftf-iariKoi of and Rabbinic Theology.'
the Stoics. * A very interesting question arises:
■^ Supposed to mean either iiinnera- how far Philo was actiuainted with, and
Hones, or splendour. But why not derive influenced by, the Jewisli traditional law
the word from acpaipa'! The ten are: or the Halakhah. Tliis has been treated
CroiDn, Wisdom, Intelligence, Me)-cy, by Dr. 5. 7?/yi'er in an able tractate (Philo
Judgment, Beaut}/, TriMm-ph, Praise, u. die Halach.), although he attributes
Fotindation, Kingdom. more to Philo than the evidence seems to
■^ For the teaching of Eastern Judaism admit,
in this respect, see Appendix II. : ' Philo
ix. 7
46
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
I
V
''Or Ruach
liam Maijom,
Ab. iii. 10,
and fre-
quently in
the Tal-
mud.
and Power [e^ovcria), as the Ruling Potenc}^ {/3a<JiXiKt} Svvaptig),
l)roving- this Ijv a curious etymological derivation ot* the words for
' God ' and ' Lord ' [Oeos and Kvpiog) — apparently unconscious that
the LXX., in direct contradiction, translated Jehovah by Lord
(Kvpiog), and Elohim by God (©fo's")! These two potencies of good-
ness and power, Pliilo sees in the two Cherubim, and in the two
' Angels ' which accompanied God (the Divine Word), Avhen on his
way to destroy tlie cities of the plain. But there were more than
these two Potencies. In one place Philo enumerates six, according to
the number of the cities of refuge. The Potencies issued from God
as the beams from the light, as the waters from the spring, as the
breath from a person: they were immanent in God, and yet also
without Him — motions on the part of God, and yet independent
beings. They were the ideal world, which in its imjiulse outwards,
meeting matter, produced this material world of ours. They were
also the angels of God — His messengers to man, the media through
whom He revealed Himself.'
' 3. The Logos. — Viewed in its Ijearing on New Testament teacli-
ing, this part of Philo's system raises the most interesting questions.
But it is just here that our difficulties are greatest. We can under-
stand the Platonic conception of the Logos as the ' archety])al idea,'
and that of the Stoics as of the 'world-reason' pervading matter.
Similarly, we can perceive, how the Apocrypha — especially the Book
of Wisdom — following up the Old Testament typical truth concern-
ing ' Wisdom ' (as sjiecially set forth in the Book of Proverbs) almost
arrived so far as to present ' Wisdom ' as a special ' Subsistence ' (hy-
postatising it). More tlmn this, in Talmndical writings, we find men-
tion not only of the Shem, or 'Name,'^ but also of the Shekhinah,'
God as manifest and present, which is sometimes also presented as
the linacli ha Qodesh, or Holy Spirit." But in the Targumim we
meet yet another expression, Avhich, strange to say, never occurs in the
' At the same time there is a reinari<-
aljie diHerence liere l)etween Philo and
Raljbinism. Philo .holds that the crea-
tion of the world was brouiiht about l)y
the Poff'/ici'es, but that the Law was ,2;iven
dii'ectly through Moses, and )iot by the
mt^'/irifioti of (tnijels. But this latter was
certainly the view generally entertained
in Palestine as expressed in the LXX.
renilering of Deut. xxxii. 2, in the Tar-
gumim on that passage, and more fully
still in ./o.s. Ant. xv. 5. 3. in the Mid-
rashim and in the Talmud, where we are
told (Mace. 24 a) tliat only the opening
words, ' I am the Lord thy God, thou
shalt have no other gods but Me,' were
spoken by God Himself. Comp. also
Acts vii. 38, 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2.
"^ Hainmejuchdd, 'approi)riatum ;' hnm-
ine'pliorasli, 'expositum.' 'sei)aratum,'the
'tetragrammaton,' or four-lettered name,
;-;•,-;«. There was also a ><}win with
'twelve,' and one with 'forty-two' let-
ters (Kidd. 71 a).
THE 'MEMIJA' OF UNKELUS AND THE ' iJKiOri.'
47
Talmiid.^ Jt is tliatortlieiJ/emv'o, Log-os, or ' AVoi-d." Not that tlietcrm
is exclusively applied to the Divine Logos. ^ But it stands out as perhaps
the most remarkable fact in this literature, that God — not as in Ilis per-
manent manit'estation, or manifest Presence — but as revealing" Himself,
is designated Memra. Altogether that term, as applied to God, occurs
in the Targum Onkelos 170 times, in the so-called Jerusalem Targum 99
times, and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 321 times. A critical anal-
ysis shows that in 82 instances in Onkelos, in 71 instances in the Jeru-
salem Targum, and in 213 instances in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,
the designation Memra is not only distinguished from God, l)ut evi-
dently refers to God as revealing Himself." But what does this im-
ply '( The <listinction between God and the 3fcmra of Jehovah is marked
in many passages.* Similarly, the Menvra of JehovaJi iadistrngmshed
from the SheMiinali.'" Nor is the term used instead of the sacred word
Jehovah; "^ nor for the well-known Old Testament expression ' the Angel
of the Lord; ' ' nor yet for the Metatron of the Targum Pseudo- Jonathan
and of the Talmud.'^ Does it then represent an older tradition under-
lying all these V Beyond this Babbinic theology has not preserved to
us the doctrine of Personal distinctions in the Godhead. And yet, if
CHAP,
IV
' Leiiy (Neuliebr. Worterb. i. p. 374 a)
seems to imply that in tbe Midrash the
term dihhnr occupies the same place and
meaning?. But with all deference I can-
not agree with this opinion, nor do the
passages quoted bear it out.
■^ The ' word,' as spoken, is distin-
guished from the ' Word ' as speaking, or
revealing Himself. The former is gen-
erally designated by the term -pif/ir/amo.'
Thus in Gen. xv. 1, • After these words
(things) came the ' ' pithgama " of Jehovah
to Abram in prophecy, saying, Fear not,
Abram, My "Memra" shall be thy
strength, and thy very great reward.' Still,
the term Memra, as applied not only to
man, but also in reference to God, is not
always the equivalent of 'the Logos.'
•' The various passages in the Targum
of Onkelos, the Jerusalem, and the
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum on the Penta-
teuch will l)e found enumerated and
classified, as those in which it is a doubt-
ful, a fair, or an loupiestionabJe infer-
ence, that the word Memra is intended
for God revealing Himself, in Ai)i)endix
H. : ' Philo and Rabbinic Theology.'
* As, for example. Gen. xxviii. 21, 'the
Memra of Jehovah shall be my God.'
^ As, for example, Num. xxiii. 21, ' the
Memra of Jehovah their God is their
helper, and the Shekhinah of their King
is in the midst of them.'
•> That term is often used by Onkelos.
Besides, the expression itself is 'the
Menu'a of Jehovah.'
" Onkelos only once (in Ex. iv. 24)
paraphrases Jehovah by ' Malakha.'
^ Metatron, either = ixetcl bpbvov, or
f^iETCL TVfjavvov. \\\ tlie Talmud it is ap-
plied to the Angel of Jehovah (Ex. xxiii.
20), 'the Prince of the World,' -the
Prince of the Face ' or ' of the Presence,'
as they call him ; he who sits in the inner-
most chamber before God, while the other
angels only hear His commands from be-
hind the veil (Chag. 15 « ; 16 r? ; Toseft. ad
ChuU. (iO a ; Jeb. 16 h). This Metatron of
the Talnuid and the Kabbalah is also the
Adam (jadmoii, or archetypal man.
■' Of deep interest is Onkelos' render-
ing of Dent, xxxiii. 27, where, instead of
' underneath are the everlasting arms,'
Onkelos has, ' and by His Menwa was
the world created,' exactly as in St. Johu
i. 10. Now this divergence of Onkelos
from the Hebrew text seems unaccount-
able. Winer, whose inaugural disserta-
tion, ' De Onkeloso ejus(iue paraph.
Ghald.' Lips. 1820, most nu)dern writers
have followed (with amplifications, chiefly
from Luzzato^s Philoxenus), makes no
reference to this passage, nor do his suc-
cessors, so far as I know. It is curious
48
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
I
" Gen. xli.x.
10. 11;
Num. xxiv.
17
words have any meaning, the Memra i.s a hypostasis, though the dis-
tinction of permanent, per.-^onal Subsistence is not marked. Nor yet,
to complete this subject, is the Memra identified with the Messiah.
In tlie Targum Onkelos distinct mention is twice made of Him, ^ while
in the other Targumim no fewer than seventy-one Biblical passages
are rendered with explicit reference to Him.
If we now turn to the views expressed by Philo about the Logos we
find that they are hesitating, and even contradictory. One thing, how-
ever, is plain: the Logos of Philo is not the Memra of the Targumim.
For, the expression Memra ultimately rests on theological, that of
Logos on philosophical grounds. Again, the Logos of Philo approxi-
mates more closely to the Metatron of the Talmud and Ka])balah. As
they speak of him as the ' Prince of the Face,' Avho bore the name of
his Lord, so Philo represents the Logos as 'the eldest Angel,' 'the
nuuiy-named Archangel,' in accordance with the JcAvish view that the
name JeHoYaH unfolded its meaning in seventy names for the God-
head.' As they speak of the ' Adam Qadmon," so Philo of the Logos
as the human refiection of the eternal God. And in t)oth these re-
spects, it is worthy of notice that he appeals to ancient teaching.^
What, then, is thcLogos of Pliilo ? Not a concrete i)ersonalitv.jind
yet, from another point of view, not strictlv impersonal, nor merely a i^ro-
ha.-: scarcely icceiveil a.-< yet .siitticient
treatrnout. Mr. Jjeuf.sc/i'.s Article in
Smith's ' Dictionary of the Bible' (since
reijrinted in liis 'Remains.') is, though
brilliantly written, unsatisfactory. Dr.
Diiridson (in Kitto's Cyclop., vol. iii. pp.
!)4S-9G(;) is, as always, careful, laborious,
and learned. Dr. Volck's article (in Her-
zog's Real-Encykl.. vol. xv. ])p. 672-68.S)
is witliuut much intrinsic value, though
painstakinii. We mention these articles,
besides the treatment of the subject in
the Introduction to- the Old Testament
(Keil, De Wette-Schrader. Bleek-Kamp-
hausen. Reuss), and the \vf)rks of Znnz,
Geiger, Noldeke, and others, to whom
partial reference has already been made.
Fraid-el's interestintr and learned book
(Zu dem Tar2;uni der Proijheten) deals al-
most exclusively with tlie Tarjjjum .Jona-
than, on which it was impossible to enter
within our limits. As modern bi'ocKures of
interest the followinj; three may be men-
tioned: Mayhaum, Anthroiiomorphien bei
Onkelos; Gronema n n JYw ion&th. Pentat.
Uebers. uu Verhaltu. z. Halacha; and
Sinr/er, Onkelos im Verhiiltn. z. Halacha.
' See the enumeration of these 70
Names in the Baal-ha-Tiuim on Numb,
xi. 16.
'^ Comp. Siegfried, u. s.. ))p. 221-223.
that, as our present Hebrew text of this
verse consists of three worels, so does the
rendering of Onkelos, and that both end
with the same word. Is the rendering of
Onkelos then a paraphrase, or does it
represent another reading? Another in-
teresting passage is Dent. viii. 3. Its quo-
tation by Christ in St. Matt. iv. 4 is deeply
interesting, as read in the light of the ren-
dering of Onkelos, • Not by bread alone is
man sustained, but by every forthcom-
ing Memra from before Jehovah shall
man live.' Yet another rendering of
Onkelos is significantly illustrative of
1 Cor. X. 1-4. He renders Deut. xxxiii.
3 ' with power He brought them out of
Egyi)t; they were led under thy cloud;
they journeyed according to (by) thy
Memra.' Does this represent a difier-
ence in the Hebrew from the admittedly
dithcult text in our present Bil)le? Winer
refers to it as an instance in which Onkelos
'suopte ingenio et copiose admodum
eloquitur vatum divinorum mentem.' add-
ing, ' ita nt de his. (puis singulis vocibus
inesse crediderit, significationibus non
possit recte judicari ; ' and Winer's suc-
cessors say much the same. But this is
to state, not to explain, the difficulty.
In general, we may here be allowed to
eay that the question of the Targumim
PH1L(JS LOGOS AS THE IIIGH-PRIEST AND PARACLETE.
49
portv of tlic Doitv. but the shadow, as it were, which the litrlit of God CHAP.
casts — an<l if Himself li^'ht, only the manifested reflection of God, His IV
spiritual, even as the worhl is His material, habitation. Moreover, the "- — r —
Log-QS is ' the inuige of God ' (siKOjv), upon which man was made,'' or, ^ Gen. i. 27
to use the platonic term, Hhe archetv])al idea.' As regards the
relation between the Logos and the two fundamental Potencies (from
which all others issue), the latter are variously represented — on the one
liand, as proceeding from the Logos; and on the other, as themselves
constituting the Logos. As regards the world, the Logos is its real
being. He is also its archetype; moreover the instrument (opyavor)
through Whom God created all things. If the Logos separates between
God and the world, it is rather as intermediary; He separates, but He
also unites. But chiefly does this hold true as regards the relation
between God and man. The Logos announces and interprets to man the
will andmiiidof God {spjxr^vsv^ Ka I Trpo^fjrfjg)- He acts as mediator;
He is the real High-Priest, and as such by His purity takes away the
sins of man, and by His intercession procures for us the mercy of
God. Hence Philo designates Him not only as the High-Priest, but as
the ' Paraclete. ' He is also the sun whose rays enlighten man, the
medium of Divine revelation to the soul; the Manna, or support of
spiritual life; He Who dwells in the soul. And so the Logos is,
in the fullest sense, Melchisedek, the priest of the most high God.
the kmu' of riirhteousnessJ Bao-iXevc diKaiog),^\\d the king of Salem
{l^aaiXetK sipijvijs), Wlio lu'ings righteousness and peace to the souL'' ^ De Leg,
But the Logos ' does not come into anv soul tliat is dead in sip. ' That 25, 26
there is close similai'itv of form between these Alexandrian views "and
liiucli 111 the arguuu'utation of the E))istle to the HebrowSr niust__be
evident Uj_a[\ — no less than that there is the widest possiljle divergence
in sul)stance and spirit. ^ The Logos of Philo is shadowv. unreal not n
Person; - there is no need of an atoiiPDionf • the High-Priest iiiter-
cedes, but has no sacrifice to ofl'er as the basis of His intercession, least
of all that of Himself; the old Testament types are only typical ideas,
' For a full discussion of tbis sinii- showing, the writer of the Epistle to the
larity of form and divergence of si)irit, Hebrews displays few traces of a Pales-
bctween Philo — or, rather, between Alex- tinian training.
aiulriauism — and the Epistle to the He- ^ On the subject of Philo's Logos
brews, the reader is referred to the generally the brochure of Harnoch (Kd-
niasterly treatise by Biehm (Der Lehr- nigsberg, 1879) deserves perusal, al-
begriff d. HebrJierbr. ed. 1867. especially though it does not furnish much that is
l)p. 247-268, 411-424:, 658-670, and 855- new. In general, the student of Philo
S60). The author's general view on the ought especially to study the sketch bj'
subject is well and convincingly formu- Zeller in his Philosophie der Gr., vol.
lated on p. 249. We must, however, add, iii. pt. ii. 3rd ed. pp. 338-418.
in ojiposition to Riehm, that, by his own
^
60
THE PUKl'AitATlUN FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
I
» Aa for
exanfele
EccMl.'iii.
not typical ttu't.-i; tlicy i)()iiit to a Prototypal Idea in the eternal past,
not to an Antitypal Person and Fact in history; there is no cleansing
of the soul by l)lood, no sprinklingof the Mercy Seat, no access for all
through the rent veil into the immediate Presence of God; nor yet a
quickening of the soul from dead works to serve the living God. If
the argumentation of the Papistic to the Hebrews is Alexandrian, it is
an Alcxandrianism which is overcome and past, which only furnishes
the form, not the substance, the vessel, not its contents. The closer
therefore the outward similarity, the greater is the contrast in
substance.
The vast difference ])etween Alexandrianism and the Xew Testa-
ment will api)ear still more clearly in the views of Philo on Cosmology
and A ntlrropologii. In regard U) the former, his results in some respects
run parallel to those of the students of mysticism in the Talmud, and
of the Kab])alists. To.u'ether witli tlic Stujc \icw. whiVj) i-r-pvc^c^iti-rl
God as 'the active cause of this world, and nuitter as • the passive.'
Philo holils the Platonic idea, that matter was somethinu* existent.. and
that it resisted G<'d.' Such si)e<'uh(tions must have been current
^ Shem. R.
13
among the Jews long before, to judge by certain warnings given by the
Son of Sirach."'^ And Stoic views of the origin of the world seem
implied even in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon (i. 7; vii. 24;
viii. 1; xii. 1).^ The mystics in the Talmud arrived at similar
conclusions, not through Greek, but through Persian teaching. Their
speculations* Ixjldly entered on the dangerous ground,^ forbidden to
the many, scarcely allowed to the few.,*^ where such deep questions as
the origin of our world and its connection with God were discussed.
It was, perhaps, only a l^eautiful poetic figure that God had taken of
the dust under the throne of His glory, and cast it upon the waters,
which thus became earth.'' But so far did isolated teachers become
1 With singular and characteristic in-
consistency, Philo, however, ascribes
also to God the creation of matter (de
Somn. i. 13).
-' So the Talinudists certainly under-
stood it, .Ter. Chasz;. ii. 1.
^ Conij). (rrimin, Exe^i:. Handb. zu d.
Apokr., Lief. vi. pp. 55, 56.
* They were arranged iuto those con-
cerning the Maasey Bereshith (Creation),
and the MaaHei/ Merkahhah, ' the chariot'
of Ezekiel's vision (Providence in the
widest sense, or God's manifestation in
the created world).
^ Of the four celebrities who entered
the 'Pardes,' or enclosed Paradise of
theosophic speculation, one became an
ai)0state. another died, a third went
wrong (Ben Soma), and only Akiba es-
caped unscathed, according to the
Scrijiture saying, ' Draw me. and we will
run ■ (Chag. U b).
* • It is not lawful to enter upon the
Maasfij Bereshith in presence of two.
nor upon the Merkabhah in presence of
one, unless he be a "sage," and under-
stands of his own knoAvledge. Any one
who ratiocinates on these four things, it
were better for him that he had not been
born : What is above and what is below ;
what was afore, and what shall be here-
after.' (Chag. ii. L)
rillLO'S COSMOLOGY AND ANTIIKOPOLOGY. 51
intoxicated' by tlu; new wine of tliese strang-e si)eeuliition8, that they CHAP.
whisj)ered it to one anotlicr that water was the oriji'iiuil eh'iiieiit of the IV
worhl,^ which had successively been hardened into snow ;iiid tlu-n into ^ — .'
earth.'' ^ Other and later teachei's fixed uiion the air or the tire as the '.ler. chag.
original element, arguing- the i)re-existence ot nuitter troni the use ot
the word 'made' in Gen. i. 7. instead of 'created.' Some moditied
this view, and suggested that God had originally created the three
elements of water, air or spirit, and lire, from which all else was
developed.* Traces also occur of tlie doctrine of the })re-existence of
things, in a sense similar to tliat of Plato." i-Ber. r. i.
Like Plato and the Stoics. Philo reu'arded matter as devoid of all
(iualit\, and even form. Matter in itself was dead — nun'e than that.
it was t'vU. This matter, which was already existing, God formed
(not made), like an architect who uses his materials according to a
pre-existing plan — which in this case was the archetypal world.
This was creation, or rather formation, brought al)out not by God
Himself, bnt by the Potencies, especially by the Logos, Who was the
connecting bond of all. As for God, His only direct work was the
soul, and that only of the good, not of the evil. Man's immaterial
part had a twofold aspect: earthwards, as Sensuousness {aiatiijcris);
and heavemvards, as Reasoij (koi)^). The sensuous part of the soul
was connected with the l)ody. It had no heavenly past, and would
have no future. But 'Reason' {vov5) was that ))reath of true life
whicli God had breathed into man {7rv€vj.ia) whereby the earthy
became the higher, living si)irit, with its various faculties. Before
time began the soul was without body, an archetype, the 'heavenly
man,' pure spirit in Paradise (virtue), yet even so longing after its
ultimate archetype, God. Some of these pure spirits descendetl into
' 'Ben Soma went astray (mentally): A very cm-ions idea is that of R. Josluia
he shook the (Jewish) world".' ben Levi, acc()nUii,ii- to which all the
- That criticism, which one would des- works of creation were really finished on
ifj;nate as impertinent, which would find the tirst day, and only, as it were, ex-
this view in 2 Peter iii. 5, is, alas! not tended on the other days. This also
confined to Jewish writers, but hazarded represents really a doubt of the Biblical
even by De Wette. account of creation. Stran.iie thou<ih it
•^ Judah bar Pazi. in the second cen- may sound, the doctrine of develoimient
tury. Ben Soma lived in the first century was derived from the words (Gen. ii. 4).
of our era. ' These are the generations of heaven and
■• Accordins; to the Jerusalem Talmud earth when they were created, in the day
(Ber. i. I) the firmament was at first soft, when Jahveh Elohim made earth and
and only ,2;radually became hard. Ac- heavens.' It was ari^ued, that the ex-
cordln,ii; " to Ber. R". 10, G(id creat(>d the i)ression implied, they were developed
world from a mixture of tire and snow, from the day in which they had been
other Rabbis sus:fi;estinf>; four ori.s^inal created. Others seem to have held, that
elements, according to the quarters of the the three principal things that were
globe, or else six, adding to them that created— earth, heaven, and water — re-
whlch is above and that which is l)elow. mained. each for three days, at the end
52
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
I
bodies and so lost their purity. Or else, the union was brought about
by God and by powers lower than God (daemons, drjfxiovpyoi). To
"-^^-""^ the latter is due our earthly part. God breathed on the formation,
and the ' earthly Reason ' became ' intelligent' ' spiritual ' soul {ipvxt)
rospd). Our earthly part alone is the seat of sin. ^
This leads us to the great question of Original Sin. Here the
views of Philo are those of the f]astern Rabbis. Butboth are en-
tirely different from^ those on which the argument in the Epistle to
the Romans turns. It was neither at the feet of Gamaliel, ncir vet
from Jewish Hellenism, that Saul of Tarsus learned the doctrine of
original sin. The statement that as in Adam all spiritually died, so
in ^lessiah all should be made alive, ^ finds absolutely no parallel in
Jewish writings.^ What may be called the starting point of Chris-
tian theology, the doctrine of hereditary guilt and sin, through the
fall of Adam, and of the consequent entire and helpless corruption of
our nature, is entirely unknown to Rabbinical Judaism. The reign of
physical death was indeed traced to the sin of our first parents.* But
»Ber. 61a tlic Taluiud cxprcssly teaches," that God originally created man with
two propensities, "one to good and one to evil {Yetser tobh, and Yetser
fcsanh. 917; hara^). The evil impulse began immediately after birth."' But it
of which they respectively developed
what is connected with them (Ber. R. 12).
1 For further notices on the Cosmology
and Anthropology of Philo, see Appen-
dix n. : ' Philo and Rabbinic Theology.'
■/^ 'l_ We cannot help quoting the beauti-
ful Haggadic explanation of the name
Adam, according to its three letters,
A, D, M — as including these three names,
Adam. David, Messiah.
* Rayinundus Martini, in his 'Pugio
Fidei' (orig. ed. p. 675; ed. Voisin et
CdU'pzor, pp. 860, 867), quotes from the
iDOok Siplire: 'Go and learn the merit of
Messiah tlie King, and the reward of the
righteous from the first Adam, on whom
was laid only one commandment of a
prohibitive character, and he trans-
gressed it. See how many deaths were
appointed on him, and on his genera-
tions, and on the generations of his
generations to the end of all genera-
tions. {Wiinsche, Leiden d. Mess. p.
05. makes here an unwarrantable addi-
tion, in his translation.) But which at-
tribute fmeasuring?) is the greater — the
attribute of. goodness or the attribute of
punishment, (retribution)? He answered,
the attribute of goodness is the greater,
and tiie attribute of punishment the less.
And Messiah the King, who was clias-
tcned and suffei-ed for the transgressors,
as it is said, •• He was wounded for our
transgressions," and so on — how nuich
more shall He justify (make righteous —
by His merit) all generations ; and this
is what is meant when it is written.
"And Jehovah made to meet upon Him
the sin of us all."' We have rendered
this passage as literally as possible, but
we are bound to add that it is not found
in any now existing copy of Siphre.
* Death is not considered an absolute
evil. In short, all the various conse-
quences which Rabbinical writings as-
cribe to the sin of Adam may be desig-
nated either as phj-sical, or, if mental,
as amounting only to detriment, loss,
or imperfeiGtness. These results had
been partially counteracted by Abraham,
and would be fully removed by the
Messiah. Neither Enoch nor Elijah had
sinned, and accordingly they did not die.
Comp. generally. Hamburger. Geist d.
Agada. p]). 81-84, and in regard to
death as connected with Adam, p. 85.
^ These are also hypostatised as An-
gels. Comp. Levy, Chald. Wtii'terb. \\.
342 a; Neuhebr. Worterb. p. 259, ((, h.
* Or with 'two reins,' the one, advis-
ing to good, being at his right, the other,
counselling evil, at his left, according
to Eccles. X. 2 (Ber. 61 a, towards the
end of the page).
' In a sense its existence was necea-
sarv for the continuance of this world.
PHiLO's p:thics. 53
was within the power of man to vanquish sin, and to attain porfoct chap.
righteousness; in fact, this stage had actually been attained/ l^'
Similarly, Philo regarded the soul of the child as ^nakoil ■ (A (him ^- — ^i '
and Eve), a sort of tabula rasa, as wax which and \v(iii1(l fiiin form
and mould. Rnt tin's state ceased Avhcn <(^ft'oction' })i-e[^ciitc(l itself
to reason, and thus sensuous lust arose, which was the suriuii.- of all
sin. The grand task, then, was to get rid of the sensuous, and to
rise to the spiritual. In this, the ethical part of his system, Philo
was most under the influence of Stoic ])hilosoohv. We might almost
.say, it is no longer the Hebrew wlio Hellenises, but the >Tc11cmo who
Ilebraises. And yet it is here also that the most ingenious and wide-
reaching allegorisms of Scripture are introduced. It is scarcely pos-
i^ible to convey an idea of how brilliant this method becomes in the
liands of Philo, how universal its application, or how captivating it
must have proved. Philo describes man's state as, first one of sen-
suousness, but also of unrest, misery and unsatisfied longing. If per-
sisted in, it would end in complete spiritual insensibility.^ But from
this state the soul must pass to one of devotion to reason.^ This
change might be accomplished in one of three wa3's: first, by study
— of which physical was the lowest; next, that which embraced the
ordinary circle of knowledge ; and lastly, the highest, that of Divine
l)hilosophy. The second method was Askesis : discipline, or prac-
tice, when the soul turned from the lower to the higher. But the
best of all was the third way: the free unfolding of that si)iritual
life which cometh neither from study nor discipline, but from a
natural good disposition. And in that state the soul had true rest^
and joy.*
Here we must for the present pause.® Brief as tliis sketch of
Hellenism has been, it must have brouglit the question vividly before
the mind, whether and how far certain parts of the New Testament.
cs])ecially the fourth Gospel,' are connected with the direction ot
The conflict between these two impulses Theology.'
coustituted the moral life of man. ^ The views of Philo on the Messiah
1 The solitary exception hei'e is 4 will be presented in another coiuiection.
Esdras, where the Christian doctrine of ' This is not the place to enter on the
original sin is most strongly expressed, (luestion of the composition, date, and
l)eing evidently derived from New Tes- authorship of the four Gosiiels. But as
tament teaching. Comp. especially 4 regards the point on which negative criti-
Esdras (our ApocrjiJhal 2 Esdras) vii. cism has of late spoken strongest— and
4()-53, and other passages. "Wlierein the on which, indeed (as Weiss rightly re-
hope of safety lay, appears in ch. ix. marks) the very existence of ' the Tilbin-
'^ Symbolised by Lot's wife. gen School ' depends — that of the Johan-
^ Symbolised by Ebher, Hebrew. nine authorship of the fourth Gospel. I
* The Sabbath, Jerusalem. would refer to Weisf:, Leben Jesu (1882 :
^ For further details on these points vol. i. pp. 84-139), and to Dr. Salmon's
see Appendix H. : 'Philo and Rabbinic Introd. to the New Test. pp. 2iUi-'Mh).
r
\
54 THE PREPARATION FOR THE G08PEL.
]!0()K tliou^lit (lc8cril)e(l in tlic ])recudiiig pages. Without yielding- to that
[ scliool of critics, whose perverse ingenuity discerns everywnere a
- ^^^ — ^ sinister motive or tendency in the Evangelic writers,' it is evident
that each of them had a special object in view in constructing his
narrative of the One Life; and primarily addressed himself to a special
audience. If, without entering into elaborate discussion, we might,
according to St. Luke i. 2, regard the narrative of St. Mark as the
grand representative of that authentic 'narration' {du'/yijaig)^ though
not by Apostles,'^ which was in circulation, and the Gospel by St.
Matthew as representing the 'tradition' handed down (the Ttapadoaig),
by the Apostolic eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,^ we should
reach the following results. Our oldest Gospel-narrative is that by
St. Mark, which, addressing itself to no class in particular, sketches
in rapid outlines the picture of Jesus as the Messiah, alike for all
men. Next in order of time comes our present Gospel by St.
Matthew. It goes a step further back than that by St. Mark, and
gives not only the genealogy, but the history of the miraculous birth
of Jesus. Even if we had not the consensus of tradition, every one
^; must feel that this Gospel is Hebrew in its cast, in its citations from
^jij^ % the Old Testament, and in its whole bearing. Taking its key-note
from the Book of Daniel, that grand Messianic text-book of Eastern
Judaism at the time, and as re-echoed in the Book of Enoch — which
expresses the popular apprehension of Daniel's Messianic idea — it
presents the Messiah chiefly as 'the Son of Man,' 'the Son of David,'
' the Son of God.' We have hei-e the fulfilment of Old Testament law
and prophecy ; the realisation of Old Testament life, faith, and hope.
Third in point of time is the Gospel by St. Luke, which, passing back
another step, gives us not only the history of the birth of Jesus, but
also that of John, 'the preparer of the way.' Jt is Pauline, and
y . addresses itself, or rather, we should sav. i^resonts the Person of the
Messiah, it may be ' to the Jew first.' but certainlv ' also to the (Jrcck.'
The term which St. Luke, alone of all Gospel writers,* applies to
' No one not acquainted witli this - I do not, of course, mean tliat tlie
literature can imao;ine the character of narration of St. Mark was not itself de-
the ar^-uments sometimes used by a cer- rived chiefl.y from Ajjostolic preachiiiij,
tain class of critics. To say that they especially that of St. Peter. In fjeneral,
proceed on tlie most forced perversion tlie ([uestion of the authorship and source
of the natural and obvious meanin.i>; of of tlie various Gospels uuist be reserved
passages, is but little. But one cannot for separate treatment in another place,
restrain moral indiijnation on flndinii- tliat •' Comji. Ma/u/oftTs ed. of B/cek, Einl.
to Evauiielists and Apostles is imputed, in d. N.T. (P>te Aufl. 1S7.")), p. 34<).
on sucli ii'rounds, not only systematic ^ WitJj the sole exception of St. Matt,
falsehood, l)ut falseliood with the most xii. IS, where the expression is a quota-
sinister motives. tion from the LXX. of Is. xlii. 1.
PRESENTATION UF CHRIST IN THE GOSPELS. 55
Jesus, is that of the nai; or 'servant' of God, in the sense in which CHAP.
Isaiah has spoken of the Messiah as the ' Ebhcd Jehovah, ' ' servant of IV
the Lord.' St. Luke's is, so to speak, the Isaiali-Gospel, presenting "- — ■:——^
the Christ in His bearing on the history of God's Kingdom and of the
world — as God's Elect Servant in Whom He delighted. In the Old
Testament, to adopt a beautiful figure,' the idea of the Servant of the
Lord is set before us like a pyramid: at its base it is all Israel, at its
central section Israel after the Spirit (the circumcised in heart), re-
presented by David, the man after God's own heart; "while at its apex
it is the 'Elect' Servant, the Messiah.^ And these three ideas, with
tlieir sequences, are presented in the third Gospel as centring in Jesus
the Messiah. By the side of this pyramid is the other: the Son of
Man, the Son of David, the Son of God. The Servant of the Lord of
Isaiah and of Luke is the p]nlightener, the Consoler, the victorious
Deliverer; the Messiah or Anointed: the Prophet, the Priest, the
King.
Yet another tendency — shall we sny^ wnnt ? — remained, so to
i^'
speak, unmet and unsatisfied. That large world of latest and nu)st a pi
ijx^Jyjo
promising Jewish thought, whose task it seemed to bridge over the
chasm between heathenism and Judaism — the Western Jewish worh
must have the Christ presented to them, y For in every direction is C W j -^
He the Christ. And not oulv thev, l)ut that larger Greek world, so
far as Jewish Hellenism could ])ring it to the threshold of the Church.
This Hellenistic and Hellenic world now stood in waiting to enter it,
though as it were by its northern porch, and to be baptized at its
font. All this must have forced itself on the mind of St^Jolm, re-
siding in the midst of them at Ephesus, even as St. Paul's E])istles
contain almost as many allusions to Hellenism as to Eabbinism.^
And so the fourth Gospel Ijccame, not the supplement, but the com-
' First expressed by Delitzsch (Bibl. although the inferences may be false.
Comni. ii. d. Proph. Jes. p. 414), and tiaen Theoloiiy sliould not here rashly inter-
adopted by OeJder (Theol. d. A. Test. fere. JBut whatever the ultimate result,
vol. ii. \l\^. 270-272). these two are certainly the fundamental
-' The two fundamental principles in facts in the history of the Kinndom of
the history of the Kin,<j;dom of God are God, and, mai'king them as sucli. the
selt-ctioii and ilerehrpmpnt. It is surely devout philosopher may rest contented.^
remarkable, not stranse, that these are ■' The Gnostics, to whom, in the opinion'
also the two fundamental truths in the of nuin,v, so frequent references are nuide
history of that other Kingdom of God, in the writings of St. John and St. Paul,
Nature, if modern science has read them were only an otTspring (rather, as the
correctly. These two s/^/wA^w/hvs would Germans woidd term it. an Abart) of
mark the /nfc^s as ascertained; the r/r/y«'- Alexandrianism on the one hand, ami
twes. which are added to them by a on llie otlier of Eastern notions, which
certain class of students, mark oidy their are so lari^ely embodied in the later
uifprettcfs from these facts. These facts Kabl)alah.
may be true, even if as yet incomplete,
iJU^
56 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK pleiiicnt, of the other tliree^ There is no other Gospel more Pales-
I tiiiiau than this in its modes of expression, alhisions, and references.
^-^•^^r — ' XQ,i we must all feel how thoroughl}' Hellenistic it also is in its cast.^
in what it reports and what it omits — in short, in its whole aim;
how adapted to Hellenist wants its presentation of deep central
truths; how suitably, in the report of His Discourses — even so far
as their form is concerned — the promise was here fulfilled, of bringin"^
» St. John all things to remembrance whntmoever He had said/ It is the true
Light which shineth, of which the full meridian-blaze lies on the
Hellenist and Hellenic world. There is Alexandrian form of thought
not only in the whole conception, but in the Logos, ^ and in His
presentation as the Light, the Life, the Wellspring of the world.''
But these forms are filled in the fourth Gospel with quite other sub-
stance. God is not afar off, uncognisable by man, without properties,
without name. He is the Father. Instead of a nebulous reflection
(\ of the Deity we have the Person of the Logos; not a Logos with
^ %-'f"*-^-' the two potencies of goodness and power, but full of grace and
^ aJ^ J truth. The Gospel of St. John also begins with a ^Bereshith' — but
*^* it is the theological, not the cosmic Bereshith, when the Logos was
f /?/*/^ with God and was God. Matter is not pre-existent; far less is it
/ At^Xf ^ g^,^j_ g^_ John strikes the pen through Alexandrianism when he lays
it down as the fundamental fact of New Testament history that ' the
1 A coiiipleineut, not a supplement, as on statements so entirel.y hiaccurate.
many critics put it {Eirald, Weizsacker, ^ Dr. Buclie); whose book, Des Apos-
and even Hengstenberg) — least of all a tels Johannes Lehre vom Logos, deserves
rectification {Godet, Evang. Job. p. 63.3). careful perusal, tries to trace the reason
'' Keim (Leben Jesu von Nazara, i. a, of these peculiarities as indicated in the
pp. 112-114) fully recognises this; but I Prologue of the fourth Gospel. Bucher
entirely differ from tlie conclusions of differentiates at great lengtli between the
his analytical comparison of Philo with Logos of Philo and of tlie fourtli Gospel,
the fourth Gospel. • He sums up his views by stating that in
'* The student who has carefully con- the Prologue of St. John the Logos is
sidered the views ex])ressed by Philo presented as the fulness of Divine Light
about the Logos, and analysed, as in and Life. This is, so to speak, tlie tlieme,
the Appendix, the passages in the Tar- Avliile the Gospel history is intended to
gumira in which the word Memra oc- present the Logos as the giver of tiiis
curs, cannot fail to perceive the im- Divine Light and Life. While the otiier
mense difference in the presentation of Evangelists ascend from" the manifesta-
the Logos hy St. John. Yet M. Rcikui. tion to the idea of the Son of God. St.
in an article in the ' Contemi)orary Re- John descends from the idea of the Logos,
view' for September 1877, with utter as expressed in tlie Prologue, to its con-
disregard of the historical evidence on crete realisation in His history. The
the question, maintains not only the latest tractate (at the present writing,
identity of these three sets of ideas, but 1882) on the Gospel of St. Joim, by l)r.
actually grounds on it his argument 31uller, Die Johann. Frage, gives a
against the authenticity of the fourth good summary of the argument on both
Gospel. Considering the importance of sides, and deserves the careful attention
the subject, it is not easy to sjieak witli of students of the question,
moderation of assertions so bold based
THE LAST AVORD OF EASTERN AND WESTERN .TUDAISM. 57
Logos was made tiesh,' just as St. Paul does when he proclaims the chap.
great mysteiy of 'God manifest in the flesh.' Best of all, it is not iv
by a long course of study, nor by wearing discipline, least of all \)\ '- — ~' —
an inl)orn good disposition, that the soul attains the new life, but 1)y
a birth from above, by the Holy Ghost, and by simple faith which is
brought witliin reach of the fallen and the lost.^
Pliilo had no successor. In him Hellenism had completed its
cycle. Its message and its mission were ended. Henceforth it
needed, like Apollos, its great representative in the Christian Church,
two things: the baptism of John to the knowledge of sin and need,
iind to have the way of God more perfectly expounded.'' On the "Actsxviii.
other hand, Elastern Judaism had entered with Hillel on a new stage.
This direction led farther and farther away from that which the New
Testament had taken in following up and unfolding the spiritual
elements of the Old. That development was incapable of transfor-
mation or renovation. It must go on to its final completion — and be
either true, or else be swept away and destroyed.
' I cannot agree with Weiss (u. s., p. to the Apostle's mind, as evidenced in
122) that the great object of tlie fourth his Epistle, but the object in view could
Gospel was to oppose the rising Gnostic not have been mainly, nor even primarily,
movement, This may have been present negative and controversial.
58 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOrfPEL.
chaptp:r y.
ALEXANDRIA AND ROME — THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN THE CAPITALS
OF ^\•^:8TERN civilisation.
BOOK We have spoken of Alrxaiidria as the eajjital of the Jewish world in
I tlie West. Antioch was, indeed, nearer to Palestine, and its Jewish
-— ^^ — ^ population — inchuling the tloating ])art of it — as numerous as that
of Alexandria. But the wealth, the thought, and the influence of
Western Judaism eentred in the modern capital of the land of the
Pharaohs. In those days Greece was the land of the past, to which
the student might resort as the home of beauty and of art, the time-
hallowed temple of thought and of poetry. But it was also the land
of desolatcness and of ruins, where fields of corn waved over the
remains of classic anticpiity. The ancient Greeks had in great measure
sunk to a nation of traders, in keen competition with the Jews.
Indeed, Roman sway had levelled the ancient world, and buried its
national characteristics. It was otherwise in the far P]ast; it was
otherwise also in Egypt. Egypt was not a land to l)e largely in-
habited, or to be 'civilised' in the then sense of the term: soil,
climate, history, nature forbade it. Still, as now, and even more
than now, was it the dream-land of untold attractions t(j the traveller.
The ancient, mysterious Nile still rolled its healing waters out into the
blue sea, where (so it was supposed) they changed its taste within a
radius farther than the eye could reach. To ha gently borne in bark
or ship on its waters, to watch the strange vegetation and fauna of
its banks ; to gaze beyond, where they merged into the trackless
desert ; to wander under the shade of its gigantic monuments, or
within the wierd avenues of its colossal temples, to see the scroll of
mysterious hieroglyphics ; to note the sameness of manner and of
people as oi old, and to watch the unique rites of its ancient religion
— this was indeed to be again in the old far-away world, and that
amidst a dreaminess bewitching the senses, and a gorgeousness
dazzling the imagination. ^
' Wliat cliann Euypt liad tor tlie of tlicir mosaics and frescoes. Coiiip.
Romans may be withered from so many Frii-dlnndi'r, w. s. vol, ii. pp. i:U-l:i(i.
FIRST VIKW OF Ar.EXAXDl.MA. 59
We arc still far out at sea, iiiakiug for the port of Alcxiiiidria —
the only safe shelter all along the coast of Asia and Africa. Quite
thirty miles out the silver sheen of the lighthouse on the island of
Pharos' — connected l)y a mole with Alexandria — is burning like a
star on the edge of the horizon. Now we catch sight of the palm-
groves of Pharos; presently the anchor rattles and grates on the
sand, and we arc ashore. What a crowd of vessels of all sizes, shapes,
and nationalities; what a multitude of busy people; what a very
IJabel of languages; what a commingling of old and new world civi-
lisation; and what a variety of wares piled up, loading or unloading!
Alexandria itself was not an old Egyptian, but a comparatively
modern, city; in ICgypt and yet not of Egypt. Everything was in
character — the city, its inhabitants, public life, art, literature, study,
amusements, the very aspect of the place. Nothing original anywhere,
but combination of all that had been in the ancient world, or that
was at the time — most fitting place therefore to be the capital of
Jewish Hellenism.
As its name indicates, the city was founded by Alexander the
Great. It was built in the form of an o])en fan, or rather, of the
outspread cloak of a Macedonian horseman. Altogether, it measured
(16,360 paces) 8,160 paces more than Rome; but its houses Avere
neither so crowded nor so many-storied. It had been a large city
when Rome was still inconsiderable, and to the last held the second
place in the Emi)ire. One of the five quarters into which the city was
di\ided, and which were named according to the first letters of the
alphal)et, was wholly covered by the royal palaces, with their gardens,
and similar buildings, including the royal mausoleum, where the body
of Alexander the Great, preserved in honey, was kept in a glass coffin.
But these, and its three miles of colonnades along the principal high-
way, were only some of the magnificent architectural adornments of
a city full of palaces. The population amounted, })robably, to nearly
a million, drawn from the East and West by trade, the attractions of
wealth, the facilities for study, or the amusements of a singularly
frivolous city. A strange mixture of elements among the people,
combining the quickness and versatility of the Greek with the gra-
vity, the conservatism, the dream-grandeur, and the luxury of the
Eastern.
Three worlds met in Alexandria: Europe, Asia, and Africa; and
1 Tliis immense lighthouse was square recorded repairs to tliis nia,s;nilioent
up to tiie middle, then covered by an structure of blocks of marble were made
octagon, the top lieing round. The last in the year 1303 of our era.
60 THE PREPAKATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK brought to it, or fetched from it, their treasures. Ahoveall, it was a
I comiuercial city, furnished with anexceHent harbour — or rather with
^— ^* five harbours. A special fleet carried, as tribute, from Alexandria to
Italy, two-tenths of the corn produce of Egypt, which sufficed to feed
the cajntal for four months of the year. A magnificent fleet it was,
from tlie liglit (juick sailer to those immense corn-ships wliich hoisted
a special flag, and whose earh* arrival was awaited at Puteoli^ with
more eagerness than tliatof any modern ocean-steamer.^ The com-
merce of India was in the hands of the Alexandrian shippers.* Since
the days of the Ptolemies the Indian trade alone had increased six-
fold.* Xor was the native industry inconsiderable. Linen goods, to
suit tlie tastes or costumes of all countries: woolen stuffs of every
hue, some curiously wrought with figures, and even scenes; glass of
every shade and in every shape; paper from the thinnest sheet to the
coarsest ]ia eking paper; essences, perfumeries — such were the native
products. However idly or luxuriously inclined, still every one seemed
busy, in a city where (as the Emperor Hadrian expressed it) 'money
was the people's god; ' and every one seemed well-to-do in liis own
way, from tlie waif in the streets, who with little troulile to himself
could pick uj) sufficient to go to the restaurant and enjoy a comfort-
aljle dinner of fresh or smoked fish with garlic, and his pudding, washed
down with the favourite Egyptian l)arleybeer, up to the millionaire
banker, who owned a palace in the city and a villa by the canal that
connected Alexandria with Canobus. What a jostling crowd of all
nations in the streets, in the market (where, according to the joke of
a contemporary, anything might be got except snow), or by the hai--
bours; what cool shades, delicious retreats, vast halls, magnificent
libraries, where the savants of Alexandria assembled and taught every
conceivable branch of learning, and its far-famed i)Iiysicians prescribed
^ The average passage from Alexandria were small ships comparefl witJi those
to Puteoli was twelve days, the ships built for the conveyance of marble blocks
touching at Malta and in Sicily. It was and columns, and especially of obelisks,
in such a ship, the 'Castor and Pollux,' One of these is said to have carried, be-
carrying wheat, that St. Paul sailed from sides an obelisk, 1.200 passengers, a
Malta to Puteoli. where it would be freight of paper, nitre, pepper, linen,
among the first arrivals of the season. and a large cargo of wheat.
2 They bore, painted on the two sides ■'* The journey took about three months,
of the prow, the emblems of the gods to either up the Nile, thence by caravan,
whom they were dedicated, and were and again by sea; or else i)erhap8 Ijy
navigated by Egyptian pilots, the most the Ptolemy Canal and the Red Sea.
renowned in the world. One of these * It included gold-dust, ivory, and
vessels is described as 180 by 45 feet, mother-of-pearl from the interior of
and of about 1,. 575 tons, and is computed Africa, spices from Arabia, pearls from
to have returned to its owner nearly the Gulf of Persia, precious stones
3,000-'. annually. (Comp. Frifdldnder, and byssus from India, and silk from
u. s. vol. ii. p. i;^l, itc.) And yet these China.
JEWISH POPULATION OF ALEXANDRIA. 61
for tlio poor consumptive patients sent thither from all parts of CHAP.
Italy! What bustle and noise among- that ever excitable, chatty, con- ^^
ceited, vain, pleasure-loving multitude, whose highest enjoyment was ^-"^f — -'
the theatre and singers; what scenes on that long canal to Canobus,
lined with luxurious inns, where barks full of pleasure-seekers revelled
in the cool shade of the banks, or sped to Canobus, that scene of all
dissipation and luxury, proverbial even in those days! And yet, close
by, on the shores of Lake Mareotis, as if in grim contrast, were the
chosen retreats of that sternly ascetic Jewish party, the Therapeutas, * ^ on the ex-
_ ^ ^ ^ ist6ncG of
whose views and practices m so many iiomts were kindred to those tue Tuera-
. * peutes
of the Essenes in Palestine! comp. Art.
I'hilo in
This sketch of Alexandria will help us to understand the sur- smith &
Wace's
roundings of the large mass of Jews settled m the Egyptian capital. Diet, of
Altogetlier more than an eighth of the population of the country yoi. iv.
(one million in 7,800,000) was Jewish. Whether or not a Jewish
colony had gone into Egypt at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, or even
earlier, the great mass of its residents had been attracted by Alexander
the Great," who had granted the Jews equally exceptional privileges ^Mommsm
with the Macedonians. The later troubles of Palestine under the Gesch. v. p.
489)
Svrian kings greatly swelled their number, the more so that the ascribes
'^ '^ "^ . ' this rather
Ptolemies, with one exception, favoured them. Originally a special toptoiemy
quarter had been assigned to the Jews in the city — the ' Delta ' by the
eastern harbour and the Canobus canal — -probably alike to keep the
community separate, and from its convenience for commercial purposes.
The privileges which the Ptolemies had accorded to the Jews were
confirmed, and even enlarged, hy Julius Caesar. The export trade in
grain was now in their hands, and the harbour and river police com-
mitted to their charge. Two quarters in the city arc named as spe-
cially Jewish — not, however, in the sense of their being confined to
them. Their Synagogues, surrounded by shady trees, stood in all
parts of the city. But the chief glory of the Jewish community in
Egypt, of which even the Palestinians boasted, was the great central
Synagogue, Iniilt in the shape of a basilica, with double colonnade,
and so large that it needed a signal for those most distant to know
the proper moment for the responses. Tlie different trade guilds sat
there together, so that a stranger would at once know where to find
Jewish employers or fellow-workmen." In the choir of this Jewish ^sukk. 5if.
cathedral stood seventy chairs of state, encrusted with precious stones,
for the seventy elders who constituted the eldership of Alexandria, on
the model of the great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.
It is a strange, almost iiiexi)licable fact, that the Egyptian Jews
Q2 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK liad actually built a sehisuuitic Temple. Duriug the terrible Syrian
I persecutions in Palestine Onias, the son of the murdered High-Priest
^^■— ,^ ' Onias III., had sought safety in Egypt. Ptolemy Philometor not
only received him kindly, but gave a disused heathen temple in the town
of Leontopolis for a Jewish sanctuary. Here a new Aaronic priest-
hood ministered, their support being derived from the revenues of the
district around. The new Temple, however, resembled not that of
Jerusalem either in outward appearance nor in all its internal tittings.*
At tirst the Egyptian Jews were very i)roud of their new sanctuary,
"Is. xix. 18 and professed to see in it the fultilment of the prediction,^ that tive
cities in the land of Egypt should speak the language of Canaan, of
which one was to be called Ir-ha-Heres, which tlio LXX. (in their
original form, or by some later emendation) altered into ' the city of
righteousness.' This temple continued from about 160 B.C. to shortly
after the destruction of Jerusalem. , It could scarcely be called a rival
to that on Mount Moriah, since the P^gyptian Jews also owned that of
Jerusalem as their central sanctuary, to which tliey made pilgrimages
^phiioAi. and brought their contributions,'' while the priests at Leontopolis,
Ma'ngey bcforc uiarrving, always consulted the official archives in Jerusalem to
cjos Ag. ascertain the puritv of descent of their intended wives." The Pales-
Ap. 1. 7 1 .
tinians designated it contemptuously as ' the house of Chonyi ' (Onias),
and declared the priesthood of Leontopolis incapable of serving in Jeru-
salem, although on a par with those who were disqualified only by some
bodily defect. Offerings brought in Leontopolis were considered null,
unless in the case of vows to which the name of this Temple had been
a Men. xiii. cxprcsslv attached.'* This qualified condemnation seems, however,
10, and the ^ "^ . ^ .... ,
Gemara. strangelv mild, excei)t on the supposition that the statements we have
109 a and b "- "^ ' ^ .1,^^1,111 1
quoted only date from a time when both Temples had long passed
away.
Nor were such feelings unreasonable. The Egyptian Jews had
spread on all sides — southward to Aliyssinia and Ethiopia, and west-
ward to, and beyond, the province of Cyrene. In the city of that
name they formed one of the four classes into which its inha!)itants
- strabo in wcrc divided." A Jewish inscription at Berenice, apparently dating
xiv. 7, 2' from the year 13 B.C., shows that the Cyrenian Jews formed a distinct
community under nine 'rulers ' of their own, who no doulit attended
to the communal affairs — not always an easy matter, since the
Cyrenian Jews were noted, if not for turbulence, yet for strong anti-
^ Iii.stoivd of the seven-branched golden suspended from a chain of tlie
candlestick there was a golden lamp, metal.
SOCIAL STATUS OF THE EGYPTIAN JEWS. 03
Koiiian feeling, which more than once was cruelly quenched in blood. ^ CHAP.
Other inscriptions prove,- that in otlier places of their dispersion also V
the Jews had their own Archontes or 'rulers, ' while the special direction ^— -y— -^
of pul)lic worship was always entrusted to the Archisynagogos, or
'chief ruler of the Synag-ogue, ' both titles occurring side by side.^
It is, to say the least, very doubtful, whether the High-Priest at
Leontopolis was ever regarded as, in any real sense, the liead of the
Jewish community in Egypt.* In Alexandria, the Jews were under
the rule of a Jewish EfJinarch,'' whose authority was similar to that
of 'the Archoii' of independent cities." But his authority'' was "Straboin
transferred, l)y Augustus, to the whole 'eldership.''' Another, prob- siv. 7. 2'
ably Roman, office, though for obvious reasons often filled by Jews, '^hlcc"'ia
was that of the Alabarch, or ratlier Arnbardi, who was set over the ^^-nsey, n.
Arab population." Among others, Alexander, the brother of Philo,
lield this post. If we may judge of the position of the wealthy Jewish
lamilies in Alexandria by that of this Alabarch, their influence must
have been very great. The firm of Alexander was jn'obalily as rich as
the great Jewish bankinu- and shiiiping liouse of Saranialla in Antioch." ' Jos. Ant.
T . „ . Xiv. la. 5;
Its chief was entrusted with the management of the aflairs of war. 1. 13,5
Antonia, the much respected sister-in-law of the Emperor Tiberius." ;jAnt. xix.
It was a small thing for such a man to lend King Agrippa, when liis
fortunes were very low, a sum of about 7,000/. with which to resort
to Italv,'' since he advanced it on the guarantee of Agrippa's wife, "Ant. xvui.
^ 6. 3
whom he highly esteemed, and at the same time made provision that
the money should not be all spent l)efbre the Prince met the
Emperor. Besides, he had his own i>lans in the matter. Two of his
sons married daughters of King Agrippa; while a third, at the
price of apostasy, rose successively to the posts of Procurator of
Palestine, and finally of Governor of Egypt.' The Temple at Jeru- 'Ant. xix.
salem bore evidence of the wealth and munificence of this Jewish
millionaire. The gold and silver with which the nine massive gates
^ Could there liave been any such fi29). The subject is of great imiwrtance
meaning in laying tlie Roman cross which as illustrating the rule of the Synagogue
Jesus had to bear upon a Cyrenian (St. in the days of Christ. Another desigua-
Luke xxiii. 2(5)? A symbolical meaning tion on the gravestones vrarijp crvva-
It certainly has, as we remember that the ycoyrfi seems to refer solely to age —
last Jewish rebellion (132-135 a.d.); one being described as 110 years old.
which bad Bar Cochba for its Messiah, * Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. i. p. 345.
first broke out in Cyrene. "What terrible * 3farquard( (Rom. Staatsverwalt. vol.
vengeance was taken on those who fol- i. p. 297). Note 5 suggests that sBvo?
lowed the false Christ, cannot here be may here mean clai^ses, ordo.
told. « The office itself would seem to have
'^ Jewisli inscriptions have also been been continued. (Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2.)
found in Mauritania and Algiers. '' Comp. WesKeliug, de Jud. Archont.
^ Onatomljstoneat Capua(3/i9?»?H.sp», pp. (i3, &c., i\\)m\ ScliUrer, pp. ()27, (i28.
Inscr. R. Neai). 3,()57, apud Schurer, \).
64
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
I
• Probably
about 200
B.C.
were covered, which led into the Temple, were the gift of the great
Alexandrian banker.
The possession of such wealth, conpled no doubt with pride and
self-assertion, and openly spoken contempt of the superstitions around,'
would naturally excite the hatred of the Alexandrian populace against
the Jews. The greater number of those silly stories about the origin,
early history, and religion of the Jews, which even the philosophers
and historians of Rome record as genuine, originated in Egypt. A
whole series of writers, beginning with Manetho,'' made it their
business to give a kind of historical travesty of the events recorded in
the books of Moses. The boldest of these scribblers was Apion, to
whom Josephus replied — a world-famed charlatan and liar, who wrote
or lectured, with equal presumption and falseness, on every conceivable
object. He was just the man to suit the Alexandrians, on Avhom his
unblushing assurance imposed. In Rome he soon found his level, and
the Emperor Tiberius well characterised the irrepressible boastful
talker as the ' tinkling cymbal of the world.' He had studied, seen,
and heard everything — even, on three occasions, the mysterious sound
on the Colossus of Memnon, as the sun rose upon it! At least, so he
graved upon the Colossus itself, for the information of all generations.'^
Such was the man on whom the Alexandrians conferred the freedom
of their city, to whom they entrusted their most important affairs, and
whom they extolled as the victorious, the laborious, the new Homer. ^
There can be little doubt, that the popular favour was jjartly due to
Apion's virulent attacks upon the Jews. His grotesque accounts of
their history and religion held them up to contempt. But his real
object was to rouse the fanaticism of the populace against the Jews.
Every year, so he told them, it was the practice of the Jews to get
hold of some unfortunate Hellene, whom ill-chance might bring into
their hands, to fatten him for the year, and then to sacrifice him,
partaking of his entrails, and burying the body, while during these
horrible rites they took a fearful oath of ])cri)etual enmity to the Greeks.
These were the people who battened on the wealth of Alexandria, who
had usurped quarters of the city to which they had no right, and
claimed exceptional privileges; a peoi)lc who had proved traitors
to, and the ruin of every one who had trusted them. ' If the
Jews,' he exclaimed, 'are citizens of Alexandria, why do they not
worship the same gods as the Alexandrians ? ' And, if they wished
' Comp., for example, such a trenchant
chapter as Baruch vi., or the 2nd Fragm.
of the Erythr. Sibyl, vv. 21-33.
''■ Comp. Friedlander, n. s. ii. p. 155.
3 A very good sketch of Apion is given
by Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitg. vol. ii. pp.
187-195.
65
ESTIMATE OF JUDAISM IN ROME.
to enjoy the protection of the Csesars, why did they not erect statues,
and pay Divine honor to them?^ There is nothing strange in these
appeals to the fanaticism of mankind. In one form or another, they
have only too often been repeated in all lands and ages, and, alas! by
the representatives of all creeds. Well might the Jews, as Phihj
mourns, ' wish no better for themselves than to be treated like other "Leg. ad
, Caj. etl.
men ! Frcf.
We liave already seen, that the ideas entertained in Rome about
the Jews were chieily derived from Alexandrian sources. But it is
not easy to understand, how a Tacitus, Cicero, or Pliny could have
credited such al)surdities as that the Jews had come from Crete
(Mount Ida — Id£ei=Jud8ei), been expelled on account of leprosy from
Egypt, and emigrated under an apostate priest, Moses; or that the
Sabbath-rest originated in sores, which had obliged the wanderers to
stop short on the seventh day; or that the Jews worshipped the head
of an ass, or else Bacchus; that their abstinence from swine's flesh was
duo to remembrance and fear of leprosy, or else to the worship of that
animal — and other puerilities of the like kind.'' The educated Roman ^Comp.
regarded the Jew with a mixture of contempt and anger, all the more Hist.v!2-t;
keen that, according to his notions, the Jew had, since his subjection pos.'iV. 5
to Rome, no longer a right to his religion; and all the more bitter
that, do what he might, that despised race confronted him everywhere,
with a religion so uncompromising as to form a wall of separation,
and with rites so exclusive as to make them not only strangers, but
enemies. Such a phenomenon was nowhere else to be encountered.
The Romans were intensely practical. In their view, political life and
religion were not oulj' intertwined, but the one formed part of the
other. A religion apart from a political organisation, or which
offered not, as a quid pro quo, some direct return from the Deity to his
votaries, seemed utterly inconceivable. Ever}" country has its own
religion, argued Cicero, in his appeal for Flaccus. So long as Jeru-
salem was unvanquished, Judaism might claim toleration; but had not
the immortal gods shown what they thought of it, when the Jewish
race was conquered? This was a kind of logic that appealed to the
humblest in the crowd, which thronged to hear the great orator
defending his client, among others, against the charge of preventing
the transport from Asia to Jerusalem of the annual Temple-tribute.
This was not a popular accusation to bring against a man in such an
assembly. And as the Jews — who, to create a disturbance, had (we
are told) distributed themselves among the audience in such numbers,
' Jos. As- Ap. li. 4. 5. fi.
66
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK that Cicero somewhat rhetorically declared, he would fain have spoken
I with bated breath, so as to be only audible to the judges — listened t(j
^- — 'r — ' the great orator, they must have felt a keen pang shoot to their hearts
while he held them up to the scorn of the heathen, and touched, with
rough tinger, their open sore, as he urged the ruin of their nation as
the one unanswerable argument, which Materialism could bring
against the religion of the Unseen.
And that religion — was it not, in the words of Cicero, a * barbar-
»Hist. Nat. ous superstition,' and were not its adherents, as Pliny had it,"* ' a race
distinguished for its contempt of the gods ' ? To begin with their
theology. The Roman philosopher would sympathise with disbelief of
all sjiiritual realities, as, on the other hand, he could understand the
popular modes of worship and superstition. But what was to be said
for a worship of something quite unseen, an adoration, as it seemed
to him, of the clouds and of the sky, without any visible symbol, con-
joined with an utter rejection of every other form of religion — Asiatic,
Egyptian, Greek, Roman — and the refusal even to pay the customary
Divine honor to the Csesars, as the incarnation of Roman power?
Next, as to their rites. Foremost among them was the initiatory rite
of circumcision, a constant subject for coarse jests. What could be
the meaning of it; or of what seemed like some ancestral veneration
for the pig, or dread of it, since they made it a religious duty not to
partake of its flesh? Their Sabbath-observance, however it had
originated, was merely an indulgence in idleness. • The fast young
Roman literati w^ould find their amusement in wandering on the
Sabbath-eve through the tangled, narrow streets of the Ghetto,
watching how the dim lamp within shed its unsavory light, while the
inmates mumbled prayers 'with blanched lips;'" or they would, like
Ovid, seek in the Synagogue occasion for their dissolute amusements.
The Thursday fast was another target for their wit. In short, at the
best, the Jew was a constant theme of popular merriment, and the
theatre would resound with laughter as his religion was lampooned,
no matter how absurd the stories, or how poor the punning.'
And then, as the proud Roman passed on the Sabbath through
the streets, Judaism would obtrude itself upon his notice, by the
shops that were shut, and l^y the strange figures that idly moved about
in holiday attire. They were strangers in a strange land, not only
without sympathy with what passed around, but with marked
contempt and abhorrence of it, while there was that about their
whole bearing, which expressed the unspoken feeling, that the time
' Comp. the quotation of such scenes in the Introd. to the Midrash on Lamentations.
•> Persius v.
184
ROMAN HATRED OF THE JEWs. 67
of Rome's tall, and of their own .sui)rcniacy, was at hand. To put CHAP,
the general feeling in the words of Tacitus, the Jews kept close to- ^^
gether, and were ever most liberal to one another ; but they were tilled "-^^r— ^
with bitter hatred of all others. They would neither eat nor sleep
with strangers ; and the first thing which they taught their proselytes
was to despise the gods, to renounce their own country, and to rend
the bonds which had bound them to parents, children or kindred.
To be sure, there was some ground of distorted truth in these charges.
For, the Jew, as such, was only intended for Palestine. By a neces-
sity, not of his own making, he was now, so to speak, the negative
element in the heathen world; yet one which, do what he might,
would always obtrude itself upon public notice. But the Roman
satirists went further. They accused the Jews of such hatred of all
other religionists, that they would not even show the way to any who
worshipped otherwise, nor point out the cooling spring to the thirsty." "•/'"• sat.
According to Tacitus, there was a political and religious reason for
this. In order to keep the Jews separate from all other nations,
Moses had given them rites, contrary to those of any other race, that
they might regard as unholy what was sacred to others, and as lawful
what they held in al)omination.^ Such a people deserved neither "Hist. v. 13
consideration nor pity ; and when the historian tells how thousands
of their number had l)een banished by Tiberius to Sardinia, he
dismisses the probal:)ility of their perishing in that severe climate
with the cynical remark, that it entailed a 'poor loss'" (vile ^Ann. u.ss,
Comp. Suff.
damnum). Tib. 36
Still, the JcAV was there in the midst of them. It is impossible
to fix the date when the first Jewish wanderers found their way to the
capital of the world. We know, that in the wars under Pompey,
Cassius, and Antonius, many were brought captive to Rome, and sold
as slaves. In general, the Republican party was hostile, the Ca?sars
were friendly, to the Jews. The Jewish slaves in Rome proved an
unprofitable and troublesome acquisition. They clung so tenaciously
to their ancestral customs, that it was impossible to make them con-
form to the wavs of heathen households.'' How far they would carrv 'P/'iVo.Lejr.
act Caj. pii.
their passive resistance, appears from a story told l)y Josephus," about Frcf- p- wi
some Jewish priests of his acquaintance, who, during their captivity
in Rome, refused to eat anything but figs and nuts, so as to avoid the
defilement of Gentile food.^ Their Roman masters deemed it prudent
^ Lutterbeck (Neutest. Lebrbegr. p. 384, 402. etc.). re.siard.s these priests as
119), follo\viii«: up the suggestions of the acousei's of 8t. Paul, who brought
Wieseler (Chroii. <1. Apost. Zeitalt. ])p. about liis martynloiii.
Life ;i
68 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK to give their Jewish slaves their freedom, either at a small ransom, or
I even without it. These freedmen {liberti) formed the nucleus of the
^-"v^-^ Jewish community in Rome, and in great measure determined its
social character. Of course they were, as always, industrious, sober,
pushing. In course of time many of them acquired wealtli. By-and-
by Jewish immigrants of greater distinction swelled their number.
Still their social position was inferior to that of their co-religionists in
other lands. A Jewish population so large as 40,000 in tlie time of
Augustus, and 60,000 in that of Til)erius, would naturally include all
ranks — merchants, bankers, literati^ even actors.^ In a city which
offered such temptations, they would number among them those of
every degree of religious profession ; nay, some Avho would not only
imitate the habits of those around, but try to outdo their gross
licentiousness.^ Yet, even so, they would vainly endeavor to efface
the hateful mark of being Jews.
Augustus had assigned to the Jews as tlieir special quarter the
' fourteenth region ' across the Tiber, which stretched from the slope
of the Vatican onwards and across the Tiber-island, where the boats
from Ostia were wont'to unload. This seems to have been their poor
Mart. i.4i; (juartcr, chiefly inhabited by hawkers, sellers of matches,* glass, old
clothes and second-hand wares. The Jewish ])urying-ground in that
quarter* gives evidence of their condition. The whole appointments
and the graves are mean. There is neitlier marble nor any trace of
painting, unless it be a rough representation of the seven-1)ranched
candlestick in red coloring. Another Jewish quarter Avas l)y the
Porta Capena, where the Appian Way entered the city. Close by,
the ancient sanctuary of Egeria was utilized at the time of Juvenal *
as a Jewish hawking place. But there must have been richer Jews
also in that neighl^orhood, since the burying-place tlierc discovered
has paintings — some even of mythological figures, of which the meaning-
has not yet been ascertained. A third Jewish burying-ground was
near the ancient Christian catacombs.
But indeed, the Jewish residents in Rf)me must have s])read over
every quarter of tlio city — even the l)est — to judge by the location of
their Synagogues. From inscriptions, we have been made acquainted
not only with the existence, but with the names, of not fewer than
' Conip., for exami)le. Mart. x\. {)\; Gesch. Lsr. vol. vii. p. 27.
Jos. Life 3. ^ Described by Bnsio, but since un-
'^ Martialis, n. s. The ' Anc/n'ohis' known. Com\).Frie(Ud/ide7% U.S. vol.
by wbom the poet would have the Jew iii. pp. 510, ~A\.
swear, is a corrui)tion oi Annchi Elohhn * Sat. iii. 13; vi. 542.
( ' I am God ') in Ex. xx. 2. Com)). EirahJ.
Xll. o
ANCIENT JEWISH TOMBSTONES AND THEIR TEACHING. 69
seven of tlieso Synagogues. Three of them respectively bear the
names of Augustus, Agripjja, and Vohnnnius, eitlieras tlieir i)atrons,
or because the worshij)pers were cliietly their attencUints and clients:
while two of them derived tiieir names from W\q, Campua Martua^, and
the quarter Suhura in wliich they stood.' The ^ Sijnafjocje Elaias'
may have been so called from bearing on its front the device of an
olive-tree, a favourite, and in Rome specially signiticant, emblem of
Israel, whose fruit, crushed beneath heavy weight, would yield the
[)recious oil by which the Divine light would shed its brightness
through the night of heathendom.- Of course, there must have
been other Synagogues besides those wdiose names have been dis-
covered.
One other mode of tracking the footsteps of Israel's wanderings
seems strangely signiticant. It is l)y tracing their records among the
dead, reading them on broken tombstones, and in ruined monuments.
They are rude, and the inscriptions — most of them in bad Greek, or
still worse Latin, none in Hebrew — are like the stannnering of
strangers. Yet what a contrast between the simple faith and earnest
hope which they express, and the grim proclamation of utter disbelief
in any future to the soul, not unmixed with language of coarsest
materialism, on the graves of so many of the polished Romans !
Truly the pen of God in history has, as so often, ratified the sentence
which a nation had })ronounced upon itself. That civilisation was
doomed which could inscribe over its dead such words as: ' To eternal
sleep; ' 'To perpetual rest; " or more coarsely -express it thus, ' I was
not, and I became; I was, and am no more. Thus much is true; who
says other, lies; for I shall not be,' adding, as it were by way of
moral, ' And thou who livest, drink, play, come.' Not so did God
teach His people: and, as Ave i)ick our way among these broken
stones, we can understand how a religion, which proclaimed a hope
so different, must have spoken to the hearts of nmny even at R(une,
and much more, how that blessed assurance of life and immortality,
which Christianity afterwards lu'ought, could win its tliousands,
though it were at the cost of poverty, shame, torture, and the
arena.
Wandering from graveyard to graveyard, and deciphering the
records of the dead, we can almost read the history of Israel in the
days of the Caesars, or when Paul the prisoner set foot on the soil of
Italy. When St, Paul, on the journey of the 'Castor and I'ollux,'
touched at Syracuse, he would, during his stay of three days, find
' Coiiip. Fripdiander. u. s. vol. iii. p. 510. - Midr. R. <iii Ex. 'M\.
10
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
1
■•' Jns. Ant.
xvii. 12. 1;
War il. 7. :
^ Acts
xxviii. 17
himself ill the midst of u Jewish commimit}', as we learn trom an
inscription. When he disembarked at Puteoli, he was in the oldest
Jewish settlement next to that of Rome,'' where the loving hospitality
of Christian Israelites constrained him to tarry over a Sabbath. As
he ' went towards Rome, ' and reached Capua, he would meet Jews
there, as we infer from the tombstone of one * Alfius Juda,' who had
been 'Archon ' of the Jews, and 'Archisynagogus ' in Cai)ua. As he
neared the city, he found in Anxur (Terracina) a Synagogue. ^ In Rome
itself the Jewish community was organized as in other places." It
sounds strange, as after these many centuries we again read the
names of the Archons of their various Synagogues, all Roman, such as
Claudius, Asteris, Julian (who was Archon alike of the Campesian and
the Agrippesian Synagogue j^riest, the son of Julian the Archisyn-
agogus, or chief of the eldership of the Augustesian Synagogue).
And so in other places. On these tombstones we find names of
Jewish Synagogue-dignitaries, in every centre of population — in
Pompeii, in Venusia, the birthplace of Horace; in Jewish catacombs;
and similarly Jewish inscriptions in Africa, in Asia, in the islands of
the Mediterranean, in ^-Egina, in Patrae, in Athens. Even where as
yet records of their early settlements have not been discovered, we
still infer their presence, as we remember the almost incredible extent
of Roman commerce, which led to such large settlements in Britain,
or as we discover among the tombstones those of '■ Syrian' merchants,
as in Spain (where St. Paul hoped to preach, no doubt, also to his own
countrymen), throughout Gaul, and even in the remotest parts of
Germany.^ Thus the statements of Josephus and of Philo, as to the
dispersion of Israel throughout all lands of the known world, are
fully borne out.
But the special importance of the Jewish community in Rome lay
in its contiguity to the seat of the government of the world, where
every movement could be watched and influenced, and where it could
lend support to the wants and wishes of that compact body which,
however widely scattered, was one in heart and feeling, in thought
and purpose, in faith and practice, in suflfering and in prosperity.'^
Thus, when upon the death of Herod a deputation from Palestine
appeared in the capital to seek the restoration of their Theocracy
' Comp. Cassel, in Ersch u. Gruber's
Encyclop. 2d sect. vol. xxvii. p. 147.
'■^ Comp. Friedldnder, u. s. vol. ii.
pp. 17-204 passim.
■* It was probably this unity of Israel-
itisli interests which Cicero had in view
(Pro Flacco, 28) when he took such
credit for his boldness in daring to stand
up against the Jews — unless, indeed, the
orator only meant to make a point in
favour of his client.
POSITION OF THE JEWS IN THE ROMAN WORLD. 71
under a Roman protectorate," no less than 8,000 of the Roman Jews CHAI\
joined .it. And in case of need they could find powerful friends, v
not oidy among the Herodian princes, but among court favourites ^ — — '
who were Jews, like the actor of whom Josephus speaks;" among "^'^"l' ^^\.
those who were inclined towards Judaism, like Poppaea, the dissolute war.n. e.i
wife of Nero, whose coffin as that of a Jewess was laid among the
urns of the emperors;' or among real proselytes, like those of all
ranks who, from sui)crstition or conviction, had i(lentified themselves
with the Synagogue.'-'
In truth, there was no law to prevent the si)read of Judaism.
Excepting the brief period when Tiberius" banished the Jews from '^ioa.d.
Rome and sent 4,000 of their number to fight the banditti in Sardinia,
the Jews enjoyed not only perfect liberty, but exceptional privileges.
In the reign of Caesar and of Augustus we have quite a series of
edicts, which secured the full exercise of their religion and their
communal rights.^ In virtue of these they were not to be disturlK'd
in their religious ceremonies, nor in the observance of their sabbaths
and feasts. The annual Temi:)le-tribute Was allowed to be transported
to Jerusalem, and the alienation of these funds by the ci\il magis-
trates treated as sacrilege. As the Jews objected to bear arms, or
march, on the Sabbath, they were freed from military service. On
similar grounds, they were not obliged to appear in courts of law on
their holy days. Augustus even ordered that, Avhen the public dis-
tribution of corn or of money annuig the citizens fell on a Sabliath,
the Jews were to receive their share on the following day. In a
similar spirit the Roman authorities confirmed a decree by which the
founder of Antioch, Seleucus I. (Nicator),"* had granted the Jews the '^ob.asoB.c.
I'ight of citizenship in all the cities of Asia Minor and Syria whicli
he hatl built, and the privilege of receiving, instead of the oil that
was distributed, which their religion forbade them to use,"" an equi- -Ab. sar.
valcnt in money. "^ These rights were maintained by Vespasian and f./,«. Am.
Titus even after the last Jewish war, notwithstanding the earnest ^"" ^" ^
remonstrances of these cities. No wonder, that at the death of
Caesar*-' the Jews of Rome gathered for many nights, waking strange f44B.c.
feelings of awe in the city, as they chanted in mournful melodies
their Psalms around the pyre on which the body of their benefactor
' Sc/itl/er (Gesch. fl. Rom. Kaiser- - Tlie question of Jewisli iiroselytes
reiclis, p. 588) denies tliat PopjK^a was a will be treatefl in anotlier i)hice.
in'osclyte. It is, indeed, true, as he ■■• Conip. ./o.v. Ant. xiv. H». itassim, and
ari:;ues, that the fact of her entomlmient .xvi. (i. These edicts are collated in Krehs.
afibrds no absolute evidence of this, if Decreta Ronianor. iiro .Tiul. facta, with
taken liy itself; but conip. Jos. Ant. xx. lon.i? comments by the author, and l)y
8. 1 1 ; Life 3. Lc/rysftohn.
72 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
1500K had been burnt, and raised their pathetie dirges." The measures of
I Tiberius against them were Uue to tlic iutluence of his favourite
^^^. — ' Sejanus, and ceased with his sway. Besides, they were the outcome
'Suet.cxs. Qf j)nl)lic feeling at the time against all foreign rites, which had l)een
roused by the vile conduct of the priests of Isis towards a Roman
matron, and was again provoked 1)y a gross imposture upon Fulvia, a
noble Roman proselyte, on the part of some vagabond Rabbis. But
even so, there is no reason to believe that literally all Jews had left
Rome. Many Avould find means to remain secretly behind. At any
rate, twenty years afterwards Philo found a large communit}' there,
ready to support him in his mission on behalf of his Egyptian
countrymen. Any temporar}' measures against the Jews can,
therefore, scarcely be regarded as a serious interference with tlieir
privileges, or a cessation of the Imperial favour shown to them.
TWOFOLD PRIVILEGES OF THE JEWS IN ASIA. V3
CHAPTER V
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE WEST
THEIR UNION IN THE (JREAT HOPE OF THE COMING DELIVERER.
It was not only in the capital of the Empire that the Jews enjoyed CHAP,
the rights of Roman citizenship. Many in Asia Minor could boast ^^l
of the same privilege.'' The Seleucidic rulers of Syria had previously ^- — "< '
bestowed kindred privileges on the Jews in many places. Thus, they xi^'^'io"*'
possessed in some cities twofold rights: the status of Roman and ^^f^^^j-j
the privileges of Asiatic, citizenship. Those who enjoyed the former '-^^"^
were entitled to a civil government of their own, under archons of
their choosing, quite independent of the rule and tribunals of the
cities in which they lived. As instances, we may mention the Jews
of Sardis, Ephesus, Delos, and apparently also of Antioch. But,
whether legally entitled to it or not, they probably everywhere
claimed the right of self-government, and exercised it, except in
times of persecution. But, as already stated, they also possessed,
besides this, at least in many places, the privileges of Asiatic citizen-
ship, to the same extent as their heathen fellow-citizens. This two-
fold status and jurisdiction might have led to serious complications,
if the archons had not confined their authority to strictly communal
interests,'' without interfering with the ordinary administration of bcomp.
• • • Acts xix 14
justice, and the Jews willingly submitted to the sentences i)ronounced ix. 2
by their own tribunals.
But, in truth, they enjoyed even more than religious liberty and
communal privileges. It was quite in the spirit of the times, that
]X)tentates friendly to Israel bestowed largesses alike on the Temple
in Jerusalem, and on the Synagogues in the provinces. The magni-
ficent porch of the Temple was ' adorned ' with many such 'dedicated
gifts. ' Thus, we read of repeated costly oiferings by the Ptolemies,
of a golden wreath which Sosius offered after he had taken Jerusalem
in conjunction with Herod, and of rich flagons which Augustus and c jos. Ant.
his wife had given to the Sanctuary." And, although this same xili.Vi:
Emperor praised his grandson for leaving Jerusalem unvisited on his 5 f Ant xiV.
journey from Egypt to Syria, yet he himself made provision for a v^'it"
" Jos. War
ii. II). i: 11
17. •>
74 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
iiooK daily ScU'ritice on his helialf, whit-h only ceased when the last war
' against Rome was i)roclaimed.^ Even the circumstance that tliere
- — ■ ' ' — ' was a ' Court of the Gentiles, ' with marble screen beautifully orna-
mented, bearing tablets which, in Latin and Greek, warned Gentiles
not to proceed further,' proves that the Sanctuary was largely attended
by others than Jews, or, in the words of Josephus, that ' it was held
in reverence by nations from the ends of the earth.' ^'
In Syria also, where, according to Josephus, the largest numlier of
Jews lived, ^ they experienced special favour. In Antioch their rights
and immunities were recorded on tables of brass. ^
But, indeed, the capital of Syria was one of their favourite
resorts. It will be remembered what importance attached to it in
the early history of the Christian Church. Antioch was the third
city of the Empire, and lay just outside what the Rabbinists desig-
nated as ' Syria' and still regarded as holy ground. Thus it formed,
so to speak, an advanced post between the Palestinian and the
Gentile world. Its chief Synagogue was a magnificent building, to
which the successors of Antiochus Epiphanes had given the spoils
which that monarch had brought from the Temple. The connection
between Jerusalem and Antioch was very close. All that occurred
in that city was eagerly watched in the Jewish capital. The spread
of Christianity there must have excited deep concern. Careful as
the Talmud is not to afford unwelcome information, which might
have led to further mischief, we know that three of the principal
Rabbis went thither on a mission — we can scarcely doubt for the
purpose of arresting the progress of Christianity. Again, we find at
a later period a record of religious controversy in Antioch l)etween
Rabbis and Christians.* Yet the Jews of Antioch were strict!}''
Hellenistic, and on one occasion a great Rabl)i was unable to find
among tliem a copy of even the Book of Esther in Hebrew, which,
accordingly, he had to write out from memory for his use in their
Synagogue. A fit place this great border-city, crowded l)y Hellenists,
in close connection Avith Jerusalem, to be the birthplace of the name
'Christian,' to send forth a Paul on his mission to the Gentile world,
and to obtain for it a charter of citizenship far nobler than that of
which the record was graven on tablets of brass.
But, whatever privileges Israel might enjoy, history records an
' One of tlie.-<e tablets has lately ])eeii - War, vii. :>. 3.
excavated. Comp. 'The Temple: its ■' War, vii. 5. 2.
Ministry and Services in the Time of * Comp. generally Nenbnner, Googr.
Christ,"' p. 24. (hi Tahnud, pp. S12." :-!l:!.
RELATION OF -IKWS TO THE HEATHEN WOlfLD. 75
almost continuous series of attc]ni)ts, on the part oT tlie commu- CHAP,
nities anionii' wliom they lived, to deprive them not only of their vi
immunities, hut even of their common rights. Foremost among "— ^r' — '
the reasons oi' this antagonism we i)laee the absolute contrariety
be'tween heathenism and the Synagogue, and the social isolation
which Judaism rendered necessary. It was avowedly unlawful for
the Jew even ' to keep company, or come unto one of another nation. ' " » Acts x. 28
To quarrel with this, was to tind fault with the law and the religion
which made him a Jew. But besides, there was that pride of descent,
creed, enlightenment, and national privileges, which St. Paul so graphi-
cally sums up as ' making l)oast of God and of the laAv. ' '' However dif- '' comp.
ferently they might have expressed it, Philo and Hillel would have been 24
at one as to the absolute superiority of the Jew as such. Pretensions
of this kind must have been the more provocative, that the populace
at any rate envied the prosperity which Jewish industry, talent, and
capital everywhere secured. Why should that close, foreign corpora-
tion possess every civic right, and yet be free from many of its burdens?
Why should their meetings be excepted from the ' collegia illicita " ?
why should they alone be allowed to export part of the national
wealth, to dedicate it to their superstition in Jerusalem ? The Jew
could not well feign any real interest in what gave its greatness to
Ephesus, its attractiveness to Corinth, its influence to Athens. He
was ready to profit by it*; but his inmost thought must have been
contempt, and all he wanted was quietness and protection in his own
pursuits. What concern had he with those petty squabbles, ambitions,
flr designs, which agitated the turbulent populace in those Grecian
cities ? what cared he for their popular meetings and noisy discus-
sions ? The recognition of the fact that, as Jews, they were strangers
in a strange land, made them so loyal to the ruling powers, and pro-
cured them the protection of kings and Cgesars. But it also roused
the hatred of the populace.
That such should have been the case, and these widely scattered
memliers have been united in one body, is a unique fact in history'.
Its only true explanation must be sought in a higher Divine impulse.
The links which bound them together were: a common creed, a
common life, a common centre, and a common Iwpe.
Wherever the Jew sojourned, or however he might differ from
his brethren. Monotheism, the Divine mission of Moses, and the
authority of the Old Testament, were equally to all unquestioned
articles of belief. It may well have been that the Hellenistic Jew,
living in the midst of a hostile, curious, and scurrilous population, did
13
76 TJIF-: I'HErAHATIUN FOH THE GOSPEL.
BOOK not. care to oxhil)it over his house and doorposts, at the right of the
I entrance, the Mezuzah,^ which enclosed the folded parchment that, on
^-^-^r — ' twenty-two lines, bore the words from Deut. iv. 4-9 and xi. 13-21,
or to call attention b}' their In'eadth to the I'ephiUin,' or phylacteries
on his left arm and forehead, or even to make observable the Tsitsith,^
or fringes on the borders of his garments/ Perhaps, indeed, all these
observances may at that time not have been deemed incumbent on
every Jew.' At any rate, we do not find mention of them in
heathen writers. Similarly, they could easily keep out of view, or
they nmy not have had conveniences for, their prescribed purifications.
But in every place, as we have abundant evidence, where there were
at least ten BaUanim — male householders who had leisure to give
» Acts XV. 21 themselves to regular attendance — they had, from ancient times,"
one, and, if possible, more Synagogues." Where there was no Syn-
bActsxvi. agogue there was at least a Proseuche,^' or meeting-place, under the
open sky, after the form of a theatre, generally outside the town, near
a river or the sea, for the sake of lustrations. These, as we know
from classical writers, were well known to the heathen, and even
frequented by them. Their Sabbath observance, their fasting on
Thursdays, their Day of Atonement, their laws relating to food, and
their pilgrimages to Jerusalem — all found sympathisers among Juda-
ising Gentiles. '^ They even watched to see, how the Sabbath lamp
was kindled, and the solemn prayers spoken which marked the
beginning of the Sabbath.® But to the Jew the Synagogue was the
1 Ber. iii. 3 ; Meg. i. 8 ; Moed K. iii. 4 ; already been pointed out in that book
Men. iii. 7. Comp. Jo.s. Ant. iv. 8. 13; and of gigantic learning, Spencer, De Leg.
the tractate Mezuzah in Kirchheim, Sep- Hebr. p. 1213. F/-rt«^-e^ (Ueber d. Eintl.
tern libri Talmvid. parvi Hierosol. pp. d. Pal. Exeg., pp. 89, 90j tries in vain to
12-17. controvert the statement. The insuffi-
^ St. Matt, xxiii. 5; Ber. i. 3; Shabb. vi. ciency of his arguments has been fully
2 ; vii. 3 ; xvi. 1 ; Er. x. 1, 2 ; Sheq. iii. 2 ; shown by Ilerzfeld (Gesch. d. Volk. Isr.
Meg. i. 8; iv. 8; Moed. Q. iii. 4; Sanh. vol. iii. p. 224).
xi. 3; Men. iii. 7; iv. 1; Kel. xviii. 8; '^ avvayooyr}, Jos. Ant.x\\.6.^;Vfnv,
Miqv. X. 3; Yad. iii. 3. Comp. Kirch- ii. 14. 4. 5; vii. 3. 3; Philo, Quod omnis
7<e(?rt, Tract. Tephillin, u. s. pp. 18-21. probus liber, ed. Mangey, ii. i). 458;
3 Moed K. iii. 4; Eduy. iv. 10; Men. avvaycbyiov, Philo, Ad Caj. ii. p. 591;
iii. 7; iv. 1. Comp. Kirchheim, Tract. cTafifiarelov, Jos. Ant. xvi. 6. 2; npo-
Tsitsith. u. s. pp. 22-24. crevKrijpiov, Philo, Vita Mosis, lib. iii.,
* The Tephilliii enclo-sed a transcript ii. p. KJS.
of Exod. xiii. 1-10. 11-16; Deut. vi. 4-9; ' TCpoaevx)). Jos. Ant. xiv. 10. 23,
xl. 13-21. The Tsifsith were worn in Life 54: Philo, In Place, ii. p. 523; Ad
obedience to the injunction in Num. xv. Caj. ii. pp. 565, 596; Epiphnn. Ha»r.
37 etc. ; Deut. xxii. 12 (comp. St. Matt. Ixxx. 1. Comp. J^i/^-ew. Sat. iii. 296: 'Ede
ix. 20; xiv. 36; St. Mark V. 27; St. Luke ubi consistas? in qua te quajro pros-
viii. 44). eucha? '
^ It is remarkable that Aristeas seems ** Comp.. among others, Ovid, Ars
to speak only of the phylacteries on the Amat. i. 76: Jnr. Sat. xiv. 96, 97; Ilor.
arm, and Piiilo of those for the head. Sat. i. 5. 100; 9.70; Suet. Aug. 93.
Avhile the LXX. takes the command en- " Persius v. iso.
tirely in a metaphorical sense. This has
JERUSALEM THE CENTRE OF UNION. 77
l)on(l of union throughout tlie worUl. There, on Sabbath and feast CHAP.
days they met to read, from the same Leetionary, the same Seri})ture- VI
lessons which their brethren read throughout the world, and to say, ^— -v^^
in the words of the same liturgy, their common prayers, catching
echoes of the gorgeous Temple-services in Jerusalem. The heathen
must have been struck with awe as they listened, and watched in the
gloom of the Synagogue the mysterious light at the far curtained end,
where the sacred oracles were reverently kept, wrapped in costly
coverings. Here the stranger Jew also would find himself at home:
the same arrangements as in his own land, and the well-known ser-
vices and })rayers. A hospitable welcome at the Sabbath-meal, and
in many a home, would be pressed on him, and ready aid be proffered
in work or trial.
For, deepest of all convictions was that of their common centre;
strongest of all feelings was the love which bound them to Palestine
and to Jerusalem, the city of God, the joy of all the earth, the glory
of His pco])le Israel. ' H" I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand
forget her cunning; let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.'
Hellenist and Eastern equally realised this. As the soil of his native
land, the deeds of his people, or the graves of his fathers draw the
far-off wanderer to the home of his childhood, or fill the mountaineer
in his exile with irrepressible longing, so the sounds ^^1lich the Jew
heard in his Synagogue, and the observances which he kept. Nor
was it with him merely matter of patriotism, of history, or of associ-
ation. It was a religious principle, a spiritual hope. No truth more
firmly rooted in the consciousness of all, than that in Jerusalem alone
men could truly worship." As Daniel of old had in his hour of »st. John
worshi}) turned towards the Holy Cit}', so in the Synagogue and in
his prayers every Jew turned towards Jerusalem; and anything that
might imply want of reverence, when looking in that direction, was
considered a grievous sin. From every Synagogue in the Diasjjora
the annual Temple-tribute went up to Jerusalem,^ no doubt ofteu
accompanied by rich votive offerings. Few, Avho could undertake or
a fiord the journey, but had at some time or other gone up to the Holy
City to attend one of the great feasts.^ Philo, who was held by the
same spell as the most bigoted Rabbinist, had himself been one of
those dejMited by his fellow-citizens to offer prayers and sacrifices in
the great Sanctuary.-^ Views and feelings of this kind help us to un-
^ Comp. Jos. Ant. xiv. 7. 2 ; xvi. 6, - Philo, De Moiiarchia, ii. p. 223.
passiuni; Ph/h, De Mouarchia, ed. Man- * Philo, in a fragment preserved in
gey. ii. p. 224; Ad Caj. ii. p. 568; Contra Euseh.. Pra^par. Ev. viii. 13. Wliat tlie
Flacc. ii. ]). 524. Temple was in the estimation of Israel,
Iv. 20
IS
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
I
' War vi. 9.
3: comp. ii.
14. 3
" Hos. si. 11
c Mldr. on
Cant. i. 1.5,
ed. War-
shau, p. 11&
a Men. 53 h
derstand, how, on .some gTeat feast, as Joseplms states on sufficient
authority, the i)opukxtion of Jerusalem — within its ecclesiastical
boundaries — could have swelled to the enormous number of nearly
three millions/'
And still, there was an even stronger liond in their common hope.
That hope pointed them all, wherever scattered, back to Palestine.
To them the coming (jf the Messiah undoubtedly implied the restora-
tion of Israel's kingdom, and, as a tirst i)art in it, the return of 'the
dispersed.' ' Indeed, every devout Jew prayed, day by day: ' Proclaim
by Thy loud trumi)ct our deliverance, and raise up a l)anner to
gather our dispersed, and gather us together from the four ends of
the earth. Blessed be Thou, 0 Lord! Who gatherest the outcasts
of Thy peojjle Israel.'^ That prayer included in its generality also
the lost ten tribes. So, for example, the prophecy'' was rendered:
' They hasten hither, like a bird out of Egypt, ' — referring to Israel
of old; 'and like a dove out of the land of Assyria' — referring to
the ten tribes."^ And thus even these wanderers, so long lost, were
to be reckoned in the field of the Good Shepherd. *
It is worth while to trace, how universally and warmly both
Eastern and Western Judaism cherished this hope of all Israel's
return to their own land. The Targumim l)ear repeated reference to
it;'* and although there may be question as to the exact date of
these paraphrases, it cannot be doubted, that in this respect they
represented the views of the Synagogue at the time of Jesus. For
the same reason we may gather from the Talmud and earliest com-
mentaries, what Israel's hope was in regard to the return of the
' dispersed."** It was a l)eautiful idea to liken Israel to the olive-tree,
which is never stripped of its leaves.'' The storm of trial that had swept
over it was, indeed, sent in judgment, but not to destroy, only to
pui-ity. Even so, Israel's persecutions had served to keep them from
II Messia, p. 253.
* Notably in connection witli Ex. xii.
42 (both in tlie Pseudo-Jon. and Jer.
Targ;uni); Numb. xxiv. 7 (Jer. Targ.);
Deut. XXX. 4 (Targ. Ps.-Jon.): Is. xiv. 29;
Jer. xxxiii. i:^: Hos. xiv. 7; Zech. x. (i.
Dr. Drummond, in his 'Jewish Messiah,'
p. :H3.5. quotes from tlie Targnm on
Lamentations. But tiiis dates from long
after the Talmudic period.
^ As each sentence which follows
would necessitate one or more references
to difiereiU works, the reader, who may
be desirous to verify the statements in
the text, is generally referred to Cnstelli,
w. s. pp. 251-2.'j.'i.
and what its loss boded, not only to
them, but to the whole world, will be
shown in' a later part of this book.
1 Even Maimonides, in spite of liis
desire to minimise the Mes.sianic expect-
ancy, admits this.
••'"This is tlie tcntli of the eigiiteen (or
ratlier nineteen) l)enedictions in the daily
l)rayers. Of these tlie tirst and the last
three are certainly the oldest. But this
tenth also dates from liefore tiie des-
truction of Jerusalem. Cornp. Ziniz,
Gottesd. Vortr. d. Juden. p. 368.
■^ Comp. Jer. Sanh. x. (i; Sanh. 110 />:
Yalk. Shim.
* The suggestion is made by Castelli.
THE COMMON MESSIANIC HOPE.
79
becoiniiiii" mixed with the (jlciitiles. Heaven and cartli might ])C
destroyed, but not Israel; and their final deliverance would Jar out-
i^trip in nmrvellousness that ironi Egyi)t. The winds would blow to
bring together the dispersed; nay, if there were a single Israelite in a
land, howeverdistant, he would be restored. With every honour would
the nations l)ring them V)aek. The patriarchs and all the just would
rise to share in the joys of the new possession of their land; new
hymns as well as the <jld ones would rise to the praise of Gotl. Nay,
the bounds of the land would be extended far l)eyond what they had
ever been, and nmde as wide as originally promised to Abraham.
Nor would that possession be ever taken from them, nor those joys
be ever succeeded by sorrows/ In view of such general expectations
we cannot tail to nuirk with what wonderful soll^riety the Apostles put
the question to Jesus: 'Wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom
to Israel ?'•■'
Hopes and expectations such as these are expressed not only in
Talmudical writings. We find them throughout that very interest-
ing Ai)ocalyptic class of literature, the Pseudepigrapha, to which
reference has already been nmdc. The two earliest of them, the
Book of Enoch and the Sibylline Oracles, are equally emphatic on
this subject. The seer in the Book of Enoch beholds Israel in the
Messianic time as coming in carriages, and as borne on the wings of
the wind from East, and West, and South." Fuller details of that
happy event are furnished by the Jewish Sibyl. In her utterances
these three events are connected together: the coming of the Mes-
siah, the rebuilding of the Temple,' and the restoration of the dis-
persed,'' when all nations would bring their wealth to the House of
God.'^ The latter trait specially reminds us of their Hellenistic origin.
A century later the same joyous contidenco, only perhaps more clearly
worded, appears in the so-called 'Psalter of Solomon.' Thus the
seventeenth Psalm bursts into this strain: ' Blessed are they who shall
live in those days — in the reunion of the tribes, which God brings
al)out."^ And no wonder, since they are the days when 'the King.
CHAl'
VI
' The fiction of two Messiahs — one
the Sou of David, the otlier the Son of
Joseph, the latter beincj connected with
the restoration of the ten tribes — has been
conclusively shown to he the i)Ost-Chris-
tian date (conip. Schottgen, Home Hebr.
i. \). 359; and Wiinsche, Leiden d. Mess,
p. 109). Possil)ly it was invented to
find an explanation for Zech. xli. 10
(comp. Slice. 52 a), just as the Socinian
doctrine of the assumption of Christ into
heaven at the beii'inniniz; of His ministry
was invented to account for St. Joim iii.
13.
- M. Maurice Vernes (Hist, des Idees
Messian. pp. 43-119) maintains that the
writers of Enoch and Or. Sib. iii. ex-
pected this period under the rule of the
Maccabees, and reii'arded one (»f tliem as
the Messiali. It imi)Iies a jieculiar read-
in^• of iiistory, and a lively inuiii'lnatiou,
to arrive at such a conclusion.
!< Book of
En.ch.lvii. ;
comp. xc.aa
■: B. In. 286-
294; comp.
B. V. 414-
433
a iii. 732-735
e iii. 766-783
f Ps. of Sol.
vsii. 50:
comp. also
Ps. xi.
80
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
I
» Ps. Sal.
xviii. 23
*> V. 25
•^T. 27
'1 V. 28
e vv. 30, 31
t Book or.
•Jub. cli. i. ;
fomp. al^>(
ell. xxili.
e St. .John
11. 19
the Son of David,"" having purged Jerusalem" and destroyed the
heathen l)y the word of His mouth," would gather together a holy
people which He would rule with justice, and judge the tribes of His
people/ • dividing thein over the land according to tribes; ' when ' no
stranger would any longer dwell among them.'''
Another pause, and we reach the time when Jesus the Messiah
appeared. Knowing the characteristics of that time, we scarcely
wonder that the Book of Jubilees, whicli dates from that period,
should have been Rabbinic in its cast rather than Apocalyptic. Yet
even there the reference to the future glory is distinct. Thus we are
told, that, though for its wickedness Israel had been scattered, God would
' gather them all from the midst of the heathen, ' ' build among them
His Sanctuary, and dwell with them. ' That Sanctuary was to ' be for
ever and ever, and God would appear to the eye of every one, and
every one acknowledge that He was the God of Israel, and the Father
of all the Children of Jacob, and King upon Mount Zion, from ever-
lasting to everlasting. And Zion and Jerusalem shall be holy. "^ When
listening to this language of, perhaps, a contemporary of Jesus, we can in
some measure understand the popular indignation which such a charge
would call forth, as that the Man of Nazareth had proposed to destroy
the Temple,® or that he thought merely of the children of Jacob.
There is an ominous pause of a century before we come to the next
work of this class, which bears the title of the Fourth Book of Esdras.
That century had been decisive in the history of Israel, Jesus had
lived and died; His Apostles had gone forth to bear the tidings of the
new Kingdom of God; the Church had been founded and separated
from the Synagogue; and the Temple had been destroyed, the Holy
City laid waste, and Israel undergone sufferings, compared Avith which
the former troubles might almost be forgotten. But already the new
doctrine had struck its roots deep alike in Eastern and in Hellenistic
soil. It were strange indeed it\ in such circumstances, this book
should not have been diflerent from any that had preceded it; stranger
still, if earnest Jewish minds and ardent Jewish hearts had re-
mained wholly unaffected by the new teaching, even though the
doctrine of the Cross still continued a stumbling-block, and the Gospel-
announcement a rock of offence. But perhaps we could scarcely
have been prepared to find, as in the Fourth Book of Esdras, doctrinal
views which were wholly foreign to Judaism, and evidently derived
from the New Testament, and which, in logical consistency, would
seem to lead up to it.^ The greater part of the book maybe described
^ The doctrinal ))art of IV. Esdras may
be said to be saturated with tlie do<;ma
of original sin, which is wholly foreign
to the theology alike of Rabbinic and
l'()8T-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF IV. ESDRAS. 81
as restless tossing, the seer being agitated by the problem and the
consequences of sin, which here for tlietirst and only time is presented
as in the New Testament; by the question, Avhy there are so few who
are saved ; and especially by what to a Jew must have seemed the
inscrutable, terrible mystery of Israel's sufferings and banishment/
Yet, so far as we can see, no other way of salvation is indicated than
that by works and personal righteousness. Throughout there is a
tone of deep sadness and intense earnestness. It almost seems some-
times, as if one heard the wind of the new dispensation sweeping
before it the withered leaves of Israel's autumn. Thus far for the
princijjal portion of the l)Ook. The second, or Apocalyptic, part,
endeavors to solve the mystery of Israel's state b}' foretelling their
future. Here also there are echoes of New Testament utterances.
What the end is to be, we are told in unmistakable language. His
'Son,' Whom the Highest has for a long time preserved, to deliver
' the creature ' by Him, is suddenly to appear in the form of a Man.
From His mouth shall proceed alike woe, fire, and storm, which are
the trilnilatiolis of the last days. And as they shall gather for war
against Him, He shall stand on Mount Zion, and the Holy City
shall come down from heaven, prepared and ready, and He shall
destroy all His enemies. But a peaccal)le multitude shall now be
gathered to Him. These are the ten tribes, who, to separate themselves
iVorn the ways of the heathen, had wandered far away, miraculously
lielped, a journey of one and a half years, and who were now similarl}'
restored by (jrod to their own land. But as for the 'Son,' or those
who accompanied him, no one on earth would l)e able to see or know
them, till the day of His appearing."- avis.vi.ch.
It seems scarcely necessary to complete the series of testimony "'^^"' "'^"^^
by referring in detail to a book, called 'The Prophecy and Assump-
tion of Moses,' and to what is known as the Apocalypse of Baruch, the
servant of Jeremiah. Both date from probably a somewhat later period
than the Fourth Book of Esdras, and both are fragmentary. The one
distinctly anticipates the return of the ten tribes ; '' the other, in the '<Proi>het.et
Ass. Mos.
letter to the nine and a half tribes, far beyond the P]uphrates,'" with iv. 7-u:
vii. 20
which the book closes, preserves an ominous silence on that point, or cAp. Bar.
rather alludes to it in language which so strongly reminds us of the ^^^"' "^"^
Hellenistic Juduism. Comp. ^'is. \. oli. niatic part, seems successively to take up
ill. 21, 22; iv. 30. 38; Vis. iii. ch. vi. these three subjects, a!tliou<iii from nuite
18. 19 (ed. Fritzsche, p. 607); 33-41; vii. another i)oint of view. How different
46-48; viii. 34-35. the treatment is, need not be told.
1 It almost seems as if there were a - The better reading is ' in tempore
l)arallelism between this book and the diei ejus. (v. 52).*
Epistle to the Romans, which in its dog-
82 THE I'KErAKATlON FOR THE G(Jrfl'EL.
liOOK adverse oi)iiiioii exi)resse(l in the Talmud, that we cannot help sus-
I pecting some internal connection l)etween the two.'
"— ^r~"^ The writing's to which we have referred have all a decidedly
Hellenistic tinge of thought.^ Still they are not the outcome of
pure Hellenism. It is therefore with i)eculiar interest that we turn
to Philo, the great representative of that direction, to see whether he
would admit an idea so purely national and, as it might seem, exclu-
sive. Nor are we here left in douht. So universal was this belief,
so deep-seated the conviction, not only in the mind, but in the heart
of Israel, that we could scarcely find it more distinctly expressed than
l)y the great Alexandrian. However low the condition of Israel
»DeExe- might be, he tells us,'' or however scattered the people to the ends of
cAi. Frcf. the earth, the banished would, on a given sign, be set free in one day.
pp. 936, 937 ' ) t. ?? >^ J
In consistency with his system, he traces this wondrous event to
their sudden conversion to virtue, which would make their masters
ashamed to hold any longer in Ijondage those who were so much
better than themselves. Then, gathering as by one impulse, the dis-
persed would return from Hellas, from the lands of the barljarians,
from the isles, and from the continents, led l)y a Divine, superhuman
api)arition invisible to others, and visible only to themselves. On
their arrival in Palestine the waste places and the wilderness would ]}e
inhabited, and the l)arren land transformed into fruitfulness.
Whatever shades of difterence, then, we may note in the expres-
sion of these views, all anticipate the deliverance of Israel, their re-
storation, and future pre-eminent glory, and they all connect these
events with the coming of the Messiah. This was 'the promise'
unto which, in their ' instant service night and day, the twelve tribes,'
bActs however grievously oppressed, hoped to come. ^' To this 'sure word
xxvi. 7
of prophecy' 'the strangers scattered' throughout all lands would
'take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,' until the
' 111 Sanh. 110 /^ we read, 'OurEabbirf the one, and tormented in the other
teach, that the Ten Tribes have no part in (Apoc. Bar. Ix.xxiii. 8).
the era to come, because it is written ^ Thus, for example, the assertion that
"Tlie Lord drave them out of their land there had been individuals who fulfilled
in anger, and in wrath, and in great the commandments of God, Vis. i. ch. iii.
indignation, and cast them into another 36; the domain of reason, iv. 22; v. 9;
huul." " Tlie Lord drave them from their general Messianic blessings to the world
land" — in the present era — "and cast at laige, Vis. i. ch. iv. 27, 28; the idea
them into another land " — in the era to of a law within their minds, like that of
come.' In curious agreement with this, which St. Paul sjieaks in the case of the
Pseudo-Baruch writes to the nine and a heathen, Vis. iii. ch. vi. 45-47 (ed.
half tribes to 'prepare their hearts to Fritzsche, p. 609). These are only in-
that wliich they had formerly ijelieved,' stances, and we refer besides to the gen-
lest they should sutler 'in l)oth eras {ab eral cast of the reasoning.
utroque sceculo),^ being led captive in
NEARNESS OF MESSIAH'.S COMING. 83
day dawned, and the daj-star rose in their liearts." It was this CHAP,
which gave meaning to their worship, tilled them with patience in vi
suflering, kept them separate from the nations around, and ever tixed " — ~-r — '
their hearts and thoughts upon Jerusalem. For the 'Jerusalem' ''2Pet. i. 19
which was above was '■ the mother ' oi' them all. Yet a little while,
and He that would come should come, and not tarry — and then all
the blessing and glory would be theirs. At any moment the glad-
some tidings might burst upon them, that He had come, when their
glory would shine out from one end of the heavens to the other. All
the signs of His Advent had come to pass. Perhaps, indeed, the
Messiah might even now be there, ready to manifest Himself, so soon
as the voice of Israel's repentance called Him from His hiding. Any
hour might that banner be planted on the top of the mountains;
that glittering sword be unsheathed; that trumpet sound. Closer
then, and still closer, must be their connection with Jerusalem, as
their salvation drew nigh; more earnest their longing, and more
eager their gaze, till the dawn of that long expected day tinged the
Eastern sky with its brightness.
84
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK
T
' Mac. 23 /'
' Rosh
HaSh. 11 a
t Ber. R. 44
■' Yalkut S 2
Ber. R. 1
CHAPTER YII.
IN PALESTINE — JEWS AND GENTILES IN 'THE LAND' — THEIR MUTUAL
RELATIONS AND FEELINGS — 'THE WALL OF SEPARATION.'
The pilgrim who, leaving other countries, entered Palestine, must
have felt as if he had crossed the threshold of another world.
Manners, customs, institutions, law, life, nay, the very intercourse
between man and man, were quite different. All was dominated by
the one all-absorbing idea of religion. It penetrated every relation
of life. Moreover, it was inseparably connected with the soil, as well
as the people of Palestine, at least so long as the Temple stood.
Nowhere else could the Shekhinah dAvell or manifest itself; nor could,
unless under exceptional circumstances, and for ' the merit of the
fathers,' the spirit of prophecy be granted outside its bounds. To
the orthodox Jew the mental and spiritual horizon was bounded by
Palestine. It was 'the land'; all the rest of the world, except
Babylonia, was ' outside the land. ' No need to designate it specially
as 'holy '; for all here bore the impress of sanctity, as he understood
it. Not that the soil itself, irrespective of the people, was holy; it
was Israel that made it such. For, had not God given so many com-
mandments and ordinances, some of them apparently needless, simjjly
to call forth the righteousness of Israel;'' did not Israel possess the
merits of 'the fathers,"' and specially that of Abraham, itself so
valuable that, even if his descendants had, morally speaking, been as
a dead body, his merit Avould have been imputed to them?" More
than that, God had created the Avorld on account of Israel, '' and for
their merit, making preparation for them long before their appear-
ance on the scene, just as a king who foresees the birth of his son;
nay, Israel had been in God's thoughts not only before anything had
actually been created, but even before every other creative thought.''
If these distinctions seem excessive, they were, at least, not out of
proportion to the estimate formed of Israel's merits. In theory, the
latter might be su])posed to How from 'good works,' of course, in-
cluding the strict practice of legal i)iety, and from 'study of the law.'
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHlilST. 85
But ill reality it was ' study " alone to which such supreme merit chap.
attached. Practice required knowledge for its direction; such as the Vii
Am-lui-arets {^ country people,' plebeians, in the Jewish sense of ])eing ^ ^-^-^
unlearned) could not possess,'' who had bartered away the highest '.tJomp.Ab.
crown for a spade with which to dig. And ' the school of Arum ' —
the sages — the * great ones of the world ' had long settled it, that
stiuly was before w^orks.'' And how could it well be otherwise, since "Jer. chag.
* . i. hal 7
the studies, which engaged His chosen children on earth, equally occu- towards
pied their Almighty Father in heaven?" Could anything, then, be Jer. Pes',
lugher than the peculiar calling of Israel, or better cpialify them for cAb. z. 3 6
l)oing the sons of God?
It is necessary to transport oneself into this atmosphere to under-
stand the views entertained at the time of Jesus, or to form any con-
ception of their infinite contrast in spirit to the new doctrine. The
abhorrence, not unmingicd with contempt, of all Gentile ways,
thoughts and associations; the worship of the letter of the Law; the
self-righteousness, and pride of descent, and still more of knowledge,
])ecome thusintelligil)le to us, and, equally so, the absolute antagonism
to the claims of a Messiah, so unlike themselves and their own ideal.
Tlis first announcement might, indeed, excite hope, soon felt to have
l)een vain; and His miracles might startle for a time. But the boun-
dary lines of tlie Kingdom which He traced were essentially different
from those which they had fixed, and within which t\\Qj had arranged
everything, alike for the present and the future. Had He been
content to step witliin them, to complete and realise what they had
indicated, it miglit have been different. Nay, once admit their funda-
mental ideas, and there was much that was beautiful, true, and even
gi'and in the details. But -it was exactly in the former that the diver-
gence lay. Nor was there any possibility of reform or progress here.
The past, the present, and the future, alike as regarded the Gentile
world and Israel, were irrevocably fixed: or rather, it might almost be
said, there were not such — all continuing as they had lieen from the
creation of the world, nay, long before it. The Torah had really
existed 2,000 years before Creation;' the patriarchs had had their ashir
Academies of study, and they had known and observed all the ordi- onViiuVt. v.
nances; and traditionalism had the same origin, both as to time and siiau, i).266
authority, as the Law itself As for the heathen nations, the Law had
been offered by God to them, l)ut refused, and even their after re])ent-
ance would prove hypocritical, as all their excuses would lie shown to be
futile. But as for Israel, even though their good deeds should l)e few,
yet, by cumulating them frf)m among all the peojile. they would appear
86 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK ji'reat in the end, and God would exact payment for their .sins as a man
I docs from his triends, taking little sums at a time. It was in this
^- — ~^' ' sense, that the Ra))bis employed that sublime tjtjcnre, representing the
Church as one Ijody, of whicli all the members suH'ered and joyed to-
gether, which St. Paul adopted and applied in a vastly ditierent and
»Eph. iv. ic. spiritual sense.''
If, on the one hand, the pre-eminence of Israel depended on the
Land, and, on the other, that of the Land on the presence of Israel
in it, the Rabbinical comjjlaint was, indeed, well grounded, that its
M)oundaries were l)ecoming narrow.' We can scarcely expect any
accurate demarcation of them, since the question, wliat belonged to
it, was determined by ritual and theological, not by geographical con-
siderations. Not only the imuiediate neighborhood (as in the case of
Ascalon), but the very wall of a city (as of Acco and of Caesarea)
might be Palestinian, and yet the city itself be regarded as ' outside ' the
sacred limits. All depended on who had originally ])ossessed, and now
held a place, and hence what ritual ol)ligati(ms lay upon it. Ideally,
as we may say, ' the land of promise' included all wliich God had
covenanted to give to Israel, although never yet actually possessed by
them. Then, in a more restricted sense, the 'land' comprised what
' they who came u\) from Egypt took possession of, from Chezib [about
three hours north of Acre] and unto the river [Euphrates], and unto
Amanah.' This included, of course, the conquests made by David in
the most prosperous times of the Jewish commonwealth, supposed to
have extended over Mesopotamia, Syria, Zobali, Achlah, &c. To all
these districts the general name of Soria, (jr Syria, was afterwards
given. This formed, at the time of which we Avrite, a sort of inner
band around 'the land,' in its narrowest and only real sense; just
as the countries in which Israel was specially interested, such as
Egypt, Babylon, Amnion, and Moab, formed an outer band. These
lands were heathen, and yet not quite heathen, since the dedication of
the so-called Tcru)notJ(, or first-fruits in a prepared state, was expected
from them, while Soria shared almost all the obligations of Palestine,
except those of the 'second tithes,' and the fourth year's product of
'■Lev. xi.x. plants.'' But the wavesheaf at the Paschal Feast, and the two loaves
at Pentecost, could only l)e brought from wliat had grown on the
holy soil itself. This latter was roughly defined, as 'all which they
who came u]) from Babylon took possession of, in the land of Israel,
and unto Cliozil)." Viewed in this light, there was a special significance
in the fact that Antioch. where tlie name 'Christian' first marke<l the
Acts xj. 26 new 'Sect' which had sprung up in Palestine," and where the first
24
HEATHENLSAI IN AND AROrND TALESTlNi:. 87
Gentile Church was lunned," lay just outside the nortliern l)oun(lar3^ CHAP.
ot ' tlie laud.' .Siuiilarly, we understand, why those Jewish zealots ^^
who would tain have imposed on the new Church the yoke of the Law/' ^-^"^c -^
concentrated their tirst efforts on that Sorid which was reirarded as a l^^ctsxi. 20,
kind of outer Palestine. '' Acts xv. 1
But, even so, there was a ii'radation of sanctity in the Holy Land
itself, in accordance with ritual distinctions. Ten degrees arc here
enumerated, beginning with the bare soil of Palestine, and culuiinat-
ing in the Most Holy Place in the Temple — each implying some ritual
distinction, which did not attach to a lowei- degree. And yet, although
the very dust of heathen soil was supposed to carry delilement, like
corruption or the grave, the spots most sacred were everywhere sur-
rounded by heathenism ; nay, its traces were visible in Jerusalem
itself The reasons of this are to be st)ugiit in the political circum-
stances of Palestine, and in the persistent endeavour of its rulers —
with the exception of a very brief i^eriod under the Maccabees — to
Grecianise the country, so as to eradicate that Jewish particularism
which must always be antagonistic to every foreign element. In
general, Palestine might be divided into the strictly Jewish territiny,
and the so-called Hellenic cities. The latter had been built at ditferent
l)eriods, and were politically constituted after the model of the Greek
cities, having their own senates (generally consisting of several hundred
persons) and magistrates, each city with its adjoining territory forming
a sort of commonwealth of its own. But it must not be imagined,
that these districts were inhabited exclusively, or even chiefly, by
Greeks. One of these groups, that towards Peraea, was really Syrian,
and formed part of Syria Decapolis] ^ while the other, along the coast
of the Mediterranean, was Phcenician. Thus ^ the land' was hemmed
in, east and west, within its own borders, while south and north
stretched heathen or semi-heathen districts. The strictly Jewish
territory consisted of Judaia proper, to which Galilee, Sanuiria and
Pertea were joined as Toparchies. These Toparchies consisted of a
group of townships, under a Metropolis. The villages and townships
themselves had neither magistrates of their own, nor civic constitu-
tion, nor lawful popular assemblies. Such civil adminstration as
they required devolved on ' Scribes' (the so-called Koo/uoypa/x/uaTsis
or TOTToypajupinTSig). Thus Jerusalem was really, as well as nominally,
I Tlie followina: cities probably formed Dion, Pella. Gerasa. and Canatiia. On
the Decripo/i.'i, tliouo;!! it is ditticult to these cities, comi). Caspnri. Ghronol.
feel (luite sure in reference to one or tlie GJeoiir. Einl. in d. Lebeu J. Christi, pp.
other of them: Damascus, Philadeli)liia, 83-90.
Rai)hana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos,
8 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK tlie capital of the whole land. Judaea itself was arranged into eleven,
I or rather, more exactly, into nine Toparchies, of which Jerusalem was
— ^^"^ tlie chief. While, therefore, the Hellenic cities were each independent of
the other, the whole Jewish territory formed only one ' Civitas.'' Rule,
government, tribute— in short, political life — centred in Jerusalem.
But this is not all. From motives similar to those which led to
the founding of other Hellenic cities, Herod the Great and his imme-
diate successors built a number of towns, which were inhabited chiefly
by Gentiles, and had independent constitutions, like those of the Hel-
lenic cities. Thus, Herod himself built Sebaste (Samaria), in the
centre of the country; Cassarea in the west, commanding the sea-coast;
Gaba in Galilee, close to the great plain of Esdraeion; and Esbonitis
in Percea.^ Similarly, Philip the Tetrarch built Caesarea Philippi
and Julias (Bethsaida-Julias, on the western shore of the lake); and
Herod Antipas another Julias, and Tiberias.'* The object of these
cities was twofold. As Herod, well knowing his unpopularity, sur-
rounded himself by foreign mercenaries, and reared fortresses around
his palace and the Temple which he built, so he erected these forti-
fied posts, which he populated with strangers, as so many outworks,
to surround and command Jerusalem and the Jews on all sides. Again,
as, despite his profession of Judaism, he reared magnificent heathen
temples in honour of Augustus at Seljaste and Caesarea, so those
cities were really intended to form centres of Grecian influence within
the sacred territory itself. At the same time, the Herodian cities en-
joyed not the same amount of liberty as the 'Hellenic,' which, with
the exception of certain imposts, were entirely self-governed, while in
the former there were representatives of the Herodian rulers.^
Although each of these towns and districts had its special deities
and rites, some being determined by local traditions, their prevailing
character may be described as a mixture of Greek and S3Tian worship,
the former preponderating, as might be expected.* On the other
hand, Herod and his successors encouraged the worship of the Emperor
and of Rome, which, characteristically, was chiefly practised in the
East." Thus, in the temple which Herod built to Augustus in
1 Herod rebuilt or built other cities, Die Stadt. u. biirgerl. Verf. d. Roin.
such as Autipatris, Cypros, Phasaelis, Reichs, 2 vols. ; and for this part, \(il. ii.
Anthedon, &c. Schiirer describes the pp. 336-354, and i)p. 370-372.
two first as built, but they were only * A good sketch of the various rites
rehmlt or fortitied (com]). Ant. xiii. I.'). prevailing in different places is given by
1; War i. 21. 8.) by Herod. Schiirer, Neutest. Zeitg. pp. 378-3X5.
2 He also rebuilt Sepphoris. ^ Comp. Weisefer. Beitr. z riclit. Wiir-
•^ Comp. on the subject of the civic in- dig. d. Evaug. pp. 90, !)1.
stitutionr^ of the Roman Empire, Knhn,
HEATHEN TEMPLES, THEATRES, AND MANNERS. 89
Caesarea, there were statues of the Emperor as ()lyini)ian Zeus, and CHAP,
of Rome as Hera.'' He was wont to excuse this conformity to heathen- vn
ism before his own people on the ground of political necessity. Yet, ' — ^^ — '
even if his religious inclinations had not been in that direction, he "-^'^-Ant.
~ ' XV. 9. b:
would have earnestly striven to Greciauise the people. Not only in ^[^^' '• '^^•
Cassarea, but even in Jerusalem, he built a theatre and amphitheatre,
where at great expense games were held every four years in honour of
Augustus.' Nay, he placed over the great gate of the Temjjle at
Jerusalem a massive golden eagle, the symbol of Roman dominion, as
a sort of counterpart to that gigantic golden vine, the symbol of Israel,
which hung above the entrance to the Holy Place. These measures, in-
deed, led to popular indignation, and even to conspiracies and tumults,*" " Ant. xv. s.
thougli not of tlie same general and intense character, as when, at a e. 2
later period, Pilate sought to introduce into Jerusalem images of the
Emperor, or when the statue of Caligula was to be placed in the
Temple. In connection with this, it is curious to notice that the
Talmud, while on the wiiole disapproving of attendance at theatres
and amphitheatres — chiefly on the ground that it implies * sitting in
the seat of scorners,' and might involve contributions to the main-
tenance of idol-worship — does not expressly prohibit it, nor indeed
speak very decidedly on the subject." ^ so at least
The views of the Rabbis in regard to pictorial representations are tha*!^ comp!
still more interesting, as illustrating their abhorrence of all contact sion and"^
with idolatry. We mark here differences at two, if not at three cmiouYar-
periods, according to the outward circumstances of the peoi)le. The favou?*o/°
earliest and strictest opinions" absolutely forbade any representation fn Ab.Ta^n
of things in heaven, on earth, or in the waters. But the Mishnah'' foiiowfng
seems to relax these prohibitions by subtle distinctions, which are ''Mer-niita
'■ '' ' on Ex. XX.
still further carried out in the Talmud.^ 4,e(i.wei8s,
p. To a
To those who held such stringent views, it must have been pecu- eAb. zar.
liarly galling to sec their most sacred feelings openly outraged by their
own rulers. Tlius, the Asmonean princess, Alexandra, the mother-in-
law of Herod, could so far forget the traditions of her house, as to
send i)ortraits of her son and daughter to Mark Antony for infamous
purposes, in hope of thereby winning him for her ambitious plans. ^ fjo«. Ant.
One would be curious to know who painted these pictures, for, when
tlie statue of Caligula was to be made for the Temi)le at Jerusalem, no
' The Actiau jj'ames took place every (Aut. xvi. 5. 1; coiiip- War i. 21. 8).
fifth year, tlu-ee years always intervening. . '^ For a full statement of the Tainnidi-
The games in Jerusalem were held in the cal views as to images, representations
year 28 b.o. (Jos. Ant. xv. 8. 1); the first on coins, and the most ancient Jewish
games iu Caesarea in the year 12 b.c. coins, see Appendix IH.
111.
XV. 2. 5 and
90
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GO.^PEL.
r.ooK
" ./o.<. War V.
4. i
1' Acts xii.23
'■ Ant. xix.
9. 1
d Dan. vii.
23
' Miclr. R.
on Ex. Par.
23
f Alj. Z. 2 h
2 Ab. Z. 10«;
Gitt. 80 a
'' Ps. Ixxvl.
9
native artist could bo toiiiid, and the work was entrusted to Phoe-
niciaus. It must have been these foreigners also who made the ' figures, '
with which Herod adorned his palace at Jerusalem, and 'the lirazen
statues' in the gardens 'through which the water ran out,"" as well as
the colossal statues at Csesarea, and those of the three daughters of
Agrippa, which after his death'' were so shamefully abused by the
soldiery at Sebaste and Csesarea."
This abhorrence of all connected Avith idolatry, and the contemi)t
entertained for all that was non-Jewish, will in great measure exi)laiu
the code of legislation intended to keej) the Jew and Gentile apart. If
Judaea had to submit to the power of Rome, it could at least avenge
itself in the Academies of its sages. Almost innnmeral)le stories are
told in which Jewish sages, always easily, confute Roman and Greek
philosophers; and others, in which even a certain Emperor (Antoninus)
is represented as constantly in the most menial relation of self-abase-
ment before a Rabbi. ^ Rome, which was the fourth beast of Daniel,"
would in the age to come,- when Jerusalem would be the metropolis
of all lands," be the first to excuse herself on false though vain pleas
for her wrongs to Israel.'' But on worldly grounds also, Rome was con-
temptible, having derived her language and writing from the Greeks,
and not possessing even a hereditary succession in her empire.*^ If
such was the estimate of dreaded Rome, it may lie imagined in what
contempt other nations were held. Well might 'the earth treml)le,'''
for, if Israel had not accepted the Law at Sinai, the whole world
would have been destroyed, while it once more 'was still' when that
happy event took place, although God in a manner forced Israel to it.'
And so Israel was purified at Mount Sinai from the impurity which
clung to our race in consequence of the unclean union between Eve
and the serpent, and which still adhered to all other nations! ^
To begin with, every Gentile child, so soon as born, was to be
regarded as unclean. Those who actually worshipped mountains, hills,
bushes, &c. — in short, gross idolaters — should be cut down with the
sword. But as it was impossible to exterminate heathenism, Rab-
binic legislation kept certain definite objects in view, which nmy be
thus summarised : To prevent Jews from being inadvertently led into
1 Comp. here the interestins; tractate
of Dr. Bodek, 'Marc. Aur. Anton, als
Freiiud u. Zeitgeuosse ties R. Jehuda lia
Na.-^i.'
■ T\w Atliidlnhho, 'sfecuhini futiinun."
to be (li.stin,2;ui.shefl from the Ohnii hiihJxi.
'the world to come.'
3 Ab. Z. 22 h. But as in what follows
the quotations would be too numerous,
they will be omitted. Each statement,
however, advanced in tiie text or notes
is derived from part of the Talmudic
tractate Abodali Zarali.
8 from top
AVOIDANCE OF CONTACT WITH lIEATHENISxM. 91
idolatry; to avoid all participation in idolatry; not to do anything CHAP.
which might aid the heathen in their woi'ship; and, beyond all this, Vll
not to give pleasure, nor even hel]), to heathens. The latter involved a "~- — r — •
most dangerous princii)le, ca[)able of almost indelinite ai)plication by
fanaticism. Even the Mishnah goes so far" as to forbid aid to a "Ab. z. ii.i
mother in the hour of her need, or nourishment to her babe, in order
not to bring up a child for idolatry!' But this is not all. Heathens
Avere, indeed, not to be precipitated into danger, but yet not to bo
delivered from it. Indeed, an isolated teacher ventiires even u^xtn this
statement: 'The best among the Gentiles, kill; the best among
seri)ents, crush its head.'" Still more terrible was the fanaticism "Meruiita,
. . ed. Weiss,
Avhich directed, that heretics, traitors, and those who had left the p.^a3i,,nne
Jewish faith should be thrown into actual danger, and, if they were
in it, all means for their escape removed. No intercourse of any
kind was to be had with such — not even to invoke their medical aid
in case of danger to life,- since it was deemed, that he who had to do
with heretics was in imminent peril of becoming one himself,^ and
that, if a heretic returned to the true faith, he should die at once —
partly, probably, to expiate his guilt, and partly from fear of relapse.
Terrible as all this sounds, it was probalily not worse than the
fanaticism disi)layed in what are called more enlightened times.
Impartial history must chronicle it, however painful, to show the cir-
cumstances in which teaching so far ditierent was propounded by
Christ.^
In truth, the bitter liatred which the Jew bore to the Gentile can
only be explained from the estimate entertained of his character. The
' The Tahnnd declares it only lawful the arraugements of the world ' (Gitt.
if done to avoid exciting liatred againrit (51 (/). Tiie quotation so often made
the Jews. (Ab. Z. 3 (t), that a Gentile wlio occupied
'' Tliere is a well-known story told of himself with tlie Torah was to be re-
a Rabbi who was bitten by a serpent. garded as equal to the High-Priest,
and about to be cured by tlie invocation proves nothing, since in the case sup-
of the name of Jesus by a Jewish CIn-is- posed the Gentile acts like a Rabbinic
tian, which was, however, interdicted. Jew. But, and this is a more serious
•' Yet, such is the moral obli(iuity, that iioint, it is diflicult to believe that those
even idolatry is allowed to save life, pro- who make this (luotation are not aware,
vided it be done in secret! how the Talmud (Ab. Z. 3 d) immediately
* Against this, although somewhat labours to prove that llieir reward is not
doubtfidly, sucli concessions maybe put e(|ual to that of Israelites. A somewhat
as that, outside Palestine, Gentiles were similar charge of one-sidedness, if not
not to be considered as idolators, but as of unfairness, nuist be brought against
observing the customs of their fathers Drutsch (Lecture on the Talmud, Re-
(Chull. 13 b\ and that the poor of the mains, pi). U(i, 147), whose sketch of
Gentiles were to be equally supported Judaism shoidd be compared, for ex-
with those of Israel, their sick visited, amjile, with the tirst Perek of the Tal-
and their dead iiuried; it being, how- mudic tractate Abodah Zarah.
ever, significantly added, ' on account of
92 THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
BOOK most vile, and even iinnatural, crimes wore imi)ute<l to them. It was
I uot safe to leave cattle in their charge, to allow their women to nurse
^--"v-^'^ infants, or their physicians to attend the sick, nor to walk in their
company, without taking precautions against sudden and unprovoked
attacks. They should, so tar as possi))]e, l)e altogether avoided,
except in cases of necessity or for the sake of business. They and
theirs were defiled; their houses unclean, as containing idols or
things dedicated to them; their feasts, their joyous occasions, their
very contact, was polluted by idolatry; and there was no security, if a
heathen were left alone in a room, that he might not, in wantonness
or by carelessness, defile the wine or meat on the table, or the oil
and wheat in the store. Under such circumstances, therefore, every-
thing must be regarded as having l)een rendered unclean. Three
days before a heathen festival (according to some, also three days
after) every business transaction with them was prohilnted, for fear
of giving either help or i)leasure. Jews were to avoid passing thr(High
a city where there was an idolatrous feast — nay, they were not even to
sit down within tlie shadow of a tree dedicated to idol-Avorship. Its
wood was polluted; if used in baking, the bread was unclean; if a
shuttle had been made of it, not only was all cloth woven on it for-
bidden, but if such had l)een inadvertently mixed with other pieces of
cloth, or a garment made from it placed with other garments, the
whole became unclean. Jewish workmen were not to assist in building
basilicas, nor stadia, nor places where judicial sentences were pro-
nounced by the heathen. Of course, it was not lawful to let houses
or fields, nor to sell cattle to them. Milk drawn by a heathen, if a
= Ab. zar. Jew had not l)een present to watch it, " bread and oil prepared by them,
were uidawful. Their wine was wholly interdicted^ — the mere touch
of a heathen polluted a whole cask; ]iay, even to put one's nose to
heathen wine was strictly prohibited !
Painful as these details are, they might be multiplied. And yet
the bigotry of these Rabbis w^as, perhaps, not worse than that of
other sectaries. It w^as a painful logical necessity of their system,
against which their heart, no doubt, often rebelled; and, it must be
truthfully added, it was in measure accoimted for by the terrible
history of Israel.
' According to R. Asi, there was a whether for personal use or for trading,
threefold distinction. If wine had been Lastly, wine prepared by a Jew, but
dedicated to an idol, to carry, even on a deposited in custody of a Gentile, was
stick, so much as tlie weight of an olive prohibited for personal use. but allowed
of it. detlled a man. Other wine, if for ti-athc.
prepared by a heathen, was prohibited,
TJIE 'SCRIBES.'
93
CHAPTER yill.
TRADITIONALISM, ITS ORIGIN, CHARACTER, AND LITERATURE — THE MISH-
NAH AND TALMUD — THE (JOSPEL OF CHRIST — THE DAWN OF A NEW
DAY.
In trying to picture to ourselves New Testament scenes, the ligure
most prominent, next to those of the chief actors, is that of the Scribe
(ICID, yptx/jjuaTEvg, Uteratus). He seems ubiquitous; we meet him in
Jerusalem, in Judsea, and even in Galilee.^ Indeed, he is indisj)en-
sable, not only in Babylon, which may have been the birthplace of his
order, but among the 'dispersion' also.'' Everywhere he appears as
the mouthpiece and representative of tlie people; he pushes to the
front, the crowd respectfully giving way, and eagerly hanging on his
utterances, as those of a recognised authority. He has been solemnly
ordained l)y the laying on of hands; and is the Eabbi,^ 'my great
one,' Master, am/jjlitudo. He puts questions; he urges objections;
he expects full exi)lanations and respectful demeanour. Indeed, his
hyper-ingenuity in questioning has become a proverb. There is not
measure of his dignity, nor yet limit to his importance. He is the
' lawyer,'" the ' well-plastered pit,' filled with the water of knowledge
' out of which not a drop can escape,' "^ in opposition to the weeds of
uutilled soil ' (c^-;,2) of ignorance." He is the Divine aristocrat,
among tlu; vulgar herd of rude and ])rofane 'country-people,' who
'know not the Law' and are 'cursed.' More than that, his
order constitutes the ultimate authority on all questions of faith
and practice; he is 'the Exegete of the Laws,' ' the 'teacher of the
Law,'"* and along with 'the chief priests' and 'eldtn-s' a judge in
the ecclesiastical tribunals, whether of the capital or in the pro-
vinces.'' Although generally appearing in comi^any with 'the
Pharisees,' he is not necessarily one of them — for tliey represent a
CHAP.
VIII
St. Luke
T. 17
* Jos. Ant.
xvlli. 3. 5;
XX. 11. 2
1 The title Rahhon {i>nr Mastor) oc-
curs first in connection witli Gamaliel i.
(Acts V. S4). Tlie N.T. expression Rab-
boni or RahhoKui {^X. Mark .\. .')1; St.
John XX. K!) takes the word Rabbon or
Rabba/i (here in the absolute sense)=
Roh//, and adds lo it the i)ersonal suffix
'my,' pronouncinii' the I\am/'z in the
Syi'iac maimer.
- Not t.') '/, as aimd T)('r('iif)Oiir</. Simi-
lai'jy. his rendering;' • litteralenient, "ci-
terne vide "" ' seems to me erroneous.
the legls
DivinEe
perltus, St.
Matt. xxil.
35; St. Luke
vii. 30; X.
•25 : xi. 45 ;
xlv. 3
'• Ab. ii. 8
<■ Ber. io 6 2 ;
Ab. li. 5;
Bemid. R. 3
f Jns. Ant.
SVll. 6. 2
■^ r'Ojuo5i5ac-
KaAo?, St.
Luke V. 17;
Acts V. 34 :
comp. also
1 Tim. i. 7
I' St. Matt,
li. 4: XX. 18:
xxi. \h:
x.Nvi. 57:
xxvii. 41;
St. Mark
xlv.l.43:xv.
1 : St. Luke
xxii. 2, 66;
xxiii. 10;
Acts iv. 5
i' Sipiii-i
Niiml),
2". />
'- on
1'
1' Si,)hr.
Dent. ]
lOr. ,(
'' on
94 THE J'liKl'ARATlON FUU THE GOSPEL.
BOOK religious party, while lie has a status, and holds an oMice.^ In short,
I he is- tlu; TaliiiUl or learned student, the ('luikliaiii or sage, whose
^^ — ^^-^ honour is to l)e great in tlu' future world. Kach Scribe outweighed
all the eounnon people, who must aecordingly i)ay him every honour.
Nay, they were honoured of God Himself, and their i)raises proclaimed
by the angels; and in heaven also, each of them would hold the same
rank and distinction as on earth." Such was to be the resi)ect i)aid
to their sayings, that they were to be absolutely 1)elieved, even if they
were to declare that to 1)e at the right hand which Avas at the left, or
vice versa ^
An institution which had attained such proportions, and wielded
such powei-. could not have been of recent grovrtli. In ))oint of fact,
its rise was very gra<lual, and stretched back to the time of Xehemiah.
if not beyond it. Altliough from the utter confusion of historical
notices in Ivabbinic writings and their constant practice of ante-
dating events, it is impossible to furnish satisfactory details, the genei'al
developnu'ut of the institution can be traced witli sufficient precision.
cEzravu.f;, If Kzra is described in Holy Writ' as 'a ready {experfjiH) Scribe,'
' ■ ' who liad ' set his heart to seek (seek out the full meaning of) the law
'T*"" of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel,'' this might indicate
I'l'^'t'"" ^^ ^^^^ successors, the Sopherim (Scribes), the threefold direction A\iiich
their studies afterwards took: the J\['ulrash^ the Hdlal^liali, and the
• Nedar. iv. H((gf/n(Jtif/ ,' ' of wh'iQh the one pointed to Scriptural investigation,
the other to Avhat was to be observed, and the third to oral teaching
in the widest sense. But Ezra left his work uncompleted. On
Nehemiah's second arrival in Palestine, he found nmtters again in a
fNeh. xiii. statc of utmost confusiou.' He must have felt the need of establish-
ing some permanent authority to watch over religious affairs. This
we take to have been ' the Great Assembly, ' or, as it is commonly
called, the Mlreat Synagogue.' It is impossible with certainty to
determine,'^ either who composed this assend)ly, or of how man}
members it consisted.* Prol)ably it comprised the leading men in
' The (listhictioii between 'Phai'isees' tares on tli is subject have been hazarded,
and '.Scribes,' is marked in many pas- whidi need not here tind a place. Comp.
sages in the N.T., for e.\"anii)le. St. Alatt. for ex. the two articles of Gratz in
xxiii. passim; St. Luke vii. :iO; xiv. S; Frankeri^ Mouatsschrift for 1857, pp. 31
and especially in St. Luke xi. 4M. comp. etc. fil etc., the main ])Ositions of which
with V. 40. TJie words ' Scribes and have, however, been adopted ])y some
Phari.sees. hypocrites.' in ver. 44. are, learned English writers,
accordiny- to all evidence, spurious. * The Talmudic notices are often incon-
'■* In Ned. iv. :5 this is the actual divi- sLstent. The nundjer as uiven in them
sion. Of course, in another sense the Mid- amounts to about 120. B>it tiie modern
rash mi<?ht be coiisldei'ed as the source of doubts (of Kuenen and others) against
both the llalhkhali and tiie Haiiiiadali. the in.stitution itself cannot be sustained.
■' Very straniiv and uu,ur(>\iiult'il eonjec-
THK (iREAT SVNA(;()(; IK ' AND TlIK • ('< ;l PI.KS.' 95
(Miureh and State, tlic chicr pi-R'sts, elders, and 'Jiidg'cs" — the latter CHAP,
two classes includinii' -the Sci-ibes," il", indeed, that order was already ^'tn
separately organised.' Probably also the term -Great Assem))ly ' ^- — -^.' — '
refers rather to a succession of men than to one Synod; the ingen- »Ezrax. ii;
. ' ^ Nell. V. 7
uity of later times tilling such parts of the historical canvas as had
been left blank with fictitious notices. In the nature of things such an
assend)ly could not exercise permanent sway in a sparsely pojudated
country, without a strong central authority. Noi- could they iiave
wielded real i)()wer during the political difficulties and troubles of
foreign domination. The oldest tradition'' sums up the result of their 'Ab. 1. 1
activity in this sentence ascribed to them: ' Bii careful in judgment,
set up many Talmidim, and make a hedge about the To rah (Law).'
In the course of time this rope of sand dissolved. The High-
Priest, Simon tilt Just,'' is already designated as 'of the remnants of •= in the be-
■ . . ginning of
the Great Assemblv.' But even this exi)ression does not necessarily tu. tiurd
A _ • (•(•ntui-y
imply that he actually belonged to it. In the troublous times which ^■^'■
followed his Pontificate, the sacred study seems to liav(^ been left to
solitary individuals. The Mishnic tractate Aboth, which records -the
sayings of the Fathers,' here gives us only the name of Antigonus
of Socho. It is significant, that for the first time we now meet a (ii-eek
name among Rabbinic authorities, together with an indistinct allusion
to his disciples.*'^ The long interval between Simon the Just and ''Ab. i. 3, 4
Antigonus and his disciples, brings us to the terrible time of Antiochus
Kpiphanes and the great Syrian persecution. The \'eiT sayings at-
tributed to these two sound like an echo of the political state of the
country. On three things, Simon was wont to say, the permanency
of the (Jewish?) world depends: on the Torah (faithfulness to the I/aw
and its i)ursuit), on worship (the non-i)articipation in (ilrecianism).
and on works of righteousness.'' They Avere dark times, when (Jod's ' Ab. i. 2
l)ersecuted people were tcmi)ted to think, that it might be vain to serve
Him, in wliich Antigonus had it: ' IJe not like servants who serve
their nuister for the sake of reward, but be like servants who serve
their lord Avithout a view to the getting of reward, and let the feai- of
heaven be upon you.' ' After these two names come those of the so- fAb. s. 3
<'allcd Aa'C Zugoth, or 'couples,' of Avhom Hillel and Shammai are the
last. Later tradition has represented these successive couples as,
• Zunz lias well pohited out tliat, if in statiiiff tliat. except for .special reason.^. I
Ab. i. 4 tlie first ' couple ' is said to liave shall not refer to previous writers on
'received from tlieni ' — wliile only An- this subject, partly lK>cause it would ne-
tiuonus is nieiilioned in the precediiid;- cessitate too nuuiy (luotations, but ciiictly
Mishnah. it must imply Antiii-onus and because the line of arii;unient 1 have
Ills uiHKuned disciples and followers. In taken dlflers from that of my predeees-
iivneral. 1 may take lliis opportunity of sors.
96
TIIK PRKI'ARATION FOR TIIK (iOSPEL.
BOOK respectively, the Nasi (president), and Ab-beth-din (vice-president, of
I the Satihedrin). Of the first three of these 'couples' it may be said
^— ^.^ — " that, except significant allusions to the circumstances and dangers of
their times, their recorded utterances clearly point to the development
of the purely Sopheric teaching, that is, to the Rabbinistic part of
their functions. Fr(nn the fourth 'couple,' which consists of Simon
ben Shetach, who figured so largely in the political history of the
later Maccabees' (as Ab-beth-din), and his superior in learning and
judgment, Jehudah bcu Tabbai (as Nasi), we have again utterances
which show, in harmony with the political history of the time, that
judicial functions had been once more restored to the Rabbis. The
last of the five couples brings us to the time of Herod and of Christ.
We have seen that, during the period of severe domestic troubles,
beginning with the persecutions under the Seleucidse, which marked
the mortal struggle between Judaism and Grecianism, the 'Great
Assembly' had disappeared from the scene. The SopJierim had ceased
to be a party in power. They had become the Zeqenim, ' Elders, ' whose
task was purely ecclesiastical — tlie preservation of their religion,
such as the dogmatic labours of their predecessors had made it. Yet
another period opened with the advent of the Maccabees. These had
been raised into power by the enthusiasm of the Ghasidim, or ' pious
ones,' who formed the nationalist party in the land, and who had
gathered around the liberators of their faith and country. But the
later bearing of the Maccabees had alienated the nationalists. Hence-
forth they sink out of view, or, rather, the extreme section of them
merged in the extreme section of the Pharisees, till fresh national
calamities awakened a new nationalist party. Instead of the Ghasidim,
we see now two religious parties within the Synagogue — the Phari-
sees and the Sadducees. The latter originally represented a reaction
from the Pharisees — the moderate men, who sympathised with the
later tendencies of the Maccabees. Josephus places the origin of
these two schools in the time of Jonathan, the successor of Judas
i6a-i43B.c. Maccabee," and with this other Jewish notices agree. Jonathan
accepted from the foreigner (the Syrian) the High-Priestly dignity,
and combined with it that of secular ruler. But this is not alL
The earlier Maccabees surrounded themselves with a governing
eldershi))." ^ On the coins of their reigns this is designated as the
Ghebher, or eldership (association) of the Jews. Thus, theirs was what
>> The Te-
povaia,
1 Maco. xii.
6: xin. 36;
xiv. 28 : Jna.
Ant. xul. i.
9; 5. 8
' See Apiieiiflix IV. : ' Political History
of the .Jews from the Reign of Alexander
to the Accession of Ilerod.'
^ At the same time some kind of ruling
AepoDo-ia existed earlier than at this pe-
iii>d, if we ma.v judge from Jos.Aut. xii.
RISE OF THE SANIIEDUIN. 97
Jose]ihiis designates as an aristocratic government," and of which he CHAP.
soniewiiat vagnely says, that it histed ' from the Captivity nntil the vni
descen(Uuits of the Asmoneans set up kingly government." In this ^— ^. — -'
aristocratic government the lligh-Priest would ratlier be thechiel'of j^^"^- ^^■*-
a representative ecclesiastical body of rulers. 'IMiis state of things
continued until the great breach between llyrcanus, tlu' iburth Irom
Judas Maccabee, and the Tharisaical ijarty,' which is equally recorded
by .losephus " and the Talmud,*^ with only vai-iations of names and bAnt. xiu.
details. The dispute apparently arose from the desire of the Phari- ,.^l^^^ ,.,,;„
sees, that Hyrcanus should be content with the secular power, and
resign the Pontiticate. lint it ended in thei)ersecution, and removal
from power, of the Pharisees. Very signiticantly, Jewish tradition
introduces again at this time those j)urely ecclesiastical authorities
which are designated as 'the couples.'*' In accordance with this, '.ler.Maas.
altered state of things, the name ' Chebher ' now disappears from the end, p. 56//:
coins of the Maccabees, and the Rabbinical celebrities ('the couples" i>. 2V((
or Zugoth) are only teachers of traditionalism, and ecclesiastical
authorities. The ■ eldershij),' ' which under the earlier Maccabees 'vfpoi«7?ia
was called • the tribunal of the Asmoneans,''^ now passed into the ri*^^
Sanht'drin.''" Thus avc place the origin of this institution about the ^nn
time of Hyrcanus. ^^'ith this Jewish tradition tully agrees.^ The ganhsoa'^
power of the Sanhedrin would, of course, vary with political circum- a^. z. 36'/
stances, being at times almost absolute, as in the reign of the Pharisaic '^<^'""^^""'
devotee-Queen, Alexandra, while at others it Avas shorn of all bnt |j/J^e^T
ecclesiastical authoritv. But as the Sanhedrin was in full force at the ^^^^"^ "'^^^
' -yepoucrta,
time of Jesus, its organisation will claim our attention in the sequel, and twice
After this brief outline of the origin and development of an insti- "f^^l^""
tution which exerted such decisive influence on the future of Israel, it ^^^.^,..
' xxii. ()6:
seems necessary similarly to trace the growth of the ' traditions of the ^^^^ ^^"' ^
Eldei's,' so as to understand what, alas ! soefi'ectually, opi)osedthe new
<loctrine of the Kingdom. The tirst place must here be assigned to
those legal determinations, which traditionalism declared al)Solutely
binding on all — not only of equal, but even gi'eater obligation than
Scrijiture itself.'' And this not illogically, sinct' ti'adition was etjually
Tint he uses tli(> term somewhat vuiiuely. io me. historically, impossible. Hut iiis
applyin.i;' it even to the time of Jaddua opinion to that effect (u. s. ];. S7) is ap-
(Ant. xi. 8. 2). pavently contradicted at p. !K?.
1 Even Ber. 48 a fiuniishes evidence of '^ Sc/iUn'i; follo\vin,ii' 11 V^wVc/-. supposes
this 'enmity.' On the hostile relations the Sanhedrin to have Ijeen of Honiaii
l)etvveen the Pharisaical i)arty and the institution. But tlie ariiuments of
^[accabees see Iliimburger, Real-Enc. Wlcselcr on this point (Beitr. zur richt.
ii. ]). ?>{\1. Com]). Jer. Taan. iv. 5. Wiird. d. Evani;:. p. 224 1 are incoiiciu-
-' f)ere)ihnitrg takes a different view, give,
and identities the tril)unal of the As- * Conij). Dcrenho}! r<i. \\. s. ji. !).").
moneans with, the Sanhedi'in. This seems = Tims we read: • Tlie saviniis of tiie
98 Tin-: i'i;i:i'AiiATi()X foi; tiik cosi'KL.
BOOK of Divine uiiiiiii with Holy Seriptiii'c, and .uitlioritativoly explained
1 its nieanin>i- : supplcMiKMitod it : ,u'ave it ap])]i('ation to cases not
^-*^r~"*^ expressly provided for. perliai)s not even foreseen in Bihlieal times ;
and generally gniai-ded its sanctity by extending and adding to its
j)rovisions, drawing ' a hedge," aronnd its 'garden enclosed.' Thus, in
new and dangerous circumstances, would the full meaning of God's
Law, to its every tittle and iota, l)c elicited and obeyed. Thus also
would their feet be arrested, who might sti'ay from within, or break
in from without. Accordingly, so important was tradition, that the
greatest merit a Rabbi could claim was the strictest adherence to tlie
traditions, which he had received from his teacher. Nor might one
Sanhedrin annul, or set aside, the decrees of its predecessors. To
such length did they go in this worship of the letter, tlmt the great
Hillel was actually wont to mispronounce a word, because his teacher
"Eduy. i. 3. bcforc lilm had done so.'
(viiiimentof Tliesc traditional ordinances, as already stated, bear the general
iues ' nanu.' of the Halakhah. as indicating alike the way in which tin?
fathers had walked, and that which their children were bound to
follow.' TheiiQ ffalahi/otJi were either simply the laws laid down in
Scri|)tuie: or else derived from, (u* traced to it by some ingenious and
artificial method of exegesis : or added to it, by way of amplification
and for safety's sake; or, finally, legalised customs. They ])rovided
for every [)ossible and inipossible case, entered into every detail of
private, fainih^, and public life ; and with iron logic, unbending rigour,
and most minute analysis pursued and dominated man, turn whithei-
lie might, laying on him a yoke which was truly inibearable. 'I'he;
return which it offered was the ideasure and distinction of knowledge,
the acquisition of righteousness, and the final attainment of rewards ;
one of its chief advantages over our modern traditionalism, that it
' was expressly forbidden to draw inferences from these traditions, which
should have the force of fresh legal determinations.-
In describing the historical growth of the HaJah'/iah,"' we nmy
elders liavc more wei^'lit tliaii tlioso of law — in tlio Rabbinic seiifie — was worso
the proijliets ■ (Jcr. Ber. i. 7); 'an otience than adolatry. luiflcanness. oi' tlic siied-
ai^ainst the sayhi^s of the Scribes is dina; of blood. See i;eneral]y that Intro-
worse than one ajiiainst tliose of Scripture ' duction.
(Sanh. xi. 3). Compare also Er. 21 />. ' It is so explained in the Aruch (ed.
Tile comparison between such claims and Jjindan. vol. ii. i). 529, col h).
tlu)se sometimes set up on belialf of - Com]). Tlamburger. \\. s. p. ?,\?,.
'creeds' and 'articles' (Z^(Y/o'.v Cyclop., ■'• Comj). here especially the detailed
2nd ed., p. 786, col (() does not seem descri|)tion by llprzfdd (u. s. vol. iii.
to me a])i)]ica1)Ie. In the introduclion j))). 22(), 2()3); also the Introduction of
to tlie Midr. on Lament, it is inlcrrcd Maiinonides, and the very able ami
from .ler. ix. 12, 1:5, that to forsai<e tlie learned works (not sutticiently appre-
TUB iiist()1.m(;ai. (jkowtii of ti;at)itiox.mjsm. 99
dismiss in a lew sentcuccs the le/i'euds of .Icwisli tradition about riiAl'.
|)ati'iai'<*hal limes. They assure us, tliat there was an Academy and ^'I^'
a lval)l)inie tril)unal of Shem. and they si)eak of tradit ions delivercMl ^— ^.^— ^
i»y that Tatriareh to Jaeoh; ot diligent atteu(hince by the hitlei' on
tlic Kabbinie College; of a tractate (in 400 seetions) on i(h)hitr3 by
Abraliam, and of his observance of the wlioh^ traditional law: of tlio
introduction of the three daily times of ])rayei', successively by
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; of thetliree benedictions in the custom-
ary 'grace at meat," as ijroponnded by Moses, Joshua, and I)a\i(l
and Solomon: of the Mosaic introduction of the practice of reading
lessons from the laAv on Sabbaths, New Moons, and Feast Days, and
even on tlie Mondays and Thursdays ; and of that, by the same
authority, of preaching on the three great festivals about those feasts.
Further, they ascribe to Moses the arrangement of the priesthood into
eight courses (that into sixteen to Samuel, and that into twenty-four to
David), as also, the duration of the time for marriage festivities, and
for mourning. But evidently these are vague statements, with the
object of tracing traditionalism and its observances to primaeval times,
even as legend had it, that Adam was born circumcised,' and latci- ^Micu-.
11111 111 T Shochar
writers that he had kept all the ordinances. xobhonPs.
Hut other i)rinciples apply to the traditions, from Moses down- warshaii.
T 1 T • 1 • /-< T 1 1 • -tr p. 14 6 ; Ab.
wards. According to the Jewish view, God had given Moses on deK. Nath.
. 2
Mount Smai alike the oral and the written Law, that is, the Law
with all its interpretations and applications. From Ex. xx. 1, it was
inferred, that God ha<l communicated to Moses the Bible, the Mishnah,
and Talmud, and the Haggadah, even to thatwiiich scholars would in
latest times propound.' In answer to the somcMdiat natural objection,
why the Bible alone had been written, it was said that Moses had pro-
posed to write down aUAlw teaching entrusted to him, but the Almighty
had refused, on account of the future subjection of Israel to the nations,
who would take from them the written Law. Then the unwritten tradi-
tions would remain to se])ara te between Israel and the Gentiles, Popula r
exegesis found this indicated even in the language of prophecy.'' 'hos. vm.
12: comp.
ciiited) t)y Or. //. S. llirscltfcl'l. Ilalii- written.' tlie ri'djdicts ami ll;iiii(ii:rapli:u
chische Exe.u'ese (Berlin. is40), and -that thou niayesf tcacli them;" the Tal-
}Iafi"adi.sc'lie Exeii'ese (Berlin, lS-17). Per- mud — ■ whicii shows that they were all
haps I may also take leave to refer to uiveii to Mo.-^es on Sinai" (Ber. o <i. line.s
the corresitoiidinii' chapters In my 'His- ll-KV). Alike application was made of
tory of the .Jewish Nation.' the various clauses in Cant. vii. 12 (Erub.
' Similarly, the expressions in Ex. 21//). Nay, by an alteration of the words
xxiv. 12 were thus exiilained: 'the ta- in IIos. \\\\. 10, it was shown that the
bles of stone,' the ten commandments; banished had been brouffht back for the
the 'l-aw,' the written Law; the 'coin- merit of their study [of the sacrilicial
mandments.' the Mishnah : ■ which T have sections] of the Mishnah (Vayyik B. 7).
Shem. B. 46
lUO
Tin-: i'i,'ki'ai;at[()N fok tiik gospel.
B()(»K
I
Jei'. cihai;.
I. 7(i <l
' Tos.
Shabb. xiv.
Enib. 51'-
Deut. i. 5
But traditiunaiisiii wont lurther, and placed the oral actually
above the written Law. The expression," ' After the tenor of these
Avords I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel,' was
ex])lained as meaning;, that God's covenant was founded on the spoken,
in oi)position to the written words.'' If the written was thus placed
below the oral Law, we can scarcely wonder that the reading of the
Ilagiographa was actually prohibited to the people on the Sabbath,
from fear that it might divert attention from the learned discourses of
the Rabbis. The study of them on that day was only allowed for the
l)urpose of learned investigation and discussions."'
But if traditionalism was not to be committed to writing by
Moses, measures had been taken to prevent oblivion or inaccuracy.
Moses had always repeated a traditional law successively to Aaron, to
his sons, and to the elders of the i)eople, and they again in turn to
each other, in such wise, that Aaron heard the Mishnah four times, his
sons tlu-ee times, the Elders twice, and the people once. But even
this was not all, for by successive repetitions (of Aaron, his sons, and
the Elders) the people also heard it four times.'' And, before his
death, Moses had sununoned any one to come forward, if he had
forgotten aught of what he had heard and learned." But these
' Halakhoth of Moses from Sinai ' do not make up the whole of
traditionalism. According to Maimonides, it consists of five, but
more critically of three classes.^ The ./?>-.sY of these comprises both
such ordinances as are found in the Bil)le itself, and the so-called
Halokhotli of 3Ioses from Sinai — that is, such laws and usages as
prevailed from time immemorial, and which, according to the Jewish
view, had ))een orally delivered to, but not written down by Moses.
For these, therefore, no [yroof was to he sour/Jit in Scripture — at most
support, or confirmatory allusion {Asmakhtii).^ Nor were these
open to discussion. The second class formed the 'oral law, ''or the
'traditional teaching''' in the stricter sense. To this class belonged
all that was supposed to be implied in, or that could be deduced from,
the Law of Moses.* The latter contained, indeed, in substance or
' Another ivasoii also is. liowever. ineii-
tioned for his i)roliibitlon.
- Hirschfeld. w. s. \)\). !)2-9!).
^ From "i^D. to lean aa;ainst. At the
same time tlie ordinances, for which an
apijeal conld be made to As))iak/ifa. were
better liUed than those which rested on
tradition alone (Jer. Chap;. ]). "(i, col r/).
* In connection with this it is very
sii>nilicant that R. Jochanan ben Zaccai,
wlio tauiiht not many years after the
Crucifixion of Christ, was wont to say.
that, in the future, Halakhahs in reii'ard
to i)urity, which had not the sui)port of
Scripture, would be repeated (Sot. 27 6,
line l(i from tojV). In .ii'eneral, the teach-
ing of R. .Jochanan should be studied to
understand the unacknowledged influ-
ence which Christianity exercised u|)on
the Synagogue.
TILVDITIONS OI'KN T(J DISCISSION UK IM:M()\'AL.
101
<i,"enii, everythiiiii'; l)ut it had not been l)r()U.ii'ht out, till circiiiustunces
succcsstully evolved what from the lirst had been provided in prinei-
])le. For this class of ordi nances reference to, a nd iirooffroni. Scrijil nrc
ivns required. Xot so for the third class of ordinances, which were
'the hediie' drawn by the Rabbis around the Law, to i)revent any
breach of the Law or customs, to ensui'e their exact o))servance. oi' to
meet peculiar circumstances and dang'crs. These ordinances consti-
tuted 'the saying-s of the Scribes'-' or 'of the Rabbis"''' — and wei-e
Q\t\wv positive in their character ( 7eq(janoth),i)V v\^(:s negative {(lezeroih
from (jazar to cut off'). Perhaps the distinction of these two
cannot always be strictly carried out. But it was ])robably to this
third class especially, confessedly unsui)ported by Scripture, that
these words of Christ referred:'^ 'All therefore whatsoever they
tell you, that do and observe; but do not ye after their works: for
they say, and do not. For they l)ind heavy burdens and grievous to
l)e Ijorne. and lay them on men's shoulders: but with their tinker
they will not move them away (set in motion).'- This view has two-
fold contirnmtion. For. this third class of Halakhic ordinances was
the only one open to the discussion of the learned, the ultimate de-
cision being according to the majority. Yet it possessed jjractically
(though not theoretically) the same authority as the other two classes.
In further confirnmtion of our view the following may be (pioted: 'A
(rezerah {i.e. this third class of ordinances) is not to be laid' on the
congregation, uidess the majority of the congregation is able to bear
if' — words which read like a commentary on those of Jesus, and
show that these burdens could be laid on, or moved away, according
to the varying judgment or severity of a Rab])inic College.^
This l)ody of traditional ordinances forms the subject of the 3£i.'<h-
rtah, or second, repeated law. We have here to [)lace on one side the
cnAi'.
'■ St. Matt,
xxiil. 3, 4
' But this is not always.
■^ To elucidate the meaniiiii; of Clirist. it
seemed necessary to submit an avowedly
difficult text to fresh criticism. I have
taken the word kiveIv. moreo in the
i^eui^eolircfticio {Grimm. ClavisN.T. ed.
2'i^ J). 2-li fi). hut I have not adoi)ted
tlie inference of Met/cr (Krit. Exeiret.
Handl). ]). 45.5). In classical Gi'eek also
KivFAv is used for -to remove, to alter.'
My reasons against what may be called
the traditional interpretation of St. Matt,
xxiii. 'A. 4, are: 1. It seems scarcely pos-
sible to suppose that, before such an au-
dience, Christ would have contemplated
the i)ossibility of not observhiii' either of
the two first classes of Ualukhoth. which
were re<i;arded as beyond controversy.
2. It could scarcely be truthfully charijed
against the Scribes and Pharisees, that
they did not attemj)! to keep themselves
the ordinances which they imjjosed upon
others. The expression in the i)arailel
passage (St. Luke xi. 4r)) must be ex-
plained in accordance with the com-
mentation on St. Matt, xxiii. 4. Nor is
there any serious difficulty aljout it.
■' For the classitication. arrangement,
origin, and enunu'ration of tiiese Mal-
akhoth. see .\i)pendix V.: • IJahbinic
Theology and literature."
A.D.
i,)-2 THE I'RHrAliATION FOK TIIK (JOSI'EL.
i',( )( )K Law ot'Moses as recorded in the Peiitaleueh, as staiidiiiii- by itself. All
I else — even the teaching of the Prophets and of the llagiographa, as
^— ^r^"^ well as tlie oral traditions — bore the general name ot'(Jabbalah — • that
whicli has been i-eceivcd.' The sacred study — or Mldrasli, in the
original ai)i)li('ation of tiie term — concerned eitliei' the H(i/al'/i(i/i, tra-
ditional ordiiudice, which was always -that wiucli had been heard'-
{Sheiiidtha), or else thQ HaggadaJt, 'that which was said" upon the
authority of individuals, not as legal ordinance. It was illustration,
connnentary, anecdote, clever or learned saying, Jkc. At first the
Halakhah renuiined unwritten, probably owing to tlie disputes be-
tween Pharisees and Sadducees. But the necessity of tixedness and
order led in course of time to more or less complete collections of the
HalaA-hofJt.^ The oldest of these is ascribed to R. Akiba, in the time
» 132-135 of the Emperor Hadrian.'- But the authoritative collection in the so-
called Mishnah is the work ()f Jehudah the Holy, who died about the
end of the second century of our era.
Altogether, the Mishnah comprises six 'Orders" {JSedariin), each
devoted to a special class of subjects.^ These 'Orders' are divided
into tractates {Massi'khtoth, Massel-htiijoth, 'textures, webs"), of which
there are sixty-three ( or else sixty-two ) in all. These tractates are again
subdivided into chapters (Peraqim) — in all 525, which severally consist
of a certain number of verses, or JlisItnaJis {JlisJinayotJi, in all 4, 187).
Considering the variety and complexity of the subjects treated, the
Mishnah is arranged with remarkable logical perspicuity. The
' See the learned remarks of Li^i'i/ Nasirate. The fourth ' Order " (A>2#V/?/^
about the reasons for the earlier prohibi- 'damages') contains the civil and
tion of writing down the oral law, and criminal law. Ciiaracteristically, it in-
the tinal collection of the Mishnah eludes all the ordinances concerning
(Neuhebr. u. Chald. Worterb. vol. ii. p. idol-worship (in the tractate Ahhodah
435). Zarah) and 'the sayings of the Fathers'
'^ These collections are enumerated in {AJihotli). The fifth •Owhn-' {Qrxhixlnm.
the Midrash on Eccles. xii. 3. They are -holy things') treats of the various
also distinguished as 'the former' and classes of sacrifices, ofl'erings. and tilings
'the later" Mishnah (Xedar. 91 a). belonging (as the tirst-borii). or dedicated,
■^ The first ' Order ' (Zerr^^7/^, 'seeds') to God, and of all questions which can be
begins with the ordinances concern- groujied under ' sacred things ' (snch as
ing 'benedictions,' or the time, mode, the redemption, exchange, or alienation
manner, and character of the prayers of what liad been dedicated to God). It
prescribed. It then goes on to detail also includes the laws concerning the
what may be called tlie religio-agrarian daily morning and evening service
laws (such as tithing. Sabbatical years, ( TnmiiT). and a description of the struc-
first fruits, itc). The second 'Order' ture and arrangements of the T(miii)I(>
(Moed, 'festive time') discusses all con- {Middolh, 'the measurements'). Finally,
nected with the Sabbath observance and the sixth 'Order' (Toharofh, 'clean-
the other festivals. The third ' Order ' nesses ') gives every ordinance connected
{NasJum, 'women') treats of all that with the questions of 'clean and un-
concerns betrothal, marriage and divorce, clean,' alike as regards human beings,
but also includes a tractate on the animals, and inanimate tilings.-
TilK .MlSIIXAJl, Till-: JKKISAI.K.M AM) T1!H JJAini.oN TAL.Ml'D. 103
laii<i'uage is Hebrew, tliouji'h (.)fe()iii'se not that oftlic Old Te>tanieiit. <"HAP.
The A»'()i'(ls I'eiidei'ed iieeessaiy hy the new circuinstanccs ai'c ehietiv ^ '"
derived t'roni tlie (Jrcck, the S^yriae, and the Latin, witli Hebrew trr- ^— ^ ^^-^
niinations.' Hnt all conneetedwitli social intereoiusc or ordinary lite
(such as contracts), is written, not in Hebrew, lait in Arainiean, as
the laniiiniiic of the people.
l^)Ul the traditional law enibodie(l othei" nnderials than the
Hahikhotli collected in the ^lishnah. Sonu' that had not been
recordeil there, tbnnd a phice in the works of certain Kabbis, or were
derived from their schools. These are called BovaitJias — that is. tra-
ditions v.rfcnial to the Mishiudi. finally, there were • additions" (or
Tosephtoth)^ dating after the completion of the Mishnah. but probably
not later than the third centur^^ of our era. Such thei'e are to not
fewer than tifty^-two out of the sixty-three Mishnic tractates. When
spcakina: of the ffalakltaJt as distinguished froni the Ha/jgadali, we
iniT^t not, however, suppose that the latter could 1)e entirely separated
from it. In point of fact, one whole tractate in the J//-s7(f;i«/i (Aboth:
The Sayings of the ' Fathers ) is QwiiveX} Hagrjadnh; a second {Middoth:
the ' Measurements of the Temple') has Halalxhuh in only fourteen
places; while in the rest of the tractates Haggadali occurs in not
fewer than 207 places. - Onl}^ thirteen out of the sixty-three tractates
of the Mishnali are entirely free from Hagrjadah.
Hitherto we have only spoken of the ]Mishnah. IJut this coni-
l)rises only a very snudl part of traditionalism. In course of time the
discussions, illiistrations, explanations, and additions to Avhicli the
Mishnah gave rise, whether in its application, or in the Academies of
the Rabbis, were authoritatively collected and edited in what are
known as the two Talmvds or Oemaras. ^ H' we imagine something
combining law reports, a Rabbinical ' Hansard,' and notes of a theo-
logical debating club — all thoroughly Oriental, full of digressions,
anecdotes, quaint sayings, fancies, legends, and too often of what,
from its profanity, superstition, and even obscenity, could scarcely be
(juoted, we may form some general idea of what the Talmud is. The
oldest of these two Talmuds dates from alxmt the close of the fourth
century of our era. It is the product of the Palestinian Acadennes,
and hence called the Jerusalem Talmud. The second is about a century
younger, and the outcome of the Rabylonian schools, hence called the
' Comp. the very interer!thv2; tractate '-' Coiiij). tbe ("iminorutioii in Phnicr,
by Dr. Bi'ilN (Freiiid^pr Kodeiisart in d. u. s.
Taliimd), as well as Dr. Eish'r'n Beitniii'e ■' Tabniid: tlraf wiiicli is learned, doc-
z. Raid), u. Aitertliiuiisk., .1 fascic: Sac/is. trine, (rnnitvfi: eitlier tlie same, orel.se
Beitr. z. Kabl). u. Alterthnnisk. ' l)erfpcfi()n." ■completion.'
0-t THE PREPAKATION FOR THE GOSPEL.
JiooK lUibijlon (afterwai'ds also 'our') Talmud. We do not possess either
1 of these works complete. ^ The luost detective is the Jerusalem Tal-
— '^. umd, which is also much briefei", and contains far fewer discussions
than that of Bal)ylon. The Babylon Talmud, Avhicli in its present
form extends over thirty-six out of the sixty-three tractates of the
Mishnah, is al)out ten or eleven times the size of the hitter, and more
than four times that of the Jerusalem Talnmd. It occupies (in our
editions), with marginal commentations, 2,94*7 folio leaves (pagesaand
b). Both Talmuds are written in Aramaean; the one in its western,
the other in its eastern dialect, and in both the Mishnah is discussed
seriatim^ and clause by clause. Of the character of these discussions it
would be impossible to convey an adequate idea . When we bear in mind
the many sparkling, beautiful, and occasionally almost sublime passages
in the Talmud, but especially that its forms of thought and expression
so often recall those of the New Testament, only ])rejudice and hatred
could indulge in indiscriminate vituperation. On the other hand, it
seems unaccountable how any one who has read a Talmudic tractate,
or even part of one, could compare the Talnmd Avith the New Testa-
ment, or find in the one the origin of the other.
To complete our brief survey, it should be added that our editions
of the Babylon Talmud contain (at the close of vol. ix. and after the
fourth 'Order') certain Boraithas. Of these there were originally
nine, but two of the smaller tractates (on ' the memorial fringes, ' and
on -non-Israelites") have not been preserved. The first of these
Boraithas is entitled Abhoth de Rabbi Xatlian, and partially corre-
sponds with a tractate of a similar name in tlie Mishnah. - Next
1 The following: will explain our mean- kliotli were collected in a work fdatinj?
hig: On tiie ./fr.sV 'order' we iiave the from alxmt 800 a. d.) entitled Ha/ak/iof/i
Jei'usalem Talmud complete, tliat is, on Gedolotli. They are arranu'ed to corre-
every tractate (comprisinn- in all (1.3 folio s])ond witli the weekly lectionary of tiie
leaves), while the JJabylon Talmud ex- Pentateuch in a work entitled Sheeltofh
teud.s only over its first tractate (Berak- (-Questions: "best ed./>vAc/-/(/V//V/;, 1786).
]iofh). (in the .sf^co«(? order, the four last The Jerusalem Talmiul extends over 31),
chapters of one tractate (Shahhath) are the Babyhmian over 3()J tractates — 15i
wanting- in the Jerusalem, and one whole tractates have no Gemara at all.
tractate |.S7^er/«?;?«) in the Babi/Joi) Tal- '■* The last ten chai)ters curiously gi'oup
mud. The ///?r(Z order is com])lete in both toffether events or thin.a;s under numerals
Gemaras. On t\\^,fouvt]i ordera clia])ter from 10 downwards. The most generally
is wantinn- in one tractate (3A/Z7.vV//) in interestinu-of these is that of the 10 AV///-
the JeTiisdlem, and two whole tractates doth, or passaues of Scrii)ture in which
{Ed>ij/ofh and AbhotJi) in both (iemaras. letters are nuirked by dots, together with
^\w Jjftli order is wholly wanting in the the explanation of their reasons (ch.
Jerusalem, and two and a half tractates xxxiv.). The whole Boraitha seems com-
of it (Middoth, Qiniiim. ami half Taviid) posed of parts of three difierent works,
in the Babylon Talmud. Of the sixth and consists of forty (or f(jrty-one) chaj)-
order only one tractate (Niddnh) exists ters, and occuiiies ten folio leaves,
in both Gemaras. The iirincipal Ilala-
CONTRAST TO THE TKA('111N(J OF CHRIST. 105
follow six minor tractates. These are respectively entitled Soiiherim chap.
(Scribes)/ detailing the ordinances about copying the Scriptures, the Vlii
ritual of the Lectionary, and festive prayers; Ebhel Rabbafhi or ^^ — ^r^*-^
SemaA'hoth,'- containing llalakhah and Ilaggadah about funeral and
mourning observances; Kallah,-^ on the married relationship; Derekh
Erets,* embodying moral directions and the rules and customs of
social intercourse; Derekh Erets Zuta,^ treating of similar subjects,
but as regards learned students; and, lastly, the Pereq ha Shalom,'^
Avhich is a eulogy on peace. All these tractates date, at least in their
present form, later than the Talmudic period.'
But when the Halakhah, however varied in its application, was
something fixed and stable, the utmost latitude was claimed and given
in the HaggadaJi. It is sadly characteristic, that, practically, the main
body of Jewish dogmatic and moral theology is really only ffaggadah,
and hence of no absolute authority. The ITalak/uih indicated with
the most minute and painfid punctiliousness every legal ordinance
as to outward observances, and it explained every bearing of the Law
of Moses. But beyond this it left the inner man, the spring of
actions, untouched. What he was to believe and what to feel, was
chiefly matter of the Ilaggadah. Of course the laAVS of moi"ality,
and religion, as laid down in the Pentateuch, were fixed ijrinciples,
but there was the greatest divergence and latitude iu the explanation
and api)lication of many of them. A uum might liold or propound
almost any views, so long as he contravened nt)t the Law of Moses,
as it was understood, and adhered in teaching and i)i-actice to the
traditional ordinances. In {principle it was the same liberty which the
Romish Church accords to its professing meuibei's — only with much
wider application, since the debatahle ground einl)]-aced so many
matters of faith, and the liberty given Avas not only that of i)rivate
opinion but of pu])lic utterance. We emj^hasise this, because the
absence of authoritative direction and the latitude in matters of faith
' Tn twenty-one chniiters. eacli ediitiiin- altou'ether. with abundant notes, only
inga nunilier of Halakhalis, and occupy- forty-four snui 11 l)a<;'es, whicli ti'eal of tlie
ing in all four folio leaves. copyiiiii- of the Bible {Sephir Tovult, 1q
'■^ In fourteen chapters, occupying rath- live chapters), of the Meziizah, or niem-
er more than three folio leaves. orial on tlie doorposts (in two cliapters),
* It fills litth^ more than a folio page. of Pln/lncfen'es {Tpphillin, in one eliap-
* In eleven cliapters, covering about ter), of the Tsifsif//. or memorial-fringes
If folio leaves. (in one diapter). of N/r/rw (Ahhadim,
■> In nine chapters, tilling one folio leaf. in tlu'ee chapters) of tlie Cuf/irdiis, or
" Little more than a folio column. Sanuu'itans (in two chapters), and, finally,
' Besides these. liaphof^l Kirvliht'ini a curious tractate on Proselytes {Gerim,
has published (Frankfort, ls,il) the so- in four chajtters).
called seven smaller tractates, covering
iOo
THE i'REl'ARATloN FOR THE (iUSl'EL.
HOOK
I
■> St. Matt.
XV. 11, lt<
iiud iuiK-r looliiig' staiul side In' side, and in such sliarp contrast, with
tli(> most minute i)unctiliousness in all matters of outward observance.
And here we may nmrk the fundamental distinction between the teach-
in<;- of -Jesus and Kabbinism. He lett the Ifalakhah untouched, putting
it, as it were, on one side, as soinethini>: quite secondary, while He
insisted as pi-imnry on that wliicli lo them waschietly matter of Hagga-
(hdi. And this rightly so, for, in His own words. 'Not that which
goeth into the mouth detileth a man; but that whic-l' cometh out of
the mouth,' since 'those things Avhich proceed out of the mouth
come forth from the heart, and they detile the man.'" The ditference
Avas (m(^ of fundamental i)rincii)le, and not merely of development,
form, oi' detail. The one develoix'il the Law in its outward direction
as ordinances and commandments; the other in its inward applica-
tion as life and liberty. Thus I»al)l)inism occupied one pole — and the
outcome of its tendency to i)ure externalism was the Halakhah, all that
Avas internal and higher ])eing merely Haggadic. The teaching of Jesus
occupied the opi)osite ])ole. Its starting-i)oint was the iinier sanc-
tuary in which (Jod was known and worsiiii)i)ed. and it might well
leave the Rabbinic Halaklujth aside, as not worth controversy, to be
in the meantime 'done and observed,' in the tirm assurance that, in
the course of its develoi)ment. the si)irit would create its own appro-
l)riate forms, or, to use a New Testanumt tigure, the new Avine burst
the old bottles. And, lastly, as closely connected with all this, and
nmrking the climax of contrariety; Kabbinism started with demand of
outward obedience and righteousness, and pointed to sonshi]) as its goal:
the Gospel started Avith the free gift of forgiveness through faith and
of sonshi[), and i)ointed to obedience and righteousness as its goal.
In truth, Kabbinism, as such, had no system of theology; only Avhat
ideas, conjectures, or fancies the Haggadah yielded concerning God,
Angels, demons, man, his future destiny and })resent position, and
Israel, Avith its past history and coining glory. Accordingly, by the
side of Avliat is noble and pure, what a tei-rible mass of utter incon-
gruities, ofcontlicting statements and too often debasing superstitions,
the outcome of ignorance and narrow nationalism: of legendary colour-
ing of r>il)lical narratives and scenes, profane, coarse, anddegradingto
them; the Almighty Himself and His Angels taking part in the con-
versations of Rabbis, and the discussions of Academics: nay, forming
a kind of heavenly Sanhedi'in. which occasionally requires the aid of
an earthh' Kabbi.' The miraculous merges into the ridiculous, and
' Tliiis. in U. Mi'Z. S(i a. we read of u llic snlijcct nf i»urity. wlicii l{al)l)ali was
iliscus.sion ill tlic litnivenlv AcadiMiiv en .-iuinniuiuMl to heaven In deatli, aitliou^h
Jl'DAIS.M AM) IIEATIIEXIS.M: TIIKIK (;()AL
107
even tlie revoltiiiu'. Miraculous cures, uiiracul(»us supplies, iiiiraculuus
help, all for the glory of great Ilabbi.s/ who by a look or woi'd can
kill, and restore to life. At their l)iddiiig the eyes ol" a I'ival tall out.
and are again inserted. Nay, siu-h was tlie veneration due to l\al)bis,
that K. Joshua used to kiss the stone on which R. Eliezer had sat and
lectured, saying: 'This stone is like Mount Sinai, and he who sat on
it like the Ark." Modern ingenuity has, indeed, striven to suggest
deeper symbolical meaning lor such stories. It should own the terrible
contrast existing side by side: Hebrewism and Judaism, the Old
Testament and traditionalism; and it should recognise its deeper
cause in the absence of that element of spiritual and inner life which
Christ has l)rought. Thus as between the two — the old and the new
— it may be fearlessly asserted that, as regards their substance and
spirit, there is not a dilference, but a total divergence, of funda-
mental principle between Rabbinism an<l the New Testament, so that
comparison between them is not possiljle. Here there is absolute
contrariety.
The i)ainful fact just referred to is only too clearly illustrated l)y
the relation in which traditionalism places itself to the Scriptures
of the Old Testament, even though it acknowledges their inspira-
tion and authority. The Talmud has it, ' that he who busies himself
with Scripture only {i.e. without either the jMisJuxiIi ov Geinuru) has
merit, and yet no merit.- Even the comparative ])aucity of references
to the Ril)le in the Mishnah'' is siii'nificant. Jsrael had made void
ciiAr
" Baba
Mets. 33 a
tliis required a miracle, since he was con-
stantly engaged in sacred study, i^lioci';-
ing to write, it needed tlie authority of
lJal)])ah to attest the correctness of the
Ahiiighty's statement on the Halakhic
((uestiou discussed.
' Some of these miracles are detailed
in B. Mets. 85 h. 86 a. Thus, Resh Lakish.
wlien searching for tiie tomb of K. Chija.
found that it was miraculously renu>ved
from his sight, as being too sacred for
ordinary eyes. The same Rabbi clainu'd
.sucii merit, that for his sake the Law
siiould never be forgotten in Israel.
Sudi was the power of tlie i)atriarchs
tiuit, if they had been raised u)) together,
they would have brought Messiah iiefoiv
His lime. When R. Ciiija praye*!, succes-
sively a storm arose, the rain descended,
and the earth trembled. Again. Rab])ah,
when about to be arrested, caused the
face' of the messenger to be turned to
his l)ack, and again restored it; next, l)\
his prayer lie made a wall burst, and so
escai)ed. In Abhod. Zar. 17 //. a miracle
is recorded in favour of R. Eleazar, to .set
him free from his persecutors, or, rather,
to attest a false statement which he
made in order to escape martyrdom.
Vo\- further extravagant jtraises of the
Ralibis, comj). 8anh. 101 a.
- Similarly we read in Aliotli d. R.
Natlian 2!): -He who is master of the
Midrash. Imr knows no Halakhahs, is like
a iiei'o, 1)ui there are no ai'ins in his hand,
lie that is master of tlie Halaklioth, but
knows nothing of the ^lidrashim. is a
wcalv person who is |)rovided with arms.
Hut he that is master of both is both a
hero and armed."
•' Most of these, of coiu'se, are IVom the
Pentateuch. References to any other Old
Testament books are generally loosely
made, and serve chietly as /lo/iifs (/'(tppi/i
for Rabbinical sayings. Scriptui'al (piota-
tions occur in .M out of the (!:i tractate.s
of the Mi.'^hnah. the number of verses
(pioti'd being A'.'iO. \ ((notation in the
108
THE PUErAliATlUX FOll THE GO>>^PEL.
I5()()K
I
the Law b}- its traditions. Under a load of outward ordinances and
observances its spirit had been crushed. The religion as well as the
gi-aiid hope of the Old Testament had become externalized. And so
alike Heathenism and Ju(Uiism — for it was no longer the pure religion
of tlie Old Testament — each following its own direction, had reached
its goal. All was prepared and waiting. The very i)orch had l)een
Iniilt, through which the new, and yet old, religion was to pass into
the ancient world, and the ancient world into the new religion.
Only one thing was needed: the Coming of the Christ. As yet
darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness lay upon the people.
I3ut far away the golden light of the new day -was already tingeing
the edge of the horizon. Presently would the Lord arise upon Zion,
and His glory be seen upon her. Presently would the Voice from
out the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; i)resently would it
herald the Coming of His Christ to Jew and Gentile, and that
Kingdom of heaven, which, established uj^on earth, is righteousness,
and ])eace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. ^
Mishiiah is ,2;eneriilly iiitrotlnced l),v the
formula 'as it is said.' Tliis in all but
sixteen instances, wliere the ([uotation is
prefaced by, 'Scripture means to say.'
But, in general, the difference in the
mode of quotation in Rabbinic writings
seems to depend partly on the context,
but chiefly on the place and time. Thus,
' as it is written ' is a Chaldee moile of
quotation. Half the quotations in the
Tahnud are prefaced by 'as it is said;'
a lifth of them Ijy • as it is written ; ' a
tenth by 'Scripture means to say;' and
the reiiiaining tifth by various other
formulas. Comp. Pinner's Introduction
to Berakhoth. In the .Jerusalem Talmud
no al-fikre ('read not so, but read so')
occurs, for the iMiri)oses of textual criti-
cism. In the Talmud a Tavourite mode
of quoting from the Pentateuch, made in
about 600 passages, is by introducing it
as spoken or written by xi^tm- "The
vai'lous modes in which Biblical quota-
tions are made in .Jewish writings are
enumerated in Sifrenfiusii's BifiXo?
KaraAXay))^, p)). 1-.36.
^ For details on the Jewish views on
the Canon, and historical and mystical
tiieology, see Ajipendix V. : • Rabl)inic
Theology and Literature.'
BOOf? II.
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE
BAPTISM IN JORDAN.
• Fortitudo iiilirniatiir,
Parva tit iinmensitas;
Liberator alligatiir,
Nascitur a?ternitas.
O quam mira i)erpetrasti
Jesu propter hoiiiinem !
Tani ardeuter ([ueni aniasti
Paradiso exulem.' — Ancient Latin Hymn.
THE JERUSALEM OF SOLOMON AND OF HEROD. m
CHAPTP]R I.
IN JERUSALEM WHEN HEHOD KEK.'XED.
If the du8t ol'ti-n ('iMiturics vowUl liavc Ix'cii wiped Iroiu tlio cvclitls CHAP,
of those slcepci'8, and one of thoiii who tliroii.uccl -Icnisah'in in the I
highday of its glory, (hiring the I'eign of King Solomon, had returned ^— ^r^^^
to its streets, he would seareely have recognised the once familiar
city. Then, as now, a Jewish king reigned, who bore undivided rule
over the whole land ; then, as now, the city was filled with riches and
adorned with palaces and architectural monuments ; then, as now,
Jerusalem was crowded with strangers trom all lands. Solomon and
Herod were each the last Jewish king over the Land of Promise;*
Solomon and Herod, each, built the Temple. Hut with the son of
David began, and with the Idunnean ended, 'the kingdom'; or
rather, having fulfilled its mission, it gave place to the spiritual
world-kingdom of ' David's greater Son." The sce])tre departed from
Judah to where the nations were to gather under its sway. And the
Temple which Solomon built was the first, hi it the Sliekhinah
dwelt visibly. The Temple which Herod reared was the last. The
ruins of its burning, which the torch of the Romans had kindled,
were never to be restored. Herod was not the aiitityi»e, he was the
Barabbas, of David's Royal Son.
In other respects, also, the difterence was almost eipially great.
The four 'comi)anion-like' hills on which the city was built," the «Ps. cxxii,
deep clefts l)y which it was surrounded, the Mount of Olives rising
in the the east, were the same as a thousand years ago. There, as of old
were the Pool of Siloam and the royal gardens — nay, the very Avail
that had then surrounded the city. And yet all was so altered as to be
scarcely recognisal)le. The ancient Jebusite fort, the City of David,
Mount Zion.' was now the priests' ([iiarter, Ophel. and the old royal
palace and stables had been thrown into the 'I'diiiile area — now com-
• I do not here reckon the brief reign on the traditional site, on the western hill
of King An:rippa. of Jerusalem, but on the eastern, south
2 It will be seen that, with the most of the Temple area.
I'eoent explorers. I locate Mount Zion not
112 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK pletely levelled — where they formed the luagniticent treble eolonnade,
II known as the Royal Torch. Passing through it, and out by the
^ — -'^ ' Western Gate of the Temple, we stand on the innnense bridge
which spans the 'Valley of the Cheesemongers,' or the Tyropceon,
and connects the Eastern with the Western hills of the city. It is
perliaps here that we can best nuirk the outstanding features, and
note the changes. On the right, as we look northward, are (on
the Eastern hill) Oi)hel, the Priest-quarter, and the Temple — oil, how
Avondrously V)eautiful and enlarged, and rising terrace upon terrace,
surrounded by massive walls: a palace, a fortress, a Sanctuary of
shining marble and glittering gold. And bejond it frowns the old
fortress of Baris, rebuilt by Herod, and named after his patron,
Antonia. This is the Hill of Zion. Right below us is the cleft of
the Tyrojioeon — and here cree])S up northwards the 'Lower City' or
Acra, m the form of a crescent, widening into an almost square
' suburb.' Across the Tyropceon, westward, rises the ' Upper City.'
If the Lower City and suburb form the business-quarter with its
markets, bazaars, and streets of trades and guilds, the ' Upper City'
is that of palaces. Here, at the other end of the great bridge which
connects the Temple with the 'Upper City,' is the palace of the
Maccabees; beyond it, the Xystos, or vast colonnaded enclosure,
where popular assemblies are held ; then the Palace of Ananias
the High-Priest, and nearest to the Temple, ' the Council Chamber '
and public Archives. Behind it, westwards, rise, terrace upon terrace,
the stately mansions of the Upper City, till, quite in the north-west
corner of the old city, we reach the Palace which Herod had built for
himself — almost a city and fortress, flanked l)y three high towers, and
enclosing spacious gardens. Beyond it again, and outside the city
walls, b(3th of the first and the second, stretches all north of the city
the new suburb of Bezetha. Here on every side are gardens and
villas; here passes the great northern road; out there must th(}y
have laid hold on Simon the Cyrenian, and here must have led the
way to the place of the Crucifixion.
Changes that marked the chequered course of Israel's history
had come even over the city walls. The first and oldest — that of
David and Solomon — ran round the west side of the Upper City,
then crossed south to the Pool of Siloam, and ran up east, round
Ophel, till it reached the eastern enclosure of tlie Temple, whence
it passed in a straight line to the point from which it had started,
forming the northern l)oundary of the ancient city. But although
this wall still existed, there was now a marked addition to it. When
B.C.
WALLS AND FOKTS. II3
the Maccabee Jonathan finally cleared Jerusalem of the Syrian chap.
garrison that lay in Fort Aera,'' he built a wall right 'through the 1
middle of the city,' so as to shut out the foe.'' This wall probably ran ^- — ^r — '
from the western aniile of the Temiile southwards, to near the pool of "iMacc. i.
. ' ' ^ 33, and
8iloam, following the winding course of the Tyropoeon, but on the f'"en:hut
' '=' '^ . *' ^ ' the precise
other side of it, where the declivity of the Upper City merged in the pfJJ^"""
valley. Another monument of the Syrian Wars, of the Maccabees, '.fort'i«
*' '' y 'in dispute
and of Herod, was the fortress Antonia. Part of it had, probably, MMacc
been formerly occupied by what was known as Fort Acra, of such Ant.'xiii.''5!
unhappy prominence in the wars that preceded and marked the early wi"thT"xiv.
Maccabean period. It had passed from the Ptolemies to the S3Tians, vi! ■i'.2;'Ki
and always formed the central spot round which the fight for the city
turned. Judas Maccabee had not been able to take it. Jonathan
lirtd laid siege to it, and built the wall, to which reference has just
been made, so as to isolate its garrison. It was at last taken by
Simon, the brotlicr and successor of Jonathan, and levelled with
the ground." Fort Baris, which was constructed by his successor <-i4ib.c.
Hyrcanus I.,'^ covered a much wider space. It lay on the north- t^^s-ioe
western angle of the Temj)le, slightly jutting beyond it in the west,
hut not covering the whole northern area of the Temple. The rock
ou which it stood was higher than the Temple,^ although lower than
the hill up which the new suburb Bezetha crept, which, accordingly,
was cut olf by a deep ditch, for the safety of the fortress. Herod
greatly enlarged and strengthened it. Within encircling walls the
fort rose to a height of sixty feet, and was flanked by four towers, of
which three had a height of seventy, the fourth (S.E.), which jutted
into the Temple area, of 105 feet, so as to command the sacred
enclosure. A subterranean passage led into the Temple itself,'" which
was also connected with it by colonnades and stairs. Herod had
adorned as well as strengthened and enlarged, this fort (now Anto-
nia), and made it a palace, an armed camp, and almost a city.'' f./o.s. war
Hitherto we have only spoken of the first, or old wall, which
was fortified by sixty towers. The second wall, which had only
fourteen towers, began at some ]ioint in the nortliern wall at the Gate
Gennath, whence it ran north, and then east, so as to enclose Acra
and the Suburb. It terminated at Fort Antonia. Beyond, and all
around this second wall stretched, as already noticed, the new, as
yet unenclosed suburb Bezetha, rising towards the north-east. But
'It is, to say the least, doubtful, v. 5. 8), appliestoitsboiirlitioomp. -S'^Wss,
whether the numeral 50 cubits (7.''i feet). Das Jerus. d. .Jos. p. fifiV
which Josephus assigns to this rock (War
8
114 FROM BETHLEHEM TO .lOlIDAX.
BOOK those changes were as iiutliiug compared with those within the city
n itself. First and foremost was the great transformation in the
^-^-^(^-^ Temi^le itself/ which, from a small building, little larger than an
ordinary church, in the time of Solomon,^ had become that great and
glorious House which excited the admiration of tlu^ foreigner, and
kindled the enthusiasm of every son of Israel. At the time of Christ
it had been already forty-six years in building, and workmen were
still, and for a long time, engaged on it.'^ But what a heterogeneous
crowd thronged its ixirches and courts! Hellenists; scattered
wanderers from the most distant parts of the earth — east, west, north,
and south; Galileans, quick of temper and uncouth of Jewish speech;
Judseans and Jerusalemites; white-robed Priests and Levites; Temple
ofticials; broad-phylacteried, wide-fringed Pharisees, and courtly,
ironical Sadducees; and, in the outer court, curious Gentiles!
Some had come to worship; others to pay vows, or bring offerings,
or to seek purification; some to meet friends, and discourse on
religious subjects in those colonnaded porches, which ran round the
Sanctuary; or else to have their questions answered, or their causes
heard and decided, by the smaller Sanhedrin of twenty-three, that sat
in the entering of the gate or by the Great Sajdiedrin. The latter
no longer occupied the Hall of Hewn Stones, Gazith, l)ut met in some
chamber attached to those 'shops,' or booths, on the Temple Mount,
which belonged to the High-Priestly family of Ananias, and where
such profita])le trade was driven by those who, in their cupidity and
covetousness, were worthy successors of the sons of Eli. In the Court
of the Gentiles (or in its porches) sat the official money-changers, who
for a fixed discount changed all foreign coins into those of the
Sanctuary. Here also was that great mart for sacrificial animals, and
all that was requisite for offerings. How the simple, earnest country
people, who came to pay vows, or bring offerings for purifying, must
have wondered, and felt oi)i)ressed in that atmosphere of strangely
blended religious rigorism and utter worldliness; and how they must
have been taxed, imposed ui)on, and treated with utmost curtness,
nay, rudeness, by those who laughed at their boorishness, and despised
them as cursed, ignorant country people, little better than heathens,
or, for that matter, th-an brute beasts. Here also there lay about
a crowd of noisy beggars, unsightly from disease, and clamorous
for helj). And close by passed the luxurious scion of the High-
' I must take leave to refer to the de- Part viii. ]). (is2 li. speaks of the dimen-
8criptioii of .Jerusalem, and esjieciallv sioiis of the old Sanctuary lus little more
of the Tenii)le, in the 'Temple and ils than those of a villa,i,^e church.
Services at tiie Time of .Tesus Christ.' •' It was only finished in 64 a.d., that
■■'Dr. MUhhni, in Riehm's TTandw/irterl). is. six VPars before its destruction.
IN THE CITV AND AMUNG THE BAZAARS. 115
Priestly families; the i)r()U(l, intensely s(?ll-conscious Teacher of the CHAr.
Law, respcetfully followed l)y his disciples; and the quick-witted, I
subtle Scribe. These were men who, on Sal)baths and feast-days, ^— ^r'— ^
would come out on the Temple-terrace to teach the people, or con-
descend to answer their questions; who in the Syna.u'o^'ues would
hold their i)u/,zled hearers spell-hound by llieir traditional loi'e and
subtle argumentation, or tickle the fancy of tiie entranced multitude,
that thronged every available space, by their ingenious frivolities,
their nmi'vellous legends, or their clever sayings; but w ho would, if
occasion required, (piell an opi)onent by well-i)oised questions, or crush
him beneath the sheer weight of authority. Yet others were there
who, desi)ite the utterly lowering intluence which the frivolities of
the prevalent religion, and the elaborate ti'itling of its endless observ-
ances, must have exercised on the nioi-al and religious feelings of
all — perhaps, because of them — turned aside, and looked back with
loving gaze to the spiritual promises of the past, and forward with
longing exi)ectancy to the near 'consolation of Israel,' waiting for it
in jn-ayei-ful fellowship, and with bright, heaven-granted gleams of its
dawning light amidst the encircling gloom.
Descending fnnn the Tenqile into tlie city, there was more than
enlargement, due to the increased i)opulation. Altogether, Jerusalem
covered, at its greatest, about ;^00 acres.' As of old there were still
the same nari'ow streets in the business quarters; but in close con-
tiguity to bazaars and shops rose stately mansions of wealthy merchants,
and palaces of. princes.^ And what a change in the aspect of these
streets, in the character of those shops, and, aliove all, in the appear-
ance of the restless Eastern crowd that surged to and fro! Outside their
shops in the streets, or at least in sight of the passers, and within reach
of their talk, was the shoenudvcr hammering his sandals, the tailor
])lying his needle, the cari)enter, or th(! worker in iron and brass. Those
who were less busy, or nn)re enterprising, passed along, wearing some
end)lem of their trade: the dyer, variously coloured threads; the car-
penter, a rule: the wi-iter, a reed behind his ear; the tailor, with a
needle prominently stuck in his dress. In the side streets the less
attractive occiq^ations of the butcher, the wool-comber, or the flax-
spinner were carried on. In these large, shady halls, artistic trades
Avere pursued: the elegant worknninship of the goldsmith and jeweller;
the various arficlcs de luxe, that adorned the houses of the rich; the
Avork of the designer, the moulder, or th(> artificer in iron or brass.
' See Conder, Heth and Moab, ji. !(4.
'■* Such as the Palace of Grapte, and tluit nf Queen Helena of Adiabeue.
116
FROiVr BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
b Arakh. vi.
5
<-' Baba K.
X. 4
■i Men. xiii.
8; Baba K.
iil. 9
<■ Tos. Sheq.
ii. ; To.s.
Ar. iv.
'Men. xili.
8
=' Tos. Balsa
Mets. iv
■> Yoma 35 b
• Peah viii.
8,9
In tliese streets and lanes everytliiiiii- nii^ht be purchased: the pro-
duction of Palestine, or imported from foreign lands — nay, the rarest
articles from the remotest parts. Exquisitely shaped, curiously de-
signed and Jewelled cups, rings and other workmanship of })reci()us
metals; glass, silks, tine linen, woollen start's, ])ur])le, and costly hang-
ings; essences, ointments, and perfumes, as i)recious as gold; articles
of food and drink from foreign lands — in short, what India, Persia,
Arabia, Media, Egyi)t, Italy, Greece, and even the far-oft" lan<ls of the
Gentiles yielded, might be had in these bazaars.
Ancient Jewish writings enal)]e us to identify no fewer than 118
different articles of import from foreign lands, covering more than even
modern hi.xury has devised. Articles of luxury, especially from abroad,
fetched indeed enormous jirices; and a lady might spend .36^. on a
cloak: " silk would be paid 1)}' its weight in gold; purple wool at 3^. o-s.
the i)ound, or, if double-dyed, at almost ten times that amount; while
the price of the best balsam and nard was most exorbitant. On the
other hand, the cost of common living was very low. In the bazaars
you miglit get a complete suit for your slave for eighteen or nineteen
shillings," and a tolerable outfit for yourself from Bl. to 61. For the
same sum you might purchase an ass,' an ox,'' or a cow," and, for little
more, a horse. A calf might lie liad for less than fifteen shillings, a
goat for five or six.*^ Sheep were dearer, and fetched from four to
fifteen or sixteen shillings, Avhile a land) might sometimes be had as low
as two pence. No wonder living and hdxtur were so cheap. Corn of
all kinds, fruit, wine, and oil, cost very little. Meat Avas about a penny
a pound; a nmn might get himself a small, of course unfurnished,
lodging for about sixpence a week.^ A day lal)ourer was paid about
l^d. a day, though skilled labour would fetch a good deal more. In-
deed, the great Hillel was i)opularly su])posed to have supported his
family on less than twopence a day," while proi)erty to the amount of
about G/. , oi- ti'ade with 21. or 3^ of goods, was supposed to exclude a
person from charity, or a claim on what was left in the corners of
fields and to the gleaners.'
To tliese many like details might be added.' Sufficient has been
said to show the two ends of society: the exceeding dearness of luxu-
ries, and the col-responding cheapness of necessaries. Such extremes
w^mld meet especially at Jerusalem. Its population, computeil at
frcnn 200.(100 to 2.")0.000.'- was enormously swelled by travellers, and ])y
' Com\). Ucr2f('l<r.'< liaiiik'ls.i^esch. modern city. Comp. Dr. ,SV7//V7r in .1. J/.
■-' Anci(Mit .k'nisait'in is supposed to Luncz, ' Jerusalem,' for 18S2.
liavecovcr('(l about dmililf thf aroaof the
MAHKETS, FAIRS, AND SHOPS.
117
l)ilgrims (luring thogTcat lestivals.' The great Palace wari the residence
of King and Court, with all tlieir following and luxury; in Antonia
iay afterwards the Roman garrison. The Temple called thousands of
priests, many of them with their families, to Jerusalem; while the
learned Academies were filled with hundreds, though it may have been
mostly poor, scholars and students. In Jerusalem must ha nc been many
of the large warehouses tor the near commercial harboiii- of J(»|)pa;
and thence, as from the industrial centres of busy Galilee, would
the pedlar go forth to carry his wares over the land. More especially
would the markets of Jerusalem, held, however, in bazaars and streets
rather than in squares, be thronged with noisy sellers and bargaining
l)uyers. Thither would Galilee send n()t only its manufactures, but its
provisions: fish (fresh or salted), fruit* known for its lusciousness, oil,
grape-syrup, and wine. There were special inspectors for these mar-
kets— the Agardemis or Agronimos — w^ho tested weights and measures,
and officially stamped them,'* tried the soundness of food or drink,'' and
occasionally fixed or lowered the market-prices, enforcing tlieir
decision,'" if need were, even with the stick.' ' Not only was there an
ui)per and a lower market in Jerusalem, '^ but we read of at least seven
special markets: those for cattle,^ wool, iron-ware,'' clothes, wood,'
l)read, and fruit and vegetables. The original market-days were
Monday and Tuesday, afterwards Friday.'' The large fairs (Yeridiu)
were naturally confined to the centres of import and export — the bor-
ders of Egypt (Gaza), the ancient Phoenician maritime towns (Tyre
and Acco), and the Emporium across the Jordan (Botnah). Besides,
every caravansary, or khan (qatlis, atlis, KataXvffig), was a soi't of
mart, where goods were unloaded, and especially cattle set oiif^ fbi- sale,
and purchases made. But in Jerusalem one may suppose the sellei's
to have been every day in the market; and the magazines, in which
greengrocery and all kinds of meat were sold (the Beth hciSIievaqim),'"
nmst have been always open. Besides, there were the many shojis
(Chanuyoth) either fronting the streets, or in courtyards, or else movable
wooden booths in the streets. Strangelv enough, occasionally Jewish
("HAP
» Maaser ii.
3
b Baba B.
89 a
<: .Ter. Ab. Z.
44 J>: Ab. Z.
58 a
i' Jer. Dein.
22 c-
<■ Yonia '.I "
f Sanh. 89 "
? Erub. s. '.I
'' Jo,: ^^ ar
V. 8. 1
i Ibid. ii.
19. 4
k To8. Baba
Mets. lii.
I Kerltli.
lii. 7;
Temur. ill.
'" Makhsh.
vi. 2
^ Altlmutrh .Jerusalem covered only
about :^00 aci-e.s, yet. froui the narrowness
of Oriental street.-^, it would hold a very
much larijer poindation than any West-
ern city of the same e.xtent. Besides, we
must remember that its ecclesia.stical
boundaries extended l)eyond the city.
■^ On the question of ofhcially fi.xini;-
the market-price. diverKiuii; opinions are
expressed, Baba B. 89 h. It was tliouii;ht
that the market-i)rice should leave to the
producer a i)rofit of oiu^-sixth on the
cost (Baba B. !>0 ti). In liienei'al, the
laws on these subjects form a nuist in-
teresting- study. " B/oi/i (Mos. Talni.
l\)lizeir.^ holds, tliat there were two
classes of nuirket-officials. But this is
not supported by suthcieiit evidence, nor,
indeed, would such an arraiiiiement seem
likely.
•' that of Botnah was the lar2;est, Jer.
Ab. Z. 'M) (7.
118
FROM BETIILElUiM TO JOKDAX.
BOOK
II
Kethulj.
X. i
* St. Mark
xiv. 66
k St. Luke
xxiii. 6, 7
■Jos. War
U.3. 1
<• Ant. XV.
8. 1
' Ant. xvii.
10. 2; War
H. 3. 1, 2
women wero oni ployed in .selling.' Bnsinet^.s was also done in the
restaurants and wineshops, of which there were many; w^here you
might be served witli some dish: fresh or salted fish, fried locusts, a
mess of vegeta])les, a dish of soup, pastry, sweetmeats, or a piece
of a fruit-cake, to be w'ashed down with Juda;an or Galilean wine,
Idumaean vinegar, or foreign beer.
If from these busy scenes we turn to the more aristocratic quarters
of the Upper City, ^ we still see the same narrow streets, but tenanted
by another class. First, we pass the High-Priest's palace on the
slope of the hill, with a low^er story under the ]H-incipal apartments,
and a porch in front. Here, on the night of the Betrayal, Peter was
'beneath in the Palace.'" Next, we come to Xystos, and then
])ause for a moment at the Palace of the Maccal)ees. It lies higher up
the hill, and westward from the Xystos. From its halls you can look
into the city, and even into the Temple. We know not which of the
Maccabees had l)uilt this palace. But it was occupied, not by the
actually reigning prince, who always i-esided in the fortress (Baris,
afterwards Antonia), but by some other member of the family. From
them it passed into the possession of Herod. There Herod Antipas
was when, on that terrible Passover, Pilate sent Jesus from the old
palace of Herod to be examined by the Ruler of (ialilee.'' If these
buildings pointed to the difference between the past and present, two
structures of Herod's were, perhaps, more eloquent than any words in
their accusations of the Idumaean. One of these, at least, would come
in sight in passing along the slopes of the U])per City. The Macca-
bean rule had l^een preceded l)y that of corruj)t High-Priests, wdio
had prostituted their office to the vilest puri)oses. One of them, who
had changed his Jewish name of Joshua into Jason, had gone so tVir,
in his attempts to Grecianise the people, as to l)uild a Hippodrome and
Gymnasium for heathen games. We infer, it stood where the West-
ern hill sloped into the Tyropoeon, to the south-west of the Temijle."
It was probably tliis which Herod afterwards enlarged and beautified,
and turned into a theatre. Xo expense was spared on the great games
held there. The theatre itself was magnificently adorned with gold,
silver, precious stones, and trophies of arms and records of the victories
of Augustus. But to the Jews this essentially heathen place, over against
their Temple, was cause of deep indignation and plots.' Besides this
theatre, Herod also built an imn^ense am])hitheatre, wiiich we must
locate somewhere in the north-west, and outside the second city wall.*'
All this was Jerusalem above ground. But there was an under-
' Compare liere irpiierally Unrnh, D. alte Jerusalem.
THE MPJTROPOLIS OF JUDAISM. II9
jj:r(iuii(l Jerusalem also, which burrowed evervwh(>rc under the city — chat*.
under the Tapper City, under the 'renii)le, beyond the city walls. Its '
extent may be gathered tVoni the eircumstanee that, after the capture ^ ~''' '
of the city, besides the living who had sought shelter there, no fewer
than 2,000 dead l)odies were found in those subterranean streets.
Close by the tracks of heathenism in Jerusalem, and in sharp
contrast, was what gave to Jerusalem its intensely Jewish character.
It was not only the Temple, nor the festive i)ilgrims to its feasts and
services. l>ut there were hundreds' of Synagogues,' some for different "
nationalities — such as the Alexandrians, or the Cyrenians: some for,
or perhaps founded by, certain trade-guilds. If possible, the Jewish
schools were even more numerous than the Synagogues. Then there
were the many Rab1)inic Academies ; and, l)esides, you miglit also see
in Jerusalem that mysterious sect, the Essenes, of which the members
were easily recognized by their white dress. Essenes, Pharisees, stranger
Jews of all hues, and of many dresses and languages! One could have
inuigined himself almost in another world, a sort of enchanted land,
in this Jewish metropolis, and metropolis of Judaism. When the
silver trumpets of the Priests Avoke the city to prayer, or the strain
of Levite music swept over it, or the smoke of the sacritices hung
like another Shekhinah over the Temple, against the green background
of Olivet; or when in every street, court, and housetop rose the booths
at the Feast of Tabernacles, and at night the sheen of the Temple
illumination threw long fantastic shadows over the city; or when, at
the Passover, tens of thousands crowded up the Mount with their
Paschal lambs, and hundreds of thousands sat down to the Paschal
supper — it would be almost difficult to believe, that heathenism was
so near, that the Roman was virtually, and would soon be really,
nmster of the land, or that a Herod occupied the Jewish throne.
Yet there he was; in the pride of his power, and the reckless
cruelty of his ever-watchful tyranny. Evei-ywhere was his mark.
Temples to the gods and to Ca:'sar, magniticent, and magnificently
adorned, outside Palestine and in its non-Jewish cities; towns re-
built or built: Sebaste for the ancient Samaria, the splendid city and
harl)our o\' Ca^sarea in the west, Antipafris (after his father) in the
north, Kypros and Pltasaelis (after his mother and brother), and
' Tradition exaggerates their munber men were sufficient to form a Synagogue,
as 4()0 (.Jer. Ketlmi). 35 c.) or even 480 and liow many — wliat may be called
(Jer. Meg. 73 d). But even the large ' private ' — Synagogues exist at present
number (proportionally to tbe size of the in every town .where tliere is a large and
city) nu^ntioned in tlie text need not orthodox Jewish population,
surprise us when we remember that ten
1 •_><)
FIJOM BP]THLEIIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
TI
" Baba B.
3 6
!■ Bern id.
R. 14
Agrippvioii : iincouquerablo tbi-trcsses,sucli as Essebonifis and Machui-
nis in l\'ici'a, Alexandreion, Herodeion, Hyrcania, and Masada in
J udaaa — proclaimed his name and sway. But in Jerusalem it seemed as
if he had gathered up all his strength. The theatre and amphitheatre
spoke of his Grecianism; Antonia was the representative fortress; for
his religi(ni he had built that glorious Temple, and for his residence
the noblest of palaces, at the north-western angle of the Ujjper City,
close by wliere Milo had been in the days of David. It seems
almost incivdible, that a Herod should have reared the Temple, and
yet we can understand his motives. Jewish tradition had it, that a
Rabbi (Baba ben Buta) had advised him in this manner to conciliate
the people,' or else thereby to expiate the slaughter of so many
Rabbis.''' Probably a desire to gain popularity, and superstition,
may alike have contributed, as also the wish to gratify his love for
si)lendour and building. At the same time, he may have wished to
show himself a better Jew than that rabble of Pharisees and Rabbis,
who perpetually would cast it in his teeth, that he was an Idumsean.
Whatever his origin, he was a true king of the Jews — as great, nay
greater, than Solomon hiiiiself. Certainly, neither labour nor money
had been spared on the Temple. A thousand vehicles carried up the
stone; -10,000 workmen, under the guidance of 1,000 priests, wrought
all the costly material gathered into that house, of which Jewish
tradition could say, 'He that has not seen the Temple of Herod,
has never known what beauty is."^ And yet Israel despised and
abhorred the builder! Nor could his apparent work for the God of
Israel have deceived the most credulous. In youth he had browbeaten
the venerable Sanhedrin, and threatened the city with slaughter and
destruction; again and again had he murdered her venerable sages;
he had shed like water the blood of her Asmonean princes, and of
every one who dared to be free; had stilled every national aspiration
in the groans of the torture, and (luenchod it in the gore of his victinis.
Not once, nor twice, but six times did he change the High-Priesthood,
to bestow it at last on one who bears no good name in Jewish theology,
a foreigner in Judaea, an Alexandrian. And yet the powei- of that
Idumjean was but of vesterdav, and of mushroom growth!
' Tile occasion is siiid to have bfeii.
that tlie Mabljis, in answer to Herod's
question, quoted Deut. xvii, 15. Baba
ben Buta himself is sui<i to iia\e escaped
the slaujiiiter, indeed. l)nt to liave been
deprived of his eyes.
FAILURE OF THE MACCABEES. 121
CHAPTER II.
THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF HEROD — THE TWO WORLDS IN JERUSALEM.
It is an intoiisely painful liistory,^ in the course of which Herod made CHAP,
his way to the thi-one. We look back nearly two and a half centuries n
to where, with the empire ot Alexander, Palestine fell to his sue- "-^-r^^
cessors. For nearly a century and a half it continued the battle-field
of the Egyptian and Syrian kings (the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae).
At last it was a corrupt High-Pric^sthood — with which virtually the
government of the land had all along lain — that betrayed Israel's
precious trust. The great-grandson of so noble a figure in Jewish
history as Simon the Just (compare Ecclus. 1. ) bought from the Syrians
the High-Priestly office of his brother, adopted the heathen name
Jason, and sought to Grecianise the people. The sacred oflice fell^ if
l)ossible, even lower when, through bribery, it was transferred to his
l)r()ther Menelaus. Then followed the brief jieriod of the terrible
persecutions of Antiochus Epiphancs, when Judaism was all but exter-
minated in Palestine. The glorious uprising of the Maccabees called
forth all the national elements left in Israel, and kindled afresh the
smouldering religious feeling. It seemed like a revival of Old Testa-
ment times. And when Judas the Maccabee, with a band so inferior
in numlx'rs and discipline, defeated the best of the Syrian soldiery,
led by its ablest generals, and, on the anniversary of its desecration
by heathen rites, set up again the great altar of burnt-offering, it
a]ii)eare(l as if a new Theocracy were to be inaugurated. The cere-
monial of that feast of the new * dedication of the Temple,' when each
.light the inimber of lights grew larger in the winter's darkness, seemed
symbolic of what was before Israel. But the Maccabees were not the
Messiali; nor yet the Kingdom, which their sword would have restored
— that of Heaven, with its blessings and ])eace. If ever, Israel might
then have learned what Saviour to look for.
The period even of promise was more brief than might have been
expected. The fervour and purity of the movement ceased almost
' For a fuller sketcli of tliis history see Appendix IV.
122
FROM BETHLEHEM T(J JORDAN.
BOOK
H
« Com p.
1 Mace. vi.
81
with its success. It was certainly never the golden age of Israel —
not even among those who remained i'aithlul to its God — which those
seem to imagine who, forgetful of its history and contests, would trace
to it so much that is most precious and spiritual in the Old Testa-
ment. It may have been the pressure of circumstances, but it was
anything but a pious, or even a ' happy " thought • of Judas the
Maccabee, to seek the alliance of the Romans. From their entrance
on the scene dates the decline of Israel's national cause. For a time,
indeed — though after varying fortunes of war — all seemed prosi)erous.
The Maccabees became both High-Priests and Kings. But ]iarty-
strife and worldliness, ambition and corruption, and Grecianism on
the throne, soon brought their sequel in the decline of moi^ale and
vigour, and led to the decay and decadence of the Maccabean house.
It is a story as old as the Old Testament, and as wide as the history
of the world. Contention for the throne among the Maccabees led to
the interference of the foreigner. When, after capturing Jerusalem,
and violating the sanctity of the Temple, although not plundering its
treasures, Pompey placed Hyrcanus II. in possession of the High-
Priesthood, the last of the Maccabean rulers ^ was virtually shorn of
power. The country was now trilnitary to Rome, and subject to the
Governor of Syria. Even the shadow of political power passed from
the feeble hands of Hyrcanus when, shortly afterwards, Gabinius (one
of the Roman governors) divided the land into five districts, inde-
pendent of each other.
But already a person had appeared on the stage of Jewish affairs,
who was to give them their last decisive turn. About fifty years
before this, the district of Idumaea had been conquered by the Mac-
cabean King H3Tcanus I., and its inhabitants forced to adopt Judaism.
By this Idumaea we are not, however, to understand the ancient or
Eastern Edom, which was now in the hands of the Nal^ataeans, but
parts of Southern Palestine which the Edomites had occupied since
the Babylonian Exile, and esj^ecially a small district on the northern
and eastern boundary of Judaea, and below Samaria." After it became
Judaean, its administration was entrusted to a governor. In the reign
of the last of the Maccabees this office devolved on one Antipater, a
1 .an of equal cunning and determination. He successfully interfered
in the unhappy dispute for the crown, which was at last decided by
the sword of Pompey. Antipater took the part of the utterly weak
Hyrcanus in that contest with his energetic brother Aristobulus. He
' So Sckiirer in his Neutestam. Zeit-
gesch.
■■^ A table (if the Maccabean and Hero-
(lian faniiiie.^ l.s .a;iven in Appendl.x VI.
RISE OF THE FAMILY UF UEKUD. ' 123
soon became the virtual ruler, and Ilyreanus II. only a puppet in his
hands. From the accession of Judas Maccabaeus, in 166 B.C., to the
year 63 B.C., when Jerusalem was taken by Pompey, only about a
century had elapsed. Other twenty-four years, and the last of the
Maccabees had given i)lace to the son of Antipater: Herod, snrnaraed
the Great.
The settlement of Pompey did not prove lasting. Aristobulus, the
brother and defeated rival of Hy rcanus, was still alive, and his sons
were even more energetic than he. The risings attempted by them,
the interference of the Parthians on behalf of those who Avere hostile
to Rome, and, lastly, the contentions for supremacy in Rome itself,
made this period one of confusion, turmoil, and constant warfare in
Palestine. When Pompey was finally defeated by Caesar, the pros-
pects of Antipater and Hyrcanus seemed dark. But they quickly
changed sides; and timely help given to Caesar in Egypt brought to
Antipater the title of Procurator of Judasa, while Hyrcanus was left
in the High-Priesthood, and, at least, nominal head of the people. The
two sons of Antipater were now made governors: the elder, Phasaelus,
of Jerusalem; the younger, Herod, only twentj^-five years old, of
Galilee. Here he displayed the energy and determination which
were his characteristics, in crushing a guerilla warfare, of Avhich the
deeper springs were probably nationalist. The execution of its
leader brought Herod a summons to appear before the Great San-
hedrin of Jerusalem, for having arrogated to himself the power of
life and death. He came, but arrayed in purple, surrounded i)y a
body-guard, and supported by the express direction of the Roman
Governor to Hyrcanus, that he was to be acquitted. Even so he
would have fallen a victim to the apprehensions of the Sanhedrin —
only too well grounded — had he not been persuaded to withdraw from
the city. He returned at the head of an army, and was with difficulty
persuaded by his father to spare Jerusalem. Meantime Caesar had
named him Governor of Coelesyria.
On the murder of Caesar, and the possession of Syria by Cassius,
Antipater and Herod again changed sides. But they rendered such
substantial service as to secure favour, and Herod was continued in
the position conferred on him by Caesar. Antipater was, indeed,
poisoned by a rival, but his sons Herod and Phasaelus repressed and
extinguished all opi)osition. When the battle of Philippi placed the
Roman world in the hands of Antony and Octavius, the former
obtained Asia. Once more the Idumaeans knew how to gain the new
ruler, and Phasaelus and Herod were named Tetrarchs of Judaea.
124 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK Afterwards, when Antony was held in the toils of Cleopatra, matters
" seemed, indeed, to assume a diflerent aspect. The Parthiansentere<l
' 'c — ' the land, in support of the rival Maccabean prince Antigonus, the son
of Aristobulus. By treachery, Phasaelus and Hyrcanus were induced
to go to the Parthian camp, and made captives. Phasaelus shortly
afterwards destroyed himself in his prison,' while Hyrcanus was de-
prived of his ears, to unfit him for the High-Priestly office. And so
Antigonus for a short time succeeded both to the High-Priesthood and
royalty in Jerusalem. Meantime Herod, who had in vain warned
his brother and Hyrcanus against the Parthian, had been able to
make his escape from Jerusalem. His family he left to the defence
of his brother Joseph, in the inaccessible fortress of Masada; himself
tied into Arabia, and finally made his way to Rome. There he suc-
ceeded, not (jnly with Antony, but obtained the consent of Octavius,
and was ])roclaimed by the Senate King of Judaea. A sacrifice on the
('ai)itol, and a banquet by Antony, celebrated the accession of the new
successor of David.
But he had yet to conquer his kingdom. At first he made way
by the help of the Romans. Such success, however, as he had gained,
was more than lost during his ])rief absence on a visit to Antony.
Joseph, the brother of Herod, was defeated and slain, and Galilee,
which had been subdued, revolted again. But the aid which the
Romans rendered, after Herod's return from Antony, was much more
liearty, and his losses were more than retrieved. Soon all Palestine,
with the exception of Jerusalem, was in his hands. While laying
siege to it, he went to Samaria, there to wed the l)eautiful Maccabean
princess Mariamme, who had been betrothed to him five years before.^
That ill-fated Queen, and her elder brother Aristobulus, united in
themselves the two rival branches of the Maccabean family. Their
father was Alexander, the eldest son of Aristobulus, and brother of
that Antigonus whom Herod now besieged in Jerusalem; and their
mother, Alexandra, the daughter of Hyrcanus II. The uncle of
Mariamme was not long able to hold out against the combined forces
of Rome and Herod. The carnage was terrible. When Herod, by
rich presents, at length induced the Romans to leave Jerusalem, they
took Antigonus with them. By desire of Herod he was executed.
This was the first of the Maccabees who fell victim to his jealousy
and cruelty. Tlu^ history which now follows is one of sickening car-
nage. The next to experience his vengeance were the principal ad-
' By dashing out his V)rains against one Doris, \\w issue of the marriage be-
tlie prison walls. ing a son, Antipater.
''■ He had pre\iousIy been married to
INTRIGUES IN THE FAMILY OF HEROD. 12:')
heronts in Jerusalem of his rival Antigonus. Forty-tive of the noblest CHAP.
and richest were executed. His next step was to a])point an obscure ll
liabylonian to the Hig-h-Priesthood. This awakened the active '^— ^r —
hostility of Alexandra, the mother of Mariamme, Herod's wife. The
Maccabean princess claimed the High-Priesthood for her son Aristo-
l)ulus. Her intrigues with Cleopatra — and through her with Antony
— and the entreaties of Mariamme, the only being whom Herod loved,
though in his own mad way, prevailed. At the age of seventeen
Aristobulus Avas made High-Priest. But Herod, who well knew the
hatred and contempt of the Maccabean members of his family, had
his mother-in-law watched, a precaution increased after the vain
attempt of Alexandra to have herself and her son removed in coffins
from Jerusalem, to flee to Cleopatra. Soon the jealousy and suspicions
of Herod were raised to murderous madness, by the acclamations
which greeted the young Aristobulus at the Feast of Tabernacles. So
dangerous a Maccabean rival must be got rid of; and, by secret order
of Herod, Aristobulus was drowned while bathing. His mother
denounced the murderer, and her influence with Cleopatra, who also
hated Herod, led to his being summoned before Antony, Once more
l)ribery, indeed, prevailed ; but other troubles awaited Herod.
When oljcying the summons of Antony, Herod had committed
I he government to his uncle Joseph, who was also his brother-in-law,
having wedded Salome, the sister of Herod. His mad jealousy had
prompted him to direct that, in case of his condemnation, Mariamme
was to be killed, that she might not become the wife of another.
Unfortunately, Joseph told this to Mariamme, to show how much she
was loved. But on the return of Herod, the infamous Salome
accused her old husband of impropriety with Mariamme. When it
appeared that Joseph had told the Queen of his commission, Herod,
regarding it as confirming his sister's charge, ordered him to be
executed, without even a hearing. External complications of the
gravest kind now sui)ervened. Herod had to cede to Cleopatra the
districts of Phocnice and Philistia, and that of Jericho with its rich
balsam plantations. Then the dissensions between Antony and
Octavius involved him, in the cause of the former, in a war with
Arabia, whose king had failed to pay tribute to Cleopatra. Herod
was victorious; but he had now to reckon with another master. The
battle of Actiunr' decided the fate of Antony, and Herod had to "aiis.c.
make his peace with Octavius. Happily, he was al)le to do good
service to the new cause, ere presenting himself before Augustus.
But, in order to be secure from all possible rivals, he had the aged
Hyrcanus II. executed, on pretence of intrigues with the Arabs.
126 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
IJOOK Herod was Kuccessl'iil with Augustus; and when, in the following
H suiuuier, he i'urnished hiui supplies on his march to Egypt, he was
'^- — ~, rewarded by a substantial addition of territory.
When about to appear before Augustus, Herod had entrusted to
one Soenius the charge of Mariainnie, with the same fatal directions
as formerly to Joseph. Again Mariamme learnt the secret; again
the old calumnies were raised — this time not only by Salome, but
also by K^pros, Herod's mother; and again Herod imagined he had
found corroborative evidence. Soemus was slain without a hearing,
and the beautiful Mariamme executed after a mock trial. The most
fearful paroxysm of remorse, passion, and longing for his murdered
wife now seized the tyrant, and brought him to the brink, of the
grave. Alexandra, the mother of Mariannne, deemed the moment
favorable for her plots — but she was discovered, and executed. Of
the Maccabean race there now remained only distant members, the
sons of Babas, who had found an asylum with Costobarus, the
Governor of Iduma^a, who had wedded Salome after the death of her
tirst husband. Tired of him, as she had been of Joseph, Salome
denounced her second husband ; and Costobarus, as well as the sons
of Babas, fell victims to Herod. Thus perished the family of the
Maccabees.
The hand of the maddened tyrant was next turned against his
own family. Of his ten wives, we mention only those whose children
occupy a i)lace in this history. The son of Doris was Antipater;
those of the Maccabean Mariamme, Alexander and Aristobulus;
another Mariamme, whose father Herod had made High-Priest, bore
him a son named Herod (a name which other of the sons shared);
Malthake, a Samaritan, was the mother of Archelaus and Herod
Antipas; and, lastly, Cleopatra of Jerusalem bore Philip. The sons
of the Maccabean princess, as heirs presumptive, were sent to Rome
for their education. On this occasion Herod received, as reward
for many services, the country east of the Jordan, and was allowed to
appoint his still remaining brother, Pheroras, Tetrarch of Peraea. On
their return from Rome tlie young princes were married : Alexander to
a daughter of tlie King of Cappadocia, and Aristol)ulus to his cousin
Berenice, the daughter of Salome. But neither kinship, nor the yet
nearer relation in which Aristobulus now stood to her, could extin-
guish the hatred of Salome towards the dead Maccalx'an i)rincess or
her children. Nor did the young princes, in their pride of descent,
disguise their feelings towards the house of their father. At first,
Herod gave not heed to the denunciations of his sister. Presently he
yielded to vague a])preliensions. As a first step, Antipater, the son
LAST ti;a(;i<;i)Ii;s of iikijods keicx. 12t
of Doris, w;is rccallcMl Irom exile, imd sent to IJoiiie lor education. CIIAI'.
So tlie l)rea('li Ix'cauie open; and Herod took lii.s sous t(j Italy, to lay H
Ibrnial aeeiisatioii against tiieni hetbrc Augustus. The wise counsels - — ~^''' — '
of the Eiiil)eror restored i)eaee lor a time. But Antipater hoav re-
turned to ralestine, and joined his calumnies to those of Salome.
Once more the King of Cappadocia succeeded in reconciling Herod
and his sons. l>ut in the end the intrigues of Salome, Antipater, and
of an infamous foreigner who had made his way at Court, i)revailed.
Alexandei- and Aristobulus were imprisoned, and an accusation of
high treason laid against them before the Emperor. Augustus gave
llerod full powers, but advised the convocation of a mixed tribunal
of Jews and Romans to try the case. As might have been expected,
the two princes Avere condemned to death, and when some old soldiers
ventured to intercede for them, 300 of the supposed adherents of the
cause were cut down, and the two princes strangled in prison. This
happened in Samaria, where, thirty years before, Ilerod had wedded
their ill-fated mother.
Antipater was now the heir presumi)tive. But, imi)atient of the
throne, he plotted with Herod's brother, Pheroras, against his father.
Again Salome denounced her nepliew and her brother. Antipater
withdrew to Rome; but when, after the death of Pheroras, Herod
obtained indubitable evidence that his son had plotted against his
'ife, he lured Antipater to Palestine, where on his arrival he was
cast into prison. All that was needed was the permission of Augustus
for his execution. It arrived, and was carried out only five days
before the death of Herod himself. So ended a reign almost unparal-
leled for reckless cruelty and bloodshed, in which the murder of the
Innocents in Bethlehem formed but so trilling an ei)isode among the
many deeds of blood, as to have seemed not deserving of record on
the page of the Jewish historian.
But we can understand the feelings of the people towards such a
King. They hated the Idumaean; they detested his semi-heathen
reign; they abhorred his deeds of cruelty. The King had surrounded
himself Avith foreign councillors, and was protected by foreign mer-
cenaries from Thracia, Germany, and Gaul. " So long as he lived, ru) ^^;';" ^'?/-
woman's honour was safe, no man's life secure. An army ot all-
powerful spies pervaded Jerusalem — nay, the King himself was said
to stoop to that office. ^' If pique or private enmity led to denuncia- ;__Ant. xv.
tion, the torture would extract any confession from the most innocent.
What his relation to Judaism had l)een, may easily be inferred. He
would be a Jew — even build the Temi)le, advocate the cause of the
Jews in other lands, and, in a certain sense, conform to the Law of
10. 4
]28 Vium BETIILKIIEM TO JORDAN.
I'.ooK .liidaisiii. Ill hiiildinji," the Teini)lc, he was so anxious to conciliate
II national ])rcju(lice, that the Sanctuary itself was entrusted to the
' — ' worknninslii|) of |)i'iests only. Nor did he ever intrude into the
Holy Phice, nor interfere with any functions of the priesthood. None
of his coins bear devices which could have shocked popular feeling,
nor did any of the l)uildings he erected in Jerusalem exhil)it any for-
bidden eniblenis. The Sanhcdrin did exist during his reign, 'though
it must have been shorn of all real power, and its activity confined to
ecclesiastical, or semi-ecclesiastical, causes. Strangest of all, he
seems to have had at least the passive support of two of the greatest
• Ant. xiv. Rabbis — the Pollio and Sanieas of Josephus" — supposed to represent
i' 10. 4 those great figures in Jewish tradition, Abtalion and Sheniajah. ''■•'
^Aii. 1, 10, ^^y^, (,,jj^ ju^^ conjecture, that they preferred even his rule to what had
l)receded; and ho])e(l it might lead to a Roman Protectorate, which
would leave Judiva practically independent, or rather under Rabbinic
I'ulc
It was also under the government of Herod, that Hillel and
Shammai lived and taught in Jerusalem:^ the two, whom tradition
cEdiLiM. 4 designates as 'the fathers of old.''' Both gave their names to
' schools, ' whose direction was generally difterent — not unfrequently,
it seems, chiefly for the sake of opposition. But it is not correct to
describe the former as consistently the more liberal and mild. * The
teaching of both was supposed to have been declared by the 'Voice
from Heaven' {tJte JkitJi-(Jol) as 'the words of the living God; ' yet
"jer.Ber. the Luw was to bc henceforth according to the teaching of Hillel."
3 '' lines 3 ...
and 2 from But to US Hillcl IS SO intensely interesting, not merely as the mild
and gentle, nor only as the earnest student who came from Babylon
to learn in the Academies of Jerusalem; who would support his
family on a third of his scanty wages as a day labourer, that he might
l)ay for entrance into the schools; and whose zeal and merits were
only discovered when, after a severe night, in which, from poverty, he
had been unable to gain admittance into the Academy, his bemiinbed
form was taken down from the window-sill, to which he had crept u])
" Conip. tlie (lirifiLssioii of this (lue^tioii ivnd so in the end the name of Tiod be
in Wieseler, Beitr. pp. 215 Ac. profaned.'
'^ Even their recorded fundamental -^ On Hillel and Shammai see the arti-
princijjles l)ear this out. That of She- cle in Ilerzog's Keal-Encyklop. ; that in
niajali was : • Love labour, hate lordship. Ilamhuyr/er's; Di-lifzsch, Jesus u. Hillel,
and do not push forward to the authori- and liooks on Jewish history generally,
ties.' That of Abtalion was: • Ye sages, *A number of ))oints on which the
be careful in your words. lest perchance ordinances of Hillel were more severe
ye incur Ijanishnient, and are exiled to a than those of Shammai are enumerated
lilace of bad waters, and the disciples in Eduj. iv. 1-12; v. 1-4; Ber. 36 a, end.
who follow you drink of tliem and die, Comp. also Ber. R. 1.
HILLEL AND JESUS. 129
not to lose aught of the precious instruction. And for his sake did CIIAP.
they gladly break on that Sabbath the sacred rest. Nor do we think ll
of him, as ti-adition fables him-— the descendant of David," possessed ' — ^r — ■
of every great (luality of body, mind, and heart; nor yet as the second ''^*'''-"-9*
Ezra, whose; learning placed him at the head of the Sanhedrin, Avho
laid down the i)rincii)les afterwards applied and developed ])y Kab-
l)inism, nnd who was the real founder of traditionalism. Still less do
we think of him, as he is lalsely represented by some: as he whose
princii)les closely resemble the teaching of Jesus, or, according to cer-
tain writers, were its source. By the side of Jesus we think of him
otherwise than this. We remember that, in his extreme old age and
near his end, he nuiy have i)resided over that meeting of Sanhedrin
which, in answer to lIerod"s inquiry, pointed to Bethlehem as the
birthplace of the Messiah.''' AVe think of him also as the grand- i>st. Matt.
father of that Gamaliel, at whose feet Saul of Tarsus sat. And to us
he is the representative Jewish reformer, in the spirit of those times,
and in the sense of restoring rather than removing; while we think
of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, in the sense of bringing the
Kingdom of God to all men, and opening it to all l)elievers.
And so there were two worlds in Jerusalem, side l)y side. On
the one hand, was Grecianism with its theatre and amphitheatj'e;
Ibreigners tilling the Court, and crowding the city; foreign tendencies
and ways, from the foreign King downwards. On the other hand,
was the old Jewish world, becoming now set and ossified in the Schools
of Hillel and Shanuuai, and ovi^rshadowed l)y Temple and Synagogue.
And each was pursuing its course, by the side of the other. If Herod
had every wliere his spies, the Jewish law provided its two police ma-
gistrates in Jerusalem, the only Judges who received rcnnmeration.''" •^Jer.
If Herod judged cruelly and despotically, the Sanhedrin Aveighed 35 ,;
- ,. ,' ' 111 • i- • T < /-^ Kethub.
most deliberately, the balance always mclin'mg to mercy. It Greek 104 (^
was the language of the court and cam]i, and indeed nuist have been
understood and spoken by most in the land, the language of the
people, sj^oken also ])y Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the
ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic." It seems
strange, that this could ever have been dcuibted.* A Jewish Messiah
1 On theelironolo,2;y of tlio lifo of Ilillel - Tlie police laws of the Ral)l)is might
A-c, see aUo Sr/tmi/i/. Feb. d. Eiitsteh. well serve as a model for all similar leg-
jVc. (ler Megillatli Taaiiith. esjteeially )>. islatioii.
:'>4. Hillel is said to liave become ('iiief '■ At the same time T can scarcely agree
of the Sanhedrin in rSO K.e.. and to have with Delitzsch and others, that this was
lield the office for f(n-t.v years. These the dialect called -SV'r.sv'. The latter was
numl)ers, however, are no doubt some- rather Syriac. Comp. ie?7/, ad voc.
what exaggerated. * Professor /i\y/(f'/7.s' has a(lvocated. with
130 FKOM BETIILf:HEM TO JORDAN.
HOOK Wlio would ui'ii-o His claiin uijoii Israel in (ircck, seems almost a
11 contradiction in terms. Wc know, that the language of the Temple
^ . — --' and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addrcr^ses of the
Rabbis had to be 'targumed' into the vernacular Aramaean — and
can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have
risen to address the i)e(jple in Greek, or that He would have argued
with the I'harisees and Scribes iu that tongue, especially remembering
that its study was actually forbidden by the Ral)l)is?'
Indeed, it was a peculiar mixture of two worlds in Jerusalem:
not only of the Grecian and the Jewish, but of piety and frivolity also.
The devotion of the people and tiie liberality of the rich were un-
bounded. Fortunes were lavished on the support of Jewish learning,
the promotion of i)iety, or the advance of the national cause.
Thousands of votive ofterings, and the costly gifts in the Temple,
bore evidence of this. If priestly avarice had artificially raised the
price of sacrificial animals, a rich man woidd bring into the Temple
at his own cost the numl)er requisite for the poor. Charity was not
only open-handed, but most delicate, and one who had been in good
circumstances would actually be enal)led to live according to his former
station.- Then these Jerusalemites — townspeople, as they called
themselves — were so polished, so witty, so pleasant. There was a
tact in their social intercourse, and a considerateness and delicacy in
their public arrangements and provisions, nowhere e^lse to be found.
'Bemid. R. Their very language was different. There was a Jerusalem dialect.'
wai^h.p. quicker, shorter, 'lighter' {Lishna Qidila)^ And their hospitality,
i BabaK. Pspccially at festive seasons, was unlimited. No one considered his
house his own, and no stranger or pilgrim but found reception. And
how much there was to be seen and heard in those luxuriously fur-
nished houses, and at those sumptuous ent(n'taininents! In the
women's apartments, friends from the country would see every novelty
in dress, adornment, and jewellery, and have the benefit of examining
themselves in looking-glasses. To be sure, as ])eing womanish vanity,
their use was interdicted to men, except it were to the members of
{i:i-eat iiiiieiuiity, tlie view tliat Clirist and .Je.sn, pp. 4-28; to the latter work by tlie
His Apostles used the Greek iaiisjuaere. same writer (Aittestam. Citate im N.
See especially his 'Discussions on the Test.); to a very interesting article by
Gospels.' The Roman Catholic Cliurch Professor Bditzsch in the ' Daheim ' for
sometimes maintained, that .Jesus and 1874 (No. 27); to Buxforf, sub Gelil;
His disciples spoke Latin, and in 1S22 a to J. B. GohJhpru, 'The Lauijcuage of
work appeared l)y HUirk to ju-ove that Christ"; but esi)ecially to ti. de iiossi,
the N.T.Greek siiowed a Latin ()ri<;:in. Delia lingua ]trop. di Cri.sto (Parma 1772).
' For a full statement of thearicuuients '^ Thus Hillel was said to have hired a
on this sul)ject we refer tlie student to horse, and even an outrunner, for a de-
Bofil, Porsch. n. e. Volk.-;bibel z. Zeit caved rich man !
LIFE AND SOCIETY IN JEIU'SALEM.
13]
the family of tlie rresidont of tlic Sniilicdiin. on account of their
intercourse with those in authority, just as for the same reason they
wore allowed to learn Greek.'' Nor might even women look in the
glass on the Sabbath.'' But that could only apply to those carried in
the hand, since one might be tempted, on the holy day, to do such
servile work as to pull out a grey hair with the pincers attached t(;
the end of the glass; but not to a glass fixed in the lid of a basket:'
nor to such as hung on the wall." And then the lady-visitor might
get anything in Jerusalem; from a false tooth to an Arabian veil, a
Persian shawl, or an Indian dress!
"While the women so learned Jerusalem manners in the inner
apartments, the men would converse on the news of the day, or on
politics. For the Jerusalemites had friends and correspondents in the
most distant parts of the world, and letters were carried by special
messengers," in a kind of post-bag. Nay, there seem to have been
some sort of receiving-offices in towns/ and even something resem-
bling our parcel-post.^ And, strange as it may sound, even a species
of newspapers, or broadsheets, ai)pears to have been circulating
{3Iikhtabhin), not allowed, however, on the Sabbath, unless they
treated of public affairs."
Of course, it is difficult accurately to determine which of these
things were in use in the earliest times, or else introduced at a later
period. Perhaps, however, it was safer to bring them into a picture
of Jewish society. Undoubted, and, alas, too painful evidence comes
to us of the luxuriousness of Jerusalem at that time, and of the moral
corruption to which it led. It seems only too clear, that such com-
mentations as the Talmud' gives of Is. iii. 16-24, in regard to the
manners and modes of attraction practised by a certain class of the
female population in Jerusalem, applied to a far later period than that
of the prophet. With this agrees only too well the recorded covert
lascivious expressions used by the men, which gives a lamentable
picture of the state of morals of many in the city," and the notices of
the indecent dress worn not only by women,' but even by corruj)!
High-Priestly youths. Nor do the exaggerated descriptions of what
the Midrash on Lamentations"' describes as the dignity of the Jeru-
salemites; of the wealth which they lavished on their marriages; of
the ceremony which insisted on repeated invitations to the guests to
a banquet, and that men inferior in rank should not be bidden to it ;
of the dress in which they appeared; the manner in which the dishes
were served, the wine in white crystal vases; and the punishment of
the cook who had failed in his duty, and which was to lie commen-
CHAP.
II
"Jer.Shablp
7 'I
• Shabl..
IW a
<-■ Kel. xiv. (j
■' Tos.
Shabb. xiii.
ed.
Zuckerni.
11. 130
' Shabb. X. 4
f Shabb. 19 «
s Eosh
haSh. 9 6
■i Tos.
Shabb.
xviii.
i Shabb.
62 l>
^ Com p.
Shabb. G-Jh,
last line
nnd first <ii
()3 a
' Kel. xxiv.
16; xxviU. S
»' On eh. iv.
132
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK suratc to the digiiitv ut the i)arty — give a better impression of the
II great world iu Jerusalem.
— ^ And yet it was the City of God, over whose destruction not only
the Patriarch and Moses, but the Angelic hosts — nay, the Ahnighty
Himself and His iShekhinah — had made bitterest lamentation.' The
City of the Prophets, also — since each of them whose birthplace had
Mog. i5-( not I)een mentioned, must be reganled as having sprung from it."
f]qually, even more, marked, but now for joy and triumph, would be
tlie hour of Jerusalem's uprising, when it would welcome its Messiah.
Oh, when would He come? In the feverish excitement of expectancy
they were only too ready to listen to the voice of any pretender, ho"w-
cver coarse and clumsy the imposture. Yet He was at hand — even
now coming: only quite otlier than the Messiah of their dreams.
' He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as
many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of
God, even to them that V)elieve on HisXame."
' See the Iiitroductioti to tlie Midrasli plieinous — that we do not venture on
on Lamentations. But some of tlie (luotation.
descriptions are so painful — even bias-
MOliNlNG IN THK TEMl'LE.
133
CHAPTER Til.
THE ANNUNCIATION OF ST. ,IOHN THE BAPTIST.
CHAP.
Ill
(St. Luke i. .''.-25.)
It was tlic time of the Morning Sacrifice' As the massive Templc-
^ates slowly swung on their liinges, a thrco-tbld blast IVom the silver
trumpets of the Priests seemed to waken the City, as with the Voice ^— -y^"^
of God, to the life of another day. As its echoes came in the still
air across the cleft of the Tyroi)oeon, up the slopes of the Upper
City, d(jwn the busy quarters below, or away to the new suburb
beyond, they must, if but for a moment, have brought holier thoughts
to all. For, did it not seem to link the present to the past and the
future, as with the golden chain of promises that bound the Holy
City to tlie Jei-usalem that was above, which in tyi)e had already,
and in reality would soon descend from heaven? Patriot, saint, or
stranger, he could not have heard it unmoved, as thrice the summons
from within the Temi)le-gates rose and tell.
It hail not come too soon. The Levites on ministry, and those of
the laity, whose 'course' it was to act as the representatives of Israel,
\\hetlier in Palestine or f\ir away, in a sacrifice provided by, and
otfci-ed for, all Israel, hastened to their duties.' For already the blush
of dawn, for which the Priest on the highest pinnacle of the Temple
had watched, to give the signal for beginning the services of the day,
had shot its brightness far away to Hebron and beyond. Within the
Courts below all had long been busy. At some time previously,
unknown to those who waited for the morning — whether at cock-
crowing, or a little earliei- or later," the sujierintending Priest lia<l "Tamidi.2
summoned to their sacred functions those who had ' washed, ' according
' AVe presume, that tlie ministration of
Zaciiarias (St. Luke i. 9) took place in the
mornino;, as the principal service. But
.lA/'/yer (Komni. 1. 2, p. 242) is mistaken
ill sui)posing, that this follows from the
reference to the lot. It is, indeed, ti'ue
that, of the four lots for the priestly func-
tions, three took i)iace only in the morn-
in,2:. But that for incensing was repeated
in the evenins; (Yoma2()r4. Even Bishop
H((neb(^r<i (Die Relig. Altertii. p. fiOi)) is
not accurate in this respect.
- For a (lescrii)tion of tlie details of
that service, see 'The Temple ami its
Services,' &c.
134 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
R(^OK to the ordinance. There must have been each day about fifty priests
n on duty.' Such of them as were ready now divided into two parties,
■ r — to make inspection of the Temple courts by torchlight. Presently
they met, and trooped to the well-known Hall of Hewn Polished
• Yoma25a gtones/Mvhere formerly the Sanhedrin had been wont to sit. The
ministry for the day was there apportioned. To prevent the disputes
of carnal zeal, the * lot ' was to assign to each his function. Four
times was it resorted to : twice before, and twice after the Temple-gates
were opened. The first act of their ministry had to be done in the
grey dawn, by the fitful red light that glowed on the altar of burnt
otfering, ere the priests had stirred it into fresh flame. It was scarcely
daybreak, when a second time they met for the ' lot,' which designated
those who Avere to take part in the sacrifice itself, and who were to
trim the golden candlestick, and make ready the altar of incense
within the Holy Place. And now morn had broken, and nothing
remained before the admission of worshippers but to lu'ing out the
lamb, once again to make sure of its fitness for sacrifice, to water it
from a golden bowl, and then to lay it in mystic fashion — as tradition
described the binding of Isaac — on the north side of the altar, with
its face to the west.
All, priests and laity, were present as the Priest, standing on the
east side of the altar, from a golden bowl sprinkled with sacrificial
blood two sides of the altai', below the red line which marked the
difterence between ordinary sacrifices and those that Avere to be
wholly consumed. While the sacrifice was prepared for the altar,
the priests, whose lot it was, had made ready all within the Holy
Place, where the most solemn part of the day's service was to take
place — that of offering the incense, which symbolised Israel's accepted
prayers. Again was the lot (the third) cast to indicate him^ who was
to l)e honoured w^ith this highest mediatorial act. Only once in a
'•Tamiav.2 lifetime might any one enjoy that privilege." Henceforth he was
called 'rich,'^ and must leave to his brethren the hope of the dis-
tinction which had been granted him. It was fitting that, as the
• If we reckon the total number in tbe wliole course would be on duty. This i^^,
twenty-four courses of, presumably, the of course, considerably more than the
officiating priesthood, at 20,000, accord- number requisite, since, except for the
ing to Josej)hus (Ag. Ap. ii. 8), which is incensing priest, the lot for the morning
very much below the exaggerated Tal- also held good for the evening sacrifice,
mudic computation of 85,000 for the '^ Yoma 26 r^ The designation 'rich'
smallest course (Jer. Taan. 69 a), and is derived from the promise which, in
suppose, tiiat little more than one-third Deut. xxxiii. 11. follows on the service
of each course had come up for duty. referred to in verse 10. But probably a
this would give fifty priests for each spiritual application was also intended,
week-day, while on the Pabbatli the
ZAriTAlUAS OF THE COURSE OF ARIA.' 135
custom was, siicli lot slioiild be prceeded by prayer and eoiit'ession of CHAP,
their faith ' on the part of the assembled priests. ni
It was the tirst Aveek in October 748 a.u.c, '^ that is, in the sixth ~ — ^r — '
year before our present era, when ' the course of Abia'^ — the eighth
in the original arrangement of the weekly service — was on duty in
the Temple. True this, as indeed most of the twenty -four ' courses '
into which the Priesthood had been arranged, could not claim
identity, only continuity, with those whose names they liore. For
only three, or at most four, of the ancient ' courses " had returned
from Ba))ylon. But the original arrangenjent had been i)reserved,
the names of the missing courses being retained, and their number
filled up by lot from among those who had come back to Palestine.
In oiir ignorance of the number of ' houses of their father,' or
'families,' which constituted the 'course of Abia,' it is impossible to
determine, how the services of that Aveek had been apportioned
among them. But this is of comparatively small importance, since
there is no doubt about the central figure in the scene.
In the group ranged that autumn morning around the super-
intending Priest was one, on whom the snows of at least sixty winters
had fallen.^ But never during these many years had he been
honoured Avith the office of incensing — and it Avas perhaps well he
should have learned, that this distinction came direct from God.
Yet the venerable figure of Zacharias must have been w^ell known
in the Temple. For, each course Avas tAvice a year on ministry, and,
unlike the Levites, the priests Avere not disqualified by age, but only
by infirmity. In many respects he seemed ditt'erent from those
around. His home Avas not in either of the great priest-centres —
the Ophel-quarter in Jerusalem, nor in Jericho^ — but in some snmll
town in those uplands, south of Jerusalem: the historic ■ liill-countiy
of Judaea.' And yet he might have claimed distinction. To l)c a
priest, and married to the daughter of a priest, was supposed to
convey twofold honour." That he Avas surrounded by relatives and
friends, and that he was Avell known and respected throughout his
' Tlic so-called Shcma, consistina; of hotli 'well ,-iti'ickeii in years.' I>iit IVom
Dent. vi. 4-5): xi. 13-21; \uni. xv. 37-41. Aboth v. 21 we learn, that sixty years
''■ The question of this date i.s, of was considered ' the coniniencement of
conr.se, intimately connected with that of aii'eduess.'
the Nativity of Christ, ami could there- = Accordiuii' to tradition. al)out one-
fore not be treated in the text. It is dis- fourth of the priesthood was resident in
cussed in Apiiendix VII.: • On tlie Date Jericho. But, even limit iiii!,' this to those
of the Nativity of our Lord.' who were in the haljit of otliciatinji;, the
■' This was the eii^hth course in the statement seems ,2;reatly exacjgerated.
orij-'inal arraiiiijement (1 Chr. xxiv. 10). " Comp. Ber. 44 a; Pes. 4i) a\ Vayyikra
* Acconliuii' to St. Luke i. 7, they were R. 4.
136
FROM BKTllLEHE.M TO JORDAN.
BOOK district, appears iucideiitally Iroin the narrative.' It would, indeed,
II have been strange had it been otherwise. There was niueh in tlie
■ — - ,- — - poijuhir habits of tliought, as well as in the office and privileges of
»st.Lukei. the Priesthood, if worthily represented, to invest it with a vonera-
58, 59, 61, 65, . . i • •
C6 tion which the aggressive claims of Kabbinisni could not Avholly
monopolise. And in this instance Zacharias and Elisabeth, his wife,
were truly 'righteous," ^ in the sense of walking, so fa'r as man could
judge, 'blamelessly," alike in those commandments which were
specially l)inding on Israel, and in those statutes that were of
universal bearing on mankind.^ No doubt their piety assumed in
some measure the form of the time, being, if we must use the
expression, Pharisaic, though in the good, not the evil sense of it.
There is much about those earlier Rabbis — Hillel, Gamaliel, and
others — to attract us, and their spirit ofttimes shari)ly contrasts witli
the narrow bigotry, the self-glory, and the unspiritual externalism of
their successors. We may not unreasonably infer, that the Tsadcliq
in the quiet home of the hill-country was quite other than the self-
asserting Rabbi, whose dress and gait, voice and manner, words and
even prayers, were those of the religious parvenu, i)ushing his claims
to distinction before angels and men. Such a household as that of
Zacharias and Elisabeth Avould have all that was beautiful in the
religion of the tiiYie: devotion towards God; a home of atl'ection
and purity; reverence towards all that was sacred in things Divine
and human; ungrudging, self-denying, loving charity to the poor;
the teiiderest regard for the feelings of others, so as not to raise a
blush, nor to wound their hearts;* above all, intense faith and hope
in the higher and better future of Israel. Of such, indeed, there
must have been not a few in the land — the quiet, the prayerful, the
pious, who, though certainly not Sadducees nor Essenes, but reckoned
with tlie Pharisaic party, waited for the consolation of Israel, and
received it with joy when manifested. Nor could aught more
certainly have marked the difference between the one and the other
^ diKaivi — of course not in tlie strict determine tbeir exact Hebrew equiva-
sense in which the word is sometimes lents. The LXX. render by these two
used, especially by St. Paul, but as pius terms not always tlie same Hebrew
e! bonus. See Vorstms (De Hebraism. words. Comp. Gen. xxvi. 5 witli Deut.
N.T. pp. 5.5 A-c. ). As tiie account of tlie iv. 40. They cannot refer to the division
Evan<::elist seems derived from an orii;- of tiic law into atlirmative |24S) and pro-
inal Hebrew source, the word must have hibiiive (o()5) commandments,
corresponded to that of Tmddifi in tlie ■' There is. perhaps, no point on which
then popular siizinitlcation. the Rabbinic Law is more explicit or
'■^ EVToXai-Aw\ 6 /K-atfij/ztrrcr evidently strin<;ent than on that of tenderest reji-ard
mark an essential division of the Law at for the feelings of others, especially of
the time. But it is almost impossible to the poor.
THE CELEBRANT WITHIN THE HOLY PLACE. |;>7
section than on a matter, whiclnnust almost daily, and most painfully, CHAP,
have forced itself on Zacharias and Elisabeth. There were amonii- Hi
the Rabbis those who, remembering the words of the prophet," spoke '- — ■ — '
in most pathetic language of the wrong of parting from the wife of "M-iiii- w-
youth," and there were those to whom the bare fact of childlessness ^■am.wh
rendered separation a religious duty." Elisabeth was childless. For Yeb. w</
many a year this must have been the burden of Zacharias' i)raycr;
the burden also of reproach, which p]lisabeth seemed always to caiiy
with her. They had waited together these many years, till in rlic
evening of life the flower of hope had closed its fragrant cup; and
still the two sat together in the twilight, content to wait in loneliness,
till night would close around them.
But on that bright autumn morning in the Temple no such
thoughts would come to Zacharias. For the first, and for the last
time in life the lot had nmrked him for incensing, and every thought
must have centred on what was before him. Even outwardly, all
attention would he requisite for the proper performance of his office.
First, he had to choose two of his special friends or relatives, to
assist in his sacred service. Their duties were comparatively simple.
One reverently removed what had been left on the altar from the
previous evening's service; then, worshipping, retired l)ackwar(ls.
The second assistant now advanced, and, having spread to the utmost
verge. of the golden altar the live coals taken from that of burnt-
olfering, worshipped and retired. Meanwhile the sound of the
'organ' (the INlagrephah), heard to the most distant pails of the
Temple, and, according to tradition, far beyond its precinets. had
summoned priests, Levites, and people to prepare for whatever ser-
vice or duty was before them. For, this was the innermost i)art
of the worship of the day. But the celebrant Priest, bearing the
golden censer, stood alone within the Holy Place, lit by the sheen of
the seven-branched candlestick. Before him — somewhat farther a way,
towards the heavy Veil that hung before the Holy of Holies, was the
golden altar of incense, on which the red coals glowed. To his right
(the left of the altar — that is, on the north side) was the table of
shewbread; to his left, (m the right or south side of the altar, was the
golden candlestick. And still he waited, as instructed to do. till a
special signal indicated, that the moment had eome to spread the
incense on the altar, as near as possible to the Holy of Holies.
Priests and people had reverently withdrawn from the neighbourhood
of the altar, and were prostrate before the Lord, otfering unspoken
worship, in which record of past deliverance, longing (or mercies
138 FROM iJHTHLEIIEM To JOK'DAX.
i!(K»K |»i'(»iiiiso(l ill the t'litmc. mid cutivaty I'or present blessing and peace,'
" seemed the iugietlients of the incense, that rose in a fragrant cloud
^- — .^—- ^ of praise and prayer. Deep silence had fallen on the worshippers, as
if they watched to heaven the prayers of Israel, ascending in the
"Kev. V. X; fjoud of ' odours ' that rose from the golden altar in the Holy Place."
viii. 1. a. 4 . . . . . .
Zacharias waited, until he saw the incense kindling. Then he also
iT.uiiid vi. would have ' l)Oweddown in worship,' and reverently withdraAvn,'' had
not a won< Irons sight arrested his steps.
On the right (or south) side of the altar, Ijetween it and the
golden candlestick, stood what he could not but recognise as an
Angelic form.'- Never, indeed, had even tradition reported such a
vision to an ordinary Priest in the act of incensing. The two super-
natural ai)paritions recorded — one of an Angel each year of the
Pontificate of Simon the Just; the other in that blasphemous account
of the vision of the Almighty by Ishraael, the son of Elisha, and of
' Ber. 7 n the coiiversatioii which then ensued '' ^ — had both been vouchsafed to
High-Priests, and on the Day of Atonement. Still, there was always
uneasiness among the people as any mortal approached the immediate
d jer. Yoma Prescncc of God, and every delay in his return seemed ominous.* No
wonder, then, that Zacharias ^ was troubled, and fear fell on him,'
as of a sudden — probably just after he had spread the incense on the
altar, and was about to offer his parting prayer — he beheld Avhat
afterwards he knew to be the Angel Gabriel ('the might of God').
Apart from higher considerations, there could perhaps be no better
evidence of the truth of this narrative than its accord with psycho-
logical facts. An Apocryphal narrative would probably have painted
the scene in agreement with what, in the view of such a writer,
should have been the feelings of Zacharias, and the language of the
Angel.* The Angel would have commenced by referring to Zacharias'
prayers for the coining of a Messiah, and Zacharias would have been
represented in a highly enthusiastic state. Instead of the strangely
]irosaic objection which he offered to the Angelic announcement, there
would have been a burst of spiritual sentiment, or what passed for
such. But all this would have been psychologically untrue. There
1 For the prayers offered by the people Simeon ben Asai said : From the side of
diirin.<r the incensing, see 'The Temple,' the altar of incense.'
VP. li59, 140. '■> According to the Talmud, Ishinael
■■' The following extract from Yalkut once went into the innermost Sanctuary,
(vol. i. p. 113 (I, close) affords a curious when he had a vision of God, AVlio
illnstration of this Divine communication called ujton the priest to ])ronounce a
from beside the altar of incense: 'From benediction. The token of God's accept-
what place did tlie Shekhinah sjieak to aiice luid l^etter not be quoted.
Moses? R. Natlian said: From the altar * Instances of an analogous kind fre-
of incense, according to Ex. xxx. (i. quently occur in the Apociyphal Gosi)els.
THE VISION AM) I'liOPIIECY OF THE ANGEL. I39
are nioinoiits ol' moral laiiiliK'ss, .•^o to speak, wlieii the vital powers ciiaI'.
of the spiritual heart are depressed, and. as in the ease of the Dis- m
ciples on the Mount of Trunsliguration and in the (iarden of (letli- '- — -^^
scmane, the physieal part of our being and all that is weakest in us
assert their power.
It was true to this state of senii-eonseiousness, that the Angxd
first awakened within Zaeharias the renienit)rancc of life-long i)rayers
and hopes, which had now passed into the background of his being,
and then suddenly startled him l)y the promise of their realisation.
But that Child of so many prayers, who was' to bear the signiticant
name of John (Jehochanan, or Jochanan), ' the Lord is gracious,' Avas
to be the source of Joy and gladness to a far wider circle than that of
the family. This might be called the tirst rung of the ladder by
which the Angel would take the i)riest upwards. Xor Avas even this
followed by an immediate disclosure of what, in such a place, and
from such a messenger, must have carried to a believing heart the
thrill of almost unspeakable emotion. Rather Avas Zaeharias led
upAvards, step by step. The Child Avas to be great before the Lord;
not only an ordinary, but a life-Nazarite,' as Samson and Samuel of
old had been. Like them, he was not to consecrate himself, but from
the inception of life Avholly to belong to God, for His Avork. And,
greater than either of these representatives of the symbolical import
of Nazarism, he Avould combine the tAvofold meaning of their mission
— outAvard and inward might in God, only in a higher and more
spiritual sense. For this life-Avork he Avould be tilled Avitli the
Holy Ghost, from the moment life Avoke Avithin him. Then, as
another Samson, Av^ould he, in the strength of God, lift the axe to each
tree to be felled, and, like another Sanniel, turn nuiny of the children
of Israel to the Lord their God. Nay, combining these tAvo missions,
as did Elijah on Mount Carmel, he should, in accordance Avith
prophecy,'* precede the Messianic manifestation, and, not indeed in the ■ Mai. m. 1
person or form, but in the spirit and power of Elijah, accomplish the
typical meaning of his mission, as on that da}^ of decision it had risen
as the burden of his i)rayer'' — that is, in the Avords of proi)hecv.' "i Kings
' • . xviii. 37
'turn the heart of the fathers to the children,' which, m vicav of the cjiai. iv. .5,
coming dispensation, Avould be 'the disobedient {fo nrdJi') in the ^'
Avisdom of the just.'" Thus would this new Elijah 'make ready for 'st. Luke
the Lord a people prepared.' st.Matt^xi!
If the apparition of the Angel, in that place, and at that time,
had overwhelmed the aged priest, the Avords Avhich he heard must
' On the different classes of Nazarites, see 'The Temple, A-c.,' pj). 322-331.
I'.t
140 ^'RO^l r>ETHLEHEM TO JORDAxX.
BOOK have filled him with such bcwildenneut, that for the moment ho
II scarcely realised their meaning. One idea alone, which had struck
^— 'v — ' its roots so long in his consciousness, stood out: A son — while, as it
were in the dim distance beyond, stretched, as covered Avith a mist of
glory, all those marvellous things that w*erc to be connected with him.
So, when age or strong feeling renders us almost insensible to the
present, it is ever that which connects itself with the past, rathei-
than with the present, which emerges first and strongest in our
consciousness. And so it was the obvious doubt, that would suggest
itself, which fell from his lips — almost unconscious of what he said.
Yet there was in his words an element of faith also, or at least of
hope, as he asked for some pledge or confirmation of what he had
heard.
It is this demand of some visible sign, by which to 'know' all
that the Angel had promised, which distinguishes the doubt of
■iGeii. xvii. Zacharias from that of Abraham, ' or of Manoah and his wife,'' under
17, IH . .
bjudg. sin somewhat similar circumstances — although, otherwise also, even a
^^^ cursory reading must convey the impression of most marked ditfcr-
ences. Nor ought we perhaps to forget, that we are on the threshold
of a dispensation, to Avhich faith is the only entrance. This door
Zacharias was now" to hold ajar, a, dumb messenger. He that would
not speak the ])raises of God, but asked a sign, received it. His
dumbness was a sign — though the sign, as it were the dumb child of
the prayer of unbelief, was its i)unishment also. And yet, when
rightly a])i)lied, a sign in another sense also — a sign to the waiting
multitude in the Temple; a sign to p]lisabetli; to all who knew
Zacharias in the hill-country; and to the priest himself, during those
nine months of retirement and inward solitude; a sign nho that
would kindle int(i fiery flame in the day when God would loosen his
tongue.
A i)('i-iod of unusual length had ])assed, since the signal for
incensing luul been given. The prayers of the peojjle had been
oftered, and their anxious gaze was directed tow^ards the Holy Place.
At last Zacharias emerged to take his stand on the to]) of the steps
which led tVom the Porch to the Court of the Priests, waiting to lead
cNumb. vi. in the priestly benediction," that preceded the daily meat-otfering
and the cliant of the Psalms of praise, accompanied with joyous
sound of music, as the drink-offering was poured out. But already
the sign of Zacharias was to be a sign to all the peojjle. The pieces
of the sacrifices had been ranged in due order on the altar of burnt-
off'ering: the priests stood on the steps to the porch, and the people
WAS THERE SUCH JEWISH EXPECTANCY? 141
were in waiting. Zacluirias essayed to speak the words of bencdic- chap.
tion, unconscious that tlie stroke liad fallen. But tlie people knew HI
it by his silence, that he had seen a vision in the Temple. Yet as he ^— -^
stood helpless, trying by signs to indicate it to the awestruck assem-
bly, he renudncd dumb.
Wondering, they had dispersed — people and priests. The day's
service over, another family of ministrants took the place of those
among whom Zacharias had been; and again, at the close of the
week's service, another ' course ' that of Abia. They returned to
their homes — some to Ophel, some to Jericho, some to their quiet
dwellings in the country. But God fulfilled the word which He had
spoken by His Angel.
Before leaving this subject, it may be well to inquire into the
relation between the events just described, and the customs and ex-
pectations of the time. The scene in the Temple, and all the sur-
roundings, are in strictest accordance with what we knoAv of the
services of the Sanctuary. In a narrative that lays hold on some
details of a very complex service, such entire accuracy conveys the
impression of general truthfulness. Sinularly, the sketch of Zacharias
and Elisabeth is true to the history of the time — though Zacharias
could not have been one of the 'learned,' nor to the Rabbinists, a
model priest. They would have described him as an ' idiot, ' ' or com-
mon, and as an Amha-arets, a ' rustic ' priest, and treated him
with benevolent contempt.^ The Angelic apparition, which he saw, was
wholly uni)rccedented,and could therefore not have lain within range
of connnon expectation; though the possibility, or rather the fear, of
some contact with the Divine Avas always present to the popular mind.
But it is difficult to conceive how, if not true, the invention of such
a vision in such circumstances could have suggested itself This
difficulty is enhanced by the obvicnis differences between the Evangelic
narrative, and the popular ideas of the lime. Far too much import-
ance has here been attached by a certain class of writers to a Rab-
binic saving, " that the names of the Angels were brought from Babylon. ••' Jer.
For, not only was this saying (of Ben Lakish) only a clever Scriptural uneiofrow
deduction (as the context shows),, and not even an actual tradition,
but no com[)etent critic would venture to lay down the principle, that
isolate<l Rabbinic sayings in the Talmud are to be regarded as
sufficient foundation for historical facts. On the other hand, Rab-
1 The word j;«^--, or ■ i<li(it,' when con- erate. See Jer. Sot. 21 A. line .S from
joined with 'priest" ordinarily ineaii.s a bottom; Sanh. 21 b. Com)), atso Mei:;.
common priest, in distinction to the Hiiili 12 />: Ber. R. 06.
priest. But the word un((uestional)ly ■ Accordin,i>- to Sanh. 90 h. such an one
also signifies vulvar, iiiiiorant. and illit- was not even allowed to get the Terumah.
142
FROM BETPILEHE.M TO JORDAN.
BOOK
ir
18
•> Dau. ix.21
<:X. 21
■1 Moed K.
•26 a
f 1 Kinf,'3
xvlii. 37 (in
Hebr. with-
out ' Hint '
and
' again');
see Ber.
31 b, last
two lines
fBemidbar
K. 14. An-
other view
In Par. Vi
biiiic tradition docs lay it down, that the names of the Angels were
derived from their mission, and might be changed with it. Thus the
reply of the Angel to the inquiry of Manoali * is explained as imply-
ing, that he knew not what other name might be given him in the fu-
ture. In the Book of Daniel, to which the son of Lakish refers, the
only two Angelic names mentioned are GabrieP and Michael," while
the appeal to the B<jok of Daniel, as evidence of the Babylonish ori-
gin of Jewish Angelology, comes with strange inconsistency from writ-
ers who date it in Maccabean times. ^ But the question of Angelic
nomenclature is quite secondary. The real point at issue is, whether or
not the Angelology and Demonology of the New Testament was derived
from contemporary Judaism. The opinion, that such was the case,
has been so dogmatically asserted, as to have almost passed among a
certain class as a settled fact. That nevertheless such was 7iot the
case, is capal^le of the most ample proof. Here also, with similarity of
form, slighter than usually, there is absolute contrast of substance.^
Admitting that the names of Gabriel and Michael must have been
familiar to the mind of Zacharias, some not unimportant differences
must be kept in view. Thus, Gabriel was regarded in tradition as
inferior to Michael; and, though both were connected with Israel,
Gabriel was represented as chiefly the minister of justice, and Michael
of mercy; while, thirdly, Gal)riel was supposed to stand on the left,
and not (as in the Evangelic narrative) on the right, side of the
throne of glory. Small as these divergences may seem, they are all-
important, when derivation of one set of opinions from another is in
question. Finally, as regarded the coming of Elijah as forerunner of
the Messiah, it is to be observed that, according to Jewish notions, he
was to am^ear personally, Siml not merely ' in spirit and power.' In fact,
tradition represents his ministry and appearances as almost continu-
ous— not only immediately before the coming of Messiah, but at all
times. Rabbinic writings introduce him on the scene, not only fre-
quently, but on the most incongruous occasions, and for the most diverse
l)urposes. In this sense it is said of him, that he always liveth.'' Some-
times, indeed, he is ])lamed, as for the closing words in his prayer about
the turning of the heart of the people," and even his sacrifice on Carmel
was only excused on the ground of express command.' But his great
activity as precursor of the Messiah is to resolve doubts of all kinds;
to reintroduce those who liiul been violently and improperly extruded
' Two other Anirel:< arc iiicntioiicil. liiit
not naine<l. in Dan. x. IH. 20.
'^ The .JeNvi.sli idea.sand teachins' about
aiijrels are fully iijiven in Aijpcndix XIII. :
•.Jewish Aiigeloloffy and l)einonoloiry.'
WAITING IN TIIK IIILL-COINTHY OF Jl'D/KA. 14:{
from the congregation of Lsracl, and vice-v(4't?a; to make peace; while, CHAP,
finally, he was connected with the raising of tlie dead." ' IJut no- HI
where is he prominently designated as intended 'to nmke ready for "--^.^ —
the Lord a i)eoi)le prepared.''^ w7'"?'S,
I I I I Slur haSli
Thus, from whatever source the narrative may be supposed to liavc ^a^a^au
been derived, its details certainly dilfer, in almost all particulars, from p- ^"
the theological notions current at the time. And the more Zacharias
meditated on this in the long solitude of his enforced silence, the more
fully must new spiritual thoughts have come to him. As for Elisabeth,
those tender feelings of woman, which ever shrink from the disclosure
of the dearest secret of motherhood, were intensely deepened and
sanctified in the knowh'dge of all that had passed. Little as she
might understand the full meaning of tlie future, it must have been
to her, as if she also now stood in the Holy IMace, gazing towards the
Veil which concealed tlie innermost Presence. Meantime she was
content with, nay, felt tlie need of, absolute retirement from other
fellowship tlian that of God and her own heart. Like her husband,
she too would be silent and alone — till another v(nce called her forth.
Whatever the future might bring, sufficient for the present, that thus
the Lord had done to her, in days in which He looked down to
remove her reproach among men. The removal of that burden, its
manner, its meaning, its end, were all from God, and with God; and
it was fitting to be quite alone and silent, till God's voice would
again wake the echoes within. And so five months passed in absolute
retirement.
1 All the Rabbinic traditions about great repentance till Elijah — his memory
'Elijah as the Forerunner of the Messiah' for blessing! — come, as it is said, Mai.
are collated in Appendix VIII. iv. 6,' &c. From this isolated and enig-
^ I should, however, remark, that that matic sentence. Professor Deh'tzsck's ini-
very curious chapter on Repentance, in the plied inference (Zeitschr. fiir Luther.
Pirke de R. Elieser (c. 43), closes with Theol. 1875, p. 593) seems too sweeping,
these words : ' And Israel will not make
144 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ANNUNCIATION OF JESUS THE MESSIAH, AND THE BIRTH
OF HIS FORERUNNER.
(St. Matt. i. ; St. Luke i. 26-80.)
BOOK From the Temple to Nazareth! It seems indeed most fitting that the
II Evangelic story shoidd have taken its beginning within the Sanctuary,
■"'^ — ' and at the time of sacrifice. Despite its outward veneration for them,
the Temple, its services, and specially its sacrifices, were, by an
inward logical necessity, fast becoming a superfluity for Rabbinism.
But the new development, passing over the intruded elements, which
were, after all, of rationalistic origin, connected its beginning directly
with the Old Testament dispensation — its sacrifices, priesthood, and
promises. In the Sanctuary, in connection with sacrifice, and through
the priesthood — such was significantly the beginning of the era of
fulfillment. And so the great religious reformation of Israel under
Samuel had also begun in the Tabernacle, which had so long been in
the background. But if, even in this Temple-beginning, and in the
communication to, and selection of an idiot 'priest,' there was marked
divergence from the Rabbinic ideal, that difference widens into the
sharpest contrast, as we pass from the Forerunner to. the Messiah,
from the Temple to Galilee, from the ' idiot ' priest to the humble,
unlettered family of Nazareth. It is necessary here to recall our
general impression of Rabbinism: its conception of God, ^ and of the
highest good and ultimate object of all things, as concentrated in
learned study, pursued in Academies; and then to think of the un-
mitigated contempt with which they were wont to speak of Galilee,
and of the Galileans, whose vary patois was an offence; of the utter
abhorrence with which they regarded the unlettered country-people,
' Terrible as it may sound, it is cer- farther in its flaring and speal<s of tiie
tainly the teachina; of Rabbinism, that Ahuifjhty as arrayed in a white di-ess, or
God occupied so many hours every day as occupying himself by day with the
in the study of the Law. Comp. Tarsi. study of the Bible, and' by night with
Ps.-Jonathan on Dent, xxxii. 4, and that of the six tractates of the Mishnah.
Abhod. Z. '^ h. Nay, Rabbinism goes Comp. also the Targum on Cant. v. 10.
THE HOME OF NAZARETH. I45
ill oi(l(!i' to realise, how sucli an household as that of Joseph and Mary CHAP.
would be regarded l)y the leaders of Israel. A Messianic announce- IV
ment, not the result of learned investigation, nor connected with ^ — y — ^
the A(^ad(!inies, l)ut in the Sanctuary, to a 'rustic' priest; an Elijah
una])le to untie the intellectual or ecclesiastical knots, of whose
mission, indeed, this formed no part at all; and a Messiah, the off-
s|)ring of a Virgin in Galilee betrothed to a humble workman —
assuredly, such a picture of the fulfillment of Israel's hope could never
have been conceive<l by contempoi-ary Judaism. There was in such a
Messiah absolutely nothing — ])ast, present, or possible; intellectually,
leligiously, or even nationally — to attract, but all to repel. And so
we can, at the very outset of this history, understand the intinite
contrast which it embodied — with all the difRculties to its reception,
even to those who became disciples, as at almost every step of its pro-
gress they were, with ever fresh surprise, recalled from all that they
had formerly thought, to that which was so entirely new and strange.
And yet, just as Zacharias may be described as the representative
of the good and the true in the Priesthood at that time, so the family
of Nazareth as a typical Israelitish household. We feel, that the
scantiness of particulars here sui>plied l)y the Gospels, was intended
to prevent the human interest from overshadowing the grand central
Fact, to which alone attention was to be directed. For, the design of
tlie Gospels was manifestly not to furnish a biography of Jesus the
-Messiah, ' but, in organic connection with the Old Testament, to tell
the history of the long-promised establishment of the Kingdom of
God upon earth. Yet what scanty details we possess of the ' Holy
Family' and its surroundings may here fin<l a place.
The highlands which foi-m the central portion of Palestine are
broken by the wide, rich ])lain of Jezreel, which severs Galilee from
the rest of the land. This was always the great battle-tield of Israel.
Appropriately, it is shut in as between mountain-walls. That along
the north of the i)lain is formed l)y the mountains of Lower Galilee,
cleft about the middle by a valley that widens, till, after an hour's
jouru'-y, we stand within an enclosure which seems almost one of
Natui'c's own sanctuai-ies. As in an am]ihitheatre, fifteen hill-tops
rise around. That to the west is the highest — about 500 feet. On
its lower slopes nestles a little town, its narrow streets ranged like
terraces. This is Nazareth, probably the ancient Sai-id (or Kn-Sarid),
' The object wliich the Evaiis;elists hud tains no V)ioi2:nii)liy. The twofold ol)Ject
in view was certainly not that of bio- of their narratives is indicated l»y St.
graphy, even as the Old Testament con- Luke i. 4. and by 8t. John xx. M.
146
FROM BETHLEHEM TO .lOKDAN.
BOOK
II
•' Josh. xix.
10, 11
wliicli, in the tiiuo of Joshua, marked the northern boundary of
Zei)uhin. "'
Climbing this steep hill, fragrant with aromatic plants, and bright
with rich-coloured flowers, a view almost unsur})assed opens before us.
For, tlie Galilee of the time of Jesus was not only of the richest
fertility, cultivated to the utmost, and thickly covered with populous
towns and villages, but the centre of every known industry, and the
busy road of the world's commerce. Northward the eye would sweep
over a rich plain; rest here and there on white towns, glittering in
the sunlight; then quickly travel over the romantic hills and glens
which form the scenes of Solomon's Song, till, passing beyond Safed
(the Tsephath of the Rabbis — the 'city set on an hill'), the view is
bounded by that giant of the far-ofl' mountain-chain, snow-tipped
Hermon. Westward stretched a like scene of beauty and wealth — a
land not lonely, but wedded; not desolate, but teeming with life;
while, on the edge of the horizon, lay i)urple Carmel; beyond it a
fringe of silver sand, and then the dazzling sheen of the Great Sea.
In the farthest distance, white sails, like wings outspread towards the
ends of the woi-ld; nearer, busy ports; then, centres of industry;
and close by, travelled roads, all bright in the pure Eastern air and
rich glow of the sun. But if you turned eastwards, the eye would
soon be arrested by the wooded height of Tabor, yet not before at-
tention had been riveted by the long, narrow string of fantastic cara-
vans, and curiosity roused by the motley figures, of all nationalities
and in all costumes, busy binding the East to the West by that line
of commerce that passed along the route winding around Tabor. And
when, weary with the gaze, you looked once more down on little
Nazareth nestling on the breast of the mountain, the eye would rest
on a scene of tranquil, homely beauty. Just outside the town, in the
north-west, bul)bled the spring or well, the trysting-spot of towns-
people, and welcome resting-place of travellers. Beyond it stretched
lines of houses, each with its flat roof standing out distinctly against
the clear sky; watered, terraced gardens, gnarled wide-spreading fig-
trees, graceful feathery palms, scented oranges, silvery olive-trees,
thick hedges, rich pasture-land, then the bounding hills to the south;
' The name Nazareth may best be re-
garded as the equivalent of niil.
' watch ' or ' watcheress.' The name does
not occur in tlic Tahnud, nor in those
Midrashim which have been preserved.
But the ele^y of Eleazar ha Kallir —
written before the close of the Talmud —
in wiiich Nazareth is mentioned as a Priest-
centre, is based upon an ancient Midrash,
now lost (comp. Neuhauer, Geogr. du
Talmud, p. 117, note 5). It is, however,
possible, as Dr. Neuhauer su2:gests fu. s.
p. 190, note 5), that the name n^Hij; '"
Midr. on Eccl. ii. 8 should read n^-iy;,
and refers to Nazaretli.
NAZARETH AS THE 1M>ACE OF JE8US' UFJiKiXGlNG. 147
and beyoiul, the seemingly unluxinded expanse of the wide plain (jt CHAP.
Esdraelon! IV
And yet, withdrawn t'roni the world as, in its enclosure of nioun- ^— --v— ^
tains, Nazareth might seem, we must not think of it as a lonely village
which only faint echoes reached of what roused the land beyond.
With reverence be it said: such a place niiglit have suited the training
of the contemplative hermit, not the upbringing of Him Whose sym-
pathies were to be with every clime and race. Nor would such
an abode have furnished what (with all due acknowledgment of the
supernatural) we mark as a constant, because a rationally necessary,
element in Scripture history: that of inward preparedness in which
the higher and the Divine afterwards find their ready points of contact.
Nor was it otherwise iu Nazareth. The two great interests which
stirred the land, the two great factors in the religious future of Israel,
constantly met in the retirement of Nazareth. The great caravan-
route which led from Accoon the sea to Damascus divided at its com-
mencement into three roads : the most northern passing through Ccesa-
rea Philippi; the Upper Galilean; and the Lower Galilean. The latter,
the ancient Via Maris led through Nazareth, and thence either by
Cana, or else along the northern shoulder of Mount Tabor, to the
Lake of Gennesaret — each of these roads soon uniting with the L^pper
Galilean.' Hence, although the stream of commerce between Acco
and the East was divided into three channels, yet, as one of these
liassed through Nazareth, the quiet little town was not a stagnant
pool of rustic seclusion. Men of all nations, busy with another life
than that of Israel, would appear in the streets of Nazareth; and
through them thoughts, associations, and hopes connected with the
great outside world be stirred. But, on the other hand, Nazareth
was also one of the great centers of Jewish Tem])le-life. It has already
been indicated that the Priesthood was divided into twenty-four
'courses,' which, in turn, ministered in the Temple. The Priests of
the 'course' vs^hich was to be on duty alw^ays gathered in certain
towns, whence they went up in company to Jerusalem, Avhile those of
their number who were anal^le to go spent the week in fasting and
prayer. Now Nazareth was one of these Priest-centres,^ and although
it may well have been, that comparatively few in distant Galilee con-
formed to the Priestly regulations — some must have assembled there
in preparation for the sacred functions, or appeared in its Synagogue.
1 Comp. the detailed description of '^ Comp. Nenbauer, u. s. p. 190. See a
these roads, and the references in Her- detailed account in ' Sketches of Jewish
zoi/s Real-Encykl. vol. xv. pi). IGO, lOl. Social Life,' Arc. p. :J(1.
148
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
Even tlio fact, so well known to all, of this living connection between
Nazareth and the Temple, must have wakened peculiar feelings.
-^^y"^ Thus, to take the wider view, a double symbolic signiticance attached
to Nazareth, since through it passed alike those who carried on the
traffic of the world, and those who ministered in the Tem])le.'
We nmy take it, that the peoi)lc of Nazareth were like those of
other little towns similarly circumstanced:'-^ with all the i)eculiarities of
the imi)ulsive, straight-spoken, hot-])looded, brave, intensely national
(lalileans; '^ with the deeper feelings and aluKJSt instinctive habits
of thought and life, which were tlie outcome of long centuries of
Old Testament training; but also with the petty interests and jeal-
ousies of such places, and with all the ceremonialism and punctilious
self-assertion of Orientals. The cast of Judaism jtrevalent in Nazareth
would, of course, be the same as in Galilee generally. • We know,
that there were marked divergences from the observances in that
stronghold of Ivab1)inism,* Judaea — indicating greater simj^licity and
freedom from the constant intrusion of traditional ordinances.- The
home-life would be all the pui'er, time the veil of wedded life was not
so coarsely lifted as in Judsea, nor its sacred secrecy interfered with
by an Argus-eyed legislation.'^ The purity of betrothal in Galilee was
Keth. 12 a less Hkoly to be sullied,'' and weddings were more simple than in
Judaea — M'ithout the dubious institution of groomsmen,'"^ or 'friends
of the bridegroom,' " whose office must not unfrequently have degen-
erated into utter coarseness. The bride was chosen, not as in Judgea,
where money was too often the nujtive, but as in Jerusalem, with
cliief regard to 'a fair degree; ' and widows were (as in Jerusalem)
more tenderly cared for, as we gather even from the fact, that they
had a life-right of residence in their husband's house.'*
Such a home was that to which Joseph was about to bring the
maiden, to whom he had been betrothed. Whatever view may be
taken of the genealogies in the drospels according to St. Matthew
and St. Luke — whether they be regarded as those of Joseph and of
!■ Keth. 12
and often
■ St. .John
iii 29
1 It is Strange, that tliese two circum-
stances have not been noticed. Keim
(Jesu von Nazara i. 2, i)p. 322, 323) only
cursorily refers to the f:;reat road which
passed throiii;'!] Nazareth.
■^ The inference, that the expression of
Nathanael (St. .John i. 4()) implies a lower
state of tiie people of Nazareth, is un-
founded. Even Keim points out, that it
only marks disbelief that the Messiah
would come from sucli a place.
^ Oui' desorii)tion of them is derived
from notices by Josephus (such as War
iii. 3, 2), and many passages in the
Talmud, •
' Tliese differences are marlced in Pes.
iv. 5; Ketli. iv. 12; Ned. ii. 4; ChuU.
62 a; Haba K. HO (C, Keth. 12 ((.
^ The reailer who wishes to understaml
what we have only ventured to hint, is
referred to tlie Mislmic tractate Niddali.
^ Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Social
Life,' &c., pp. 152 &c.
:i6
ii. 24
THE BETROTHAL OF JOSEPH AND MARY. 149
Mary/ or, which seems tlie more likely/ as those of Joseph only, chap.
marking his natural and his legal descent'^ from David, or vice IV
v(n'sa' — there can be no question, that both Joseph and Mary were of ^— ^r — '
tlie royal lineage of David." Most probably the two were nearly
related,'"' while Mary could also claim kinship with the Priesthood,
being, no doul)tonlier mother's side, a 'blood-relative' of Elisabeth,
tlie Priest-wife of Zaeharias.''' Even this seems to imply, that "St. Lukoi.
Mary's family must shortly before have held higher rank, for only
with such did custom sanction any alliance on the ]iart of Priests.**
But at the time of their betrothal, alike Josej)!! and Mary were
extremely poor, as a})pcars — not indeed from his being a carpenter,
since a trade was regarded as almost a religious duty — but from the
offering at the i)resentation of Jesus in the Temple.'' Accordingly, ^st. Luke
their betrothal must have been of the simplest, and the dowry settled
the smallest possible.** Whichever of the two modes of betrothal "'
may have been adopted: in the presence of witnesses — either by
solemn word of mouth, in due prescribed formality, with the added
])ledge of a piece of money, however small, or of money's worth for
use; or else by writing (the so-called Shifre Erusin) — there would
be no sumptuous feast to follow; and the ceremony would conclude
with some such benediction as that afterwards in use: ' Blessed
art Thou, 0 Lord our God, King of the World, Who hath sanctified
us by His Commandments, and enjoined us about incest, and forbidden
the betrothed, but allowed us those wedded by Chuppah (the marriage-
baldachino) and betrothal. Blessed art Thou, Who sanctifiest Israel
■ The best defence of this view is tliat '^ Tliis is tlie general view of antiquity,
by Wieseler, Beitr. zur AViirflig. <1. Evang. ' Reference to this union of Levi and
pp. 133 &c. It is also virtually adopted Judah in tlie Messiah is made in the Test,
by H^eiS.s- (Leben Jesu, vol. i. iss2). xii. Patriarch., Test. Simeonis vii. (apud
2 This view is adopted almost unani- Fabr. Cod. Psendepi.UT. vol. ii. p. 542).
mously by modern writers. Curiously, the gi-eat Hillel was also said
■' This view is defended with much skill by some to have descended, throuii-h his
by Mr. McCh-llau in his New Testament, fatlier and mother, from the trilies of
vol. i. 11]). 409-422. Judah and Levi — all. however, asst^-ting
* So (irotius, Bishop Lord Arthur Her- ids Davidic origin (conip. Jer. Taan. iv.
vey, and after him most modern English 2 ; Ber. R. 98 and 33).
writers. ** Comp, Maimonidps. YadhaChazHil.
^ The Davidic descent of the Virgin- Sanh. ii. The inference would, of course,
Mother — which is questioned by some be the same, whether we suppose Mary's
even among orthodox inter])reters — mother to have V)een the sister-in-law, or
seems im])lied in the Gospel {St. Luke i. the sister, of Elisabeth's father.
27, 32, 69; ii. 4), and an almost neces- " Comp. 'Sketches of Jewish Social
sitr)! inference from such i)assages as Life in the Days of Christ." ])ii. 143-149.
Uom, i. 3; 2 Tim. ii. S; Hebr. vii. 14. Also the article on ' Marriage ' in Ca.s.sW/'.s'
The Davidic descent of Jesus is not only Bible-Educator, vol. iv. pp. 2()7-270.
iidmitted, but elaborately proved — on i" There was a third mode, by cohabita-
l)urely rationalistic grounds — by Kcim tion; but this was highly disapproved of
(u. s. pp. 327-329). even by tlie Rabbis.
150
FROM HETHLEHI-:M to JORDAN.
12
HOOK Ity Clmppiih and Ix'trothar — the wliolc being i)erhaps concluded
II ])\ a benediction over the statutory cup of wine, Avhich was tasted
— ^f ' in turn by the loetrothed. From tliat moment Mary was the betrothed
wife of Joseph; their relationship as sacred, as if they had ah-eady
been wedded. Any breach ofitwouhl be treated as adultery; nor
could the band be dissolved except, as after marriage, l)y regular
divorce. Yet months might intervene between the betrothal and
marriage.^
Five months of Elisabeth's sacred retirement had passed, when
a strange messenger brought its lirst tidings to her kinswoman in
far-off Galilee. It was not in the solemn grandeur of the Temple,
between the golden altar of incense and the seven-branched candle-
sticks that the Angel Gabriel now appeared, bat in the privacy of a
humble home at Nazareth. The greatest honor bestowed on man
was to come amidst circumstances of deepest human lowliness, as if
the more clearly to mark the exclusively Divine character of what
was to happen. And, although the awe of the Supernatural must
unconsciousl}^ have fallen upon her, it was not so much the sudden
appearance of the mysterious stranger in her retirement that startled
the maiden, as the words of his greeting, implying unthought bless-
ing. The 'Peace to thee'^ was, indeed, the well-known salutation,
while the words, 'The Lord is with thee' might waken the remem-
judg. vi. brance of the Angelic call, to great deliverance in the past.'' But
this designation of ' highly favored ' ^ came upon her Avith bewilder-
ing surprise, perhaps not so much from its contrast to the humble-
ness of her estate, as from the self-conscious humility of her heart.
And it was intended so, for of all feelings this would now most
become her. Accordingly, it is this story of special ' favour ' or grace,
which the Angel traces in rapid outline, from the conception of the
Yirgin-Mother to the distinctive. Divinely-given Xame, symbolic of
the meaning of His coming; His absolute greatness; His acknow-
ledgment as the Son of God; and the fulfillment in Him of the great
I The assertion of Professor Wiinsche the Hebrew j;«?r ^"'^ f"*^'' ^'^^ correctness
(Neue Beitr. zur Erliiuter. d. Evaug. p. 7) of it refer the reader to Grimm'' f< remarks
that the practice of betrothal was confined on 1 Mace. x. 18 (Exeget. Handb. zu d.
exclusively, or almost so, to Judaea, is Apokryph. 3"«^ Lief. p. 149).
quite ungrounded. The passages to which * Bengel aptly remarks. ' Non ut mater
he refers (Kethub. i. 5 — not 3 — and gratiae, sed ut filiagratite.' Even Jfrew//
especially Keth. 12 a) are irrelevant. Trn/lor's remarks (Life of Christ, ed.
Keth. V2 fi marks the simpler and i)urer Pickering, vol. i. p. .OG) would here re-
customs of Galilee, but does not refer to quire modification. Following the best
betrothals. critical authorities. I have omitted the
- I have rendered the Greek xocip^ by words, 'Blessed art tliou among women.'
THE ANNUNCIATION TO THE VIROIN.
151
Davidic hope, with its never-ceasing royalty,^ and its never-ending,
boundless Kingdom.^
In all this, however marvellous, tliere could V)e nothing strange
to those who cherished in their hearts Israel's great hope, not merely
as an article of abstract belief, but as mattei- of certain fact — least
of all to the maiden of the lineage of David, beti'othed to him of the
house and lineage of David. So long as the hand of prophetic bless-
ing rested on the house of David, and before its linger had pointed to
the individual who ' found favor ' in the highest sense, the con-
sciousness of possibilities, which scarce dai-cd shape themselves into
definite thoughts, must at times have stirred nameless feelings —
perhaps the more often in circumstances of outward depression and
humility, such as those of the 'Holy Family,' Nor was there any-
thing strange even in the naming of the yet unconceived Child. It
sounds like a saying current among tlic people of old, this of the
Rabbis,'' concerning the six whose names were given before their
birth: Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and 'the Name of the
Messiah, Whom may the Holy One, lilessed be His Name, bring
quickly in our days ! ' ^ But as for the deejier meaning of the name
Jesus," which, like an unopened bud, enclosed the flower of His
Passion, that was mercifully yet the unthought-of secret of that
sword, which should pierce the soul of the Virgin-Mother, and which
only His future history would lay open to her and to others.
Thus, on the supposition of tlie readiness of her believing heart,
and her entire self-unconsciousness, it would have been only the
glorious announcement of the inqiending event, which would absorb
her thinking — with nothing strange about it, or that needed further
light, than the lioiu of her own connection with it.^ And the words.
CHAP
IV
a Pirqe tJe
K. El. 32.
at the be-
ginning
b St. Matt,
i. 21
1 We here refer, as an intei'estinc; cor-
roboration, to the Tar^um on Ps. xlv. 7
((> In our A. v.). But thi.s interest is in-
tensely increased when we read it, not as
in our editions of the Tarfi;;uni, but as
found in a M.S. copj' of the year 1208
feiven by Levy in his Tara;uin. Wcirterl).
vol. i. p. 390' (t). Transiatinjj; it from
that reading, tlie Tara;uni thus renders
Ps. xlv. 7, ' Thy throne, 0 God, in the
heaven ' (Levy renders, ' Thy throne from
God in heaven,' but in either case it re-
fers to the throne of the Messiah) ' is
for ever and ever' (for 'world witliout
end,' ^^D'lr "|^:c'"ir. 'a rule of rit;-hteous-
ness is the rule of Thy kingdom, O Thou
Kill"; Messiah ! '
^ In Pir(|i' de R. El. c. 11, the same
boundless dominion is ascribed to Mes-
siah the Kiii.f;'. In that curious passa.se
dominion is ascribed to 'ten kiuiis,' the
tii'st beinii' r4od, tlie ninth the Alessiah.
and the tenth a.iiain God, to Wliom the
kiii<;-dom would be delivered in the end,
accordiui; to Is. xliv. (5; Zecliar. xiv. 9;
Ezek. xxxiv. 24, with the result described
in Is. lii. 9.
■^ Professor Wilnfiehe's ([notation is
here not exact (u. s. p. 414).
* Weis^ (Leben Jesu. 1SS2. vol. i. p.
213) riffhtly calls attention to the humility
of her self-sui-render, when she willinii'ly
submitted to wliat her heart would feel
hardest to beai- — that of incurrinij sus-
picion of her purity in the si,t>;ht of all.
152
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK which she spake, were not of trembling doubt, that required to lean
H on the staff of~a 'sign,' but rather those of enquiry, lor the further
^- — ~> ' guidance of a willing self-surrender. The Angel had pointed her
opened eyes to the shining path: that was not strange; only, that
She should walk in it, seemed so. And now the Angel still further
unfolded it in words which, however little she may have understood
their full meaning, had again nothing strange about them, save once
more that sAe should be thus 'favoured"; words which, even to her
understanding, must have carried yet further thoughts of Divine
favour, and so deepened her humility. For, the idea of the activity
of the Holy Ghost in all great events was quite familiar to Israel at
the time,^ even though the Individuation of the Holy Ghost may
not have l^een fully apprehended. Only, that they expected such
influences to rest exclusively upon those who were either mighty, or
i-Nedar-ssa rich, Or wisc." And of this twofold manifestation of miraculous
' favour ' — that she, and as a Virgin, should be its subject — Gabriel,
' the might of God,' gave this unasked sign, in what had happened to
her kinswoman Elisabeth.
The sign was at the same time a direction. The first, Init also
the ever-deepening desire in the heart of Mary, when the Angel left
her, must have been to be away from Nazareth, and for the relief of
opening her heart to a woman, in all things like-minded, who perhaps
might speak blessed words to her. And to such an one the Angel
himself seemed to have directed her. It is only what we would have
expected, that ' with haste ' she should have resorted to her kins-
woman, without loss of time, and before she would speak to her
betrothed of what even in wedded life is the first secret whispered.^
It could have been no ordinary welcome that would greet the
Yirgin-Mother, on entering the house of her kinswoman. Elisabeth
must have learnt from her husband the destiny of their son, and
hence the near Advent of the Messiah. But she could not have
known either when, or of ivhom He would be born. When, by a
sign not quite strange to Jewish expectancy,* she recognised in her
but especially in that of her betrothed.
The whole account, as we gather from
St. Luke ii. 19, 5L must have been de-
rived from the i)ersonal recollections of
the Virgin-Mother.
' So in almost innumerable Rabbinic
passages.
'^ This in answer to the objection, so
pertinaciously urged, of inconsistency
with the narrative in St. Matt. i. 19 &c.
It is clear, that Mary went ' with liaste '
to her kinswoman, and that any com-
munlcatio)! to .Joseph could only have
taken place after that, and after the
Angelic prediction was in all its parts
confirmed by her visit to Elisabeth.
Jeremy Taylor (u. s. p. 64) has already
arranged the narrative as in tlie text.
•^ According to Jewish tradition, the
yet unborn infants in tlieir uiotlier's
tup: f^ALUTATlON OF ELISABETH AND HYMN OF MARY.
163
near kinswoman the Mother of her Lord, her salutation was that ol" a
mother U) a mother — the mother of* the ' preparer ' to the mother of
Him for Whom he would i)repare. To be more precise: the words
vvhicli, filled with the Holy Uhost, she spake, were the mother's
utterance, to the mother, of the homage which her unborn babe
ottered to his Lord; while the answering liymn of Mar}' was the
ort'ering of that honmge unto God. It was the antiphonal morning-
psalmody of the Messianic day as it broke, of which the words were
still all of the old dispensation,^ but their music of the new; the
keynote being that of 'favour,' 'grace,' struck by the Angel in his
ttrst salutation: ' favour ' to the Virgin;-' 'favour,' eternal 'favour'
to all His humble and poor ones;'' and ' favour' to Israel, stretching
in golden line from the calling of Al)raham to the glorious future
that now opened.'' Not one of these fundamental ideas but lay
strictly within the range of the Old Testament; and yet all of them
now lay beyond it, bathed in the golden light of the new day.
Miraculous it all is, and professes to be; not indeed in the connection
of these events, which succeed each other with psychological truth-
fulness; nor yet in their language, which is of the times and the
circumstances; but in the underlying facts. ^ And for these there
can be no other evidence than the Life, the Death, and the Resurrec-
tion of Jesus the Messiah. If He was such, and if He really rose
from the dead, then, with all soberness and solemnity, such inception
of His appearance seems almost a logical necessity. But of this
whole narrative it may be said, that such inception of the Messianic
appearance, such announcement of it, and such manner of His Coming,
could never have been invented by contemporary Judaism; indeed,
ran directly counter to all its preconceptions.*
CHAP.
IV
» 1st stanza
vv. 46-49
•j 2n(l stan-
za, vv. 50-53
<^ 3r(l stan-
za, vv. 54-5S
wombs responded by a" Amen to the
liynui of praise at the Red Sea. This is
supposed to be indicated by the words
■^S'^w^ "I'r-D^O '^^- '-"^^''ii- 27; see also
iiie Tarnuin'on that verse). Coniii. Keth.
7 i'* and-Sotali-SO ('> (Uxst line) and ;^1 a,
tliouftli the coarse le,a;endary explanation
of R. Tanchiuna mars the poetfc beauty
of the whole.
' The i)oetic grandeur and the Old
Testament cast of the Virgin's hymn
(comp. the Song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii.
1-10), need scarcely he jiointed out.
Perhaps it would read fullest and best
by trying to recall what must have been
its Hebrew original.
- Weiss, while denying the historical
accuracy of much in the tjospel-narrative
of it, unhesitatingly accepts the fact of
the supernatui'al Vurth of Jesus.
^ Keim elaltorately discusses the origin
of what he calls the legend of Christ's
suiiernatural conception. He arrives at
the conclusion that it was a Jewish-
Christian legend — as if a Jeifish inven-
tion of such a ' legend ' were not the most
unlikely of all possible hypotheses! But
negative criticism is at least bound to
furnish some historical basis for the
origination of such an unlikely legend.
Whence was the idea of it lirst derived ?
How did it find such ready acceptance
in the Clmrch 't Weiss has, at consider-
able length, and very fully , shown the
impossiliility of its origin either in Jew-
isli or iieathen legend.
154 VliO^l BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK Three months liiid i)iisse(l since tlie Virgin-Mother entered the
n home of her kinswoman. And now she must return to Nazareth.
^— -^^ — ' Soon Elisabeth's neighb(jurs and kinsfolk would gather with sympa-
thetic joy around a home which, as they thought, had experienced
unexpected mercy — little thinking, liow wide-reaching its conse-
quences would be. But the Virgin-Mother must not be exposed to
the publicity of such meetings. However conscious of what had led
to her condition, it must have iDeen as the first sharp pang of the
sword which was to pierce her soul, when she told it all to her
betrothed. For, however deep his trust in her whom he had chosen
for wife, only a direct Divine communication could have chased all
questioning from his heart, and given him that assurance, which was
needful in the future history of the Messiah. Brief as, with exquisite
delicacy, the narrative is, we can read in the ' thoughts ' of Joseph
the anxious contending of feelings, the scarcely established, and yet
delayed, resolve to * put her away, ' which could only be done by
regular divorce; this one determination only standing out clearly,
that, if it must be, her letter of divorce shall be handed to her
privately, only in the presence of two witnesses. The humV)le Tsaddiq
of Nazareth would not willingly have brought the blush to any face,
least of all would he make of her 'a public exhibition of shame. '^
It was a relief that he could legally divorce her either publicly or
privately, whether from change of feeling, or because he had found
just cause for it, but hesitated to make it known, either from regard
for his own character, or because he had not sufficient legal evidence'^
of the charge. He would follow, all unconscious of it, the truer
• Ketii. 74 6 manly feeling of R. Eliezar,^' R. Jochanan, and R. Zera,*" according
kKeth 97 6 ^^ which a man would not like to put his wife to shame before a
Court of Justice, rather than the opposite sentence of R. Meir.
The assurance, which Joseph could scarcely dare to hope for, was
miraculously convej^ed to him in a dream-vision. All would now be
clear; even the terms in which he was addressed ( ' thou son of
David'), so utterly unusual in ordinary circumstances, would prepare
him for tlie Angel's message. The naming of the unborn Messiah
would accord with popular notions;* the symbolism of such a name
' I bave thus paraijhrased the verb witnesses, or if their testimony could be
TrapcrSez^^/^arz'^&j, rendered in Heb.vi. 6 invalidated by an.y of those i)rovision3
(A.V.) ' put to an open shame.' Comp. in favour of the accused, of which
also LXX. Num. xxv. 4; Jer. xiii. 22; traditionalism had not a few. Thus, as
Ezek. xxviii. 17 (see Grimm, Clavis X.T. indicated in the text, Josei)h mi2;ht have
p. 3:^3 b) Archdeacon Farrar adopts the privately divorced .Mary, leaving; it open
reading dEiy/iaricrai. to doubt on what ground he had so acted.
- For example, if he had not sufficient ■' See a former note.
THE ANGELIC MESSAGE TU JOSEPH.
155
was deeply rooted in Jewish hclioi'; ' whik' the explanation of
Jehoslma or Jesltua (Jenas), as He who would save His people
(primarily, as he would understand it, Israel) from their sins, described
at least one generally expected aspect of His Mission,'^ although
Joseph may not have known that it was the basis of all the rest.
And perhaps it was not without deeper meaning and insight into His
character, that the Angel laid stress on this very element in His
communication to Joseph, and not to Mary.
The fact that such an announcement came to Him in a dream,
would dispose Joseph all the more readily to receive it. 'A good
dream' was one of the three things^ popularly regarded as marks of
God's favour; and so general was the belief in their significance, as to
have passed into this popular saying: 'If any one sleeps seven days
without dreaming (or rather, remembering his dream for interpreta-
tion), call him wicked' (as being unremembered of God''*). Thus
Divinely set at rest, Joseph could no longer hesitate. The highest
<luty towards the Virgin-Mother and the unborn Jesus demanded an
immediate marriage, which would afford not only outward, but moral
protection to both.^
CHAP.
IV
• Tluis we read in {Shocher Tubh) the
Midrash on Pro v. xix. 21 (closing part;
ed. Lemberg. j). 16 5) of eight names
given to tlie Messiali, viz. Yinnon (Ps.
Ixxii. 17, 'His name shall sprout [bear
sprouts] before the Sun ; ' comi). also
Pirqe de R. El. c. 2); Jehovah; Our
Righteousness; Tsemach (the Branch,
Zeeh. iii. 8j; Menachem (the Comforter,
Is. li. 3); Da rid (Ps. xviii. 50); Shiloh
(Gen. xlix. 10); Elijah (Mai. iv. 5). The
Messiah is also called Anani (He that
Cometh in the clouds, Dan. vii. 13; see
Tanch. Par. Toledoth 14); ChaninahMt^
reference to Jer. xvi. 13 ; the Lepi-ons,
with reference to Is. liii. 4 (Sanh. 96 h).
It is a curious instance of the Jewish
mode of explaining a meaning by gi-
matreya, or numerical calculation, that
they \^YO\QTspmach (Branch) and Mena-
chevi (Comforter) to be the same, because
the numerical equivalents of the one
word are equal to those of the other:
r:=40, :=50, n=8, ::=40, = i38 ; a=
DO. ?:=40, n=8, = 138.
' Professor TT7i??.?c/i(e(Erlauter. d.Evang.
p. 10) proposes to strike out the words
'from their sins' as an un-.Jewisli inter-
polation. In answer, it would suffice to
point him to the passages on this very
subject which he has collated in a pre-
vious work : Die Leiden des Messias, pp.
63-108. To these I will only add a com-
ment in the Midrash on Cant. i. 14 (ed.
Warshau, p. \\a and li), where the re-
ference is undoubtedly to the Messiali (in
the words of R. Berakhyah, line 8 from
bottom; and again in the words of R.
Levi, 11 'b, line 5 from top, Ac). The
expression ^r^H i^ there explained as
meaning 'He Who makes expiation for the
sins of Israel.' and it is distinctly added
that this expiation bears reference to the
transgressions aiul evil deeds of the
children of Abraham, for which God
provides this Man as the Atonement.
^ ' A good king, a fruitful year, and a
good dream.'
* Rabbi Zera proves this by a reference
to Prov. xLx. 23, the reading Sabhea (sat-
isfied) being altered .into Shebha — both
written -jy^ — while 'j"*:'*' is understood as
of siiending the night. Ber. 55 a to o't b
contains a long, and sometimes verj^
coarse, discussion of dreams, giving their
various interpretations, rules for avoid-
ing the consequences of evil dreams, «tc.
The fundamental principle is, that ' a
dream is according to its interpretation '
(Ber. 55 /;). Such views about dreams
would, no doulit, have long been matter
of popular lielief. before being foi'mally
expressed in tlie Talmud.
^ The objection, tluu tlie account of
156 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK Vie\vin«>; events, not as isolated, but as links welded in the golden
n chain of the history of the King'doni of (iod, 'all this' — not only the
^^ — ~." — ' birth of Jesus from a Virgin, nor even His symbolic Name with its
import, but also the unrestful questioning of Josei)h, — 'happened' '
»is. vii. 11 in fulfilment^ of what had ])een prefigured/ The promise of a Virgin-
born son as a sign of the firmness of God's covenant of old with David
and his house; the now unfolded meaning of the former symbolic
name Iminanuel; even the unbelief of Ahaz, with its counterpart in
the questioning of Joseph — 'all this' could now be clearly read in
the light of the breaking day. Never had the house of David sunk
morally lower than when, in the words of Ahaz, it seemed to renounce
the very foundation of its claim to continuance; never had the
fortunes of the house of David fallen lower, timn when a Herod sat
,on its throne, and its lineal representative was a humble village
carpenter, from whose heart doubts of the Virgin-Mother had to be
Divinely chased. And never, not even when God gave to the doubts
of Moses this as the sign of Israel's future deliverance, that in that
»>Ex. ni. 12 mountain they should worship'' — had unbelief been answered by
more strange evidence. But as, nevertheless, the stal)ility of the
Davidic house was ensured by the future advent of Immanuel — and
with such certainty, that before even such a child could discern
between choice of good and evil, the land would be freed of its
dangers; so now all that was then prefigured was to become literally
true, and Israel to be sailed from its real danger by the Advent of
Jesus, Immanuel.* And so it had all been intended. The golden
Joseph and Mary's immediate marriage loss (Wiinsche) 2*n2"l NIH N"", but, as
is inconsistent witli tlie designation of Professor Delitzscb renders it, in liis new
Mary in St. Lul^e ii. 5, is sufficiently re- translation of St. Mattiiew, nx mx""'?:'i
futed by the consideration that, in any Ti^^/iifp^..^,,,,^ ;=■;.,., ^^..t^r,/
,, •' ^ . ,• , 1 1 <- u ^"1 "iTi "iwy. Ihetlitferenee IS important,
other case, Jewish custom would not have '- ' ^«^ ' '
allowed Mary to travel to Bethlehem in a"^! Dehtzsch's translation completely
company with Joseph. The expression established by the snnilar rendering of
used in St. Luke ii. 5, must be read in the LXX. of 1 Kings ii. 27 and 2 Chron.
connection with St. Matt. i. 25. xxxvi. 22.
1 Ilaupt (Alttestam. Citate in d. vier ' A critical discussion of Ls. vii. 14
Evang. i)p. 207-215) rightly lays stress would here be out of place; though I
on the words, ' all this was done: He 'i-^ve attempted to express my views in
even extends its reference to the three- the text. (The nearest approacli to them
fold arrangement of the genealogy by i^ that by Engelhardt in the Zeitschr. fur
St. Matthew, as implying the ascending Lut'i. Theol. fur ls72, Ileft iv.). Tlie
splendour of the line of David, its quotation of St. Matthew follows, with
middav glory, and its decline. scarcely any variation, tlie rendering of
- The correct Hebrew equivalent of the the LXX. That theD should have trans-
rxpression 'that it might be fulfilled' lated the Hebrew ^-ji^'-i^"! by TrapSfVo?, 'a
'iva TtXii pa)(ir] is not, as Siirenhusiits Virgin,' is surely sufficient evidence of
(Biblos Katallages, i). 151) and other the admissibility of such a rendering.
Vi'riters have it, iT^SiiL? n?2 D''^r>> *^till The idea that the promised Son was to l)e
CIRCUMCISION AND NAMIXCI OF JOHN.
157
cup of prophecy wliicli Isaiali had i)hiced einpt}^ on the Holy Table,
waiting for the time of the end, was now full HIUmI, up to its hrini,
with the new wine of the Kingdom.
Meanwliile the long-looked-for event had taken place in the home
of Zacharias. No domestic solemnity so important or so joyous as
that in which, by circumcision, the ehild had, as it Avere, laid ui)on it
the yoke of the Law, Avitli all of duty and privilege which this imi)lied.
Even the circumstance, that it took i)lace at early morning '■' might
indicate this. It was, so tradition has it, as if the tiither had acted
sacriflcially as High-Priest,'' offering his child to God in gratitude and
love;" and it symbolised thi.s deeper moral truth, that "man must ])y
his own act complete what God had first instituted.'' To Zacharias
and Elisabeth the I'ite would have even more than this significance,
as a(hninistered to the child of their old age, so miraculously given,
and who was connected with such a future. Besides, the legend wliich
associates circumcision with Elijah, as the restorer of this rite in the
apostate ]^eriod of the Kings of Israel, *" was probably in circulation at
the time.' We can scarcely 1)0 mistaken in supposing, that then, as
now, a benediction was si)oken l)efore circumcision, and that the
ceremony closed with the usual grace over the cup of wine,- when the
cliild received his name in a prayer that jjrobably did not much ditfer
from this at j)resent in use: -Our God, and tlie God of our fathers,
raise up this child to his father and mother, and let his name be
called in Israel Zacharias. the son of Zacharias.'^ Let his fatlier re-
CHAP.
IV
Pes. 4 a
'• Yalkiit
SIi. i. par.
81
' Tanch. P.
Tetsavveh,
at the be-
ginnlnK,
ed. War-
shaii, J). Ill
a
'1 Taneli.
U. M.
f Pirqi' do
K. E11(!S. c.
29
either that of Ahaz, or else of tlie projiliet,
cannot stand the test of critical investi-
gation (see //r^»;'^ U.S., and /jo///, Alttest.
Citate im N.T. pp. :!-(i). Our difiiculties
of interpretation are. in .i^reat part, due
to the abruptness of Isaiah's i)roplietic
hinijuaii'e, and to our iunorance of sur-
roundinu- circumstances. Sfe/'i/mi'i/er in-
geniously argues agaiitjit the niytliical
theory that, since Is. vii. 14 was i/of
interjireted by the ancient Synagogue
in a Messianic sense, that passage could
not have led to the origination of -the
legend ' about the ' Virgin's Son ' (Gesch.
rt.Geb. d. Herrn, p. (io). We add this
further (|uestion. 1J7/c//(y^ did it oi'igin-
ate ?
' Probably the designation of •chaii"
or 'throne of Elijah.' for the cliair on
whicii the godparent holding tlie child
sits, and certaiidy the invocalioi: of lOli-
jah, are of later date. Indeetl, the in-
stitution of godi)arents is itself of later
origin. Curiously enough, the Council
of Terracina, in i:!;!0, liad to interdict
Christians acting as godparents at cir-
cumcision ! Even the great P.uxtorf
acted as godparent in Kilt) to a .lewish
child, and was condemned to a tine of 100
florins for his otl'ence. See Loir, Lebens-
alter, ]). 8(i.
- Accoi'dingIo./asY'yy/i'//.s' (Ag. A\). ii. 2(5)
circumcision was m)t followed by a feast.
I)Ut. if this be true, the i)ractice wassoou
altered, and the feast took i)lace on the
eve t)f circumcision (.ler. Keth, i. .">: B.
Kanui so a: ]]. Ikith. (iO />. Ac. I. Eater
.Midrashim ti'aced it ui) to the history of
Abraham and the feast at tlu> weaning
of Isaac, which they represented as one-
al circumcision (Pinie d. 1'. Eliez. 29).
' Wiinsche I'eiterates the groundless
objection of IJabbi Edw (u. s. p. !)(i), that
a fannly-name was oidy given in remem-
brance of the grandfather,ci'rr(v^s'M/ father.
oi- other member of the family I Sli'ange,
that such a statenu'Ut should ever have
l)een hazarded: stranger still, that it
slioidd be rejK'atecl after having been
bdiv refuted bv Pelitzsch. It certaiidy
158 FJUm I5ETIILEIIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK j<)ic(^ in tlie issue of his loins, and liis mother in the fruit of her womb,
II as it is written in Prov. xxiii. 25, and as it is said in Ezek. xvi. 6,
^-^^"^ — ' and again in I*s. ev. H, and Gen. xxi. 4; ' the {)assages being, of course,
quoted in full. The prayer closed with the hope that the child might
grow up, and successfully, ' attain to the Torah, the nmrriage-
baldachino, and good works.' '
Of all this Zacharias was, though a deeply interested, yet a deaf
and dunib'^ witness. This only had he noticed, that, in the benedic-
tion in Avhich the child's name was inserted, the mother had inter-
rupted the i)rayer. Without explaining her reason, she insisted that
liis name should not be that of his aged father, as in the peculiai'
circumstances might have been expected, but John {Jochana7i). A
reference to the father only deei)encd the general astonishment, when
he also gave the same name. But this was not the sole cause for
nuirvel. For, forthwith the tongue of the duml) was loosed, and he,
who c(nUd not utter the name of the child, now burst into praise of
the name of the Lord. His last words had been those of uni)elief,
his tirst were those of praise; his last words had been a question of
doubt, his first were a hymn of assurance. Strictly Hebrew in its
cast, and closely following Old Testament i)rophccy, it- is remarkable
— and yet almost natural — that this hynni of the Priest closely
follows, and, if the expression be allowable, spiritualises a great part
of the most ancient Jewish prayer: the so-called PJighteen Benedic-
tions; rather perhaps, that it transforms the expectancy of that
prayer into praise of its realisation. And if we bear in mind, that a
great portion of these prayers was said by the Priests before the lot
was cast for incensing, or by the people in the time of incensing, it
almost seems as if, during the long period of his enforced solitude,
the aged Priest had meditated on, and learned to understand, what
so often he luid repeated. Opening with the common form of bene-
diction, his hymn struck, one by one, the deepest chords of that
])rayer, specially this the most significant of all (the fifteenth P^ulogy),
' Speedily make to shoot forth the Branch ^ of David, Thy servant, and
iscontraryto f7o.s'6'7>/('».s'(War iv. 3, 9), and Zacharias was what the Rabbis nnder-
lo tiu> circumstance tliat both the father stood by w'l" — one deaf as well as dumb,
and hriitlier of .losephus bore the name Accordin:i;ly tliey communicated with liini
of Matthias, i^ee also Zuiiz (Z. Gesch. u. by C^T'il ' siirns '. — as Delitzscli correctly
Liter. |). :^18). renders it : rjN'-'-'^? ^T?:-n
' The reader will Hnd £.//. .4 ''pri'>r/t7/\ ■< .,., i i * n i »i •
,, .^, ,1 1 , •»! IT T • * Althouirh almo.st a 1 modern authori-
Herith Abraham with a Hebrew mtro- .. • » r * i
, ^. , • * ^- ^ ,,- ^ *i ties are against me. I cannot in'rsuade
duction an interestnifj tractate on the i*: ti ♦ ti • -c'* i i • "u^
, . ^ ' T-. n 1 • myself that the exniession s-t. Luke 1. ^'^
subject. For another and youni^er version • , , , • , . * ^r • i
tA J.. • " ,„., rendered • daysorinir in our A. V. is here
of these prayers, see Loir. u. s. >. 102. , ,, • ' i ^ .• <i ir \ -ha^.
•^ From 8t. Luke i. 62 we -ather. that "^'^ ^''^^ equiyalent ot the Hebrew n^^
HYMN OF ZACHAK'IAS. I59
<'xalt Thou liis Iiorii l)y Thy salvation, lor in Thy salvation wo trust CHAP.
all the day long-. Jilesscd art Thou, Jehovah! Who causeth to spring- IV
forth the Horn of Salvation' (literally, to braneluforth). This analogy - — ^. '
between the hymn of Zacharias and the prayers of Israel will best
appear from the benedietions Avith whieh these eulogies closed. For.
when thus examined, their leading thoughts will be found to be as
follows: God as the Shield of Abraham', He that raises the dead, and
causes salvation to shoot forth: the Holy One; Who graciously fjireth
knowledge; Who taketh pleasure in repentance; Who multiplieth
forgiveness; Who redeemeth Israel; Who hecdeth their (spiritual)
diseases; Who blesseth the years; Who gathereth the outcasts of His
jieople; Who loveth righteousness and judgment; Who is the abode
and stay of the righteous; Who buildeth Jerusalem; Who causeth the
Horn of Scduation to shoot forth; Who heareth prayer; Who bringeth
back His Shekhinah to Zion; God the Gracious One, to Whom praise
is due; Who blesseth His people Israel luith peace.
It was all most fitting. The question of unbelief had struck the
Priest duml), for most truly unbelief cannot speak; and the answer
of faith restored to him speech, for most truly does faith loosen the
tongue. The first eviilenee of his duud)ness had been, that his
tongue refused to speak the benediction to tlie people; and the first
i'vidence of his restored power was, that he spoke the benediction of
God in a rapturous burst of praise and thanksgiving. Tlie sign of
the unbelieving- Priest stamling before the awe-struck people, vainly
essaying to make himself understood by signs, was most fitting; most
fitting also that, when 'they made signs ' to him, the believing father
should burst in their hearing into a prophetic hynni.
But far and wide, as these marvellous tidings spread throughout
the hill-country of Juda'a, fear fell on all — the fear also of a nameless
hope. The silence of a long-clouded day had l)een broken, and the
light whieh had suddenly riven its gloom, laid itself on their hearts
in exj)ectancy: 'What then shall this Child be? Yw the Hand of
the Lord also was Avith Him!'-
* Branch." Tlip LXX. at any rate reii- The Eighteen Eulo2;ies are iriveii in full
(lered -^;^J in Jer. xxiii. 5 : Ezeis. xvi. 7: in the • Hi.story of the Jewish Nation,'
wii. 10; Zech. iii. 8; vi. 12, by dvaroA)). pp. 8(;3-:i(j7.
' Tiie italic.-i mark tlie point.s of corre- -' The insertion of yap seems criticallj'
siiondenee witli tlie hymn of Zaeharias. estalilished, and gives the fuller meau-
Comp. the best edition of the Jewish ing. j
Prayer Book (Frankfort, 5601), pp. 21-28.
100 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JOKD.LN.
CHAPTER V.
WHAT MESSIAH DID THE JEWS EXPECT?
BOOK It were an extremely narrow, and, indeed, false view, to regard the
II diti'erence between Judaism and Christianity as contined to the ques-
■""^ ' tion of the fultillment of certain prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth,
These i)redictions could only outline individual features in the Person
and history of the Messiah. It is not thus that a likeness is recog-
nised, hut rather by the combination of the various features into a
unity, and by the expression Avhich gives it meaning. So far as we
can gather from the Gospel narratives, no objection was ever taken to
the fulfillment of individual prophecies in Jesus. But the general
conception Avhich the Rabbis had formed of the Messiah, differed
totally from what was presented by thi; Prophet of Nazareth. Thus,
what is the fundamental divergence between the two may be said to
have existed long before the events Avhich finally divided them. It
is the coml)ination of letters which constitute words, and the same
letters may be combined into different words. Similarly, both Rab-
binism and — what, by anticipation, we designate — Christianity might
regard the same predictions as Messianic, and look for their fullill-
nient; while at the same tiuie the Messianic ideal of the Synagogue
might be quite other than that, to which tlie faith and hope of the
Church have clung.
1. The most important point here is to keep in mind the organic
yi///i'j'/ of tiie Old Testament. Its predictions are not isolateil, but
features of one grand projjhetic picture; its ritual and institutions
l)arts of one great system; its history, not loosely connected events,
but an organic development tending towards a definite end. Viewed
in its innermost substance, the hist(UT of the Old Testament is not
difl'erent from its typical institutions, nor yet these two from its pre-
dictions. The idea, underlying all, is God's gracious manifestation in
the world — the Kingdom of (Jod: the meaning of all — the establish-
ment of this Kingdom n])on earth. That gracious ])uriiosc was, so to
speak, individualized, and flic Kingdom actinilly cstablislied in the
THE OLD TESTAMENT VIEW OE THE MESSLVH. 1(J1
Mesfiiah. IJolh llic fuiKlaiiiciilal and the liiial rclatioii^liip in vioAV was CHAP.
tluit of God towards man, and of man towards God: tlie Ibrmcr ascx- V
l)ressod by the word Fatlier; the latter l)y that of Servant — or rather ^~ — ^^^^ — ^
theeoni'oinationof the two ideas: 'Son-Servant.' Tliis was already ini-
l)lied in the so-called I'rotevang'el; ■' and in this sense also the words »Gen. iii.ia
of Jesus hold true: ' Before Abraham came into being, 1 am."
13ut, narrowing our survey to where the history of the Kingdom
of God begins with that of Abraham, it was indeed as Jesus said:
' Your father Abraham rejoiced that he should see My day, and he
saw it, and Avas glad."' For, all that followed from Abraham to the ''St. johu
vui. 56
Messiah was one, and bore this twofold impress: heavenwards, that of
Son; earthwards, that of Servant. Israel was God's Son — His 'first-
born '; their history that of the children of God; their institutions those
of the family of God; their predictions those of the household of God.
And Israel was also the Servant of God — ' Jacob My Servant '; and its
history, institutions, and predictions those of the Servant of the Lord.
Yet not merely Servant, but Son-Servant — ' anointed ' to such service.
This idea was, so to speak, crystallised in the three great repre-
sentative institutions of Israel. The ' Servant of the Lord ' in relation
to Israel's history was Kingship in Israel; the 'Servant of the Lord'
in relation to Israel's ritual ordinances was the Priesthood in Israel;
the 'Servant of the Lord' in relation to prediction was the Prophetic
order. But all sprang from the same fundamental idea: that of the
' Servant of Jehovah."
One step still remains. The Messiah and His history are not
|)resented in the Old Testament as something separate from, or
superadded to, Israel. The history, the institutions, and the predic-
tions of Israel run up into Him.' He is the typical Israelite, nay,
typical Israel itself — alike the crown, the completion, and the repre-
sentative of Israel. He is the Son of God and the Servant of the
Lord; but in that highest and only true sense, which had given its
meaning to all the preparatory development. As He was 'anointed'
to l)e the ' Servant of the Lord,' not with the typical oil, but In- 'the
Spirit of Jehovah' 'upon' Ilim, so was He also the 'Son" in a
nni(jue sense. His organic connection Avith Israel is marked by the
<lesignations 'Seed of Abraham' and 'Son of David,' while at the
same time He was essentially, what Israel was suliordinately and
' Tn tilts resjiect there is deep siijnifi- wliioli Cod had shown to Israel in the
caiice in the .Jewish leu'end (freiiuently wilderness would he done a.ii'uin to re-
introduced: see. for example. Tancli. ii. deemed Zion in the • latter davs.'
'.)!) n\ Del). R. 1), that all the nnraeles
1(52 FKU.M I]i:TIILEiIEM TO JOIJDAN.
BOOK tyi)i('ally: 'Thou art My Son — this day liavo I ])egotten Thee.'
II Hence also, in strictest truthfulness, the Evangelist could apply to the
^■^ — ^ ' Messiah what referred to Israel, and see it fulfilled in Jlis history:
"i^io^^''^"' '^^'^^ of Egypt luive 1 called my Son.'"^ And this other correlate
idea, of Israel as ' the Servant of the Lord, ' is also fully concen-
trated in the Messiah as the Representative Israelite, so that tlie
JJook of Isaiah, as the series of predictions in which His picture is
most fully outlined, might be sununarised as that concerning 'the
Servant of Jehovah.' Moreover, the Messiah, as Rei)resentativc
Israelite, combined in Himself as ^the Servant of the Lord' the three-
fold office of Prophet, Priest, and King, and joined together the two
'•pitii. u. ideas of 'Son 'and 'Servant.''' And the final combination and full
exhibition of these two ideas was the fullillment of the typical mission
of Israel, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men.
c &en. iii.ir, Thus, in its final, as in its initial," stage it was the establishment
of the Kingdom of (}od upon earth — brought about by the 'Servant'
of the Lord, Who was to stricken humanity the God-sent 'Anointed
Comforter' (Mnslnach lia-Menachem): in this twofold sense of 'Com-
forter' of individuals ('the friend of sinners '), and ' Comforter ' of
Israel and of the world, reconciling the two, and bringing to both
eternal salvation. And here the mission of Israel ended. It had
passed through three stages. The first, or historicaI,vras the prepara-
tion of the Kingdom of God; the second, or ritual, the typical pre-
sentation of that Kingdom; while the tliird, or pj'ojjhetic, brought
that Kingdom into actual contact with the kingdoms of the world.
Accordingly, it is during the latter that the designation 'Son of
David ' (tyjHcal Israel) enlarged in the visions of Daniel into that of
' Son of Man ' (the Head of redeemed humanity). It were a onesided
view to regard the Babylonish exile as only a punishment for Israel's
sin. There is, in truth, nothing in all God's dealings in history
exclusively punitive. That were a merely negative element. But
there is always a positive element also of actual progress; a step
forward, even though in the taking of it something should have to
be crushed. And this step forward was the development of the idea of
. the Kingdom of God in its relation to the world.
2. This organic unity of Israel and the Messiah explains how
events, institutions, and predictions, which initially were ])ur('ly
Israelitish, could with truth lie regarded as finding their full accom-
plishment in tlie Messiah. From this point of view the whole Old
Testament becomes the perspective in which the figure of the Messiah
stands out. And ])('rha])s the most valu;il)l(' clement in Rabbinic
OLD TESTAMENT PREDICTION'S Ql'OTED DY THE UADBIS. 1(53
coiniHcutatiou on Mcssiniiic times is tliat in wliicli, tis so ti'C({uently, ciiAl'.
it is explained, that all the miracles and deliverances of Isi-acl's past V
would be re-enacted, only in a much "wider manner, in the days of "— ^.' — -^
the Messiah. Tlius tlu' whole past was symbolic, and typical of the
future — the Old Testament the ^'lass, thi-ou,nh which tlie universal
.lilessino:,s of the latter days were seen. It is in this sense that we
Avould understand the two sayinji's of the Talmud: .-All the pi-ophets
prophesied only of the days of the Messiah,'" and 'The world was "Sanh. 99»i
created only for the Messiah.'"' isanii. 98 b
In accordance with all this, the ancient Synagogue found re-
ferences to the Messiah in nuiny more passages of the Old Testament
than those verbal predictions, to which we generally appeal; and the
latter formed (as in the New Testament) a proportionately snuill, and
secondary, element in the concei)tion of the Messianic era. This
is fully borne out by a detailed analysis of those ])assages in the
Old Testament to which the ancient Synagogue referred as Messianic.^
Their number amounts to upwards of 4.56 (75 from the Pentateuch,
243 from tlie rr(j})liets, aiul 138 from the Hagiographa), and their
Messianic application is sii])ported by more than 558 references to
the most ancient Rabbinic writings.- But comparatively few of these
are what would be termed verl)al i)redictions. Rather would it seem as
if every event were regarded as prophetic, and every prophecy, whether
by fact, or by word (prediction), as a light to cast its sheen on the
future, until the picture of the Messianic age in the far back-ground
stood out in the hundredfold variegated brightness of prophetic events,
and i)roi)hetic utterances; or, as regarded the then state of Israel,
till the darkness of their present night was lit up by a hundred con-
stellations kindling in the sky overhead, and its lonely silence broken
by echoes of heavenly voices, and strains of prophetic hymns borne on
the breeze.
Of course, there was the danger that, amidst these dazzling lights.
or in the crowd of tigures, each so attractive, or else in the absorbing
interest of the general })icture, the grand central Personality should
not engage the attention it claimed, and so the meaning of the whole
^ See Appendix IX., wliere a detailed iii.i;' the Midrasli on Levitiout^, no fewer
list is given of all the Old Testament than twenty-tive close witli an outlook on
passaj^es which the ancient Syna,2;ogue Messianic times. The same may lie said
applied Messianically, together with the of the dose of many of the Parashahs in
references to the Rabbinic works where the Midrashim known as Pesi((ta and
they are quoted. Tanchuma (Zioiz. u. s. pp. ISl. 2S4). Be-
''■ Large as this number is, I do not sides, the oldest portions of the Jewish
present the list as complete. Thus, out liturgy are full of Messianic asi>irations.
of the thirtv-seven Parashahs constitut-
iy4 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK l)e lost in the contemplation of its details. This danger was the
n greater from the absence of any deeper spiritual elements. All that
^■^-^r — ^ Israel needed: 'study of the Law and good works/ lay within the
reach of every one; and all that Israel hoped for, was national restora-
tion and glory. Everything else was but means to these ends; the
Messiah Himself only the grand instrument in attaining them. Thus
vie\v('(l, tlie pictuj'e presented would be of Israel's exaltation, rather
than of the salvation of the world. To this, and to the idea of Israel's
exclusive spiritual position in the world, must be traced much, that
otherwise would seem utterly irrational in the Rabbinic pictures of the
latter days. But in such a picture there would be neither room nor
occasion for a Messiah-Saviour, in the only sense in which such a
heavenly mission could be rational, or the heart of humanity respond
to it. The Ral^binic ideal of the Messiah was not that of ' a light to
lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel '■ — the satisfac-
tion of the wants of humanity, and the completion of Israel's mission
— but quite different, even to contrariety. Accordingly, there was a
fundamental antagonism l)etween the Rabbis and Christ, quite irre-
spective of the manner in which He carried out His Messianic work.
On the other hand, it is equally noteworthy, that the purely national
elements, which well nigh formed the sum total of Rabbinic expecta-
tion, scarcely entered into the teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom
of God. And the more we realise, that Jesus so fundamentally
separated Himself from all the ideas of His time, the more evidential
is it of the fact, that He was not the Messiah of Jewish conception,
but derived His mission from a source unknown to, or at least ignored
by, the leaders of His people.
3. But still, as the Rabbinic ideas were at least based on the Old
Testament, we need not wonder that they also embodied the chief
features of the Messianic history. Accordingly, a careful perusal of
their Scripture quotations * shows, that the main postulates of the
Kew Testament concerning the Messiah are fully supported by
Rabl)inic statements. Thus, such doctrines as the pre-mundane eoc-
istence of the Messiah; His elevation above Moses, and even above the
Angels; His representative character: His cruel sufferings and
derision] His violent death, and that /or His people: His loork on
behalf of the living and of the dead; His redemption, and restora-
■ tion of Israel; the oppo.s7Y/o)M)f the Gentiles; their partial j^^rZgrjwenf
and conversion; the prevalence of His Laiv\ the universal blessings of
the latter days; and His Kiiigdoni — can 1)0 clearly deduced from un-
' For Ihcsc. see Appendix IX.
RABlJIXiC DKXIAL OF ORIGINAL .SIN.
1G5
qiK'slioued passages iii aiick'nt I{al)l)iiiic writings. Only, as we niiglit
expect, all is there indistinct, incoherent, unexi)laine(l. and from a
much lower standpoint. At best, it is the lower stage of yet unful-
tilled prophecy — the haze when the sun is about to rise, not the blaze
when it has risen. Most painfully is this felt in connection with the
one element on which the New Testament most insists. There is,
indeed, in Rabbinic writings frequent reference to the sufferings, and
even the death of the Messiah, and these are brought into connection
with our sins — as how could it be otherwise in view of Isaiah liii. and
other passages — and in one most remarkable comment* the Messiah
is represented as willingly taking upon Himself all these sufierings,
on condition that all Israel — the living, the dead, and those yet un-
l)oi'n — should be saved, and that, in consequence of His work, God
and Israel should be reconciled, and Satan cast into hell. But there
is only the most indistinct reference to the removal- of sin -by the
Messiah, in the sense of vicarious sufferings.
In connection with what has been stated, one most important
point must be kept in view. So far as their opinions can ])e gathered
from their writings, the great doctrines of Original Sin, and of the sin-
fulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis.^ Of
course, it is not meant that they denied the consequences of sin, either
as concerned Adam himself, or his descendants; but the final result
is far from that seriousness which attaches to the Fall in the New Testa-
ment, where it is presented as the basis of the need of a Redeemer,
Who, as the Second Adam, restored what the first had lost. The dif-
ference is so fundamental as to render further explanation necessary.'^
The fall of Adam is ascribed to the envy of the Angels-^ — not the
fallen ones, for none were fallen, till God cast them down in conse-
quence of their seduction of man. The Angels, having in vain tried
to prevent the creation of man, at last conspired to lead him into sin
as the only means of his ruin — the task being undertaken by Sammael
(and his Angels), who in many respects was superior to the other
Angelic princes.'' The instrument employed was the serpent, of
Avhosc original condition the strangest legends are told, prol)ably to
make the Biblical narrative appear more rational." The details of the
story of the Fall, as told by the Rabbis, need not be here repeated,
save to indicate its consequences. The first of these was the with-
CHAP
V
' This is tlie view expressed l)y all
Jewisli flo,i>matic \Yriters. See also
M^eher, Altsyna,<i\ Tlieol. p. 217.
- Coinp. oil tlie su])ieot. Ber. R. 12-1 (>.
'■'■ In Ber. B., liowever. it lias seemed
to me, as if sometimes a mystical and
symliolical view of tlie iiistory of the
Fall were insinuated— evil concuiiisceuce
beina,' the occasion of it.
■1 Yalkut on
Is. ix. 1
'' Pirq:' de
K. EI. c. 13:
Yalkut i.
p. S c
" Comp.
Pirqe de R.
El. and
Yalkut,
U.S. : also
Ber. R. li>
166
FROM- liETlILKHKM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
" Ber. R. 19,
ed.War-
«liau, ij.37rt
>> Beniidb.
R. l:i
'■ Vayylkra
R. 27
■' Ber. R. 16
21, and
often
f Ber. R. 5,
12, 10;
comp. also
llidr. on
Eccl.vli.13;
and viil. 1,
and Baba
B. 17 a
f Ber. R. 9
s Bemldb.
R. 19
h.\ccordlng
to Deut.
xxxUi. 2;
Hab. lii. 3
'< \h. Zar.
2b
t Ab. Z. -y a
drawal of tlic Shckliiiiiili Iroin cai'tli to the tir.<t lieaven, while i^ub-
se([ueiit sins suecossively led to its further removal to the seventh
heaven. This, however, can scarcely be considered a permanent
sequel of sin, since the good deeds of seven righteous men, beginning
with Abraham, lirought it again, in the time of Moses, to earth."-
Six things Adam is said to have lost by his sin; but even these are
to be restored to man by the Messiah.''' That tire i)hysical death of
Adam was the consequence of his sin, is certainly taught. Other-
wise he would have lived forever, like Enoch and Elijah.'' But
although the fate which overtook Adam was to rest on all the world,''
nnd death came not only on our first father but on his descendants,
and all creation lost its ]X'rfectness,''yet even these temporal sequences
are not universally admitted. It rather seems taught, that death was
intended to be the fate of all, or sent to show the folh' of men claiming
Divine' worship, or to test Avhether piety was real,^ the more so that
with death the weary struggle with our evil inclination ceased.
It was needful to die when our work was done, that others might
enter upon it. In each case death was the consequence of our own,
not of Adam's sin.^ In fact, over these six — Abraham, Isaac, Jacol),
Moses, Aaron, and Miriam — the Angel of Death had had no absolute
power. Xay, there was a time Avhen all Israel were not only free
from death, but like the Angels, and even higher than they. For,
originall}^ God had offered the Law to all Gentile nations," but the}'
had refused to sulnnit to it.' But when Israel took on themselves
the Law at Mount Sinai, the description in Psalm Ixxxii. <5 applied
literally to them. They would not have died, and Avere 'the sons of
God." " But all this was lost by the sin of making the golden calf —
altliough the Talmud marks that, if Israel had continued in that
Angelic state, the nation would have ceased with that generation. -
Thus there were two divergent opinions— the one ascribing death to
personal, the other tracing it to Adam's guilt.'
^ They are: the shininof splendour of
his person, even his heels bein^ like suns ;
his ^iffantic size, from east to west, from
earth to heaven : the spontaneous splen-
did products of the ground, and of all
fruit-trees; an infinitely "greater measure
of lisrht on the part of the lieavenly bod-
ies: and. finally, endless duration of life
(Ber. R. 12. ed. Warsh. ]). 24 h; Ber. Jl.
21; Sanh. .'JS b; Chas;. 12 a; and for flieir
restoration by the Messiah. Bcni. Ii. I?,).
'^ Byamo.st inj^enious theoh)i!:ifal arti-
fice the sin of the ijolden calf, and that of
David are made matter for tlniid<sij:ivin^;
the one as showing that, even if the whole
people sinned. God was willinir to for-
give: the other as proving, tluit God gra-
ciously condescended to each individual
sinner, and that to each the iloDr nf
repentance was oj^en.
■' In the Talmud (Shabb. on a and //)
each view is supported in discussion, tlie
one by a reference to Ezek. xviii. 20. tlie
otlier to 'Eccles. i.\. 2 (com]), also Sii>hr('"
on Deut. .xxxii. 49). The final conclu-
sion, however, greatly- inclines towards
the connection between death and the
fall (see especially the clear statement in
WHENCE THE srFFEi;iX(;s OF isi;aee? 1(j7
When, however, we pass t'roiu tlic i»liysi('al to tlic moral sequences CHAP,
of the fall, our Jewish authorities wholly fail us. They teach, that ^
man is created with two inclinations — that to c\il (tlie yetser Jia-ra), ' — ~~' —
and that to good;-'' the first working in him IVom the beginning, the Targum
latter coming gradually in the course of time.'' \'ct, so far from guilt Gi-n. u.'-
attaching to the Yetser hd-ni, its existence is absolutely necessary, if !,.?i''''-f/-,
the world is to continue." In fact, as the Talmud expressly teaches,* I'^ueaw'
the evil desire or impulse was created by God Himself; while it is 55"',77i/''''
also asserted' that, on seeing the consequences, God actually repented ^"^ "
having done so. This gives quite another character to sin, as due to ,, ^^j,.' Jj^,
causes for which no blame attaches to man.' On the other hand, as 'Sukk.52a,
....,, ,. 1 1 11 J • 1 . ,. , , and Yalkut
it IS m the power ol each wholly to overcome sm, and to gam hie l)y n. p. u\u,
study and works;*' as Israel at Mount Sinai had actually got rid of aJ;""j'pi.
the Yetser ha-ra: and as there had been those, who Avere entirely ?^*'i"i"\r°
righteous," — there scarcely remains any moral seciuence of Adam's fall -^
to be considered. iSimilarly, the Apocrypha are silent on the subject, Kidd. '.'mi, '
the only exception being the very strong language used in II. Esdras, amp'^ie!^
which dates after the Christian era.' ' cSH'"
4. In the absence of felt need of deliverance from sin, avc can icomp. iv.
understand, how Rabbinic tradition found no jdace for the Priestly ji,k^W.'
office of the Messiah, and how even His claims to be the Prophet of e.sJKviaUy
His people are almost entirely overshadowed by His apj^earance as
their King and Deliverer. This, indeed, was the ever-present want,
pressing the more heavily as Israel's national sufferings seemed almost
inexi)licable, while they contrasted so sharply with the glory expected
by the Rabbis. Whence fl/e.sc sufferings /' From sin" — national sin: ^Men.n.n,
the idolatry of former times; ' the prevalence of crimes and vices; the uiitt. i a
dereliction of God's ordinances; " the neglect of instruction, of study, ■« om. 88 «
and of ppoper practice of His Law; and, in later days, the love of
money and party strife." But the seventy years' captivitii had ceased, "Jer.
ivhii not the iiresent dispersion? Because hvpocris}^ had been added Yuma !)'«,'
tiiKl many
to all other Sins; " because there iiad not been proper repentance; '' ouipi- pas-
sages
• Yiima 9 l>
Debar. R. 9, ed. Warsh., p. 20 «). Tliis Of course, the tirst two and tlio hu>t two ,,jp,.
view is also supported by such passaijes chapters in our A])ocryplial H. F.sih'ns Y,,!uai.i
in the Ai)0cryi)ha as Wisdom ii. '2o, 24; are later spurious a<ldltioiis of Clii-istiau
iii. 1, &c. ; while, on the other hand, p]c- authorsliip. But in proof of the iiiHuencf
clus. XV. 1 1-17 seems rather to point in a of the Christian teachiii,y on the writer of
different direction. the Fourth Book of Esdras we may call
1 There can be no question that, des- attention, besides the adoption of the
pile its strong polemical tendency against doctrine of original sin, to the remarkable
Christianity, the Fourtli Book of Esdras application to Israel of such N.T. exprcs-
(II. Esdras in our Apocrypha), written at sions as the 'firstborn,' the 'only-begot-
the close of the first century of our era, ten.' and the 'Well-beloved ' (IV. Esdras
is deeply tinged with Christian doctrine. vi. .")S — in our Apocr. II. Esdras iv. 5S).
168
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
Nidd. l;i h
Yonia I'J l>
>•■ For all
these
poluts
comi). Ber.
.".8 /; : 59 (I ;
Sot. 48 a ;
Shabb.
138 b : Baba
B. 12 a, b
'' Vayyikra
E. 19
fPe.siqta, '
ed. Buber,
l>. 145 a,
last lines
p Mldr, on
Ps.cxxxvli.
•> Peslqta
148 (.
' Chag. 13 b
■t Shemoth
E. 2. ed,
■Warsli. p.
7 li, lines 12
&c.
™ Ber. 3 a :
59 rt
" Pesiqta
119 6; 120 a
liccaiuse of tlie liiiir-hoaitedncs.s of tlie Jewish proselytes; because of
iiupropor inarriages, and other evil eustomsr' and becauf^c of the gro:<s
dissoluteness of certain cities.'' The consequences appeared not onh'
ill the i)olitical condition of Israel, ))ut in the land itself, in the
absence of rain and dew, of fruitfulness and of ]^lenty; in the general
disorder of society; the cessation of piety and of religious study; and
the silence of prophecy.'' As significantly summed up, Israel ^vas
without Priesthood, witliout law, without God." Xay, the Avorld it-
self suflered in consequence of the destruction of the Temple. In a
very remarkalile passage,'' where it is ex])laincd, that the seventy
l)ullocks oflcred during the Feast of Tabernacles were for the nations
of the Avorld. 1\. Jochanan deplores their fate, since while the Temple
had stood the altar had atoned t\)v the Gentiles, but who was now to
do so? The light, Avhich had shone from out the Temple windows
into the world, had been extinguished.'' Indeed, but for the inter-
cession of the Angels the world would now be destroyed.^ In the
poetic language of the time, the heavens, sun, moon and stars, trees
and mountains, even the Angels, mourned over the desolation of the
Temple,'' and the very Angelic hosts had since been diminished.'
But, though the Divine Presence had l)een withdrawn, it still
lingered near His own: it had followed them in all their banish-
ments; it had sutiered with them in all their sorrows.'- It is a toucliing
legend, which represents the Shekhinah as still lingering over the
western wall of the Temple" — the only one supposed to l)e still stand-
ing.^ ^ay. in language still bolder, and wliicli cannot lie fully repro-
duced, God Himself is represented as mourning o-ver Jerusalem and
the Teiuple. He has not entered His Palace since then, and His hair
is wet with the dew.* He weeps over His children and their desolate-
ness,™ and displays in the heavens tokens of mourning, corresjionding
to those which an earthly monarch would show."
All this is to be gloriously set right. Avhen the Lord turneth tlie
captivity of Zion, and the Messiah cometh. But luhen may He be
expected, and what are the signs of His coming? Or perhaps the
qnestiiui sliould thus be put: Why are the redemption of Israel
and tlie coining of the Messiah so unaccountably delayed? It is here
^ This is the Pesiqta. not that which is
generally quoted either as Rahbathi or
Sutfirfd.
^ This iu very many Rabbinical pas-
sages. Comp. Cas1elli',l\ Messia, \^. 17(!.
note 4.
2 In proof tliey appeal to such passages
as 2 Chr. vii. Ifi: Ps. iii. -4; Cant. ii. 9,
proving it even from the decree of Cyrus
(Ezra i. :^.»4), in which (iod is spoken of
as still ii! desolate Jerusalem.
' The i)assage from Yalkut on Is. Ix. 1
is (pioted in full in Ai)pendix IX.
WHY DKLAVKTH THE MKSSIAII HIS ('()MIN(;? jgc^
thai tlic Synagogue finds itself in presence of an insoinhlc mystery, chap.
The explanations attenii)te(l are, confessedly, guesses, or rather at- v
tempts to evade the issue. The only course left is, authoritatively ^— ^r^— '
to impose silence on all such inquiries — the silence, as they would put
it, of implicit, moui-nful submission to the inexplicable, in faith that
somehow, when least expected, deliverance would come; or, as we
would put it, the silence of ever-recurring (lisappointmcnt and despair.
Thus the grand hope of the Synagogue is, as it were, written in an
epitai)h on a broken tombstone, to be repeated l)y the thousands who,
for these long centuries, have washed the ruins of the Sanetuaiw with
unavailing tears.
6. 117/;/ delaiietJi the Jle.ssiah His votii'Difj? Since the l)riefand
broken sunshine of the days of Ezra and Xehemiah, the sky over-
head has ever grown darker, nor have even the terrible storms, which
have burst over Israel, reft the canopy of cloud. The first captivity
passed, why not the second? This is the painful question ever and
again discussed by the Rabbis." Can they mean it seriously, that the » Jer.
sins of the second, are more grievous than those which caused the ed. Kro't. p.
first dispersion; or that they of the first captivity repented, but not parVsanh.
they of the second? What constitutes this repentance which yet
remains to be made? But the reasoning liecomes aljsolutely self-con-
tradictory when, together with the assertion that, if Israel repented
but one (lav, the Messiah would come," we are told, that Israel will •'Micir. ou
• . . . Cant. V. •>,
not repent till Elijah comes.'-' Besides, bold as the languau'e is, there eci. warsh.
. . . . o . p. 25 a;
IS truth in the expostulation, which the ]Midrash'' puts into the mouth sanh. 98 a
of the congregation of Israel: '■ Lord of the world, itde])ends on Thee K^Enez^ls,
that we repent.' Such truth, that, althoua'h at first the Divine replv '''"'
\ .' ' ' . ' " '1 On Lam.
IS a repetition of Zechar, i. 3, vet, when Israel reiterates the words, t. -n. ea.
^ ■ T . ' J Warsh. vol.
'Turn Thou us unto Thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned,' support- in. p. 77a
ing them by Ps. Ixxxv. 4, the argument proves unaiisweral)le.
Other conditions of Israel's deliverance are, indeed, mentioned.
But we can scarcely regard the Synagogue as seriously making the
coming of Messiah dependent on their realisation. Among the most
touching of these is a l)eautiful ])assage (almost reminding us of Heb.
xi.j, in which Israel's future deliverance is described as the reward of "-Tanch. on
^' E.\. XV. 1,
faith.'' Similarlv beautiful is the thouuiit,*^ that, when (lod redeems eii. war.sh.
.p. 1-6 ''
Israel, it will lie amidst their weeping.-' r)Ut neitlier can this be fon.jor.
regarded as the condition of Messiah's comiuii": nor vet such iicneral-
'^ ' . ' -• Tanch. on
ities as the observance of the Law, or of some siiecial commandments. f'"i- ^i^- -•
' ed. Warsh.
The very variety of suggestions '' ^ shows, how utterly unal)le the i, sann. 97 6
1 The reader will tiiid tliese discusr^ioiis .suimiiarii^ed at tin* clo^e of Appendl.x IX.
170 FROM BETIILEIIKM TO .lOIiDAX.
i;()()K Syiia<:i'()<i'U(' lelt to iiKiicatc any condition to Ijo fultiUed l)y Israel.
11 8iicli va^u'ue statements, as that the salvation of Israel depended on
^-— ^. ^ — tlie merits ol" the patriarchs, or on that of one of them, cannot hell)
" sanh. '.18 rt us to a solution; and the long discussion in the Talnnur' leaves no
doul)t, that the final and most sober opinion was, that the time of
Messiah's coming depended not on repentance, nor any other con-
dition, 1)ut on the mercy of (Jod, when the time fixed had arrived.
But even so, we arc again thrown into doubt l)y the statement, that
it might be cither hastened or retarded by Israel's bearing!^
In these circumstances, any attempt at determining tlie date of
Messiah's coming would be even more liyi)othetical than such calcula-
tions generally are.^ Uuesses on the subject could only be grounded
on imaginary symbolisms. Of such we have exami)les in the Talmud.^
Thus, some fixed the date at 4000 years after the Creation — curiously
enough, about the era of Christ — though Israel's sin had blotted out
=' sanh. 97 b tiic wliolc past from the reckoning; others at 4201 from the Creation; ''
others again expected it at the beginning, or end, of the eighty-fitth
Jul)ilee — with this proviso, that it it would not take place cai'lier;
and soon, through equally groundless conjectures, A comparatively
late work si)eaks of five monarchies — Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece,
Rome and Ishmael. During the last of these God would hear the
pirq.Tie cry of Isracl," and the Messiah come, after a terril)le war between
K. KU6S. y*2 *
•111 s 30 " Borne and Ishmael (the West and the Plast).'' But as the rule of these
monarchies was to last altogether one day (=1000 years), less
-comp. two-thirdsof an hour (1 hour:^83| years)," it would follow, that their
EL 48 " ■ domination would last 944* years.* Again, according to Jewish
tradition, the rule of Babylon had lasted TO, that of Medo-Persia .34,
and that of Greece 180 years, leaving 660f years for Bonie and Ish-
mael. Thus the date for the expected Advent of the Messiah would
have been about 661 after the destruction of Jerusalem, or al)out the
year 729 of the Christian era.*
In the category of guesses we must also place such vague state-
ments, as that the Messiah would come, when all were righteous, or
all wicked ; or else nine months after the emi)ii-e of Rome had ex-
1 See, on tlie whole subject, also De- from Saiili.
bar. R. 2. * rinie de R. El. 2S. The reasoninnc
- We iMit asi(l(>, as universally repu- by wliicli this dm-ation of the monarchies
(bated, the opinion e.\i)ressed by one is derived from Ijament. i. 115 and Zech.
Rabbi, that Israel's Messianic era was xiv. 7. is a very curious specimen of
l)ast. the promises havini;; been fulfilled Rabbinic ary-umentation.
in Kiuir Hezekiah (Sanh. OS h; !)!» n). •> Conii). Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. p. 277.
•" See. in Apjiendix IX. the extracts
NATCIM:, rEKSOX, and QIALIFICATIOX.S of MESSIAH. ]71
tt'iidi'd over the whole world;'' or when all the souls, predestined to ciiaI'.
inhabit bodies, had been oneartli. '' But as, after years of uni-elieved v
sutferiuii's, the Synaii-oii-uo had to acknowledge that, one by one, all "- — ". —
the terms liad passed, and as desi)air settled on the heart of Israel, it '■sanh.98(-'
eanie to be generally thought, that the time of Messiah's Advent Ber.'K.'s^'
eould not be known l)eforehand, '' and that speenlation on the subject >TarKuni
was tlangerous, sinful, even damnable. The time of the end had. ,jon. on
indeed, been revealed to two sons of Adam, Jacob and David; ])nt
neither of them had been allowed to make it known. ■* In view of "Midrash
(inP.s. XXXI.
this, it can scarcelv be rcii'arded as more than a svmbolical, thouii'h eii. warsii.
siii-niticant u'uess, when the future redemption of Israel is expected i«toi.-,
on the Paschal Day, the 15th of Nisan. " bottom
(). We now ai)p)'oach tliis most difficult and delicate question: ed.'^Bubpi-,
What was the expectation of the ancient Synagogue, as regarded lopiitr.""
the ^Nature, Person, and qualitications of the Messiah? In answer- shn-.^"^'"""
ing it — not at present from the Old Testament, but from the views l^s!"!!.^'
exi>ressed in Kabbinic literature, and, so far as we can gather from ^i^'j'^'i.-7a^'
the Uospel-narratives, from tliose cherisiied by the contemjioraries of
dirist — two inferences seem evident. First, the idea of a Divine Per-
sonality, and of the nnion of the two Natures in the Messiah, seems
to have been foreign to the Jewish auditory of Jesus of Nazareth,
and even at first to His discii)les. Secondly, they appear to have
regarded the Messiah as far above the ordinary hnman, royal, pro-
})hetic, and even Angelic type, to such extent, that the boundary-line
separating it front Divine Personality is of the nai-rowest, so that,
Avhen the conviction of the reality of the jVIessianic manifestation in
Jesus burst on their minds, this boundary-line was easily, almost
naturally, overstei)ped, and those who would have .shrunk Irom fram-
ing their belief in such dogmatic form, readily owned and worshiiiped
Him as the Son of God. Nor need we wonder at this, even taking
the highest view of Old Testament i)rophecy. For here also the
j)rinciple applies, which underlies one of St. Paul's most wide-reaching
utterances: 'We prophesy in ])art'^ (f/c yufpofg- 7rpo^7/rfZ'o/<fF). ' ficor.xiii.
In the nature of it, all projjhecy in'esents bnt (lisjccfo, nienibra, and
it almost seems, as if we had to take our stand in the prophet's valley
of vision (Ezek. xxxvii.), Avaiting till, at the bidding of the Lord,
' See Ajipeiidix IX. We would add. that tliei'c i.-< always a
- Solitary opinions, however, place (he 'hereafter' of t'urtiier devcloiJHient iu
future redemption in the month Tishrl the history of tiie individual believer, as
(Taneh. on Ex. xii. :!7, ed. Warsh. p. St in that of the Chureii— urowiui;' hri^iUer
I), line 2 from bottom). and briiiliter, witii iiu-reased si)iritual
' See the tellinii; renuirks of Oelilcr in eommunieation and kn()wled<;-e, till at
I[erzo[/'s IJeal-Eneykl., vol. ix. p. 417. last the perfect ii,i;ht is reaeiu'd.
172
FJMJM P.KTIILEIIEM TO JORDAN.
» Ps. Ixxli.
'' Ps. ex.
« Ps. Ixxii.
"» Is. ix. 6 2
CHAP, tho soattorod l)()n('s should ]«' j.tiiicd into a l)ody, to which the l)r('ath
Tl ot'lho spirit wouUl give life.
■^^'' — ' Thcise two iiitbreiiccs, derived li-oiu the (jrospel-nai-ratives, are in
exact accordance with the whole line of ancient Jewish teaching.
Begiiniing with the LXX. rendering of Genesis xlix. 10, and esjje-
cially of jS"unil)ers xxiv. T, IT, we gather, that the Kingdom of the
Messiah^ was higher than any that is earthly, and destined to sulxhie
them all. But the rendering of Psalm Ixxii. .5, T; Psalm ex. 3: and
especially of Isaiah ix. , carries us much farther. They convey the idea,
that the existence of this Messiah was regarded as prcMiiundane
(l)efore the moon, "■ l)efore tlie morning-star''), and etei-nal, ' and Hi.s
Person and dignity as superior to that of men and Angels: 'the
Angel of the Great Council, ' ** probably 'the Angel of the Face' — a
view fully contirmed by the rendering of the Targum.'* The silence
of the Apocryi)ha about the Person of the Messiah is so strange, as
to be scarcely explained ])\ the consideration, that those books were
composed Avhen the need of a Messiah for the deliverance of Israel
was not painfully felt.* All the more striking are the -allusions in
the Pseudepigraphic Writings, although these also do not carry iis
l)eyond our two inferences. Thus, the third book of the Sil\vlline Oracles
— which, with lew exceptions, ^ dates from more than a century and
a half before Christ — presents a picture of Messianic times,\2:enerally
admitted to have formed tlie basis of Virgil's description of the Golden
Age, and of similar lieathen expectations. In these Oracles. 170
years before Christ, the Messiah is • the King sod from ]ie<iven ' wlio
^■tt.285,286 Avould 'judgc cvcry nnm in blood and splendour of tire. " Similarly,
the vision of Messianic times oi)ens with a reference to ' the King
Bv. 652 Whom God will send from the sun.^^ That a sui)erhunian King-
e W. 652-807
I No reasonaljle iloubt can be left on
tlie niiiid, that the LXX. translators
have liere the Messiah in view.
- Tlie criticism of Mr. Driunmond on
these ttiree passages (.Jewish Messiali,
\)\i. 2!K). 2!)1) cannot be supported on
critical ;:;roands.
•■• Tliree, if not fonr. different render-
insis of the Targum on Is. ix. 6 are possi-
ble. But the viinimnm conveyed to my
mind implies the iiremundane existence,
the eternal continuance, and the super-
Imman dii^nity <if the Messiah. (.See also
the Tariium on Micah v. 2.|
^ This is the view of (irimm. and more
fully carried out by Oehler. The ar2;u-
ment of Heiiirstenberj;, that the mention
of such a Messiah was restrained from
fear > i the heatlien, does not deserve
serious refutation.
^ These exceptions are, according to
Friedlii'b (Die Sibyllin. Weissag.) vv.
l-to. vv. 47-!)(; (datin«i from 40-31 be-
fore Chri.st), an<l vv. sls-,s2S. On the
subject ii-enerally, see our previous re-
marks in Book I.
« Mr. Drummond defends (at pp. 274,
275) Holtzmann's view, that the expres-
sion ajiplies to .'^ininn tlie Maecabee,
althoui^h on ]>. 2!)] he ariiMies on the op-
liosite supiiosition that the text refers to
the Messiah. It is dirticnit to under-
.staml. how on readiiiir the whole jiassaire-
the hypothesis of Iloltzmann could Ite
entertained. While referrinj; to the 3rd
Book of the Sib. Or., another point of
THE MESSIAH OF THE rSEUDEPlGRMMHC WinTlN(;ri.
178
CHAP.
y
>> fh. i.-
xxxvi. and
Ixxil.-cv.
(loiii of eternal duration, such a.s this vision j)aints,' sli(»ul(l liave a
su{)erliunuin King, seems ahiiost a necessary corollary.'
Even more distinct are the statements in the so-called ' Book of
Enoch. ' Critics are substantially agreed, that the oldest part of it ''
dates from between 150 and 130 b.c.^ The part next in date is full
of Messianic allusions; but, as a certain class of modern writers has
ascribed to it a post-Christian date, and, however ungrounded,^ to
Christian authorship, it may be better not to refer to it in the present
argument, the more so as we have other testimony from the time of
Herod. Not to speak, therefore, of such peculiar designations of the
Messiah as ' the Woman's Son,'" 'the Son of Man,"" 'the Elect,' and • ixu. 5
' the Just One,' we mark that the Messiah is oxi)ressly designated in xu"^^"^
the oldest porticm as 'the S(ni of God' ('I and My Son').'' That
this implies, not, indeed, essential Sonship, but infinite superiority over
all other servants of Clod, and rule over them, appears from the
mystic description of the Messiah as ' the first of the [now changed]
Avhite bulls,' ' the great Animal among them, having great and black
m. 2;
Ixii. 7 ; Ixix.
29
considerable interest deserves notice.
According to tiie tiieory which places
tlie autliorship of Daniel in the time of
Antiochus Ei)iijhanes — or say abont 165
B.C. — the ' fourth kingdom ' of Daniel
iiHist be the Grecian. But, on tlie other
hand, such certainly was iiof the view
entertained by Apocalypts of the year
l(i5, since the" 3d Book of the Sib. Or.,
w/iic/i dates from jn-ecisdy that period,
not only takes notice of the rising power
of Rome, but anticipates the destruction
of the Grecian Emi)ire by Rome, which
in turn is to be vaniiuished by Israel
(vv. 175-195; 520-544; (i:58-S07). This
most important fact would require to be
accounted for by the opponents of the
authenticity of Daniel.
• I have purposely omitted all refer-
ences to controverted passages. But see
Jjungen, D. Judenth. in Palest. pi).401 &c.
- The next oldest portion, consisting
of the so-called Similitudes (ch. x.xxvii.-
Ixxi.), excepting what are termed ' the
Noachic^ parts, dates from about the
time of Herod the (ireat.
■' HcJiilrer (Lehrb. d. Neutest. Zeitg.
|)p. 534, 535) has, I think, conclusively
shown that this portion of the Book of
F]noch is of Jewish authorship, and jire-
Christian date. If so, it were deeply
interesting to follow its account of the
Messiah. He appears by the side of the
Ancient of Days, His face like the ap-
pearance of a man, and yet so lovely,
like that of one of the lioly Angels. This
' Son of Man ' has, and with Him dwells,
all righteousness; He reveals the treas-
ures of all that is liidden, being chosen by
the Lord, is sui)erior to all, and destined
to subdue and destroy all the powers and
kingdoms of wickedness (cli. xlvi.). Al-
though only revealed at the last. His
Name had been named before God, be-
fore sun or stars were created. He is
the start' on which the righteous lean, the
light of nations, and the hope of all who
mourn in spirit. All are to bow down
before Him, and adore Him, and for this
He was chosen and liidden with God be-
fore the world was created, and will con-
tinue before Him for ever (ch. xlviii.).
This ' Elect One ' is to sit on the throne
of glory, and dwell among His saints.
Heaven and earth would be removed,
and only the saints would abide on the
renewed earth (ch. xlv.). He is mighty
in all the secrets of righteousiu^ss, and
unrighteousness would tiee as a shadow,
because His glory lasteil from eternity to
eternity, and His power from generation
to generation (ch. xiix.). Then would the
earth. Hades, and hell give up their dead,
and Messiah, sitting on His throne, would
select and own the just, and open u)) all
secrets of wisdom, amidst the universal
joy of ransomed earth (cii. li., Ixi., Ixii.).
174
FROM ]]P:THLE11IvM to JORDAN.
BOOK
II
I' in Pa. xi.
^^inPs.xvii.
'1 xviii.
= xvii. 5
fy. 23
g V. 35
i> V. 36
t vv. 42, 43
>" V. 47
"Xil. 32;
xiii. 26,52:
xiv. 9
honi.s oil 1 1 is licad " '' — Whom ' all the beasts of the field aud all the
fowls of heaven dread, and to Whom they cry at all times.'
Still more explicit is that beautiful collection of eighteen Psalms,
dating from about lialf a century before Christ, which bears the name
of 'the Psalter of Solomon.' A chaste antici})ation of the Messianic
Kingdom '' is followed by a full description of its need and its bless-
ings," to which the concluding Psalm ''forms an apt epilogue. The
King Who reigns is of the house of David.'' He is the Son of David,
Who comes at the time known to God only, to reign over Israel. "^
He is a righteous King, taught of God.^ He is Christ tlie Lord
(XpicTTog Kvpio?:,^ exactly as in the LXX. translation ofLamentations
iv. 20). ^ He is 2yure from si7i,' which, qualities Him for ruling His
people, and banishing sinners by His word.' ' Never in His days will
He be infirm towards His God, since God renders Him strong in the
Holy Ghost,' wise in counsel, Avith might and righteousness (' mighty
in deed and word '). The blessing of the Lord being upon Him, He
does not fail." ' This is the beauty of the King of Israel, Whom God
hath chosen, to set Him over the house of Israel to rule it.'" Thus
invincible, not by outward might, but in His God, He will bring His
people the blessings of restoration to their tribal possessions, and (jf
righteousness, but break in pieces His enemies, not by outward weapons,
but by the word of His mouth; purify Jerusalem, and judge the
nations, who will be subject to His rule, and behold and own His gloj-y."
Manifestly, this is not an earthly Kingdom, nor yet an earthly King.
If we now turn to works dating after the Christian era, we would
naturally expect them, either simply to reproduce earlier opinions, or,
from opposition to Christ, to present the Messiah in a less exalted
manner.^ But since, strange to say, they even more strongly assert
the high dignity of the Messiah, we are warranted in regarding this
as the rooted belief of the Synagogue.- This estimate of the Messiah
may be gathered from IV Esdras,"'* with which the kindred picture of
' In illustration of this tomleiicy we
may (iu<jte the follo\vinf>-, evidently i)oleni-
icai saying, of R. Abbahu. ' If any man
saith to thee. "I am God," he is a liar;
"I am the Son of Man," he will at last
repent of it; " I .iro up to heaven," hath
he said, and shall lie not do it?' [or,
he hath said, and shall not make it
f?ood] (.Jer. Taan. ]). C>:y fi. line 7 from
bottom). This R. Alibalm (27<)-P.2() of
our era) seems to have laricely engaii-ed
in controversy with .Fewish Cliristians.
Thus lie sonu^ht to arirue aii'ainst the
Soiiship of Christ, 1)y ci>iniiieiitin,i>', as
follows, on Is. xliv. (i: ' " I am the tir.st "
— liecause He has no father; '•! am the
last" — because He has no Son; '-and
lieside me there is no God " — becau.se
He has no brother (equal)' (Shem. R. 29,
ed. Warsh. vol. ii. p. 41 a, line 8 from bot-
tom).
-' It is. to say the least, a iiity that Mr.
Drummond should have imatcined that
the f|uestion could be so easily settled
on the premises which he presents.
■■' The 4tii IJuok of Esdrasfin our Ajiocr.
THE MESSIAH OF THE TALMUD.
175
the Messiah iind His reigii iu the Apocalypse of B;n-uch ' may l)('
eompared. But even in strictly Rabbinic documents, the prentunduni',
if not the eternal existence of the Messiah appears as matter of com-
mon belief. Such is the view expressed in the Targum on Is. ix. 0,
and in that on Micah v. 2. But the Midrash on Prov. viii. 9 '' ex-
pressly mentions the Messiah among the seven things created before
the world.' The passage is the more important, as it throws light on
quite a series of others, in which the Name of the Messiah is said to
have been created before the world. '^ Even if this were an ideal
conception, it would prove the Messiah to be elevated above the ordi-
nary conditions of humanity. But it means much more than this,
since not only the existence of the Messiah long before His actual
appearance, but His p>-emi^w(Za/ie state are clearly taught in other
places. In the Talmud '^ it is not only implied, that the Messiah may
already be among the living, but a strange story is related, according
to which He had actually been born in the royal palace at Bethlehem,
bore the name Menachem (Comforter), was discovered by one R. Judan
through a peculiar device, but had been carried away by a stoiMii,
Similarly, the Babylon Talmud represents Him as sitting at the
gate of Imperial Rome."' In general, the idea of the Messiah's
appearance and concealment is familiar to Jewish tradition. '^ But
the Rabbis go much farther back, and declare that from the time of
Judah's marriage,^ ' God busied Himself with creating the light of
the Messiah,' it being significantly added that, 'before the first op-
pressor [Pharaoh] was born, the final deliverer [Messiah, the son of
David] was already born."' In another passage the Messiah is ex-
pressly identified with A nani, ' and therefore represented as pre-existent
long before his actual manifestation." The same inference may be
drawn from His emphatic designation as the First."" Lastly, in Yalkut
on Is. Ix., the words 'In Thy light shall we see light' (Ps. xxxvi. 9) are
II. Esdras) dates from the end of the tirst
century of our era — aud so does tlie
Apocalypse of Baruch.
1 These are: the Throne of Glory,
Messiah the King, the Torah, (ideal)
Israel, the Temple, repentance, and
Gehenna.
■^ In Pirqe de R. El. and the other
authorities these seven things are: the
Torah, Gehenna, Paradise, the Throne
of Glory, the Temple, repentance, and
the Name of the Messiah.
3 In Ber. R. six things are mentioned:
two actually created (the Torah and
the Throne of Glory), and four which
came into His Mind to create them (the
Fathers, Israel, the Temple, and the
Name of the Messiah).
* In Tanch. seven things are enumer-
ated (the six as in Ber. R., with the
addition of repentance), ' aud some say:
also Paradise aud Gehenna.'
^ In that passage the time of Messiah's
concealment is calculated at forty-li\('
days, from a comparison of Dan. xii. 1 1
with V. 12.
^ The comment on this passage is
curiously mystical, but clearly imi^lies
not only the pre-existence, but the super-
human character of the Messiah.
CHAP.
" ixx. y-
Ixxiv.
I'Ed. LBinb.
p. la
'■ Pirqe de
n. E. 3:
Midr.onPs.
xcUi. 1 : P.S.
54o;Ncdar.
39 h ; Ber.
E. 1:
Tanch. on
Nuiiib. vli.
U, ed.
Warsh.
vol. ii. p.
56 t), at the
bottom
<> Jer. Ber.
ii. 4, p. 5 a
■■Sanh. 98 a;
conii". al.s()
Jerua.
Targ. ou
Ex. xii. 42;
Pirqe de E.
El. 30, and
other pas-
sages
f See for
example
Pesiqta.ed
Buber, p.
49 6 i
sGen..
xxxviii. 1, 2
!> Ber. R. 85,
ed. Warsh.
p. 151 b
'Mentioned
iu 1 Chr.iii.
24 «
'' Tanch.
Par.
To edoth,
14. ed.
Warsh. p.
37 6
m Ber. R. 63,
ed. Warsh.
p. 114 '):
Vayyikra
B. 30, ed.
W. vol. ill.
p. 47 a;
Pes. 3 a
ne
FROM ]!1:T1ILP:IIEM to JORDAN.
HOOK
II
Yalkut ii.
fcShem.K.l,
ed.W. vol.
ii. p. n li :
Tan I -li. Par.
Tazrva, 8,
ed.W. vol.
ii. p. £0 a
•^ Peslqta,
ed. Buber,
p. 49 '/ ;
Midr.
Ruth, Par.-),
ed.W. p.
43 //
'I Sanh. 98 (!
' Plrqe de
R. El. 31,
ed. Lemb.
p. 38 a
<■ Plrqe de
K. El. u. s..
p. 39 a,
close
f Beiiiid.
R. IS, close
of tbcPar.
•• Ps. Ixxii.
16
i According
to the last
clause of
(English
version)
.Joel iii. 18
(Midr. on
Eccles. i. 9,
ed. Warsh,
vol. iv.
p. 80 //I
c.xpliiiiu'd as iiicauiiiii-, that this is the light of the Messiah, — the same
which (iod had at the lirst pronounced to be very good, and whieli,
Ijelore the world was created, He had hid beneath the throne of His
glory for the Messiah and His age. When Satan asked for whom it
was reserved, he was told that it was destined for Him Who would
})ut him to shame, and destroy him. And when, at his request, he
was shown the Messiah, he fell on his face and owned, that the
Messiah would in the future cast him and the Gentiles into Gehenna.'*
Whatever else may be inferred from it, this passage clearly implies not
only the pre-existence, but the premundane existence of the Messiah.'
But, indeed, it carries us much farther. For, a Messiah, pre-
existent, in the I'resence of God, and destined to subdue Satan and
cast him into hell, could not have been regarded as an ordinary man.
It is indeed true that, as the history of Elijah, so that of the Messiah
is throughout compared with that of Moses, the ' first ' with ' the last
Redeemer.' As Moses was educated at the court of Pharaoh, so the
Messiah dwells in Rome (or PJdom) among His enemies.'' Like Moses
He comes, withdraws, and comes again." Like Moses He works
deliverance. But here the analogy ceases, for, whereas the redemption
by Moses was temporary and comparatively small, that of the Messiah
would be eternal and absolute. All the marvels connected with
Moses were to be intensified in the Messiah. The ass on which the
Messiah would ride — and this humble estate was only caused by
Israel's sin'^ — would be not only that on which Moses had come back
to Egypt, but also that which Abraham had used when he went to
offer up Isaac, and which had l)een specially created on the eve of the
world's first Sabbath." Similarly, the horns of the ram caught in the
thicket, which was offered instead of Isaac, were destined for blowing
— the left one by the Almighty on Mount Sinai, the right and larger
one by the Messiah, when He would gather the outcasts of Israel (Is.
xxvii. 13).' Again, the 'rod' of the Messiah was that of Aaron,
which had budded, ))lossomed, and burst into fruit; as also that on
which Jacob had leaned, and w^hich, through Judah, had passed to all
the kings of Israel, till the destruction of the Temple.*^ And so the
principle that '■ the later Deliverer would l)o like the first ' was carried
into every detail. As the first Deliverer brought doivn the Manna, so
the Messiah ; ^ as the first Deliverer had made a spring of water to
rise, so ivould the second.'
' The whole of tlii.s very remarkable passage is given in Ajjpendix IX., in the
notes on Is. x.w. 8; l.\. 1 ; l.xiv. 4; .Ter. .xxxi. 8.
liAPT JEWISH HOPE OF THE MESSIAH. 177
But evoii this is not all. Tlvdt the Messiah had, without any CIIAI'.
instruction, attained to knowledge ol" God; ■' and that He had received, V
dire(!tly from Ilini, all wisdom, knowledge, counsel, and grace,'' is "-^ — '
comparatively little, since the same was claimed for Al)raham, Job, ^^®^g^-
and Hezekiah. But we ai-e told that, when God showed Moses all warah.
■ p. 5o a
his successors, the spirit of wisdom and knowledge in the Messiali 'Bemid. r.
equalled that of all tlie others together.' The Messiah would be ' ,, .
1 '^ '-■ \alkut on
'greater tlian the Patriai'chs,' higher than Moses,' and even loftier ^""i>,,.
than the ministering Angels:^ In view of this we can understand, ^^^'-J- 1'-
how the Midrash on Psalm xxi. 3 should apply to the Messiah, in all ■iTancn..
Par Xol6-
its literality, that 'God would set His own crown on His head,' and dottiu
clothe Him with His 'honour and majesty.' It is onh^ consistent that
the same Midrash should assign to the Messiah the Divine designations:
%I(!liovali is a Man of War,' and 'Jehovah our Righteousness.'" Tehfii'ed
One other quotation, from perhai)s the most spiritual Jewish ^^^^f^-
commentary, must be added, reminding us of that outburst of
adoring wonder which once greeted Jesus of Nazareth. The pas-
sage first refers to the seven garments with v^^hich God successively
robed Himself — the first of 'honour and glory,' at creation; "^ the fps. civ. i
second of 'nmjesty,' at the Red Sea; ° the third of 'strength,' at pps. xcui. i
the giving (jf the Law;'' the fourth 'white,' when He blotteth out ^ps. xcui. i
the sins of Israel;' the fifth of 'zeal,' when He avengetli them of iDan. vu. 9
their enemies;" the sixth of 'righteousness,' at the time when the ms. ux. it
Messiah should be revealed; '" and the seventh ' red,' when He would »■!«. ux. \i
take vengeance on Edom (Rome). " ' But,' continues the commentarj', "is. ixm.
' the garment with which in the future He will clothe the Messiah,
its splendour will extend from one end of the world to the other, as
it is written: " ' 'As a bridegroom priestly in headgear. " And Israel are •> is. ixi. lo
astounded at His light, and say: Blessed the hour in which the Messiah
was created; blessed the womb whence He issued; blessed the genera-
tion that sees Him; blessed the eye that is worthy to behold Him; be-
cause the opening of His lips is blessing and peace, and His speech quiet-
ing of the spirit. Glory and majesty are in His appearance (vesture),
and confidence and tranquillity in His words; and on His tongue
compassion and forgiveness; His prayer is a sweet-smelling odour,
and His supplication holiness and purity. Happy Israel, what is
reserved for vou! Thus it is written:'' "How manifold is Thy pPs. xxxi.
19
goodness, which Thou hast reserved to them that fear Tliee." ' '^ Such , pesiqta.
a King Messiah might well be represented as sitting at the Right pp. ^^s^ a^'/-
' This is tiu! more iiotevvorthy as, ac- so ,2;reat as Moses, who was only inferior
cording to SoUih 9 b, none in Israel was to the Aimi2;hty.
178
Fi;()M UKTHLKIIEM To .lOliDAN.
15()()1
•' Midr. on
Ps. xviii.iiG,
ed. War.Hli.
p. 27 (/
* Midr. on
Ps.cx.l.ed.
Warsh.
p. W b
« Ber. R. 2:i,
ed Warsh.
p. 45 h
•> Gen. xix.
32
'• Ber. R. 51
ed. Warah.
p. 9.5 a
fBer. R. 2;
and 8;
Vayyikra
R. U. ed.
Warsh. vol.
Hi. I), il ''
? Midr. on
Lament,
i. 16, ed
Warsh.
p. 64 fl, last
line comp.
Pesiqta,
p. 14K a : *
Midr. on
Ps.xxi. and
the very
curious
conces-
sions in a
contro-
versy with
a Christian
recorded in
Sanh. a8 b
Hand of (t(xI, while Al)raliain was oiil^ at His left:" nay, as throw-
ing forth His Right Hand, while God stood up to war for Him."
It is not without hesitation, that we make reference to Jewish
alhisions to the miraculous birth of the Saviour. Yet there are two
expressions, which convey the idea, if not of superhuman origin, yet
of some great mystery attaching to His birth. The first occurs in
connection with the birth of Seth. ' Rabbi Tanchuma said, in the
name of Rabbi Samuel: I^vc had respect [had regard, looked for-
ward] to that Seed which is to come from another place. And who
is this? This is Messiah the King.'" The second appears in the
narrative of the crime of Lot's daughters:'^ 'It is not written, ''that
wx may preserve a son from our father," but "seed from our father."'
This is that seed which is coming from another place. And who is
this? This is the King Messiah.'^'
That a superhuman character attached, if not to the Personality,
yet to the Mission of the Messiah, appears from three passages, in
which the, expression, ' The Spirit of the Lord moved upon the face
of the deep,' is thus paraphrased: ' This is the Spirit of the King
Messiah. "^'^ Whether this implies some activity of the Messiah in
connection with creation,* or only that, from the first. His Mission
was to have a bearing on all creation, it elevates His character and
work above every other agency, human or Angelic. And, without
pressing the argument, it is at least very remarkable that even the
Ineffable Name JehovaJi is expressly attributed to the Messiah. « The
1 I am, of course, aware that certain
Rabbinists explain tlie expression ' Seed
from another place,' as referrinfi to the
descent of the Messiah from Ruth — a
non-Israelite. But if this explanation
could be offered in reference to the
daughters of Lot, it is difficult to see its
meaning in reference to Eve and the
birth of Seth. The connection there with
the words (Gen. iv. 25), 'God hath ap-
pointed me another Seed,' would be the
very loosest.
'^ I am surprised, tliat CastelU (u. s.
I). 207) should have contended, that the
reading in Ber. R. 8 and Vay. R. 14
should be ' the Spirit of Adam.' For (1)
the attempted correction gives neitlier
sense, nor proper meaning. (2) The
passage Ber. R. 1 is not impugned; yet
that passage is tiie basis of the otiier
two. (3) Ber. R. 8 must read, 'The
Spirit of God moved on the deej) — that
is, the Si)irit of Messiah the King,' because
the proof-passage is immediately added.
'and the spirit of the Lord shall rest
upon Him,' whicli is a Messianic passage;
and because, only two lines before the
impugned passage, we are told, that Gen.
i. 2(i, Lst clause, refers to the 'spirit of the
first man.' The latter remark applies
also to Vayyikra R. 14, where the context
equally forljids the proposed correction.
•' It would be very interesting to com-
l)are with this the statements of Philo as
to the agency of ihe Logos in Creation.
The subject is very well treated by Biehm
(Lehrbegr. d. Hebr. Br. pp. 414-420).
althougli I cannot agree w-ith all his con-
clusions.
* The whole of this passage, beginning
at p. 147 h, is very curious and deeply in-
teresting. It would lead too far to quote
it, or other parallel passages which miglit
be adduced. Tlie passage in the Midrasli
on Lament, i. l(i is also extremely inter-
esting. After tlie statement quoted in
the text, there follows a discussion on
the names of the Messiah, and then the
I'RKI'AliKDNEHS FOi; ()\VNiN(; IIIM AS Till-: SON OF (lOD. 179
fact bocuiiies the more sigiiiticaiit, when we recall thai one of the CHAP,
most familiar names of the Mesf^iah was Anani — He Who cometh in V
the clouds of heaven." ^ — -<- —
In what has been stated, no reference has been made to the tinal 'Kan.vu.ia
conquests of Messiah, to His reign with all its wondei's, or to the
subdual of all nations — in short, to what are commonly called 'the
last things.' This will be treated in another connection. Nor is it
contended that, whatever individuals may have expected, the Syna-
gogue taught the doctrine of the Divine I'ersonality of the Messiah,
as held by the Christian Church. On the other hand, the cumulative
evidence just presented must leave on the mind at least this con-
viction, that the Messiah expected was far above the conditions of the
most exalted of God's servants, even His Angels; in short, so closely
bordering on the Divine, that it was almost impossible to distinguish
Him therefrom. In such circumstances, it only needed the personal
conviction, that He, Who taught and wrought as none other, was
really the Messiah, to kindle at His word into the adoring confession,
that He was indeed 'the Son of the Living God.' And once that
point reached, the mind, looking back through the teaching of the
Synagogue, would, with increasing clearness, perceive that, however
ill-understood in the past, this had been all along the sum of the
whole Old Testament. Thus, we can understand alike the prepared-
ness for, and yet the gradualness of conviction on this point; then,
the increasing clearness with which it emerged in the consciousness
of the disciples; and, finally, the unhesitating distinctness with which
it was put forward in Ajiostolic teaching as the fundamental article
of belief to the Church Catholic'
curious story about tlie ^les^iah havuii;; tinal conchision, that tbe Messiah was
already been born in Bothlelieni. truly the Son of God, while it has been
1 It will be noticed, that the cuniula- our purpose simi)ly to state, what wis
tive argument presented in the foreiiMiinn" the exjjectation of the (indent Si/iiii-
pages follows closely tluit in the first gogne, not what it should have been ac-
chapter of the lilpistle to tlie Hebrews; cording to the Old Testameut.
only, that the latter carries it up to its
1^0 FKOxM BETHLEHEM TO .lOllDAN,
CHAPTER YI.
THE NATIVITY OF JESUS THE MESSIAH.
(St. Matthew i. 25; St. Luke ii. 1-20.)
BOOK Such then was ' the hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers,'
II for which the twelve tribes, 'instantly serving- ((iod) night and day,'
-— r ' longed — with such vividness, that they read it in almost every event
and promise; with such earnestness, that it ever was the burden of their
prayers; with such intensity, that nmny and long centuries of disap-
pointment have not quenchetl it. Its light, comparatively dim in days
of sunshine and calm, seemed to burn Indghtest in the dark and h)U('ly
nights of suffering, as if each gust that swept over Israel only kindled
it into fresh flame.
To the (juestion, whether this hoi)c has ever been realised — or
rather, whether One has appeared Whose claims to the Messiahship
have stood the test of investigation and of time — impartial history
can make only one answer. It points to Bethlehem and to Nazareth.
If the claims of Jesus have been rejected by the Jewish Nation, He
has at least, undoubtedly, fulfilled one partofthe Mission prophetically
assigned to the Messiah. Whether or not He l)e the Lion of the
tribe of Judah, to Him, assuredly, has 1)een the gathering of the
nations, and the isles have waited for His law. Passing the narrow
bounds of obscure Judasa, and breaking down the walls of national
prejudice and isolation, He has made the sublimer teaching of the
Old Testament the common j^ossession of the world, and founded a
great Brotherhood, of which tlie God of Israel is the Father. He
alone also has exhibited a life, in which absolutely no fault could be
found; and promulgated a teaching, to which absolutely no exception
can be taken. Admittedly, He was the One 'perfect Man — the ideal
of humanity. His doctrine the one absolute teaching. The world
has known none other, none equal. And the world has owned it, if
not by the testimony of words, yet by the evidence of facts. Spring-
ing from such a people; born, living, and dying in circumstances, and
using means, the most unlikely of such residts — the Man of Nazareth
TIIK JOUUNEY OF JU.SEPH AND MARY TO BETHLEHEM.
181
lias, 1)} uuiver.sal coiisout, been the mightiest Factor in oui' world's CHAI'.
history: alike politically, socially, intellectually, and morally. If VI
He be not the Messiah, He has at least thus far done the Messiah's ^^ — r —
work. If He be not the Messiah, there has at least ])een none other,
before or after Him. If He be not the Messiah, the woi-ld has not,
and never can have, a Messiah.
To Bethlehem as the birthplace of Messiah, not only Old Testa-
ment prediction,'' but the testimony of Rabbinic teaching-, unhesi- "Micauv. 2
tatingly pointed. Yet nothing could be imagined more directly contrary
to Jewisli thoughts and feelings — and hence nothing less likely to
suggest itself to Jewish invention' — than the circumstances which,
according to the Gospel-narrative, brought about the birth of the
Messiah in Bethlehem. A counting of the people, or Census; and
that Census taken at the bidding of a heathen Emi)eror, and
executed by one so universally hated as Herod, wouhl represent the /«e
plus ultra of all that was most repugnant to Jewish feeling. ' It the
account of the circumstances, which brought Joseph and Mary to
Bethlehem, has no basis in fact, but is a legend invented to locate
the birth of the Nazarene in the royal City of David, it must be
pronounced most clumsily devised. There is absolutely nothing to
account for its origination — either from parallel events in the past, or
from contemporary expectancy. Why then connect the birth of
their Messiah with what was most repugnant to Israel, especially if,
as the advocates of the legendary hypothesis contend, it did not
occur at a time when any Jewish Census was taken, but ten years
previously?
But if it be impossible rationally to account for any legendary
origin of the narrative of Josei)h and Mary's journey to Bethlehem,
the historical grounds, on which its accuracy has been impugned, are
equally insufficient. They resolve themselves into this: that (beyond
the Gospel-narrative) we have no solid evidence that Cyrenius was at
that time occupying the needful official position in the East, to order
such a registration for Herod to carry out. But even this feeble con-
tention is by no means historically unassailable. ^ At any rate, there
' The advocates of the mythical theory l)eii Jesu i. 2, p. 393) ; but all the more
hav(i not answered, not even faced or comjilicated and inexplicable is the ori,i!;i-
iuid(U'stood, what to us seems, on their nation of the leu'cnd, wliich accounts for
hypothesis, an insuperable difficulty, the journey thitlier of Mary and Joseph,
(irantina;, that Jewish expectancy would '■' In evidence of these feelin,<''s, we
suffsest tlie birth of Jesus at Bethleliem. have the account of ,Josep/ii/s of the con-
why invent such circumstances to tuing sequences of the taxation of Cyrenius
Mary to Bethlehem? Keiit/ maylK' rift-ht (Ant. xviii. 1. 1. Couip. Acts v. 37).
in saying: 'The belief in the birth at -^ The arguments on what may be called
l?(^thlehem originated very simply (Le- the ortliodox side have, from difierent
182
FROM BETHLEIIEM TO .lOIJDAN.
BOOK
n
"Com p.
Acts V. 37
are two facts, which render any lii.^torical mistake by 8t. Luke on
this point extremely difficnlt to believe. First, he was evidently
aware of a Census under Cyrenius, ten years later;" secondly, what-
ever rendering of St. Luke ii. 2 may be adopted, it will at least be
admitted, that the intercalated sentence about Cyrenius was not
necessary for the narrative, and that the writer must have intended
thereby emphatically to mark a certain event. But an author would
not be likely to call special attention to a fact, of which he had only
indistinct knowledge; rather, if it must be mentioned, would he do
so in the most indefinite terms. This presumption in favour of St.
Luke's statement is strengthened by the consideration, that such an
event as the taxing of Judaea must have been so easily ascertainable
by him.
We are, however, not left to the presumptive reasoning just set
forth. That the Emperor Augustus made registers of the Roman
Em])ire, and of sulyect and tributary states, is now generally ad-
mitted. This registration — for the purpose of future taxation-; —
would also embrace Palestine. Even if no actual order to that elTect
had been issued during the lifetime of Herod, we can understand that
he would deem it most expedient, both on account of his relations to
the Emperor, and in view of the probable excitement which a heathen
Census would cause in Palestine, to take steps for making a registra-
tion, and that rather according to the Jewish than the Roman manner.
This Census, then, arranged by Augustus, and taken by Herod in his
own manner, was, according to St. Luke, ' first [really] carried out
when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria,' some years after Herod's death
and when Judaea had become a Roman province. ^
We are now prepared to follow the course of the Gospel-narrative.
In consequence of 'the decree of Caesar Augustus,' Herod directed a
general registration to be made after the Jewish, rather than the
Roman, nmnner. Practically the two would, indeed, in this instance,
be very similar. According to the Roman law, all country-people
were to be registered in their ' own city ' — meaning thereby the town
to which the village or place, where they were born, was attached. In
])oints of view, been so often and well
stated — latterly by Wieseler, Huschke,
Zumpt, and Steinmeyer — and on tlie
other side almost ad nauseam by ne.ijati ve
critics of every school, that it seems un-
necessary to CO asain over them. The
reader will find the whole subject stated
by Canon ('<>()k. whose views we sub-
stantially adopt, in the 'Sjteaker's Com-
mentary' (N.T. i. pp. 326-329). The
reasoninfi of Mommsen (Res gestae D.
Aug. pp. 17.5, 176) does not seem to me
to affect the view taken in the text.
1 For the textual explanation we again
refer to Canon Cook, only we would
mark, with Steinmeyer, that the meaning
of the exi)re,ssior> kyEvEvo, in St. Luke
ii. 2. is determined bv the similar use of
IN BETHLEHEM. Ig3
SO doing, the 'house and lineage ' (the tiomen and cognomen) ofeaeh chap.
were marked.' According to the Jewish mode of registration, the vi
people would have been enrolled according to tribes (r\''::'z),famUiefi or ^~ — <
clans (mnSw"::), and the Iio/isc of their fathers fniZN' n*2j. But as '
the ten tribes had not I'cturnod to Palestine, this could only take
place to a very limited extent,-' while it would be easy for each to be
registered in ' his own city.'- In the case of Jose})!! and Mary, vvliose
descent from David was not only known, but where, for the sake of
the unborn Messiah, it was most important that this should be distinctly
noted, it was natural that, in accordance with Jewish law, they
should have gone to Bethlehem. rerhajjs also, for many reasons
which will readily suggest themselves, Joseph and Mary might be
glad to leave Nazareth, and seek, ifp()ssil)le, a home in Bethlehem.
Indeed, so strong was this feeling, that it afterwards recjuired special
Divine direction to induce Joseph to relinquish this chosen place of
residence, and to return into Galilee. '' In these circumstances, Marv, ^st. Matt.
. . . . ' ■ 11. 22
now the 'wife' of Joseph, though standing to him only m the actual
relationship of ' betrothed,"' would, of course, accompany her husband ^st. Luke
to Bethlehem. Irrespective of this, every feeling and hope in her
must have prompted such a course, and there is no need to discuss
whether llonian or Jewish 'Census-usage required her presence — a
question which, if put, would have to be answered in the negative.
The short winter's day was probably closing in,^ as the two travel-
lers from Nazai'cth, liringing with them the few necessaries of a
poor Eastern household, nearcd their journey's end. If we think of
Jesus as the Messiah from heaven, the surroundings of outward
poverty, so far from detracting, seem most congruous to His Divine
character. Earthly splendor would here seem like tawdry tinsel,
and the utmost simplicity like that clothing of the lilies, which far
suri)assed all the glory of Solomon's court. But only in the East
would the most absolute sinqilicity l)e possible, and yet neither it,
nor the poverty from which it sprang, necessarily imi)ly even the
slightest taint of social inferiority. The way had been long and
it. in Acts xi. 28, where what was pre- ' eiiie Sache der Uniiionlichkeit.'
tlictedissaidtoiiaveactually taken place ■* Tiiis, ol course, is only a conjtjclure;
(iT'eVero) atthe time of CUuidius Ca'sar. but I call it • probalilc,' partly because
' Comp. IIitsr//k(', Ueber d. z. Zeit d. one would naturally so arrauiic a. journey
C{eb. .T. C. fjehalt. Census pp. 119, 120. of several days, to nudve its sta,i;es as
Most critics have written very confusedly slow and easy as possible, and i)artly
on this point. from the circumstance, that, on their ar-
- The reader will now be able to ap- rival, they found the khan full, which
predate the value of Keiin's objections would scarcely have been the case had
ajjainst such a Census, as involving; a they reached Bethlehem early in the
' wahre Volkswanderung ' (!), and being day.
184 FROM J5ETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
HOOK weary — at the very least, three days' journoy, whatever route had been
II taken Iroiii Galih^e. Most i)r(^l)ahly it woidd be that so eoniiuonly
'^ — . followed, Iroiii a desire to avoid Samaria, aloii.u' the eastern l)anks
of the Jordan, and l)y the fords of Jericho.' Althou,n-h passing
through one of the warmest parts of the country, the season of the
year must, even in most favorable eireumstanees, have greatly
increased tlie ditticulties of such a journey. A sense of rest and
peace must, almost unconsciously, have crept over the travellers when
at last they reached the rich tields that surrounded the ancient
'House of Bread," and, i)assing through the valley which, like an
amphitheatre, sweeps up to the twain heights along which Bethlehem
stretches (2,704 feet a])()ve the sea), ascended through the terraced
vineyards and gai-dens. Winter tliough it was, the green and silvei-y
foliage of the olive might, even at that season, mingle with the pale
pink of the almond — nature's ' early waker ' ^ — and with the darker
coloring of the ojjening peach-buds. The chaste beauty and sweet
quiet of the place would I'ccall memories of Boaz, of Jesse, and of
David. All the more would such thoughts suggest themselves, from
the contrast between the past and the present. For, as the travellers
reached the heights of Bethlehem, and, indeed, long before, the
most prominent object in view must have been the great castle which
Herod had l)uilt, and called after his own name. Perched on the
highest hill south-east of Bethlehem, it was, at the same time
"^bs. Ant. magnificent palace, strongest fortress, and almost 'courtier-city. =■
xiv. 13. 9; .'^ .
XV. 9. 4; With a sense of relief the travellers would turn from this, to
War 1 13
3; 21, io mark the undulating outlines of the highland wilderness of Judaea,
till the horizon was bounded by the mountain-ridges of Tekoa.
Through the break of the hills eastward the heavy UKjlten surface
of the Sea of Judgment would ai)pear in view; westward wound
the road to Hebron; behind them lay the valleys and hills which
separated Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and concealed the Holy City.
But for the present such thoughts would give way to the pressing
necessity of finding shelter and rest. The little town of Bethlehem
was crowded with those who had come from all the outlying district
to register their names. Even if the strangers from ftir-off Galilee
had been personally acquainted with any one in Bethlehem, who
could have shown them hospitality, they would have found every
' Comj). the account of the roads, inns, - The almond is called, in Hebrew,
<tc. in the 'History of tiie.Jewisli Nation,' -;->'2;, 'the waker,' from the word 'to
p. 275; and the cha])ter on Travellinic , i > t* • •♦ -i i +i, *
in Palestine,' in 'Sketches of .Tewi.sh ^^« ^^'ff/ ^^ !' quite possible, that
Social Life in the Davs of Clwi.st.' '"''^Y "^ the earliest spnnir .flowers al-
ready made tlie landscape briijht.
St.Luke i.
THE NATIVITY. 1^5
house fully occupied. The very inn was tilled, and the only availahlc ciiap.
space was, where ordinarily the cattle were stabled.' Bearing in tnind vi
the simple habits of the East, this scarcely implies, what it would — • '
in the West; and perhaps the seclusion and privacy from the noisy,
chattci'inii: crowd, which thronged the khan, would l)e all the more
welcome. Scanty as these particulars are, even thus much is
gathered ratlier by inference than from the narrative itself. Thus
early in this history does the absence of details, which painfully
increases as we proceed, remind us, that the Gospels were not
intended to furnish a biography of Jesus, nor even the materials for
it; but had only this twofold object: that those who read them
' might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,' and that
believing they 'might have life through His Name.''' The Christian "St. John
heart and imagination, indeed, long to be able to localise the scene of comp."
such surpassing importance, and linger with fond reverence over that
Cave, which is now covered by Hhe Church of the Nativity.' It may
be — nay, it seems likely — that this, to which the most venerable
tradition points, was the sacred spot of the world's greatest event.*
Butcertainty we have not. It is better, that it should be so. As to
all that passed in the seclusion of that 'stable' — the circumstances
of the 'Nativity,' even its exact time after the arrival of Mary (brief
as it must'have been) — the Gospel-narrative is silent. This only is
told, that then and there the Virgin-Mother ' brought forth her first-
born Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a
manger. ' Beyond this announcement of the bare fact, Holy Scripture,
with indescribable appropriateness and delicacy, draws a veil over
that most sacred mystery. Two impressions only are left on the
mind: that of utmost earthly humility, in the surrounding circum-
' Dr. (ietkie indeed 'feels sure' tliat term occurs in Aniuiaic form, in tJab-
the KaraXvua wtis not an inn, but a binic writings, as n*"i"« or '':i-r=('rj-'
guest-chamber, because the word is used ' ** • ' '■ ~
in that sense in St. Mark xiv. U, Lulce xxii. KoczaXvfia, an inn. Dditzsch, in his He-
11. But this inference is critically un- brew N.T., uses the more common «V?):-
tenable. The Greek word is of very wide Bazaars and markets were also held in
application, and means (as Schleusner those hostelries; animals killed, and meat
puts it) 'omnis locus quieti aptus.' In the sold there; also wine and cider; so that
LXX. K-crrd/lt;//(nr is theeciuivaleut of not they were a much more public place of
less than ./7?v Hebrew words, whicii have resort than might at first be imagined,
widely difterent meanings. In the LXX. Comp. Herzfehl. Handelsgesch. \). :525.
rendering of Ex. iv. 2i it is used for the - Perhaps the best anlheiiticated of all
Hebrew "-j^j, which certainly cannot local traditions is that whicl) fixes on this
mean a guest-chamber, but an inn. No c>ive "s tiu> i)!ace of the Nativity The
one could imagine that, if private hospi- evidence in its favour is well given l)y Dr.
tality had been extended to tiie Yirnin- Varmr in his • Lite of Ciirist. Dean
Mother, she would hav(> lieen left in such Stanley, however, and others, have ques-
circumstances in a stable. The same tioned it,
186
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK stances; and that of iii\\ar(l rttness, in the contrast suggested by
II them. Instinctively, re\'ercntly, we feel that it is well it should have
^— ^,^-' been so. It best befits the birth of the Christ — if He be what the
New Testament declares Him.
On the other hand, the circumstances just noted afford the
strongest indirect evidence of the truth of this narrative. For, if it
were the outcome of Jewish imagination, where is the basis for it in
contemporary expectation ? Would Jewish legend have ever presented
its Messiah as born in a stable, to which chance circumstances had
consigned His Mother ? The Avhole current of Jewish opinion would
run in the contrary direction. The opponents of the authenticity of
this narrative are bound to face this. Further, it may safely be
asserted, that no Apocryphal or legendary narrative of such a
(legendary) event would have been characterised by such scantiness,
or rather absence, of details. F(jr, the two essential features, alike
of legend and of tradition, are, that they ever seek to surround their
heroes with a halo of glory, and that they attempt to supply details,
which are otherwise wanting. And in both these respects a more
sharply-marked contrast could scarcely be presented, than in the
Gospel-narrative.
But as we pass from the sacred gloom of the cave out into the
night, its sky all aglow with starry brightness, its loneliness is
peopled, and its silence made vocal from heaven. There is nothing
now to conceal, but much to reveal, though the manner of it would
seem strangely incongruous to Jewish thinking. And yet Jewish
tradition may here prove both illustrative and helpful. That the
Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem,^ was a settled conviction.
Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal
^ Targum Ecler, ' the tower of the flock. ' " This Migdal Eder was 7iot the watch-
Pseudo- ' •111.
jon.onGen. towcr for the Ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep-
ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to
bshek. vii. Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah '' leads to the conclusion, that
the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices,^
and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were
1 In the curious story of Ilis l)ii'tli, re-
lated hi the .Jer. Talmud (Bit. ii. ?>). He
is said to iiave been born in ' the royiii
castle of Bethlehem;' while in the paral-
lel narrative in the Midr. on Lament, i.
16, ed. W. p. 64 b) the somewhat myste-
rious expression is us(h1 j^;^-," .n**^^-
But we mu.st keep in view the Ifabbinic
statement that, even if a castle falls
down, it is still called a castle (Valkut,
vol. ii. p. (iO A).
- In fact the Mishnah (Baba K. vii. 7)
expressly forbids the keopins: of flocks
throu<i'hont the land of Israel, excei>t in
the wildernesses — and the only flocks
otherwise kept, would be those for the
Temple-services (Baba K. 80 a).
CHHISTMAS-NIGHT IN THE I'LAIXS OF I'.KTHLKHKM.
18Y
not ordinary shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Ral)l)inism, '
on account of their necessary isohition from religious ordinances, and
their manner of life, which rcndei-ed strict legal ol)servance unlikely,
if not absolutely impossible. The same Mishnic passage also leads us
to infer, that these flocks lay out all the year rou ml, since they are spoken
of as in the fields thirty days before the l'ass(jver — that is, in the month
of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest.*
Thus, Jewish tradition in some dim manner aj^prehended the first
revelation of the Messiah from that 3Iigdal E(lei\ where shepherds
watched the Temple-flocks all the year round. Of the deep symbolic
significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak.
It was, then, on that 'wintry night' of the 25th of December,*
that shepherds watched the flocks destined for sacrificial services, in
the very place consecrated by tradition as that where the Messiah was
to be first revealed. Of a sadden came the long-delayed, unthought-
of announcement. Heaven and earth seemed to mingle, as suddenly
an Angel stood before their dazzled eyes, while the outstreaming
glory of the Lord seemed to enwrap them, as in a mantle of light.*
CHAP.
VI
1 This disposes of an inaiit (luotation
(from Delitzscli) by Dr. Geikie. No one
could inia,i!,iiie, that the Tulmudic pas-
sages in (juestiun could apply to such
shepherds as these.
■^ The mean of 22 seasons in .Jerusalem
amounted to 4-718 inches in December,
5-479 in January, and 5-207 in February
(see a very interesting paper by Dr.
ChapHii in Quart. Stat, of Pal. Explor.
Fund, January, 1883). For 1876-77 we
have these startling figures: mean for
December, -490; for January, 1-595; for
February, 8-750 — and, similarly, in other
years. And so we read: 'Good the year
in whicli Tebheth (December) is without
rain ' (Taau. 6 h). Tiiose who have copied
Lightfoot's quotations about the flocks
not lying out during the winter months
ought, at least, to have known that the
reference in the Talmudic passages is
expresiily to the flocks which pastured
in ' the wilderness ' (.ni^^^"^ p ibN*)-
But even so, the statement, as so many
others of the kind, is not accurate. For,
in the Talmud two ojiinions are exjjressed.
According to one, the ' Midbariyoth," or
'animals of the wilderness,' aie those
which go to the open at the Passover-
time, and returu at the first rains (about
November); while, on the other hand.
Rabbi maintains, and, as it seems, more
authoritatively, that the wilder ness-flocl-a
remain in the open alike in the hottest
days and in the rainy season — i.e. all the
year round (Bezah 40 a). Comp. also
Tosephta Bezah iv. 6. A somewhat dif-
ferent explanation is given in Jer. Bezah
6.3 b.
^ There is no adequate reason for ques-
tioning the historical accuracy of this
date. The objections generally made
rest on grounds, which seem to me his-
torically untenable. The subject has been
fully discussed in an article by Cas.^el in
Herzog's Real. Ency. xvii. pp. 588-594.
But a curious piece of evidence comes to
us from a Jewish source. In the addition
to the Megillath Taanith (ed. Warsh. p.
20 a), the 9th Teliheth is marked as a fast
day, and it is added, that the reason for
this is not stated. Now, Jewish chron-
ologists have fixed on tliat day as that
of Christ's birth, and it is remarkable
that, between the years 500 and 816 a.d.
the 25th of December fell no less than
twelve times on the 9th Teblietli. If
the 9th Tebheth, or 25th December, was
regarded as the birthday of Chi'ist, we
can understand the concealment about
it. Comp. Zuiiz, Ritus d. Synag. (4ottesd.
p. 126.
* In illustration we may here quote
Shem. R. 2 (ed. W. vol. ii. ]). s a), where
it is said tliat, wherever ^lichael appears,
there also is the glory of the Shekhinah.
In the same section we read, in reference
iSS FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
IJOOK Sin-])ri80, :iwe, fear would l)e hushed into cahn and expectancy, as
II Ironi the Angel they heard, that what they saw bo(UMl not jiid<:;nient.
— ^' ' but ushered in to waiting Israel the great joy of those good tidings
which he brought: that the long-promised Saviour, Messiah, Lord,
was born in the City of David, and that they themselves might go
and see, and recognize Him by the humbleness of the circumstances
surrounding His Nativity.
It was, as if attendant angels had only waited the signal. As,
when the sacrifice was laid on the altar, the Temple-mnsic burst forth
in three sections, each marked by the blast of the priests' silver
ti-umjicts, as if each Psalm wore to be a Tris-Hagion; ' so, when the
Herald-Angel had spoken, a multitude of heaven's host- stood fortli
to hymn the good tidings he had brought. What they sang was but
the reflex of what had been announced. It told in the language of
praise the character, the meaning, the result, of what had taken place.
Heaven took up the strain of 'glory'; earth echoed it as 'peace'; it
fell on the ears and hearts of men as 'good i)leasure':
(llory to God in the highest —
And upon earth peace —
Among men good pleasure ! *
Only once before had the words of the Angels' hymn fallen upon mortal's
ears, when, to Isaiah's rapt vision. Heaven's high Temple had opened,
and. the glory of Jehovah swept its courts, almost breaking down the
trembling posts that bore its boundary gates. Now the same glory en-
\NTapt the shepherds on Bethlehem's plains. Then the Angels' hymn
to the appearance in the bush, that, ' at maintains, that tlie birth of ]\Ioses re-
lirst only one Anijel came.' who stood in mained unknown for tln-ee months, be-
the burning bush, and after that the Shek- cause he was a child of seven months.
Mnah came, and spoke to Moses from There are other legends aljout the sinless-
out the bush. (It is a curious illustra- ness of Moses' father, and the maiden-
tion of Acts ix. 7, that Moses alone is hood of his mother (at 103 years), which
said in .Jewish tradition to have seen the remind us of Christian traditions,
vision, but not the men who were with • According to tradition, the three
him.) Wetstein gives an erroneous re- Idasts symbolically proclaimed the king-
ference to a Talmudic statement, to the ilom of God, the in-ovidence of God, and
eflfect that, at the l)irth of Moses, the the final judgment,
room was tilled with heavenly light. - Curiously enough, the word crrpa-
The statement really occurs ni Hotah \2 a; ridifi Hebraised in the same connection
Shem. R. 1; Yalkut i. 51 c This must .-.^^ •..„ v.«--,..rx- See Yalkut on Ps.
be the foundation of the Cliristian leg- , / ' i •• . T,>- i ^ .- n ^■^^^ \
,,,.,, . 1 • 1 rii • 4 xlv. (vol. u. p. lOo a, about the middle .
end, that the cave, in which Clirist was •< t u i, •♦ I- i ♦ • i *i
X, 4-u 1 -n 1 ] 1- 1 + I have unhesitatingly retained the
born, was 1 led with heavenlv light. ,. f +i ^ ^ , m
rj- -, . n T> v^- 1 i^„„ 1 K. +^1 reading of the fer^H.s rece/;/?/.s. The ar-
Sinii ariv, the Romish legend about the t. ■ -,. t ax ■ ., ..
-fT- ■ Vfl»i t f. 1-. n f iruments m its favor are sufncient y set
Virgin-Mother not fee ng the pangs of 7 *i i r< r^ i ■ i • , n • r^r
mat^rnitv is derived from the Jewish forth by Canon Cook in his ' Revised Ver-
legend, which asserts the same of the Ji'" «* ^^^ ^"'^^ Three Gospels,' pp. 27-
mother of Moses. The same authority " "
ADOKATIOX OF THK SHEPHERDS. 189
had lioraldcd the iiiiiioiiiiccnicut of tlic Kiiiiidoin coniino:; now that CHAP.
of tlio Kin<i- coiuc. Tlicu it had l)e('ii the 7V/.s-//r/r//o// ol" prophetic VI
anticipation: nou' tliat of Evani^-clic fiiltihncnt. ^^.m^^-^m^
Tlic livnin liad ccayed; the liglit faded out of tlio sky; and the
shepherds were alone. But the Anii-elic message remained with them;
and the sign, which was to gui(h' tlicni to the Infant Christ, lighted
their rapid way up the terraced height to where, at tlu; entering of
Bethlehem, the lamp swinging over the hosteh-y directed them to the
strangers of the house of David, wlu) had come from Nazareth.
Though it seems as if, in the hour of her utmost need, the Virgin-
Mother had not ])eeu ministered to by h)ving hands,' yet what had
happened in the stable must soon have beeome known in the Khan.
Perhaps friendly women were still passing to and fro on errands of
mercy, when the shei)herds readied the ' stable." - There they Ibund,
perliaps not wliat they had exiiected, but as they had been told. The
iioly group only consisted of the hunil)le Virgin-Mother, the lowly
carpenter of Nazareth, and the Babe laid in the manger. What
further passed we know not, save that, having seen it for themselves,
the shepherds told what had been spoken to them al)oiit this Child, to
all around'' — in the 'stable,' in the tields, probably also in the Temple,
to which they would liring their tioeks, thereby preparing the minds
of a Simeon, of an Anna, and of all them that looked for salvation in
Israel.*
And now the hush of wondering expectancy fell once more on all,
who heard what was told by the shepherds — this time not only in the
hill-country of JuiUra, but within the wider circle that embraced
Bethlehem and the Holy City. And yet it seemed all so sudden, so
strange. That on such slender thread, as the feeble throb of an
Infant-life, the salvation of the worhl should hang — and no sjx'cial
care watch over its safety, no better shelter l)e provided it than a
' stable,' no other cradle than a manger! And still it is e\-er so. On
what slender thread has the continued life of the Church often seemed
to hang; on what feeble throlilnng that of evei-y child of (Jod — with
1 This appears to me implied in tlie in lictlilclu'in. to iiKniire whether any
emphatic statement, that Mary — as I child had been horn anionsi' their quests,
.ijather, herself — ' wrapped Him in swad- ■' Tlie term 6iay yijjfii'l,a) inii)lies more
dling clothes' (St. Luke ii. 7, 12). Othei'- than to -make known abroail.' Wahl
wise the remark would seem needless \vw\vy!^\{ ■)(Hr<>citroqiien(irr(>':'>v\\\m^-
and meaningless. ner: • <linil</<) aJu/Kid t/f uJiis //n/ofcscaf,
^ It seems diflficult to understand how, sj)/ir;/o rKinorfin.'
on Dr. Geikie's theory, the shepherds ' Tliis may have jJrepartMl not only
could have found the Infant-Saviour. tliose who weicointMl .Icsus on His pre-
since, manifestly, they could not during mentation in tlie Temple, but tilled many
that night have roused every household others with expectiincy.
190
1-M;()M ]5I-:TIiLKlllvM TO JORDAN.
BOOK no \isil)l(' (Hit ward iiicaiis to ward off daii^'cr, uo lioiue of eoinfort, no
II ie?;t of case. IJiit, • Lo, childicii aiv Je'hovali's heritagel" — and:
-^.^^^ "80 givcth Jlc to His Ix'loved in his sleei)!''
' The fdllow iim rciiuu'kuble extriict
from llie Jenisaleiii Tai'ijmii 011 Ex. xii.
42 nuiy interest the reader: —
•It is a iiiii'ht to be oljserveil and ex-
alted. . . . Four iiiu'lits are tliere written
ill the Booiv of Memorial. Niglit tir^t :
when the Meinra of Jehovah was revealed
upon the world for its creation; when
the world was without form and void,
and darkness was spread upon the face
of the deep, and the Menira of Jehovah
illuininated and made it li^ht; and He
called it the tirst night. Niiz:ht second:
when the Memra of Jehovah was revealed
unto Abraham between the divided
pieces; when Abraham was a hundred
years, and Sarah was ninety years, and to
confirm thereby that which the Scripture
saith. — Alirahain a hundred years, can he
bejret ? and Sarah, ninety years old, can
she bear ? Was not our father Isaac
thirty-seven years old at the time he was
offered u| ion the altar".' Then the heavens
were bowed down and broutilit low, and
Isaac .saw their foundations, ami his eyes
were blinded owin<!; to that sight: and
He called it the second night. The third
night: when the Memra of Jehovah was
revealeil upon the Egyptians, at tile
dividing of the night: His right hand
slew the first-born of the Egyptians, and
His right hand spared the first-born of
Israel; to fulfil what the Scripture hatii
said. Israel is My first-born well-beloved
.son. And He called it the third night.
Night the fourth ; when the end of the
world will be accomplished, that it might
be dissolved, the bands of wickedness
destroyeil. and the iron yoke broken.
Moses came forth from the midst of the
desert, and the King Messiah from the
midst of Rome. This one shall lead at
the head of a Cloud, and that one shall
lead at the head of a Cloud; and the
Memra of Jehovah will lead between
both, and they two shall come as one
[('ni'Ii(iilit).' (For explan. .see vol. ii.
p. 100. note.)
TllK V lUG I N-MUTllEK PONDERS IT L\ IIKK. llKAliT. 191
CHAPTER VII.
THE PinilFICATIOX OK TlIK Vll!(;i.\ AND THE I'HESENTATION
IX THE TEMPLE.
(Si. I. like ii. 21-;iS.)
Foremost auiougst those who. \voii(h'riii*i\ had heard what the shcji- CHAP,
liei'ds tohl, wa;^ i^he whom most it eoueeriied, who hiid it iij) deepest VII
in her lieart. and l)rou*2:ht to it treasured stores of memory. It was ' -.^^
tlie Mother of Jesus. These nuiny months, all eonneete*! witli this
Child eould never have been far away trom her thou<i:lits. And now
that He was hers, yet not hers — belon,ii:od, yet'did not seem to belong,
to her — lie would be the more dear to her Mother-heart tor what
made Him so near, and yet parted Him so far from liei-. And upon
all His history seenu'd to lie sueh wondrous li.iilit. timt slie could
only see the path behind, so far as she luul trodden it: while upon
that on which she was to move, was sucli dazzlinii' briuhtness, that
she could scarce look upon the i)resent, and dared not ,ua/.e towards
tlie future.
At tlie very outset of this history, and inereasin<i'ly in its course,
the ({uestion meets us, how. if tlie Auii-elic message to the Virgin
was a I'eality, and hei- motheiiiood so supernatural, she could liave
been api)arently so ignorant of what was to come — nay, so often have
even misunderstood if/ Strange, that she should have -pondered
in her heai't " the shepherd's account: stranger, tiiat afterwards she
should ha\'e wondered at His lingering in the Tenijjle among Israel's
teaclu'rs: strangest, that, at the very tirst of His miracles, a mother'.s
liind pride sliould ha\(' so harshly broken in u])on the I)i\ine melody
of His work, by striking a keynote so dift'erent from that, to which
His life had been set: or that afterwards, in the height of his activity,
loving fears, if not doubts, should have ])rom])te(l her to iiiten-upt,
what evidently she had not as yet comprehended in the fulness of its
nu'aning. Might we not rather have expected, that the Virgin-
Mother from the incejition of this Child's life would lia\-e under-
stood, that He was truly the Son of (lody The (piestion, like so
many others, requires only to be clearly stated, to find its emphatic
answer. For. had it been so. His historv. His human life, of which
J92 ¥]um bethi.p:iiem to .iokdan.
BOOK every step is ol' such intiiiitc iiii[)()i-tan('(' to luaiikind, would iu)t have
II l)een possible. Apart IVoui all thoughts (jt the deeper necessity, both
^— — -r'-^ as regarded His Mission and the salvation of the world, of a true
human develojjnient ofgradual consciousness and personal life, Christ
could not, in any true sense, have been subject to His Parents, if
they had fully understood that He was Divine; nor could He, in
that case, have been watched, as He -grew in wisdom and in fav<»ui-
with God and men." Such knowledge would have broken the
bond of His Humanity to ours, by severing that which bound Him as
a child to His mother. We could not have become His brethren, iuid
He not been truly the Virgin's Son. The mystery of the Incarnation
would have been needless and fruitless, had His hunmnity not been
subject to all its right and ordinary conditions. And, applying the
same principle more widely, wo can thus, in some measure, under-
stand why the mystery of His Divinity had to be kept while He
was on earth. Had it been otherwise, the thought of His Divinity
Avould have proved so all-absorbing, as to render impossible that of
His Humanity, with all its lessons. The Son of Go*! Most Higli.
AVhom they worsliipi)e(l. could never have been the loving Man, with
Whom they could hold such close converse. The bond which bound
the .Master to His discii)les — the Son of Man to humanity — would
have been dissolved; His teaching as a Man, the Incarnation, and
the Tabernacling among men, in i)lace of the former Old Testament
Revelation from heaven, would hav(! become wholly impossible. In
short, one, and that the distinctive New Testament, element in our
salvation would have been taken away. At the beginning of His life
He would have, anticipated the lessons of its end — nay, not those of
His Death only, l)ut of His Resurrection and Ascension, and of the
coming of the Holy Ghost.
In all this we have only been taking the sulyective, not the objec-
tive, view ol the (}uestion; considered the earthward, not the heaven-
ward, aspect of His life. The latter, though very real, lies beyond oui-
present luu-izon. Not so the (juestion as to the development of the
A^rgin-Mothers spiritual knowledge. Assuming her to have occupied,
in the fullest sense, the standpoint of .Jewish Messianic expectancy,
and renuMubei'ing, also, that she was so -highly favoured' of God,
still, then; was not as yet anything, noi- could there be for many
years, to lead her beyond what might be called the utmost height of
Jewish belief. On tlu' conti'ary. theic was much connected with His
true Humanity to keep her i)ack. For narrow as, to our retrospec-
tive thinking, the boundary-lhie seems between .Jewish belief and that
EACH EVKNT A FRESH SURPRISE T(J THE VH{GIN. I93
in tlic liypustatic uiii(Mi ol' the two Natures, the i)a,ssa<>,(' Iroin the CHAP,
one to the other represented such tremendous mental revohition, as vn
to imply direct Divine teaching.' An illusti-ative instance will ^— ^y^—
pi-ove this better than argument. We read, in a commentary on the i'^icor. xii.
opening words of Gen. xv. IS/' that when God made the covenant 1. Ber. r. it,
with Abrani, He 'revealed to him both this Ola in (dispensation) p. hi?'^^
and the Olain to come,' which latter expression is correctly ex})lained
as referring to the days of the Messiah. Jewisli tradition, there-
fore, here asserts exactly what Jesus stated in these words: 'Your
fathei' Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was
"•lad."'' Yet we know what storm (jf indignation the enunciation of "St. John
^ ' viii. 06
it called Ibrth among the Jews!
Thus it was, that every event connected with the Messianic mani-
festation of Jesus would come to the A'irgin-Mother as a fresh dis-
covery and a new surprise. Each event, as it took place, stood iso-
lated in her mind; not as part of a whole which she would anticipate,
nor as only one link in a chain; Init as something quite by itself. She
knew the beginning, and she knew the end; but she knew not the
path which led from the one to the other; and each step in it was •
a new revelation. Hence it was, that she so carefully treasured in
her heart every new fact,'' piecing each to the other, till she could ■'st. Luke
■^ ' ^ '^ ' u. 19, 51
read from it the great mystery that He, Whom Incarnate she had
l)orne, was, indeed, the Son of the living God. And as it was
natural, so it was well that it should be so. For, thus only could she
truly, because self-unconsciously, as a Jewish woman and mother,
fulfll all the recpiirements of the Law, alike as regarded herself and
her Child.
The tirst of these was Circumcision, rei)resenting voluntary sub-
jection to the conditions of the Law, and acceptance of the ol)li-
gations, l)ut also of the i)rivileges, of the Covenant between God and
Abraham and his seed. Any attemjjt to show the deep significance
of such a rite in the case of Jesus, could only weaken the impression
which the fact itself conveys. The ceremony took place, as in all
ordinary circumstances, on the eighth day, when the Child received
the Angel-given nanu' Jeshun (Jesus). Two other legal ordinances
still remained to be ol)served. The firstborn son of every household
was, according to the Law, to be ' redeemed ' of the priest at the price
of tive shekels of the Sanctuary.'' Rabbinic casuistry here added "Numb.
many needless, and even repulsive, details. The following, however,
are of practical interest. The earliest period of presentation was
Ihirty-one days after birth, so as to make the legal month quite
194
FKUM 15KTIILEI1EM TO JUliDAN.
BOOK
II
» Beohor.
viii. 7
' Com p.
Sifi-a. ed.
Weiss, p. 59
a and /; ;
Maimon-
Idos, Yad
haCluiz.
Hal.
Mechusre
Capp.. ed.
Am«t., vol.
lii. p. -i'lb
a and li
coinpleto. The cliihl iniisl, have breii tlie tii'.stl)(>rii of his mother
(jiccordinii," to sonic writers, of his father also);' ncitlier father nor
mother - must he of Le\itic (h'sceiit; and tJie eliihl must be free
from all such bodily blemishes as would have disqualitied him for
the priesthood — or, as it was expressed: 'the firstborn for the
priesthood.' It was a thiiiii' much dreaded, that the child should die
before his redemption; but if his father died in the interval, the
child had to redecui himself wln-n of age. As the Rabbinic law^
expressly states, that the shekels were to be of * Tyrian weight,'"
the value of the 'redemption money' would amount to about ten
or twelve shillings. The redemption could l)e made from any
priest, and attendance in the '■renii)le was not requisite. It was
otherwise with the ' puritication ' of the mother.'' The Rabbinic
law fixed this at forty-one days after the birth of a son, and eiglity-
one after that of a daughter,^ so as to make the Riblical terms (piite
comi)lete.' But it might take place any time later — notably, when
attendance on any of the great feasts brought a family to Jerusalem.
Thus, we read of cases when a mother would offer several sacrifices of
purification at the same time.* Rut, indeed, the \\()man was not re-
quired to be personally present at all, when her offering was i)resented,
or, rather (as we shall see), prin'ided for — say, by the representatives
of the laity, who daily took part in the services for the various dis-
tricts from which they came. This also is specially ])rovided for in
the Tulmud.^ lint mothers who were within convenient distance of
the Temple, and esj)ecially the more earnest anunig them, would
naturally attend personally in the Temple;'' and in such cases, when
practicalile, the redemption of the firstl)orn, and the purification of
his mother, would be combined. Such was undoubtedly the case with
the Vir<>in-Mother and lier Son.
' So LuikHuh. Jiid. Altcrtli. ]). (;21, and
Buxtorf, Le.\. Tiilmud. p. Id!)!). But I
am bound to .say, that this seems con-
trary to the sayhi,ii;s of the Rabbis.
■^ This disposes of the idea, that the
Virgin-Motiier was of direct Aarouic or
Levitic descent.
' Archdeacon Farrar is mistaken in
supposin;^, that the -thirty-three days'
were counte<l -after the circumcision.'
The idea must have arisen from a mis-
understandin.i:; of the Enu'lisli version of
Lev. xii. 4. There was no connection
between the time of the circumcision of
the child, and that of the puritication of
his mother. In certain circumstances
circumcision rni^iit have to be delaved
for days — in case of sickness, till recov-
ery. It is equally a mistake to suppose,
that a Jewish mother ccuiid not leave
the house till after the forty days of her
puritication.
+ Com]). Keritli. i. 7.
'" Jer. Slieq. 50 h.
^ Tliere is no ijround whatever for the
oljjection wiiicli Ilablii ZoH"(Lebensalter,
p. 112) raises a,i:;ainst the account of 8t.
Luke. Jewisli documents only prove,
that amotiier iieeil not personally attend
in tlie Temple ; not that they did not do
so, wlien attendance was possible. The
contrary impression is conveyed to us
Ijy Jewisli notices.
TlIK ITHIFICATION" OF TIIK VIRGIN.
195
P'oi- this twofold i)iir|)osc tlic Holy Fiiiiiil.v went up to tlic 'rciii])le, CHAP
when the i)i-<'scrii)t'(l (hiys were (■oiii|)h't(^(l.' 'I'lic cercjiioiiy ;it thi' VII
redciiii)tioii of a tii'sthoi-ii son was, ii<» doubt, more siuiplr than tliat ^■"*"~r~*
at present in use. It consisted of tlie formal ])resentalion of the
ehild to the jn-iest, aee()nii)anie(l by two short • benedictions " — the
one for the law of redemption, the other foi- the .aift of a tirstl)orn
son. after which the redemption money was jtaid.- Most solemn, as
in such a place, and rememl)ering its symbolic siii'niticance as the
ex])i-essi(Ui of (Jod's claini over each family in Israel, nnist this I'ite
have been.
As regards the rite at the puritieation of the motlier, the scantiness
of information has led to serious misstatements. Any comi)arison
with our modern 'churching' of woraeir' is ina])plical)h;', since the
latter consists of thanksgiving, and the former primarily of a sin-
ofiering for the Levitical defilement symbolically attaching to the
beginning of life, and a burnt-otfering, that marked the restoration of
connnunion with (Jod. besides, as already stated, the sacritice for
purification might be brought in the absence of the mother. Similar
mistakes prevail as to the rubric. It is not the case, as generall}''
stated, that the wonnin Avas si)rinkled with l)lood. and then pronounced
clean by the priest, or that prayers were ottered on the occasion.*
The service simply consisted of the statutory sacrifice. This was
what, in ecclesiastical language. Avas termed an ottering o/c// rri/ored,
that is, 'ascending and descending." according to the nu'ans (tf the
oft'erer. The sin-offering Avas. in all cases, a turtle-dove or a young
pigeon. But. Avhile the moi-e Avealthy bi-ought a land) foi- a 1)urnt-
offering, the poor might substitute for it a turtle-dove, or a young
pigeon.' The rubric directed that the neck of the sin-otfering Avas to
' The exin'essioa rnv i<a^ja/jia/iov
aur&}v cannot refer to tlie PurilU'iitimi
of the Yirijin and /ler Bahc (Farrar), uor
to that of the Viri!;in and Josepli (Meyer),
because neither the Babe nor Joseph
needed, nor were they inchided in, the
])nrification. It can only refer to -their'
(I.e. Die Jews') purification. But tliis
does not inii)ly any Romish inferences
{Sep}). Leben .Tesn. li. 1, p. 131) as to the
superlnnnan condition or origin of the
Bh'ssed A'iriiin : on tlie contrary, tlieotl'er-
in<;- of tlie sin-otlerini;- i)oiiits in tlie other
direction.
- Conip. the rubric and the prayers in
Mahnoniile.s. Tad haCliaz. Hilch. Biccur.
xi. 5.
■■• So Dr. (ieikie.
^ So Dr. Geikie, takinu; iiis account
from Herzo(j's Real-Eucykl. The mis-
take about the mother l)eing sprinkled
with sacrificial blooil orighuited with
Liii'ht foot (Hone Hebr. on St. Luke ii.
22). Later writers have followed the
lead. Tamid v. (!, quoted by Liijjhtfoot,
refers only to the cleansin.ii; of tlie leper.
The -prayers' supposed to be spoken,
and tlie lu-onouncinii- clean by the priests,
are the eiiilu'llisliiiients of later writers,
ft)r wliich Li.nhtfoot is not resjionsible.
5 Accordiiii? to Sifra (Par. Tazria. Per.
iv. 3): -AVhenever the sin-oflerinc; is
chaiii^ed. it i)recedes [as on ordinary oc-
casions] the burnt-otlerinii-; but when
the buriit-otrerinn' is chaiiiiied [as on thi.s
occasion], it precedes the sin-ofl'erinii-."
19G
FROM BETIILP^IIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
» Sebacli.
vi. 5
'' Comp.
Kerith. i. 7
0 Sheq. iv. 0
* Sheq. v; 1
' Toseplit.
Sheq. iii. 2
be broken, but the head not wholly severed; that some of the blood
should be sprinkled at the south-western aiig-le of the altar,' below
the red line,' which ran round the middle of the altar, ami that the
rest should be jxmred (mt at the base of the altar. The whole of the
tiesh belon<>-ed to the ])riests, and had to be eaten within the enclo-
sure of the Sanctuary. The rubric for the burnt-oflering of a turtle-dove
or a young pigeon was somewhat more intricate." The substitution
of the latter for a young lamb was exi)ressly designated 'the poor's
ottering.' And rightly so, since, while a lamb would probably cost
about three shillings, the average value of a jjair of turtle-doves, for
both the sin- and bnrnt-oftering, would be aliout eightpence,'^ and on
one occasion fell so low as tAvopence. The Temple-price of the meat-
and drink-ott'erings was lixed onee a month: and special officials in-
structed the intending otterers, and i)rovided them with what was
needed.' There was also a special ' superintendent of turtle-doves and
pigeons,' rcijuired for certain purifications, and the holder of that office
is mentioned with praise in the Mishnah." Much, indeed, depended
upon his uprightness. For, at any rate as regarded those who brought
the poor's offering, the purchasers of pigeons or turtle-doves would, as
a rule, have to deal with him. In the Court of the Women there were
thirteen trumpet-shaped chests for pecuniary contributions, called
'trumpets."' Into the third of these they who brought the poor's
offering, like the Virgin-Mother, were to drop the price of the sacri-
fices which were needed for their purification.' As we infer," the
superintending i)riest must have been stationed here, alike to inform
the offerer of the price of the turtle-doves, and to see that all w^as in
order. For, the offerer of the poor's ottering would not require to
deal directly with the sacrificing i)riest. At a certain time in the
day this third chest Avas opened, and half of its contents ap{)lied to
l)urnt-, the other half to sin-offerings. Thus sacrifices were provided
for a corresponding numl)er of those who were to ])e i)urified, without
either shaming the poor, needlessly disclosing the character of im[)u-
rity, or causing unnecessary l)ustle and work. Though this mode of
procedure coidd, of course, not ))e obligatory, it would, no doubt, be
that generally followed.
We can now, in imagination. Ibllow the Virgin-Mother in the
1 But tliis precise .si)ot was not niatter
of absolute necessity (Seb. vi. 2). Direc-
tions are given as to the manner in wiiicli
tlie priest was to jierform the sacriticiul
act.
-' Kinnim i. 1. If tlie sin-ot1'(MiiiH,' was
a four-footed animal, the blood was
spi'inkled afxtre the red line.
•' Comp. St. Matt. vi. 2. See • Tiie
Temple and its Services,' &c. pp. 2(J, 27.
+ Comp. Siiekal. vi. 5, the Connnen-
taries. and Jer. Sliek. 50 h.
Till'; \ilv'(;iX IN TIIK TKMI'I.K. I97
Tciiii)lc.' Ik'i' cliiM liad been _iii\('ii uj) to \\\v Lord, and n'coivcd CIIAI".
back tVoiu Him. She lia<l entered the Court of the AVomeii, pro))- Vii
ably by the • Gate of the Women,'- on the north side, and deposited ^-^-^r — '
the priee of her sacrifices in Trumpet No. 3, which was close to the
raised (hiis or gallery where tlie women worshipped, apart from the
men. And now the sound of the organ, which announced through-
out the vast Temple-buildings that the incense was about to Ijc
kindled on the Golden Altar, summoned those who were to be puri-
fied. The chief of the ministrant lay-representatives of Israel on
duty (the so-called 'station-men') ranged those, who presented
themselves before the Lord as offerers of special sacrifices, within
the wickets on either side the great Nicanor Gate, at the top of the
fifteen steps which led up from the Court of the Women to that of
Isi'ael. Jt was, as if they were to be brought nearest to the Sanctuary;
as if theirs were to be specially the ^jrayers ' that rose in the cloud
of incense from the Golden Altar; as if for them specially the
sacrifices were laid on the Altar of Burnt-oftering; as if theirs was
a larger share of the benediction which, spoken by the lips of the
priests, seemed like Jehovah's answer to the prayers of the people;
theirs especially the expression of joy symbolised in the drink-oft'ering, .
and the hymn of praise whose Tris-Hagion filled the Temple. From
where they stood they could see it all,^ share in it, rejoice in it. And
now the general service was over, and only those remained wdio In-ought
special' sacrifices, or who lingered near them that had such, or whose
•l(»ved al)ode was ever in the Temple. The purification-service, witli
such unspoken prayer and ])i'aise as would bo the outcome of a
grateful heart/ was soon ended, and they who liad shared in it were
Levitically clean. Now all stain was i-emoved, and, as the Ijaw put
it. they might again partake of sacred ofi'erings.
X\\{\ in such sacred ofi'ering, better than any of which priest's
' According to Dr. Geikie. • tlie (Jdld- tlie elevated idatlonii 011 wliicii tiicy cem-
en Gate at the head of tlie loiii;- tliftlit of inoiily worshipped.
stejjs that led to tlie valley of the Kedion ^ This is stated V>y tlie Kabhis to have
opened into the Court of th(> Women.' been the oljject of the burnt-otteriiiii;.
T^ut there was 110 Golden Gate, neitiier That snii-,2:ested for the sin-ollerinii- is too
was there any tlinlit of steps into the ridiculous to iiieiitioii. The laiiiiiuiire
valley of the Kedron. while between the used about the burnt-otterin.u,- reminds us
Court of the AVonien and any outer ,e;ate of that in the exhortation in the otiieefor
(such as coutd have led into Kedron), the 'Cliurchin<4- of AVomen": -that she
the Court of the Gentiles and a colonnade miiiiit l)e stirred up to give thanks to
must have intervened. Aliniyhty God, Who has delivei-ed her
- Or else, -the ,i;;ate of the tirstlin.iis.' from the jiains and perils of childbirtli
Coinp. iivnerally. 'The Temple, its Minis- (ni"^";* *"'2n!': n~*i~r'- '^^'''i^''' '■'^ matter
try and .Services." of niiracie.' '(Coinp. llottiitijenis. Juris
'■' This thev could not have done fr(U!\ llel)r. Leses, ed. Tiguri. p. 2:^8.)
298 FI{OM JJKTIII.KIIKM TO Jol.'DAN.
I5()()K liiiiiily liiid cNcr luirtukcii, \v;is the N'irji'iii-Mot licr iimncdiately to
II share. Jt lias been observed, tliat by the side of evei-y liiiuiiliation
^- — " . — eoiiiiected ^vitli the Hinnaiiity of the Messiah, the "ilory of His Divinity
was also made to shine foi'th. Tlie coiiicideiiees are manifestly
undesigned on the part of the ICvangelic writers, and henee all the
more striking, 'riius, if he was born of the humble Maiden of-
Xazareth, an Angel announced His birtli; if the Infant-Saviour was
eradied in a manger, the shining liost of heaven liymned His Advent.
And so afterwards — if He hungered and was temi)ted in the wiider-
iiess, Angels ministered to Him, even as an Angel strengthened ilim
in tlie agony of the garden. H' He submitted to baptism, the Voice
and vision from heaven attested His Sonship; if enemies threatened.
He could miraculously pass through them; if tlie Jews assailed,
tliere was the Yoice of God to glorify Him; if He was nailed t(^ the
cross, the sun craped his brightness, and earth quaked; if He was
laid in the tomb. Angels kept its watches, and heralded His rising.
And so, when now the Mother of Jesus, in lier hund^leness, could
only bring the Spoor's ottering,' the witness to tlu' greatness of Him
Whom she had borne was not wanting. A ' eucharistic otT'ering ' — so
. to speak — was brought, the record of which is tlie more precious
that Rahbinie writings make no allusion to the existence of the
party, whose representatives we here meet. Yet they were the true
outcome of the spirit of the Old Testament, and, as such, at this
time, the special recipients of the ' Spirit ' of the Old Testament.
The ' parents ' of Jesus had l)rought Him into the Temple for
presentation and redemption, when they were met l)y one, vfhose
venerable figure must have l)een Avell known in tiie city and the
Sanctuary. Simeon combined the three characteristics of Old Testa-
ment piety: ^Justice,' as regarded his relation and bearing to God
and man; ^ '/ear of God,' '^ in opposition to the boastful self-right-
eousness of Pharisaism; and, above all, longiua expectancij of the
near fulfilment of the great promises, and that in their spin'tiKd
import as * the (\)ns;olation of Israel.'^ The Holy Spirit was u])on
1 Coinp. Josi'ji/ius, Ant. xii. 2. Ti. it is several times put into the inontli of
- The expression, evXcx/iiji, unqiies- a .S'm«o» (Chaij. Iti b\ Mace. "Wy; Shev.
tionably refers to ' fear of Clod.' Conip. 'Ma) — altliou;;;;h, of course, not the one
Delitzsch.'HehY. Br. p)). I'.H. I!i2: and mentioned by St. Luke. The su2;p;estion,
(h-imm, Claris N.T. p. isd li. that the latter was the son of the .ijreat
■^ The e.x'iiression ;-;«;-• ■ ('((n.-^oiatioii." llillel and the father of Gamaliel, St.
for the .ijreat ^[essiani(•l)((|)(' — whenoe the Paul's teacher, thonu'h not impossible as
Messianic title of .l/f'/z^/r//^'//; —is of vei'y reii;ards time, is unsupported, thmii^h it
frequent occurrence (so in the Tariiuni does seem stranjre that the Mishnah has
on Tsaiah and .Jeremiah, and in many nothinij to say about him: ■ /o inscar
Rabbinical passages). Curiciusly eiiouirh. hmn/sluKili.'
Till-: S()N(; OF SIMKOX. ](»9
liiiii: iiiid by that same Spiiit ' the ^i>,-racious Divine answer to his ciiaI".
heart's hanging had been e(»ninuniieatod him. And now it was as vii
had been promised him. Coming 'in the Spirit" into tlie 'IVmple. ^~ — ~r — '
jnst as His parents were bringing the Infant Jesus, lie took Him
into his arms, and burst into rapt thanksgiving, ^'ow, iii(h'<'d, had
(lod fnltilled His word. He was not to see death, till he had seen
t he Lord's Christ. Xow did his Lord 'dismiss' him 'inpeaee'- — ■
release hinr' in blessed eomlbrt from Avork and watch — since he had
actually seen that salvation,* so long preparing lV)r a wailing weary
world: a glorious light, Whose rising would light up heathen dark-
ness, and be the outshining glory around Israel's mission. \\]\\\ this
Infant in his arms, it was as if he stood on the mountain-height of
prophetic vision, and watched the golden beams of sunrise far away
over the isles of the Gentiles, and then gathering their full glow
over his own beloved land and people. There was nothing .Judaic —
(piite the c(jntrary: only what was of the Old Testament — in what
he tirst said." ^st. Luke
But his unexpected appearance, the more unexpected deed and
words, and that most unexpected form in which what was said of tlie
Infant Christ was presented to their minds, tilled the hearts of His
])arents with wonderment. And it was, as if their silent wonderment
had been an unspoken question, to which the answer now came in
words of blessing from the aged watcher. Mystic they seemed, yet
])rophetic. But now it was the personal, or rather the Judaic, aspect
which, in broken utterances, was set before the Virgin-Mother — as
if the whole history of the Christ ui)on earth were passing in rapid
vision befoi'e Simeon. That Infant, now again in the Virgin-Mother's
arms: It was to l)e a stone of decision; a foundation and corner-
stone,''for fall or for uprising; a sign spoken against; the swoi'd of >. is. viii. i4
deep ])ersonal sorrow would j^icMve the Mother's heai't; and so to the
' The nuMition of the • Holy Spirit," a.s i)erished. On tlie other haml. ou tukiii,i;-
speakiiii;; to individuals, is frequent in leave of a dead friend, we are to say
Rabliinic writiniis. This, of course, does 'Go in peace,' according to Gen. xv. 1.5,
not imply their 1)elief in the Personality and not 'Go to peace.'
of the Holy Si)irit (com]). Bemidli. R. 15; '^ The expression, dTtoXvFiv.(ihsiiln^ri%
20; Midr. on Ruth ii. !) ; Yalkut, vol. i. Jiherare. dcmiffcrc, is most ,iiTai>hic. It
pji. 'I'll h and 2()o d). corresponds to the Hebrew ■^^r. which
■^ The Talmud (Ber. last i)a.2;e) has a is also used of death; as in n'l^ard to
curious conceit, to the efiect that, in tak- Simeon the Just, Menach. 10!) h: comp.
ing leave of a person, one ought to say: Ber. 17 a\ Targuni on Cant. i. 7.
'Go to peace,' not 'm peace ' (crrS ' Qodet seems to strain the meaning
not ai'i't/*^^' ^^ former having been of (j(»r?7p2oz', when he renders it by the
said by Jethro to Moses (Ex. iv. IS), on iu>uter of the adjective. It is fre(iueutly
which lie prospered; the latter by David used in tli(> LXX. foi' nr'r*-
to Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 9). on which he
200
FROM HETlI(>i:ni:.M TO JORDAN'.
BOOK
II
» Ber. K. 71,
ed. Warsh.
p. 131 h
end: 99.
p. 179 «,
lines 1.3 and
12 from
bottom
tcri'iblo 011(1, wlicii the veil of extci-naii.siu wliicli liad so lono- covered
the hearts of Israel's leaders would be rent, and the deep evil of their
thoughts ' laid bare. Such, as regarded Israel, was the history of
Jesus, from His Baptism to the Cross; and such is still the history
of Jesus, as ever present to the heart of the believing, loving Church.
Nor was Simeon's the only hymn of praise on that day. A
special interest attaches to her who, coming that very moment,
responded in ])rai.-^(' to God'^ for the pledge she saw of the near
redemption. A kind of mystery seems to invest this Anna (ChannaJi).
A widow, whose earl}^ desolateness had been followed by a long life
of solitaiy mourning; one of those in Avhose home the tribal gene-
alogy had been preserved.^ We infer from this, and from the fact
that it was that of a tribe which liad not returned to Palestine, that
hers was a family of some distinction. Curiously enough, the tribe
of Asher alone is celebrated in tradition for the beauty of its women,
and their fitness to be wedded to High-Priest or King.''
But Anna had better claim to distinction than family-descent, or
long, faithful memory of brief home-joys. These many years she had
spent in the Sanctuary/ and spent in fasting and prayer — jet not
of that self-righteous, self-satisfied kind which was of the essence of
popular religion. Nor, as to the Pharisees around, was it the
Synagogue which was her constant and loved resort; but tlie Temple,
with its symljolic and unsi)oken worshi]), which Rabbinic self-asser-
tion and rationalism were rapidly superseding, and for whose services,
indeed, Rabbinism could find no real basis. Nor yet were 'fasting
and prayer' to her the all-in-all of religion, sufficient in themselves;
sufficient also iK'fore God. Deepest in her soul was longing wait-
ing for the 'redemption' promised, and now surely nigh. To her
widowed heart tlie great hoi)e of Israel ai)peared not so niueh, as to
Simeon, in the light of 'consolation.' as ratlier in that of •redemp-
tion." The seemingly hopeless exile of liei- own tribe, the political
state of Judaea, the condition — social, moral, and religious — of her
own Jerusalem: all kindled in her, as in those who Avere like-minded,
deep, earnest longing for the time of promised •redemption.' No
' dia?iuyta/id~, <;eiienilly n.^ed in nn
evil sense.
•^ The verb dvijo/ioXoyfia^jai may
mean respon.sive ])i'aise. or simply praise
(""'"'■ ^vhicli in tliiscase, Iiowever, would
equally be ' in resi)onse ' to that of Si-
meon, whether responsive in form or not.
■* The whole subject of 'iicnealoiries '
is briefly, but well treated by Iloinfmr-
fjer. Real-Encykl., .section ii. pp. 2M1 Ac.
It is a pity, that llnmhiirijcr so often
treats his subjects from a .Juda,'0-apoIo-
^■etic .standpoint.
' It is scarcely necessary to discuss
the curious suggestion, that Anna ac-
tually Ured in the Temi)le. No one,
lea.st of all a woman, i)ermanently re-
sided in the Temple, though the High
I'l'iest had cluunbers there.
ANNA. 201
place so suited to such au one as the Temple, with its services — the chap.
only thing- free, pure, undefiled, and pointing forward and upward; "^"H
no occupation so befitting as 'fasting and prayer.' And. blessed be ^— ^' '
(rod, there were others, perhaps many such, in Jerusalem. Though
Rabbinic tradition ignored them, they were the salt which preserved
the mass from festering corruption. To her as the representative,
the example, friend, and adviser of such, was it granted as prophetess
to recognise Him, Whose Advent had been the burden of Simeon's
praise. And, day by day, to those who looked for redemption in
Jerusalem, would she speak of Him Whom her eyes had seen, though
it must be in whispers and with bated breath. For they were in the
citv of Herod, and the stronsrhold of Pharisaism.
202 FROM i;ktiili-:iii-:.m to jukdan.
CHAPTER YIII.
THE VISIT AND HOMAfJE OF THE MA(;i, AM) THE FLIGHT INTO EOYPT.
(.^t. Mutt. ii. l-l>i. I
BOOK ^N'lTH the rresontation of the Iiilant Saviour in the Temple, and
II His acknowledgment — not indeed by the leaders of Israel, but, charae-
-^,-^*-^ teristicall}', ])y the representatives of those earnest men and women
who looked for His Advent — the Prologue, if such it may be called, to
the third Gospel closes. From whatever source its information was
derived — perhaps, as has l)een suggested, its earlier jjortion from the
Yirgin-Mother, the later from Anna; or else both alike from her, who
with loving reverence and wonderment treasured it all in her henrt
— its iimrvellous details could not have been told with greater sim-
])lieity, Jior yet with more exquisitely delicate grace. ' On the other
hand, the Prologue to the first Gospel, Avhile omitting these, records
other incidents of the infancy of the Saviour. The ])lan of these
narratives, or the sources whence they may originally have been de-
' rived, may account for the omissions in either case. At first sight it
may seem strange, that the cosmopolitan Gospel by St. Luke should
have described what took place in the Temple, and the homage of
the Jews, while the Gospel by St. Matthew, which was primarily
intended for Hebrews, records only the homage of the Gentiles, and
the circumstances Avhich led to the flight into Egypt. But of such
seeming contrasts there are not a few in the Gospel-history — discords,
which soon resolve themselves into glorious harmony.
The story of the homage to the Infant Saviour l»y the M^^(Ji is
told by St. Matthew, in language of which the brevity constitutes the
' It is scarcely necessary to point out. have done so, ami pui'tly because tlie
how evidential this is of the truthfulness only object served by i-epeatiii";;. what
of the Gospel-narrative. In this respect must so deeply shock the Christian mind,
also the so-called Apocryphal Gosjiels. would be to point the contrast between
with their jn"oss and often repulsive th(> canonical and the Apocryi)hal Gos-
le<rendary adornments, form a strikiim jiels. But tliis can. I think, be as well
contrast. I have purposely abstained done by a sin^rle sentence, as by pages
from reproducing any of these narra- of quotations,
lives, partly because previous wi'iters
Til
llnMi; OK TIIK .\lA(;i.
203
chid" (litliculty. Kvcii tlieir (h-si.uiiatioii is no! IVcc IVoiii ;iiiihi^iiitv.
The term Mdiji is used in I he LXX., In JMiiln, .loscplius, and hy
profane writei's, alike in an e\il and, so to s])eak, in a _ii'oo([ sense' —
ill the loruier case as implyiiii;- the [)raeliee of iiia<iieal arts;' in the
latter, as referring to those Eastern (especially Chaldee) priest-sages,
whose researches, in great ineasure as yet mysterious and unknown
to us, seem to have embraced much deei) knowledge, though not
untinged with superstiti(»n. It is to these latter, that the Magi
.spoken of by St. Matthew must have belonged. Their number — to
whicli, liowe\er, no imi)ortaiice attaches — cannot ])e asc('rtaincd.^
Various suggestions have l)ecn made as to the country ol' • tlie East,'
whence they came. At the period in question the sacerdotal caste
of the Medcs and Persians was dispersed over various ])arts of the
East,-' and the presence in those lands of a large Jewish <Ji((spora,
through which they might, and iirobably would, gain knowledge of
the great liope of Israel,* is sufficiently attested l)y Jewish history.
The oldest opinion traces the Magi — though partially on insufficient
grounds'' — to Arabia. And there is this in favor of it, that not
only the closest intercourse existed bet^veen Palestine and Arabia,
but that from about 120 B.c. to the sixth century of our era, the
kings of Yemen {)rofessed the Jewish faith." For if. on the one
hand, it seems unlikely, that Eastern Magi would spontaiieously
connect a celestial phenomenon \\\X\\ the birth of a Jewish king,
CIIAI*
Vlll
■ So also in
Acts viii. 9;
xiii. 6, 8
' The evidence on tliis i)oint is fiir-
nirflied by J. G. MiiUc)- in Herzog'f! Reiii-
Enc, vol. viii. p. ()82. The whole subject
of the visit of the Magi is treated witli
the greatest ability and learning (as
against Stranss) by Dr. Mill (-On the
Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels,'
part ii. pp. 27.3 iVc).
-' They are variously stated as twelve
(Aug. Chrysost. ) and three, the latter
on account of the nuinl)er of the gifts.
Other legends on the subject need not
be repeated.
■' Mill u. s.. p. 30:5.
* There is no historical evidence that
at the time of Clirist there was among
the nations any widesi)read expeotanc\
of the Advent of a Messiah in Palestine.
AVhere the knowledge of such a hope
existed, it must have been entirely de-
rived from Jewish sources. The allusions
to it by Tncitvs (Hist. v. 18) and Siic-
touiiis (Ves]). 4) are evidently derived
from Josei)hus, and admittedly refer to
the Flavian dynasty, and to a period
seventy years or more after the Advent.
of Christ. • The splendid vaticination in
the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil, ' which Arch-
deacon Farrar regards as among the ' un-
conscious lU'ophecies of heathendom,' is
confessedly derived from the Cuma^an
Sibyl, and based on the Sil)ylline Oracles,
bookiii. lines Ts4-7!)4 (ed. /•'/•/>-(///>'/(. p.Sfi;
seeEinl. p. xx.\ix.|. Alnu)st the whole of
book iii.. inclusive of these verses, is of
Jewish authorship, and dates proljably
from about 160 b.c. Archdeacon Farrar
holds that, besides the ahore references,
• there is ample proof, both in Jewish and
Pagan writings, that a guilty and weary
world was dimly expecting tJie advent of
its Deliverer.' But he otters no evidence of
it. either from Jewish or Pagan writings.
'• Comp. MiU, u. s.. ]). 808, note (>().
The grovjids adduced by some are such
references as to Is. viii. 4 ; Ps. Ixxii. 10,
A'C. : and the character of the gifts.
*^ Comp. the account of this Jewish
nn)narchy in the -History of the Jewish
Nation," pp. 07-71 : also li<'m())HVs\^vs. e.
Gesch. d. Ausbreit.d. Judenth. pp.81 dire. ;
and Jo«f, Gesch. d. Isr. vol. v. pp. 28(5 A-c.
204 P'ROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
I500K evidence will, on the other hand, )je presented to connect the nu'iin-
H ing attached to the ai)pearance of 'the star' at that [)articuhii- time
^ — '•-'^'^ with Jewish expectancy of the Messiah, But we are anticipating.
Shortly after the Prcsentaticm of tiie Infant Saviour in the
Temple, certain Magi from the East arrived in Jerusalem Avith
strange tidings. They had seen at its 'rising' 'a sidereal appear-
ance,^ which they regarded as betokening the birth of the Messiah
King of the Jews, in the sense which at the time attached to that
. designation. Accordingly, they had come to Jerusalem to pay
homage ^ to Him, probably not because they imagined He must be
born in the Jewish capital* but because they would naturally expect
there to obtain authentic information, ' where ' He might be found.
In their simplicity of heart, the Magi addressed themselves in the
first place to the official head of the nation. The rumor of such an
inquiry, and by such persons, would rapidly spread throughout the
city. But it produced on King Herod, and in the capital, a far dil-
ferent impression from the feeling of the Magi. Unscrupulously
cruel as Herod had always proved, even the slightest suspicion of
danger to his rule — the bare possibility of the Advent of One, Who
had such claims upon the allegiance of Israel, and Who, if acknow-
ledged, would evoke the most intense movement on their part — must
have struck terror to his heart. Not that he could believe the
tidings, though a dread of their possibility might creep over a nature
such as Herod's; but the bare thought of a Pretender, with such
claims, w^ould till him with suspicion, apprehension, and impotent
rage. Nor is it difficult to understand, that the whole city should,
although on diflerent grounds, have shared the ' trouble ' of the
king. It was certainly not, as some have suggested, from appre-
hension of 'the woes' which, according to popular notions, were to
accompany the Advent of Messiah. Throughout the history of Christ
the absence of such ' woes ' was never made a ground of objection to
' Tliis Ls the correct reiulerin^, and seem most inconi!;ruou.-<, but an an ecuiiva-
not, as in A.V., 'in the East." the latter 1)p- lent of the Hebrew n'n.Twn- "^■'^ >" (i*^^i-
ino;exi)ressed Ijy the phu'al of ai'crroA//, xix. 1. So often in the LXX. and t»y
in V. 1, while in vv. 2 and '.) the word is ))rofane writers (comp. Srlilciisner. u. s..
used in tlie siti>;'ular. t. ii. pp. 74!), 750. and Vorsfjux. De
•^ Srlih^usiier lias aljundantly i)roved Hebraismis N.T. pp. (i37-(i41).
that the word dariyj, thonuh ])rimarily * This is the view generally, but as I
meaninj? a f^tiir. is also used of constella- think erroneously, entertained. Any Jew
tions, meteors, and comets — in short, has would have told them, that the Messiah
the widest ai)i)lication: ' omne designare, was not to be born in Jerusalem. Be-
(luod aliiiuem splendorem habet et emit- sides, the ((uestion of the Magi implies
tit ■ (Ee.\. in N.T.. t. i. pp. SitO, 31)11. their ignorance of the -where' of the
•' Not, as in the A.V.. 'to worship,' Messiah.
which at this stage of the history would
KIN(J lIKIiOI) AND THE MAGI.
205
His Messianic claims; and this, Ijecause these ' woes' were not asso-
ciated with the first Advent of the Messiah, but with His final mani-
testation in power. And between these two periods a more or less
long interval was supposed to intervene, during which the Messiah
would ])c ' hidden,' either in the literal sense, or perhaps as to His
power, or else in both respects.^ This enables us to understand the
question of the disciples, as to the sign of His coming and the end of
the world, and the answer of the Master/ But the people of Jeru-
salem had far other reason to fear. They knew only too well the
character of Herod, and what the consequences woidd be to them, or
to any one who might be suspected, however unjustly, of sympathy
with any claimant to the royal throne of David. ^
Herod took immediate measures, characterised by his usual cun-
ning. He called together all the High-Priests — past and present —
and all the learned Rabbis,^ and, without committing himself as to
whether the Messiah was already born, or only expected,* simply pro-
pounded to them the question of His birthplace. This would show
him where Jewish expectancy looked for the appearance of his rival,
and thus enable him to watch alike that place and the people gen-
erally, while it might possibly bring to light the feelings of the leaders
of Israel. At the same time he took care diligently to inquire the
precise time, when the sidereal appearance had first attracted the
attention of the Magi." This would enable him to judge, how far
back he would have to make his own inquiries, since the birth of the
Pretender might be made to synchronise with the earliest appear-
ance of the sidereal phenomenon. So long as any one lived, who was
born in Bethlehem between the earliest appearance of this ' star '
and the time of the arrival of the Magi, he was not safe. The sub-
sequent conduct of Herod" shows, that the Magi must have told him,
that their earliest observation of the sidereal phenomenon had taken
place two years before their arrival in Jerusalem.
The assembled authorities of Israel could only return one answer
CHAP.
VHI
» As re-
ported in
St. Matt,
xxiv. 3-29
b St. Matt,
ii. 7
1 Christian writers on these subjects
have generally conjoined the so-called
' woes of the Messiah ' with His tirst
a])iiearance. It seems not to have
occurred to them, that, if such had been
the .Jewish expectation, a preliminary
objection would have lain against the
claims of Jesus from their absence.
2 Their feelings on this matter would
be represented, mufatis mutaiidis, by
the expressions in the Sanhedrin, re-
corded in St. John xi. 47-50.
^ Both Meyer and "Weiss have shown,
that tfiis was not a meeting of the San-
hedrin. if. indeed, that body had anj'-
tliing more than a shadowy existence
during the reign of Herod.
* The question i)roiiounded by Herod
fv. 4), ' where Christ should be born,' is
l)ut neither in the iiast nor in the future,
but in the prcsi^ut tense. In other words,
he laid before them a rase — a theological
l)roblem — but not a fact, either past or
future.
206
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
' Jer. Ber.
i. i, p. 5 <(
1' St. Matt.
u. 6
to the c|,iiestion submitted by Herod. As shown by the rendering of
the Targum Jonathan, the prediction in Micah v. 2 was at the time
universally understood as pointing to Bethlehem, as the birthplace
of the Messiah. That such was the general expectation, appears
from the Talmud," where, in an imaginary conversation between an
Arab and a Jew, Bethlehem is authoritatively named as Messiah's
birthplace. St. Matthew reproduces the prophetic utterance of
Micah, exactly as such quotations were popularly made at that time.
It will be remembered that, Hebrew being a dead language so far as
the people were concerned, the Holy Scriptures were always trans-
lated into the popular dialect, the person so doing being designated
Methurgeinan {dragoman) or interpreter. These .renderings, which
at the time of St. Matthew were not yet allowed to be written down,
formed the precedent for, if not the basis of, our later Targum. In
short, at that time each one Targumed for himself, and these Tar-
gumim (as our existing one on the Prophets shows) were neither
literal versions,^ nor yet paraphrases, but something l)etween them,
a sort of interpreting translation. That, when Targuming, the New
Testament writers should in preference make use of such a well-
known and widely-spread version as the Translation of the LXX.
needs no explanation. That they did not confine themselves to it,
but, when it seemed necessary, literally or Targumically rendered a
verse, appears from the actual quotations in the New Testament.
Such Targuming of the Old Testament was entirely in accordance
with the then universal method of setting Holy Scripture before a
popular audience. It is needless to remark, that the New Testament
writers would Targum as Christians. These remarks apply not only
to the case under immediate consideration,'' but generally to the
quotations from the Old Testament in the New.^
1 In point of fact, the Talmud ex- instead of "'.?'"N^-' as in o}(r Hebrew
pressly lays it down, tliat ' whosoever
targums a verse in its closely literal form
[without due re;u;ard to its meaning], is a
liar.' (Kidd. 49 a; comp. on the subject
Deutsch's 'Literary Remains,' p. 327).
^ The general principle, that St.' Mat-
thew rendered Mic. v. 2 farr/Hmically,
would, it seems, cover all the differences
between his quotation and the Hebrew
text. But it may be worth while, in this
instance at least, to examine the differ-
ences in detail. Two of them are trivial,
viz., 'Bethlehem, land of Juda,' instead
of 'Ephratah;' 'princes' instead of
'thousands,' though St. Matthew may,
^JO-siYW^, have pointed *i;rX5 ('princes'),
as
text. Perhaps he rendered the word
more correctly than we do, since -"l^N
means not only a ' thousand ' but also a
part of a tribe (Is. Ix. 22), a clan, or
Beth Ahh fJudg. vi. 15); comp. also
Numb. i. Ifi; x. 4, 36; Deut. xxxiii. 17;
Josh. xxii. 21. 30 ; 1 Sam. x. 19 ; xxiii. 23 ;
in which case the personification of these
'thousands' (=our 'hundreds') by their
chieftains or ' i)rinces ' would be a very
apt Targumic rendering. Two other of
the divergences are more inijiortant, viz.,
(1) ' Art not the least,' instead of ' though
thou be little.' But the Hel)rew words
have also been otherwise rendered: in
THE STAR GUIDING TO BETHLEHEM. 201
The further conduct of Herod was in keeping with his plans, CHAP.
He sent fur the Magi — for various reasons, secretly. After ascertain- viii
ing the precise time, when they had first observed the 'star,' he ^— '^ '
directed them to Bethlehem, with the request to inform him when
they had found the Child ; on pretence, that he was equally desirous
with them to pay Him homage. As they left Jerusalem ^ for the
goal of their pilgrimage, to their surprise and joy, the 'star,' which
had attracted their attention at its ' rising, ' ^ and which, as seems
implied in the narrative, they had not seen of late, once more
appeared on the horizon, and seemed to move before them, till \ it
stood over where the young child was ' — that is, of course, over
Bethlehem, not over any special house in it. Whether at a turn of
the road, close to Bethlehem, they lost sight of it, or they no longer
heeded its position, since it had seemed to go before them to the goal
that had been pointed out — for, surely, they needed not the star to
guide them to Bethlehem — or whether the celestial phenomenon
now disappeared, is neither stated in the Gospel-narrative, nor is in-
deed of any importance. SuflBcient for them, and for us: they had
been authoritatively directed to Bethlehem; as they had set out for it,
the sidereal i)henomcnon had once more appeared; and it had seemed
to go before them, till it actually stood over Bethlehem. And, since
in ancient times such extraordinary ' guidance ' by a '■ star ' was
matter of belief and expectancy,^ the Magi would, from their stand-
point, regard it as the fullest contirmation that they had been rightly
directed to Bethlehem — and ' they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.'
It could not be difficult to learn in Bethlehem, where the Infant,
around Whose Birth marvels had gathered, might be found. It
appears that the temporary shelter of the '■ stable ' had been ex-
changed by the Holy Family for the more permanent abode of a
Miouse; "^ and there the Magi found the Infant-Saviour with His "v. ii
Mother. With exquisite tact and reverence the narrative attempts
the Syriac interrogath-'clij ('art thou divergence in the latter part of the verse,
little?'), which suggests tiie rendering of it may be best here sini])ly to give for
St. Matthew; and in the Arabic just as comparison the rendering of the passage
by St. Matthew (vide PocotV.-, Porta Mosis, in the Targum Jonathan: ' Out of thee
Notpe, c. ii. ; but Pocock does not give shall come forth before Me Messiah to
the Targum accurately). Credner in- exercise rule over Israel.'
geniously suggested, that the rendering ^ Not necessarily by night, as most
of St. Matthew may have been caused writers suppose.
by a Targumic rendering of the Hebrew ^ So correctly, and not 'in the East,'
T^J?^ by n*rT2 ; but he does not seem to as in A.V.
, '' \. 1 .,.-,.. ,, . , =* Proof of this is abundantlv furnished
have noticed, that this IS the rtc^?m< ren- i,„ ti- y / ■ x^,,,. t^^* i ; .>.> ol-.^^^A
1 . . ., rn T ii, by netsteiit, Nov. lest. t. i. pp. 24/ and
denng in the Targum Jon. on the pass- 24Q •
age. As for the second and more serious
208 PROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK not the faintest description of the scene. It is as if tiie sacred writer
11 had fully entered into the spirit of St, Paul, ' Yea, though we have
^- — --, — ' known Christ after the liesh, 3 et now henceforth know we Him no
"2Cor. V inore."" And thus it should ever be. It is the great fact of the
manifestation of Christ — not its outward surroundings, however pre-
cious or touching they might be in connection with any ordinary
earthly being — to which our gaze nmst be directed. The externals
may, indeed, attract our sensuous nature; but they detract from the
unmatched glory of the great supersensuous Reality.^ Around the
Person of the God-Man. in the hour when the homage of the heathen
world was first offered Him, we need not, and want not, the drapery
of outward circumstances. That scene is best realized, not by de-
scription, but by silently joining in the silent homage and the silent
offerings of 'the wise men from the East.'
Before proceeding further, we must ask ourselves two questions:
AVhat relationship does this narrative bear to Jewish expectancy?
and. Is there any astronomical confirmation of this account? Besides
their intrinsic interest, the answer to the first question will deter-
mine, whether any legendary basis could be assigned to the narrative;
while on the second will depend, whether the account can be truth-
fully charged with an accommodation on the part of God to the
superstitions and errors of astrology. For, if the whole was extra-
natural, and the sidereal appearance specially produced in order to
meet the astrological views of the Magi, it would not be a sutlicient
answer to the difficulty, ' that great catastrophes and unusual plie-
nomena in nature have synchronised in a remarkable manner with
great events in human history. ' ^ On the other hand, if the sidereal
appearance was not of supernatural origin, and would equally have
taken place whether or not there had been Magi to direct to Beth-
lehem, the difficulty is not only entirely removed, but tlie narrative
affords another instance, alike of the condescension of God to the
lower standpoint of the Magi, and of His wisdom and goodness in
the combination of circumstances.
As regards the question of Jewish expectancy, sufficient has been
said in the preceding pages, to show that Rabbinism looked for a
very difierent kind and manner of the world's homage to the Messiah
1 In this seems lo lie tlie stron^cest to us the spiritual, nor .vet tluis tliat the
condemnation of Romish and Romanis- deepest and holiest inijiressionsare^made.
ing tendencies, that they ever seek to True religion is ever ohjcctivistic, 'sensu-
present — or, perhaps, rather obtrude — ous snirjectiristic.
the external circumstances. It is not ^ Archdeacon Farrar.
thus tluit the Gospel most fully presents
JEWISH ASTROLOGY. 209
than that of a few Magi, guided hy a star to His Infant-Home. chap.
Indeed, so far from serving as historical basis for the origin of such a viii
* legend, ' a more gross caricature of Jewish Messianic anticipation ^- — ~^r — '
could scarcely be imagined. Similarly futile would it l)e to seek a
background for this narrative in Balaam's prediction * since it is in- ='Numb.
. . , . xxiv. 17
credible that any one could have understood it as referring to a brief
sidereal apparition to a few Magi, in order to bring them to look for
the Messiah.^ Nor can it be represented as intended to fulfil the
prophecy of Isaiah/"' that ' they shall bring gold and incense, and mx. eiast
they shall show forth the praises of the Lord.' For, supi)Osing this
figurative language to have been grossly literaliscd,^ what would be-
come of the other part of that prophecy,* which must, of course,
have been treated in the same manner; not to speak of the fact, that
the whole evidently refers not to the Messiah (least of all in His In-
fancy), but to Jerusalem in her latter-day glory. Thus, we fail to
perceive any historical basis for a legendary origin of St. Matthew's
narrative, either in the Old Testament or, still less, in Jewish tradi-
tion. And we are warranted in asking: If the account be not true,
what rational explanation can be given of its origin, since its invention
would never have occurred to any contemporary Jew?
But this is not all. There seems, indeed, no logical connection
between this astrological interpretation of the Magi, and any supposed
practice of astrology among the Jews. Yet, strange to say, writers
have largely insisted on this.^ The charge is, to say the least, grossly
exaggerated. That Jewish — as other Eastern — impostors pretended
to astrological knowledge, and that such investigations may have been
secretly carried on by certain Jewish students, is readily admitted.
' Strauss (Lebeu Jesu, i. pp. 224-249) daries,' the 'flocks of Kedar and the rams
finds a legendary basis for the Evangelic of Nebaioth ' (v. 7), and 'the isles,' and
account in Numb. xxiv. 17, and also a])- ' the ships of Tarshish ' (v. 9).
peals to the legendary stories of profane '' The subject of Jewish astrology is
writers about stars appearing at the birth well treated by Dr. Hamburger, both in
of great men. the tirst and second volumes of his Real-
'^ Keim (Jesu von Nazara, i. 2, p. 377) Encykl. The ablest summary, though
drops the appeal to legends of profane brief, is that in Dr. Gideon Brecker's
writers, ascribes only a secondary influ- book, ' Das Transcendentale im Talmud.'
ence to Numb. xxiv. 17, and lays the (r/Vd>'er is, as usually, one-sided, and not
main stress of 'the legend' on Is. Ix. — always trustworthy in his translations. A
with what success the reader may judge. curious brochure by Kabbi T/ai// (Der
•* Can it be imagined that any person Talmud, od. das Prinzi]) d. planet. Einfl.)
would invent such a 'legend' on the is one of the boldest attempts at special
strengtli of Is. Ix. 6 ? On the otiier liand, i)leading, to the ignoration of palpable
if the event really took place, it is easy facts on the other side. Ha nsra f //' s d'lc-
to understand how Cliristian symbolism ta on this subject are, as on many others,
would — (liough uncritically — have seen assertions unsupported by historical evi-
an adumbration of it in that prophecy. deuce.
* The ' multitude of camels and drome-
210
FI{(>^r i!i':TiTT>KiTr:M to Jordan.
BOOK
II
" Deb. K. 8
'' Comp.
Shabb. 75 a
•■ See for ex.
Jns. War
vi. ."). 3
'1 Shabb.
l.'>6a
' Moed K.
16 (t
t^ Shabb. 145
h: 146 a
ooinp.Yeb.
103 ft
!■ Moed K.
2K a
' Comp.
Baba K.
2 ft : Shabb.
121 ft
k Ned. 39 ft
But tlic languaf>;c ol'disapijroval in wliicli these i)ursuits are rclerred to
— such as that knowh'dgc of the Law is not Ibund witli astrologers" —
and the emphatic statement, that he who learned even one thing from
a Mage deserved death, show what views were autlioritatively held."^
Of course, the Jews (or many of them), like most ancients, believed
in the influence of the planets upon the destiny of man." But it was
a princii)le strongly expressed, and frequently illustrated in the Tal-
mud, that such planetary influence did not extend to Israel.'' It must
be admitted, that this was not always consistently carried out; and
there were Rabbis who computed a man's future from the constellation
(the Ilazzal), either of the day, or the hour, under which he was born."
It was supposed, that some persons had a star of their own,^andthe
(representative) stars of all proselytes were said to have been present
at Mount Sinai. Accordingly, they also, like Israel, had lost the
defilement of the serpent (sin).^ One Rabbi even had it, that success,
wisdom, the duration of life, and a posterity, depended upon the con-
stellation." Such views were carried out till they merged in a kind
of fatalism,* or else in the idea of a ' natal affinity,' by which persons
born under the same constellation were thought to stand in sympathetic
rajyport.^ The further statement, that conjunctions of the planets^
1 I cannot, however, see that Buxtorf
charges so many Rahbis with giving
themselves to astrology as Dr. Geikie
imputes to him — nor how Hidithol'lt can
be quoted as corroborating tlie Chinese
record of tlie appearance of a new star
in 750 (see the passage in tlie Cosmos,
Engl, transl. vol. i. pp. 92, 93).
^ Jewish astronomy distinguishes the
seven planets (called ' wandering stars ') ;
the twelve signs of the Zodiac, Mnzzaloth
(Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo,
Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Cap-
ricornus, Aquarius, Pisces) — arranged by
astrologers into four trigons : that of fire
(1, 5, 9); of earth (2, 6,l0); of air (.3, 7,
11); and of water (4, 8, 12); and the
stars. The Kabbalistic book Raziel (dat-
ing from the eleventh century) arranges
them into three quadrons. The comets,
wliich are called arrows or star-rods,
proved a great difficulty to students. The
planets (in their order) were: Shnhha-
Ihiii (the Sabbatic, Saturn) ; Tsedeq
(righteousness, Jupiter); Maadim (the
red, blood-coloured. Mars); Chammah
(the Sun); Nor/ah (splendour, Venus);
CnkhiiJ)h (the star. Mercury); Lebhnnah
(the .Moon). Kabbalistic works depict our
system as a ciirle, the lower arc consist-
ing of Oceanos, and the upper tilled by
the sphere of the earth ; next comes that
of the surrounding atmosi)here ; then suc-
cessively the seven semicircles of the
l)lanets, each fitting on the other — to use
the Kabbalistic illustration — like the suc-
cessive layers in an onion (see Sepher
Raziel, ed. Lemb. 1873, pj). 9 b, 10 a).
Day and night were divided each into
twelve hours (from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and
from 6 P.M. to 6 a.m.^. Each hour was
under the influence of successive planets :
tluis, Sundaij, 7 a.m., the Sun; 8 a.m.,
Venus; 9 a.m., Mercury; 10 a.m., Moon;
11 a.m., Saturn; 12 a.m., Jupiter, and so
on. Similarly, we have for Monday, 7
A.M., the Moon. <tc. ; for Tuesdaji. 7 a.m.,
Mars; for Wednesday, 7 a.m.. Mercury;
for Thursday, 7 a.m., Jupiter; for Friday,
7 A.M., Venus; and for Sado-day, 7 a.m.,
Saturn. Most important were the Tequ-
phnth, in wliich tlie Sun entered respec-
tively Aries (Tek. Xisan, spring-equinox,
' harvest '), Cancer (Tek. Tammuz, sum-
mer solstice, ' warmth'), Libra (Tek. Tish-
ri, autumn-equinox, seed-time), Capri-
cornus (Tek. Tehlieth, winter-solstice,
'cold'). Comp. Targ. Pseudo-.Ion. on
Gen. viii. 22. From one Tequphah to
the other were 91 days 7| hours. By a
THE EXl'EOTATION OF A 'STAR.' 211
affected the products of the earth "■ is scarcely astrological ; nor per-
haps this, that an eclipse of the sun betokened evil to the nations, an
eclipse of the moon to Israel, because the former calculated time by
the sun, the latter by the moon.
But there is one illustrative Jewish statement wliich, though not
astrological, is of the greatest importance, although it seems to have
been hitherto overlooked. Since the ai)pearance of Munter'n well
known tractate on the Star of the Magi,^ writers have endeavoured
to show, that Jewish expectancy of a Messiah was connected with a
peculiar sidereal conjunction, such as that which occurred two years
before the birth of our Lord,'' and this on the ground of a quotation ^in 747
. , ; 1 A.u.c, or
from the well-known Jewish commentator Abarbanel (or rather Abra- tb.c.
hanel)." In his Commentarv on Daniel that Rabbi laid it down, ■= Born 1437.
• • ' 1 , -1 n • T»- died 1508
that the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation risccs
betokened not only the most important events, but referred especially
to Israel (for which he gives live mystic reasons). He further argues
that, as that conjunction had taken place three years before the birth
of Moses, which heralded the first deliverance of Israel, so it would
also precede the birth of the Messiah, and the final deliverance of
Israel. But the argument fails, not only because Abarbanel's calcu-
lations are inconclusive and even erroneous,'^ but because it is mani-
festly unfair to infer the state of Jewish belief at the time of Christ
from a haphazard astrological conceit of a Rabbi of the fifteenth cen-
tury. There is, however, testimony which seems to us not only reliable,
but embodies most ancient Jewish tradition. It is contained in one
of the smaller MidrasJdm, of which a collection has lately been pub-
lished.* On account of its importance, one quotation at least from it
should be made in full. The so-called Messiah-Haggadah {Aggadoth
MasMach) opens as follows: M star shall come out of Jacob. There is
a Boraita in the name of the Rabbis : The heptad in which the Son of
David Cometh — in the first year, there will not l)e sufficient nourish-
beautiful figure the sundust is called ' fil- the uiitrustworthhiess of such a testi-
ino;s of the day' (as the word tvana — mony, it is necessary to study tlie liistory
that wliicli falls off from the sun wheel as of the astronomical and astrolojiical pur-
it turns (Yonui20 h). suits of the Jews durinu' Ihat period, of
1 ' Der Stern derWeisen,' Copenha,2;en, which a masterly summary is iiiven in
1827. The tractate, though so frequently Steiuschneider's History of Jewish Liter-
quoted, seems scarcely to have been sutti- ature {Ersch u. Gruber, Encykl. vol.
ciently studied, most writers havino- xxvii.). Comp. also Sachs, Relig. Poes.
apparently rather read the references to d. Juden in Spanien, pp. 2.S0 .fee.
it in Meier's Handb. d. Math. u. techn. -^ By Dr. Jellinek, in a work in six
Chronol. Mi^/er's work contains much parts, entitled 'Beth lux-Midrash,' Leipz.
that is interesting and important. and Vienna, 1853-1878.
^ To form an adequate conception of
212 FROM BKTIILEIIE.M TO .lOliDAN.
BOOK nicnt; in the second year the arrows of famine are hiiinched; in the
n </iir(Z, a great famine; in the fourth, neither famine nor plenty; in the
'^•^-^r — ' fifth, great abundance, and the Star shall shine forth, from the East,
and this is the Star of the Messiah. And it will ^^hinc from the East-
for fifteen days, and if it be prolonged, it will be for the good of Israel;
in the sixth, sayings (voices), and announcements (hearings); in the
seventh, wars, and at the close of the seventh the Messiah is to be
expected.' A similar statement occurs at the close of a collection of
three Midrashim — respectively entitled, 'The Book of Elijah,' 'Chap-
ters about the Messiah,' and 'The Mysteries of II. Simon, the son oi"
»jeiiinek, Jochai ' " — whcrc we read that a Star in the East was to appear two
Mi.irash, years before the birth of the Messiah. The statement is almost
8 ' ' equally remarkable, whether it represents a tradition previous to tlie
birth of Jesus, or originated after that event. But two years before
the birth of Christ, which, as we have calculated, took place in
December 749 a.u.c, or 5 before the Christian era, brings us to the
year 747 a.u.c, or 7 before Christ, in which such a Star should ap-
pear in the East.^
Did such a Star, then, really appear in the East seven years before
the Christian era? Astronomically speaking, and without any refer-
ence to controversy, there can be no doubt that tlie most remarkable
conjunction of planets — that of Jupiter and Saturn in the constella-
tion of Pisces, which occurs only once in 800 years — (ZicZ take place no
less than three times in the year 747 a. u. c. , or two years before the birth
of Christ (in May, October and December). This conjunction is ad-
mitted by all astronomers. It was not only extraordinary, but
presented the most brilliant spectacle in the night-sky, such as could
not but attract the attention of all who watched the sidereal heavens,
but especially of those who busied themselves with astrology. In the
year following, that is, in 748 a.u.c, another planet. Mars, joined
this conjunction. The merit of first discovering these facts — of which
it is unnecessary here to present the literary history ^ — belongs to the
1 It would, of course, be possible to would have been emphasized, instead of
argue, that the Evangelic account arose being, as now, rather matter of inference,
from this Jewish tradition about the ^ The chief writers on the subject have
appearance of a star two years 1)efore the been : Munter{\\.^.],Idder (u.s.)-and H7e-
blrtli of the Messiah. But it has been .s-i^/^z-fCln-onol. Synopsed. 4 Evang.('lS43),
already shown, that the liypothesis of a and again in Ilerznrfs Real-Enc. vol. xxi.
Jewish legendary origin is utterly un- j). 544, and finally in his Beitr. z. Wiird. d.
tenable. Besides, if St. Matthew ii. had Ev. 1S(;9). In our own country, writers
been derived from this tradition, the nar- have, since the appearance of Professor
rative would have l)een quite difierently PritcharcVs axi. (' Star of the Wise Men')
shai)ed, and more especially the two in Dr. Sviith's Bilde Diet. vol. iii., gener-
years' interval between the rising of the ally given up the astronomical argument,
star and- che Advent of the Messiah without, however, clearly indicating
CONJUNCTION OF PLANETS AT THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. 213
great Kepler,"- who, accordingly, i)lace<l the Nativity of Christ in the CHAP,
year 748 a.u.c. This date, however, is not only well nigh inipos- viii
sible; but it has also been shown that such a conjunction would, for ' — ^i' — '
various reasons, not answer the requirements of the Evan<i:('lical narra- " oesteiia
tive, so far as the guidance to Bethlehem is concerned. But it does fully irag®, i6u6
account for the attention of the Magi being aroused, and — even if they
had not possessed knowledge of the Jewish expectancy above described
—for their making inquiry of all around, and certainly, among others,
of the Jews. Here we leave the domain of the certain, and enter
upon that of the %)robaMe. Kepler, who was led to the discovery by
observing a similar conjunction in 1603-4, also noticed, that when
the three planets came into conjunction, a new, extraordinary, bril-
liant, and peculiarly colored evanescent star was visible between Ju-
piter and Saturn, and he suggested that a similar star had appeared
under the same circumstances in the conjunction preceding the Nati-
vity. Of this, of course, there is not, and cannot be, absolute certainty.
But, if so, this would be ' the star ' of the Magi, ' in its rising. ' There
is yet another remarkable statement, which, however, must also be
assigned only to the domain of the i^robable. In the astronomical tables
of the Chinese — to whose general trustworthiness so high an authority
as Humboldt bears testimony ^' — the appearance of an evanescent star •= cosmos.
was noted. Pingre and others have designated it as a comet, and cal-
culated its first appearance in February 750 a.u.c, which is just
the time when the Magi would, in all probability, leave Jerusalem
for Bethlehem, since this must have preceded the death of Herod,
which took place in March 750. Moreover, it has been astronomically
ascertained, that such a sidereal apparition would be visible to those
who left Jerusalem, and that it would point — almost seem to go before
— in the direction of, and stand over, Bethlehem.^ Such, impartially
stated, are the facts of the case — and here the subject must, in the
present state of our information, be left.^
Only two things are recorded of this visit of the Magi to Beth-
lehem: their humblest Eastern homage, and their offerings.^ Viewed
whether tliey reijanl the star as a mirac- tion of the narrative in St. ^fatthew.
vlous <inidance. I do not, of course, ^ By the astronomer. Dr. (loldsehmidt.
presume to enter on an astronomical dis- (See Wieseler, Chron. Syn. ]). 72.)
eussion with Professor Pritcliard; hut as '^ A somewhat difl'erent view is ])re-
his reasonini; i)roceeds on the idea that sented in the laborious and learned
the planetary conjunction of 747 A.u.c, is edition of the New Testament liy Mr.
regarded as 'the Star of the Ma^i,' his Brown McCIeUan (vol. i. pp. 400-402).
arguments do not apply either to the ^ Our A.V. curiously translates in v.
view jn-esented in the text nor even to 11, 'treasures,' instead of 'treasury-
that of W'ieseler. Besides. I must ciis^i'd cases.' The exjiression is exactly the
myself a.ijainst accepting his interprela- same as in Dent, xxviii. 12, for which the
214 FROM liETHLKlIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK iis gifts, the incense and the myrrh would, indeed, have been strangely
II inai)propriate. But their offerings were evidently intended as speci-
^^ — -r — ' mens of the products of their country, and tlieir presentation was,
even as in our own days, expressive of the homage of their country to
the new-found King. In this sense, then, the Magi may truly be
regarded as the representatives of the Gentile world; their homage
as the first and typical acknowledgment of Christ by those who
hitherto had been ' far off; ' and their offerings as symbolic of the
world's tribute. This deeper significance the ancient Church has
rightly apprehended, though, perhaps, mistaking its grounds. Its
symbolism^ twining, like the convolvulus, around the Divine Plant, has
traced in the gold the emblem of His Royalty; in the myrrh, of
His Humanity, and that in the fullest evidence of it, in His burying;
and in the incense, that of His Divinity.'
As always in the history of Christ, so here also, glory and suffer-
ing appear in juxtaposition. It could not be, that these Magi should
become the innocent instruments of Herod's murderous designs; nor
yet that the Infant-Saviour should fall a victim to the tyrant. Warned
of God in a dream, the ' wise men ' returned ' into their own country
another way; ' and, warned by the angel of the Lord in a dream, the
Holy Family sought temporary shelter in Egypt. Baffled in the hope
of attaining his object tlirough the Magi, the reckless tyrant sought
to secure it l:)y an indiscriminate slaughter of all the children in
Bethlehem and its immediate neighborhood, from two years and
under. True, considering the population of Bethlehem, their number
could only have ])een small, probably twenty at most.'- But the
deed was none the less atrocious; and these infants may justly be
regarded as the ' protomartyrs, ' the first witnesses, of Christ, 'the
blossom of martyrdom ' (' fiores martyrum,' as Prudentius calls them).
The slaughter was entirely in accordance with the character and
former measures of Herod. ^ Xor do we wonder, that it remained
unrecorded by Josephus, since on other occasions also he has omitted
LXX. use the same words as the Evan- ^ So Archdeacon Farrar rightly com-
gelist. The exi)ression is also used in putes it.
this sense in the Apocr. and b.v profane ^ An illustrative instance of the ruth-
writers. Corap. Wetstein and Meyer ad less destruction of whole families on
locum. Jewish tradition also expresses suspicion that his crown was in danger,
the expectancy that the nations of the occurs in Ant. xv. 8. 4. But the sugges-
world would offer gifts unto the Messiah, tion that Bagoas had suffered at the
(Comp. Pes. 118 h\ Ber. R. 78.) hands of Herod for Messianic predictions
' So not only in ancient hymns (h\ is entirely an invention of Keim. (Schen-
Sedidins, Juvenciis. and ChnLdian), but kel, Bibel Lex., vol. iii. p. 37. Comp.
by the Fathers and later writers. (Comp. Ant. xvli. 2. 4.)
Sepp, Leben Jesu, ii. 1, pp. 102, 103.)
MURDER OF THE INNOCENTS, AND FLIGHT LNTO EGYPT. 215
events wiiich to U8 seem iiiipoi'tunt.' The murder ol" a lew infants in CIIAP.
an insignitieant village might appt-ar searcely worth notiee in a reign Viii
stained by so mueh bloodshed. Besides, he had, perha])s, a special ^— ^r — ^
motive for this silence. Josephus always carefully sui)i)resses, so
far as possible, all that refers to the Christ'' — i)rol)al)ly not only in
accordance with his own religious views, but because mention of a
Christ might have been dangerous, certainly would liave been in-
convenient, in a work written l)y an intense self-seeker, mainly for
readers in Rome.
Of two passages in his own Old Testament Scriptures the Evan-
gelist sees a fulfilment in these events. The flight into P^gypt is to
him the fulfilment of this expression by Hosea, ' Out of P^gypt have
I called My Son.'=' In the murder of 'the Innocents,' he sees the "Hos. xi. i
fulfilment of Rachel's lament" (who died and was buried in Ramah)^ 'Jer. xxxi
over her children, the men of Benjamin, when the exiles to Babylon
met in Ramah, " and there was bitter wailing at the prospect ofi)art- 'Jer. xi. i
ing for hopeless captivity, and yet bitterer lament, as they who might
have encumbered the onward nmrch were pitilessly slaughtered.
Those who have attentively followed the course of Jewish thinking,
and marked how the ancient Synagogue, and that rightly, read the
Old Testament in its unity, as ever pointing to the Messiah as the
fulfilment of Israel's history, will not wonder at, Init fully accord
with, St. Matthew's retrospective view. The words of Hosea were
in the highest sense ' fulfilled ' in the flight to, and return of, the
Saviour from Egypt.* To an inspired writer, nay, to a true Jewish
reader of the Old Testament, the fjuestion in regard to any prophecy
could not be: What did the jy^ophet — but, What did the prophecy
— mean? And this could only be unfolded in the course of Israel's
history. Similarly, those who ever saw in the past the prototyi)e of
the future, and recognised in events, not only the principle, but the
ver}^ features, of that which was to come, could not fail to perceive,
in the bitter wail of the mothers of Bethlehem over their slaughtered
childi'en, the full realisation of the prophetic description of the scene
1 There are, in Josephus' history of '^ See the evidence for it summarized
Herod, besides omissions, inconsisten- in ' Sl^etches of Jewish Social Life iu the
cies of narrative, sucii as about the exe- Days of Christ,' i). (JO.
cutionof Mariamnie (Ant. XV. 3, 5-9 itc. ; * In point of fact the ancient Syna-
comi). War i. 22. 3, 4), and of chronoloijy ,c;ogue did actually apply to the Messiah
(as War i. 18. 2, comp. v. 9. 4; Ant. xiv. Ex. iv. 22, on which the words of Hosea
16. 2, comp. XV. 1. 2, and others.) are based. See the Midrash on Ps. ii. 7.
^ Comp. on article on Josephus in The quotation is given in full in our
Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christian remarks on Ps. ii. 7 in Appendix IX.
Biogr.
216
FROM Hi:TIILEIIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK enacted in Jeremiah's days. Had not the propliet himself heard, in
n the lament oi' the captives to Babylon, the echoes of Rachel's voice in
— r- — ' the past? In neither one nor the other case had the utterances of the
prophets (Hosea and Jeremiah) hecn predictions: they ware prophetic.
In neither one nor the other case was the 'fulfilment' literal: it was
Scriptural, and that in the truest Old Testament sense.
THE DEATH OF HEROD.
217
CHAPTER IX.
THE CHILD-LIFE IN NAZARETH.
(St. Matt. ii. 19-23; St. Luke ii. 39, 40.)
The stay of the Holy Family in Egypt must have been of brief chap.
duration. The cup of Herod's misdeeds, but also of his misery, was IX
full. During the whole latter part of his life, the dread of a rival ^-^ — -.^--
to the throne had haunted him, and he had sacrificed thousands,
among them those nearest and dearest to him, to lay that ghost. ^ And
still the tyrant was not at rest. A more terrible scene is not pre-
sented in history than that of the closing days of Herod. Tormented
by nameless fears; ever and again a prey to vain remorse, when he
would frantically call for his passionately-loved, murdered wife
Mariamme, and her sons; even making attempts on his own life;
the delirium of tyranny, the passion for blood, drove him to the verge
of madness. The most loathsome disease, such as can scarcely be
described, had fastened on his body,^ and his sufferings were at times
agonizing. By the advice of his physicians, he had himself carried
to the baths of Callirhoe (east of the Jordan^, trying all remedies
with the determination of one who will do hard battle for life. It
was in vain. The namelessly horrible distemper, which had seized the
old man of seventy, held him fast in its grasp, and, so to speak,
played death on the living. He knew it, that his hour was come,
and had himself conveyed back to his palace under the palm-trees
of Jericho. They had known it also in Jerusalem, and, even before
the last stage of his disease, two of the most honored and loved
Rabbis — Judas and Matthias — had headed the wild band, Avhich would
sweep away all traces of Herod's idolatrous rule. They began by
pidling down the immense golden eagle, which hung over the great
gate of the Temple. The two ringleaders, and forty of their followers,
^ And yet Keim speaks of his Iloch- test. Zeit2;esch. ])]). 197, 19S.
herzigkeit and natiirlicher Edelsinn! '^ See tlie liori-ihk' (l(\'^crii)tioM of his
(Leben Jesu, i. L ji. 184.) A much living death in Jos. Ant. xvii. (i. 5.
truer estimate is that of Schiirer, Neu-
218
FK'OM I?I;TI1LEHE.M to JORDAN.
HOOK iillowcd tlu'inselves to be taken l)y Herod's guards. A mock public
II ti'ial ill tlie theatn; at Jericho Ibllowcd. Herod, carried out on a
— -, ' couch, was both accuser and judge. The zealots, who had made
noble answer to tlie tyrant, were Inirnt alive; and tlie High-Priest,
wlio was suspected of connivance, deposed.
After that the end came rapidly. On his return from C'allirhoe,
feeling his death ai)proaching, the King had summoned the noblest
of Israel througliout the land of Jericho, and shut them up in the
Hippodrome, with orders to his sister to have them slain immediately
upon his death, in the grim hope that the joy of the people at his
decease would thus be changed into mourning. Five days before
his death one ray of jmssing joy lighted his couch. Terrible to say,
it was caused by a letter from Augustus allowing Herod to execute
his son Antipater — the false accuser and real murderer of his half-
brothers Alexander and Aristobulus. The death of the wretched
prince was hastened by his attempt to bribe the jailer, as the noise
in the palace, caused by an attempted suicide of Herod, led him to
suppose his father was actually dead. And now the terrible drama
was hastening to a close. The fresh access of rage shortened the
life which was already running out. Five days more, and the terror
of Judaea lay dead. He had reigned thirty-seven years — thirty-four
since his concpiest of Jerusalem. Soon tlie rule for which he had so
long plotted, striven, and stained himself A\ith untold crimes, passed
from his descendants. A century more, and the whole race of Herod
had been swept away.
We pass by the -empty pageant and barbaric splendor of his
burying in the Castle of Herodium, close to Bethlehem. The events
of the last few weeks formed a lurid back-ground to the murder of
' the Innocents. ' As we have reckoned it, the visit of the Magi took
place in February 750 a.u.c. On the 12th of March the Ral)bis and
their adherents suffered. On the following night (or rather early
morning) there was a lunar eclipse; the execution of Antipater pre-
ceded tlie death of his father by five days, and the latter occurred
from seven to fourteen days before the Passover, which in 750 took
place on the 12th of April. ^
1 See the calculation in >Fie,seZe?-'sSyn- repeated statement of Joseplms that
opse, pp. 56 and 444. The ' Dissertatio Herod died close upon the Passover
de Herode Mao;no, by -/• A. van der Chijs should have sufficed to show the impossi-
(Leyden. 1855), is very clear and accu- bility of that hypothesis. Indeed, there
rate. Dr. Gelkie adopts the manifest is scarcely any historical date on which
mistake of Caspar!, that Herod died in competent writers are more a^jreed than
January, 753, and holds that the Holy that of Herod's death. See Schurer,
Family spent three years in Egypt. The Neutest. Zeitg., pp. 222, 223.
ACCP]f^BION OF ARCIIELAUS. 219
It need scarcely be said, that Salome (Herod's sister) and her chap.
Iiiisl)aiid were too wise to execute Herod's direction in regard to the IX
noble Jews shut up in the Hippodrome. Their liberation, and the ^- — ~^r — '
death of Herod, were marked by the leaders of the people as joyous
events in the so-called MegiUath Taanith, or Roll of Fasts, although
the date is not exactly marked.'' Henceforth this was to be a Yom «Meg.Taan
Tobh (feast-day), on which mourning was interdicted.' ira*l/,;
Herod had three times l)efore changed his testament. By the
first will Antipater, the successful calumniator of Alexander and
Aristobulus, had been appointed his successor, while the latter two
were named kings, though we know not of what districts. '' After the >■ Jos.war
i. lit}. 5
execution of the two sons of Mariamme, Antipater was named king,
and, in case of his death, Herod, the son of Mariamme II. AVhen the
treachery of Antipater was proved, Herod made a third will, in which
Antipas (the Herod Antipas of the New Testament) was named his
successor." But a few days before his death he made yet another >=jo»-. Ant.
^ -^ . xvli. 6. 1 ;
disposition, by which Archelaus, the elder brother of Antipas (both war 1.32.7
sons of Malthake, a Samaritan), was appointed king; Antipas tetrarch
of Galilee and Peraea; and Pliilip (the son of Cleopatra, of Jerusa-
lem '), tetrarch of the territory east of the Jordan.^ These testaments
retlected the varying phases of suspicion and family-hatred through
which Herod had passed. Although the Emperor seems to have
authorised him to appoint his successor,'^ Herod wisely made his dis- •; jos.war
l)Ositioii dependent on the approval of Augustus." But the latter was , ^nt. xvii
not by any means to be taken for granted. Archelaus had, indeed, ^" ^
been immediately proclaimed King by the army; but he prudently
declined the title, till it had been confirmed by the Emperor. The
night of his father's death, and those that followed, were character-
istically spent by Archelaus in rioting with his friends.*' But the g^^^-g^J"-
people of Jerusalem were not easily satisfied. At first liberal prom-
ises of amnesty and reforms had assuaged the populace.*'' But the ^Ant. xvu.
indin-nation excited bv the late murder of the Rabl)is soon burst
' Tlie Mecjillath Taanitli itself, or ' Roll Gnitz (Gescli. vol. iii. p. 427) andDeren-
of Fasts.' does not mention tlie death of hnnrg (pp. 101, 16-1) have reirarded the
Herod. But the commentator adds to the 1st of Shebhat as really that of Herod's
dates 7th Kislfv (yox.) aw] 2n(\ iS/ieb/inf death. But this is imi)ossil)le; and we
(Jan.), l)oth manifestly incorrect, the know enough of the historical inaccuracy
notice that Herod had died— on the 2nd of the Rabbis not to attach any serious
Shebhat, Jannai also — at the same time importance to their precise dates,
tellini; a story about the incarceration '^ Herod had married no less than ten
and liberation of ' seventy of the PJlders times. See his genealoijical table,
of Israel,' evidently a modification of -^ Bataneea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and
Josei)hus' account of what passed in the Paulas.
Hiprodrome of Jericho. Accordiuiily,
220
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
9. 1-3
BOOK into ;i stoi'in of lainciitation, and thou of rebellion, which Arehelaus
H silenced by the slauii-hter of not less than three thousand, and that
— -r — ' within the sacred precincts of the Temple itself.^
Ant.xvii. Other and more serious difficulties awaited him in Rome, whither
he Avent in company with his mother, his aunt Salome, and other
relatives. These, however, presently deserted him to espouse the
claims of Antipas, who likewise appeared before Augustus to plead
for the royal succession, assigned to him in a former testament. The
Herodian family, while intriguing and clamouring each on his own
account, were, for reasons easily understood, agreed that they would
rather not have a king at all, but be under the suzerainty of Rome;
though, if king there must be, they preferred Antiinis to Arehelaus.
Meanwhile, fresh troubles broke out in Palestine, which were suppressed
by fii'e, sword, and crucifixions. And now two other deputations
arrived in the Imperial City. Philip, the step-brother of Arehelaus, to
whom the latter had left the administration of his kingdom, came to
"Ant. xvii. look after his own interests, as well as to supijort Arehelaus.'' ^ At the
11. 1; War . ' . . , ^
ii. 6. 1 same time, a Jewish deputation ot filty, Irom Palestine, accompanied
by eight thousand Roman Jews, clamoured for the deposition of the
entire Herodian race, on account of their crimes,^ and the incorpora-
tion of Palestine with Syria — no doubt in hope of the same semi-
independence under their own authorities, enjoyed by their fellow-
religionists in the Grecian cities. Augustus decided to confirm the
last testament of Herod, with certain slight modifications, of which
the most important was that Arehelaus should bear the title of
Ethnarch, which, if he deserved it, would l)y-and-by be exchanged
for that of King. His dominions were to be Judsea, Idumasa, and
Samaria, with a revenue of 600 talents' (about 230, 000?. to 240, 000?).
It is needless to follow the fortunes of the new Ethnarch. He began
his rule by crushing all resistance by the wholesale slaughter of his
opponents. Of the High-Priestly office he disposed after the manner
of his father. But he far surpassed him in cruelty, oppression,
luxury, the grossest egotism, and the lowest sensuality, and that,
without possessing the talent or the energy of Herod.* His brief
reign ceased in the year 6 of our era, when the Emperor banished
him, on account of his crimes, to Gaul.
^ I cannot conceive on what ground ^ The revenues of Antipas were 200
Keim (both in SchenJipVs Bibel Lex, and talents, and tliose of Philip 100 talents,
in his ' Jesu von Nazara') speaks of him * This is admitted even by Brann
as a i)retender to tlie throne. (Solme d. Ilerodes, ]). 8). Despite its
^ This nia.y have been the liistOrical pretentiousness, this tractate is un-
basis of the parable of our Lord in St. trustworthy, being written in a party
Luke xix. 12-27. sijirit (Jewish).
THE SETTLEMENT IN NAZAPvETlI.
221
It must have been soon alter llie aecession of Archelaus,^ but
before tidings of it had aetuallj reached Joseph in Egypt, that the
Holy Family returned to Palestine. The first intention of Joseph
seems to have been to settle in Bethlehem, where he had lived since
the birth of Jesus. Obvious reasons would incline him to choose this,
and, if possible, to avoid Nazareth as the place of his residence. His
trade, even had he been unknown in Bethlehem, would have easily
supplied the modest wants of his household. But when, on reaching
Palestine, he learned who the successor of Herod was, and also, no
doubt, in what manner he had inaugurated his reign, common prudence
would have dictated the withdrawal of the Infant-Saviour from the
dominions of Archelaus. But it needed Divine direction to determine
his return to Nazareth.^
Of the many years spent in Nazareth, during which Jesus passed
from infancy to childhood, from childhood to youth, and from youth to
manhood, the Evangelic narrative has left us but briefest notice. Of
His childhood: that ^He grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with
wisdom, and the grace of God was- upon Him;'" of His youth:
besides the account of His questioning the Rabbis in the Temple, the
year before he attained Jewish majority — that 'He was subject to
His parents,' and that 'He increased in wisdom and in stature, and in
favour with God and man.' Considering what loving care watched
over Jewish child-life, tenderly mjjrking by not fewer than eight
designations the various stages of its development,^ and the deep
interest naturally attaching to the early life of the Messiah, that
silence, in contrast to the almost blasphemous absurdities of the
Apocryphal Gospels, teaches us once more, and most impressively, that
the Gospels furnish a history of the Saviour, not a biography of Jesus
of Nazareth.
St. Matthew, indeed, summarises the whole outward history of
CHAP.
IX
' We gather this from the expression,
'When he heard that Archelaus did
reigu.' Evidently Joseph had not heard
who was Herod's successor, when he left
Egypt. Archdeacon Farrar suggests, that
the expression 'reigned' (' as a king,
f3a(TiXevet — St. Alatt. ii. 22) refers to
the period before Augustus had changed
his title from ' King ' to Etiniarch. But
this can scarcely l)e jiressed, the word
being used of other rule than that of a
kinff, not only in the New Testament
and in the Apocryi)ha, Init by Josephus,
and even by classical writers.
^ The language of St. Matthew (ii. 22,
23) seems to imply express Divine direc-
tion not to enter the territory of Judjea.
In that case he would travel along the
coast-line till he passed into Galilee.
The impression left is, that the settle-
ment at Nazareth whs not of his own
choice.
■^ Yeled, the newborn babe, as in Is.
ix. 6 ; Yoneq, the suckling, Is. xi. 8 ; OM,
the suckling beginning to ask for food.
Lam. iv. 4; (iamu), the weaned child.
Is. xxviii. 9; Taph, the child clinging to
its mother, Jer. xl. 7; Elem, a child
becoming tirm; Naar, the lad, literally,
'one who shakes himself free;' and
Bachur, the riiwned one. (See ' Sketches
of Jewish Soeial Life,' pp. 103, 104.)
» St. Luke
il. iu
222
FROM 15ETHLEnE:\r TO JOEDAN.
BOOK
II
» In accord-
ance with
Jer. xxili.
5; xxxiii.
15 ; and es-
pecially
Zech ili. 18
b So in Ber.
R. 76
the life in Nazareth in one sentence. Henceforth Jesus would stand
out betbrc the Jews of His time — and, as we know, of all times ' —
by the distinctive designation: 'of Nazareth/ *-!i*: (iVbtsri), ^a^oj-
paios, ' the Nazarene.' In the mind of a Palestinian a peculiar signi-
ficance would attach to the by-Name of the Messiah, especially in its
connection with the general teaching of prophetic Scripture. And
here we must remember, that St. Matthew primarily addressed his
Gospel to Palestinian readers, and that it is the Jewish presentation
of the Messiah as meeting Jewish expectancy. In this there is
nothing derogatory to the character of the Gospel, no accommodation
in the sense of adaptation, since Jesus was not only the Saviour of the
world, but especially also the King of the Jews, and we are now con-
sidering how He would stand out before the Jewish mind. On one
point all were agreed: His Name was Notsri (of Nazareth). St.
Matthew proceeds to point out, how entirely this accorded with
prophetic Scripture — not, indeed, with any single prediction, but with
the wliole language of the prophets. From this ^ the Jcavs derived
not fewer than eight designations or Names by which the Messiah Avas
to be called. The most prominent among them was that of TsemacJij
or 'Branch.' " We call it the most prominent, not only because it is
based upon the clearest Scrijiture-testimony, l)ut because it evidently
occupied the foremost rank in Jewish thinking, being embodied in
this earliest portion of their daily liturgy: ' The Branch of David, Thy
Servant, speedily make to shoot forth, and His Horn exalt Thou Ijy
Thy Salvation. . . . Blessed art Thou Jehovah, Who causeth to spring
forth (literally: to branch forth) the Horn of Salvation' (1.5th Eulogy).
Now, what is expressed by the word Tsemaeh is also conveyed by the
term iVefeer, 'Branch,' in such passages as Isaiah xi. 1, which was
likewise applied to the Messiah.^ Thus, starting from Isaiah x\.\,Netser
being equivalent to Tsemaeh, Jesus would, as Notsri or Ben Netser.^'*
bear in popular parlance, and that on the ground of prophetic Scrip-
tures, the exact equivalent of the best-known designation of the
Messiah.^ The more significant this, that it was not a self-chosen
nor man-given name, but arose, in the providence of God. from what
otherwise might have been called the accident of His residence. We
1 This is still the common, alniost uni-
versal, designation of Christ among the
Jews.
^ Comp. ch. iv. of this book.
^ See Appendix IX.
* Comp. Buxtorf, Lexicon Tahn. p.
1383. . •
^ All this becomes more evident by De-
litzsch's ingenious suggestion fZeitschr.
fiir luther. Theol. 187(5. part iii. ]).
402). that the real meaning, though nf)t
the literal rendering, of the words of St.
Matthew, would be I'ir "i." "2 — • for
Nezer ['branch"] is His Xame.'
THE IJIiANCII OUT OF JESSE'S KOOTS. 223
admit tliat this is a Jewish view; but then this (iospel /.s the Jewish CHAP,
view of the Jewish Messiali. IX
But, taking this Jewish title in its Jewish significaiiee, it has also ~ — -r —
a deei)er meaning, and that not only to Jews, but to all men. The
idea of Christ as the Divinely plaeed ' Braneh ' (symbolised by His
Divinely-appointed early residence), small and desi)ised in its forth-
shooting, or then visible appearance (like Nazareth and the Nazarenes),
but destined to grow as the Branch sprung out of Jesse's roots, is
most marvellously true to the whole history of the Christ, alike as
sketched ' ]\y the prophets,' and as exhibited in reality. And thus to
us all, Jews or Gentiles, the Divine guidance to Nazareth and the
name Nazarene present the truest fulfilment of the prophecies of His
history.
Greater contrast could scarcely be imagined than between the in-
tricate scholastic studies of the Juda^ans, and the active pursuits that
engaged men in Galilee. It was a common saying: ' If a person
wishes to be rich, let him go north; if he wants to be wise, let him
come south ' — and to Judgea, accordingly, flocked, from ploughshare
and workshop, whoever w^ished to become ' learned in the Law. ' The
very neighbourhood of the Gentile world, the contact with the great
commercial centres close by, and the constant intercourse with foreign-
ers, who passed through Galilee along one of the world's great high-
ways, would render the narrow exclusiveness of the Southerners
impossible. Galilee was to Judaism ' the Court of the Gentiles ' — the
Rabbinic Schools of Judaea its innermost Sanctuary. The natural
disposition of the people, even the soil and climate of Galilee, were
not favourable to the all-engrossing passion for Rabbinic study. In
Judaea all seemed to invite to retrospection and introspection; to favour
habits of solitary thought and study, till it kindled into fanaticism.
Mile l)y mile as you travelled southwards, memories of the past would
crowd around, and thoughts of the future would rise within. Avoiding
the great towns as the centres of hated heathenism, the traveller
would meet few foreigners, but everywhere encounter those gaunt
representatives of what was regarded as the superlative excellency of
his religion. These were the embodiment of Jewish piety and
asceticism, the possessors and expounders of the mysteries of his faith,
the fountain-head of wisdom, who were not only sure of heaven
themselves, but knew its secrets, and were its very aristocracy; men
who could tell him all about his own religion, practised its most
minute injunctions, and could interin-ot every stroke and letter of the
Law — nay, whose it actually was to ' loose and to bind,' to ju-onounce
224 FRO:\I BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK an action lawful or unlawful, and to ' remit or retain sins, ' by declaring
n n iiKin liable to, or free from, cxjnatory sacrifices, or else punishment
' -. — ^ in this or the next world. ISo Hindoo fanatic would more humbly
bend Ix'lbre lirahiiiiu saints, nor devout Romanist more venerate the
mcudx'rs of a holy fraternity, than the Jew his great Rabbis.^
Reason, duty, and precept, alike bound him to reverence them, as he
rc^•erenced the God Whose interpreters, representatives, deputies,
intimate companions, almost colleagues in the heavenly Sanhedrin,
they were. And all around, even nature itself, might seem to foster
such tendencies. Even at that time Judaea was comparatively desolate,
barren, grey. The decaying cities of ancient renown; the lone high-
land scenery; the bare, rugged hills; the rocky terraces from which
only artificial culture could woo a return; the wide solitary plains,
deep glens, limestone heights — with distant glorious Jerusalem ever
in tlie far background, would all favour solitary thought and religious
abstraction.
It was quite otherwise in Galilee. The smiling landscape of
Lower Galilee invited the easy labour of the agriculturist. Even the
highlands of Upper Galilee '^ were not, like those of Judgea, sombre,
lonely, enthusiasm-killing, but gloriously grand, free, fresh, and
bracing. A more beautiful country — hill, dale, and lake — could
scarcely be imagined than Galilee Proper. It was here that Asher
had 'dipped his foot in oil.' According to the Rabbis, it was easier
to rear a forest of olive-trees in Galilee than one child in Judaea.
Corn grew in abundance; the wine, though not so plentiful as the oil,
was rich and generous. Proverbially, all fruit grew in perfection,
and altogether the cost of living was about one-fifth that in Judgea.
And then, what a teeming, busy population ! Making every allowance
for exaggeration, we cannot wholly ignore the account of Josephus
about the 240 towns and villages of Galilee, each with not less than
15,000 inhabitants. In the centres of industry all then known trades
were busily carried on; the husbandman pursued his happy toil on
' One of the most absurdly curious On the south it was bounded by Samaria
illustrations of this is the following: — Mount Carmel on the Western, and the
' He who blows his nose in the presence district of Scythopolis on the eastern
of his Riil)bi is wortliy of death ' (Erub. side, being here landmarks; while the
1)1) r/, line 11 from bottom). Ih^ diet inn Jordan and the Lake of Oennesaret
is supported by an alteration in the formed tlie general eastern boundary-
reading of Prov. viii. ."56. line.' (Sketctiesof Jewish Soc. Life, p. 33.)
'•* Galilee covered the ancient posses- Ii was divided into rp]ier and Lower
sions of Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Galilee — the former beginning ' where
Asher. ' In the time of Christ it stretched sycomores (not our sycamores) cease to
northwards to the possessions of Tyre on grow.' Fishing in the Lake of Galilee
the ono side, and to Syria on the other. was free to all (Baba K. 81 b).
RELIGIOUS TEACHING IN GALILEE.
225
genial soil, while by the Lake of Gennesaret, with its unrivalled
beauty, its rich villages, and lovely retreats, the flsherman j)lied his
healthy avocation. By those waters, overarched by a deep blue sky,
spangled with the brilliancy of innumerable stars, a man might feel
constrained by nature itself to meditate and pray ; he would not be
likely to indulge in a morbid fanaticism.
Assuredly, in its then condition, Galilee was not the home of
Rabbinism, though that of generous spirits., of warm, impulsive
hearts, of intense nationalism, of simple manners, and of earnest
piety. Of course, there would be a reverse side to the picture. Such
a race would be excitable, passionate, violent. The Talmud accuses
them of being quarrelsome," but admits that they cared more for
honour than for money. The great ideal teacher of Palestinian
schools was Akiba, and one of his most outspoken opponents a
Galilean, Rabbi Josd. ^ In religious observances their practice was
simpler; as regarded canon-law they often took independent views.
CHAP.
IX
' cantan-
kerous' (?),
Ned. 48 a
b Siphre on
Numb. X.
19, ed.
Fried-
and generally followed the interpretations of those who, in opposition mann, 4 a.
to Akiba, inclined to the more mild and rational — we had almost
said, the more human — application of traditionalism.^ The Talmud
mentions several points in which the practice of tlie Galileans differed
from that of Judaea — all either in the direction of more practical earnest-
ness,^ or of alleviation of Rabbinic rigorism.^ On the other hand,
they were looked down upon as neglecting traditionalism, unable to
rise to its speculative heights, and preferring the attractions of the
Haggadah to the logical subtleties of the Halakhah.* There was a
general contempt in Rabbinic circles for all that was Galilean,
Although the Judsean or Jerusalem dialect was far from pure,^ the
people of Galilee were especially blamed for neglecting the study of
their language, charged with errors in grammar, and especially with
absurd malpronunciation, sometimes leading to ridiculous mistakes.®
1 Of which Jochaiian, the son of Niiri,
may here be regarded as the exponent.
■■^ As in the relation between bride-
groom and bride, the cessation of work
the day before the Passover, &c.
•^ As in regard to animals lawful to be
eaten, vows, &c.
* The doctrinal, or rather Halakhic,
differences between Galilee and Jud;ea
are partially noted by Lightfoot (Ghro-
nogr. Matth. praem. Ixxxvi.), and by
Hamburger (Real-Enc! i. p. 395).
^ See Deiitsch's Remains, p. .358.
'" The differences of ])roiiunciation and
language are indicated by Lightfoot (u. s.
Ixxxvii.), and by Deutsch (u. s. pp. 357,
358). Several instances of ridiculous
mistakes arising from it are recorded.
Thus, a woman cooked for her husband
two lentils (*ni"'w) instead of two feet
(of an aninuil, *Srw), as desired {Nedar,
66 h). On another occasion a woman
malpronounced ' Come, I will give thee
milk,' into 'Companion, butter devour
thee!' (Erub. 53 b). In the same con-
nection otlier similar stories are told.
Comp. also Neultauer, Geogr. du Tal-
mud, p. 184, G. de Rossi, della lingua,
prop, di Cristo, Dissert. I. passim.
226
FIIOM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
H
" Erub. 5:{ h
'■ St. Luke
ii. 40
•(Jaliloau — Fool!' was so common an expression, that a learned lady
turned with it upon so great a man as R. Jos^, the Galilean, because
he hail used two needless words in asking her the road to Lydda. "^
Indeed, this R. Jose had considerable prejudices to overcome, before
his remarkable talents and learning were fully acknowledged.^
Among such a people, and in that country, Jesus spent by far the
longest part of His life upon earth. Generally, this period may
be described as that of His true and full Human Development —
physical, intellectual, spiritual — of outward submission to man, and
inward submission to God, with the attendant results of ' wisdom, '
'favour,' and 'grace.' Necessary, therefore, as this period was, if
the Christ was to be Tkue Man, it cannot be said that it was lost,
even so far as His Work as Saviour was concerned. It was more than
the preparation for that work; it w^as the commencement of it:
subjectively (and passively), the self-abnegation of humiliation in His
willing submission: and objectively (and actively), the fulfilment of
all righteousness through it. But into this 'mystery of piety'
we may only look afar otf — simply remarking, that it almost needed
for us also these thirty years of Human Life, that the overpowering
thought of His Divinity might not overshadow that of His Humanity.
But if He was subject to such conditions, they must, in the nature
of things, have afi'ected His development. It is therefore not pre-
sumption when, without breaking the silence of Holy Scripture, we
follow the various stages of the Nazareth life, as each is, so to speak,
initialled Ijy the brief but emphatic summaries of the third Gospel.
• In regard to the Child-Life,^ we read: 'And the Child grew,
and waxed strong in spirit,* being filled with wisdom, and the grace
of God was upon Him. ' ^ This marks, so to speak, the lowest rung
in the ladder. Having entered upon life as the Divine Infant, He
began it as the Human Child, subject to all its conditions, yet perfect
in them.
These conditions were, indeed, for that time, the happiest conceiv-
able, and such as only centuries of Old Testament life-training could
have made them. The Gentile world here presented terrible contrast,
^ Gelpke, Jugendgesch, des Herrn,
has, at least m our daj's, little value
beyond its title.
* The words ' iu spirit ' are of doubt-
ful authority. But their omission can be
of no consequence, since the 'waxing
strong' evidently refers to the mental
development, as the subsequent clause
shows.
1 The Rabbi asked: What road leads
to Lydda ? — using /onr words. The
woman pointed out that, since it was
not lawful to multiply speech with a
woman, he should have asked: Whither
to Lijdda ? — in two words.
2 in fact, only four great Galilean
Rabbis are mentioned. The Galileans
are said to have inclined towards mysti-
cal ( Kabbalistic ?) pursuits.
THE UPBRINGING OF A JEWISH CHILD. 227
alike in regard to the relation of parents and eliildren, and the CHAP,
character and moral object of their upbringing. Education l)egins l^
in the home, and there were not homes like those in Israel; it is ^— ^r^^
imparted by influence and example, before it comes by teaching; it
is acquired by what is seen and heard, before it is laboriously learned
from books; its real object becomes instinctively felt, before its
goal is consciously sought. What Jewish fathers and mothers were;
what they felt towards their children; and with what reverence,
affection, and care the latter returned what they had received, is
known to every reader of the Old Testament. The relationship of
father has its highest sanction and embodiment in that of God
towards Israel; the tenderness and care of a mother in that of the
watchfulness and pity of the Lord over His people. The semi-Divine
relationship between children and parents appears in the location, the
far more than outward duties which it implies in the wording, of the
Fifth Commandment. No punishment more prompt than that of its
breach;'' no description more terribly realistic than that of the ven- j^.f^*- -'^^'•
geance which overtakes such sin."* ^■pxov.s.xa.
From the first days of its existence, a religious atmosphere sur-
rounded the child of Jewish parents. Admitted in the number of
God's chosen people by the deeply significant rite of circumcision,
when its name was first spoken in the accents of prayer,^ it was
henceforth separated unto God. Whether or not it accepted the
privileges and obligations implied in this dedication, they came to
him directly from God, as much as the circumstances of his birth.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God
of the promises, claimed him, with all of blessing which this conveyed,
and of responsibility which resulted from it. And the first Avish
expressed for liim was that, 'as he had been joined to the covenant,'
so it might also be to him in regard to the ' Torah ' (Law), to *the
Chuppah' (the marriage-baldachino), and 'to good works;' in other
words, that he might live 'godly, soberly, and righteously in this
present Avorld ' — a holy, happy, and God-devoted life. And what
this was, could not for a moment be in doubt. Putting aside the
overlying Rabbinic interpretations, the ideal of life was presented to
the mind of the Jew in a hundred different forms — in none perhaps
more popularly than in the W(n'ds, ' These are the things of which
a man enjoys the fruit in this world, but their possession continueth
for the next: to honour father and mother, pious works, ])eacemaking
^ See the notice of these rites at the eircuincisioii of John the Baptist, in ch. iv. of
this Book.
228 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK between man and man, and the study of tlie Law, whicli isc(j[uivalent
II to them all.' " This devotion to the Law was, indeed, to the Jew the all
^- — ^.^ ' in all — the sum of intelleetual pursuits, the aim of life. What better
»poahi. 1 tiiin<»: could a father seek for his child than this inestimable boon?
Tlic first education was necessarily the mother's.^ Even the
Talmud owns this, when, among the memorable sayings of the sages,
it records one of the School of Rabbi Jannai, to the eft'ect that know-
ledge of the Law may be looked for in those, who have sucked it in
" Ber. 63 h at their mother's breast." And what the true mothers in Israel were,
is known not only from instances in the Old Testament, from the
praise of woman in the Book of Proverbs, and from the sayings of
the son of Sirach (Ecclus. iii.^), but from the Jewish women of the
New Testament.* If, according to a somewhat curious traditional
principle, women were dispensed from all such positive obligations as
were incumbent at fixed periods of time (such as putting on phylac-
teries), other religious duties devolved exclusively upon them. The
Sabbath meal, the kindling of the Sabbath lamp, and the setting
apart a portion of the dough from the bread for the household, —
these are but instances, with which every ' Taph, ' as he clung to
his mother's skirts, must have been familiar. Even before he could
follow her in such religious household duties,' his eyes must have
been attracted by the Mezuzah attached to the door-post, as the name
••On which of the Most High on the outside of the little folded parchment" was
Deut.vi. 4-9 "
and xi. 13- revcrcntlv touched by each who came or went, and then the fingers
21 were ./ ./ ; ■-
Inscribed kisscd that had come m contact with the Holy Name.'' Indeed, the
\v%'.u^' *^iity of the 3l€zuzah was incumbent on women also, and one can
Me^'iiLLS; imagine it to have been in the heathen-home of Lois and Eunice
MoedK. 111. -j^ ^j^^ far-off 'dispersion,' where Timothy would first learn to
wonder at, then to understand, its meaning. And what lessons for
the past and for the present might not be connected with it ! In
popular opinion it was the syml)ol of the Divine guard over Israel's
homes, the visible emblem of this joyous hymn: 'The Lord shall
preserve thy going out and coming in, from this time forth, and even
• Ps. cxxi. 8 for evermore. ^ "
There could not be national history, nor even romance, to compare
with that by which a Jewish mother might hold her child entranced.
^ Comp. ' Sketches of .Jewish Social ^ Besides tlie holy women who are
Life,' pp. 86-l()0, the literature there named in the Gospels, we would refer to
quoted: D»sc//rt^, Schulgesetzgebung d. the mothers of Zebedee's children and
alten Isr. ; and Dr. Marcus, Paedagog. d. of Mark, to Dorcas, Lj'dia, Lois, Eunice,
Isr. Volkes. Priscilla, St. John's 'elect lady,' and
^ The counterpart is in Ecclus. xxx. others.
A JEAVISH HOME AND ITS INFLUENCES. 229
And it was liis own history — that of his trilio, chin, i)oi']iaps family; CHAP.
of tho past, indeed, but yet of 'the present, and still more of the IX
glorious future. Long before he could go to school, or even Syna- ^-^r — '
gogue, the private and united prayers and the domestic rites, whether
of the weekly Sabbath or of festive seasons, would indelibly impress
themselves upon his mind. In mid-winter there was the festive
illumination in each home. In most houses, the first night only one
candle was lit, the next two, and so on to the eighth day; and the child
would learn that this was symbolic, and commemorative of the Dedi-
cation of the Temple^ its purgation, and the restoration of its services
by the lion-hearted Judas the Maccabec. Next came, in earliest
spring, the merry time of Purim, the Feast of Esther and of Israel's
deliverance through her, with its good cheer and boisterous enjoy-
ments.^ Although the Passover might call the rest of the family to
Jerusalem, the rigid exclusion of all leaven during the whole week
could not pass without its impressions. Then, after the Feast of
Weeks, came bright summer. But its golden harvest and its rich
fruits would remind of the early dedication of the first and best to
the Lord, and of those solemn processions in which it was carried up
to Jerusalem. As autumn seared the leaves, the Feast of the New
Year spoke of the casting up of man's accounts in the great Book of
Judgment, and the fixing of destiny for good or for evil. Then
followed the Fast of the Day of Atonement, with its tremendous
solemnities, the memory of which could never fade from mind or
imagination; and, last of all, in the week of the Feast of Tabernacles,
there were the strange leafy booths in which they lived and joyed,
keeping their harvest-thanksgiving; and praying and longing for the
better harvest of a renewed world.
But it was not only through sight and hearing that, from its very
inception, life in Israel became religious. There was also from the first
positive teaching, of which the commencement would necessarily de-
volve on the mother. It needed not the extravagant lauckitions, nor the
promises held out by the Rabbis, to incite Jewish women to this duty.
If they were true to their descent, it would come almost naturally to
them. Scripture set before them a continuous succession of noble
Hebrew mothers. How well they followed their example, we learn
from the instance of her, whose son, the child of a Gentile father,
and reared far away, where there was not even a Synagogue to sustain
religious life, had 'from an infant' known the Holy Scriptures,' and
1 Some of its customs almost remind - The word ^/3£'0o; has no other mean-
us of our 5th of November. ine; than that of ' infant ' or ' babe.'
230
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
H
» 2 Tim. iii.
1.') ; 1. 5
'• riiih.
Legat. <i(l
Cajum.scc.
16. 31
'■ ./0.S-. Ag.
Apion ii. ivl
'1 Jo<. Ag.
Apion il.'26;
fomp. 1. 8.
12: ii. 27
Kidd, 29 a
f Sanh. 99 b
e Kidd, 30 a
•> Meg. 6 b
' Sot. 22 a
i< Slice. 42 a
" Ps. cxiii.
cxvlii.
» Baba B.
21 (( : Keth.
50 a
tliat in tlicii- lire-moiildin.u- intlucnco.^ It was, indeed, no idle boast
tliat the Jews 'were Ironi their swaddling-elothes . . . trained to
recognise God as tlieir Father, and as the Maker of the world; 'that,
' having been tanght the knowledge (of the laws) from earliest youth,
they bore in their souls the image of the commandments;'^' that 'from
their earliest consciousness they learned the laws, so as to have them,
as it were, engraven upon the soul;'" and that they were 'brought
up in learning,' 'exercised in the laws,' 'and made acquainted with
the acts of their predecessors in order to tlieir imitation of them."*
But while the earliest religious teaching would, of necessity, come
from the lips of the mother, it was the father who was 'bound to
teach his son. ' ' To impart to the child knowledge of the Torah
conferred as great spiritual distinction, as if a man had received the
Law itself on Mount Horeb/ Every other engagement, even the
necessary meal, should give place to this paramount duty; ^ nor should
it be forgotten that, wiiile here real labour was necessary, it would
never prove fruitless.'' That man was of the profane vulgar (an Am
Jia-arets), who had sons, but failed to bring them up in knowledge of
the Law\' Directly the child learned to speak, his religious instruc-
tion was to begin ^ — no doubt, with such verses of Holy Scripture as
composed thatpartof the Jewish liturgy, which answers to our Creed.'
Then would follow other passages from the Bible, short prayers, and
select sayings of the sages. Special attention was given to the culture
of the memory, since forgetfulness might prove as fatal in its conse-
ciuences as ignorance or neglect of the Law.™ Very early the child
must have been taught what might be called his birthday-text — some
verse of Scripture beginning, or ending with, or at least containing,
the same letters as his Hebrew name. This guardian-promise the child
would insert in its daily prayers.^ The earliest hymns taught would
be the Psalms for the days of the week, or festive Psalms, such as the
Hallel," or those connected with the festive pilgrimages to Zion.
The regular instruction commenced with the fifth or sixth year
(according to strength), when every child was sent to school." There
can be no reasonable doubt that at that time such schools existed
throughout the land. We find references to them at almost every
period; indeed, the existence of higher schools and Academies would
not have been possible without such primary instruction. Two Rabbis
1 The Shema.
2 Com]). ' .Sketcbo.5 of .Te\vi.sli Social
Life,' 1)]). lo!) &c. Tiie enigmatic mode
of woniin.i!; and writing was very com-
mon. Tlui.-<, the year is marked by a
verse, generally from Scripture, which
contains the letters that give the numer-
ical value of the year. These letters are
indicated by marks above them.
119 b
Sanh. 17 //
SCHOOLS IN PALESTINE. 231
of Jerusalem, specially distinguished and beloved on account of their CHAP.
educational labours, were among tlie last victims of Herod's cruelt}." IX
Later on, tradition ascribes to Joshua the son of (landa the introduc- ^^^r — '
tion of schools in every town, and the compulsory education in them " -^".s- Ant.
. "^ xvii. 6. 2
of all children above the age of six." Such was the transcendent i. BabaB.
merit attaching to this act, that it seemed to blot out the guilt of the ^^ "
purchase for him of the High-Priestly oflQce by his wife Martha, shortly
before the commencement of the great Jewish war."^ To pass over "Vebam.
the fabulous number of schools supposed to have existed in Jerusalem, is a
tradition had it that, despite of this, the City only fell because of the
neglect of the education of children.'' It was even deemed unlawful ^^shabb.
to live in a place where there was no school.'' Such a city deserved
to be either destroyed or excommunicated.'' fshabb.u.s.
It would lead too far to give details about the appointment of,
and provision for, teachers, the arrangements of the schools, the method
of teaching, or the subjects of study, the more so as many of these
regulations date from a period later than that under review. Suffice
it that, from the teaching of the alphabet or of writing, onwards to
the farthest limit of instruction in the most advanced Academies of
tlie Rabbis, all is marked by extreme care, wisdom, accuracy, and a
moral and religious purpose as the ultimate object. For a long time it
was not uncommon to teach in the open air; ^ but this must have been ?shabb.
chiefly in connection with theological discussions, and the instruc- MoeciK.iea
tion of youths. But the children were gathered in the Synagogues,
or in School-houses,^ where at first they either stood, teacher and
pupils alike, or else sat on the ground in a semicircle, facing the
teacher, as it were, literally to carry into practice the prophetic say-
ing: ' Thine eyes shall see thy teachers. "> The introduction of benches hjg. xxx.20
or chairs was of later date; l)ut the principle was always the same,
that in respect of accommodation there was no distinction between
teacher and taught.^ Thus, encircled by his pupils, as l)y a crown of
glory (to use the language of Maiinonides), the teacher — generally the
Chazzan, or Officer of the Synagogue' — should impart to them the i For ex-
precious knowledge of the Law, with constant adaptation to their capa- stTabb! 11 a
city, with unwearied patience, intense earnestness, strictness tempered
by kindness, but, above all, with the highest object of their training
ever in view. To keep children from all contact with vice; to train them
1 He was succeeded by Matthias, the of Ischoli, with its various derivations,
son of Theophiios, under whose Pontiti- evidently from the Greek crxoXi), sc/wla.
cate the war against Rome began. •* Tiie proof-passages from tlit^ Talmud
'^ Among the names by wliicli tlie are collated by Dr. Mdrrus (Pa:'dagog.
schools are designated there is also that d. Isr. Volkes, ii. pp. 10, 17).
232 FRO>I BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK tt) liciitloncss. cvoii when l)ittercst \\i-(iii.ii" had been received; to show
11 sill ill its repulsiveness, rather than to terrify ])\ its consequences;
"— ~Y-"*-^ to train to strict truthfuhiess; to avoid all that might lead to dis-
agreeable or indelicate thoughts; and to do all this without showing
partiality, without cither undue severity, or laxity of discipline,
with judicious increase of study and work, with careful attention to
thoroughness in acquiring knowledge — all tliis and more constituted
the ideal set before the teacher, and made his office of such high
esteem in Israel.
Roughly classifying the subjects of study, it was held, that, up to
ten years of age, the Bible exclusively should be the text-book; from
ten to fifteen, the Mishnah, or traditional law; after that age, the
student should enter on those theological discussions which occupied
»At). V. 21 time and attention in the higher Academies of the Rabbis." Not
that this progression would always be made. For, if after three, or,
at most, five years of tuition — that is, after having fairly entered on
Mishnic studies — the child had not shown decided aptitude, little
hope was to be entertained of his future. The study of the Bible
commenced with that of the Book of Leviticus.' Thence it passed
to the other parts of the Pentateuch; then to the Prophets; and,
finally, to the Hagiographa. What now constitutes the Gemara or
Talmud was taught in the Academies, to which access could not be
gained till after the age of fifteen. Care was taken not to send a
child too early to school, nor to overwork him when there. For this
purpose the school-hours were fixed, and attendance shortened during
the summer-months.
The teaching in school would, of course, be greatly aided by the
services of the Synagogue, and the deeper influences of home-life.
We know that, even in the troublous times which preceded the rising
of the Maccabees, the possession of parts or the whole of the Old
Testament (whether in the original or the LXX. rendering) was so
common, that during the great persecutions a regular search was
made throughout the land for every copy of the Holy Scriptures, and
l;_i Ma.-c. 1. those puuishcd who possessed them.'' After the triumph of the Macca-
'.Aw.Aiit.xii. bees, these copies of the Bible would, of course, be greatly multi-
5. 4 ,
plied. And, although perhaps only the wealthy could have purchased
^ ^?/^■».'7^■^^sf Academic. Dissert p. 335) and sacrifices pure, it is fitting that the
curiously suggests, that tiiis was done to pure should busy themselves with the
teach a child its guilt and the need of pure. The obvious reason seems, that
justification. The Rabbinical interi)re- Leviticus treated of the ordinances with
tation ( N'ayyikra R. 7) is at least equally which every Jew ought to have been
far-fetched: that, us children are pure acquainted.
THE CHILD-LIFE OF JESUS. 233
a MS. of the whole Old Testainout in Hebrew, yet some portion or chap.
portions of the AVord of God, in the original, would form the most IX
cherished treasure of every pious houselKjld. Besides, a school for ^ — ^(
Bible-study was attached to every academv,^ in which coi)ies of the :.^.^}'- ^I'^s-
Holy Scripture would be kept. From anxious care to preserve the
integrity of the text, it was deemed unlawful to make copies of small
portions of a book of Scripture.^ But exception was made of certain
sections which Avere copied for the instruction of children. Among
them, the history of the Creation to tliat of the. Flood; Lev. i.-ix. ;
and Numb. i.-x. 35, are sijccially mentioned." bsopher. v.
' ' •' _ 9, p. 25 6;
It was in such circumstances, and under such influences, that the giu eoa;
' " Jer. Meg.
early years of Jesus passed. To go beyond this, and to attempt lifting 1^ «; tos.
the veil which lies over His Child-History, would not only be pre-
sumptuous," but involve us in anachronisms. Fain would we know
it, whether the Child Jesus frequented the Synagogue School; who
was His teacher, and who those who sat beside Him on the ground,
earnestly gazing on the face of Him Who repeated the sacrificial ordi-
nances in the Book of Leviticus, that were all to be fulfilled in Him.
But it is all ' a mystery of Godliness.' We do not even know quite
certainly whether the school-system had, at that time, extended to far-
off Nazareth; nor whether the order and method which have been
described were universally observed at that time. In all probability,
however, there was such a school in Nazareth, and, if so, the Child-
Saviour would conform to the general practice of attendance. We
may thus, still with deepest reverence, think of Him as learning His
earliest earthly lesson from the Book of Lex^iticus. Learned Rabbis
there were not in Nazareth — either then or afterwards.^ He would
attend the services of the Synagogue, where Moses and the prophets
1 Herzfehl ( jesch. d. Y. Isr. iii. p. 267, specimens of th!^ ' quietffossip ' a number
note) strangely misquotes and misinter- of Rabbinic quotations from the German
prets tills matter. Comp. Dr. MMer, translation in D»A-es' 'Rabbinische Blu-
Massecb. Sofer. p. 75. menlese.' To this it is siirticient answer:
2 The most painful. instances of these 1. There were no such leai'ued Rabins in
are the legendary accounts of the early Nazareth. 2. If there had been, they
■ history of Christ in the Apocryi)hal would not have been visitors in the house
Gospels (well collated by Keim, i. 2, pp. of Joseph. 3. If tliey had been visitors
413^68, pnssi))i). But later writers are there, they would not have spoken what
unfortunately not wholly free from the Dr. Geikie quotes from Dukes, since some
charge. of the extracts are from medianal books,
■* I must here protest against the in- and only one a proverbial expression,
troduction of imaginary ' Evening Scenes 4. Even if they had so spoken, it would
in Nazareth,' when, according to Dr. at least have been in the words which
Geikie, ' friends or neighbours of Joseph's Dukes has translated, without the changes
circle would meet for an hour's quiet and additions which Dr. Geikie has in-
gossip.' Dr. Geikie here introduces as troduced in some instances.
234
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
n
■'St. Luke
iv. 16
'> St. Matt.
V. 18
c St. Luke
xvl. 17
were read, and, as afterwards by Himself,'' occasional addresses
delivered.' That -His was pre-eminently a pious home in the highest
sense, it seems almost irreverent to say. From His intimate familiarity
with Holy Scripture, in its every detail, we may be allowed to infer
that the home of Nazareth, however humble, possessed a precious
coi)y of the Sacred Volume in its entirety. At any rate, we know
that from earliest childhood it must have formed the meat and drink
of the Grod-Man. The words of the Lord, as recorded by St. Matthew "
and St. Luke," also imply that the Holy Scriptures which He read
were in the original Hebrew, and that they were written in the square,
or Assyrian, characters.^ Indeed, as the Pharisees and Sadducees
always appealed to the Scriptures in the original, Jesus could not have
met them on any other ground, and it was this which gave such point to
His frequent expostulations with them: ' Have ye not read?'
But far other thoughts than theirs gathered around His study of
the Old Testament Scriptures. When comparing their long discus-
sions on the letter and law of Scripture with His references to the
Word of God, it seems as if it were quite another book which was
handled. As we gaze into the vast glory of meaning which He opens
to us; follow the shining track of heavenward living to which He
points; behold the lines of symbol, type, and prediction converging
in the grand unity of that Kingdom which became reality in Him;
or listen as, alternately, some question of His seems to rive the darkness,
as with flash of sudden light, or some sweet promise of old to lull
the storm, some earnest lesson to quiet the tossing waves — we catch
faint, it may be far-off, glimpses of how, in that early Child-life, when
the Holy Scriptures were His special study. He must have read them,
and what thoughts must have been kindled by their light. And
thus ])etter than before can we understand it: ' And the Child grew,
and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God
was upon Him.'
1 See Book III., the chapter on 'Tlie
Synagoo;ue of Nazareth.'
2 This may be gathered even from such
an expression as ' One iota, or one little
hook,' — not 'tittle ' as in the A.V.
GOING UP TO JERU.SALEM. 235
5-7
CHAPTER X.
IN THE HOUSE OP HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY
FATHER — THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM — THE RETIREMENT AT NAZA-
RETH.
(St. Luke ii. 41-52.)
Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's chap.
early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His tirst visit to X
the Temple, What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may ^— ^r-^
easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined,
and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people
of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life
were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the
people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him
it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite
was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were
there." It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the ^Ps.ixsxvn.
City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the
lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the
thought of ' our feet ' standing within those gates, through which
priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which
would make glad, when it was said: 'Let us go into the house of
Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung,
nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist.
But 'glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' — in the
past, and in the near future ' the thrones of David ' were to be set
within her walls, and amidst her palaces." "Ps.
In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence at-
tendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when
he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was
called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'" But, as a
matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two
years, or at least by one.'* It was in accordance with this custom, that,^
• Comp. also .l/r^//«o?i«fe, Hilkh.Cliac;. went to tlic Tem])le because He was 'a
ii. The common statement, tliat Jesus Son of the Commandment,' is obviously
1-5
236 FKOM BETIILKHEM TO JOllDAN.
BOOK on the lirst Piisclia after Jcf^us had passed His twell'th year, His
II Parents took Him with them in the ' company ' oi' the Nazarenes to
" ■> ' Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont ' to go
up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound
j^ jor Kicui. to make such personal appearance," Mary gladly availed herself of
what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by
other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to
the solemn services of the Sanctuary. Politically, times had changed.
i>From4 Tiic wcak and wicked rule of Archelaus had lasted only nine years,"
B.C.to6A.D. . nil • 1 • 1 T • 1 T
when, m consequence oi the charges against him, he was banished to
Gaul. Juda?a, Samaria and Idumcea were now incorporated into the
Roman province of Syria, under its Governor, or Legate. The special
administration of that part of Palestine was, however, entrusted to a
Procurator^ whose ordinary residence w^as at Cffisarea. It will be
remembered, that the Jews themselves had desired some such arrange-
ment, in the vain hope that, freed from the tyranny of the Herodians,
they might enjoy the semi-independence of their brethren in the
Grecian cities. But they found it otherwise. Their privileges were
not secured to them; their religious feelings and prejudices were
constantly, though perhaps not intentionally, outraged;^ and their
Sanhedrin shorn of its real power, though the Romans would probably
not interfere in what might be regarded as purely religious questions.
Indeed, the very presence of the Roman power in Jerusalem was a
constant ofience, and must necessarily have issued in a life and death
struggle. One of the first measures of the new Legate of Syria,
'^6-ii(?) p. Sulpicius Quirinius," after confiscating the ill-gotten wealth of
Archelaus, was to order a census in Palestine, with the view of fixing
d Acts V. 37; tlic taxatiou of the country.** The popular excitement which this
xviii.°.'i called forth was due, probably, not so much to opposition on principle,^
as to this, that the census was regarded as the badge of servitude, and
erroneous. All the more remarkable, But what rendered Rome so obnoxious
on the other hand, is St. Lulve's accurate to Palestine was the cidtus of the Em-
knowledge of Jewish customs, and all peror, as the symbol and imijersonation
themoreantitheticto the mythical theorj' of Imperial Rome. On this c»//?/.s Rome
the circumstance, that he places this re- • insistetl in all countries, not perhaps so
markable event in the twelfth year of much on religious grounds as on i)oliti-
Jesus' life, and not when He became ' a cal, as being tlie exi)ression of loyalty to
Sou of the Law.' the empire. But in Judica this cidtus
^ We take as the more correct reading necessarily met resistance to the death,
that which puts the participle in the jire- (Comp. Schneckpnlmrger, Neutest. Zeit-
sent tense {a.va(5aivdvra}i'), and not in gesch. pp. 40-61.)
the aorist. ■' This view, for whicli there is no
'■^ The Romans were tolerant of the historic foundation, is urged by tliose
religion of all sul)ject nations — except- whose interest it is to deny the possi-
ing only Gaul and Carthage. This for bility of a census during the reign of
reasons which cannot here be discussed. Herod.
THE •NATIONALISTS' IN THEIR PtELATION TO THH ' KIN(;i)O.M.' 237
ineoiiij)alil)I(' with the 'I'heocratic cluiractor of Israel.' Had a census
been considered absulntely contrary to tlie Law, the leadinjj;- Kahbis
wouhl never have submitted to it;- nor wouhl the popular resistance
to the measure of (i^uirinius have been quelled by the representations
of the Ilio'h-Priest Joazar. IJut, althou.ti'h through his inliiicnce the
census was allowed to be taken, the i)oi)ular agitation was not sup-
pressed. Indeed, that movement formed part of the history of the
time, and not only afl'ected political and religious parties in the land,
but must have been presented to the mind of Jesus Himself, since,
as will be shown, it had a representative within His own family circle.
This accession of Herod, misnamed the Great, marked a period in
Jewish history, which closed with the war of despair against Rome
and the flames of Jerusalem and the Temple. It gave rise to the
appearance of what Josephus, despite his misrepresentation of them,
rightl}^ calls a fourth party — besides the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Essenes — that of the Nationalists:' A deeper and more independent "Ant.xvm.
view of the history of the times would, perhaps, lead us to regard the
whole country as ranged either with or against that party. As after-
wards expressed in its purest and simplest form, their watchword was,
negatively, to call no human being their absolute \ov(\-,^' positively, i>Ant.xviii.
that God alone was to lead as absolute Lord." It was, in fact, a revival
of the Maccabean movement, perhaps more fully in its national than
in its religious aspect, although the two could scarcely be separated
in Israel, and their motto almost reads like that which according to
some, furnished the letters whence the name Maccabee '^ was composed : ^22*: ''
Jii C'amochah /jaelim Jehovah, 'Who like Thee among the gods,
Jehovah? '" It is characteristic of the times and religious tendencies, 'Ex. xv. n
that their followers were no more called, as before, Assideans or Clia-
sidim, '■ the pious,' but Zealots {^f^Xajrai), or by the Hebrew equivalent
Qannaim (Canana^ans, not ^Canaanites,' as in A.Y.) The real home
of that party was not Judsea nor Jerusalem, but Galilee.
Quite other, and indeed antagonistic, tendencies prevailed in the
stronghold of the Herodians, Sadducees, and Pharisees. Of the latter
only a small portion had any real symjiathy with the national move-
ment. Each party followed its own direction. The Essenes, absorbed
in theosophic speculations, not untinged with Eastern mysticism, with-
drew from all contact with the world, and practiced an ascetic life.
With them, whatever individuals may have felt, no such movement
could have originated; nor yet with the Herodians or Boethusians, who
' That these were the sole grouiuis of Jos. Ant. xviii. 1. 1. 6.
resistance to the census, appears from - As unquestional)ly tlioy did.
c u. s. and
Jew. War
vii. 10. 1
L'3S
FROM I'.ETIILEHEM TU JORDAN.
BOOK
II
•' Judy. xi.
3-6
'• Ant. xiv.
9. 2-5
■; Sanh. 19 a
d yoma 39 b
(■(»inl)in('(l strictly Pharisaic views with llcrodian political partisau-
sliij); nor yet with the Sadducces; nor, finally, with what constituted
the groat bulk of the Eabbinist party, the School of Ilillel. But the
brave, free Hio-hlanders of Galilee, and of the region across their
glorious lake, seemed to have inherited the spirit of Jephthah,* and-
to have treasured as their ideal — alas! often wrongly apprehended —
their own Elijah, as, descending in wild, shaggy garb from the moun-
tains of Gilead, he did battle against all the might of Ahab and
Jezebel. Their enthusiasm could not be kindled ])y the logical
subtleties of the Schools, but their hearts burned within them for their
God, their land, their people, their religion, and their freedom.
It was in Galilee, accordingly, that such wild, irregular resistance
to Herod at the outset of his career, as could be offered, was organised
by guerilla bands, which traversed the country, and owned one Ezekias
as their leader. Although Josephus calls them ' robbers, ' a far ditferent
estimate of them obtained in Jerusalem, where, as we remember, the
Sanhedrin summoned Herod to answer for the execution of Esckias.
What followed is told in substantially the same manner, though with
dirterence of form' and, sometimes, nomenclature, by Josephus,'' and
in the Talmud.' The story has already been related in another
connection. Suffice it that, after the accession of Herod, the Sanhe-
drin became a shadow of itself. It was packed with Sadducees and
Priests of the King's nomination, and with Doctors of the canon-law,
whose only aim was to pursue in peace their subtleties; who had not,
and, from their contempt of the people, could not have, any real
sympathy with national aspirations; and whose ideal heavenly King-
dom was a miraculous, heaven-instituted, absolute rule of Rabbis.
Accordingly, the national movement, as it afterwards developed,
received neither the sympathy nor the support of leading Rabbis.
Perhaps the most gross manifestation of this was exhibited, shortly
before the taking of Jerusalem, b^' R. Jochanan ben Saccai, the most
renowned among its teachers. Almost unmoved he had witnessed the
portent of the opening of the Temple-doors by an unseen Hand,
which, by an interpretation of Zech. xi. 1, was popularly regarded as
betokening its speedy destruction.'' ^ There is cynicism, as well as
want of sympathy, in the story recorded by tradition, that when, in
the straits of famine during the siege, Jochanan saw people eagerly
1 The Tahiiud i.s never to be trusted
as to historical details. Often it seems
purposely to alter, when it intends the
experienced student to read between
the lines, while at other times it presents
a story in what may be called an alle-
gorical form.
2 The designation ' Lebanon ' is often
applied in Talnnulic writings to the
Temple.
HILLEL AND SHAMMAI IN THEIR RELATION TO NATIONALISM.
239
feasting: on soup made from straw, ho scouted the idea of sueli a
garrison resisting Vespasian and immediate! y resolved to leave the
city/ In fact,we have distinct evidence that R. Jochanan had, as leader
of the School of Hillel, used all his influence, although in vain, to
persuade the people to submission to Rome."
We can understand it, how this school had taken so little interest
in anything purely national. Generally only one side of the charac-
ter of Hillel has heen presented by writers, and even this in greatly
exaggerated language. His much lauded gentleness, peacefulness,
and charity were rather negative than positive qualities. He was a
philosophic Rab.bi, whose real interest lay in a far other direction
than that of sympathy with the people — and whose motto seemed,
indeed, to imply, ' We, the sages, are the people of God ; but this people,
who know not the Law, are cursed.' " Afar deeper feeling, and intense,
though misguided earnestness pervaded the School of Shammai. It
was in the minority, but it sympathised with the aspirations of the
people. It was not philosophic nor eclectic, but intensely national. It
opposed all approach to, and by, strangers; it dealt harshly with pros-
elytes,*^ even the most distinguished (such as Akylas or Onkelos);'' it
passed, by first murdering a number of Hillelites who had come to the
deliberative assembly, eighteen decrees, of which the object was to
prevent all intercourse with Gentiles;^ and it furnished leaders or
supporters of the national movement.
We have marked the rise of the Nationalist party in Galilee at the
time of Herod's first appearance on the scene, and learned how
CHAR
X
" Midr. R.
on Lament.
i. 5 ; ed.
Warali. vol.
ill. p. GO a
* Ab. de K.
Nathan 4
• Comp. Ab.
<JShabb.31i
E Ber. K. 70
1 This celebrated meetin<j;. of wliicli,
however, but t'cant aiifl incoherent no-
tices are left us (Sliabb. i. 7 and specially
in the Jer. Talmud on thepassaeie p. 3 c,
d; and .Shald). 17 a\ Tos. Sha'bb. i. 2),
took jtlace in the house of Chananyah,
ben Chizqiyah, ben Garon, anotedShani-
maite. On arriving, many of the Hillel-
ites were killed in the lower room, and
then a majority of Shammaites carried the
so-called eighteen decrees. The first
twelve forbade the purchase of the most
necessary articles of diet from Gentiles;
the next five forbade the learninn- of their
lanp;uap:e, declared their testimony in-
valid, and their offerings unlawful, and
interdicted all intercourse with them ;
while the last referred to first fruits. It
was on the ground of these decrees that
the hitherto customary burnt-ofl'ering for
the Emperor was intermitted, which was
really a declaration of war against Rome.
Tlie date of tlicse decrees was probably
about four years before the destruction
of the Temple (See Griitz, Gesch. d. Juden,
vol. iii. i)p. 41)4-502). These decrees were
carried by the infiuence of R. Eleazar,
son of Chanaiiyali the High-Priest, a very
wealthy man, whose fatlier and brother
belonged to tlie opposite or peace party.
It was on the i)roposal of this strict
Shammaite tliat the ottering for the
Emi^eror was intermitted {Jos. Jew. "War
ii. 17. 2, 8). Indeed, it is impossible to
over-estimate the influence of these
Shammaite decrees on the great war
with Rome. Eleazar, though opi)osedto
the extreme party, one of whose cl)iefs lie
took and killed, was one of the leaders of
the national party in the war (War ii.
17. 9, 10). There is, however, some con-
fusion about various persons who bore
the same name. It is impossible in this
place to mention the various Shammaites
who took jtart in the last Jewish war.
Suflice it to indicate the tendency of tliat
School,
240 FROM UlCTIILKIIE-M TO JORDAN.
BOOK mercilessly lie tried to suppress it: iirst, ])y the execution of Ezeklas
II and his adherents, and afterwards, when he became King of Judaea, by
"^ — ".^ — -" the slaughter of the Sanhedrists. The consequence of this unspar-
ing severity was to give Rabbiuism a different direction. The School
of Hillel which henceforth commanded the majority, were men of no
political colour, theological theorists, self-seeking Jurists, vain rather
than ambitious. The minority, represented by tlie School of Sham-
mai, were Nationalists. Defective and even false as both tendencies
were, there was certainly more hope, as regarded the Kingdom of
God, of the Nationalists than of the Sophists and Jurists. It was, of
course, the policy of Herod to suppress all national aspirations. No
one understood the meaning of Jewish Nationalism so Avell as he; no one
ever opposed it so systematically. There was internal fitness, so to
speak, in his attempt to kill the King of the Jews among the infants
of Bethlehem. The murder of the Sanhedrists, with the consequent
new anti-Messianic tendency of Rabbinism, was one measure in that
direction; the various appointments which Herod made to the High-
Priesthood another. And yet it was not easy, even in those times,
to deprive the Pontificate of its power and influence. The High-
Priest was still the representative of the religious life of the people,
and he acted on all occasions, when the question under discussion was
not one exclusively of subtle canon-law, as the President of the San-
hedrin, in which, indeed, the members of his family had evidently
"Actsiv. 6 seat and vote."^ The four families ^ from which, with few exceptions,
the High-Priest — however often changed — were chosen, al)sorbed the
wealth, and commanded the influence, of a state-endowed establish-
ment, in its worst times. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance
to make wise choice of the High-Priest. With the exception of the
brief tenure by Aristobulus, the last of the Maccabees — whose ap-
pointment, too soon followed by his murder, was at the time a neces-
sity— all the Ilerodian High-Priests were non-Palestinians. A keener
t>low than this could not have been dealt at Nationalism.
The same contempt for the High-Priesthood characterised the
brief reign of Archelaus. On his death-bed, Herod had appointed to
the Pontificate Joazar, a son of Boethos, the wealthy Alexandrian
priest, whose daughter, Mariamme II., he had married. The Boethu-
sian family, allied to Herod, formed a party — the Herodians — who
combined strict Pharisaic views with devotion to the reigning family.'^
Joazar took the popular part against Archelaus, on his accession.
' See the list of Ilij^li-Priests in Ap- tliaii four Tli^li-Priosts during tlie period
pendix V[. between the reitrn of Ilerod and that of
^ The Boethusians furnished no fewer Aicrippa I. (41 a.d.).
THE HIGH-PRIESTS AND THE NATIONALIST PARTY. 241
For this he was (lei)riv('(l of his diii'iiity in lavoui- ol' iiiiotlici- son of CHAP.
Boethos, Elcazar by name. But tlie mood of Arciiehius was lickle X
— perhaps he was distrustful of the family of Boethos. At any rate, ^^ — r — '
Eleazar had to give place to Jesus, the son of Sie, an otherwise un-
known individual. At the time of the taxing of (^uirinius we find
Joazar again in office,* apparently restored to it by the multitude, "Ant. xvui.
wliich, having taken matters into its own hands at the change of
government, recalled one who had formerly favoured national aspira-
tions.'' It is thus that we explain his influence with the people, in lAnt. xvui.
• 2 1
persuading them to submit to the Roman taxation.
But if Joazar had succeeded with the unthinking populace, he
failed to conciliate the more advanced of his own party, and, as the
event proved, the Roman authorities also, whose favour he had
hoped to gain. It will be remembered, that the Nationalist party
— or ' Zealots, ' as they were afterwards called — first ai)peared in
those guerilla-bands which traversed Galilee under the leadership
of Ezekias, whom Herod executed. But the National party was
not destroyed, only held in check, during his iron reign. It was
once more the family of Ezekias that headed the movement.
During the civil war wliich followed the accession of Archelaus, or
rather was carried on wliile he was pleading his cause in Rome, the
standard of the Nationalists was again raised in Galilee. Judas,
the son of Ezekias, took possession of the city of Sepphoris, and
armed his followers from the royal arsenal there. At that time, as
we know, the High-Priest Joazar sympathised, at least indirectly,
with the Nationalists. The rising, which indeed was general through-
out Palestine, was suppressed by fire and sword, and the sons of
Herod were enabled to enter on their possessions. But when, after the
deposition of Archelaus, Joazar persuaded the people to submit to
the taxing of Quirinius, Judas was not disposed to tbllow what he
regarded as the treacherous lead of the Pontiff'. In conjunction
with a Shanimaite Ra1)bi, Sadduk, he raised again the standard of
revolt, although once more imsuccessfully." How the Hillelites looked -lAnt. xvm.
upon this movement, we gather even from the slighting allusion of
Gamaliel.'* The family of Ezekias furnished other martyrs to the ''Actsv. y/
National cause. The two sons of Judas died for it on the cross in
46 A.D." Yet a third son, Manahem, who, from the commeiK ement ■ Ant. xx.
of the war against Rome, was one of the leaders of the most fanatical
Nationalists, the Sicarii — the Jacobins of the party, as they have
been aptly designated — died under unspeakable sutferings,'' while a f.jewisn^
fourth member of the family, Eleazar, was the leader of Israel's gandti
242 FROM r'.ETlirJ-lIIEM TO JORDAN.
liooK forlorn hope, and iiohly (lie<l at Ma.sada, in the clu.smg drama of the
If Jewi.-^h war of indc'i)cMuk'nc('/' Of t^ucli stutf were the Galilean
^ . Zealots made. But we have to take this intense Nationalist tendency
"Jewish j^i^y [y^iQ account in the history of Jesus, the more so that at least
War, VII. 7-y '' '
one of His disciples, and he a member of His family, had at one time
belonged to the party. Only the Kingdom of which Jesus was the
King was, as He Himself said, not of this world, and of far ditl'erent
conception from that for which the Nationalists longed.
At the time when Jesus went up to the feast, Quirinius was, as
already stated, Governor of Syria. The taxing and the rising ot
Judas were alike past; and the Roman Governor, dissatisfied with the
trimming of Joazar, and distrustful of him, had appointed in his
stead Ananos, the sou of Seth, the Annas of infauKjus memory in the
New Testament. With brief interruption, he or his son held the
Pontitical office till, under the Procuratorship of Pilate, Caiaphas, the
son-in-law of Annas, succeeded to that dignity. It has already been
stated that, subject to the Roman Governors of Syria, the rule of
Palestine devolved on Procurators, of whom Coponius was the first.
'■9-12A.D. Of him and his immediate successors — Marcus Ambivius," Annius
12-15 A.D. Rufus,' and Valerius Gratus,'* we know little. They were, indeed,
guilty of the most grievous fiscal oj^pressions, but they seem to have
respected, so far as was in them, the religious feelings of the Jews.
We know, that they even removed the image of the Emperor from
the standards of the Roman soldiers before marching them into
Jerusalem, so as to avoid the appearance of a ciiltus of the Caesars.
It was reserved for Pontius Pilate to force this hated emblem on the
Jews, and otherwise to set their most sacred feelings at defiance. But
we may notice, even at this stage, with what critical periods in Jewish
history the public appearance of Christ synchronised. His first visit
to the Temple followed upon the Roman possession of Judsea, the
taxing, and the national rising, as also the institution of Annas to
the High-Priesthood. And the commencement of His public Min-
istry was contemporaneous Avith the accession of Pilate, and the
institution of Caiaphas. Whether viewed subjectively or objectively,
these things also have a deep bearing upon the history of the Christ.
It w^as, as we reckon it, in spring a.d. 9, that Jesus for the first
time went up to the Paschal Feast in Jerusalem. Coponius would
be there as the Procurator; and Annas ruled in the Temple as High-
Priest, when He appeared among its doctors. But fai- other than
political thoughts must have occupied the mind of Christ. Indeed,
for a time a brief calm had fallen ui)on the land. There was nothing
^ 15-26 A.D.
b A.V.
' Degrees '
Ps. cxx.-
cxsxiv.
IN THE TExMl'LE AS THE HU['.SE OF HIS FATin:R. 243
to provoke active resistance, and the party of the Zealots, altliough chap.
existing,' and striking deeper root in the hearts of the people, was, for ^
the time, rather what Josephus called it, ' the philosophical party ' — ^-'^^
their minds busy with an ideal, which their hands were not yet pre-
paring to make a reality. And so, when, according to ancient wont," i^xx^i":i9
the festive company from Nazareth, soon swelled by other festive bands,
went up to Jerusalem, chanting by the way those ' Psalms of Ascent ' ''
to the accompaniment of the flute, they might implicitly yield them-
selves to the s])iritual thoughts kindled by such words.
When the pilgrims' feet stood within the gates of Jerusalem, there
could have been no difficulty in finding hospitality, however crowded
the City may have been on such occasions ^ — the more so when we
remember the extreme simplicity of Eastern manners and wants, and
the abundance of provisions which the many sacrifices of the season
would supply. But on this subject, also, the Evangelic narrative keeps
silence. Glorious as a view of Jerusalem must have seemed to a child
coming to it for the first time from the retirement of a Galilean village,
we must bear in mind, that He AVho now looked upon it was not an
ordinary Child. Nor are we, perhaps, mistaken in the idea that the
sight of its frrandeur would, as on another occasion," awaken in Him 'St. Liike
^ ^- ' , _ ' . xix. -11
not so much feelings of admiration, which might have been akin to
those of pride, as of sadness, though He may as yet have been scarcely
conscious of its deeper reason. But the one all-engrossing thought
would be of the Temple. This, his first visit to its halls, seems also
to have called out the first outspoken — and may we not infer, the first
conscious — thought of that Temple as the House of His Father, and
with it the first conscious impulse of his Mission and Being. Here also
it would be the higher meaning, rather than the structure and ap-
pearance, of the Temple, that would absorb the mind. And yet there
was sufficient, even in the latter, to kindle enthusiasm. As the pil-
grim ascended the Mount, croste<l by that symmetrically proportioned
building, which could hold within its gigantic girdle not fewer than
210,000 persons, his wonder might well increase at every step. The
IVIount itself seemed like an island, abruptly rising from out deep
valleys, surrounded by a sea of walls, palaces, streets, and houses, and
crowned by a mass of snowy marble and glittering gold, rising terrace
ui)on terrace. Altogether it measured a square of aI)out 1,000 feet,
or, to give a more exact equivalent of the measurements furnished by
1 It seems, however, that tlie Feast of tliaii that of the Passover (conip. Acts ii.
Pentecost would see even more i)il,ii"i'inis 9-11).
— at least from a distance — in Jerusalem,
244
FROM BKTIILEIIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
a Jns. War
vi. a. 2
<> Sanh. xi.2
<■ St. John
ii. 14; St.
Matt. xxi.
12: .Jerus.
Chag. p. 78
a: com p.
Neh. xiii. 4
&c.
the Rabbis, 927 feet. At its north-western aniilc, and connected with
it, frowned the Castle of Antonia, held hy the Roman garrison. The
lofty walls were pierced by massive gates — the unnscd gate (Tedi) on
the north; the Susa Gate on the east, which opened on the archet!
roadway to the Mount of Olives; ^ the two so-called ' Huldah ' (prob-
ably, 'weasel') gates, which led by tunnels^ from the priest-suburb
Ophel into the outer Court; and, finally, four gates on the west.
Within the gates ran all around covered double colonnades, with
here and there benches for those who resorted thither for prayer or
for conference. The most magnificent of those was the southern, or
twofold double colonnade, Avith a wide space between; the most vener-
able, the ancient 'Solomon's Porch,' or eastern colonnade. Entering
from the Xystus bridge, and under the tower of John,'' one would pass
along the southern colonnade (over the tunnel of the Huldah-gates)
to its eastern extremity, over which another tower rose, probably
' the pinnacle ' of the history of the Temptation. From this height
yawned the Kedron valley 450 feet beneath. From that lofty pin-
nacle the priest each morning watched and announced tlie earliest
streak of day. Passing along the eastern colonnade, or Solomon's
Porch, we would, if the description of the Rabbis is trustworthy, have
reached the Susa Gate, the carved representation of that city over the
gateway reminding us of the Eastern Dispersion. Here the standard
measures of the Temple are said to have been kept; and here, also,
we have to locate the first or lowest of the three Sanhedrins, which,
according to the Mishnah," held their meetings in the Temple; the
second, or intermediate Court of Appeal, being in the 'Court of the
Priests' (probably close to the Xicanor Gate); and the highest, that
of the Great Sanhedrin, at one time in the ' Hall of Hewn Square
Stones ' (LisJilrith Tia-Gazith.)
Passing out of these ' colonnades,' or ' porches,' you entered the
'Court of the Gentiles,' or what the Rabbis called 'the Mount of the
House,' which was widest on the west side, and more and more narrow
respectively on the east, the south, and the north. This was called
the Chol^ or ' profane ' place to which Gentiles had access. Here must
have been the market for the sale of sacrificial animals, the tables of
the money-changers, and])laces for the sale of other needful articles."*
1 So accordins; to the Rabbis ; Josephn.s
does not mention it. In iieneral. tlie ac-
count here given is according; to the Rab-
l)is.
- These tunnels were divided by colon-
nades respectively into three and into
two, tJK' double colonnade beini;; prob-
ably used by the priests, since its place
of exit was close to the entrance into the
Court of the Priests.
''• The question what was sold in this
' market ') and itsrelation to • the ])azaar'
of the family of Annas (the ('iKtinnjnth
hcnrii Chitnnii) will be discussed in a
later part.
THE SANCTUARY. ■ 245
Advancing within this Court, you reached a low In-eust-wall (the Sorefj), chap.
which marked tlie space beyond which no (ientih', nor Levitically un- X
clean person, might i)rocced — tal)lcts,l)ca]'inginserii)tions to tliat effect, ^^ r — -
warning them off. Thirteen openings admitted into tlie inner ])art of
the Court. Tlience fourteen steps led uj) to the Chel or Terrace, which
was bounded by the wall of the Temple-buildings in the stricter sense.
A flight of steps led uj) to the massive, splendid gates. The two on
the west side seem to have been of no importance, so far as the wor-
shii)j)ers were concerned, and probal)ly intended for the use of work-
men. North and south were four gates.' J3ut the most s})]endid
gate was that to the east, termed 'the Beautiful.'" "Acts in. 2
Entering by the latter, you came into the Court of the Women, so
called because the women occupied in it two elevated and separated
galleries, which, however, filled only part of the Court. Fifteen steps
led up to the UpjxT Court, which was bounded by a wall, and where
was the celebrated Nicanor Gate, covered with Corinthian brass.
Here the Levites, who conducted the musical part of the service,
were placed. In the Court of the A^'omen were the Treasury and the
thirteen ' Trumpets, ' wlule at each corner were chambers or halls,
destined for various purposes. Similarly, beyond the fifteen steps,
there were rej)Ositories for the musical instruments. The Upper
Coui't was divided into two parts by a boundary — the narrow part
forming the Court of Israel, and the wider that of the Priests, in
which were tlie great Altar and the Laver.
The Sanctuary itself was on a higher terrace than the Court of the
Priests. Twelve steps led up to its Porch, which extended beyond it
on either side (north and south). Here, in separate chambers, all
that was necessary for the sacrificial service was kept. On two
marble tables near the entrance the old shewbread which was taken
out, and the new that was brought in, were respectively placed. The
Porch was adorned l)y votive presents, conspicuous among them a
massive golden vine. A two-leaved gate opened into the Sanctuary
itself, which was divided into two parts. The Holy Place had the
Golden Candlestick (south), the Table of Shewbread (north), and the
Golden Altar of Incense between them. A heavy double veil con-
cealed the entrance to the Host Holy Place, which in the second
' The question as to then- names and ^rave doubts as to tlieir historical trust-
arrauu'ement is not without difficulty. worthiness. It seems to me that the
The subject is fully treated in 'The I{al)bis always ^ive rather tluMV/f^r/Mluin
Temple and its Services.' Althou<i;]i I {\w real — what, accordinii- to their theoi-y,
have followed in the text tlie arraiin'e- sliould have been. I'ather than wliat ac-
ments of the Rabbis, I must express my tually was.
246
Ki;()M IJKTIILEIIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
» So aocord-
iiiK to the
Kabbis
generally.
Com p. Hoff'-
mann, Abh.
11. d. pent.
Ges. i)p.
6.-), 66
'' St Luke
ii. 43
'l\'iiii)lc was empty, iiothing being there but tlie ])iece of rock, called
the Ebliea Shethiijah, or Fotiiidatiou Stone, wliich, according- to tradi-
tion, covered the nioutli of the pit, ami on which, it was thought, the
world was founded. Nor does all this convey an adequate idea of the
vastness of the Temple-buildings. For all around the Sanctuary and
each of the Courts were various chambers and out-buildings, which
served ditferent purposes connected with the Services of the Temple.^
In some part of this Temple, ^sitting in the midst of the Doctors,^
both hearing them and asking them questions,' we must look for the
Child Jesus on the third and the two following days of the Feast on
wliich He first visited the Sanctuary. Only on the two first days of
the Feast of Passover was personal attendance in the Temple necessar}^
With the third day commenced the so-called half-holydays, when it
was lawful to return to one's home'' — a provision of which, no doul)t,
many availed themselves. Indeed, there was really nothing of special
interest to detain the pilgrims. For, the Passover had been eaten, the
festive sacrifice ('or CJiagirjaJt) offered, and the first ripe barley reaped
and brought to the Temple, and waved as the Omer of first fiour before
the Lord. Hence, in view of the w^ell-known Rabbinic provision, the
expression in the Gospel-narrative concerning the ' Parents ' of Jesus,
'when they had fulfilled the days,'" cannot necessarily imply that
Joseph and the Mother of Jesus had remained in Jerusalem during
the whole Paschal week.^ On the other hand, the circumstances
connected with the presence of Jesus in the Temple render this sup-
position impossible. For, Jesus could not have been found among the
Doctors after the close of the Feast. The first question here is as to
the locality in the Temple, where the scene has to be laid. It has,
indeed, been commonly supposed that there was a Synagogue in the
Temple; but of this there is, to say the least, no historical evidence.*
But even if such had existed, the worship and addresses of the Syna-
gogue would not have offered any opportunity for the questioning on
the part of Jesus which the narrative implies. Still more groundless
is the idea that there was in the Temple sometliing like a Beth ha-
' For a full description, I must refer to
'The Temple, its Ministry and Services at
the time of Jesus Christ.' Some repeti-
tiou of what iiad been alluded to in pre-
vious chapters has been unavoidal)le in
the present description of tlie Temi)Ie.
2 Although comparatively few really
great authorities in Jewish Canon Law
lived at that time, more than a dozj^n
names could be given of Rabbis cele-
brated in Jewish Utarature, who must
have been His contemporaries at one or
another period of His life.
^ In fact, an attentive consideration of
what in the tractate Moed K. (comp. also
Chag. 17 h\ is declared to be lawful oc-
cupation during the half-holydays, leads
us to infer that a very large i)roportion
must have returned to their homes.
^ For a full discussion of this impor-
tant question, see Appendix X. : ' The
Supposed Temple-Synagogue. '
AMONG THE DOCTORS.
247
Midrash, or theological Academy, not to speak of tlie circum,stance
that a child of twelve would not, at any time, have i)eeii allowed to
take part in its discussions. But there were occasions on Avhicli the
Temple becanu' virtually, thoujih not lormally, a Beth ha-3IiclrasJi. For
we read in the Talmud,'' that the mem1)crs of the Temple-Sanhedrin,
who on ordinary days sat as a Court of Appeal, from tlie close of the
Morning- to the time of the Evening-Sacrifice, were wont on Sabbaths
•dwd feast-days to come out upon 'the Terrace ' of the Temple, and
there to teach. In such poi)ular instruction the utmost latitude of
questioning would be given. It is in this audience, which sat on
the ground, surrounding and mingling with the Doctors — and hence
during, not after the Feast — that wc must seek the Child Jesus.
But we have yet to show that tlie presence and questioning of a
Child of that age did not necessarily imi)]y anything so extraordinary,
as to convey the idea of supernaturalness to those Doctors or others
in the audience. Jewish tradition gives other instances of pre-
cocious and sti-angely advanced students. Besides, scientific theo-
logical learning would not be necessary to take part in such po^ndar
discussions. If we may judge from later arrangements, not only
in Babylon, l)ut in Palestine, there were two kinds of public lectures,
and two kinds of students. The first, or more scientific class,
was designated Kallah (literally, bride), and its attendants Beney-
Kallah (children of the bride). These lectures were delivered in
the last month of summer (Flul), before the Feast of the New
Year, and in the last winter month (Adar), immediately before the
Feast of Passover. They implied consideral)le prei)aration on the
part of the lecturing Rabbis, and at least some Talmudic knowledge
on the pai't of the attendants. On the other hand, there were
Students of the Court (Chatsatsta, and in Babylon Tarbitsa), who
during ordinary lectures sat sej^arated from the regular students
by a kind of hedge, outside, as it were in the Court, some of. wlu^m
seem to have been ignorant even of the Bible. The lectures
addressed to such a general audience would, of course, be of a very
different character.''
But if there was nothing so unprecedented as to render His
Presence and questioning marvellous, yet all who heard Him ' were
amazed ' at His ' combinative insight ' ' and ' discerning answers. ' ^
* Comp. Jer.
Ber. iv. p. 7
(/.and other
passages
^ The expression m'^'frr/^meansorio;!-
nally cnnctirfitts, and (as HcJdeusner
ri<i"htly i»nt.s it) intelligetitia in the sense
of i)ers])ifat'ia qua res probe coicnita' suD-
tiliter ae Oiliffenter a se invlceni dis-
cernnntur. The LXX. render by it no
less than eiylit dltlerent Hebrew terms.
- Tlie primary meanini;- of the verb,
from which the word is derived, is secer-
no, disferno.
248
FRO^r liKTHLEllEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
II
■' Jcr. Pes.
vi. 1; Pes.
66 a
b St. Matt.
XXil. 42-45
I' Jos. Ant.
sv. 8. 5
■' Maas. Sh.
V. 2
We scarcely venture to in(|uire towards what His questioning had
])een directed. Judging by what we know of such discussions, Ave
infer that they may have been connected with the Paschal solemni-
ties. Grave Paschal questions did arise. Indeed, the great Hillel
obtained his rank as chief when he proved to the assembled Doctors
that the Passover might be offered even on the Sabbath." Many
other questions might arise on the subject of the Passover. Or did
the Child Jesus — as afterwards, in connection with the Messianic teach-
ing " — lead up by His questions to the deeper meaning of the Paschal
solemnities, as it was to be unfolded, when Himself w^as offered up,
' the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world ' ?
Other questions also almost force themselves on the mind — most
notably this: whether on the occasion of this His tirst visit to the
Temple, the Yirgin-Mother had told her Son the history of His
Infancy, and of what had happened when, for the first time. He had
been brought to the Temple. It would almost seem so, if we might
judge from the contrast between the Virgiji-Mother's complaint
about the search of His father and of her, and His own emphatic
appeal to the business of His Father. But most surprising — truly
wonderful it must have seemed to Joseph, and even to the Mother of
Jesus, that the meek, quiet Child should have been found in such
company, and so engaged. It must have been quite other than what,
from His past, they would have expected; or they would not have
taken it for granted, when they left Jerusalem, that He was among
their kinsfolk and acquaintance, perhaps mingling with the children.
Nor yet would they, in such case, after they missed Him at the first
night's halt — at Sicliem,'^ if the direct road north, through Samaria,^
was taken (or, according to the Mishnah, at Akrabah") — have so
anxiously sought Him by the way,^ and in Jerusalem; nor yet Avould
they have been ' amazed ' when they found Him in the assembly of
the Doctors. The reply of Jesus to the half-reproachful, half-relieved
expostulation of them who had sought Him ' sorrowing ' these three
days,^ sets clearly these three things before us. He had been so
entirely absorbed by the awakening thought of His Being and
Mission, however kindled, as to be not only neglectful, but forgetful
of all around. Xay, it even seemed to Him impossible to under-
stand how they could have sought Him, and not known where He
' According to Jer. Ab. Z. 44 J, the
soil, the fountains, the houses, and the
roads of Samaria were ' clean.'
■^ This is implied in the use of the
present participle.
•■' The first day would be that of miss-
ing Him. the second that of the return,
and the third that of the search in Jeru-
salem.
THE AWAKKXIXG OF THE {"Ilin.^T-COXSClOUSXKSS.
249
had lingered. Scvohdlij: MC may venture to ^a}-, tliat lie now niAl'.
i-ealised that this was emphatically His Father's House. And, X
thirdly: so far as wc can judge, it was then and there that, for the ~ r — -
tirst time, He felt the strong and irresistible impulse — that Divine
necessity of His Being — to be ' about His Father's business. ' ^ We
all, when first awakening to si)iritual consciousness — or, perhaps,
when for the first time taking part in the feast of the Lord's House
— may, and, learning from His example, should, make this the hour
<jf decision, in which heart and life shall be wholly consecrated to
the ' business ' of our Father. But there was far more than this in
the bearing of Christ on this occasion. That forgetfulness of .His
Child-life was a sacrifice — a sacrifice of self; that entire absorjjtion
in His Father's business, without a thought of self, either in the
gratification of curiosity, the acquisition of knowledge, or personal
ambition — a consecration of Himself unto God. It was the first
manifestation of His passive and active obedience to the Will of
God. Even at this stage, it was the forth-bursting of the inmost
meaning of His Life: 'My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent
Me, and to finish His work.' And yet this awakening of the Christ-
consciousness on His first visit to the Temple, partial, and perhaps
even temporary, as it may have been, seems itself like the morning-
dawn, which from the pinnacle of the Tem]ile the Priest watched,
ere he summoned his waiting brethren beneath to ofler the early
sacrifice.
From what we have already learned of this History, we do not
wonder that the answer of Jesus came to His parents as a fresh
surprise. For, we can only understand what we perceive in its
totality. But here each fresh manifestation came as something
separate and new — not as part of a whole; and therefore as a sur-
prise, of wdiich the i)urport and meaning could not be understood,
except in its organic connection and as a whole. And for the true
human development of the God-]\Lan, what was the natural was also
the needful process, even as it was best for the learning of Mary
herself, and for the future reception of His teaching. These three
' The expression sv roT? rov Ttarpo? (2) It seems unaccountable how the word
//Of may be equally rendered, or rather 'house' could have been left out iu the
supplemented, by ' in My Father's house. ' Greek renderinir of the Aramjean words of
and ' about My Father's business.' The Christ — but quite natural, if the word to
former is adopted by most modern com- be supplemented was 'things' or -busi-
mentators. But (1) it does not accord ness.' (3) A reference to the Temple as
with the word that must be supplemented His Father's hniise C(tnld not have seemed
in the two analoicous passages in tlio so stran,e;e on tlie lii)s of Jesus — nor, in-
LXX. . Neither in Esth. vii. 9, nor in deed, of any .Tewi.-<li child— as to till
Ecclus. xlii. 10, is it strictly ' the /lOK.^e.' Jusepli and Mary with astonishment.
•2;A)
VIIOM ]5I:TIILEHKM to JOliDAX.
BOOK sul).<i(liai'y reasons may once more l)c indicated liei'e in e.\i)laiiati(ju of
n the Yirsiin-Mother's seemiug iguorauce of her kSoii"s true character:
- — -: — ' the necessary gradualness of such a revelation; the necessary de-
velopment of His own consciousness; and the fact, that Jesus could
not have been subject to His Parents, nor had true and proper human
training, if they had clearly known that He was the essential Son of God.
A further, though to us it seems a downward step, was His quiet,
immediate, unquestioning return to Nazareth with His Parents, and
His willing submission^ to them while there. It was self-denial,
self-sacrifice, self-consecration to His Mission, with all that it im-
plied. It was not self-exinanition but self-submission, all the more
glorious in proportion to the greatness of that Self. This constant
contrast before her eyes only deepened in the heart of Mary the ever-
present impression of ' all those matters,'^ of which she was the most
cognisant. She was learning to spell out the word Messiah, as each
of ' those matters ' taught her one fresh letter in it, and she looked at
them all in the light of the Nazareth-Sun,
With His return to Nazareth began Jesus' Life of youth and
early manhood, witli all of inward and outward development, of
jt. Luke heavenly and earthly approbation which it carried.'' Whether or
not He went to Jerusalem on recurring Feasts, we know not, and
need not inquire. For only once during that period — on His first
visit to the Temple, and in the awakening of His Youth-Life —
could there have been such outward forth-bursting of His real
Being and Mission. Other influences were at their silent work to
weld His inward and outward development, and to determine the
manner of His later Manifesting of Himself. We assume that
the School-education of Jesus must have ceased soon after His
return to Nazareth. Henceforth the Nazareth-influences on the Life
and Thinking of Jesus may be grouped — and progressively as He
advanced from youth to manhood — under these particulars: Home,
Nature, and Prevailing Ideas.
1. Home. Jewish Home-Life, especially in the country, was of
the simplest. Even in luxurious Alexandria it seems often to have
been such, alike as regarded the furnishing of the house, and the
provisions of the table.' The morning and midday meal must have
been of the plainest, and even the larger evening meal of the
The voluntariness of His submission equivalent to the Hebrew C*".^m~""3=
nplied by the present part. mid. oj
vei'b.
- Tlie Authorised Version renders • sav-
ihp'"Sl?'^ ^''' ^^^ ^''''^''* ^^'^' '"''^' "^^ ^" ^''^■^^ ^'""-•'- ^t- Luke uses the
word ~Z~ in that sense in i. 65: ii. 15,
. „,n ^T*i,- 1 +v • • 1 1 19,51; Acts V. .32: x. 37; xiii. 42.*
ings. But I thmk the expression ,s clearly 3 Comp.Philo in Flacc.ed. Fcf. p.977 &c
THE 'I'.UETIIUEN' OK THE EORI).
251
.simplost, ill tho lioiiio at Nazareth. Only tho Sabbath and festivals,
whether domestic or public, brought what of the best lay within
reach. But Nazareth w^as not the city of the wealthy or influential,
and such festive evening-entertainments, with elaborate ceremonious-
ness of reception, arranging of guests according to rank, and rich
si)read of board, would l)ut rarely, if ever, be witnessed in those
quiet homes. The same simplicity would prevail in dress and
numners.^ But close and loving were the l)on(ls which drew
together tho members of a family, and deep the; iutiuence which
they exercised on each other. We cannot here discuss the vexed
question whether ' the brothers and sisters ' of Jesus were such in
the real sense, or step-brothers and sisters, or else cousins, though
it seems to us as if the primary meaning of the terms would scarcely
have l)ecn called in question, but for a theory of false asceticism, and
an undervaluing of the sanctity of the married estate.'' But, what-
ever the precise relationship between Jesus and these ' brothers and
sisters, ' it must, on any theory, have been of the closest, and exercised
its influence upon Him.^
Passing over Joses or Joseph, of whoso history we know next to
nothing, we have suflicient materials to ena])le us to form some judg-
ment of what must have l^oon tho tendencies and thoughts of two of
His brothers James and Jude^ before they were heart and soul followers
of the Messiah, and of His cousin Simon.'^ If we might venture on a
general characterisation, avo would infer from the Epistle of St. James,
that his religious views had originally been cast in the mould of Sham-
med. Certainly, there is nothing of tho Hillelite direction about it, but
all to remind us of the earnestness, directness, vigour, and rigour of
Shammai. Of Simon we know that he had belonged to the National-
ist party, since he is expressly so designated {Zelotes,^' Canana'an)."
Lastly, there are in tho Epistle of St. Judo, one undoubted, and
another ])robable reference to two of those (Pseudepigraphic) Apoca-
lyptic l)o()ks, which at that time marked one deeply interesting phase
of the Messianic outlook of Israel.'' We have thus within the narrow
circle of Christ's Family-Life — not to speak of anj' intercourse witli tho
sons of Zebedee, who probably were also His cousins* — the three most
" Comp.
St. Matt. 1.
24:; St. Luke
il. 7 : St.
Matt. xil.
46; xiii. 5").
56; St. Mark
m. 31; vi.
3; Acts i.
U; 1 Cor.
ix. 5; Gal.i.
19
1 For details as to dres.s, food, and
manners in Palestine, I must refer to
other ])arts of this book.
" The question of the real relationship
of Glirist to His ' brothers ' has been so
often discussed in the various Cycloiia?-
dias that it seems unnecessary iiere to
enter ui)on the matter in detail. See
also Br. Liijliffoofs Dissertation in his
Comment, ou Galat. pp. 282-2U1.
-' I regard this Simon (Zelotes) as the
son of Clopas (brother of Joseph, the
Virgin's husband) and of Mary. For
the reasons of this view, see Book ni.
ch. xvii. and Book V. ch. xv.
* On the maternal side. 'We read St.
John xix. 25 as indicating fonr women —
His Mother's sister being Salome, accord-
ing to St. Mark xv. 40.
>> St. Luke
vl. 15;
Acts 1. 13
' St. Mark
lii. 18
■I St. Judf-
XV. 14, 1.") to
the V)0(ik <it
Enoch, anil
V. SI prob-
alily to the
Assum.
of Moses
25-_>
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
I'.OOK
II
» Comp.
St. Matt.
Xlii. fi.);
St. John Tl.
i-2
hopeful and pur(3 Jcwisli tendencies, Ijrouicht into constant contact
with Jesus: in Pharisaism, the teaching of Slianiniai; tlien, the
Nationalist ideal; and. finally, the hoi)e of a glorious Messianic future.
To these there should prol)a])ly l)e added, at least knowledge of the
lonely preparation of His kinsman John, who, though certainly not an
Essene, had, from the necessity of his- calling, much in his outward
bearing that was akin to them.
But we are anticipating. From what are, necessarily, only sugges-
tions, we turn again to what is certain in connection witli His Family-
Life and its influences. From St. IVIark vi. 3, we may infer with great
prolnibility, though not with absolute certainty,'' that He had adopted
the ti-ade of Joseph. Among the Jews the contempt for manual
labour, which was one of the painfu' characteristics of heathenism,
did not exist. On the contrary, it was deemed a religious duty,
frequently and most earnestly insisted upon, to learn some trade,
provided it did not minister to luxury, nor tend to lead away fi'om
I' Comp. personal ol)servance of the Law.'' There was not such separation
Kidd. 29"6i between rich and poor as with us, and while Avealth might confer
social distinction, the absence of it in no way implied social inferiority.
Nor could it be otherwise where wants were so few, life was so simple,
and its highest aim so ever present to tlie mind.
We have already spoken of the religious intiuences in the family,
so blessedly difierent from that neglect, exposure, and even murder of
children among the heathen, or their education by slaves, who cor-
rupted the mind from its earliest opening.^ The love of parents to
children, appearing even in the curse which was felt to attach to
childlessness; the reverence towards parents, as a duty higher than
any of outward observance; and the love of brethren, which Jesus had
learned in His home, form, so to speak, the natural basis of many of
the teachings of Jesus. They give us also an insight into the family-
life of Nazareth. And yet there is nothing sombre nor morose about it ;
and even the joyous games of children, as well as festive gatherings
of families, find their record in the Avords and the life of Christ. This
also is characteristic of His past. And so are His deep sympathy
with all sorrow and suffering, and His love for the family circle, as
evidenced in the home of Lazarus. That He spoke Hebrew, and used
1 See the chapter on 'Trades and
Tradesmen,' in the 'Sketches of Jewish
Social Life.'
2 Comp. this subject in Bollinger. 'Hei-
denthuin u. Jndenthum.' in regard to tlie
• Greeks, p. 692 ; in regard to the Romans.
pp. 716-722; in regard to education and
its abominations, pp. 72.3-726. Nothing
can cast a more lurid light on the need
for Christianity, if the world was not to
perish of uttter rottenness, than a study
of ancient Hellas and Rome, as presented
])V Dullir.ger in his admirable work.
CHRIST'S SYMPATHY WITH NATURE AND MAN. 253
and quoted tlic Scriptures in the original, has already been shown,
although, no doubt, He understood Greek, possibly also Latin.
Secondhj: Nature and Every-duy Life. The most superlicia
perusal ol'tlie teaching of Christ must convince how deeply sympathetic
He was with nature, and how keenly observant of man. Here there
is no contrast between love of the country and the hal)its of city life;
the two are found side by side. On His lonely walks He must have
had an eye for the beauty of the lilies of the field, and thought of it,
how the birds of the air received their food from an Unseen Hand,
and with what maternal atfection the hen gathered her chickens
under her wing. He had watched the sower or the vinedresser as he
went forth to his labour, and read the teaching of the tares which
sprang up among the wheat. To Him the vocation of the shepherd
must have been full of meaning, as he led, and fed, and watched his
flock, spoke to his sheep with well-known voice, brought them to the
fold, or followed, and tenderly carried back, those that had strayed,
ever ready to defend them, even at the cost of his own life. Nay, He
even seems to have watched the hal)its of the fox in its secret lair.
But he also equally knew the joys, the sorrows, the wants and
sufferings of the busy multitude. The play in the market, the
marriage processions, the funeral rites, the wrongs of injustice and
oppression, the urgent harshness of the creditor, the bonds and
prison of the debtor, the palaces and luxury of princes and courtiers,
the self-indulgence of the rich, the avarice of the covetous, the
exactions of the tax-gatherer, and the oppression of the widow by
unjust judges, had all made an indelible impression on His mind.
And yet this evil world was not one which He hated, and from which
He would withdraw Himself with His disciples, though ever and
again He felt the need of periods of meditation and prayer. On the
contrary, while He confronted all the evil in it. He would fain pervade
the mass with the new leaven; not cast it away, but renew it. He
recognised the good and the hopeful, even in those who seemed most
lost. He quenched not the dimly burning flax, nor brake the
bruised reed. It was not contempt of the world, but sadness over
it; not condemnation of man, but drawing him to His Heavenly
Father; not despising of the little and the poor, whether outwardly or
inwardly such, but encouragement and adoption of them — together
with keen insight into the real under the mask of the apparent, and
withering denunciation and unsparing exposure of all that was evil,
mean, and unreal, wherever it might appear. Such were some of the
results gathered from His past life, as presented in His teaching.
Thirdly: Of the prevailing ideas around, with which He was
254
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK brought in contact, some liave already l)ecn mentioned. Surely, the
n earnestness of His Shammaite brother, if such we may venture to
— -^r^^ designate him ; the idea of the Kingdom suggested by the Nationalists,
only in its purest and most spiritual form, as not of this world,
and as truly realising the sovereignty of God in the individual, who-
ever he might be; even the dreamy thoughts of the prophetic litera-
ture of those times, which sought to reatl the mysteries of the coming
Kingdom; as well as the i)rophet-like asceticism of His forerunner
and kinsman, formed at least so many points of contact for His
teaching. Thus, Christ was in sympathy Avith all the highest ten-
dencies of His people and time. Above all, there was His intimate
converse with the Scriptures of the Old Testament. If, in the Syna-
gogue, He saw much to show the hollowness, self-seeking, pride, and
literalism which a mere external observance of the Law fostered, He
would ever turn from wdiat man or devils said to what He read,
to what was 'written.' Not one dot or hook of it could fall to the
ground — all must be established and fultilled. The Law of Moses in
all its bearings, the utterances of the prophets — Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, Malachi — and the hopes
and consolations of the Psalms, were all to Him literally true, and cast
their light upon the building which Moses had reared. It was all one,
a grand unity; not an aggregation of ditferent parts, but the unfolding
of a livin*'; organism. Chicfest of all, it was the thought of the
Messianic bearing of all Scripture to its unity, the idea of the King-
dom of God and the King of Zion, which was the life and light of all.
Beyond this, into the mystery of His inner converse with God,
the unfolding of His spiritual receptiveness, and the increasing
communication from above, we dare not enter. Even what His bodily
appearance nmy have been, w^e scarcely venture to imagine.' It could
not but be that His outer man in some measure bodied forth His
' Inner Being.' Yet Ave dread gathering around our thoughts of Him
the artificial tlowers of legend." What His manner and mode of re-
ceiving and dealing with men were, we can portray to ourseh^es from His
life. And so it is best to remain content with the simple account of the
Evangelic narrative: * Jesus increased in favour Avith God and Man.'
1 Even the poetic conception of tiie Gieseler. Kircliengescli. i. ]ip. 85, 80.
painter can only furnish his own ideal, '•* Of these there are, alas! only too
ami that of one special mood. Speakin<i; many. The reader interested in the
as one who has no claim to knowledfre of matter will find a ijood summary in Ki'im,
art, only one picture of Christ ever really i. 2, pp. 4(50^08. One of the few note-
impressed me. It was that of an ' Ecce worthy remarks recorded is this descrip-
Homc,' by Carlo Dolci. in the Pitti Gal- tion of Christ, in the spurious Epistle
lery at Florence. For an account of of Lentxliis. ' AVho was never seen to
the early pictorial representations, comp. lan;j;h, but often to weep.'
ELIJAH AND THE BAPTIST. 255
CHAPTER XI.
IN THE FIFTEENTH YEAR OF TIBERIUS CESAR AND UNDER THE PONTIFI-
CATE OF ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS — A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS.
(St. Matthew iii. 1-12; St. Mark i. 2-8; St. Luke iii. 1-18.)
There is something grand, even awful, in tlie almost absolute silence CHAP,
which lies upon the thirty years between the Birth and the first ^I
Messianic Manifestation of Jesus. In a narrative like that of the '-^^f-^
Gospels, this must have been designed; and, if so, aflbrds presump-
tive evidence of the authenticity of what follows, and is intended to
teach, that what had preceded concerned only the inner History of
Jesus, and the preparation of the Christ. At last that solemn silence
was broken by an appearance, a proclamation, a rite, and a ministry
as startling as that of Elijah had been. In many respects, indeed,
the two messengers and their times bore singular likeness. It was
to a society secure, prosperous, and luxurious, yet in imminent danger
of perishing from hidden, festering disease; and to a religious com-
munity which presented the appearance of hopeless perversion, and yet
contained the germs of a possible regeneration, that both Elijah and
John the Baptist came. Both suddenly appeared to threaten terrible
judgment, but also to open unthought-of possibilities of good. And,
as if to deepen still more the impression of this contrast, both ap-
peared in a manner unexpected, and even antithetic to the hal)its of
their contemporaries. John came suddenly out of the wilderness of
Judaea, as Elijah from the wilds of Gilead; John bore the same strange
ascetic appearance as his predecessor; the message of John was the
counterpart of that of Elijah; his baptism that of Elijah's novel rite
on Mount Carmel. And, as if to make complete the parallelism, with
all of memory and hope which it awakened, even tlie more minute
details surrounding the life of Elijah found their counterpart in that
of John. Yet history never repeats itself. It fulfils in its develop-
ment that of which it gave indication at its commencement. Thus,
25(3 FUOM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK the liistory of John the Bai)tist was the lulllhnent of that of f]lijah
n in 'the fuhiess of time.'
>- — y- — ' For, alike in the Roman worhl and in I'alestine, tlie time had
fully come; not, indeed, in the sense of any special expectancy, but
of absolute need. The reign of Augustus marked, not only the
climax, but the crisis, of Roman history. Whatever of good or of
evil the ancient world contained, had become fully ri})e. As regarded
politics, philosophy, religion, and society, the utmost limits had been
reached.^ Beyond them lay, as only alternatives, ruin or regeneration.
It was felt that the boundaries of the Empire could be no further
extended, and that henceforth the highest aim must be to preserve
what had l)een conquered. The destinies of Rome were in the hands
of one man, who was at the same time general-in-chief of a standing
army of about three hundred and forty thousand men, head of a
Senate (now sunk into a mere court for registering the commands of
Caesar), and High-Priest of a religion, of Avhich the highest expression
was the apotheosis of the State in the person of the Emperor. Thus,
all power within, without, and above lay in his hands. AVithin the city,
which in one short reign was transformed from brick into marble, were,
side by side, the most abject misery and almost boundless luxury. Of
a population of about two millions, well-nigh one half were slaves; and,
of the rest, the greater part either freedmen and their descendants,
or foreigners. Each class contril)uted its share to the common decay.
Slavery was not even what we know it, but a seething mass of cruelty
and oppression on the one side, and of cunning and corruption on the
other. More than any other cause, it contributed to the ruin of Roman
society. The freedmen, who had very often acquired their liberty
by the most disreputable courses, and had prospered in them, com-
bined in shameless manner the vices of the free with the vilcness of
the slave. The foreigners— especially Greeks and Syrians— who crowded
the city, poisoned the springs of its life by the corruption which they
brought. The free citizens were idle, dissipated, sunken; their chief
thoughts of the theatre and the arena; and they were mostly sup-
ported at the public cost. While, even in the time of Augustus,
more than two hundred thousand persons were thus maintained by
the State, what of the old Roman stock remained was rapidly decaying,
partly from corruption, but chiefly from the increasing cessation of mar-
riage, and the nameless abominations of what remained of family-life.
' Instead of detailed quotations I Sittengeschlchte Roms, and to DbUin-
wonlil liere {renorally refer to works on r/prii exhaustive work, Heidenthum and
Roman hiritory,esi)eclallyto Friedldnder's Judeuthum.
THE ANCIENT ROMAN WORLD. 257
The state of tlie provinces was in every respect more favourable. CHAP.
But it was the settled policy of the Empire, which only too surely XI
succeeded, to destroy all separate nationalities, or rather to absorb ^— -^r-*-^
and to Grecianise all. The only real resistance came from the Jews.
Their tenacity was religious, and, even in its extreme of intolerant
exclusiveness, served a most important Providential purpose. And
so Rome became to all the centre of attraction, but also of fast-spread-
ing destructive corruption. Yet this unity also, and the common
bond of the Greek language, served another important Providential
purpose. So did, in another direction, the conscious despair of any
possible internal reformation. This, indeed, seemed the last word
of all the institutions in the Roman world: It is not in me! Reli-
gion, philosophy, and society had passed through every stage, to that
of despair. Without tracing the various phases of ancient thought,
it may be generally said that, in Rome at least, the issue lay between
Stoicism and Epicureanism. The one flattered its pride, the other
gratified its sensuality; the one was in accordance with the
original national character, the other with its later decay and cor-
ruption. Both ultimately led to atheism and despair — the one, by
turning all higher aspirations self-Avard, the other, by quenching
them in the enjoyment of the moment; the one, by making the ex-
tinction of all feeling and self-deification, the other, the indulgence
of every passion and the worship of matter, its ideal.
That, under such conditions, all real belief in a personal con
tinuance after death must have ceased among the educated classes,
needs not demonstration. If the older Stoics held that, after death,
the soul would continue for some time a separate existence — in the
case of sages till the general destruction of the world by fire, it was
the doctrine of most of their successors that, immediately after death,
the soul returned into ' the world-soul ' of which it was part. But
even this hope was beset by so many doubts and misgivings, as to
make it practically without influence or comfort. Cicero was the
only one who, following Plato, defended the immortality of the soul,
Aviiile the Peripatetics denied the existence of a soul, and leading
Stoics at least its continuance after death. But even Cicero writes
as one overwhelmed by doubts. With his contemporaries this doul)t
deepened into absolute despair, the only comfort lying in present
indulgence of the passions. Even among the Greeks, who were most
tenacious of belief in the non-extinction of the individual, the prac-
tical upshot was the same. The only healthier tendency, however
mixed with error, came from the Xeo-Platonic School, Avhicli accord-
258 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
I!()()K iii.u'ly olfcrcd a point of contact between ancient i:)hilosophy and the
II new faith.
"■ (^"^^ In such circumstances, anything like real religion was manifestly
impossible. Rome tolerated, and, indeed, incorporated, all national
rites. But among the populace religion had degenerated into abject
superstition. In the East, much of it consisted of the vilest rites;
while, among the philosophers, all religions were considered equally
false or equally true — the outcome of ignorance, or else the uncon-
scious moditications of some one fundamental thought. The only
religion on which the State insisted was the deification and worship
of the Emperor.^ These apotheoses attained almost incredible de-
velopment. Soon not only the Emperors, but their wives, paramours,
children, and the creatures of their vilest lusts, were deified; nay,
any private person might attain that distinction, if the survivors
possessed suflicient means. ^ Mingled with all this was an increasing
amount of superstition — by which term some understood the worship
of foreign gods, the most part the existence of fear in religion. The
ancient Roman religion had long given place to foreign rites, the
more mysterious and unintelligible the more enticing. It was thus
that Judaism made its converts in Rome; its chief recommendation
with many being its contrast to the old, and the unknown possibili-
ties which its seemingly incredible doctrines opened. Among the
most repulsive symptoms of the general religious decay may be
reckoned prayers for the death of a rich relative, or even for the
satisfaction of unnatural lusts, along with horrible blasphemies when
such prayers remained unanswered. We may here contrast the spirit
of the Old and New Testaments with such sentiments as this, on the
tomb of a child: 'To the unjust gods who robbed me of life;' or on
that of a girl of twenty : ' I lift my hands against the god who took
me away, innocent as I am. '
It would be unsavoury to describe how far the worsliip of in-
decency was carried; how public morals were corrupted by the
mimic representations of everything that was vile, and even by the
]iandering of a corrupt art. The personation of gods, oracles,
divination, dreams, astrology, magic, necromancy, and theurgy,^ all
1 The oiil.v thorough resistance to this ^ One of tlie most painful, and to tlie
■worship came from hated Jud«a, and, we Christian almost incredible, manifesta-
may add, from Britain {BbUimjer, p. Gil), tions of relip;ious decay was the unblush-
'' From tlie time of Ca-sar to that of ins; manner in which the priests practised
Diocletian, fifty-three such ajiotheoses imposture upon the i)eople. Numerous
took idace, including those of fifteen wo- and terrible instances of this could be
men belonging to the Imperial families, given. The evidence of this is not only
MORALS, SOCIETY, AND rillLOSOl'llY. 259
contributed to the general decay. It has been ri<i-htly said, that the CHAP.
idea of conscience, as we understand it, was unknown to heathenism. ^'I
Absohite right did not exist. Might was right. The social relations ^— ^( '
exhil)ited, if possible, even deeper corruption. The sanctity of mar-
riage had ceased. Female dissipation and the general dissoluteness
led at last to an almost entire cessation of nmrriage. Abortion, and
the exposure and murder of newly-born children, were common and
tolerated; unnatural vices, which even the greatest philosophers prac-
tised, if not advocated, attained proportions which defy description.
But among these sad signs of the times three must be specially
mentioned: the treatment of slaves; the bearing towards the poor;
and public amusements. The slave was entirely uni)rotected; males
and females were exposed to nameless cruelties, compared to which
death by being thrown to the wild beasts, or fighting in the arena,
might seem absolute relief. Sick or old slaves were cast out to
perish from want. But what the influence of the slaves must have
been on the free population, and especially ui)on the young — whose
tutors they generally were — may readily l)e imagined. The heart-
lessness towards the poor who. crowded the city is another well-known
feature of ancient Roman society. Of course, there was neither
hospitals, nor provision for the poor; charity and brotherly love in
their every manifestation are purely Old and New Testament ideas.
But even the l)estowal of the snudlest alms on tlie needy was regarded
as very questionable; best, not to attbrd them the means of i)rotracting
a useless existence. Lastly, the account which Seneca has to give
of what occupied and amused the idle multitude — for all manual
labour, except agriculture, was looked upon with utmost contempt
— horrified even himself. And so the only -escajje which remained
for the pliiloso]iher, the satiated, or the miserable, seemed the i)Ower
of self-destruction! What is worse, the noblest spirits of the time
felt, that the state of things was utterly hopeless. Society could
not reform itself; philosophy and religion had nothing to ofler: they
had been tried and found wanting. Seneca longed tor some hand
from without to lift up from the mire of desj)air; Cicero pictured
the enthusiasm which would greet the embodiment of true virtue,
should it ever appear on earth; Tacitus declared lunnan life one
derived from the Fathers. T)nt a work lias practised. (Comp. ' The rneumaties of
l)een preserved in which formal iiistruc- Hero,' translated l)y 7:;. lloof/rro/y.) The
tions are ,s;iven. how temples and altars worst was, that this kind of imposture
are to lie constructed in order to produce on tlie i,<;-noranti)oi»nlace was openly ap-
false miracles, and by what m(>ans im- i)roved by the educated. {Dollinger, p.
postures of this kind nuiy be successfully 647.)
160
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK great farce, and expressed his conviction that the Roman world laj
^I nnder some terrible curse. All around, despair, conscious need, and
— >" — ' unconscious longing. Can greater contrast he inuigined, than the
proclannition of a coming Kingdom of God amid such a world; oi
clearer evidence be afforded of the reality of this Divine message,
than that it came to seek and to save that which was thus lost? One
synchronism, as remarkable as that of the Star in the East and the
Birth of the Messiah, here claims the reverent attention of the student
of history. On the 19th of December a.d. G9, the R(nnan Capitol,
with its ancient sanctuaries, was set on fire. Eight months later,
on the 9th of Ab a.d. 70, the Temple of Jerusalem was given to the
flames. It is not a coincidence but a conjunction, for upon the ruins
of heathenism and of apostate Judaism was the Church of Christ to
be reared.
A silence, even more complete than that concerning the early life
of Jesus, rests on the thirty years and more, which intervened between
the l)irth and the open tbrthshowing ^ of John in his character as
Forerunner of the Messiah. Only his outward and inward develop-
ment, and his ])eing 'in the deserts,'" are brielly indicated.'' The
latter, assuredly, not in order to learn from the Essenes,^ but to
attain really, in lonely fellowship with God, what they sought extern-
ally. It is characteristic that, while Jesus could go straight from
the home and workshop of Nazareth to the Baptism of Jordan, His
Forerunner recjuired so long and peculiar preparation: characteristic
of the difference of their Persons and Mission, characteristic also of
the greatness of the work to be inaugurated. St. Luke furnishes
precise notices of the time of the Baptist's public appearance — not
merely to fix the exact chronology, which woidd not have required
so many details, ])ut for a higher pur^DOse. For, they indicate, more
clearly than the most elaborate discussion, the fitness of the moment
for the Advent of 'the Kingdom of Heaven.' For the first time
since the Ba])ylonish Captivity, the foreigner, the Cliief of the hated
Roman Empire — according to the Rabbis, the fourth beast of Daniel's
bAb.zar.2 6 visiou *" — was absolutc and undisputed master of Judaea; and the
" St. Luke 1
80
1 This seems the full meanin.s: of the
■word, St. Luke i. 80. Comp. Acts i. 2i
(in tlie A.V. 'shew ').
•^ The plural indicates that St. John
was not always in the same 'wilder-
ness.' The plural form in re<i;ard to the
' wildernesses which are in tlie land of
Israel,' is common in Raljbinic writinfjs
(comp. Baba K. vii. 7 and the Gemaras
on the i)as3a^e). On the fulfilment by
the Baptist of Ls. xl. 3. see the di-scussion
of that i)assage in Ap})endlx XL
^ Godet has, in a few forcible sentences,
traced what may be called not merely
the ditference. but the contrast between
the teachinir and aims of the Essenes and
those of John.
THE SONS AND SUCCESSORS OF HEROD.
261
chief religious office divided between two, equally unworthy of its CHAP,
functions. And it deserves, at least, notice, that of the Rulers XI
mentioned by St. Luke, Pilate entered on his office" only shortly ' — ~r —
before the public ap])earance of John, and that they ail continued "P>'>habiy
. . . "^ about
till after the Crucitixion of Christ. There was thus, so to speak, a Ea.stor, 26
continuity of these powers during the whole Messianic period.
As regards Palestine, the ancient kingdom of Herod was now
divided into four parts, Judasa being under the direct administration
of Rome, two other tetrarchies under the rule of Herod's sons (Herod
Antipas and Philip), while the small principality of Abilene was
governed by Lysanias.^ Of the latter no details can be furnished,
nor are they necessary in this history. It is otherwise as regards the
sont; of Herod, and especially the character of the' Roman government
at that time.
Herod Antipas, whose rule extended over fortj^-three years,
reigned over Galilee and Persea — the districts which were respec-
tively the principal sphere of the Ministry of Jesus and of John the
Baptist. Like his brother Archelaus, Herod Antii)as possessed in an
even aggravated form most of the vices, without any of the greater
qualities, of his father. Of deeper religious feelings or convictions
he was entirely destitute, though his conscience occasionally misgave,
if it did not restrain, him. The inherent weakness of his character
left him in the absolute control of his wife, to the final ruin of his for-
tunes. He was covetous, avaricious, luxurious, and utterly dissipated;
suspicious, and with a good deal of that fox-cunning which, especially
in the East, often forms the sum total of state-craft. Like his father,
he indulged a taste for building — always taking care to i)ropitiate
Rome by dedicating all to the Emperor.- The most extensive of his
undertakings was the building, in 22 a.d., of the city of Tiberias, at
the upper end of the Lake of Galilee. The site was under the
disadvantage of having formerly been a burying-place, which, as
implying Lcvitical uncleanness, for some time deterred i)ious Jews
from settling there. Nevertheless, it rose in great magiiiticence from
among the reeds which had but lately covered the neighbourhood
(the ensigns armorial of the city were 'reeds'). Herod Antipas made
it his residence, and built there a strong castle and a i)alace of
1 Till quite lately, those who iini)u<i"ii
the veracity of the Cfospels — Siraitss, and
even Kenn — have pointed to this notice
of Lysanias as an instance of the unhis-
torical character of St. Luke's Gospel.
But it is now admitted on all h?.nds that
the notice of St. Luke is strictly correct;
and that, besides the other Lysanias. one
of the same name had rei^yiied over
Abilene at the time of Christ. Comp.
Wi^seler, Beitr. i)p. 196-204. ■AudSc/iilrer
in Eiehm's Handworterl), p. !)81.
262
FROM RETIILETIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
Tl
a PUlo,
ed. Frcf.,
Leg. 1015
c.Sm/'<. Tiber.
69
4 Philn, U.S.
1034
« Jnx. Ant.
xvlii. 3. 1, 2
fSt. Luke
xili. 1
e Ant. xviii.
4.1,2.
h Philo.lieg.
1033
unrivalled splendour. The city, which was peopled cliiefly by ad-
venturers, was mainly Grecian, and adorned with an amphitheatre,
of which the ruins can still be traced.
A happier account can be given of Philip, the son of Herod the
Great and Cleoi)atra of Jerusalem. He was undoubtedly the best
of Herod's sons. He showed, indeed, the same abject submission as
the rest of his family to the Roman Emperor, after whom he named
the city of Csesarea Philippi, which he built at the sources of the
Jordan; just as he changed the name of Bethsaida, a village of which
he made an opulent city, into Julias, after the daughter of Augustus.
But he was a moderate and just ruler, and his reign of thirty-seven
years contrasted favourably with that of his kinsmen. The land was
quiet and prosperous, and the people contented and hapj^y.
As regards the Roman rule, matters had greatly changed for the
worse since the mild sway of Augustus, under which, in the language
of Philo, no one throughout the Empire dared to molest the Jews."
The only innovations to which Israel had then to submit were, the
daily sacrifices for the Emperor and the Roman people, offerings on
festive days, prayers for them in the Synagogues, and such partici-
l)ation in national joy or sorrow as their religion allowed.''
It was far other when Tiberius succeeded to the Empire, and
Judasa was a province. Merciless harshness characterised the ad-
ministration of Palestine; while the Emperor himself was bitterly
hostile to Judaism and the Jews, and that although, personally,
openly careless of all religion. "= Under his reign the persecution
of the Roman Jews occurred, and Palestine suffered almost to the
verge of endurance. The first Procurator whom Tiberius appointed
over Judasa, changed the occupancy of the High-Priesthood four
times, till he found in Caiaphas a sufficiently submissive instrument
of Roman tyranny. The exactions, and the reckless disregard of all
Jewish feelings and interests, might have been characterised as
reaching the extreme limit, if worse had not followed when Pontius
Pilate succeeded to the procuratorshij). Yenality, violence, robbery,
persecutions, wanton malicious insults, judicial murders without
even the formality of a legal process, and cruelty — such are the
charges brought against his administration.'' If former governors
had, to some extent, respected the religious scruples of the Jews,
Pilate set them purposely at defiance; and this not only once, but
again and again, in Jerusalem,"^ in Galilee,-' and even in Samaria,*^
until the Emperor himself interposed.''
Such, then, was the political condition of flic land, Avhen Jolm
THE HIGH-PRIESTS AND THEIR FAMflJES.
263
appeared to preach the near Advent of a Kingdom with wliich
Israel associated all that was happy and glorious, even beyond the
dreams of the religious enthusiast. And equally loud was the call
for help in reference to those who held chief spiritual rule over the
people. St. Luke significantly joins together, as the highest religious
authority in the land, the names of Annas and Caiaphas.^ The
former had been appointed by Quirinius, After holding the Pontifi-
cate for nine years, he was deposed, and succeeded by others, of
whom the fourth was his son-in-law Caiaphas. The character of the
High-Priests during the whole of that period is described in the
Talmud " in terrible language. And although there is no evidence
that ' the house of Annas ' ^ was guilty of the same gross self-
indulgence, violence," luxury, and even public indecency," as some of
their successors, they are included in the woes pronounced on the
corrupt leaders of the priesthood, whom the Sanctuary is represented
as bidding depart from the sacred precincts, which their presence
defiled."* It deserves notice, that the special sin with which the
house of Annas is charged is that of ' whispering ' — or hissing like
vipers — which seems to refer ^ to private influence on the judges
in their administration of justice, whereby ' morals w^ere corrupted,
judgment perverted, and the Shekhinah withdrawn from Israel. ' '
In illustration of this, we recall the terrorism which prevented San-
hedrists from taking the part of Jesus, ^ and especially the violence
which seems to have determined the final action of the Sanhedrin,-'^
against which not only such men as Mcodemus and Joseph of Ari-
mathaea, but even a Gamaliel, would feel themselves powerless. But
although the expression ' High-Priest ' appears somctiuics to have
been used in a general sense, as designating the sons of the High-
Priests, and even the principal members of their families," there could,
CHAP.
XI
1 Tlie Procurators were Imperial fin-
ancial officers, witii absohite i)ower of
{government in smaller territories. The
office was generally in tlie hands of tlie
Roman knights, which chietly consisted
of financial men, banl\ers. ciiief imltii-
cans, etc. The order of knighthood had
sunk to a low state, and the exactions of
such a rule, especially in Jud.Ta, can bet-
ter be imagined than described. Com)),
on the whole subject, Frfed/auder, Sit-
tengesch. Rom, vol. i. p. 2GS S:c.
'^ Annas, either Chdnan (pn), or else
Ghana or Chanva, a common name. Pro-
fessor Delitzsch has rightly shown that
the Hebrew equivalent for Caiaphas is
not Ket/pJia (N'p^r) =Peter, but luojapha
(J^-^'r*' or perhai)S rather — according to
the reading Kai(!)aZ — Xy^p Kaiplia, or
Kaiphah. The name occurs in the Mishnah
as Kayaph [so, and not A'(/;>/(, correctly]
(Parah iii. 5). Professor Delitzsch does
not venture to exi)lain its meaning.
Would it be too bold to suggest a deriva-
tion from N'Cp, and the meaning to be:
He who is ' at the top ' ?
3 If we may take a statement in the
Talmud, where the same word occurs, as
a commentai-y.
* I do not, however, feel sure that the
word 'high-priests' in this passage should
be closely i)ressed. It is just one of those
instances in wliich it would suit Josephus
•> Jos. Ant.
XX. 8. 8
I' Yoma 35 6
'' Pes. U.S.
<■ Tos. Set.
siv.
f St. John
Til. 50-52
e St. John
xl. 47-50
Vos. Jewish
War vl. 2.2
264
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
H
» St. .John
xi. 49
I- St. .Jf.hn
xviii. 13
: 779 A.TT.C.
■' St. Luke
iii. 3
' St.
28
•John i.
' '2 Kings i.
ol' course, be only ouc actual High-Priest. The conjunction of the
two names of Annas and Caiaphas ^ probably indicates that, although
Annas was deprived of the Pontificate, he still continued to preside
over the Sanhedrin — a conclusion not only borne out by Acts iv. 6,
wliere Annas appears as the actual President, and I)}' the terms in
which Caiaphas is spoken of, as merely * one of them,' ^ but by the part
which Annas took in the final condemnation of Jesus.''
Such a combination (jf political and religious distress, surely, con-
stituted the time of Israel's utmost need. As yet, no attempt had been
made by the people to right themselves by armed force. In these cir-
cumstances, the cry that the Kingdom of Heaven was near at hand,
and the call to preparation for it, must have awakened echoes through-
out the land, and startled the most careless and unbelievings It
was, according to St. Luke's exact statement, in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberius Ceesar — reckoning, as provincials would do,^
from his co-regency with Augustus (which commenced two years
before his sole reign), in the year 26 a. d." According to our former
computation, Jesus would then be in His thirtieth year.^ The scene
of John's first public appearance was in 'the wilderness of Jiidsea,'
that is, the wild, desolate district around the mouth of the Jordan.
We know not whether John baptized in this place,* nor yet how long
he continued there; but we are expressh^ told, that his stay was not
confined to that locality.** Soon afterwards we find him at Bethabara,"
which is farther up the stream. The outward appearance and the
habits of the Messenger corresponded to the character and object of
his Mission. jS"either his dress nor his food was that of the Essenes; ^
and the former, at least, like that of Elijah,*^ whose mission he was
now to ' fulfil.'
to give such a graudiose title to those
■who joined the Romans.
' This only in St. Luke.
^Wieseler has, I think, satisfactorily es-
tablished this. Conip. Beitr. pp. 191-194.
^ St. Luke speaks of Christ being
'about thirty years old' at the time of
His baptism. If John began His ])ublic
ministry in the autumn, and some months
elapsed before Jesus was baptized, our
Lord would have just i)as3ed His thirtieth
year when He ai)i)eared at Bethabara.
We have i)ositive evidence that the ex-
pression ' about ' before a numeral meant
either a little more or a little less tiian
that exact number. See Midr. on Ruth i.
4 ed. Warsh. p. 39 f>.
* Here tradition, tliough evidently
falsely, locates the Baptism of .Jesusu
^ In reference not only to this point,
but in general, I would refer to Bishop
Light/oofs masterly essay on the Es-
senes in his Appendix to his Commen-
tary on Colossians (especially here, pp.
388, 400). It is a remarkable confirma-
tion of the fact that, if John had been
an Essene, his food could not have been
' locusts ' that the Gospel of the Ebion-
ites. who, like the Essenes, abstained
from animal food, omits the mention of
the 'locusts,' of St. Matt. iii. 4. (see Mr.
Nicholson''s ' The Gospel of the He-
brews,' pp. 34. 35). But jM'oof positive
is derived from Jer. Nedar. 40 h, where,
in case of a vow of abstinence from
flesh, fish and locusts are interdicted.
•* Our A.Y. wrongly translates ' a hairy
man,' instead of a man with a hairy
THE 'KINGDOM OF HEAVEN' AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. ' 265
This was evinced alike by what he preached, and l)y the new CHAP.
symbolic rite, IVoni wiiich he derived the name of ' Baptist.' The XI
grand burden of his message was: the announcement of tlie ^- — -v^— ^
approach of 'the Kingdom of Heaven,' and the needed preparation
of his hearers for that Kingdom. The latter he sought, positively,
by admonition, and negatively, by warnings, while he directed all
to the Coming One, in Whom that Kingdom would become, so
to speak, individualised. Thus, from the first, it was ' tlie good
news of the Kingdom,' to which all else in J-ohn's })reaching was
but subsidiary.
Concerning this ' Kingdom of Heaven, ' which was the great mes-
sage of John, and the great work of Christ Himself,' we may here
say, that it is the whole Old Testament sublimated., and the whole
^ew Testament realised. The idea of it did not lie hidden in
the Old, to be opened up in the New Testament — as did the mystery
of its realisation.'' But this rule of heaven and Kingship of >Kom. xvi.
25, 2C;
Jehovah was the very substance of the Old Testament; the object Eph. 1.9;
. . . . Col. i. 26, 27
of the calling and mission of Israel ; the meaning of all its
ordinances, whether civil or religious; ^ the underlying idea of all
its institutions.^ It explained alike the history of the people, the
dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the
prophets. Without it the Old Testament could not be understood;
it gave perpetuity to its teaching, and dignity to its representations.
This constituted alike the real contrast between Israel and the
nations of antiquity, and Israel's real title to distinction. Thus tlie
whole Old Testament was the preparatory presentation of the rule
of heaven and of the Kingship of its Lord.
But preparatory not only in the sense of typical, but also in that
of inchoative. Even the twofold hindrance — internal and external —
which '■ the Kingdom ' encountered, indicated this. The former arose
from the resistance of Israel to their King; the latter from the oi)i)o-
sition of the surrounding kingdoms of this world. All the more
intense became the longing through thousands of years, that these
(camel's luiir) raiment.' This seems after- designates as the • treibenden Gedani<en
wards to have become the distinctive des Alten Testamentes' — those of the
dressof the prophets (comp. Zech. xiii. 4). Kingdom and the King. A Kingdom of
1 Keim beautifully designates it: 7)r?.s- God without a King: a Theocracy with-
LiebIi)/{/sirorf Jesii. out tlie rule of God; a i)erpetual Davidie
^ If, indeed, in the preliminary dispen- Kingdom without a ' Son of David ' —
sation these two can be well sejiarated. these are tnitinomies (to borrow the
•'' I confess myself utterly unable to term of Knnt) of which neither tlie Old
understand, how anyone writing a His- Testament, tlio Apocryjiha, the Pseud-
tory of the Jewish Church can apiiar- epigrai)hic writings, nor Rabbiuism were
ently eliminate from it what even Keim guilty.
266
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK hindrances might be swept away by the Advent of the promised
H Messiah, Who would permanently establish (by His spirit) the right
^^ r-"^ relationship between the King and His Kingdom, by bringing in an
everlasting righteousness, and also cast down existing barriers, by
calling the kingdoms of this world to be the Kingdom of our God.
This would, indeed, be the Advent of the Kingdom of God, such as
''xiv. 91 had been the glowing hope held out by Zcchariah,'' the glorious
1 Tii. i3,u^ vision beheld by Daniel.'' Three ideas especially did this Kingdom of
{jfod m\\)\y : univei^sality, heavenliness, uml permanency. Wide as God's
domain Avuuld l)e His Dominion; holy, as heaven in contrast to earth,
and God to man, would be his character; and triumphantly lasting
its continuance. Such was the teaching of the Old Testament, and
the groat hope of Israel. It scarcely needs mental compass, only
moral and spiritual capacity, to see its matchless grandeur, in con-
trast with even the highest aspirations of heathenism, and the
blanched ideas of modern culture.
How imperfectly Israel understood this Kingdom, our previous in-
vestigations have shown. In trutli, the men of that period possessed
only the term — as it were, the form. What explained its meaning,
filled, and fulfilled it, came once more I'rom heaven. Rabbinism and
Alexandrianism kept alive the thought of it; and in their own way
filled the soul with its longing — just as the distress in Church and
State carried the need of it to every heart with the keenness
of anguish. As throughout tliis history, the foriii was of that
time; tlie substance and the spirit were of Him Whose coming
was the Advent of that Kingdom. Perhaps the nearest approach
to it lay in the higher aspirations of the Nationalist party, only
that it sought their realisation, not spiritually, l)ut outwardly.
Taking the sword, it perished by the sword. It was probably to
this that both Pilate and Jesus referred in that memorable question:
'Art Thou then a King? ' to which our Lord, unfolding the deepest
meaning of His mission, replied: 'My Kingdom is not of this
world: if ^ly Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants
■: St. John tight.'"
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms ' King-
dom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,'" and 'Kingdom of God ' (in the Targum
1 ' And the Lord shall be King over given Him dominion, and glory, and a
all the earth: in that day shall there be kingdom, that all peoi)le, nations, and
one Lord, and His Name one.' languages, should serve Him : His domin-
^ ' I saw in the night visions, and, ion is an everlasting dominion, which
behold, One like the Son of Man came shall not pass away, and His kingdom
with the clouds of heaven, and came to that which shall not be destroyed.'
the Ancient of Days, and they brought •' Occasionally we find, instead of
Him near before Him. And there was Malkhuth Shumai/im ('Kingdom of
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH VIEW.
267
on Micah iv. T ' Kingdom of Jehovah ' ), were equivalent. In fact,
the word ' heaven ' was very often used instead of 'God, 'so as to
avoid unduly- familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name.^ Tliis,
l)r()l)ably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom
of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew.^ And the term did imply
a contrast to earth, as the expression ' the Kingdom of God ' did to
tliis world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world
was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings.''
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be dis-
tinguished troni such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah ' {Mal-
Kiiutha duneshicha^'), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma
deathey dimesJdcha " ), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come '
{•scpculum futmvim, the AtJtid labho^ — both this and the previous
expression''), 'the end of days,'" and 'the end of the extremity of
days ' So2)h Eqebh Yomaija^). This is the more important, since the
' Kingdom of Heaven ' has so often been confounded with the period
of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom,
of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of
'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy i)laced a temporary obscuration
of the Messiah.* Xot His first appearance, but His triumphant
manifestation, Avas to be preceded by the so-called ' sorrows of the
Messiah' (the ChebJdey shel Masliiach), 'the tribulations of the latter
days.'^
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the
Jewish mind the expression ' Kingtlom of Heaven ' referred, not so
much to any particular period, as in general to the Fade of God — as
acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it
is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking
upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the command-
ments— the former preceding and conditioning the latter. ^ Accord-
CIIAI'.
XI
Heaven'), Mal/i/iuf/ia dii-^r/ii/fi {^King,-
(lom of the tirniament '), as In Ber. 58 a,
Shel)liu. 35 b. But in the former passa,2:e,
at least, it seems to ajiply rather to God's
Providential government than to His
moral reign.
1 The Talmud (Shehhn. 35 h) analyses
the various i)asfeages of Scripture in
whicli it is used in a sacred and in the
common sense.
^ In St. Mattliew the expression occurs
thirty-two times; six times that of ' the
Kimrdom; ' five times that of ' Kingdom
of God.'
■^ The distinction between tlie O/mn
hal)ba (the world to come), and the Athid
labho (the age to come), is important. It
will be more fully referred to by-and-
by. In the meantime, suffice it, that th(>
Athid I(d)Jio is the more specific designa-
tion of Messianic times. The two terms
are expressly distinguished, for example,
in Meclillta (ed. IT7^/.s.s'), p. "4 a, lines
2. 3.
* This will be more fully explained
and shown in the sequel. For tiie pres-
ent we refer only to Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 75
(7, and the Mldr. on Ruth ii. 14.
■'' The wliole subject is ^ully treated in
Book y. eh. vi.
1 As in
Shebhu
35 b ; Ber.
R. 9, ed.
Warsh, pp.
19 6, 20 a
•> As In the
Targuni on
Ps. siv. 7,
and on Is.
Hil. 10
'■ As in
Targum on
1 Kings iv.
33 (V. 13)
d For ex
ami)le, in
Ber. R. 88,
ed. Warsh.
p. 157 a
' Targ.
Pseudo-
Jon, on Ex.
Xl. 9, 11
f Jer. Targ.
on Gen. iii.
15; Jer. and
Pseudo-
Jon. Targ
on Numb.
xxiv. 14
? So ex-
pressly in
Mechiita,
p. V.-) a:
YcUkut,
vol. ii. p.
14 a, last
lino
268
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
H
' For ex-
ample, Ber.
IJ I', U b ;
Ber. li. 5;
and the
touching
story of
Kabbi
Aklba thus
taking up-
on himself
the yoke of
the Law in
the hour of
his martyr-
dom,
Ber, 61 h
c So often,
Comp,
Slphrc- p.
14-i '', li:3 b
1 Ber, K, 98
<■ Yalkut,
vol,ii,p.iy a
f Midr. on
1 Sam, ii,
1'2: Midr.on
Eccl. i. 18
2 In Yalkut
ii. p, 178 a
hZech,xiv.9
i Midr. on 1
Sam,vili,7.
Comf), also
generally
Mldr.onPs.
cxlvii. 1
inglj, tlic Mishnah " gives this as the reason why, in the collection
of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called ^ Shema,' '^ the
couicssion, Dent. vi. 4&c., precedes the admonition, Dent. xi. 18 &c.,
because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of
Heaven, and afterw^ards that of the commandments. And in this
sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment
of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as ' taking upon
oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.'" Similarly, the putting on of
phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking
upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God.^ To give other
instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom
of God at Mount Sinai;" the children of Jacol) at their last inter-
view with their father;'^ and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic
office,'' where it is also noted that this nnist be done willingly and
gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are
said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. "^ While thus the
acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice,
was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifesta-
tion was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus
in the Targum on Isaiah xl. 9, the words ' Behold your God!' are
paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, ^
we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven
shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be
King over all the earth. """^ On the other hand, the unbelief of
Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the
Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the
buiMing of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. iii. 5.'
It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances
and blessings of the ' Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected.
But the final completion of all still remained for the '01am Ilabba,'
or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time
of the Messiah and this ' world to come ' is frequently indicatetl in
Rabbinic writings.''
^ The Shema, whicli was repeated twice
every day, was re,i>;arded as distinctive of
Jewish in-ofessioii (Ber. iii. 3).
- In Ber. 14 b. last line, and \b n,
first line, there is a shocking; definition
of what constitutes the Kingdom of
Heaven in its comjileteness. For the
sake of those who would derive Christi-
anity from Rabbinism, I would have
quoted it, but am restrained by its pro-
fanitv.
^ The same passage is similarly re-
ferred to in the Midr. on Song. ii. 12,
where the words 'the time of the singing
has come,' areparaphra.sed; 'the time of
the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be
manifested, hath come ' (in B. Martini
Pugio Fidei, p. 782).
* As in Shabb. 6.3 rr, where at least
three differences between them are men-
tioned. For. while all ]irophecy i)ointed
to the days of the Messiah, concerning
THE KINGDOM OF GOD' THE 'REKJN OF GOD.'
269
As "wc pass Iroin the Jewish ideas of tlie time to the teaching of
the New Testament, we feel that while there is comjjlete change of
S2)irit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is pre-
sented is suhstantially similai'. Accordingly, we must dismiss the
notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible
(according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to
certain Protestant writers)/ ' The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule
of God, is an objective fact. The visil)le Church can only be the sub-
jective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisil)le Church
is the true counterpart. When Christ says,'' that ' except a man be
horn from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in
opposition to the Ral)l)inic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was
taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of
the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one
of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the
meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject ''seems to be that,
except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism^ as its
» St. John
Hi. 3
the world to come we are told (Ls. Ixiv. -t)
that 'eye hath not seen, ttc.'; m the
days of the Messiah weapons would be
borne, but not in the world to come; and
while Is. xxiv. 21 applied to the days of
the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory
passage. Is. xxx. 26, referred to the
world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jon-
athan on Exod. xvii. IG, we read of three
generations: that of this world, that of
the Messiah, and that of the world to
come (Aram: Alma deathey=o/'r/»z hab-
ba). Comi). Ar. 13 6, and Midr. on Ps.
Ixxxi. 2 (3 in A.V.), ed. WavKh. p. 63 a,
where the harp of the Sanctuary is de-
scribed as of seven strings (according to
Ps. cxix. 164); in the days of the Messiah
as of eight strings (according to the in-
scription of Ps. xii.); and in the world to
come (here Athid hibho) as of ten
sti'ings (according to Ps. xcii. 3). The
reftn-ences of Gfrbrer (Jahrh. d. Heils,
vol. ii. )). 213) contain, as not unfre-
{piently, mistakes. I may here say that
FJienferdius carries the argument about
tlie Olrt7n habba, as distinguished from
the days of the Messiah, beyond what I
believe to be established. See his Dis-
sertation in Me)ische)>, Nov. Test. pp.
1116 Ac.
' It is difficult to conceive, how the
idea of the identity of the Kingdom
of God with the Gliurch could have origi-
nated. Such parables as those about
the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt,
xiii. 3-9; 47, 48), and such admonitions
as those of Christ to His disciples in St.
Matt. xix. 12; vi. 33; and vi. 10, are ut-
terly inconsistent with it.
^ The passage which seems to me most
fully to explain the import of baptism, in
its subjective bearing, is 1 Peter, iii. 21,
which I would thus render : ' which (water)
also, as the antitype, nowsavesyou, n-en
baptism; not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the
searching, -perhaps the entreaty), for a
good conscience towards God. through
the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this
sense that baiitism is designated in Tit.
iii. 5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of re-
generation,' the baptized person step-
ping out of the waters of Ijaptism with
this openly spoken new search after a
good conscience towards God; and in
this sense also that bai)tism — not the act
of baptizing, nor yet that of being l)ap-
tized — saves us, but this through the Re-
surrection of Christ. And this leads us
up to the objective aspect of baptism.
This consists in the promise and the gift
on the part of the Risen Saviour. Who, by
and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present
with his Church. These renuu'ks leave,
of course, aside the question of Infant-
Baptism, which rests on another and, in
my view most solid basis.
2t0 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK symbol) and tlio Spirit, he cannot really enter into tlie fellowship of
n that Kingdom.
'^ — v— ^ In fart, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where
the expression ' Kingdom ' occurs, shows that it means the o'ule of
God] ^ which was manifested in and through Christ; ^ is apparent in
' tJie Church) * gradually develops amidst hindrances;^ is triumpliant
at the second coming of Christ'" ('the end'); and, finally, 2Je''fected in
the world to come.^ Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the
near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so
often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the
Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have
been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to
the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the
one hand, he called them to repentance — a '■ change of mind ' — with
all that this implied; and, on tlie other, pointed them to the Christ,
in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two com-
bined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind' — repent,
wliich implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the
Christ in newness of mind.'' And thus the symbolic action by which
this ]n'eaching was accompanied might be designated ' the baptism of
repentance.'
Tlie account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was
aiii. 18 a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching.'' The
very presence of his hearers at this call to, and l)aptism of, repentance,
gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their
1 111 tliis view the expression occurs sages: St. Matt. xi. 12; xiii. 11, 19, 24,
thirty-four times, viz. :. St. Matt. vi. 33 ; 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, .52 ; xviii. 23 ; xx. 1 ; xxii.
xii. 28; xiii. 38; xix. 24; xxi. 31; St. 2; xxv. 1, 14; St. Marie iv. 11, 26, 30;
Mark i. 14; x. 15, 23, 24, 25; xii. 34; St. Luke viii. 10; ix. 62; xiii. 18, 20;
St. Luke i. 33; iv. 43; ix. 11; x. 9, 11; Acts i. 3; Rev. i. 9.
xi. 20; xii. 31; xvii. 20, 21; xviii. 17, 24, ^ As in the followiiis; twelve passages:
25, 29; St. John iii. 3; Acts i. 3; viii. St. Mark xvi. 28; St. Mark ix. 1; xv."43;
12; XX. 25; xxviii. 31; Rom. xiv. 17; St. Luke ix. 27; xix. 11; xxi. 31; xxii.
1 Cor. iv. 20; Col. iv. 11; 1 Tliess. ii. 12; 16, 18; Acts i. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 1; Heb. xii.
Rev. i. 9. 28; Rev. i. 9.
^ As in the following seventeen pas- " As in the following thirty-one i)as-
sages, viz.: St. Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17, 23; sages: St. Matt. v. 19, 20; vii. 21; viii.
V. 3, 10; ix. 35; x. 7; St. Mark i. 15; 11; xiii. 43; xviii. 3; xxv. 34; xxvi. 29;
xi. 10; St. Luke viii. 1; ix. 2; xvi. 16; St. Mark ix. 47; x. 14; xiv. 25; St Luke
xix. 12, 15; Acts i. 3; xxviii. 23; Rev. vi. 20; xii. 32; xiii. 2s, 29; xiv. 15; xviii.
1. 9. 16; xxii. 29; Acts i. 3; xiv. 22; 1 Cor.
■^ As in the following eleven passages: vi. 9, 10; xv. 24, 50; Gal. v. 21; Eph. v.
St. Matt. xi. 11; xiii. 41; xvi. 19; xviii. 5; 2 Thess. i. 5; St. James ii. 5; 2 Peter
1; xxi. 43; xxiii. 13; St. Luke vii. 28; i. 11; Rev. i. 9; xii. 10.
St. John iii. 5; Acts i. 3; Col. i. 13; Rev. " The term ' repentance ' includes
i. 9. faith ia Christ, as in St. Luke xxiv. 47;
* As in the following twenty-four pas- Acts v. 31.
WE HAVE ABRAHAM TO OUR FATHER.'
271
sins,' lived in such security of carelessness and self-rigliteousness, really
understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming-
' Kingdom ' ? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in ])i"o-
fession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good
and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common
notion of the time, the vials of Avrath were to be poured out only
on the Gentiles,^ while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of
escape— in the words of the Talmud, that' 'the night ' (Is. xxi.
12) was * only to the nations of the world, but the morning to
Israel ' ? '^
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular convic-
tion, than that all Israel had })art in the world to come (Sanh.x. 1),
and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham.
This appears not only from the New Testament,'' from Philo, and
Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. ' The merits of the
Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis.*
Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver
any Israelite* who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors."
In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were
nobles,*^ infinitely higher than any proselytes. ' What,' exclaims the
Talmud, ' shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the
proselyte be in heaven?'^ In fact, the ships on the sea were pre-
served through the merit of Abraham- the rain descended on account
of if For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into
heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden
calf had been forgiven;^ his righteousness had on many occasions
been the support of Israel's cause;'' Daniel had been heard for the
sake of Abraham;' nay, his merit availed even for the wicked.''^ In
its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy
CHAP
XI
1 I cannot, with Schbttgen and others,
regard the expression ' generation of vi-
pers' as an allusion to the tilthy legend
about the children of Eve and the ser-
pent, but believe that it refers to such
passages as Ps. Iviii. 4.
'■^ In proof that such was the common
view, I shall here refer to only a few
passages, and these exclusively from the
Targumini : Jer. Targ. on Gen. xlix. 1 1 ;
Targ. on Is. xi. 4; Targ. on Amos ix. 11 ;
Targ. on Nah. i. 6 ; on Zech. x. 3, 4. See
also Ab. Z. 2 5, Yalkut i. p. 64 a; also
56 b (where it is shown how i)lagues
exactly corresponding to those of Egypt
were to come upon Rome).
•^ 'Everything comes to Israel on ac-
count of the merits of the fathers ' (Siphre
on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category
we place the extraordinary attempts to
show that the sins of Biblical jjersonages
were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 />, and
the idea of Israel's merits as works of
supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).
* I will not mention the profane device
by which apostate and wicked Jews are at
that time to be converted into non-Jews.
* Professor Wilusche quotes an inapt
passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or
is ignorant of, the evidence above given.
° Jer. Taan.
64 a
'' St. John
viii. 33, 39,
53
•^Ber. K. 48;
com p.
Midr. on
Ps. yi 1:
Pirk d. R.
Ellew. e. •.:•.» :
Sheni. K. 19
Yalkut i. \>.
23 6
^BabaMez.
vu. 1 ; Baba
K. 91 a
<■ Jer. Chag.
76 a
fBer E. 39
? Shem R.
a
'• Vas-ylkra
K. 36
> Ber. 7 6
k Shabb.
55 a; com p.
Beer, Leben
Abr. p. 88
272
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK
H
" Ber. R. ed.
Warsh.
p. 80 h, par.
44
'' Perhaps
with refer-
ence to Is.
ii. 1, 2
■• For ex.
•Jer. Taan.
64 a
cliildron were even (morally) dead liodies, without bloodvessels or
bones, thy merit would avail for them ! ' ''
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his hearers, John
warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the
river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham;"' or, reverting to his
former illustration of ' fruits meet for repentance,' that the i^roclama-
tion of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to
the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application
of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher
gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of
their past; ^ yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative,
or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-im-
portant aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only
natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the
Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely con-
nected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was
said, ' If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would im-
mediately come.'" But here John pointed them to the difterence
])etween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the
Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do
Him the service of a slave or of a disciple.^ His Baptism would not
be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism
in* the Holy Spirit and fire ^ — in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the
Divine Light which purified,^ and so eflectively qualified for the
1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on
the words ' chiUlreu ' — bnnim — and
'stones' — abhanim. Both words are
derived from bana, to build, which is
al.-^o used by the Rabbis in a moral
sense like our own ' upbuildino;,' and in
that of the ffift or adoption of children. ■
it is not necessary, indeed almost detracts
from the <reneral impression, to see in
the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.
■^ Thus the view that charity delivered
from Gehenna was very commonly en-
tertained (see, for example. Baba B.
10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge
against the publicaus that they exacted
more than their due (see, for example,
Baba K. 11.3^^). The Greek oipajvi ov, or
wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic
eciuivalent of Afsinyn (a similar word
also in the Syriac).
^ Volkmar is mistaken in regarding
this as the duty of the house-porter
towards arriving guests. It is exi)ressly
mentioned as one of the characteristic
duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a ; Jer Kidd.
i. 3 ; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 n it is
described as also the duty of a disciiile
towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex.
xxi. 2 (ed. Weiss, p. S2 a) it is qualified
as only lawful for a teacher so to employ
his discii)le, while, lastly, in Pesiqta x.
it is described as the common practice.
* Godet aptly calls attention to the
use of the prei)osition in here, while as
regards the baptism of water no prepo-
sition is used, as denoting merely an
instrumentality.
^ The same writer points out that the
want of the preposition before 'fire'
shows that it cannot refer to the fire of
judgment, but must be a further enlarge-
ment of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it
denotes the negative or purgative effect
of this baptism, as the word ' holy '
indicates its positive and sanctifying
eflfect.
* The expression ' baptism of fire '
was certainly not unknown to the Jews.
THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 273
' Kingdom.' Andthore was still another contrast. Jolm'swasbutprc- CHAP,
paring work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the ^l
harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner ; His also the fan, with " — ~y — -^
which He would sift the wlieat from the straw and chaff — the one to
be garnered, the other burned with fire uncxtinguislied and inextin-
guisha])le.^ Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it
indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the
good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the
reaping time ; that both belonged to Him ; and that the final separa-
tion would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which,
though not in itself, yet in its application, was wiiolly new. Hitherto
the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement
were to immerse before oflering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed
that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'pro-
selytes of the Covenant ' [Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey liabherith), were to
be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the
threefold rites of circumcision, baptism,^ and sacrifice — the immersion
being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of
moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanncss. But
never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a
' baptism of repentance, ' although there are indications of a deeper
insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms.* Was it intended,
In Sauh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an passages, and not Telilten (Mei/er), nor
immersion of God in tire, based on Is. even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in
Ixvi. 15. An immersion or baptism of his Hebrew N.T. : J/r;/,s\ The three terms
lire is proved from Numb. xxxi. 23. are, however, combined in a curiously
More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring
statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah to the destruction of Rome and the pres- ■
(the Law) its parchment was white fire, ervatiou of Israel, when the gi-ain refers
the writing black tire, itself fire mixed the straw, stubble, and chart', in their
with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by dispute for whose sake the field existed,
fire, according to Deut. xxxiii. 2. to tlie time when the owner would gather
1 This is the meaning of da/Searu?. the corn into his barn, but burn the
The word occurs only in St. Matt. iii. 12; straw, stubble, and chaft".
St. Luke iii. 17 ; St. Mark ix. 43, 45 (?), '^ For a full discussion of the question
but frequently in the classics. The ques- of the baptism of proselytes, see Appen-
tion of ' eternal punishment ' will be dis- dix XII.
cussed in another place. The simile of ^ The following very significant i)as-
the fan and the garner is derived from sage may here be quoted : 'A man who is
the Eastern practice of threshing out the guilty of sin, and makes confession, and
corn in the open by means of oxen, after does not turn from it. to whom is he
which, what of the straw had been tram- like? To a man who has in his hand a
1)1(m1 under foot (not merely the chaff, as defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses
in the A.V.) was burned. This use of in all the waters of tlie Avorld. his bap-
the straw for tire is referred to in the tism avails him nothing ; but let him
Mishnah, as in Shabb. iii. 1 ; Par. iv. 3. cast it from his hand, and if he immerses
But in tliat case the Hebrew equivalent in only forty seah of water, immediately
for it is rp (Qash) — as in the above his bai)tism avails him,' On the same
274
FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOO-K
II
» Comp.
(ien. XXXV.
'• Ex. six.
10, 14
that the hearers of John sliouhl ^ive this as evidence of their re-
pentance, that, like i)ersons defiled, they sought purification, and, like
strangers, tliey sought admission among the people who took on them-
selves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made
it truly a ' baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose,
that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at
least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a
change so deeply spiritual w^as brought about. May it not rather
have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was
directed to prepare Israel l)y symbolic baptism of their persons * and
their garments,'' so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the
people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by
another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true
Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God?^ In
that case the rite would have acquii-ed not only a new significance,
but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also,
no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the
Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insiglit on that of the people as w^e can
scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in
that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn,
than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing
as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. ^
paije of the Talmud there are some very
apt and beautiful remarks on the subject
of repentance (Taaii. 16 a, towards the
end).
1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides
traces even the practice of baptizing
proselytes to Ex. xix. 10, 14 (Hilc.
Issiirey Biah xiii. 3; Yad haCh. vol. ii. \).
142 h). He also gives reasons for the
'baptism ' of Israel before entering into
covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 «
' the ba])tism ' of Israel is proved from
Ex. xxiv. 5, since every sprinkling of
blood was supposed to be preceded by
immersion. In Siphre on Numb, (ed.
Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly
told of 'baptism' as one of the three
things by which Israel was admitted into
the Covenant.
2 This may help us, even at this stage,
to understand why our Lord, in the ful-
filment of all righteousness, submitted
to baptism. It seems also to exi^lain
why, after the coming of Clu-ist, the bap-
tism of .lohn was alike unavailing and
even meaningless (Acts xix. 3-5). Lastly,
it also shows how he that is least in the
Kingdom of God is really greater than
John himself (St. Luke vii. 28).
THE CALL TO 'THE KINGDOM.' 275
CHAPTER XII.
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS: ITS HIGHER MEANING.
(St. Matt. iii. 13-17; St. Mark i. 7-11; St. Luke iii. 21-28; St. John i. 32-34.)
The more wo think of it, the better do we seem to understand how that CHAP.
' Voice crying in the wilderness : Repent ! for the Kingdom of Ilcavcn Xll
is at hanil, ' awakened echoes throughout the land, and brought from '^—-^^ —
city, village, and hamlet strangest hearers. For once, every distinc-
tion was levelled. Pharisee and Sadducee, outcast pul)lican and
semi-heathen soldier, met here as on common ground. Their bond
of union was the common ' hope of Israel ' — the only hope that re-
mained: that of ' the Kingdom.' The long winter of disappointment
had not destroyed, nor the storms of suffering swept away, nor yet
could any plant of spurious growth overshadow, what had struck its
roots so deep in the soil of Israel's heart.
That Kingdom had been the last word of the Old Testament. As
the thoughtful Israelite, whether Eastern or Western,^ viewed even
the central part of his worship in sacrifices, and remembered that his
own Scriptures had spoken of them in terms which pointed to some-
thing l)eyon(l their offering, ■' he must have felt that ' the blood oflndls
and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, ' could
1 It may be said that the fundamental and in view of the cessation of sacrifices
tendency of Rabbinism was anti-sacriti- in tlie ' Athid-labho ' (Vay, u. s. ; Tanch.
cial, as regarded the value of sacrifices on Par. Shemini). Soon, prayer or study
in commending the ofi'erer to God. After were put even above sacrifices (Ber.
the destruction of the Temple it was, of 32 b; Men. 110 a), and an isolated teacher
course, the task of Rabbinism to show went so far as to regard the introduc-
that sacrifices had no intrinsic import- tion of sacrificial worship as merely in-
ance, and that their place was taken by tended to preserve Israel from conform-
prayer, i)enitence, and good works. So ing to heathen worship (Vayyikra R. 22,
agauist objoctors on the ground of Jer. u. s. p. 34 i'^, close). On the otlier hand,
xxxiii. 18 — but see tlie answer in Yalkut individuals seemed to have ofi'ered sac-
on the i)assage (vol. ii. p. 67 a, towards rifices even after the destruction of the
the end) dogmatically (Bab. B. 10 b; Temple (Eduy. viii. 6; Mechilta on Ex.
Vayyikra R. 7, ed. Wars/i. vol. iii. p. xviii. 27, ed. Weiss, \). 08 b).
12 a): 'he that doeth repentance, it is - Comp. 1 Sam. xv. 22; Ps. xl. 6-8;
imputed to him as if he went up to Jeru- li. 7, 17; Is. i. 11-13; Jer. vii. 22,23;
salem, built the Temi^le and altar, and Amos v. 21, 22; Ecclus. vii. 9; xxxiv.
wrought all the sacrifices in the Law'; 18, 10; xxxv. 1, 7.
276 FllOM IJETIILEIIEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK only 'sanctify to tlic purity iug of the flesh;' that, indeed, tlie whole
II body of ceremonial and ritual ordinances ' could not make him that
■^-^■^f^-^ (lid the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience. ' They were only
' the shadow of good things to come; ' of ' a new ' and ' better cove-
nant, established upon better promises.' ' It was otherwise with the
thought of the Kingdom. Each successive link in the chain of pro-
phecy bound Israel anew to this hope, and each seemed only more
firmly welded than the other. And when the voice of prophecy had
ceased, the sweetness of its melody still held the people spell-bound, even
when broken in the wild fantasies of Apocalyptic literature. Yet that
' root of Jesse,' whence this Kingdom was to spring, was buried deep
under ground, as the remains of ancient Jerusalem are now under
the desolations of nmny generations. Egyptian, Syrian, Greek, and
Roman had trodden it under foot; the Maccabees had come and gone,
and it was not in them; the Herodian kingdom had risen and fallen;
Pharisaism, with its learning, had overshadowed thoughts of the
priesthood andof prophetism; but the hope of that Davidic Kingdom,
of which there was not a single trace orrepresentativ^e left, was even
stronger than before. So closely has it been intertwined with the
very life of the nation, that, to all believing Israelites, this hope has
through the long night of ages, been like that eternal lamp which
burns in the darkness of the Synagogue, in front of the heavy veil
that shrines the Sanctuary, which holds and conceals the precious rolls
of the Law and the Prophets.
This great expectancy would be strung to utmost tension during
the pressure of outward circumstances more hopeless than any
hitherto experienced. Witness here the ready credence which im-
postors found, whose promises and schemes were of the wildest
character; witness the repeated attempts at risings, which oidy
despair could have prompted; witness, also, the last terrible war
against Rome, and, despite the horrors of its end, the rebellion of
Bar-Kokhabh, the false Messiah. And now the cry had been suddenly
raised: ' The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! ' It was heard in the
wilderness of Judaea, within a few hours' distance from Jerusalem.
No wonder Pharisee and Sadducee flocked to the spot. How many
of them came to inquire, how many remained to be baptized, or how
many went away disappointed in their hopes of 'the Kingdom,' we
know not.^ But they would not see anything in the messenger that
1 Ilebr. ix. 13, 9; x. 1; viii. 6, 13. hriefes, 1867).
On this subject we refer to tlie classical ■^ Ancient commentators supposed that
worlv of /i'ie/<??i (Lehrbe,n"ri tides Ilebriler- they came from liostile motives; later
THE APPEARANCE OF THE BAPTIST. 277
could have given their expectations a rude shock. His was not a call CHAP.
to armed resistance, but to rei)entauce, such as all knew and felt must XH
l)recede the Kingdom. The hojjc which he held out was not of *— ^r — '
earthly possessions, but of purity. There was nothing negative or
controversial in what he spoke; nothing to excite prejudice or passion.
His appearance would connnand respect, and his character was in
accordance with his appearance. Not rich nor yet IMiarisaic garb
with wide 7^s/^.s/f//,M)()iind with many-coloured or even priestly girdle,
out the old prophet's poor raiment held in by a leathern girdle. Not
luxurious life, but one of meanest fare.^ And then, all in tlie man was
true and real. ^ Not a reed shaken l)y the wind, ' but unbentlingly firm
in deep and settled conviction; not ambitious nor self-seeking, l)ut
most humble in his self-estimate, discarding all claim ])ut that of
lowliest service, and pointing away from himself to Him Who was to
come, and Whom as 3'et he did not even know. Above all, there was
the deepest earnestness, the most utter disregard of nmn, the most
firm belief in what he announced. For himself he sought nothing;
for them he had only one absorbing thought: The Kingdom was at
liaud, the King was coming — let them prepare!
Such entire absorption in his mission, which leaves us in ignorance
of even the details of his later activity, must have given force to his
message.^ And still the voice, everywhere proclaiming the samemes-
writers that curiosity i)ronii)te(l tliem. then eleven times witli a double knot
Neither of these views is admissible, nor (11 numerically = "*: ) and lastly, thir-
does St. Luke vii. 30 implj', that all the teen fanes (13 numerically = ~nN; or, al-
Pliarisees who come to him rejected his together "ns "'"", Je/toni/i One). Auain,
baptism. it is pointed out that as Tsitsith is
1 Comp. St. Matt, xxiii. 5. T\\e Tsitsith numerically equal to 600 ( n'^'i'l this,
{plural, Tsitsii/ot/t), or borders (corners, with the eiii;ht threads and live knots,
'wings') of the garments, or rather the gives the number (513, which is that of
fringes fastened to them. The observ- the Commandments. At present the
ance was based on Numb. xv. 38-41, Tsitsith are worn as a special under-
and tlie Jewish practice of it is indicated garment (the r^'Z12 r2";N) or on the
not only in the N.T. (u. s., comp. also Tallith or prayer-mantle, but anciently
St. Matt. ix. 20; xiv. 36) but in the Tar- they seem to have been worn on the
gumini on Numb. xv. 3S, 3!) (comp. also outer garment itself. In Bemidbar R.
Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Numb. xvi. 1, 2, 17. end (ed. Warsh, vol. iv. p. 69 a), the
where the peculiar colour of the Tsitsith blue is represented as emblematic of the
is represented as the cause of the con- sky, and the latter as of the throne of
troversy between Moses and Korah. But God (Ex. xxiv. 10). Hence to look upon
see the version of this story in Jer. Sanh. the Tsitsith was like looking at the throne
X. p. 27 'Z, end). The Tls^y^/Z/Mvere orig- of glory (.ScZ/wrrr is mistaken in sup-
inally directed to be of white threads, iiosing that the tractate Tsitsitli in the
with one thread of deep blue in eacli Septem Libri Talmud, par. pji. 22. 23. con-
fringe. According to tradition, each of tains much information on tlie subject),
these white fringes is to consist of - Such certainly was John the Bap-
eight threads, one of them wound round tist's. Some locusts were lawful to be
the others: first, seven times with a eaten. Lev. xi. 22. Comj). Terum. 59 «;
double knot: then eight times with a and, on the various species. Chull. 65.
double knot (7 -|- 8 numerically^ "*); ^ Deeply as we appreciate the beaut.y
278
FIJOM 15ET1ILEI1EM TO JORDAN.
V>8
BOOK sage, travelled upward, along the winding Jordan which cleft the land
II of promise. It was probably the autumn of the year 779 (a. u.c),
-^r^i^ which, it may be noted, was a Sabbatic year.^ Released from busi-
ness and agriculture, the multitudes flocked around him as he passed
on his Mission. Rapidly the tidings spread from town and village to
distant homestead, still swelling the numbers that hastened to the
banks of the sacred river. He had now reached what seems to have
been the most northern point of his Mission-journey,^ Betli-Ahara
(' the house of passage,' or ' of shipping ') — according to the ancient
reading, Bethany ('the house of shipping') — one of the best known
St. joiini. fords across the Jordan into Persea.* Here he baptized." The ford
was little more than twenty miles from Kazareth. But long before
John had reached that spot, tidings of his word and work must
have come even into the retirement of Jesus' Home-Life.
It was now, as we take it, the early winter of the year 780.*
Jesus had waited those months. Although there seems not to have
been any personal acquaintance between Jesus and John — and how
could there be, when their spheres lay so widely apart? — each must
have heard and known of the other. Thirty years of silence weaken
most human impressions — or, if they deepen, the enthusiasm that had
accompanied them passes away. Yet, when the two met, and per-
haps had brief conversation, each bore himself in accordance with
his previous history. With John it was deepest, reverent humility —
even to the verge of misunderstanding his special Mission, and
work of initiation and preparation for the Kingdom. He had heard
of Him before by the hearing of the ear, and when now he saw Him,
of Keim's renisirks about tlie character ^ It is one of the merits of Lieut,
and views of .John, we feel ooly the more Conder to have ideiitifiert~the site of
that sucli a man could not have talven the Beth-Abara. The word i)robably means
public position nor made such public pro- ' the house of passage ' (fords), but may
clamation of the Kingdom as at hand, also mean 'the house of shipping,' the
without a direct and objective call to word Abarah in Hebrew meaning ' ferry-
it from God. The treatment of John's boat,' 2 Sam. xix. 18. The reading
earlier history by Keim is, of course, Bef/iqiua instead of BetJudiarn seems
without historical basis. undoubtedly the original one, only the
' The year from Tishri (autumn) 779 word must not be derived (as by Mr.
to Tishri. 780 was a Sabbatic year. Conder, whose exi)lanations and com-
Comp. the evidence in Wieseler, Syn- ments are often untenable), from the
opse d. Evang. pp. 204, 205. province linUinea, but explained as
■^ We read of three places where John Beth-Oniyah, the 'house of shipping.'
baptized: 'the wilderness of Jud«a ' — (See Liicke, Comment, ii. d. Evang.
probably the traditional site near Jericho; Job. i. pp. 392. .393.)
.^non, near Salim, on the boundary * Considerable probability attaches to
between Samaria and Judaea (Condn-'s the tradition of the Basilideans, that our
Handbook of the Bible, p. 320); and Lord's Baptism took place on the 6th or
Beth-Abara, the modern Abarah, ' one of 10th of January. (See Bp. EUicotfs
the main Jordan fords, a little north of Histor. Lect. on the Life of our Lord
Beisan ' (u. s.). Jesus Christ, p. 105, note 2.
33
WHY DID JESUS COME TO BE BAPTIZED? 219
that look of (luict dignity, of tlic majesty of unsullied purity in the CHAP.
only Unfallen, Unsinning Man, made him forget even the express Xll
command of God, which had sent him from his solitude to preach and ^- — ^r — '
Ijaptize, and that very sign which had been given him by Avhich to
recognise the Messiah/ ^ In that Presence it only became to him a ^st. johni.
question of the more '■ worthy ' to the misunderstanding of the
nature of his special calling.
But Jesus, as He had not made haste, so was He not capal)le of
misunderstanding. To Him it was ' the fulfilling of all righteousness.'
From earliest ages it has been a question why Jesus went to be
baptized. The heretical Gospels put into the mouth of the Virgin-
Mother an invitation to go to that baptism, to which Jesus is
supposed to have replied by pointing to His own sinlessness, except
it might be on the score of ignorance, in regard to a limitation of
knowledge.^ Objections lie to most of the explanations offered by
modern writers. They include a bold denial of the fact of Jesus'
Baptism; the profane suggestion of collusion between John and
Jesus; or such suppositions, as that of His personal sinfulness, of
His coming as the Representative of a guilty race, or as the bearer of
the sins of others, or of acting in solidarity with His people — or else
to separate Himself from the sins of Israel; of His surrendering
Himself thereby unto death for man; of His purpose to do honour to
tlie baptism of John; or thus to elicit a token of His Messiahship;
or to bind Himself to the observance of the Law; or in this manner
to commence His Messianic Work ; or to consecrate Himself solemnly
to it; or, lastly, to receive the spiritual qualification for it.^ To these
and similar views must be added the latest conceit of Eenan,* who
arranges a scene between Jesus, who comes with some disciples, and
John, when Jesus is content for a time to grow in the shadow of
John, and to submit to a rite which was evidently so generally
acknowledged. But the most reverent of these explanations involve
a twofold mistake. They represent the Baptism of John as one of
repentance, and they imply an ulterior motive in the coming of
Christ to the banks of Jordan. But, as already shown, the Baptism
of John was in itself only a consecration to, and preparatory
1 Tlie superticuil objection on the sup- theories. Tlie views of Godef come
l)ose(l discreiiancy between St. Matthew nearest to wbat we regard as the true
iii. 14 and St. John i. 33 has been well exi^lanation.
put aside b.y Bp. EUicott (u. s. p. 107, ^ I must here, once for all, exi)ress my
note). astonishment tliat a book so frivolous
- Conip. Nicholson, Gospel according and fantastic in its treatment of the Life
to tiie Hebrews, \)\). 38, 92, 93. of Jesus, and so super-licial and often
•' It would occupy too much space to inaccurate, should have excited so much
give tlie names of the authors of these public attention.
280 FRO^I BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK initiation loi-, the new Covenant of tlie Kingdom. As applied to
II sinful men, it was indeed necessarily a 'baptism of repentance; ' but
"^^-"v^"^ not as applied to the sinless Jesus. Had it primarily and always
been a 'bai)tism of repentance,' He could not have submitted to it.
Again, and most important of all, we must not seek for any
ulterior motive in the coming of Jesus to this Baptism. He had no
ulterior uiotive of any kind: it was an act of simple submissive
obedience on the part of the Perfect One — and submissive obedience
has no motive beyond itself. It asks no reasons; it cherishes no
ulterior purpose. And thus it was ' the/?/ffilment of all righteousness. '
And it was in perfect harmony with all His previous life. Our dif-
ficulty here lies — if we are unbelievers, in thinking simply of the
Humanity of the Man of ]S"azareth; if we are believers, in making
abstraction of his Divinity. But thus much, at least, all must
concede, that the Gospels always present Him as the God-Man, in an
inseparable mystical union of the two natures, and that they present
to us the even more mysterious idea of His Self-exinanition, of the
voluntary obscuration of His Divinity, as part of His Humiliation.
Placing ourselves on this standpoint — Avliich is, at any rate, that of
the Evangelic narrative— we may arrive at a more correct view cf
this great event. It seems as if, in the Divine Self-exinanition, ap-
parently necessarily connected with the perfect human development
of Jes'is, some corresponding outward event were ever the occasion of
a fresh advance in the Messianic consciousness and work. The first
event of that kind had been his appearance in the Temple. These
two things then stood out vividly before Him — not in the ordinary
human, but in the Messianic sense: that the Temple was the House of
His Father, and that to be busy about it was His Life-work. With
this He returned to Nazareth, and in willing subjection to His
Parents fulfilled all righteousness. And still, as He grew in years, in
wisdom, and in favour with God and Man, this thought — rather this
burning consciousness, was the inmost spring of His Life. What this
business specially was, He knew not yet, and waited to learn; the
hoio and the ioheti of His life-consecration. He left unasked and
unanswered in the still waiting for Him. And in this also we see
the Sinless, the Perfect One,
When tidings of J('lin"s Baptism reached His home, there could
l)e no haste on His part. Even with knowledge of all that concerned
Joim's rehition to Him, there was in the 'fulfilment of all righteous-
ness' quiet waiting. The one question with Him was, as He after-
wards put it: 'The Baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or
CHRLST FULFILLING ALL RTnilTEOUSNESS. 281
of men?' (St, Matt. xxi. 25). That question once answered, there chap.
could be no longer doubt nor hesitation. He went — not for any Xll
ulterior purpose, nor from any other motive than that it was of God. ^— ^r^^-^
He went voluntarily, because it was such — and because ' it became
Ilim' in so doing 'to fulfil all righteousness.' There is this great
difference between His going to that Baptism, and afterwards into
the wilderness: in the former case. His act was of preconceived
purpose; in the latter it was not so, but 'He was driven' — without
l)revious purpose to that effect — under the constraining power ' of the
Spirit,' without premeditation and resolve of it; without even know-
ledge of its object. In the one case He was active, in the other
passive; in the one case He fulfilled righteousness, in the other His
righteousness was tried. But as, on His first visit to the Temple,
this consciousness about His Life-business came to Him in His Father's
House, ripening slowly and fully those long years of quiet submission
and growing wisdom and grace at Nazareth, so at His Baptism, with
the accompanying descent of the Holy Ghost, His abiding in Him,
and the heard testimony from His Father, the knowledge came to
Him, and, in and with ^ that knowledge, the qualification for the busi-
ness of His Father's House. In that hour He learned the when, and
in part the hoiv, of His Life-business; the latter to be still farther, and
from another aspect, seen in the wilderness, then in His life, in His
suffering, and, finally, in His death. In man the subjective and the
objective, alike intellectually and morally, are ever separate; in God
they are one. What He is, that He wills. And in the God-Man
also we must not separate the subjective and the objective. The
consciousness of the when and the hoiv of His Life-business was
necessarily accompanied, while He prayed, by the descent, and the
abiding in Him, of the Holy Ghost, and b}^ the testifying Voice from
heaven. His inner knowledge was real qualification — the forth-
bursting of His Power; and it was inseparably accompanied by
outward qualification, in what took place at His Baptisnu But the
first step to all was His voluntary descent to Jordan, and in it the
fulfilling of all righteousness. His previous life had been that of the
Perfect Ideal Israelite — believing, unquestioning, submissive — in pre-
paration for that which, in His thirteenth year, He liad learned as its
business. The Baptism of Christ was the last act of His private life;
and, emerging from its waters in prayer, He learned: ichen His
business was to commence, and hoiv it would be done.
^ But the latter must be tiriiily upheld.
iii. 21.
282 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
I5()<)K That one outstanding thought, then, 'I must be about My
'I Father's business,' vvliich had been the principle of His Xazaretli
- — (^ — ' life, had come to full ripeness when He knew that the cry, ' The
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,' was from God. The first great
question was now answered. His Father's business was the King-
dom of Heaven. It only remained for Him Ho be about it,' and in
this determination He went to submit to its initiatory rite of 13ai^-
tism. We have, as we understand it, distinct evidence — even if it
were not otherwise necessary to suppose this — that ' all the people
St. Luke had i)e('n ])aptized,' " when Jesus came to John. Alone the two met
— probal)ly for the first time in their lives. Over that which passed
between them Holy Scripture has laid the veil of reverent silence,
save as regards the beginning and the outcome of their meeting,
which it was necessary for us to know. When Jesus came, John
kncAv Him not. And even when He knew Him, that was not enough.
Not remembrance of what he had heard and of juist transactions, nor
the overwhelming power of that spotless Purity and Majesty of will-
ing submission, were sufficient. For so great a witness as that which
John was to bear, a present and visible demonstration from heaven
was to ])e given. Not that God sent the Spirit-Dove, or heaven
uttered its voice, for the purpose of giving this as a sign to John.
These vuanifestations were necessary in themselves, and, we might
say, would have taken place quite irrespective of the Baptist. But,
while necessary in themselves, they were also to be a sign to John.
And this may perhaps explain why one Gospel (that of St. John)
seems to describe the scene as enacted before the Baptist, whilst
others (St. Matthew and St. Mark) tell it as if only visible to Jesus.'
The one bears reference to ' the record,' the other to the deeper and
absolutely necessary fact which underlay < the record.' And, beyond
this, it may help us to perceive at least one aspect of what to man is
the miraculous: as in itself the higher Necessary, with casual and
secondary manifestation to man.
We can understand how what he knew of Jesus, and what he
now saw and heard, must have overwhelmed John with the sense of
Christ's transcendentally higher dignity, and led him to hesitate
about, if not to refuse, administering to Him the rite of Baptism.'^
Not because it was ' the baptism of repentance,' but because he stood
' The account by St. Luke seems to me thus met.
to incluile both. The common objection ^ Theexpre.ssionSzfK-ojAufj'fSt. Matt,
on the score of the supposed divergence iii. U: 'John forbade Him'jimiilies earn-
between St. John and the Synoptists is est resistance (comp. Meyer ad locum).
THE BAPTIST IN lUESENCE OF THE CHRIST. 283
ill the presence of Iliiu ' the latchct of Whose shoes ' he was 'not chap.
wortliy to k)osc.' Had he not so felt, the narrative wouhl not have Xll
been psychologically true; and, had it not been recorded, there ■— — v-^-^
would have been serious difficulty to our reception of it. And yet,
withal, in so ' forbidding ' Him, and even suggesting his own baptism
by Jesus, John forgot and misunderstood his mission. John himself
was never to be baptized; he only held open the door of the new
Kingdom; himself entered it not, and he that was least in that
Kingdom was greater than he. Such lowliest place on earth seems
ever conjoined with greatest work for God. Yet this misunder-
standing and suggestion on the part of John might almost be
regarded as a temptation to Christ. Not, perhaps. His first, nor yet
this His first victory, since the ' sorrow ' of His Parents about His
absence from them when in the Temple must to the absolute sub-
missiveness of Jesus have been a temptation to turn aside from His
path, all the more felt in the tenderness of His years, and the inex-
perience of a first public appearance. He then overcame by the
clear consciousness of His Life-business, which could not be contra-
vened by any apparent call of duty, however specious. And He now
overcame by falling back upon the simi)le and clear principle which
had brought him to Jordan: 'It becometh us to fulfil all righteous-
ness.' Thus, simply putting aside, without argument, the objection
of the Baptist, He followed the Hand that pointed Him to the open
door of 'the Kingdom.'
Jesus stepped out of the baptismal waters 'praying.'* One MSt. Luke
prayer, the only one which He taught His disciples, recurs to our
minds. ^ We must here individualise and emphasise in their special
application its opening sentences: ' Our Father Which art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy Name! Thy Kingdom come! Thy will be done in
earth, as it is in heaven! ' The first thought and the first petition had
been the conscious ontcome of the Temple-visit, ripened during the
long years at Nazareth. The others were now the full expression of
His submission to Baptism. He knew His Mission; He had con-
secrated Himself to it in His Baptism; ' Father Which art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy Name. ' The unlimited petition for the doing of
God's Will on earth with the same absoluteness as in heaven, ivas
His self-consecration: the prayer of His Baptism, as the other was its
1 It seems to me that the ])rayer which prayer has, of course, no ajiplication to
the Lord tauajht His disciples must liave Him, but is His aiiplication of the doc-
had its root in, and talven its start from, trine of the Kingdom to our state and
His own inner Life. At the same time it wants,
is adapted to our wants. Much in that
iii. 21
284 FROM BETHLEHEM TO JORDAN.
BOOK confession. And the ' Iiallo\v('(l ))e Thy Name ' was the eulogy, because
il the ripened and experimental principle of His Life. How this Will,
^-^■"^Y connected with 'the Kingdom,' was to be done l)y Him, and ivJwn,
He was to learn after His lJai)tism. But strange, that the petition
wliicli followed those which must have been on the lii)S of Jesus in
that hour should have been the subject of thc^r.s-^ temptation or assault
by the Enemy; strange also, that the other two temptations should
have rolled back the force of the assault upon the two great ex-
Ijeriences He had gained, and which formed the burden of the
petitions, 'Thy Kingdom come; Hallowed be Thy Name.' Was it
then so, that all the assaults which Jesus bore only concerned and
tested the reality of a past and already attained experience, save
those last in the Garden and on the Cross, which were ' sufierings '
by which He ' was.' made perfect'?
But, as we have already seen, sucli inward forth-bursting of
Messianic consciousness could not l)e separated from objective qualifi-
cation for, and testimony to it. As the })rayer of Jesus winged
heavenwards. His solemn response to the call of the Kingdom — ' Here
am I ; ' ' Lo, I come to do Thy Will ' — the answer came, which at the
same time was also the predicted sign to the Baptist. Heaven seemed
cleft, and in bodily shape like a dove, the Holy Ghost descended
on ^ Jesus, remaining on him. It was as if, symbolically, in the
1 St. Pet. words of St. Peter," that Baptism had been a new flood, and He Who
now emerged from it, the Noah — or rest, and comtbrt-ln-inger — Who
took into His Ark the dove bearing the olive-branch, indicative of a
new life. Here, at these waters, was the Kingdom, into which Jesus
had entered in the fulfilment of all righteousness; and from them he
emerged as its Heaven-designated, Heaven-qualified, and Heaven-
proclaimed King. As such he had received the fulness of the Spirit
for His Messianic Work — a fulness abiding in Him — that out of it
we might receive, and grace for grace. As such also the voice from
Heaven proclaimed it, to Him and to John: 'Thou art ("this is')
My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.' Tlic ratification of
the great Davidic promise, the announcement of the fulfilment of its
predictive import in Psalm ii.'^ was God's solemn declaration of Jesus
1 Whether or not we adopt the reading come help. It paraphrases : 'Beloved as
£/5 avTov in St. Mark i. 10, the remnin- a son to his fatlier art Thou to Me.' Keim
inrj of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus is re,i:;ar(lri the words, ' Thou art my beloved
clearly expressed in St. John i. 32. Son,' ifec, as a mixture of Is. xlii. 1 and
2 liere the Tarjz;um on Ps. ii. 7, which Ps. ii. 7. I cannot agree with this view,
is evidently intended to Aveaisen the thouijh this history is the fulfilment of
Messianic interpretation, gives us wel- tl)e priMliction in Isaiali.
lii. 21
THE DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT AND THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN. 285
as tlio Mcssiali, Ills i)ii])li(i proeJamatioR of it, and the Ijeginiiiiig of CHAP.
Jesus' Messiauie work. And so the Baptist understood it, when he ^n
' bare reeord ' that He was ' the Son of God. ' " " — ~^. '
Quite intelligible as all this is, it is certainly miraculous; not, ^stJ"ii'U.
indeed, in the sense of conti'avention of the Laws of Nature (illogical
as that phrase is), but in that of having nothing analogous in our
present knowledge and experience. But would we not have expected
the sui^ra-empirical, the directly heavenly, to attend such an event —
that i^, if the narrative itself bo true, and Jesus what the Gospels
re})re8ent llini? To reject, therefore, the narrative because of its
supra-enii)irical accompaniment seems, after all, a sad inversion of
reasoning, and begging the question. But, to go a step further:
if there be no reality in the narrative, whence the invention of the
legendi' It certainly had no basis in contemporary Jewish teaching;
and, equally certainly, it would not have spontaneously occurred to
Jewish minds. Nowhere in Rabbinic writings do we find any hint
of a Baptism of the Messiah, nor of a descent upon llim of the
Spirit in the form of a dove. Rather would such views seem,
a priori, repugnant to Jewish thinking. An attempt has, however,
been made in the direction of identifying two traits in this
narrative with Rabbinic notices. The ' Voice from heaven' has been
reprcHcnted as the 'Bath-Qol,' or ' Daughter- Voice, ' of which we read
in Rabbinic writings, as bringing heaven's testimony or decision
to perplexed or hardly bestead Rabbis. And it has been further as-
serted, that among the Jews ' the dove ' was regarded as the emblem
of the Spirit. In taking notice of these assertions some warmth of
language may be forgiven.
We make bold to maintain that no. one, who has impartially ex-
amined the matter,^ could find any real analogy between the so-called
llath-Qol, and the ' Voice from heaven' of which record is made in the
New Testament. However opinions might differ, on one thing all
were agreed: the Batli-Qol had come after the voice of prophecy and
the Holy Ghost had ceased in Israel," and, so to speak, had taken, '. jer. sot.
their place. ^ But at the Baptism of Jesus the descent of the Holy Yoma'gfc;
1 Dr. Wilnsche's Rabbinic notes on translation and profane misinterpretation
tlic P>iith-(,)ol (Neue Beitr. pp. 22, 23) are of the words ' She lias been more ri<>;h-
lakcn IVoni Hamburger's Real-Eucyivl. teons' (Gea. xxxviii. 2()) occur (Jer.
(Abtli. ii. i)p. 92 etc.)." Sot. ix. 7), at all bears out this suiiges-
- IhtmhKrr/er, indeed maintains, on tion. It is quite untenable in view of
the iiTOuiul of Mace. 23 6, that occasionally the distinct statements (Jer. Sot. ix. 14;
it was identified with tlie Holy Spirit. Sot. 48 b; and Sanh. 11 a), that after the
But carefully read, neither this passaii-e, cessation of the Holy Spirit the Bath-
uor the other, in which the same mis- Qol took His place.
Sotah 38 a\
48 /( ; Sanh.
11 a
286
FROM I]ETITLElIR:\r TO JORDAN.
IJOOK
Jl
Ghost ivas accompanied by the Voire froin Heaven. Even on this
ti'i-oiind, therefore, it could nut luive been the Rabbinic Bath-Qol.
J) lit, further, this ' Daughter- Voice ' was regarded rather as the echo of,
than as the Voice of God itself^ (Toseph. Sanh, xi. 1). The occasions
on which this ' Daughter-Voice ' was supposed to have been heard are
so various and sometimes so shocking, both to common and to moral
sense, that a comparison with the Gospels is wholly out of the question.
And here it also deserves notice, that references to this Bath-Qol
increase the farther we remove from the age of Christ.^
We have reserved to the last the consideration of the statement,
that among the Jews the Holy Spirit was presented under the symbol
of a dove. It is admitted, that there is no support for this idea
either in the Old Testament or in the writings of Philo {Lticke,
Evang. Joli. i. pp. 425, 426); that, indeed, such animal symbolism of
the Divine is foreign to the Old Testament. But all the more
confident appeal is made to Rabbinic writings. The suggestion was,
apparently, first made by Wetstein.'' It is dwelt npon with much
confidence by Gfrorer^ and others, as evidence of the mythical origin
I'jahrh. of the Gospels;^ it is repeated by WUnsche, and even reproduced by
vof.u.^plisa writers who, had they known the real state of matters, would not
' Nov. Test,
i. p. 268.
' Comp. on the subject Pinner in his
Introduction to tlie tractate Beralviioth.
'•^ In the Targum Onkelos it is not at
all mentioned." In the Targum Pseudo-
Jon, it occurs four times (Gen. xxxviii.
2(j; Numlj. xxi. G; Deut. xxviii. 15;
xxxiv. 5), and four times in the Targum
on the Hagiographa (twice in Ecclesi-
astes, once in Lamentations, and once in
Esther). In Meclillta and Sii)hra it does
not occur at all, and in 8iphre only once,
in the absurd legend that the Bath-Qol
was heard a distance of twelve times
twelve miles proclaiming the death of
Moses (ed. Friedmann, p. U!) b). In the
Mishnah it is only twice mentioned (Yeb.
xvi. 6, where the sound of a Bath-Qol is
supposed to be sufficient attestation of a
man's death to enable his wife to marry
again; and in Abhoth vi. 2, where it is
impossible to uiulerstand the language
otherwise tlian figuratively). In the Jeru-
salem Talmud tlie Bath-Qol is referred
to twenty times, and in llie Babylon
Talmud sixty-nine times. Sometinu's tlie
Bath-Qol gives sentence in favour of a
poimlar Rabbi, sometimes it attempts to
decide controversies, or bears witness;
or else it is said every day to proclaim :
Such an one's daughter is destined for
such an one (Moed Kat. 18 h\ Sot. 2 a;
Sanh. 22 a). Occasionally it utters
curious or profane interiu-etations of
Scripture (as in Yoma 22 b\ Sot. 10 i'/),
or silly legends, as in regard to the
insect Yattush which was to torture Titus
(Gitt. 56 6), or as warning against a
place where a hatchet had fallen into the
water, descending for seven years v.ithout
reaching tlie bottom. Indeed, so strong
became the feeling against this super-
stition, that the more rational Rabbis
protested against any appeal to the Bath-
Qol (Baba Metsia59"6).
^ The force of Gfrbrer's attacks upon
the Gospels lies in his cumulative at-
temjjts to prove that the individual
miraculous facts recorded in the Gospels
are based ujion Jewish notions. It is,
therefore, necessary to examine each of
them sei)arately, and such examination,
if careful and conscientious, shows that
his ([notations are often untrustworthy,
and ills conclusions fallacies. None the
less taking are they to those who are
imperfectly acquainted with Rabbinic
literature. Wiinsche's Talmiidic and
Midrashic Notes on the N.T. (Gottingen,
lS78j are also too often misleading.
MISTAKEN JEWISH ANALOGIES.
287
have lent their authority to it. Of tlie two passages l3y whidi this
strange liyi)othesis is supported, that in the Targuui on Cant. ii. 12
may at onec be dismissed, as dating considerably after the close of
the Talmud. There remains, therefore, only the one passage in the
Talmud,' which is generally thus quoted: ' The Spirit of God moved
on the face of the waters, like a dove.' '' That this quotation is
incomi)lete, omitting the most important part, is only a light charge
against it. For, if fulh' made, it would only the more clearly be
seen to be inapplicable. The passage (Chag. 15 a) treats of the
supposed distance between 'the upper and the lower waters,' which
is stated to amount to only three llngerbreadths. This is proved
by a reference to Gen. i. 2, where the Spirit of God is said to In-ood
over the face of the waters, 'just as a dove broodeth over her young
without touching them.' It will be noticed, that the comparison
is not between the Spirit and the dove, but between the closeness ^^ith
which a dove broods over her young without touching them, and
the supposed proximity of the Spirit to the lower waters without
touching them.' But, if any doubt could still exist, it would be
removed by the fact that in a parallel passage,'' the expression used
is not 'dove' but 'that bird.' Thus much for this oft-misquoted
passage. But we go farther, and assert, that the dove was not the
symbol of the Holy Spirit, but that of Israel. As such it is so
nnivcrsally adopted as to have become almost historical.'* If, there-
fore. Rabbinic illustration of the descent of the Holy Spirit with the
visi])le appearance of a dove must be sought for, it would lie in the
acknowledgment of Jesus as the ideal typical Israelite, the Repre-
sentative of His People.
The lengthened details, which have been necessar^'for the exposure
of the mythical theory, will not have been without use, if they carry
to the mind the conviction that this history had no basis in existing
Jewish belief. Its origin cannot, therefore, be rationally accounted
for — except by the answer which Jesus, when He came to Jordan,
gave to that grand fundamental question: ' The Baptism of John,
whence was it? From Heaven, or of men?""
THAI'.
XII
" Cliag. 15 a
^ Farrar,
Life of
Christ, i,
p. 117
1 The sayinj; in Cliaa;. 15 a is of Ben
Soma, who is described in Rabbinic lit-
erature as tainted with Christian views,
and whose belief in the i)ossibilit}' of the
supernatural birth of the Messiah is so
coarsely satirised in the Talmud. Eabbi
Loin (Lebensalter. p. 58) suggests that
in Ben Soma's tigure of the dove there
may have been a Christian reminiscence.
■ Ber. R. 2
^ Comp. the
loiiK ill us- •
tratiiiiis iu
the Hidr.
on Sons i.
15: Sanh.
95 (I : Ber.
E. oil;
Yalkiit on
Ps. Iv. 7.
and other
passages
« St. Matt.
xxi. 25
-Booh HI.
THE ASCENT:
FROM THE RIYEU JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF
TRANSFIGURATION.
n: ^DT immi^r x'^'i:: nnx n":p,-i ?r I'm::; Ni'i^s nnxr c^p?o :i3
c'Din:D ':;?vr:^"i c^n^::: ■'i:ri rr,i-iD diid
' Tn every passage of Scripture where tliou findest the Majesty of God, thou also
findest close by His Condescensiou (Humility). So it is writteu down in the Law
[Deut. X. 17, followed by verse 18], repeated in the Prophets [Is. Ivii. 15], and
reiterated in the Hagiographa [Ps. Ixviii. 4, followed by verse 5].' — Megill. 31 a.
THE GREAT ANTITHESIS. 291
CHAPTER I.
THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS.
(St. Matt. iv. 1-11; St. Mark i. 12, 13; St. Luke iv. 1-13.)
The proclamation and inauguration of the ' Kingdom of Heaven ' at CHAP.
such a time, and under such circumstances, was one of the great ^
antitheses of history. With reverence be it said, it is only God Who ^-^^.^^
would thus begin His Kingdom, A similar, even greater antithesis,
was the commencement of the Ministry of Christ. From the Jordan
to the wilderness with its wild beasts; from the devout acknowledg-
ment of the Baptist, the consecration and filial prayer of Jesus, the
descent of the Holy Spirit, and the heard testimony of Heaven, to
the utter forsakenness, the felt want and weakness of Jesus, and the
assaults of the Devil — no contrast more startling could be conceived.
And yet, as we think of it, what followed upon the Baptism, and that
it so followed, was necessary, as regarded the Person of Jesus, His
Work, and that which was to result from it.
Psychologically, and as regarded the Work of Jesus, even reverent
negative Critics ^ have perceived its higher need. That at His
consecration to the Kingship of the Kingdom, Jesus should have
become clearly conscious of all that it implied in a world of sin;
that the Divine method by which that Kingdom should be estab-
lished, should have been clearly brought out, and its reality tested;
and that the King, as Representative and Founder of the Kingdom,
should have encountered and defeated the representative, founder,
and holder of the opposite power, ' the prince of this world ' — these
arc thoughts which must arise in everyone who believes in any Mis-
sion of the Chi'ist. Yet this only as, after the events, we have
learned to know the character of that Mission, not as we might have
preconceived it. We can understand, how a Life and Work such as
' No otiiev terms would correctly de- Strauss, or tlie picturesque inaccuracies
scribe tlie book of Keim to which I spe- of a Hausratii, no serious student need be
cially refer. How widely it differs, not told. Perhaps on that ground it is only
only from the sujierticial trivialities of a the more dangerous.
Reuan, but from the stale arguments of
292 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK thill of Jesus, would commence with ' the Temptation,' but none other
in lluin His. Judaism never conceived such an idea; because it never
^- — ^. ' conceived a Messiah like Jesus. It is quite true that long previous
Biblical teaching, and even the psychological necessity of the case,
must have pointed to temptation and victory as the condition of
spiritual greatness. It could not have been otherwise in a world
hostile to God, nor yet in man, whose conscious choice determines his
position. No crown of victory without previous contest, and that
proportionately to its brightness; no moral ideal without personal
attainment and probation. The patriarchs had been tried and proved ;
so had Moses, and all the heroes of faith in Israel. And Rabbinic
legend, enlarging upon the Biblical narratives, has much to tell of the
original envy of the Angels; of the assaults of Satan upon Abraham,
when about to oifer up Isaac; of attempted resistance by the Angels
to Israel's reception of the Law; and of the final vain endeavour of
Satan to take away the soul of Moses. ^ Foolish, repulsive, and even
blasphemous as some of these legends are, thus much at least clearly
stood out, that spiritual trials must precede spiritual elevation. In
their own language: 'The Holy One, blessed be His Name, does not
elevate a man to dignity till He has first tried and searched him; and
a Bemidb. if hc stauds in temptation, then He raises him to dignity. ' ^
warsh. vol. Thus far as regards man. But in reference to the Messiah there
unJ's 5 and is uot a hint of any temptation or assault by Satan. It is of such
tom""^ ° importance to mark this clearly at the outset of this wonderful history,
that proof must be ofiered even at this stage. In whatever manner
negative critics may seek to account for the introduction of Christ's
Temptation at the commencement of His Ministry, it cannot have
been derived from Jewish legend. The ' mythical ' interpretation
of the Gospel-narratives breaks down in this almost more manifestly
than in any other instance.^ So far from any idea obtaining that
Satan was to assault the Messiah, in a well-known passage, which
''Yaikuton has been previously quoted,'' the Arch-enemy is represented as
vol. li. p. 56 overwhelmed and falling on his face at sight of Him, and owning
1 On the temptations of Abraham see esi)ecially the truly horrible story of the
Book of .Jubilees, ch. xvii. ; Sanh. 89 b death of Moses in liebarR. 11 (ed. Wars/i.
(and ditlerently but not less blasphe- iii. p. 22 a and //). But I am not aware
mously in Pirke de R. Elies. .31) ; Pirke de of any temptation of Moses by Satan.
R. Elies. 26, 31, .32 (where also about ^ fhus Gfrdrer can only hope that
Satan's temptation of Sarah, who dies in some Jewish parallelism may yet be dis-
consecpience of his tidings); Ab. de R. N. covered (!); while Keim suggests, of
33; Ber. R. 32, 56; Yalkut. i. c. 98, p. 28 course without a tittle of evidence, ad-
1i; and Tanchuma, where the story is ^- ditions by the early Jewish Christians,
lated with most repulsive details. As to But irhence MvXwhy these imaginary ad-
Moses, see for example Sliablj. 89 r/; and ditions?
THE MESSIAH OF JUDAISM THE ANTI-CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 293
his complete defeat.' On another point in this history we lind tlie CHAP.
same inversion of thought current in Jewish legend. In the Com- l
mentary just referred to," the placing of Messiah on the pinnacle of ^ — -r — '
the Temple, so far from being of Satanic temptation, is said to mark " "• »• «c)i- '^
the hour of deliverance, of Messianic proclamation, and of Gentile
voluntary submission. ' Our Rabbis give this tradition: In the hour
when King Messiah cometh, He standeth upon the roof of the Sanc-
tuary, and proclaims to Israel, saying. Ye poor (suffering), the time
of your redemption draweth nigh. And if ye believe, rejoice in My
Light, which is risen upon you Is. Ix. 1 upon you only
.... Is. Ix. 2 In that hour will the Holy One, blessed be His
Name, make the Light of the Messiah and of Israel to shine forth;
and all shall come to the Light of the King Messiah and of Israel,
as it is written Is. Ix. 3 And they shall come and lick
the dust from under the feet of the King Messiah, as it is written,
Is. xlix. 23 And all shall come and fall on their faces before
Messiah and before Israel, and say. We will be servants to Him and
to Israel. And every one in Israel shall have 2,800 servants,^ as it
is written, Zech. viii. 23.' One more quotation from the same
Commentary:'' 'In that hour, the Holy One, blessed be His Name, >>\x.b.
exalts the Messiah to the heaven of heavens, and spreads over Him therdown
of the splendour of His glory because of the nations of the world,
because of the wicked Persians. They say to Him, Ephraim, Messiah,
our Righteousness, execute judgment upon them, and do to them
what Thy soul desireth.'
In another respect these quotations are important. They show
that such ideas were, indeed, present to the Jewish mind, but in a
sense opposite to the Gospel-narratives. In other words, they were
regarded as the rightful manifestation of Messiah's dignity; whereas
in the Evangelic record they are presented as the suggestions of
Satan, and the Temptation of Christ. Thus the Messiah of Judaism
is the Anti-Christ of the Gospels. But if the narrative cannot be
traced to Rabbinic legend, may it not be an adaptation of an Old
Testament narrative, such as the account of the forty days' fast of
Moses on the mount, or of Elijah in the wilderness? Viewing the
Old Testament in its unity, aiul the Messiah as the apex in the
column of its history, we admit — or rather, we must expect —
1 Keim (Jesu von Naz. i. b, p. 564) '^ The number is thus reached : as there
seems not to have perused the whole are seventu nations, and feu of eaoii are
passaft'e, and, quoting it at second-liand, to tal<e hold on each of l\w four corners
has misapplied it. The passage (Yalkut of a Jew's garment, we have 70 x 10 x 4
on Is. Ix. 1) has been given before. ^2,800.
294 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK throughout points of correspondence between Moses, Elijah, and the
III Messiah. In fact, these may be described as marking the three
^ — ~Y — ' stages in the history of the Covenant. Moses was its giver, Elijah
its restorer, the Messiah its renewer and perfectcr. And as such they
all had, in a sense, a similar outward consecration for their work.
But that neither Moses nor Elijah was assailed by the Devil, consti-
tutes not the only, though a vital, difference between the fast of Moses
and Elijah, and that of Jesus. Moses fasted in the middle, Elijah at
the end, Jesus at the beginning of His ministry. Moses fasted in
the Presence of God;^ Elijah alone; Jesus assaulted by the Devil.
Moses had been called up by God; Elijah had gone forth in the
bitterness of his own spirit; Jesus was driven by the Spirit. Moses
failed after his forty days' fast, when in indignation he cast the Tables
of the Law from him; Elijah failed before his forty days' fast; Jesus
was assailed for forty days and endured the trial. Moses was
angry against Israel; Elijah despaired of Israel; Jesus overcame for
Israel.
Nor must we forget that to each the trial came not only in his
human, but in his representative capacity — as giver, restorer, or
perfecter of the Covenant. When Moses and Elijah failed, it was
not only as individuals, but as giving or restoring the Covenant.
And when Jesus conquered, it was not only as the Unfallen and
Perfect Man, but as the Messiah. His Temptation and Victory have
therefore a twofold aspect: the general human and the Messianic,
and these two are closely connected. Hence we draw also this happy
inference: in whatever Jesus overcame, we can overcome. Each
victory which He has gained secures its fruits for us who are His
disciples (and this alike objectively and subjectively). We walk in
His foot-prints; we can ascend by the rock-hewn steps which His
Agony has cut. He is the perfect man; and as each temptation
marks a human assault (assault on humanity), so it also marks a
human victory (of humanity). But He is also the Messiah; and
alike the assault and the victory were of the Messiah. Thus, each
victory of 'humanity becomes a victory for humanity; and so is ful-
filled, in this respect also, that ancient hymn of royal victory, 'Thou
hast ascended on high; Thou hast led captivity captive; Thou hast
received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that Jehovah God
a Pa ixviii. iiiiu-ht dwcll auiong them.' " ^
18
1 Tlie Rabbis have it, that a man must the Mount he lived of ' the bread of the
accommodate liimseif to tlie ways of the Torali ' (Shem. R. 47).
place where he is. Wiieii Moses was on - Tlie (luotation in Eph. iv. S resem-
WAS THE TEMPTATION REAL AND OUTWAliD ? 295
But even so, there arc other considerations necessarily preliminary CHAP,
to the study of one of the most important parts in the life of Christ. I
They concern these two questions, so closely connected that they can "-^f '
scarcely be kept quite apart: Is the Evangelic narrative to be re-
garded as the account of a real and outward event ? And if so, how
was it possible — or, in what sense can it be asserted — that Jesus
Christ, set before us as the Son of God, was ^ tempted of the Devil ' ?
All subsidiary questions run up into these two.
As regards the reality and outwardness of the temptation of Jesus,
several suggestions may be set aside as unnatural, and ex post facto
attempts to remove a felt difficulty. Renans frivolous conceit
scarcely deserves serious notice, that Jesus went into the wilderness
in order to imitate the Baptist and others, since such solitude was at
the time regarded as a necessary preparation for great things. We
equally dismiss as more reverent, but not better grounded, such sug-
gestions as that an interview there with the deputies of the Sanhedrin,
or with a Priest, or with a Pharisee, formed the historical basis of the
Satanic Temptation; or that it was a vision, a dream, the reflection
of the ideas of the time; or that it was a parabolic form in which
Jesus afterwards presented to His disciples His conception of the
Kingdom, and how they were to preach it.' Of all such explanations
it may be said, that the narrative does not warrant them, and that
they would probably never have been suggested, if their authors had
been able simply to accept the Evangelic history. But if so it
would have been both better and Aviser wholly to reject (as some have
done) the authenticity of this, as of the whole early history of the Life
of Christ, rather than transform what, if true, is so unspeakably
grand into a series of modern platitudes. And yet (as Keim has felt)
it seems impossible to deny, that such a transaction at the beginning
of Christ's Messianic Ministry is not only credible, but almost a
necessity; and that such a transaction must have assumed the form
of a contest with Satan. Besides, throughout the Gospels there is not
only allusion to this first great conflict (so that it does not belong only to
the early history of Christ's Life), but constant reference to the power
of Satan in the world, as a kingdom opposed to that of God, and of
which the Devil is the King.^ And the reality of such a kingdom of
evil no earnest mind would call in question, nor would it pronounce cl^
bles the rendering of the Targum (see vidual writers who have broached these
Delitzsch Comm. ii^ d. Psalter, vol. i. p. and other equally untenable hypotheses.
503). '•-' The former notably in St. Jtatt. xii.
1 We refrain from no.niing the indi- 25-28; St. Luke xi. 17 &c. The import
29G
FROM JOIJDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" Deut.
xxxiv. 1-3
priori aii'ainst the personality of its king. Reasoning a jjriori, its
credibility rests on the same kind of, only, perluijjs, on more generally
patent, evidence as that of the Ijeneficent Anthor of all Good, so that
— with reverence be it said — we have, apart from Holy Scripture, and,
as regards one branch of the argument, as much evidence for l^elieving
in a personal Satan, as in a Personal God. Holding, therefore, by the
reality of this transaction, and finding it equally impossible to trace.it
to Jewish legend, or to explain it by the coarse hypothesis of misunder-
standing, exaggeration, and the like, this one question arises: Might
it not have been a purely inward transaction, — or does the narrative
present an account of what was objectively real ?
At the outset, it is only truthful to state, that the distinction does
not seem of quite so vital importance as it has appeared to some,
who have used in regard to it the strongest language.^ On the
other hand it must be admitted that the narrative, if naturally
interpreted, suggests an outward and real event, not an inward trans-
action; ^ that there is no other instance of ecstatic state or of vision
recorded in the life of Jesus, and that (as Bishop £'^?/cof Hias shown), ^
the special expressions used are all in accordance with the natural view.
To this we add, that some of the objections raised — notably that
of the impossibility of showing from one spot all the kingdoms of the
world — cannot bear close investigation. For no rational interpretation
would insist on the absolute literality of this statement, any more than
on that of the survey of the ivhole extent of the land of Israel by Moses
from Pisgah."" * All the requirements of the narrative would be met l:)y
supposing Jesus to have been placed on a very high mountain, whence
south, the land of Judaea and far-ofi'Edom; east, the swelling plains
towards Euphrates; north, snow-capped Lebanon; and west, the
cities of Herod, the coast of the Gentiles, and beyond, the wide sea
dotted w^ith sails, gave far-ofl' prospect of the kingdoms of this world.
To His piercing gaze all their grandeur would seem to unroll, and
pass before Him like a moving scene, in which the sparkle of beauty
and wealth dazzled the eye, the sheen of arms glittered in the far
of this, as looking back upon the history
of the Temptation, has not alwaj's been
sufficiently recognised. In regard to
Satan and his power many passages will
occur to the reader, such as St. Matt. vi.
13; xii. 22; xiii. 19, 25, .39; xxvi. 41; St.
Luke X. 18; xxii. 3, 28, 31 : St. John viii.
44; xii. 31; xiii. 27; xiv. 30; xvi. 11.
1 So Bishop Ellicott, Histor. Lectures,
p. 111.
^ Professor Godefs views on tliis sub-
ject are very far fi'om satisfactory,
whether exegetically or dogmatically.
Happily, tliey fall far short of the notion
of any internal solicitation to sin in the
case of Jesus, which Bishop EUicott so
justlv denounces in strongest language.
•^ U. s. p. 110, note 2.
* According to Siphre fed. Friedmnnn
p. 149 a and b), God showed to Moses
Israel in its hajipiness, wars, and misfor-
tunes; the whole world from the Day of
Creation to that of the Resurrection;
Paradise, and Gehenna.
TILE TEJMI'TATIUN BOTH, 'OL'TWiUiD ' ^VND 'INW.Uip.' 297
distiuiei', the ti'amp of armed men, the hum of busy cities, and the CHAP.
sound of numy voices fell on the ear like the far-otf rush of the sea, I
while the restful harmony of thouiiht, or the music of art, held and ^^-^r^-^
bewitched the senses — and all seemed to pour forth its fullness in
tribute of homage at His feet in Whom all is perfect, and to Whom
all belongs.
But in saying this we have already indicated tliat, in such circum-
stances, the boundary-line between the outward and the inward must
have been both narrow and faint. Indeed, with (.'hrist it can scarcely
be conceived to have existed at such a moment. The ])ast,tlie present,
and the future must have been open before Him like a map unrolling.
Shall we venture to say that such a vision was only inward, and not
outwardly and objectively real? In truth we are using terms Avhich
have no application to Christ. If we may venture once more to speak
in this wise of the Divine Being: With Him what we view as the
opposite poles of subjective and objective are absolutely one. To go
a step further: many even of our temi)tations are only (contrastedly)
inward, for these two reasons, that they have their basis or else their
point of contact within us, and that from the limitations of our bodily
condition we do not see the enemy, nor can take active part in the
scene around. But in both respects it was not so with the Christ.
If this ])e so, the whole question seems almost irrelevant, and the dis-
tinction oi outward and inward inapplicable to the present case. Or
rather, we must keep by these two landmarks: First, it Avas not in-
ward in the sense of being merely subjective; but it was all real — a
real assault by a real Satan, really under these three forms, and it con-
stituted a real Temptation to Christ. Secondly, it was not merely
outward in the sense of l)eing only a present assault l)y Satan; Init it
must have reached beyond the outward into the inward, and have had
for its further object that of influencing the future Work of Christ, as
it stood out ])efore His Mind.
A still more difficult and solemn question is this: In what respect
could Jesus Christ, the Perfect Sinless Man, the Son of God, have
been tempted of the Devil? That He was so tempted is of the very
essence of this narrative, confirmed throughout His after-life, and
laid down as a fundamental principle in the teaching and faith of the
Church.'' On the other hand, temptation without the inward corre- »Heb. iv.
spondence of existent sin is not only unthinkable, so far as man is
concerned," but temptation without the possibility of sin seems unreal ^^^^^ James
— a kind of Docetism.^ Yet the very passage of Holy Scripture in
' The heres}' which represents the Body of Christ as only apparent, not real.
15
b St. James
i. 14
298 FROM JOUDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK wliich Christ's equality witliiis as regards all temptation is expressed,
III also emi)liatically excepts from it this one particular sin,^ not only in
^- — -, ' the sense that Christ actually did not sin, nor merely in this, that ^our
»^Hebr. iv. coucupisceuce '" had no part in His temptations, but emphatically in
this also, that the notion of sin has to be wholly excluded from our
thoughts of Christ's temptations.'
To obtain, if we can, a clearer understanding of this subject, two
points must be kept in view. Christ's was real, thougli unfaJlen
Human Nature; and Christ's Human was in inseparable union with
His Divine Nature. We are not attempting to explain these mysteries,
nor at present to vindicate them; we are only arguing from the
standpoint of the Gospels and of Apostolic teaching, which proceeds
on these premisses — and proceeding on them, we are trying to under-
stand the Temptation of Christ. Now it is clear, that human nature,
that of Adam before his fall, was created botli sinless and i)eccable.
If Christ's Human Nature was not like ours, but, morally, like that
of Adam before his fall, then must it likewise have been both sinless
and in itself peccable. We say, in itself — for there is a great differ-
ence between the statement that human nature, as Adam and
Christ had it, was capable of sinning, and this other, that Christ
was peccable. From the latter the Christian mind instinctively re-
coils, even as it is metaphysically impossible to imagine the Son of
God pecca])le. Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself human nature
witli all its infirmities and weaknesses — but without the moral taint of
the Fall: without sin. It was human nature, in itself capable of sin-
ning, but not having sinned. If He was absolutely sinless. He must
have been unfallen. The position of the first Adam was that of being
capable of not sinning, not that of being incapable of sinning. The Sec-
ond Adam also had a nature capable of not sinning, but not incapable
of sinning. This explains the possil)ility of ' temptation ' or assault upon
Him, just as Adam could be tempted before there was in him any in-
ward consensus to it.'^ The first Adam would have been 'perfected ' —
or passed from the capability of not sinning to the incapability of sin-
ning— by obedience. That ' obedience ' — or absolute submission to the
Will of God — was the grand outstanding characteristic of Christ's work;
1 Comp. Richm, Lehrbegr. d. Hebr. the same level with us in regard to all
Br. p. 364. But I cannot agree with the temptations have been exempt from sin?
views which this learned theologian ex- '■^ The latter was already sin. Yet
presses. Indeed, it seems to me that he ' temptation ' means more than mere
does not meet the real difficulties of the ' assault.' There may be conditional
question ; on the contrary, rather aggra- mental assensus without moral consen-
vates them. They lie in this: How could siis — and so temptation without sin.
One Who (according to Riehm) stood on See p. 301, note.
A PECCABLE NATURE BUT AN Bll'ECCABLE PEKSON. 299
but it was so, because He was not only the Unsinning-, Unlallen Man,
but also the Son of God. Because God was His Fatlier, thoretbic He
must be about His Business, which was to do the Will ol' His Father.
With a peccal)le Human Nature He was impeccable; not because He
obeyed, l)ut being iuipeccable He so obeyed, because His Hunum was
insei)arably connected with His Divine Nature. To keep this Union
of the two Natures out of view would be Nestorianism.' To sum up:
The Second Adam, morally unfallen, though voluntarily subject to all
the conditions of our Nature, was, with a peccable Human Nature,
absolutely impeccal)le as being- also the Son of God — a peccable
Nature, yet an impeccable Person: the God-Man, 'tempted in re-
gard to all (things) in like manner (as we), without (excepting) sin.'
All this sounds, after all, like the stammering of Divine words
by a babe, and yet it may in some measure help us to understand the
character of Christ's first great Temi)tation.
Before proceeding, a few sentences arc required in explanation of
seeming dittcrences in the Evangelic narration of the event. The
historical part of St. John's Gospel begins after the Temptation — that
is, with the actual Ministry of Christ; since it was not within the
purport of that work to detail the earlier history. That had been
sufficiently done in the Synoptic Gospels. Impartial and serious
critics will admit that these are in accord. For, if St. Mark only
summarises, in his own brief manner, he supplies the two-fold notice
that Jesus was ' driven ' into the wilderness, • and was with the wild
beasts,' which is in fullest internal agreement with the detailed nar-
ratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The only noteworthy difference
between these two is, that St. Matthew places the Temple-temptation
before that of the world-kingdom, while St. Luke inverts this order,
probably because his narrative was primarily intended for Gentile
readers, to whose mind this might present itself as to them the true
gradation of temptation. To St. Matthew we owe the notice, that
after the Temptation ' Angels came and ministered ' unto Jesus; to
St. Luke, that the Tempter only ' departed from Him for a season. '
To restate in order our former conclusions, Jesus had deliberately,
of His own accord and of set firm purpose, gone to be baptized. That
one grand outstanding fact of His early life, that He must be about
His Father's Business, had found its explanation when He knew that
the Baptist's cry, 'the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,' was from God.
His Father's Business, then, was 'the Kingdom of Heaven,' and to it
1 The heresy which unduly separated the two Natures.
300 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
isoOK He consecrated Himself, so fulfilling all righteousness. But His
Jll 'being about it' was quite other than that of any Israelite, however
"- — ~Y ' devout, wlio came to Jordan, It was His consecration, not on!}" to
the Kingdom, but to the Kingship, in the anointing and iternianent
possession of the Holy Ghost, and in His proclamation from heaven.
That Kingdom was His Father's Business; its Kingship, the manner
in which He was to l)e ' a1)()ut it.' The next step was not, like the
first, voluntary, and of preconceived purpose. Jesus went to Jordan;
He was driven of the Spirit into the wilderness. Not, indeed, in the
sense of His being unwilling to go,' or having had other purpose,
such as that of immediate return into Galilee, but in that of not being
willing, of having no will or purpose in the nuitter, but being ' led
up,' unconscious of its i^urpose, with irresistible force, l)y the Spirit.
In that wilderness He had to test what He had learned, and to learn
what He had tested. So would He have full proof for His Work of
the What — His Call and Kingship; so would He see its Hoiv — the
manner of it; so, also, would, from the outset, the final issue of His
AVork appear.
Again — banishing from our minds all thought of sin in connection
^Hebr. iv. with Christ's Temptation,'' He is presented to us as the Second Adam,
both as regarded Plimself, and His relation to man. In these two
respects, which, indeed, are one. He is now to be ti'ied. Like the first,
the Second Adam, sinless, is to be tempted, but under the existing
conditions of the Fall: in the wilderness, not in P]den; not in the
enjoyment of all good, but in the pressing want of all that is neces-
sary for the sustenance of life, and in the felt weakness consequent
upon it. For (unlike the first) the Second Adam was, in His Tempta-
tion, to be placed on an al^solute equality Avith us, except as regarded
sin. Yet even so, there must have l)een some point of inward con-
nection to make the outward assault a temptation. It is here that
opponents (such as Strauss and Keim) have strangely missed the
mark, when objecting, either that the forty days' fast was intrinsically
unnecessary, or that the assaults of Satan were clumsy suggestions, in-
capable of being temptations to Jesus. He is < driven ' into the
wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted.^ The history of humanity
1 This is evident- even from the terms Mark seems to imply some human shriiik-
used by St. Matthew (dvifx^V) ^"'1 ^f- i".^ *^'i W\s, part — at least at the outset.
Luke [ijyfTo). I cannot agree with - The place of the Temi)tation could
Go(M. tiiat Jesus would have been in- not, of course, have been tlie traditional
clined to return to Galilee tvnd begin ' Quarantaiiia,' but must have been neai'
teaching. Jesus had no in(;]ination save Bethabara. See also >S^art^e?/'s Siuai and
this— to do the AVill of Mis Father. And Palestine, p. 308.
yet the expression ' driven ' used by St.
THE CONDITIONS OF THE TEMPTATION. 301
is taken up anew at the point where lirst the kingdom of Satan was cilAP.
lounUed, only under new eonditions. It is not now a- ehoice, but a I
contest, for Sivtan is the prince of tliis world. During the Avliole ' — ^-r — •
forty days of Christ's stay in the wilderness His Teini)tation continued,
though it only attained its high point at the last, when, after the long
fast, He felt tlu; weariness and weakness of hunger. As fasting oc-
cupies but a very subordinate, we might almost say a tolerated, place
in the teaching of Jesus; and as, so far as we know, lie exercised on
no other occasion such ascetic practices, we are lelt to infer internal,
as well as external, necessity for it in the present instance. The for-
mer is easily understood in His pre-occupation ; the latter must have
had for its object to reduce Him to utmost outward weakness, by the
depression of all the vital powers. We regard it as a psychological
fact that, under such circumstances, of all mental faculties the memory
alone is active, indeed, almost preternaturally active. During the
preceding thirty-nine days the plan, or rather the future, of the Work
to which He had been consecrated, must have been always before Him.
In this respect, then, He must have been tempted. It is wholly im-
possible tliat He hesitated for a moment as to the means by which He
was to establish the Kingdom of God. He could not have felt tempted
to adopt carnal means, opposed to the nature of that Kingdom, and
to the Will of God. The unchangeable convictions which He had
already attained must have stood out before Him: that His Father's
business was the Kingdom of God; that He was furnished to it, not
by outward weapons, but by the abiding Presence of the Spirit;
above all, that absolute submission to the Will of God was the way to
it, nay, itself the Kingdom of God. It will be observed, that it was
on these very points that the final attack of the Enemy was directed
in the utmost weakness of Jesus. But, on the other hand, the Tempter
could not have failed to assault Him with considerations which He
must have felt to be true. How could He hope, alone, and with such
principles, to stand against Israel? He knew their views and feel-
ings; and as, day by day, the sense of utter loneliness and forsaken-
ness increasingly gathered around Him, in His increasing faintness
and weakness, the seeming hopelessness of such a task as He had
undertaken must have grown upon Him with almost overwhelming-
power.^ Alternately, the temptation to despair, presumption, or the
cutting short of the contest in some decisive manner, must have
1 It was this which would make the tal assensus — without impiyiiifj any in-
' assault' a 'temptation' by vividly set- ward ro»A"e;^f;^s■ to tlie manner in which
tin.iz; l)efore the mind tiie reality and ra- the Enemy proposed to liave them set
tionality of these considerations — a men- aside.
302 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK I'l'cscntcd itself to Hi.s mind, or rather have ])ecn presented to it by
III the Tempter.
-_--Y-.:^ And tliis was, indeed, the essence of His last three great tempta-
tions; which, as the whole contest, resolved themselves into the one
question of absolute submission to the Will of God,' which is the sum
and substance of all obedience. If He submitted to it, it must be
suft'ering, and only suffering — helpless, hopeless suffering to the bitter
end; to the extinction of life, in the agonies of the Cross, as a male-
factor; denounced, betrayed, rejected by His people; alone, in very
God-forsakenness. And when thus beaten about by temptation. His
powers reduced to the lowest ebb of faintness, all the more vividly
would memory hold out the facts so well known, so keenly realised at
that moment, in the almost utter cessation of every other mental
faculty:' the scene lately enacted by the banks of Jordan, and the two
great expectations of His own people, that the Messiah was to head
Israel from the Sanctuary of the Temple, anil that all kingdoms of the
world were to become subject to Him. Here, then, is the inward
basis of the Temptation of Christ, in which the fast was not unneces-
sary, nor yet the special assaults of the Enemy either ' clumsy sug-
gestions,' or unworthy of Jesus.
He is weary with the contest, faint with hunger, alone in that
wilderness. His voice falls on no sympathising ear; no voice reaches
Him but that of the Tempter. There is nothing l)racing, strengthen-
ing in this featureless, l)arren, stony wilderness — only the i)icturc of
desolateness, hopelessness, despair. He must. He will absolutely
submit to the Will of God. But can this be the Will of God? One
word of i)ower, and the scene would be changed. Let Him despair
of all men, of everything — He can do it. By His Will the Son of God,
as the Tempter suggests — not, however, calling thereby in question
His Sonship, but rather proceeding on its admitted reality' — can
change the stones into bread. He can do miracles — put an end to
present want and question, and, as visibly the possessor of absolute
miraculous power, the goal is reached! But this would really have
been to change the idea of Old Testament miracle into the heathen
conception of magic, which was absolute power inherent in an indi-
1 All the assaults of Satan were really vividly in Christ's memory at that mo-
directed against Christ's absolute sub- ment, that was flashed before Him as in
mission to the Will of God, which was a mirror under tlie dazzling light of
His Perfectness. Hence, by every one of temptation.
these temi)tations, as Weiss saj's in re- ^ Satan's 'if was rather a taunt than
gard to the first, ' rilttelt er an Seiner a doubt. Nor could it have been in-
Vollkonimenheit.'' tended to call in ([uestion His ability to
'•^ I regard the memory as affording the do miracles. Doubt m\ tliat point would
basis for the Temptation, What was so alreaily have been a fall.
THE FIRST, AND TIIP] SECOND TEMPTxVTlON. 303
vidua), without moral purixjso. The uu)i'al i)urpoi5C — the <;:rau(l luoi'al riLvr.
purpose in all that was ol' Uod — was al)solute submission to the ^^'ill l
of God. His Spirit had driven Him into that wilderness. His cir- ^~ — . '
cumstauees were God-appointed; and where He so appoints them,
He will support us in them, even as, in the failure of l)read, He sup-
ported Israel by the manna.''' And Jesus absolutely submitted to ^Deut.viu.
that Will of God by continuing in His present circumstances. To
have set himself free from what they implied, would have been despai7'
of God, and rebellion. He does more than not succumb: He conquers.
The Scri^jtural reference to a better life upon the Word of God marks
more than the end of the contest; it marks the conquest of Satan.
He emerges on the other side triumphant, with this expression of His
assured conviction of the sufficiency of God.
It cannot be despair — and He cannot take up His Kingdom alone,
in the exercise of mere power! Absolutely submitting to the Will
of God, He must, and He can, absolutely trust Him. But if so, then
let Him really trust Himself u])on God, and make experiment — nay
more, public demonstration — of it. If it be not despair of God, let
it be presumption ! He will not do the work alone ! Then God-up-
borne, according to His promise, let the Son of God suddenly, from
that height, descend and head His people, and that not in any profane
manner, but in the midst of the Sanctuary, where God w^as specially
near, in sight of incensing priests and worshipping people. So also
will the goal at once be reached.
The Spirit of God had driven Jesus into the wilderness; the spirit
of the Devil now carried Him to Jerusalem, Jesus stands on the lofty
l)innacle of the Tower, or of the Temple-porch,^ presumably that on
which every day a Priest was stationed to watch, as the pale morning
light passed over the hills of Judsea far off to Hebron, to announce it as
the signal for offering the morning sacrifice.^ If we might indulge our
imagination, the moment chosen would be just as the Priest had quitted
1 The suijply of tlie niamia was only the Sanctuary, where indeed tliere would
an exemplification and application of tlie scarcely have been standin<t-rooni. It
general i)rinciple, that man really lives certainly formed the watch-jmst of the
by the AVord of God. Priest. Possibly it may have been the
'^ It cannot be regarded as certain, that extreme corner of tlie ' wing-like ' porch,
the TtTFpvyiov rov iepov was, as com- or uhim, which led into the Sanctuarj'.
mentators generally suppose, the Tower Thence a Priest could easily luive com-
at the southeastern angle of the Temple municated with his brethren in the court
Cloisters, where the Royal (southern) and beneath. To this there is, however, tlu^
Solomon's (the eastern") Porch met, and objection that in that case it should have
whence the view into the Kedron Valley been rov vaov. At p. 244, the ordinary
beneath was to the stupendous deiitli of view of this locality has been taken.
450 feet. Would this angle be called ' a ■' Comp. ' The Temple, its Ministry and
wing' {■itTEf3vyiov)t Nor can I agree Services,' p. 132.
with Delitzsch, that it was the ' roof ' of
30J FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
liOOK that station. The first desort-tcinptation had been in thegrey ofhivak-
in ing light, wlicn to the faint and weary looker the stones of the wildcr-
^- — ^ ' ness seemed to take fantastic shapes, like the l)read for which the faint
body hungered. In the next tenijjtation Jesus stands on the watcli-i)ost
which the white-robed priest had just quitted. Fast the rosy morning-
light, deepening into crimson, and edged with gold, is spreading over
the land. In the Priests' Court ])elow Him the morning-sacrifice has
been offered. The massive Temple-gates are slowly opening, and the
blasts of tlie priests' silver trumpets is summoning Israel to begin a
new day by appearing before their Lord. Now then let Him descend,
Heaven-borne, into the nndst of priests and people. What shouts of
acclamation would greet His appearance! What homage of worship
would be His! The goal can at once be reached, and that at the
head of believing Israel. Jesus is surveying the scene. By His
side is the Tempter, watching the features that mark the work-
ing of the spirit within. And now he has whispered it. Jesus
had overcome in the first temptation by simple, absolute trust.
This was the time, and this the place to act upon this trust, even as
the very Scriptures to which Jesus had appealed warranted. But
so to have done would have been not trust — far less the heroism
of faith — but presumption. The goal might indeed have been reached;
but not the Divine goal, nor in God's way — and, as so often.
Scripture itself explained and guarded the Divine promise by a
preceding Divine command.^ And thus once more Jesus not only is
not overcome, but He overcomes by absolute sulimission to the Will
of God.
To submit to the Will of God! But is not this to acknowledge
His authority, and the order and disposition which He has made of
all things? Once more the scene changes. They have tui-ned their
back upon Jerusalem and the Temjile. Behind are also all popular
prejudices, narrow nationalism, and limitations. They no longer
1 Benrfpl: ' Scriptura per Scripturam to quote a verse. The child quoted
iiiterpretanda et coucilianda.' This is Deut. xiv. 22, at the same time pro-
also a Rabbinic canon. The Rabbis fre- poundini; the question, why the second
quently insist on the duty of not expos- clause virtually repeated the first. The
ing oneself to danger, in presumptuous Rabbi replied. 'To leach us that the giv-
expectation of miraculous deliverance. ing of tithes maketh rich.' ' How do you
It is a curious sayins;: Do not stand over know it ? ' askeil the child. ' By ex])eri-
against an ox when he comes from the ence,' answered the Rabbi. 'But.' said
fodder; Satan jumps out from between the child, ' such experiment is not lawful,
his horns. (Pes. 112 6.) David had been since we are not to teni])t the Lonl our
presumptuous in Ps. xxvi. 2 — and failed. God.' (See the very curious book of
(Sanh. 107 n.) But the most aiit illus- Ral)bi So on-eyczrjk. Die Bibel, d. Talm.
tration is this: On one occasion the child u. d. Evang. p. \?>'l.)
(jf a Rabbi was asked by R. Jochanan
THE THIRD TEMTTATIOxV. 30^
breathe the stifled air, thick with the perfume of incense. They chap.
have taken their flight into God's wide world. There they stand on i
the top of some very high mountain. It is in the full blaze of sun- ^- — ~~.^ —
light that He now gazes upon a wondrous scene. ]3efore Him rise,
from out the cloud-land at the edge of the horizon, forms, figures,
scenes^come words, sounds, harmonies. The world in all its glory,
beauty, strength, majesty, is unveiled. Its work, its might, its
greatness, its art, its thought, emerge into clear view. And still the
horizon i?eems to widen as He gazes; and more and more, and beyond
it still more and still brighter appears. It is a world quite other
than that which the retiring Son of the retired Xazareth-home had
ever seen, could ever have imagined, that opens its enlarging
Avonders. To us in the circumstances the temptation, which at first
sight seems, so to speak, the clumsiest, would have been well nigh
irresistible. In measure as our intellect was enlarged, our heart
attuned to this world-melody, we would have gazed with bewitched
wonderment on that sight, surrendered ourselves to tlie harmony of
those sounds, and quenched the thirst of our soul with maddening
draught. But passively sul)lime as it must have appeared to the
Perfect Man, the God-Man — and to Him far more than to us from
His infinitely deeper appreciation of, and wider sympathy with the
good, the true, and the beautiful — He had already overcome. It was,
indeed, not ' worship," but homage which the Evil One claimed from
Jesus, and that on the truly stated and apparently rational ground,
that, in its present state, all this world 'was delivered ' unto him, and
he exercised the power of giving it to whom he would. But in this
very fact lay tlie answer to the suggestion. High above this moving
scene of glory and beauty arched the deep blue of God's heaven,
and brighter than the sun, which poured its light over the sheen
and dazzle lieneath, stood out the fact: 'I must be about My
Fatlier"s l»iisiness:" above the din of far-ofi' sounds rose the voice:
'Thy Kingdom come!' Was not all this the Devil's to have and to
give, ])ecause it was not the Father's Kingdom, to which Jesus had
consecrated Himself? What Satan sought was, ' ]\Iy kingdom come'
— a Satanic Messianic time, a Satanic Messiah; the final realisation
of an enqiire of which his present i:)OSsession was only temporary,
caused by the alienation of man IVoni God. To destroy all this: to
destroy the works of the Devil, to abolish his kingdom, to set man
free from Ids dominion, was the very object of Christ's Mission. On
the ruins of tlie past shall tlie new arise, in jjroportions of grandeur
and beauty hitherto unseen, only gazed at afar by pro})liets' rapt sight.
;j()(] FliOM JORDAN TO THK ^r(>^^'T OF TRANSFIOrUATION.
BOOK It is to Ix'coiue the Kingdom of God; and Christ's consecration to it
III is to be the corner-stone of its new Te)ni)le. Those scenes are to be
^-^-v^^ transformed into one of higher worship; those sounds to mingle
and melt into a melody of praise. An endless train, unnumbered
multitudes from afar, are to bring their gifts, to pour their wealth, to
consecrate their wisdom, to dedicate their beauty — to lay it all in
lowly worship as humble offering at His feet: a world God-restored,
God-dedicated, in which dwells God's peace, over which rests God's
glory. It is to be the bringing of worship, not the crowning
of rebellion, which is the Kingdom. And so Satan's greatest be-
comes to Christ his coarsest temptation,' which He casts from Him;
and the words: 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him
only shalt thou serve,' whicli now receive their highest fulfilment,
mark not only Satan's defeat and Christ's triumph, but the principle
of His Kingdom — of all victory and all triumph.
Foiled, defeated, the Enemy has spread his dark pinions towards
that far-oft' world of his, and covered it with their shadow. The sun no
longer glows with melting heat; tlie mists have gathered on the edge
of the horizon, and enwra])ped tlic scene wliidi has faded from view.
And in the cool and shade that followed have the Angels'^ come and
ministered to His wants, both bodily and mental. He has refused
to assert power; He has not yiehU-d to despair; He would not fight
and conquer alone in His own strength; and He has received power
and refreshment, and Heaven's company unnumbered in their ministry
of worship. He would not yield to Jewish dream; He did not pass
from despair to presumption; and lo, ai'ter the contest, with no
reward as its object, all is His. He wouhl not have Satan's vassals
as His legions, and all Heaven's hosts are at His command. It had
been victor}^; it is now shout of triumphant ])raise. He Whom (Jod
had anointed by His Spirit had conquered by the Spirit; He Whom
Heaven's Voice had proclaimed God's beloved Son, in Whom He
was well pleased, had proved such, and done His good pleasure.
They had been all overcome, these three temptations against
submission to the ATill of God, present, personal, and specifically
Messianic. Yet all His life long there were echoes of them: of the
'St. John first, in the suggestion of His brethren to show Himself;'' of the
second, in the popular attempt to make Him a king, and perhaps
also in what constituted the final idea of Judas Iscariot; of the
1 Sin always intensifies in the coarse- and Demonology, see Appendix XIII. :
ness of its assaults. 'Jewish Angelolo^y and Demonolo,2;y.'
^ For the Jewish views on Angelology
THE VICTORY. 307
third, as being most plainly Satanic, in tlie question of Pilate: < Art CHAP.
Thou then a king? ' I
The enemy 'departed from Him ' — yet only 'for a season.' But ^— ^r-^ — -"
this first contest and victory of Jesus decided all others to the last.
These were, perhaps not as to the shaping of His Messianic plan,nor
through memory of Jewish expectancy, yet still in sul)stance the
same contest about absolute obedience, absolute submission to the
Will of God, which constitutes the Kingdom of God. And so also
from first to last was this the victory: 'Not My will, but Thine, be
done.' But as, in the first three petitions which He has taught us,
Christ has enfolded us in the mantle of His royalty, so has He Who
shared our nature and our temptations gone up with us, want-pressed,
sin-laden, and temptation-stricken as we are, to the Mount of
Temptation in the four human petitions which follow the first.
And over us is spread, as the sheltering folds of His mantle, this as
the outcome of His royal contest and glorious victory, ' For Thine
is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever! ' ^
^ This quotation of the Doxology leaves, niinetl, whether the words were part of
of course, the critical question uudeter- the ' Lord's Prayer ' iu its original form.
308 Vmm JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER II.
THE DEPUTATION FROM JERUSALEM — THE THREE SECTS OF THE PHARI-
SEES, SADDUCEES, AND ESSENES — EXAMINATION OF THEIR DISTINC-
TIVE DOCTRINES.^
(St. John i. 10-24.)
BOOK Apart from the repulsively carnal I'oriii which it had taken, there is
III something absolutely sublime in the continuance and intensity of
- — -r — ' the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. It outlived not only the
delay of long centuries, but the persecutions and scattering of the
people; it continued under the disappointment of the Maccabees,
the rule of a Herod, the administration of a corrupt and contemptible
Priesthood, and, finally, the government of Rome as represented by
a Pilate; nay, it grew in intensity almost in proportion as it seemed
unlikely of realisation. These are facts which, show that the doctrine
of the Kingdom, as the sum and substance of Old Testament teach-
ing, was the very heart of Jewish religious life; while, at the. same
time, they evidence a moral elevation which placed abstract religious
conviction far beyond the reach of passing events, and clung to it with
a tenacity which nothing could loosen.
Tidings of what these many months had occurred by the banks
of the Jordan must have early reached Jerusalem, and ultinmtely
stirred to the depths its religious society, whatever its preoccupation
with ritual questions or political matters. For it was not an ordinary
movement, n(jr in connection with any of the existing parties, religious
or political. An extraordinary preacher, of extraordinary appearance
and habits, not aiming, like others, after rencAved zeal in legal
observances, or increased Levitical purity, but preaching repentance
and moral renovation in preparation for the coming Kingdom, and
sealing this novel doctrine Avith an e(iiially novel rite, had drawn
1 This chaptcM' contains, among otlier was necessary in a work on 'Tiie Times,'
matter, a detailed and critical exaniina- as well as 'The Life,' of Christ,
tion of the i^reat Jewish Sects, such as
THE DEPUTATION FROM JEKUriALEM.
309
from tOAvn and country nmltitiidcs ofull classes— inquirers, penitents CHAP.
and novices. The great and burning question seemed, what the real H
character and meaning of it was ? or rather, whence did it issue, ' < — -^
and whither did it tend ? The religious leaders of the people pro-
posed to answer this by instituting an inquiry through a trust-
worthy deputation. In the account of this by St. John certain
l)oints seem clearly implied;^ on others only suggestions can be aj. i9_28
ventured.
That the interview referred to occurred after the Baptism of
Jesus, appears from the whole context. ^ Similarly, the statement that
the deputation which came to John was ' sent from Jerusalem ' by
'the Jews,' implies that it proceeded from authority, even if it did
not bear more than a semi-official character. For, although the ex-
l)ression ' Jews ' in the fourth Gospel generally conveys the idea of
contrast to the disciples of Christ (for ex, St. John vii. 15), yet it
refers to the people in their corporate capacity, that is, as repre-
sented by their constituted religious authorities.'' On the other bcomp. st.
hand, although the term ' scribes and elders ' does not occur in the i6ri!x.''i8,'''
Gospel of St. Johu,^ it by no means follows that ' the Priests and 12,' f/"''
Levites ' sent from the capital either represented the two great
divisions of the Sanhedrin, or, indeed, that the deputation issued
from the Great Sanhedrin itself The former suggestion is entirely
ungrounded; the latter at least problematic. It seems a legitimate
inference that, considering their own tendencies, and the political
dangers connected with such a step, the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem
would not have come to the formal resolution of sending a regular
deputation on such an inquiry. Moreover, a measure like this
would have been entirely outside their recognised mode of procedure.
The Sanhedrin did not, and could not, originate charges. It only
investigated those brought before it. It is quite true that judgment
upon false prophets and religious seducers lay with it;'' but the ^sauh. i. 5
Baptist had not as yet said or done anything to lay him open to such
an accusation. He had in no way infringed the Law by word or deed,
nor had he even claimed to be a prophet.^ If, nevertheless, it seems
most probable that ' the Priests and Levites ' came from the Sanhedrin,
we are led to the conclusion that theirs was an informal mission,
rather privately arranged than publicly determined upon.
1 This point is fully discussed l)y notes that the exiiression in St. John
Liuke, Evana;. Joh., vol", i. i))). 396-30S. viii. 3 is unauthentic.
- So Professor Westcott, in his Com- ♦ Of tliis tlie Sanhedrin must have
mentary on the passage (Speaker's Com- been perfectly aware. Comp. St. Matt.
meut., N.T., vol. ii. p. 18), where he iii. 7; St. Luke iii. 15 itc.
310
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" For ex.
Vdina 1. .')
'■ St. Matt,
ill. 7, &c.
And witli this tlic character of the deputies agrees. ' Priests
and Levites ' — the colleagues of John the Priest — would be selected
for such an errand, rather than leading Ral)binic authorities. The
presence of the latter would, indeed, have given to the movement
an importance, if not a sanction, which the Sanhedrin could not
have wished. The only other authority in Jerusalem from which
such a deputation could have issued was the so-called ' Council of
tlie Temple,' 'Judicature of the Priests,' or 'Elders of the Priest-
hood,'" which consisted of the fourteen chief officers of the Temple.
But although they may afterwards have taken their full part in
the condemnation of Jesus, ordinarily their duty was only connected
with the services of the Sanctuary, and not with criminal questions
or doctrinal investigations.^ It would be too much to suppose, that
they would take the initiative in such a matter on the ground that
the Baptist was a member of the Priesthood. Finally, it seems quite
natural that such an informal inquiry, set on foot most probably
by the Sanhedrists, should have been entrusted exclusively to the
Pharisaic party. It would in no way have interested the Sadducees;
and what members of that party had seen of John*" must have con-
vinced them that his views and aims lay entirely beyond their horizon.
The origin of the two great parties of Pharisees and Sadducees
has already been traced.^ They mark, not sects, but mental directions,
such as in their principles are natural and universal, and, indeed,
appear in connection with all metaphysical ^ questions. They are
the different modes in which the human mind views supersensuous
problems, and which afterwards, when one-sidedly followed out,
harden into diverging schools of thought. If Pharisees and Sad-
ducees were not ' sects ' in the sense of separation from the unity
of the Jewish ecclesiastical community, neither were theirs ' heresies '
in the conventional, but only in the original sense of tendency,
direction, or, at most, views, differing from those commonly enter-
tained.* Our sources of information here are: the New Testament.
1 Comp. ' The Temple, its Ministry and
Services,' p. 75. Dr. Geiger (Ursclir. u.
Uebersetz. d. Bibel, pp. li:-!, 114) ascribes
to them, however, a much wider jurisdic-
tion. Some of his inferences (such as at
pp. 115, IKJ) seem to me historically un-
supported.
'^ Comp. Book I. ch. viii.
•^ I use the term metapliysical here in
the sense of all that is aljove tlie natural,
not merely the speculative, but the
supersensuous generally.
* The word a'l'pscrii has received its pre-
sent meaning chiefly from the adjective
attaching to it in 2 Pet. ii. 1. In Acts
xxiv. 5, 14, xxviii. 22, it is vitui^eratively
applied to Christians; in 1 Cor. xi. 19,
Gal. V. 20, it seems to apply to diverging
l)ractices of a sinful kind; in Titus iii.
10, the 'heretic' seems one who held or
taught diverging opinions or practices.
Besides, it occurs in tlie N.T. once to
mark the Sadducees, and twice the Phari-
sees (Act3 v. 17; XV. 5, and xxvi. 5).
THE 'FRATERNITY' OF PHARISEES. 311
Josephiis, and Ra])l)iiiic wi'itiiigs. The Kew Testament only marks, CHAP,
in broad outlines and i)opularly, the peculiarities of each party; t)ut H
from the al)sence of bias it may safely be regarded ' as the most ^— ^r^^
trustworthy authority on the matter. The inferences which we
derive from the statements of Josephus,^ though always to be
qualified by our general estimate of his animus,^ accord with those
from the New Testament. In regard to Rabbinic writings, we have
to bear in mind the admittedly unhistorical character of most of
their notices, the strong party-bias which coloured almost all their
statements regarding oi)ponents, and their constant tendency to trace
later views and practices to earlier times.
Without entering on the principles and supposed practices of
'the fraternity ' or 'association ' (C'^e&/ier, Chabhurah, Chabhurta) of
Pharisees, which was comparatively small, numbering only about
6,000 members,'' the following particulars may be of interest. The »./os. Ant.
object of the association was twofold: to observe in the strictest
manner, and according to traditional law, all the ordinances concern-
ing Levitical purity, and to be extremely punctilious in all connected
with religious dues (tithes and all other dues). A person might under-
take only the second, without the first of these obligations. In that
case he was simply a Neeman, an ' accredited one ' with whom one
might enter freely into commerce, as he was supposed to have paid
all dues. But a person could not undertake the vow of Levitical
purity without also taking the obligation of all religious dues. If
he undertook both vows he was a Chabher, or associate. Here there
were four degrees, marking an ascending scale of Levitical purity, or
separation from all that was profane." In opposition to these was the 'Chag. n.
. 5. 7 ; oomp.
Am ha-arets, or ' country people (the people which knew not, or Tohor. vn.
cared not for the Law, and were regarded as ' cursed V- But it must
not be thought that every Chabher was either a learned Scribe, or that
every Scrilje was a Chabher. On the contrary, as a man might be a
Chabher without being either a Scribe or an elder/ so there must have <• For ex.
, , T 1 ,1 . . Kidd. 33 h
been sages, and even teachers, who did not belong to the association,
since special rules are laid down for the reception of such.** Candidates ' Bekh. 30 :>
had to be formally admitted into the ' fraternity ' in the presence of
three members. But every accredited public ' teacher ' was, unless
anything was known to the contrary, supposed to have taken upon
1 I mean on historical, not on tbeo- ^ For a full discussion of the character
logical fjrounds. and writin,i!;s of Josephus, I would refer
'^ I here refer to the following passages: to the article in Dr. Smith's Diet, of Chr.
Jewish War ii. 8. 14; Ant. xiii. 5. 9; Biogr. vol. iii.
10. 5, 6; xvii. 2. 4; xviii. 1, 2, 3, 4.
312
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Bekhor. 30
b Dem. ii. 2
a In St.
Luke xi. 42;
xviil. 12;
St. Matt,
xxlii. 23
t In St.
Luke xl. 39,
41: St. Matt.
xxiii. 25, 26
f Sot. 22 6;
Jer. Ber.
ix. 7
J Abhoth <ie
K. Nathan 5
"< -ler. Chag.
79</: T.13.
Chag. iii.
liim the obligations referred to.' The family of a Chabher belonged,
as a matter of course, to the connnunity; ^ but this ordinance
was afterwards altered.' The Neeman undertook tliese four obliga-
tions: to tithe what he ate, what he sold, and what he bought, and
not to be a guest with an Am ha-arets.^ The full Chabher undertook
not to sell to an 'Am ha-arets ' any fluid or dry sul)stancc (nutriment
or fruit), not to buy from him any such tluid, not to be a guest with
him, not to entertain him as a guest in his own clothes (on account of
their possible impurity) — to which one authority adds other par-
ticulars, which, however, were not recognised by the Rabins generally
as of primary importance.''
These two great obligations of the ' official ' Pharisee, or 'Associ-
ate ' are pointedly referred to by Christ — both that in regard to tithing
(the vowof theA'eemaw);'^and that in regard to Levitical purity (the
special vow of the Chabher)." In both cases they are associated with
a want of corresponding inward reality, and with hypocrisy. These
charges cannot have come upon the people by surprise, and thoy may
account for the circumstance that so many of the learned kept aloof
from the 'Association ' as such. Indeed, the sayings of some of the
Rabbis in regard to Pharisaism and the professional Pharisee are
more withering than any in the New Testament. It is not necessary
here to repeat the well-known description, both in the Jerusalem and
the Babylon Talmud, of the seven kinds of ' Pharisees,' of whom six
(the 'Shechemite,' the 'stumbling,' the 'bleeding,' the 'mortar,' the
' I want to know what is incumbent on me,' and 'the Pharisee from
fear') mark various kinds of unreality, and only one is 'the Pharisee
from love.' ' Such an expression as ' the plague of Pharisaism ' is not
uncommon; and a silly pietist, a clever sinner, and a female Pharisee,
are ranked among ' the troubles of life.' ^ ' Shall we then explain a
verse according to the opinions of the Pharisees?' asks a Rabbi, in
supreme contempt for the arrogance of the fraternity.'' ' It is as a
tradition among the Pharisees ' to torment themselves in this world,
and yet they will gain nothing by it in the next.' The Sadducees
had some reason for the taunt, that ' the Pharisees would liy-and-by
subject the globe of the sun itself to their purifications,"' the more
so that their assertions of purity were sometimes conjoined with
Epicurean maxims, betokening a very different state of mind, such
as, • Make haste to eat and drink, for the world which we quit
' Abba Saul would also have freed, all
students from tluxt formality.
'^ Comp. the suggestion as to the sig-
nificant time when this alteration was
introduced, in 'Sketches of Jewish So-
cial LitV; pp. 228, 229.
rilARlSEES AND SADDICKES. 313
resembles a wetUliut!: least; ' or this: 'My son, ii' thou possess any- cilAP.
thing', enjoy thyseil', for there is no pleasure in Hades,' and death H
grants no respite. But if thou sayest, AVhat then would I leave to ^— ^r '
my sons and daughters? Who will thaidv thee for this appointment
in Hadesy ' Maxims these to whieh, alas! too many of their recorded
stories and deeds form a painlul commentary.^
But it would be grossly unjust to identify Pharisaism, as a
religious direction, with such embodiments of it or even with the
official Mi-aternity.' While it may be granted that the tendency and
logical sequence of their views iuid practices were such, their system,
as opposed to Sadduceeism, had very serious bearings: dogmatic,
ritual, and legal. It is, however, erroneous to suppose, either that
their system represented traditionalism itself, or that Scrilies and
Pharisees are convertible terms," while the Sadducees represented the
civil and political element. The Pharisees represented only the pre-
vailing system of, not traditionalism itself; while the Sadducees also
numbered among them many learned men. They were able to enter
into controversy, often protracted and fierce, with their opponents,
and they acted as njembers of the Sanhedrin, although they had
diverging traditions of their own, and even, as it would appear, at
one time a complete code of canon-law.''* Moreover, the admitted »Megm.
Tacin P6r
fact, that when in office the Sadducees conformed to the principles iv. p.V.
War.sli D 9
and practices of the Pharisees, ]jroves at least that they must have a ' ' '
been acquainted with the ordinances of traditionalism.^ Lastly,
there were certain traditional ordinances on which both parties were
at one." Thus it seems Sadduceeism was in a sense rather a specula- '■sanh.33 1-.
Horay 4 a
tive than a practical system, starting from simple and well-defined
principles, but wide-reaching in its possible consequences. Perhaps
it may best be described as a general reaction against the extremes of
Pharisaism, springing from moderate and rationalistic tendencies;
intended to secure a footing within the recognised bounds of
Judaism; and seeking to defend its principles by a strict literalism of
' Erul). 54 rt. I <jive the latter clause, much under the influence of Gefger and
not as in our edition of the Talmud, but Kuenen.
accordlnfj to a more correct reading * TI>^/7,^«^^sr'» has carried his criticisms
{Levy, NeuhelDr. Wtirterb. vol. ii. ]). 102). and doubts of the Hebrew SdioUnn on
2 It could serve no ,c;ood ]>urpose to the Megill. Taan. (or ' Roll of Fasts ')
give instances. They are readily acces- too far.
sible to those who have taste or curiosity •' Even such a book as the Meg. Taan.
in that direction. does not accuse them of absolute ignor-
•^ So, erroneously, WeUhnusen, in his ance, but only of being unable to prove
treatise 'Pharisaer u. Sadduc.'; and par- their dicta from Scripture (comp. Pereq
tially, as it seems to me, even Sc/iUrer x. p. 15 b, which may well mark the ex-
(Neutest. Zeitgesch.). In other respects trenie of Anti-Sadduceeism).
also these two learned men seem too
314
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
111
'Ab. iii. 11;
r. 8
f^Jos. War I.
5.2
iiiteri)i\'tati<)ii and ai)i)licatioii. Ift^o, tlicsc interpretations would bo
intended ratliei' I'or defensive than otiensive i)ur})Oses, and the great
aim of the i)arty would be after rational freedom — or, it might
be, free rationality. Practically, the party would, of course, tend in
broad, and often grossly unorthoilox, directions.
The fundamental dogmatic differences between the Pharisees and
Sadducees concerned: the rule of faith and practice; the 'after
death;' the existence of angels and spirits; and free will and pre-
destination. In regard to the first of these points, it has already
been stated that the Sadducees did not lay down the principle of
absolute rejection of all traditions as such, but that they were
opposed to traditionalism as represented and carried out by the
Pharisees. When put down by sheer weight of authority, they
would probably carry the controversy further, and retort on their
opponents by an appeal to Scripture as against their traditions, per-
haps ultimately even by an attack on traditionalism; but always as
represented by the Pharisees.^ A careful examination of the state-
ments of Josephus on this subject will show that they convey no
more than this.^ The Pharisaic view of this aspect of the contro-
versy appears, perhaps, most satisfactorily, because indirectly, in cer-
tain sayings of the Mishnah, which attribute all national calamities to
those persons, whom they adjudge to eternal perdition, who inter})ret
Scripture 'not as does the Halakhah,' or established Pharisaic rule.''
In this respect, then, the commonly received idea concerning the
Pharisees and Sadducees will require to be seriously modified. As
regards the practice of the Pharisees, as distinguished from that of
the Sadducees, we may safely treat the statements of Josephus as
the exaggerated representations of a partisan, who wishes to place
his party in the best light. It is, indeed, true that the Pharisees,
'interpreting the legal ordinances with rigour, '" Mmposed on them-
selves the necessity of much self-denial, especially in regard to food,"
but that their practice was under the guidance of reason, as Josephus
1 Some traditional explanation of the
Law of Moses was absolutely necessary,
if it was to be applied to existing cir-
cumstances. It would be a great his-
torical inaccuracy to imagine that the
Sadducees rejected the whole 7tapd5 oaii
t5}v Ttpsafivrepoov (St. Matt. xv. 2) from
Ezra downwards.
-' This is the meaning of Ant. xiii. 10.
6, and clearly implied in xviii. 1, 3, 4,
and War ii. 8. 14.
'■'■ M. Derenho)(rg {YViSit. de la Palest., p.
122, note) rightly remarks, that the Rab-
binic equivalent for Josephus ' ocKpifieia
is N"!^;1m. heaviness, and that the Phar-
T :
isees were the '|***';cn^' or ' makers
heavy.' What a commentary this on the
charge of Jesus about ' the heavy bur-
dens' of the Pharisees! St. Paul uses
the same term as Josephus to describe
the Pharisaic system, where our A.V.
renders 'the perfect manner' (Acts xxii.
8). Comp. also Acts xxvi. 5: kcxto.
Ti)v ccKpifiecTrdtT/v aipsaiv.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PHARISEES AND SADDITEES.
315
assert?', i.s one of those l)ol(l niis-statcincnts with whicli he has too
often to be credited. His vindication of their special reverence for
age and authority " must refer to the honours paid by the party to
'the Elders,' not to the old. And that there was sufficient ground
for Sadducean opposition to Pharisaic traditionalism, alike in prin-
ciple and in practice, will appear from the following quotation, to
which we add, by way of explanation, that the wearing of phylacte-
ries was deemed by that party of Scriptural obligation, and that the
phylactery for the head was to consist (according to tradition) of four
compartments. ' Against the words of the Scribes is more punish-
able than against the words of Scripture. He who says, No phy-
lacteries, so as to transgress the words of Scripture, is not guilty
(free); five compartments — to add to the words of the Scribes — he is
guilty.'"
The second doctrinal difference between Pharisees and Sadducees
concerned the 'after death. ' According to the New Testament," the
Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, while Josephus,
going further, imputes to them denial of reward or punishment after
death,'' and even the doctrine that the soul perishes with the body.''
The latter statement may be dismissed as among those inferences
which theological controversialists are too fond of imputing to their
opponents. This is fully borne out by the account of a later work,*^
to the effect, that by successive misunderstandings of the saying of
Antigonus of Socho; that men were to serve God without regard to
reward, his later pupils had arrived at the inference that there was
no other world — which, however, inight only refer to the Pharisaic
ideal of 'the world to come,' not to the denial of the immortality of
the soul — and no resurrection of the dead. We may therefore
credit Josephus with merely reporting the common inference of his
party. But it is otherwise in regard to their denial of the resurrec-
tion of the dead. Not only Josephus, but the New Testament and
Rabbinic Avritings attest this. The Mishnah expressly states^ that
the formula 'from age to age,' or rather 'from world to world,' had
been introduced as a protest against the opposite theory; while
the Talmud, which records disputations between Gamaliel and the
Sadducees '^ on the subject of the resurrection, expressly imputes the
CHAP.
II
" Ant. .xviij.
1. 3
bSanh. xi. 3
<• St. Matt
xxii. 23,
and paral-
lel pas-
sages ; Acta
Iv. 1, 2:
xxlii. 8
d War it. 8.
14
"?Ant. xvlll.
1. 4
f Ab. d. R.
Nath. 5
8 Ber. ix. 5
' The subject is discussed at len^iith
in Jer. Ber. i. 7 (p. 3 b), where the
superiority of the Scribe over the Pro-
phet is shown (1) from Mic. ii. 6 (with-
out the words in italics), the one class
being the Prophets (-prophesy not'),
the other the Scribes (-prophesy'): (2)
from tlie fact that tlie Prophets needed
the attestation of miracles. (Deut. xiii,
2), but not the Scribes (Deut. xvii. 11).
- This is admitted even by Qeiger
(Urschr. u. Uel)ers. p. 130. note), though
316
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANJ^FIGURATION.
BOOK
III
denial of this doctrine to the. 'Scribes of the Sadducees.' In fairness
it is perhaps only right to add that, in the discussion, the Sadducees
seem only to have actually denied that there was proof for this
doctrine in the Pentateuch, and that they ultimately professed them-
selves convinced by the reasoning of Gamaliel.^ Still the concurrent
testimony of the New Testament and of Jose])hus leaves no doubt,
tliat in this instance their views had not been misrepresented.
Whether or not their opposition to the doctrine of the Resurrection
arose in the first instance from, or was prompted liy, Rationalistic
views, which they endeavoured to support ])y an appeal to the letter
of the Pentateuch, as the source of traditionalism, it deserves notice
that in His controversy with the Sadducees Christ appealed to the
Pentateuch in proof of His teaching.^
Connected with this was the equally Rationalistic opposition to
belief in Angels and Spirits. It is only mentioned in the New
Testament," but seems almost to follow as a corollary. Remembering
what the Jewish Angelology was, one can scarcely wonder that in
controversy the Sadducees should have been led to the opposite
extreme.
The last dogmatic diflference between the two ' sects ' concerned
that problem which has at all times engaged religious thinkers:
man's free will and God's pre-ordination, or rather their compati-
bility. Josephus — or the reviser whom he employed — indeed, uses
the purely heathen expression 'fate' {ei)xappdvi])^ to designate the
Jewish idea of the pre-ordination of God. But, properly understood,
the real ditference between the Pharisees and Sadducees seems to
have amounted to this: that the former accentuated God's pre-
in the passage above referred to he
would emendate: ' Scribes of the Samari-
taus.' The passage, however, implies
that these were Sadducean Scribes, and
that they were both willing and able
to enter into tlieological controversy
with their opponents.
1 Rabbi Gamaliel's proof was taken
from Dent. i. 8: 'Which Jehovah sware
unto your fathers to give unto them.'
It is not said ' unto you,' but unto ' them,'
which implies the resurrrection of tlie
dead. The argument is kindred in char-
acter, but far inferior in solemnity and
weight, to that emi)loyed by our Lord,
St. Matt. xxii. 32, from which it is evi-
dently taken. (See book v. ch. iv., the
remarks on that passage.)
^ It is a curious circumstance in con-
nection with the question of the Saddu-
cees, that it raised anotlier ])oint in con-
troversy between the Pharisees and the
'Samaritans,' or, as I would read it, the
Sadducees, since ' the Samaritans ' (Sad-
ducees ?) only allowed man-iage with the
betrothed, not the actually iredded wife
of a deceased childless brother (Jer.
Yebam. i. 6, p. 3 a). The Sadducees in
the Gospel argue on the Pharisaic theory,
apparently for the twofold object of
casting ridicule on the doctrine of the
Resurrection, and on the Pharisaic prac-
tice of marriage with the espoused wife
of a deceased brother.
■^ The expression is used in the heathen
(philosoi)hical) sense of fute by Pliilo,
De Incorrupt. Mundi. § lo ed. iviangey,
vol. ii. p. 49f, (ed. Frcf. p. !)47).
5. 9
'PREDESTINATION' AND 'FREE WILL.' ^11
ordination, the latter man's i'rcc will; and that, while the Pharisees CIIAI'.
admitted only a partial intiuence of the human element on what n
hapijened, or the co-operation of the human Avith the Divine, the " — ~r — '
Sadducees denied all absolute pre-ordination, and made man's choice
of evil or good, with its consequences of misery or happiness, to
depend entirely on the exercise of free will and self-determination.
And in this, like many opponents of ' Predcstinarianism, ' they seem
to have started from the principle, that it was impossible for God
' either to commit or to foresee [in the sense of fore-ordaining]
anything evil.' The mutual misunderstanding here was that common
in all such controversies. Although " Josephus writes as if, according » m Jewish
. '■ . ' ^ War li. 8. 11
to the Pharisees, the chief part m every good action depended upon
fate [pre-ordination] rather than on man's doing, yet in another
l)lace" he disclaims for them the notion that the will of man was '■Ant. xviii.
destitute of spontaneous activity, and speaks somewhat confusedly —
for he is by no means a good reasoncr — of ' a mixture ' of the Divine
and human elements, in which the human will, with its sequence of
virtue or wickedness, is subject to the will of fate. A yet further
modification of this statement occurs in another place," where we are = Ant. xui.
told that, according to the Pharisees, some things depended upon
fate, and more on man himself. Manifestly, there is not a very
wide ditiercnce between this and the fundamental principle of the
Sadducees in wliat we may suppose its primitive form.
But something more will have to be said as illustrative of Phari-
saic teaching on this subject. No one who has entered into the
spirit of the Old Testament can doubt that its outcome was faitJi, in
its twofold aspect of acknowledgment of the absolute Rule, and simple
submission to the Will, of God. What distinguished this so widely
from fatalism was what may be termed Jehovahism — that is, the
moral element in its thoughts of God, and that He was ever presented
as in paternal relationship to men. But the Pharisees carried their
accentuation of the Divine to the verge of fatalism. Even the idea
that God had created man with two impulses, the one to good, the
other to evil; and that the latter was absolutely necessary for the
continuance of this world, would in some measure trace the causation
of moral evil to the Divine lieing. The absolute and unalterable
pre-ordination of every event, to its minutest details, is frequently
insisted upon. Adam had ])een shown all the generations that were
to spring from him. Every incident in the history of Israel had been
foreordained, and the actors in it — tor good or for evil — were only
instruments for carrying out the Divine Will. What were even
3! 8
KIJOM .lOIJDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANf^FlGUKATION.
nooK Moses ;iii<l Aaron? God would have delivered Israel out of Egypt,
111 and .u'iven them the Law, had there been no such persons. Similarly
"- — ' — ' was it in regard to Solomon, to Esther, to Kel)uchadnezzar, and
others. Nay, it was because nmn was predestined to die that the
serpent came to seduce our first parents. And as regarded the
Instory of each indivi(Uial : all that concerned his mental and physical
capacity, or that would betide him, was prearranged. His name,
place, position, circumstances, the very name of her whom he was to
wed, were proclaimed in heaven, just as the hour of his death was
foreordered. There might be seven years of pestilence in the land,
»sanh. 29 a and yct no one died before his time.'' Even if a man inflicted a cut
ichuu. 7 6 on his linger, he might be sure that this also had been preordered.^
Nay, ' wheresoever a man was destined to die, thither would his feet
carry him.'^ We can well understand how the Sadducees would
oppose notions like these, and all such coarse expressions of fatalism.
And it is significant of the exaggeration of Josephus,^ that neither
the New Testament, nor Rabbinic writings, luring the charge of the
denial of God's prevision against the Sadducees.
But there is another aspect of this question also. While the
Pharisees thus held the doctrine of absolute preordination, side by
side with it they were anxious to insist on man's freedom of choice,
his personal responsibility, and moral obligation.^ Although every
e^'ent depended upon God, whether a man served God or not was
entirely in his own choice. As a logical sequence of this, fate had no
influence as regarded Israel, since all depended on prayer, repentance,
and good works. Indeed, otherwise tliat repentance, on which Rab-
binism so largely insists, would have had no meaning. Moreover, it
seems as if it had been intended to convey that, while our evil actions
were entirely our own choice, if a man sought to amend his ways, he
'^Yoma38 6 would be helped of God." It was, indeed, true that God had created
' The followins; curious histance of
this is given. On one occasion King
Solomon, wlien attended by liis two
Scril)es, Elilioreph and Ahlah (l;)oth sup-
posed to have been Ethiopians), sud-
denly perceived the Angel of Death.
As he loolsed so sad, Solomon ascertained
as its reason, that the two Scribes had
been demanded at his hands. On this
Solomon transported them Ijy magic into
the land of Luz, where, according to
legend, no man ever died. Next morn-
ing Solomon again ixMreived tlie Angel
of Deatli, Ijut tliis time laugliing, be-
cause, as he said, Solomon had sent
these men to the very place wdience he
had Iteen ordered to fetch them (Siikk.
53 (I).
- Those who understand the character
of Josephus' writings will be at no loss
for his reasons in tiiis. It would suit
liis purpose to s]ieak often of the fatal-
ism of the Pharisees, and to rei)resent
them as a philosophical sect like the
Stoics. The latter, indeed, he does in
so many words.
■' For details com]i. ]Iamhvrr/er. Real-
Encykl. ii. pp. 103 10(1— though there is
some tendency to ' colouring ' in this as
in other articles of the work.
CEREMONIAL DIFFERENCES.
319
the evil impulse in us; but He had also given the roniedy in the Law. '
This is parabolically represented under the figure ol' a nuin seattnl at
the j»arting of two ways, who warned all })assers that if they chose
one road it would lead them among the thorns, while on the other
l)rief difficulties "would end in a plain path (joy)." Or, to put it in the
language of the great Akiba": ' Everything is foreseen; free deter-
mination is accorded to man; and the world is judged in goodness.'
With this simple juxtaposition of two propositions equally true, but
incapable of metaphysical combination, as are most things in which
the empirically cognisable and uncognisable are joined together, we
are content to leave the matter.
The other differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees can be
easily and briefly summed up. They concern ceremonial, ritual, and
juridical questions. In regard to the first, the opposition of the Sad-
ducees to the excessive scruples of the Pharisees on the subject of
Levitical defilements led to frequent controversy. Four points in
dispute arc mentioned, of which, however, three read more like
ironical comments than serious divergences. Thus, the Sadducees
taunted their opponents with their many lustrations, including that of
the Golden Candlestick in the Temple." Two other similar instances
are mentioned.'' By way of guarding against the possibility of pro-
fanation, the Pharisees enacted, that the touch of any thing sacred
' defiled ' the hands. The Sadducees, on the other hand, ridiculed the
idea that the Holy Scriptures ' defiled ' the hands, but not such a book
as Homer.* In the same spirit, the Sadducees would ask the Phari-
sees how it came, that water pouring from a clean into an unclean
vessel did not lose its purity and purifying power. -^ If these represent
no serious controversies, on another ceremonial question there was real
difference, though its existence shows how far party-spirit could lead
tlie Pharisees. No ceremony was surrounded with greater care to
prevent defilement than that of preparing the ashes of the Red Heifer.''
CIIAP.
II
"BabaB. IG
a
' Sli)lir '■ on
Deut. xi.
26, S 53, ed.
Fried-
niann, j). HO
('
^Ab. in. Ij
■^ Jer. Chag.
ill. 8 : Tos.
ChaK- iii-,
where llie
reader will
find sviffi-
cient pniiif
that the
Sadducees
were not in
the wron^
' In Yad, iv.
6, 7
' Tlie Pharisees replied by askinp; on
wiiat ,2;roiuul the bones of a Higli-Priest
'detiled,' but not those of a donkey.
And when tlie Sadducees ascril)ed it to
the ft'reat value of the former, lest a man
should profane the bones of his i)arents
by makintj; spoons of them, the Pharisees
liointed out that the same arijumeiit
applied to defilement by the Holy Scrip-
tures. In general, it seems that the
Pharisees were afraid of the satirical
comments of the Sadducees on their
doings (comp. Parah iii. 3).
- Wellhausen rightly denounces the
strained interpretation of Ueiger, who
would find here— as in other points —
hid<len i)olitical allusions.
3 Comp. ' The Temple, its Ministry and
Services,' pp. .'JOO. 812. The rubrics are
in the Mishnic tractate Parah, and iu
Tos. Par.
320
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
"Parahiii, :
Tos. Par. 3
'' Parah iii.
7
<■ Shabb.
108 a
d Vv. 15, 16
"■ Men. X. 3;
65 a ; Chag.
ii. i
' Rosh
hash. i. 7 ;
ii. 1:
Tos. Rosh
haSh. ed. Z.
i. 1.3.
'•Sukk.48 6;
com p. Jns.
Ant. xiii.
13. 5
Wluit seem the original ordinances/ directed that, for seven days
})revi()us to the burning of the Red Heifer, the priest was to be
kei)t in separation in the Tenii)le, sprinkled with the ashes of all sin-
olferings, and kept from the touch of his brother-priests, with even
greater rigour than the High-Priest in his preparation for the Day of
Atonement. The Sadducees insisted that, as ' till sundown ' was the
rule in all purification, the priest must be in cleanliness till then, before
burning the Red Heifer. But, apparently for the sake of opposition,
and in contravention to their own principles, the Pharisees would ac-
tually ' defile ' the priest on his way to the place of burning, and then
immediately make him take a bath of purification which had been
prepared, so as to show that the Sadducees were in ("rror." ^ In the
same spirit, the Sadducees seem to have prohibited the use of any-
thing made from animals which were either interdicted as food, or by
reason of their not having been properly slaughtered; while the
Pharisees allowed it, and, in the case of Lcvitically clean animals
which had died or been torn, even made their skin into parchment,
which might be used for sacred purposes."
These may seem trifling distinctions, but they sufliced to kindle
the passions. Even greater importance attached to differences on
ritual questions, although the controversy here was purely theoreti-
cal. For, the Sadducees, when in office, always conformed to the pre-
vailing Pharisaic practices. Thus the Sadducees would have interpreted
Lev. xxiii. 11, 15, 16, as meaning that the wave-sheaf (or, rather, the
Omer) was to be offered on ' the morrow after the weekly Sabbath ' —
that is, on the Sunday in Easter week — which would have brought
the Feast of Pentacost always on a Sunday; '^ while the Pharisees un-
derstood the term ' Sabbath ' of the festive Paschal day.' '^ Connected
with this were disputes about the examination of the witnesses who
testified to the appearance of the new moon, and whom the Phari-
sees accused of having been suborned by their opponents.'
The Sadducean objection to pouring the water of libation upon
the altar on the Feast of Tabernacles, led to riot and bloody repris-
als on the only occasion on which it seems to have been carried into
practice.^* Similarly, the Sadducees objected to the beating
' The Mishnic passage is difficult, but
I believe I have given the sense cor-
rectly.
* This difference, which is more intri-
cate than appears at first sight, requires
a longer discussion than can be given in
this place.
•'* For details about the observances
on this festival I must refer to 'The
Temple, its Ministry and Services.'
DIFFERENCES ON JURIDICAL QUESTIONS.
321
off the willow-branches after the procession round the altar on the
last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, if it were a Sabbath.^ Again,
the Sadducees would have had the High-Priest, on the Day of
Atonement, kindle the incense before entering the Most Holy Place;
the Pharisees after he had entered the Sanctuary." Lastly, the
Pharisees contended that the cost of the daily Sacrifices should be
discharged from the general Temple treasury, while the Sadducees
would have paid it from free-will offerings. Other differences, which
seem not so well established, need not here be discussed.
Among the divergences onj iimZica^ questions, reference has already
been made to that in regard to marriage with the '■ betrothed,' or else
actually espoused widow of a deceased, childless brother. Josephus,
indeed, charges the Sadducees with extreme severity in criminal
matters;" but this must refer to the fact that the ingenuity or punc-
tiliousness of the Pharisees would afford to most offenders a loophole
of escape. On the other hand, such of the diverging juridical prin-
ciples of the Sadducees, as are attested on trustworthy authority,^
seem more in accordance with justice than those of the Pharisees.
They concerned (besides the Levirate marriage) chiefly three points.
According to the Sadducees, the punishment ^ against false witnesses
was only to be executed if the innocent person, condemned on their
testimony, had actually suffered punishment, while the Pharisees held
that this was to be done if the sentence had been actually pronounced,
although not carried out." Again, according to Jewish law, only a
son, but not a daughter, inherited the father's property. From this
the Pharisees argued, that if, at the time of his father's decease, that
son were dead, leaving only a daughter, this granddaughter would,
(as representative of the son) be the heir, while the daughter would
be excluded. On the other hand, the Sadducees held that, in such a
case, daughter and granddaughter should share alike.'' Lastly, the
Sadducees argued that if, according to Exodus xxi. 28,29, a man was
responsible for damage done l^y his cattle, he was equally, if not
more, responsible for damage done by his slave, while the Pharisees
refused to recognise any responsibility on the latter score. ^■-
For the sake of completeness it has been necessary to enter into
CHAP.
n
»Sukk.4:Wy,
find in ilio
Jerus.
Talm. and
T08. Sukk.
lii. 1
*> Jer. Ynma
i. 5; Yonia
19 /;; 53 a
' Specially
Ant. XX. 9
I" Decreed
In Deut.
xlx. 21
f Baba B.
115 h:
Tos.Yad.
ii. 21)
•^ Yad. iv. 7
and To.s.
Yad.
' Other differences, which rest merely
on tlie autiiority of the Hebrew Coni-
nientary on 'The Roll of Fasts,' I have
discarded as unsup])orted by liistorical
evidence. I am sorry to have in this
respect, and on some other aspects of
the (luestion, to ditfer from the h^arned
Article on ' The Sadducees, ' in Kittu'n
Bibl. Encycl.
- Geiger, and even Denntboui-g, see in
tliese things deep political allusions —
which, as it seems to me, have no other
existence than in the ingenuity of these
writers.
322
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOL^'T OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Ant. xlii.
10. G
'■ .\iit. xvli.
•2. i
<■ Acts V. 17;
Ant. X.X.9. 1
'' Sheqal.
iv. 4; vi. 1;
Eduy. vlli.
•2; Ab. li.
8 &c.
' St. John i.
24
• In the Ab.
de R. Nath.
c. 5
details, wliich may not possess a general interest. This, however, will
be marked, that, with the exception of dogmatic differences, the con-
trover.-^y turned on questions of 'canon-law.' Josephus tells us that
the Pharisees commanded the masses,^ and especially the female
world,*' while the Sadducees attached to their ranks only a minority,
and that belonging to the highest class. The leading priests in
Jerusalem formed, of course, part of that highest class of society;
and from the New Testament and Josephus we learn that the High-
Priestly families belonged to the Sadducean party." But to conclude
from this,^ either that the Sadducees represented the civil and political
aspect of society, and the Pharisees the religious; or, that the Sad-
ducees were the priest-party,^ in opposition to the popular and demo-
cratic Pharisees, are inferences not only unsupported, but opposed to
historical facts. For, not a few of the Pharisaic leaders were actually
priests,'^ while the Pharisaic ordinances make more than ample re-
cognition of the privileges and rights of the Priesthood. This would
certainly not have been the case if, as some have maintained, Sad-
ducean and priest-party had been convertible terms. Even as regards
the deputation to the Baptist of ' Priests and Levites ' from Jerusalem,
we are expressely told that they ' were of the Pharisees.'^
This bold hypothesis seems, indeed, to have been invented chiefly for
the sake of another, still more unhistorical. The derivation of the name
' Sadducee ' has always been in dispute. According to a Jewish legend
of about the seventh century of our era,' the name was derived from (me
Tsadoq (Zadok),^ a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, whose principle of
not serving God for reward had been gradually misinterpreted into
Sadduceeism. But, apart from the objection that in such case the party
should rather have taken the name of Antigonites, the story itself re-
ceives no support either from Josephus or from early Jewish writings.
Accordingly modern critics have adopted another hypothesis, which
seems at least equally untenable. On the supposition that the Saddu-
cees were the ' priest-party,' the name of the sect is derived from Zadok
(Tsadoq), the High-Priest in the time of Solomon.* But the objec-
tions to this are insuperable. Not to speak of the linguistic difficulty
of deriving Tsadduqim (Zaddukim, Sadducees) from Tsadoq (Zadok), ^
' So WeUhausen, ii. s.
2 So Geiger, u. s.
•■* Tseduqim and Tsadduqim mark dif-
ferent transhterations of the name Sad-
ducees.
* This theory, defended with injienuity
by Gei'jer, had Vjeen of late adoi)ted by
most writer.^, and even hy ScJdlrer. But
not a few of tlie statements hazarded by
Dr. (ii'ii/i'r seem to me to have no liistori-
cal foundation, and the passages quoted
in sui)port either do not convey such
meaninsr, or else are of no authority.
= So Dr. Lbiv, as quoted in Dr. Gins-
hurifs article.
DERIVATION OF THE NAMES: 'PHARISEE' AND 'SADDUCEE.' 323
neither Joseplius nor the Rabljis know anything of such a connection cilAT.
between Tsadoq and the Sadducees, of which, indeed, the rationale ll
would be difficult to perceive. Besides, is it likely that a party would ^— ^r — '
have gone back so many centuries for a name, which had no connec-
tion with their distinctive principles? The name of a party is, if
self-chosen (which is rarely the case), derived from its founder or place
of origin, or else from wliat it claims as distinctive principles or
practices. Opponents might either pervert such a name, or else give
a designation, generally opprobrious, w)iich would express their own
relation to the party, or to some of its supposed peculiarities. But
on none of these principles can the origin of the name of Sadducees
from Tsadoq be accounted for. Lastly, on the supposition mentiojied,
the Sadducees must have given the name to their party, since it can-
not be imagined that the Pharisees would have connected their op-
ponents with the honoured name of the High-Priest Tsadoq.
If it is highly improbable that the Sadducees, who, of course,
professed to be the right interpreters of Scripture, would choose any
party-name, thereby stamping themselves as sectaries, this derivation
of their name is also contrary to historical analogy. For even the
name Pharisees, ^ Perushlm,' 'separated ones,' was not taken by the
party itself, but given to it by their opponents.*^ From 1 Mace. ii. 42; ^Yad. iv. e
vii. 13; 2 Mace. xiv. 6, it appears that originally they had taken the
sacred name of Chasldim, or 'the pious."' This, no doubt, on the 'Ps. sxx.i;
ground that they were truly those who, according to the directions xxxvii. 2a
of Ezra," had separated themselves (become niljhdalim) 'from the <^vi. 2i;ix.
filthiness of the heathen' (all heathen defilement) by carrying out Neh". ix!2
the traditional ordinances.'^ In fact, Ezra marked the beginning
of the 'later,' in contradistinction to the 'earlier,' or Scripture-
Chasidim.^ If we are correct in supposing that their opponents liad 'Ber. v. i;
called them Perushim, instead of the Scriptural designation of vayyikra ^
Nibhdalim, the inference is at hand, that, while the ' Pharisees ' would war'ah.t
arrogate to themselves the Scriptural name of Chasidun, or 'tlu-
pious,' their opponents would retort that they were satisfied to lie
Tsaddlqim,^ or 'righteous.' Thus the name of J!s«f7r?/g/»?, would l)ccoiue
that of the party opposing the Pharisees, that is, of the Sadducees.
' The ar2;umpnt as against tlie deriva- ^ Here it deserves special notice that
tiou of the torni tidddxcec would, of tlie Old Testament term CJutsid. wlilch
com'se, hold e(nially ^ood, even if each the Pharisees arro,a;atod to theni.selves, is
l)arty had assumed, not received from rendered in the Peshito V)y Z^^(/'//V/. Tims,
the other, its characteristic name. as it were, the opponents of Pharisaism
'^ Comp. fjenerally, ' Sketches of Jewish would i)lay ott" tlie equivalent Tsadiliq
Social Life,' pp. 230, 231. againstthePharisaicarrogatiouof C7i«A7(^.
iii. p. 5 a
324
FRO^r .TOrvDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
« Philn,
Quod
oninis pro-
bus liber,
S 12, ed.
Mang. ii p.
4")7 ; Jns.
Ant. xvili.
1. 5
There is, indeed, an admitted linguistic difficulty in the chan(i:;e of
the sound i into u {TsadcUqlm into Tsadduqim), but may it not have
been that this was accomplished, not grammatically, but by popular
witticism? Such mode of giving- a ' by-name' to a party or govern-
ment is, at least, not irrational, nor is it uncommon/ Some wit
might have suggested: Read not Tsaddiqim, the 'righteous,' but
Tsadduqim (Irom Tsadu, 'iTi)^ 'desolation,' 'destruction.' Whether
or not this suggestion approve itself to critics, the derivation of
Sadducees from Tsaddiqim is certainly that which offers most
probability.^
This uncertainty as to the origin of the name of a party leads
almost naturally to the mention of another, which, indeed, could not be
omitted in any description of those times. But while the Pharisees
and Sadducees were parties ivithin the Synagogue, the Essenes
(Ecrffrjvoi, or 'Ecrcrmoi — the latter always in Philo) were, although
strict Jews, yet separatists, and, alike in doctrine, worship, and
practice, outside the Jewish body ecclesiastic. Their numbers
amounted to only about 4,000.^ They are not mentioned in the
New Testament, and only very indirectly referred to in Rabbinic
writings, perhaps without clear knowledge on the part of the
Ra])bis. If the conclusion concerning them, which we shall by-and-
by indicate, be correct, we can scarcely wonder at this. Indeed,
their entire separation from all who did not belong to their sect, the
terrible oaths by which they bound themselves to secrecy about their
doctrines, and which would prevent any free religious discussion, as
well as the character of what is known of their views, would account
for the scanty notices about them. Josephus and Philo, ^ who
speak of them in the most sympathetic manner, had, no doubt, taken
special pains to ascertain all that could be learned. For this
Josephus seems to have enjoyed special opportunities.* Still, the
secrecy of their doctrines renders us dependent on writers, of Avhom
at least one (Josephus) lies open to the suspicion of colouring and
' Such by-names, by a play on a word,
are not unfrequent. Thus, in Sheni.
R. 5 (ed. Warsh. ]). 14 a, lines 7 and 8
from top), Pharaoli's charf;;e that the
Israelites were u'E-.J' ' idle,' is, by a
transposition of letters made to mean
that they were itopvoi.
'■' It seems strange, that so accurate a
scholar as Schilrer should have regarded
the ' national party ' as merely an ottslinot
from tlie Pharisees (Neutest. Zeitgesch.
p. 431), and ajjpealed in proof to a
])assage in Jose'phns (Ant. xviii. 1. 6),
which expressly calls the Nationalists a
fniuih party, by the side of the Pharisees,
.'^adducees, and Essenes. That in prac-
tice thoy would carry out the strict
.Judaism of the Pharisees, does not make
them T'harisees.
■• They are also mentioned by Pliny
(Hist. Natur. v. 16).
■* This may be inferred from Josephus'
Life, c. 2.
ESSENISM. 325
oxag:geration. But of one tiling wc may feci certain: neither John ciLvr.
the Baptist, and his Baptism, nor the teaching of Christianity, had H
any connection with Essenism. It were utterly unhistorical to infer '^ ^r — '
such from a few points of contact — and these only of similarity, not
identity — when the differences between them are so fundamental.
That an Essene would have preached repentance and the Kingdom
of God to multitudes, baptized the uninitiated, and given supreme
testimon}' to One like Jesus, are assertions only less extravagant than
this, that One Who mingled with society as Jesus did, and Whose
teaching, alike in that respect, and in all its tendencies, was so
utterly Non-, and even Anti-Essenic, had derived any part of His
doctrine from Essenism. Besides, when we remember the views of
the Essenes on purification, and on Sabbath observance, and their
denial of the Resurrection, we feel that, whatever points of resemblance
critical ingenuity may emphasise, the teaching of Christianity was in
a direction opposite from that of Essenism.'
■ We possess no data for the history of the origin and develo})ment
(if such there was) of Essenism. We may admit a certain con-
nection between Pharisaism and Essenism, though it has been
greatly exaggerated by modern Jewish writers. Both directions
originated from a desire after ' purity, ' though there seems a funda-
mental difference between them, alike in the idea of what consti-
tuted purity, and in the means for attaining it. To the Pharisee it
was Levitical and legal purity, secured by the 'hedge' of ordinances
which they drew around themselves. To the Essene it was absolute
purity in separation from the ' material, ' which in itself was detiling.
The Pharisee attained in this manner the distinctive merit of a saint;
the Essene obtained a higher fellowship with the Divine, ' inward '
purity, and not only freedom from the detracting, degrading influ-
ence of matter, but command over matter and nature. As the result
of this higher fellowship with the Divine, the adept possessed the
power of prediction; as the result of his freedom from, and command
' This point is conclusively disposed dissent being few and unimportdnt. The
of by Bishop Li<jhtfoot in tlie third Dis- reader who wishes to see a statement of
sertation appended to his Conunentary the supposed analogy between Essenism
on the Colossians (pp. 897-419). In and the teaching of Christ will find it in
general, the masterly discussion of the Dr. Ginshunfs Article 'Essenes,' in
whole subject by Bishoj) Lightfoot, alike Smith and Wace\s Dictionary of Christian
in the body of the Conunentary and in Biography. The same line of argument
the three Dissertations ai)pen(le(i, nuiy ])e lias been followed by Frunkel and (rartz.
said to form a new era in tlie treatment The reasons for the opposite view are
of the whole question, the points on set forth in the text.
which we would venture to express
326
FROM .JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Jnx. Ant.
xiii. 5. 9
b 105-104
B.C. ; Ant.
xili. 11. 2;
War i. 3. 5
"= Phih, ii.p.
457
* PHny,
Hist. Nat.
V. 16, 17
« Philo, U.S.
p. 632; M<.
Jewish War
li. 8. 4
f Ant. xiii.
11. 2; XV.
10. 5; xvii.
13. 3
E War V. 4. 2
•' I'liilo, U.S.
p. 632
i War ii.8. 9
over matter, the power of miraculous cures. That their purifications,
strictest Sabbath observance, and other practices, would form points
of contact with Pharisaism, follows as a matter of course; and a
little reflection will show, that such observances would naturally be
adopted by the Essenes, since they were within the lines of Judaism,
although separatists from its body ecclesiastic. On the other hand,
their fundamental tendency was quite other than tliat of Pharisaism,
and strongly tinged with Eastern (Parsee) elements. After this the
inquiry as to the precise date of its origin, and whether Essenism
was an ofl'shoot from the original (ancient) Assideans or ChasicUm,
seems needless. Certain it is that we find its first mention about
150 B.C.,'' and that w^e meet the first Essene in the reign of Aris-
tobulus I.*"
Before stating our conclusions as to its relation to Judaism and
the meaning of tlie name, we shall put together what information
may be derived of the sect from the writings of Josephus, Philo, and
Pliny. ^ Even its outward organisation and the mode of life must
have made as deep, and, considering the habits and circumstances of
the time, even deeper impression than does the strictest asceticism
on the part of any modern monastic order, without the unnatural
and repulsive characteristics of the latter. There were no vows of
absolute silence, broken only by weird chaunt of prayer or * memento
mori;' no penances, nor self-chastisement. But the person who had
entered the 'order' was as effectually separated from all outside as
if he had lived in another world. Avoiding the large cities as the
centres of immorality, ° they chose for their settlements chiefly
villages, one of their largest colonies being by the shore of the Dead
Sea.'^ At the same time they had also 'houses' in most, if not all the
cities of Palestine, "" notably in Jerusalem,^ where, indeed, one of the
gates was named after them.^ In these 'houses' they lived in com-
mon,'' under officials of their own. The affairs of 'the order' were
administered by a tribunal of at least a hundred members.' They
wore a common dress, engaged in common labor, united in common
prayers, partook of common meals, and devoted themselves to
w^orks of charity, for Avhich each had liberty to draw from the com-
' Compare Joseplnift, Ant. xiii. 5, 9;
XV. 10. 4, 5; xviii. 1. 5; Jewish War, ii.
8, 2-13; Philo, Quod omiiis probus liber,
§ 12, l?> (ed. Mnnqei/, ii. 4.'i7-459; ed.
Par. and Frcf. i)p. 87C-879; ed. Bu//ti'r,
vol. V. pp. 285-288); Plini/, N.H. v. 16,
17. For references in the Fathers see
Bp. Liglitfoot on Colossians, pp. 83, 84
(note). Comp. the literature tliere and
in Svh'ilrer (Neute.-it. Zeitijesch. p. .399),
to which I would add Dr. Giiibur'/s Art.
' Eriseues' in iSmif/i's and Wace^s Diet, of
Chr. Biogr., vol. ii.
VIEWS AND OBSERVANCES OF THE ESSENES. 327
raon treasury at liis own discretion, except in the case of relatives.* CHAP.
It scarcely needs mention that they extended fullest hospitality H
to strang-ers belonging- to the order; in fact, a special official was ^- — ^.^ '
appointed lor this purjjose in every city.'' Everything was of the »w;iru. h.g
simplest character, and intended to jjurify the sonl l)y the great- ''"•'^•s*
est possible avoidance, not only of what was sinful, but of what
was material. Rising at dawn, no profane word was spoken till
they had ottered their prayers. These were addressed towards, if
not to, the rising son — probably, as they would have explained it, as
the emblem of the Divine Light, but implying invocation, if not
adoration, of the sun.^ After that they were dismissed by their
officers to common work. The morning meal was preceded by a
lustration, or bath. Then they put on their 'festive ' linen garments,
and entered, purified, the common hall as their Sanctuary. For each
meal was sacrificial, in fact, the only sacrifices which they acknow-
leged. The ' baker,' who was really their priest — and naturally so,
since he prepared the sacrifice — set before each bread, and the c-ook
a mess of vegetables. The meal began with prayer by the pre-
siding priest, for those who i)resided at these ' sacrifices ' were also
'priests,' although in neither case probably of Aaronic descent, but
consecrated by themselves." The sacrificial meal was again concluded cjbs. warn,
by prayer, when they put off their sacred dress, and returned to their xViii. i. k
labour. The evening meal was of exactly the same description, and
partaken of with the same rites as that of the morning.
Although the Essenes, who, with the exception of a small party
among them, repudiated marriage, adopted children to train them
in the principles of their sect,- yet admission to the order was only
granted to adults, and after a novitiate which lasted three years.
On entering, the novice received the three symbols of purity: an
axe, or rather a spade, with which to dig a pit, a foot deep, to cover
up the excrements; an ajwon, to bind round the loins in batliing;
and a white dress, which was always worn, the festive garment at
meals being of linen. At the end of the first year the novice was
' The distinction is Schiirer's, althoucili (Comp. ed. Mnngey, ii. p. 632, from
he is disposed to minimise this point. Eiisebhis' Prajpar. Evang. lib. viii. cap.
More on this in the sequel. 8.) I have adopted the view of Bisiiop
■•* Schiirer re,2;ard3 these children as Lu/Ziffoot on the suliject. Even the
formino; the first of the four 'classes' or marrjinp: order of the Essenes, however,
'grades' into which the Essenes were only admitted of wedlock under great re-
arranged. But this is contrary to the strictlous. and as a necessary evil (War,
express statement of P/i/In, that only u. s. § 13). Bishoj) TJi/htfnot suggests,
adults were admitted into the order, and that these were not Essenes in tiie strict
hence only such could have fornu^d a sense, but only ' like the third order of a
'grade' or 'class' of the community. Benedictine or Franciscan brotherhood.'
828 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK admitted to tlie lustrations. He had now entered on the second
III grade, in whieh he remained for another year. After its lapse, he
'^ — ' ■ was advanced to the ^/aVrZ grade, but still continued a novice, until, at
the close of the third year of his probation, he was admitted to the
fourth grade — that of full member, when, for the first time, he was
admitted to the sacrifice of the common meals. The mere touch of
one of a lower grade in the order defiled the Essene, and necessitated
the lustration of a bath. Before admission to full membership, a
terrible oath w^as taken. As, among other things, it bound to the
most absolute secrecy, we can scarcely suppose that its form, as
" War ii. 8.7 given by Josephus, " contains much beyond what was generally
allowed to transpire. Thus the long list given by the Jewish his-
torian of moral obligations which the Essenes undertook, is probably
only a rhetorical enlargement of some simple formula. More credit
attaches to the alleged undertaking of avoidance of all vanity, false-
hood, dishonesty, and unlawful gains. The last parts of the oath
alone indicate the peculiar vows of the sect, that is, so far as they
could be learned by the outside world, probably chiefly through the
practice of the Essenes. They bound each member not to conceal
anything from his own sect, nor, even on peril of death, to disclose
their doctrines to others; to hand down their doctrines exactly as
they had received them; to abstain from robbery;^ and to guard the
hooks belonging to their sect, and the names of the Angels.
It is evident that, while all else was intended as safeguards of a
rigorous sect of purists, and with the view of strictly keeping it a
secret order, the last-mentioned particulars furnish significant indica-
tions of their peculiar doctrines. Some of these may be regarded
as only exaggerations of Judaism, though not of the Pharisaic kind. ^
Among them we reckon the extravagant reverence for the name of
their legislator (presumably Moses), whom to blaspheme was a
capital offence; their rigid abstinence from all prohibited food; and
their exaggerated Sabbath-observance, when, not only no food was
prepared, but not a vessel moved, nay, not even nature eased. ^ But
this latter was connected with their fundamental idea of inherent im-
' Can this iiossibly have any connec- few, if any, traces of Pharisaism in the
tion in the mind of .Tosephus witli the distinctive sense of the term. Even their
later Nationalist movement ? This would frequent washings had a diflerent object
agree with his insistance on their respect from those of the Pharisees,
for those in authority. Otherwise the ■* For a similar reason, and in order
enii)hasis laid on abstinence from robbery • not to afl'ront the Divine rays of light ' —
seems strange in such a sect. the light as symbol, if not outcome, of
- I venture to think that even Bishop the Deity— they covered themselves, in
Lir//i/foof lays too much stress on the such circumstances, with the mantle which
afllnltv to Pharisaism. I can discover was their ordinarv dress in winter.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESSENISM AND OUTIIODOX JUD.USM. 329
purity ill the l)0(ly, and, iudocl, in all that is material. Ilenec, also, CHAP,
their asceticism, their repudiation of inarria<i-e, and their frequent n
lustrations in clean water, not only belbre tlieii- sacrificial meals, ])ut ^-^r — -
upon contact even with an Essene of a lower grade, and alter attend-
ing to the calls of nature. Their undoubted denial of the resurrection
of the bod II seems only the logical sequence from it. W the soul
was a sul)stancc of the subtlest ether, drawn by certain natural
enticement into the body, which was its i)rison, a state of pcrfectness
could not have consisted in the restoration of that which, being
material, was in itself im])ure. And, indeed, what we have called
the exaggerated Judaism of the sect — its rigid al)stinence from all
forbidden food, and peculiar Sabbath-observance — may all liav(' had
the same object, that of tending towards an external purism, which
the Divine legislator would have introduced, but the 'carnally-
minded ' could not receive. Hence, also, the strict separation of the
order, its grades, its rigorous discipline, as well as its abstinence from
wine, meat, and all ointments — from every luxury, even from trades
which would encourage this, or any vice. This aim after external
purity explains many of their outward arrangements, such as that
their labour was of the simplest kind, and the commonality of
all property in the order; i:)crhaps, also, what may seem more
ethical ordinances, such as the repudiation of slavery, their refusal
to take an oath, and even their scrupulous care of truth. The white
garments, Avhich they always wore, seem to have been but a symbol
of that purity which they sought. For this puri)oso they submitted,
not only to strict asceticism, but to a discipline which gave the
officials authority to expel all offenders, even though in so doing
they virtually condemned them to death by starvation, since the
most terrible oaths had bound all entrants into the order not to
partake of any food other than that i)rei)ared by their ' priests.'
In such a system there would, of course, be no place for e it! ler
an Aaronic priesthood^ or bloody sacrifices. In fact, they repudiated
both. Without formally rejecting the Temple and its services, there
was no room in their system for such ordinances. They sent, indeed,
thank-offerings to tlie Temple, but what part had they in bloody
sacrifices and an Aarohic ministry, which constituted the main busi-
ness of the Temple? Their ' priests ' were their bakers and presidents;
their sacrifices those of fellowship, their sacred meals of purity. It
is quite in accordance with this tendency when we learn from Philo
that, in thtir diligent study of the Scriptures, they chiefly adopted
the allegorical mode of interpretation.'' u^p! i'sa"'"
330
FROM JOIIDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK We ciui scarcely wonder that such Jews as Josephus and Pliilo,
III and such lieuthens as Pliny, were attracted by such an unworldly
- — Y^^ and lolty sect. Here were about 4,000 men, who deliberately
separated themselves, not only IVom all that made life pleasant, but
from all around; who, after passing a long and strict novitiate,
were content to live under the most rigid rule, obedient to their
superiors; who gave up all their possessions, as well as the earnings
of their daily toil in the fields, or of their simple trades; who
held all things for the common benefit, entertained strangers,
nursed their sick, and tended their aged as if their own parents, and
were charitable to all men; who renounced all animal passions,
eschewed anger, ate and drank in strictest moderation, accumulated
neither wealth nor possessions, wore the simplest white dress till it
was no longer fit for use; repudiated slavery, oaths, marriage; ab-
stained from meat and wine, even from the common Eastern anoint-
ing witli oil; used mystic lustrations, had mystic rites and mystic
prayers, an esoteric literature and doctrines; whose every meal was
a sacrifice, and every act one of self-denial; who, besides, were
strictly truthful, honest, upright, virtuous, chaste, and charitable — in
short, whose life meant, positively and uegatively, a continual purifi-
cation of the soul by mortification of tlic l)ody. To the astonished
onlookers this mode of life was rendered even more sacred by doctrines,
a literature, and magic power known only to the initiated. Their
mysterious conditions made them cognisant of the names of Angels,
by which we are, no doubt, to understand a theosophic knowledge,
fellowship with the Angelic world, and the power of employing its
ministry. Their constant ]mrifications, and the study of their prophetic
^jbs.warii. writings, gave them the power of prediction;'' the same mystic
Ant.xiii. ' writings revealed the secret remedies of plants and stones for the
11. 2' XV. 10.
5;"xvii. is. 3 liealiug of the body,^ as well as what was needed for the cure of souls.
It deserves special notice that this intercourse with Angels, this
secret traditional literature, and its teaching concerning mysterious
remedies in plants and stones, are not unfrequently referred to in tliat
Apocalyptic literature known as the ' Pseudepigraphic Writings. ' Con-
fining ourselves to undoubtedly Jewish and pre-Christian documents,^
we know what development the doctrine of Angels received both in
i-ch. sxxi.- the P)()()k of Enoch (alike in its earlier and in its later portion '') and
in the Uook of Jubilees,^ and how the 'seers' received Angehc
' Thei'c call be no question that these
Essene curcrf were magical, and their
knowledfje of remedie.s esoteric.
■■^ Bishop Lhjhtfoot refers to a part of
the Sibylline books which seems of
Christian authorship.
■' Comp. Lucius, Essenismus, p. 109.
This brocliuro, the latest on the subject,
ORIGIN OF ES.SENISM. 33]
instruction and revelations. The distinctively Ral)))inic teacliing CIIAP.
on these sul)jects is fully set forth in another pai't of this work.' H
Here we would only specially notice that in tlu' IJook of .Iiihilccs ^' ^- — -i^-^
Auii'els are represented asteachini;- Noah all 'herbal remedies' for '^h-x-
diseases," while in the later Pirqe de R. Eliezer " this instruction is 'comp.
said to have been ^'iven to Moses. These two points (relation to the sopiior'
11 1 1 J. 1 1 • 1 /• 1 Noach in
Anu'els, and knowledfi^e ol theremedud i)ower ot i)lants — not to speak .MUnek's
ot visions and prophecies) seem to connect the secret writin<>;s ol the Mi<ir. iiart
p]sscnes with that 'outside' literature which in. Rabbinic writings i56
is known as Svjiltartin haChitsonim, 'outside writings.'^ The point '*^-*^
is of greatest importance, as will presently appear.
It needs no demonstration, that a system which proceeded from a
contempt of the body and of all that is material; in some manner
identitied the Divine manifestation with the Sun; denied the Resur-
rection, the Temple-priesthood, and sacrifices; preached abstinence
from meats and from marriage; decreed such entire sei)arati()n from all
around that their very contact defiled, and that its adherents would
have perished of hunger rather tlian join in the meals of the outside
world; which, moreover, contained not a trace of Messianic elements
— indeed, had no room for them — could have had no internal connec-
tion with the origin of Christianity. Equally certain is it that, in
respect of doctrine, life, and worship, it re'dWy stood outside Judaism,
as represented by either Pharisees or Sadducees. The question
whence the foreign elements were derived, which were its distinctive
characteristics, has of late been so learnedly discussed, that only the
conclusions arrived at require to be stated. Of the two theories, of
which the one traces Essenism to Neo-Pythagorean,'' the other to
Persian sources,* the latter seems fully established — without, however,
wholly denying at least the possibility of Neo-Pythagorean intlueiices. .
To the grounds which have been so conclusively urged in support of the
Eastern origin of P'ssenism," in its distinctive features, maybe added
this, that Jewish Angelology, which played so great a part in the
system, was derived from Chaldee and Persian sources, and perhaps
also the curious notion, that the knowledge of medicaments, originally
ihou2;li interesting, adds little to our ^ 80 Zeller, Pliilosoi)lue d. Griechen,
knowledge. ed. 1S81, iii. ])\). •277-.'5:)7.
1 See Appendix XIII. on the Angelol- * So Hisliop Li(ihtf<)()t, in liis masterly
ogy, Satanoiogy, and Demonology of the treatment of tlie whole snl)ject in his
Jews. Conmientary on the Ep. to the Colossians.
^ Only after writing the above I have ^ By Bishop Lightfooi, u. s. pp. 382-
noticed, that .h'Uiuek ai-rives at the same 396. In general, I i)refer on many points
conclusion as to the Ii]ssene character of — such as the connection between Esseu-
the Book of Jubilees (Beth ha-Midr. ism and Gnosticism Ac, simply to refer
iii. ]). xxxiv., xxxv.), and of tlie Book of readers to the classic work of Bishop
Enoch (u. s. ii, p, xxx.). Lighifoot.
332
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
••' Seplier
Noach a p.
Jdimek iii.
p. 15G
••' Deiifsch,
Rpmains,
pp. 359, aeo
derived by Noah from the angels, came to the Egyptians chiefly
through the magic books of the Chaldees.'' '
It is only at the conclusion of these investigations that we are
prepared to enter on the question of the origin and meaning of the
name Essenes, important as this inquiry is, not only in itself, but in
regard to the relation of the sect to orthodox Judaism. The eighteen
or nineteen proposed explanations of a term, which must undoubtedly
be of Hebrew etymology, all proceed on the idea of its derivation
from something which implied praise of the sect, the two least objec-
tionable explaining the name as equivalent either to 'the pious,' or
else to ' the silent ones. ' But against all such derivations there is the
obvious objection, that the Pharisees, who had the moulding of the
theological language, and who were in the habit of giving the hardest
names to those who differed from them, would certainly not have
bestowed a title implying encomium on a sect which, in principle and
practices, stood so entirely outside, not only of their own views, but
even of the Synagogue itself. Again, if they had given a name of
encomium to the sect, it is only reasonable to suppose that they would
not have kept, in regard to their doctrines and practices, a silence
which is only broken by dim and indirect allusions. Yet, as we
examine it, the origin and meaning of the name seem implied in their
very position towards the Synagogue. They were the only real sect,
strictly outside7's, and their name £'s.se;ifi.S' {^'Eaai^voi, ^^acraioi) seems
the Greek equivalent for Chitsonim (z^l'^'n), ' the outsiders. ' Even the
circumstance that the axe, or rather spade (a^ivapiov), which every
novice received, has for its Rabbinic equivalent the word Chatsina, is
here not without significance. Linguistically, the words Essenoi and
GMtsonim are equivalents, as admittedly are the similar designations
Chasidim (C'Tv~) and Asidaioi {^Acridaioi). For, in rendering Hebrew
into Greek, the c7i (n) is * often entirely omitted, or represented by
a spiritiis lenis in the beginning,' while ' in regard to the vowels no
distinct rule is to be laid down. ' '' Instances of a change of the Hebrew i
into the Greek e are frequent, and of the Hebrew o into the Greek e not
rare. As one instance will suffice, we select a case in which exactly the
same transmutation of the two vowel-sounds occurs — that of the Rab-
binic Abhgmos (uu^^N) for the Greek{£vy€vt}5)'Eagenes ('well-born ').*
1 As regard.? any connection between
the Essene.s and the Therupeufai, Lucius
has denied tlie existence of such a sect
and the Piiilonic authorship of fZe V.co>if.
The latter we have sought to defend in
the Art. Philo (Smith and Wace's Diet,
of Chr. Biogr. iv.), and to show that the
Therapeutes were not a ' sect ' but an
esoteric circle of Alexandrian Jews.
•^ As other instances may be quoted such
as Istagioth (rri'^JZls') ^ areyi), roof;
Istuli (VVJCNj^o-r/^A?/, a pillar; Dikh-
suniini (*2*'2*w2~)=(5£qa7<f j'?/, cistern.
DERIVATION OF THE NAME ' ESSENES.
333
This derivation oftlie luiiiie UsseneSj which strictly expresses tlie chap
character and standing of the sect relatively to orthodox Judaism, H
anil, indeed, is the (ireek Ibrni of the Hebrew term tor '(outsiders,' is ^-— r-^
also otherwise conlirmed. It has already been said, that no direct
statement concerning the Essenes occurs in Kabbinic writings. Nor
need this surprise us, when we remember the general reluctance of
the Rabbis to refer to tludr opp(jnents, except in actual controversy;
and, that, when traditionalism was reduced to writing, Essenism, as
a Jewish sect, had ceased to exist. Some of its elements had passed
into the Synagogue, influencing its general teaching (as in regard to
Angelology, magic, &c.), and greatly contributing to that mystic
direction which afterwards found expression in what is now known as
the Kabbalah. But the general movement had passed beyond the
bounds of Judaism, and appeared in some forms of the Gnostic heresy.
But still there are Rabbinic references to the 'Chitsonim,' which
seem to identify them with the sect of the Essenes. Thus, in one
imssage "^ certain practices of the Sadducees and of the Chitsonim are »Megui.
^ 24 li, lines 4
mentioned together, and it is difficult to see who could be meant by and 5 from
. -, , . , n 1 bottom
the latter if not the Essenes, Besides, the practices there referred to
seem to contain covert allusions to those of the P]ssencs. Thus, the
Mishnah begins by prohibiting the public reading of the Law by
those who would not appear in a coloured, but only in a iv/iite dress.
Again, the curious statement is made that the manner of the Chitsonim
was to cover the phylacteries with gold — a statement unexplained in
the Gcmara, and inexplicable, unless we see in it an allusion to the
Essene practice of facing the rising Sun in their morning prayers.^
Again, we know with what bitterness Rabbinism denounced the use
of the externeivritings (the SepharimhaChitsonim) to the extent of ex-
cluding from eternal life those who studied them.'' But one of the "sanii. x.i
best ascertained facts concerning the Essenes is that they possessed
secret, ' outside,' holy writings of their own, which they guarded with
special care. And, although it is not maintained that the Sepharim
haChitsonim were exclusively Essene writings,^ the latter must have
been included among them. We have already seen reason for beUev-
1 Tlie practice of beiyinmiifr prayers be- God m the so-called i^/«Z/^/i^7/f>^/^ Zikhro-
fore. and endina; them as the sun had noth, and Shophroth), shows that they
just risen, seems to have passed from the were not Essenes, since such Kal)binic
Essenes to a party in the Rynasogue it- practices must have been alien ti> their
s(>lf. and is ])oiiitedlv alluded to as a system.
characteristic of the so-called Veihil-in, - In Sanh. ino // they are explained as
Ber. () 6; 2,5 5; 26 a. But another i^e- 'tlie writings of the Sadducees,' and by
culiaritv about them, noticed in Rosh another Rabbi as ■ the Book of Sirach '
haSli. :}2 h (the repetition of all the verses in (Ecclus. in the Apocrypha). Ilnmlnir;/e'\
the Pentateuch coutaininir the record of as sometimes, makes assertions on this
334
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" In Sanh.
X. 1
b Meg. 24 b
= Sanh. 101
a; Jer.
Sanh, p. 28 ()
ing, that even the so-called r.seiulepigraphic literature, notably such
works as the Book ol' Jubilees, was strongly tainted with Essene views;
ii', indeed, in perhaps another than its present form, part of it was
not actually Essene. Lastly, we find what seems to us yet another
covert alku'iou'' to Essene practices, similar to that which has already
been noticed.^ For, immediately after consigning to destruction all
who denied that there was proof in the Pentateuch for the Resurrec-
tion (evidently the Sadducees), those who denied that the Law was
from heaven (the Minim, or heretics — probably the Jewish Christians),
and all ' E]picureans ' ^ (materialists), the same punisliment is assigned
to those ' who read externe writings ' {Sep]w,run haChitsonim) and
'who whispered' (a magical formula) 'over a wound. '^ Both the
Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud " offer a strange explanation
of this practice; perhaps, because they either did not, or else would
not, understand the allusion. But to us it seems at least significant
that as, in the first quoted instance, the mention of the Chitsonim is
conjoined with a condemnation of the exclusive use of white garments
in worship, which we know to have been an Essene peculiarity, so the
condemnation of the use of Chitsonim writings with that of magical
cures.* At the same time, we are less bound to insist on these
allusions as essential to our argument, since those, who have given
another derivation than ours to the name Essenes, express themselves
unable to find in ancient Jewish writings any trustworthy reference
to the sect.
On one point, at least, our inquiry into the three ' parties ' can
leave no doubt. The Essenes could never have been drawn either to
the person, or the preaching of John the Baptist. Similarly, the
Sadducees would, after they knew its real character and goal, turn
point which caunot be supported (Real-
Worterb. ii. p. 70). Jer. Sanii. 28 a ex-
plaiiiti, ' Such as tiie booivs of Bea Sirach
and of Ben La'nah ' — the latter apparently
also an Apocrypiial book, for which tlie
Midr. Kohel. (ed. Warsh. iii. p. lOfi h) has
' the book of Ben Tasla ' ' La'nali ' and
' Ta,ii:la' could scarcely be symbolic names.
On the other hand, I cannot agree with
Fiirsi (Kanon d. A.T. p. !l'.)). who identi-
fies them witli ApoUonius of Tyana and
Empedocles. Dr. Neubnuer suggests that
Ben La'nah may be a corruption of Sibyl-
line Oracles.
1 The 'Epicureans.' or -freethinkers,'
are explaineil to Ije such as speak con-
tenii)tuous!y of the Scriptures, or of tiu;
Rubbis (^Jer, Sauh. 27 d). In Sanh. 38 i)
a distinction is made between 'stranger'
(heathen) Epicureans, and Israelitish Epi-
cureans. With the latter it is unwise to
enter into argument.
■^ Both in the Jer. and Bab. Talm. it is
conjoined with -spitting,' whicli was a
mode of healing, usual at the time. The
Talmud forbids the magical formula, only
ill comieetion with this 'spitting' — and
i.KUi for the curious reason tliat the Di-
vine Name is not to l)e recorded while
'spitting.' But. wliile in the Bab. Talm.
the prohibition bears against such ■ si)it-
ting' before pronouncing tlie formula, in
the Jer. Talm. it is after uttering it.
■* Bishop Lirjlitfoot has shown that the
Essene cures were magical (u. s. pp. 91
&c. and p. 377j.
SUBJECT OF PHARISAIC INQUIRY REGARDING JOHN. 335
contemptuously from a movement wliicli wonld awaken no sympathy CIIAP.
in them, and could only become of interest when it threatened to II
endanger their class by awakening popular enthusiasm, and so ^- — -r '
rousing the suspicions of the Romans. To the Pharisees there were
questions of dogmatic, ritual, and even national importance involved,
which made the barest possibility of what John announced a question
of supreme moment. And, although we judge that the report which
the earliest Pharisaic hearers of John * brought to Jerusalem — no « st. Matt.
doubt, detailed and accurate — and which led to the despatch of the
deputation, would entirely predispose them against the Baptist, yet
it behooved them, as leaders of public opinion, to take such cognisance
of it, as would not only finally determine their own relation to the
movement, but enable them efl'ectually to direct that of others also.
7
336 FR^^^i JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER III.
THE TWOFOLD TESTIMONY OF JOHN — THE FIRST SABBATH OF JESUS'S
MINISTRY — THE FIRST SUNDAY — THE FIRST DISCIPLES.
(St. John i. 15-51.)
BOOK The forty days, which had passed since Jesus had first come to him,
^^^ must have been to the Baptist a time of soul-quickening, of unfold-
■''^<'^ ' ing understanding, and of ripened decision. We see it in liis more
em]ihasised testimony to the Christ; in his fuller comprehension of
those prophecies which had formed the warrant and substance of his
Mission; but specially in the yet more entire self-abnegation, wliich
led him to take up a still lowlier position, and acquiescingly to realise
that his task of heralding was ending, and that what remained was
to point those nearest to him, and who had most deeply drunk of his
spirit, to Him Who had come. And how could it be otherwise? On
first meeting Jesus by the banks of Jordan, he had felt the seeming
incongruity of baj^tizing One of Whom he had rather need to be
baptized. Yet this, perhaps, because he had beheld himself by the
Brightness of Christ, rather than looked at the Christ Himself.
What he needed was not to be baptized, but to learn that it became
the Christ to fulfil all righteousness. This was the first lesson. The
next, and completing one, came when, after the Baptism, the heavens
opened, the Spirit descended, and the Divine Voice of Testimony
pointed to, and explained the promised sign. ' It told him, that the
work, which he had begun in the obedience of faith, had reached the
reality of fulfilment. The first was a lesson about the Kingdom; the
second about the King. And then Jesus was parted from him, and
led of the Spirit into the wilderness.
Forty days since then — with these events, this vision, those Avords
ever present to his mind! It had been the mightiest impulse; nay,
it must have been a direct call from above, which first brought John
from his life-preparation of lonely communing with God to the task
of preparing Israel for that which he knew was preparing for them.
1 St. Johu i. 33.
THE ISAIAH-PREACHING OF JOHN. 337
He had entered upon it, not only without illusions, but with such chap.
entire sclf-tbrgetl'iilness, as only deepest conviction of the reality of HI
what he auuounced could have wrought. He knew those to whom he ^— ^r — '
was to speak — the preoccupation, the spiritual dulness, the sins of
the great mass; tlie hypocrisy, the unreality, the inward im'j^ienitence
of tlieir spiritual leaders; the perverseness of their direction; the
hollowness and delusiveness of their confidence as being descended
from Abraham. He saw only too clearly their real character, and knew
the near end of it all: how the axe was laid to the barren tree, and
how terribly the fan would sift the chaff from the wheat. And yet
lie preached and bai)tized; for, deepest in his heart was the conviction,
that there was a Kingdom at hand, and a King coming. As we
gather the elements of that conviction, we find them chiefly in the
Book of Isaiah. His speech and its imagery, and, especially, the
burden of his message, were taken from those prophecies.^ Indeed,
his mind seems saturated with them; they must have formed his own
religious training; and they were the preparation for his work. This
gathering up of the Old Testament rays of light and glory into the
burning-glass of Evangelic prophecy had set his soul on fire. No
wonder that, recoiling equally from the externalism of the Pharisees,
and the merely material purism of the Essenes, he preached quite
another doctrine, of inward repentance and renewal of life.
One picture was most brightly reflected on those pages of Isaiah.
It was that of the Anointed, Messiali, Christ, the Representative
Israelite, the Priest, King, and Prophet," in Whom the institution ms. ix.e
and sacramental meaning of the Priesthood, and of Sacrifices, found xUL:'iii.'io
their fulfilment." In his announcement of the Kingdom, in his call ixi".
to inward repentance, even in his symbolic Baptism, that Great ''^^li"-
Personality always stood out before the mind of John, as the One all-
overtopping and overshadowing Figure in the background. It was
the Isaiah-picture of 'the King in His beauty,' the vision of 'the
1 This is insisted upon by Kcim, in floor and fan, xxi. 10; xxviii. 27 &c. ;
ills beautiful slcetch of the Baptist. xxx. 24; xl. 24; xli. 15 &c. ; bread and
Would that he had known the Master iu coat to the jwor, Iviii. 7 ; the garner,
the fiilory of His Divinity, as he under- xxi. 10. Besnles these, the Isaiah refer-
stood the Forerunner in the beauty of ence in his Baptism (Is. lii. 15; i. 16),
his humanity ! To show how the whole and that to tlie Lamij of God — indeed
teaching of tlie Bai)tist was, so to speak. many otliers of a more indirect character,
saturated with Isaiali-langnage and will readily occur to the reader. Sinii-
thoughts, com)), not only Is. xl. 3, as the larly, wlieu our Lord would afterwards
burden of his mission, l)ut as to his im- instruct Inm in his hour of darkness (St.
agery (after A>/«?): Generation of vipers. .Matt. xi. 2), He points for the solution of
Is. lix. 5; planting of the Lord, Is. v. 7; iiis doubts to the well-remembered pro-
frees, vi. 18; x. 15, 18, 33; xl. 24; Jfre. phecies of Isaiah (Is. xxxv. 5, 6; Ixi. 1;
i. 31; ix. 18; x. 17; v. 24; xlvii. 14; viii. 14. 1,->|.
338 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK land of far distances '" ^ — to liim a reality, of which Saddiicee and
l^l Essenc had no conception, and the Pharisee only the grossest mis-
V -,-—1-^ conception. This also explains how the greatest of those born of
" Is. xxxiii. women was also the most humble, the most retiring, and self-forgetful.
^' In a picture such as that which filled his whole vision, there was no
room for self. By the side of such a Figure all else appeared in its
real littleness, and, indeed, seemed at best but as shadows cast by
its light. All the more would the bare suggestion on the part of the
Jerusalem deputation, that he might be the Christ, seem like a blas-
phemy, from which, in utter self-abasement, he would seek shelter in
the scarce-ventured claim to the meanest office which a slave could
discharge. He was not Elijah. Even the fact that Jesus afterwards,
in significant language, pointed to the possibility of his becoming such
to Israel (St. Matt. xi. 14), proves that he claimed it not;'^ not 'that
prophet'; not even a prophet. He professed not visions, revelations,
special messages. All else was absorbed in the great fact: he was
only the voice of one that cried, 'Prepare ye the way!' Viewed
especially in the light of those self-glorious times, this reads not like
a fictitious account of a fictitious mission; nor was such the pro-
fession of an impostor, an associate in a plot, or an enthusiast. There
was deep reality of all-engrossing conviction which underlay such self-
denial of mission.
And all this must have ripened during the forty days of probably
comparative solitude,^ only relieved by the presence of such ' dis-
ciples' as, learning the same hope, would gather around him. What
he had seen and what he had heard threw him back upon what he
had expected and believed. It not only fulfilled, it transfigured it.
Not that, probably, he always maintained the same height which he
then attained. It was not in the nature of things that it should be
so. We often attain, at the outset of our climbing, a glimpse, after-
wards hid from us in our laborious upward toil till the supreme
height is reached. Mentally and spiritually we may attain almost
at a bound results, too often lost to us till again secured by long
^ I cunnot agree with Mr. Cheyne ^ We have in a previous chapter sus-
fPropliecies of Is. vol. i. p. 183), that gested that the baptism of .Tesus had
there is no Messianic reference here. It taken place at Bethai>ara. that is, the fur-
may not be in the most literal sense "per- tliest northern point of his activity, and
so«a% Messianic;' but surely this ideal probably at the close of his haptismdl
presentation of Israel in the perfectness ministry. It is not possible in this place
of its kingdom, and the glory of its hap- to detail the reasons for this view. But
piness, is one of the fullest Messianic pic- the learned reader will find remarks on it
tures (comp. vv. 17 to end). in Eeim, i. 2, p. 524.
- This is well pointed out by Keim.
THE TEMPTATION OF THE BAPTIST. 339
reflection, or in the course of painful clevelopuient. Tliis in some CHAP.
measure exi)lains the fulness of John's testimony to the Christ as m
'the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world,' when ^— ^r^^^
at the beginning- we find ourselves almost at the goal of New Testa-
ment teaching. It also explains that last strife of doubt and fear,
wlien the weary wrestler laid himself down to find refreslinient
and strength in the shadow of those prophecies, which liad first called
him to the contest. But during those forty days, and in the first
meetings with Jesus whicli followed, all lay bathed in the morning-
light of that heavenly vision, and that Divine truth wakened in him
the eclioes of all those prophecies, which these thirty years had been
the music of his soul.
And now, on the last of those forty days, simultaneously with the
final great Temptation of Jesus, ^ which must have summed up all
that had preceded it in the previous days, came the hour of John's
temptation by the deputation from Jerusalem.'- Very gently it came
to him, like the tempered wind that fans the fire into fianie, not like
that keen, desolating storm-blast which swept over the Master. To
John, as now to us, it was only the fellowship of His sufferings,
which he bore in the shelter of that great Rock over whicli its intense-
ness had spent itself Yet a very real temptation it was, this pro-
voking to the assumption of successively lower grades of self-asser-
tion, where only entire self-abnegation was the rightful feeling. Each
suggestion of lower oflice (like the temptations of Christ) marked an
increased measure of temptation, as the human in his mission was
more and more closely neared. And greatest temptation it was wiien,
after the first victory, came the not unnatural challenge of his autliority
for what he said and did. This was, of all others, the question
which must at all times, from the beginning of his mission to the hour
of his death, have pressed most closely upon him, since it touched not
only his conscience, but the very ground of his mission, nay, of his
life. That it was such temptation is evidenced by the fact that, in
the hour of his greatest loneliness and depression, it formed his final
contest, in which he temporarily paused, like Jacob in his Israeb
struggle, though, like him, he failed not in it. For what was the
m<;aning of that question which the disciples of John brought to
' This, of course, on the supposition Bethabara. since evidently it was not for
that tlie Baptism of Jesus tool< i)lace at the salve of any personal intercourse with
Bethabara, and hence that the ' wilder- , Jolui.
ness ' into which He was driven, was - Tliis is most beautifully sui^ii-ested by
close by. It is difficult to see why, on Canon Ues^'rf^/^ in his Commentary on the
any other sni)position, Jesus returnecl to passau'c.
340
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK Jesus: ' Art Thou He tliat should come, or do \vc look for another ?'
ni other than doubt of his own warrant and authority for what he
^■-"■"v^""-^ had said and done ? But in that tirst time of his trial at Jietha-
bara hv overcame — the first temptation by the humility of his
intense sincerity, the second by the absolute simplicity of his own
experimental conviction; the first by what he had seen, the second
by what he had heard concerning the Christ at tlie banks of Jordan.
And so, also, although perhaps 'afar off,' it must ever be to us in like
temptation.
Yet, as we view it, and without needlessly imputing malice prepense
to the Pharisaic deputation, their questions seemed but natural. After
his previous emphatic disclaimer at the beginning of his preaching (St.
Luke iii. 15j, of which they in Jerusalem could scarcely have been
ignorant, the suggestion of his Mcssiahship — not indeed expressly
made, but sufficiently implied to elicit what the language of St. John^
shows to have been the most energetic denial — could scarcely have
been more than tentative. It was otherwise with their question
whether he was ' Elijah ' ? Yet, bearing in mind what we know of
the Jewish expectations of Elijah, and how his appearance was always
readily recognised,- this also could scarcely have been meant in its full
literality — but rather as ground for the further question after the
goal and warrant of his mission. Hence also John's disavowing of
such claims is not satisfactorily accounted for by the common ex-
planation, that he denied being Elijah in the sense of not being what
the Jews expected of the Forerunner of the Messiah: the real,
identical Elijah of the days of Ahab; or else, that he denied being
such in the sense of the peculiar Jewish hopes attaching to his
reappearance in the 'last days.' There is much deeper truth in the
disclaimer of the Baptist. It was, indeed, true that, as foretold in the
a St. Luke i. Angelic announcement, '^ he was sent 'in the spirit and power of
Elias,' that is, with the same object and the same qualifications.
Similarly, it is true what, in His mournful reti'ospoct of the result of
John's mission, and in the prospect of His own end, the Saviour said
of him, ' Elias is indeed come,' 1)ut ' they knew him not, but have done
b St. Mark unto him whatsoever thev listed.' ^ But on this very recognition and
ix. 13; St. " .
Matt.'xvii. reception of him by the Jews depended his being to thcni Elijah
— who should ' turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the
^ ' He confes.sed, and denied not ' (St.
John i. 20). Canon Wextcoff points out,
that ' the combination of a positive and
negative ' is intended to ' express the
fulness of trutli,' and that 'the first term
marks tlie readiness of his testimony, the
second its completeness.'
^ See Appendix Vlll. : ' Rabhinic Tra-
ditions about Elijah, the Forerunner of
the Messiah.'
THE QUESTIONING OF THE PHARISEES. 34I
disobedient to the wisdom of the just,' and so 'restore all tilings.' chap.
Between the Elijah of Ahab's reign, and him of Messianic times, lay ill
the wide cleft of quite another dispensation. The ' spirit and power of ^ — ^r — '
Elijah ■ could ' restin-e all things,' because it was the dispensation of
the Old Testament, in which the result was outward, and by outward
means. But 'the spirit and power' of the Elijah of the New Testa-
ment, which was to accomplish the inward restoration through peni-
tent reception of the Kingdom of God in its reality, could only
accomplish that object if 'they received it' — if 'they knew him.'
And as in his own view, and looking around and forward, so also in
very fact the Baptist, tho-igh Divinely such, was not really Elijah to
Israel — and this is the meaning of the words of Jesus: 'And if ye
will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. "^ « st. Matt.
More natural still — indeed, almost quite truthful, seems the third
question of the Pharisees, whether the Baptist was 'that prophet.'
The reference here is undoubtedly to Deut. xviii, 15, 18. Not
that the reappearance of Moses as lawgiver was expected. But as
the prediction of the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, especially
when taken in connection with the promise'' of a 'new covenant' "/f^- ^^^
^ 31 &c.
with a ' new law ' written in the hearts of the people, implied a
change in this respect, it was but natural that it should have been
expected in Messianic days by the instrumentality of ' that prophet.' '
Even the various opinions broached in the Mishnah," as to what ^Eduy.viii.
were to be the reformatory and legislative functions of Elijah, prove
that such expectations were connected with the Forerunner of the
Messiah.
But whatever views the Jewish embassy might have entertained
concerning the abrogation, renewal, or renovation of the Law''* in
Messianic times, the Baptist repelled the suggestion of his being
' that prophet ' with the same energy as those of his being either the
Christ or Elijah. And just as we notice, as the result of those forty
days' communing, yet deeper humility and self-al)ncgation on the
part of the Baptist, so we also mark increased intensity and direct-
ness in the testimony which he now bears to the Christ before the
Jerusalem deputies.'* ' His eye is fixed on the Coming One.' 'He is ast. Johni.
as a voice not to be inquired about, but heard;' and its clear and
1 Can the reference in St. Stephen's does not deny the charge, and that his
speecli (Acts vii. 37) ai)ply to this ex- contention is, tliat tlie Jews wiciveiUy re-
l)ected alteration of the Law ? At any rate sisted the autliority of Jesus {w. 51-58).
St. Stephen is on his defence for teaching - For the Jewish views on the Law in
the abolition by Jesus of the Old Testa- I\fessianic times, see Appendix XIV. :
nient economy. It is remarkable that he ' The Law in Messianic Days.'
342 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK uuiinstaka])le, V)ut deeply reverent utterance is: 'The Coming One
III has come.' ^
'— ^-"^ Tlie reward of his overcoming temptation — yet with it also the
fitting for still fiercer conflict (which two, indeed, are always con-
joined), was at hand. After His victorious contest with the Devil,
Angels had come to minister to Jesus in ]:)ody and soul. But better
than Angels' vision came to refresh and strengthen His faithful
witness John. On the very day of the Baptist's temptation Jesus
had left the wilderness. On the morrow after it, ' John seeth Jesus
coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, Which taketh
away the sin of the world ! ' We cannot doubt, that the thought here
present to the mind of John was the description of ' The Servant of
a Is. ui. 13 Jehovah, "" as set forth in Is. liii. If all along the Baptist had been
filled with Isaiah-thoughts of the Kingdom, surely in the forty days
after he had seen the King, a new 'morning' must have risen upon
tis. vui. 20 them," and the halo of His glory shone around the well-remembered
CIS. In. 13- prophecy. It must always have been Messiauically understood;"
it formed the groundwork of Messianic thought to the New Testament
" comp. St. writers'' — nor did the Synagogue read it otherwise, till the necessities
i7?st.Luke of controversy diverted its application, not indeed from the tiines,
Acts viii. but from the Person of the Messiah.^ But w^e can understand how,
22" '^ ' "' during those forty days, this greatest height of Isaiah's conception of
the Messiah was the one outstanding fact before his view. And what
he believed, that he spake, when again, and unexpectedly, he saw
Jesus.
Yet, while regarding his words as an appeal to the prophecy of
Isaiah, two other references must not be excluded from them: those
to the Paschal Lamb, and to the Daily Sacrifice. These are, if not
directly pointed to, yet implied. For the Paschal Lamb was, in a
sense, the basis of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, not only
from its saving import to Israel, but as that which really made them
'the Church,'^ and people of God. Hence the institution of the
Paschal Lamb was, so to speak, only enlarged and applied in the
daily sacrifice of a Lamb, in which this twofold idea of redemption
and fellowship was exhibited. Lastly, the prophecy of Isaiah liii. was
' The words within quotations are those and exhaustive discussions by Dr. Piisey
of Archdeacon Watkins, in his Commen- in his introduction to the catena of
tary on St. John. Jewisli Interpretations of Is. liii.
- Manifestly, whatever interpretation is •* To those persons who deny to the
made of Is. iii. l.'i-iiii., it applies to Mes- people of God under the Old Testament
sianic times, even if the sufferer were, as the designation Church, we comnuMid
the Synagogue now contends, Israel. On the use of that term by St. Stephen in
the whole subject comp. the most learned Acts vii. 38.
'THE LAMB OF GOD.'
343
but the complete realisation of these two ideas in the Messiah, chap
Neither could the Paschal Lamb, with its completion in the Daily m
Sacrifice, be properly viewed without this pro})hecy of Isaiah, nor yet ^-^^^^^-^^
that prophecy properly understood without its reference to its two
great types. And here one Jewish comment in regard to the Daily
Sacrifice (not previously pointed out) is the more significant, that
it dates from the very time of Jesus. The passage reads almost like
a Christian interpretation of sacrifice. It exi)lains how the morning
and evening sacrifices were intended to atone, the one for the sins of
the night, the other for those of the day, so as ever to leave Israel
guiltless before God; and it expressly ascribes to them the efficacy of
a Faradete — that being the word used.'' Without further following ''P^'sicita,
" _ " ed. Jiub''>- J).
this renmrkable Rabbinic commentation, ^ which stretches back its view ^^ '' • <^""U'-
' _ mf>re tuUy
of sacrifices to the Paschal Lamb, and, beyond it, to that ofiering of inYaikut
Isaac by Abraham which, in the Rabbinic view, was the substratwm bin
of all sacrifices, wo turn again to its teaching about the Lamb of the '' '''
Daily Sacrifice. Hero we have the express statement, that both the
school of Shanmiai and that of Hillel — the latter more fully — insisted
on the s3inbolic import of this sacrifice in regard to the forgiveness of
sin. ' Kebhasim ' (the Hebrew word for ' lambs '), explained the school
of Shammai, 'because, according to Micali vii. 19, they suppress [in
the A.Y. 'subdue'] our iniquities (the Hebrew word KabJiash mean-
ing he who su})presseth).' ^ Still more strong is the statement of the
school of Hillel, to the eftect that the sacrificial lambs were termed
Kebhasim (from Jcabhas, '■ to wash '), '■ because they wash away the
sins of Israel."' The qucrtation just made gains additional interest "And this
from the circumstance, that it occurs in a 'meditation' (if such it special
' ^ reference
may be called) for the new moon of the Passover-month (Msan). In to is. i. is
view of such clear testimony from the time of Christ, less positiveness
of assertion might, not unreasonably, be expected from those who
declare that the sacrifices bore no reference to the forgiveness of sins,
just as, in the face of the application made by the Baptist and other
New Testament writers, more exegetical modesty seems called for on
the part of those who deny the Messianic references in Isaiah,
If further proof were required that, when John pointed the by-
standers to the Figure of Jesus walking towards them, with these
words : 'Behold, the Lamb of God,' he meant more than His gentle-
ness, meekness, and humility, it would be supplied by the qualifying
' This appears more clearly iu the same. CTir. lu Hillel's derivation it
Hebrew, where hoth words (' lambs' and is identified with the root Z22 ='£'23.
'suppressors') are written exactly the
344 J"'1J<»-^I JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK explanation, ' Which taketh away tlic sin of tlie world.' Wc prci'er
in rendoring the expression ' talvcth away ' instead of ' bcaretli,' because
^- — ^r — ' it is in that sense that the LXX. uniformly use the Greek term. Of
course, as ive view it, the taking away presupposes the taking upon
Himself of the sin of the world. 13 ut it is not necessary to suppose
that the Baptist clearly understood that manner of His Saviourship,
which only long afterwards, and reluctantly, came to the followers of
the Lamb.^ That he understood the application of His ministry to
the whole world, is only what might have been expected of one taught
by Isaiah; and what, indeed, in one or another form, the Synagogue
has always believed of the Messiah. What was distinctive in the
words of the Baptist, seems his view of sin as a totality, rather than
sins: implying the removal of that great barrier between God and
mail, and the triumph in that great contest indicated in Gen. iii. 15,
which Israel after the flesh failed to perceive. Nor should we omit
here to notice an undesigned evidence of the Hebraic origin of the
fourth Gosi)el; for an Ephesian Gospel, dating from the close of the
second century, would not have placed in its forefront, as the first
public testimony of the Baptist (if, indeed, it would have introduced
him at all), a quotation from Isaiah — still less a sacrificial reference.
The motives which brought Jesus back to Bethabara must remain
in the indefiniteness in which Scripture has left them. So far as we
know, there was no personal interview between Jesus and the Bajitist.
Jesus had then and there nothing further to say to the Baptist; and
yet on the day following that on which John had, in such manner,
pointed Him out to the bystanders, He was still there, only return-
ing to Galilee the next day. Here, at least, a definite object becomes
apparent. This was not merely the calling of His first disciples, but
the necessary Sabbath rest; for, in this instance, the narrative supplies
the means of ascertaining the days of the week on which each event
took place. We have only to assume, that the marriage in Cana of
Galilee was that of a maiden, not a widow. The great festivities which
accompanied it were unlikely, according to Jewish ideas, in the case
of a widow; in fact, the whole mise en scene of the marriage renders
this most improbable. Besides, if it had been the marriage of a widow,
this (as will immediately appear) would imply that Jesus had returned
1 This meets the objection of /um (i. 2, But, surely, it is a most straiifje idea of
p, 552), which proceefk on the assumi)tion Godef, that at Ilis Baptism .Jesus, like all
that tlie words of the Baptist imply that others, made confession of sins; that, as
he knew not merely that, but hoir. .Jesus lie had none of Ills own, lie set before
would take away the sin of the world. the Baittist the jiicture of tlie sin of Israel
But his words certainly do not oblige us and of the ■world; and that (his had led
to lliink, that he had the Cross in view. to the designation: -The Liunb of (Jod,
ii. 1
THE FIRST WEEK OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 345
from the wilderness on a Saturday, which, as being the Jewish Sabljath, CIIAP.
couhl not have been the case. For uniform custom tLxcd the marriage ^^^
of a maiden on Wednesdays, that of a widow on Thursday.' Count- ^— "V*^
ing backwards from the day of the marriage in Cana,we arrive at the
following results. The interview between John and the Saiiliedrin-
deputation took place on a Thursday. '■ The next day,' i^r«?a//, Jesus
returned from the wilderness of the Temptation, and John bore his
first testimony to ' the Lamb of God.' The following day, when Jesus
appeared a second time in view, and when the first two disciples joined
Him, was the Saturday, or Jewish Sabbath. It was, therefore, only
the following day, or Sunday," that Jesus returned to Galilee,^ calling ".^i- Jo^"'-
others by the way. 'And the third day 'after if — that is, on the 1. st. joun
Wednesday — was the marriage in Cana.^
If we group around these days the recorded events of each, they
almost seem to intensify in significance. The Friday of John's first
pointing to Jesus as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world, recalls that other Friday, when the full import of that
testimony appeared. The Sabbath of John's last personal view and
testimony to Christ is symbolic in its retrospect upon the old economy.
It seems to close the ministry of John, and to open that of Jesus; it
is the leave-taking of the nearest disciples of John from the old, their
search after the new. And then on the first Sunday — the beginning
of Christ's active ministry, the call of the first disciples, the first
preaching of Jesus.
As we picture it to ourselves: in the early morning of that /S'a&&a^^
John stood, with the two of his disciples who most shared his thoughts
and feelings. One of them we know to have been Andrew (v. 40);
the other, unnamed one, could have been no other than John himself,
the beloved disciple.* They had. heard what their teacher had, on the
previous day, said of Jesus. But then He seemed to them but as a
passing Figure. To hear more of Him, as Avell as in deepest sympathy,
these two had gathered to their Teacher on that Sabbath morning,
while the other disciples of John were probably engaged with that,
and with those, which formed the surroundings of an ordinary Jewish
Sabbath.^ And now that Figure once more appeared in view. None
Which taketli away the sin of the world.' •■* Yet Reiian speaks of the first chapters
' For the reasons of this, comp. of St. John's Gospel as scattered notices,
'Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' p. 151. without clironolo.u'ical order!
'■* This may be regarded as another of "• This reticence seems another uu-
the undesiijned evidences of the Hebraic designed evidence of Johannine author-
origin of the fourth Gospel. Indeed, it ship.
might also be almost called an evidence '" The Greek has it: 'John was stand-
of the truth of the whole narrative. ing, and from among his disciples two.'
346 vmm j()iU)AN TO THE mount of transfiguration.
BOOK ^vith the Bui)tist but these two. He is not teacliing now, but learning,
HI as the intensity and penetration of his gaze' calls from him the now
^- — ^-^-^ worshipful repetition of what, on the previous day, he had explained
and enforced. There was no leave-taking on the part of these two —
perhaps they meant not to leave John. Only an irresistible impulse, a
heavenly instinct, bade them follow His steps. It needed no direc-
tion of John, no call from Jesus. But as they went in modest silence,
in the dawn of their rising faith, scarce conscious of the ivhat and the
tvJnj, He turned Ilim. It was not because He discerned it not, but
just because He knew the real goal of their yet unconscious search,
and would bring them to know ivhat they sought, that He put to them
the question, ' What seek ye? ' which elicited a reply so simple, so real,
as to carry its own evidence. He is still to them the Rabbi — the
most honoured title they can find — yet marking still the strictly
Jewish view, as well as their own standpoint of ' Wliat seek ye? '
They wish, yet scarcely dare, to say what was their object, and only
put it in a form most modest, suggestive rather than expressive. There
is strict correspondence to their view in the words of Jesus. Their
very Hebraism of ' Rabbi ' is met by the equally Hebraic ' Come and
see;'^ their unspoken, but half-conscious longing by what the invi-
tation implied (according to the most probable reading, ' Come and ye
shall see'^).
It was but early morning — ten o'clock.* What passed on that
long Sabbath-day we know not save from what happened in its
1 The word implies earnest, penetrat- by wliicli Rabban Gamaliel is flesignateil
ing gaze. in Sliabb. 115 a. It literally means ' be-
■^ The precise date of tlie origin of this longing to the house of a Rabbi,' — as we
designation is not ([uite clear. We find would say, a Rabbi of Rabbis. On the
it in threefold development: -Rrt&, -R«6&«, other hand, the expression ' Come and
and Rabban — 'amplitudo,' ' amplitudo see 'is among tlie most common Rab-
mea,' * amplitudo nostra,' which mark binic formulas, although generally con-
successive stages. As the laM of these nected Avith tlie acquisition of special
titles was borne by the grandson of llillel and important information.
(a.d. 30-50), it is only reasonable to ^ Com)). Canon Westcotf's note,
suppose that the two preceding ones were ■• The common supposition is, that the
current a generation and more before time must be computed according to the
that. Again, we have to distinguish the Jewish motliod, in which case the tenth
original and earlier use of the title when hour would represent 4 p.m. But re-
it only applied to teachers, and the later membering that the Jewish day ended
usage when, like the word 'Doctor,^ it with sunset, it could, in that case, have
was giveu indiscriminately to men of been scarcely marked, that ' they abode
supposed learning. When Jesus is so ad- with Him that day.' The correct inter-
dressed it is in the sense of 'my Teacher.' pretation would therefore point in this.
Nor can there be any reasonable doubt, as in the other passages of St. John, to
that thus it was generally current in and the Asiatic numeration of hours, corres-
before the time noted in the Gospels. A ponding to our own. Comp. J. B. Mc-
still higher title than any of these three Lellau's New Testament, pp. 740-742.
seems to have been Bei-ibbi, or Berabbi,
THE FIRST FOUR DLSCirLErf.
347
course. From it issucMl the two, not learners now hut teachers, bear- cilAP.
ing what they had found to those nearest and dearest. The furni of ^'l
the narrative and its very Avords convey, that the two had gone, each ^ — ^'^^
to searcli for his brother — An(b*ew for Simon Peter, and John for
James, tliough here ah-eady, at the outset of this history, the haste
of energy characteristic of the sons of Jona outdistanced tlie more
quiet intenseness of John:'' 'He (Andrew) first findeth his own "^-^
brother.' ' But Andrew and John equally brought the same announce-
ment, still markedly Hebraic in its form, yet filled with the new
wine, not only of conviction, but of joyous apprehension: 'We have
found the Messias.'' This, then, was the outcome to them of that
day — He was the Messiah; and this the goal which their longing
had reached, ' We have found Him.' Quite beyond what they had
heard from the Baptist; nay, what only i)ersonal contact with Jesus
can carry to any heart.
And still this day of first marvellous discovery had not closed. It
almost seems, as if this ' Come and see ' call of Jesus were emblematic,
not merely of all that followed in His own ministry, but of the
manner in which to all time the 'What seek ye?' of the soul is
answered. It could scarcely have been but that Andrew had told
Jesus of his brother, and even asked leave to bring him. The search-
ing, penetrating glance'^ of the Saviour now read in Peter's inmost
character his future call and work: 'Thou art Simon, the son of
John* — thou Shalt be called^ Cephas, which is interpreted (Grecian-
ised) Peter. '^
It must not, of course, be supposed that this represents all that
had passed between Jesus and Peter, any more than that the
recorded expression was all that Andrew and John had said of Jesus
to their brothers. Of the interview between John and James his
brother, the writer, with his usual self-reticence, forbears to speak.
But we know its result; and, knowing it, can form some conception
of what passed on that holy evening between the new-found Messiah
and His first four disciples: of teaching manifestation on His part,
and of satisfied heart-peace on theirs. As yet they were only
' This appears from the word 'first,' ^ The same word as that used iu regard
used as an adjective here, v. 41 (although to tiie Baptist looking upon Jesus,
the reading is doubtful), and from the iin- ■» So according to the best text, and
plied reference to some one else later on. not Jona.
^ On the reading of the Aramaic ^ ' Hereafter thou shalt win the name.'
Meshichn hy Messias, see Delitzsch iu — Westcott.
the Luther. Zeitschr. for 1876, p. (iO;^. « So in the Greek, of which the En,<ilish
Of course, both Messias and Christ mean interpretation is 'a stone' — KeijpJi, or
'the Anointed.' Keypha, 'a rock.'
348 FHOM .TORDAX TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK followers, learners, not yet called to be Apostles, with all of entire
III renunciation of home, family, and other calling which this implied.
"- — i Tills, in the course of proper development, remained for quite
another period. Alike their knowledge and their faith for the pre-
sent needed, and could only bear, the call to personal attachment.^
It was Sunday morning, the first of Christ's Mission-work, the
first of His Preaching. He was purposing to return to Galilee. It
was fitting He should do so: for the sake of His new disciples; for
W'hat He was to do in Galilee; for His own sake. The first Jerusalem-
visit must be prepared for by them all; and He would not go there
till the right time — for the Paschal Feast. It was probal)ly a distance
of about twenty miles from Bethabara to Cana. By the way, two
other disciples were to be gained — this time not brought, but called,
where, and in what precise circumstances, we know^ not. But the
notice that Philip was a fellow-townsman of Andrew and Peter,
seems to imply some instrumentality on their part. Similarly, we
gather that, afterwards, Philip was somewhat in advance of the rest,
when he found his acquaintance Nathanael, and engaged in conver-
sation with him just as Jesus and the others came up. But here
also we mark, as another characteristic trait of John, that he, and
his brother with him, seem to have clung close to the Person of
Christ, just as did Mary afterwards in the house of her brother. It
was this intense exclusiveness of fellowship with Jesus which traced
on his mind that fullest picture of the God-Man, which his narrative
reflects.
The call to Philip from the lips of the Saviour met, we know not
nnder what circumstances, immediate responsive obedience. Yet,
though no special obstacles had to be overcome, and hence no
special narrative was called for, it must have implied much of learn-
ing, to judge from what he did, and from what he said to Nathanael.
There is something special about Nathanael's conquest by Christ —
rather implied, perhaps, than expressed — and of which the Lord's
words give significant hints. They seem to point to what had passed
in his mind just before Philip found him. Alike the expression ' an
'V. 47. Israelite in truth, in whom is no guile "'—looking back on what
changed the name of Jacob into Israel — and the evident reference to
' The evidence for the ^eat historic by Canon Westrott. To these and other
diflerence between this call to personal commentators tlie reader must Tie re-
attachment, and that to the Apostolate, ferred on this and many iiohits, Avhich it
is shown — I should tliink beyond the would be out of place to discuss at length
power of cavil — by Godet, and especially in this Ijook.
THE CALL OF rillLIP AND XATHANAEL. 349
the full roalisation of Jacob's vi>si(^u in Bcthc]." may be an indication chap.
that this very vision had eno-aged his thoughts. As the Synagogue m
understood the narrative, its application to the then state of Israel ^— ^r^*-^
and the Messianic hoi)e would most readily suggest itself. Tutting "'^•^^
aside all extravagances, tlie Synagogue thought, in connection with
it, of the rising })ower of the Gentiles, but concluded with the pre-
cious comfort of the assurance, in Jer. xxx. 11, of Israel's tinal
restoration." Nathanael (Theodore, ' the gift of God,') had, as we '■Tan-
^ . . chuma on
often read of Rabbis,^ rested for prayer, meditation, or study, m the pas-
the shadow of that wide-spreading tree so common in Palestine, the warsh.
. . . ' . p. 38 a, 6
tig-tree.^ The approaching Passover-season, perhaps mingling with
thoughts of John's announcement by the banks of Jordan, would
naturally suggest the great deliverance of Israel in ' the age to
come;'" all the more, perhaps, from the painful contrast in the '^ so m Tan-
present. Such a verse as that with which, in a well-known Rabbinic
work, '^ the meditation for the New Moon of Nisan, the Passover •^Pesiqta
month, closes: 'Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his
hell),"' would recur, and so lead back the mind to the suggestive - Pa. cxm.
. . . ... 5: Pesiqta,
symbol of Jacob's vision, and its realisation m 'the age to come.' ' ed. Buber.
. . . . p. 62 a
These are, of course, only suppositions; but it might well be that r^an-
Philip had found him while still ])usy with such thoughts. Possibly u^g.°^^'
their outcome, and that quite in accordance with Jewish belief at
the time, may have been, that all that was needed to bring that
hapi^jy ' age to come ' was, that Jacob should become Israel in truth.
In such case he would himself have been ripening for ' the King-
dom ' that was at hand. It must have seemed a startling answer to
his thoughts, this announcement, made with the freshness of new
and joyous conviction: 'We have found Him of Whom Moses in the
Law, and the Prophets, did write.' But this addition about the Man
of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph,^ would appear a terrible anti-climax.
It was so difl'erent from anything that he had associated either
with the great hope of Israel, or with the Nazareth of his own neigh-
bourhood, that his exclamation, without implying any special impu-
tation on the little town which he knew so well, seems not only
natural, but, psychologically, deeply true. There was but one
' Corroborative and illustrative pas- seems to me, without historical p;rouiid.
sages are here too numerous, perhaps ^ This, as it would seem, needless
also not sutficiently important, to be addition (if the narrative were fictitious)
quoted in detail. . is of the highest evidential value. In an
'^ Etrald imagines that this ' fig-tree ' Ephesian Gospel of the end of the second
had been in tlie garden of Nathanael's century it would have been well-nigh
house at Cana, and Archdeacon Watkuis inii)0ssible.
seems to adopt this view, but, as it
350 FROM .lOKDAX TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK answer to this — that which Pliilii) made, which Jesus had made to
ni Andrew and John, and whicli has ever since l)een the best answer to
^— 'v- — ' all Cliristian inquiry: ' Come and see.' And, despite the disappoint-
ment, there must have been such moving power in the answer which
Philip's sudden announcement had given to his unspoken thoughts,
that he went with him. And now, as ever, when in such spirit we
come, evidences irrefragable multiplied at every step. As he neared
Jesus, he heard Him speak to the disciples words concerning him,
which recalled, truly and actually, what had passed in his soul.
But could it really be so, that Jesus knew it all ? The question,
intended to elicit it, brought such proof that he could not but burst
into the immediate and full ackowledgment: * Thou art the Son of
God,' Who hast read my inmost being; ' Thou art the King of
Israel,' Who dost meet its longing and hope. And is it not ever so,
that the faith of the heart springs to the lips, as did the water from
the riven rock at the touch of the God-gifted rod? It needs not
long course of argumentation, nor intricate chain of evidences, welded
link to link, when the secret thoughts of the heart are laid bare, and
its inmost longings met. Then, as in a moment, it is day, and
joyous voice of song greets its birth.
And yet that painful path of slower learning to enduring con-
viction must still be trodden, whether in the sufferings of the heart,
or the struggle of the mind. This it is which seems implied in the
ay. 50. half-sad question of the Master/ yet with full view of the final
wood's to*^*' triumph (' thou shalt see greater things than these'), and of the
johnxm. ' true realisation in it of that glorious symbol of Jacob's vision.''
tothecus^i- And so Nathanael, 'the God-given' — or, as we know him inafter-
johnlvi. history, Bartholomew, ' the son of Telamyon' ^ — was added to the dis-
ciples. Such was on that tirst Sunday the small beginning of the
great Church Catholic; these the tiny springs that swelled into the
mighty river which, in its course, has enriched and fertilised the
barrenness of the far-off lands of the Gentiles.
1 So, at least, most probably. Comp. St. John xxi. 2, and the various commentaries.
bv. 51
CHRIST AS 'THE SON OF MAN.' 351
CHAPTER IV.
THE MARRIACxE FEAST IN CANA OF GALILEE — THE MIRACLE THAT
IS ^A SIGN.'
(St. Johu ii. 1-12.)
At the close of His Discourse to Natlianael — His first sermon — chap.
Jesus had made use of an expression which received its symbolic ful- i^^'
fllment in His first deed. His first testimony about Himself had " — ~i" — -'
been to call Himself the ' Son of Man."' ^ We cannot but feel that »st. joiidl
this bore reference to the confession of Nathanael : ' Thou art the Son
of God; Thou art the King of Israel.' It is, as if He would have
turned the disciples from thoughts of His being the Son of God and
King of Israel to the voluntary humiliation of His Humanity, as
being the necessary basis of His work, without knowledge of which
that of His Divinity would have been a barren, speculative abstrac-
tion, and that of His Kingship a Jewish fleshly dream. But it was not
only knowledge of His Iiumiliation in His Humanity. For, as in the
history of the Christ humiliation and glory arc always connected, the
one enwrapped in the other as the fiower in the bud, so here also His
humiliation as the Son of Man is the exaltation of humanity, the
realisation of its ideal destiny as created in the likeness of God. It
should never be forgotton, that such teaching of His exaltation and
Kingship through humiliation and representation of humanity was
needful. It was the teaching which was the outcome of the Tempta-
tion and of its victory, the very teaching of the whole Evangelic
history. Any other real learning of Christ would, as we see it, have
been impossible to the disciples — alike mentally, as regards founda-
tion and progression, and spiritually. A Christ: God, King, and not
primarily 'the Son of Man,' would not have been the Christ of
Prophecy, nor the Christ of Humanity, nor the Christ of salvation,
' For a full discussion of that most ascertain tlie Old Testament import of
important and si^niticant apiiellation tlie title, and tlien to view it as itreseut
'Son of Man,' comp. Lilcke, u. s. pp. to later Jewish thinkinfi" in the Pseud-
4.59-460; Godet (German transl.), pp. epiffraphic writings (Book of Enoch).
104-108; and especially Wesfcoff, pp. Finally, its full realisation must be
33-35. The main point is here first to studied in the Gospel-history.
352
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Hebr. II,
10
nor yet the Christ of S3'mpathy, liclp, and example. A Christ, God
and King, Who had suddenly risen like the fierce Eastern sun in mid-
day ))ri.iilitness, would have blinded by his dazzling rays (as it did
Saul on the way to Damascus), not risen 'with kindly liglit ' to chase
away darkness and mists, and with genial growing warmth to woo
life and beauty into our barren world. And so, as ' it became Him,'
for the carrying out of the work, ' to make the Captain of Salvation
perfect through sufferings,' ^ so it was needful for them that He should
veil, even from their view who followed Him, the glory of His Divin-
ity and the power of His Kingship, till they had learned all that the
designation ' Son of Man ' implied, as placed below 'Son of God' and
' King of Israel.
This idea of the ' Son of Man, ' although in its full and prophetic
meaning, seems to furnish the explanation of the miracle at the mar-
riage of Cana. We are now entering on the Ministry of ' The Son
of Man,' first and chiefly in its contrast to the preparatory call of
the Baptist, with the asceticism symbolic of it. We behold Him now
as freely mingling with humanity, sharing its joys and engagements,
entering into its family life, sanctioning and hallowing all by His
Presents and blessing; then as transforming the ' water of legal puri-
fication ' into the wine of the new dispensation, and, more than this,
the water of our felt want into the wine of His giving; and, lastly, as
having absolute power as the '■ Son of Man,* being also ' the Son of
God' and 'the King of Israel.' Not that it is intended to convey,
that it was the primary purpose of the miracle of Cana to exhibit the
contrast between His own Ministry and the asceticism of the Baptist,
although greater could scarcely be imagined than between the wilder-
ness and the supply of wine at the marriage-feast. Rather, since
this essential difference really existed, it naturally appeared at the
very commencement of Christ's Ministry.^ And so in regard to the
other meaning, also, which this history carries to our minds.
At the same time it must be borne in mind, that marriage con-
veyed to the Jews much higher thoughts than merely those of festivi-
ty and merriment. The pious fasted before it, confessing their sins. It
was regarded almost as a Sacrament. Entrance into the married state
' We may, however, here again notice
that, if thi3 narrative had been fic-
titious, it would seem most clumsily put
together. To introduce the Forerunner
with fasting, and as an ascetic, and Him
to Whom he pointed with a maixiage-
feast. is an incongruity which no writer
of a legend would have perpetrated. But
the writer of the fourth Gospel does not
seem conscious of any incongruity, and
this because he has no ideal story nor
characters to introduce. In this sense it
may be said, that the introduction of the
story of the marriage-feast of Cana is in
itself the best ju-oof of its truthfulness,
and of the miracle which it records.
JEWISH MARRIAGE-FESTIVITIES. 353
was thought to carry tlic forgiveness of sins."' It ahnost seems as if quw^
the rehitionshi}) of Husband and Bride between Jehovali and His iv
people, so frequently insisted upon, not only in the liible, but in ^— ,- — -
Rabbinic writings, had always been standing out in the background. «Taikuton
Thus the bridal i)air on the inarriagc-day symbolised the union of God 1 voi. ii. p.'
with Israel. ^ Hence, though it may in part have been national pride,
which considered the birth of every Israelite as almost outweighing
the rest of the world, it scarcely wholly accounts for the ardent insist-
ance on marriage, from the first prayer at the circumcision of a child,
onwards through the many and varied admonitions to the same eflfect.
Similarly, it may have been the deep feeling of brotherhood in Israel,
leading to sympathy with all that most touched the heart, which
invested with such sacredness participation in the gladness of
marriage,^ or the sadness of burial. To use the bold allegory of the
times, God Himself had spoken the words of blessing over the cup at
the union of our first parents, when Michael and Gabriel acted as
groomsmen," and the Angelic choir sang the wedding hymn." So also ^ Ber. k. 8
He had shown the example of visiting the sick (in the case of xtti/Tv^'
Abraham), comforting the mourners (in that of Isaac), and burying
the dead (in that of Moses). ** Every man who met it, was bound to asot. ua
rise and join the marriage procession, or the funeral march. It was
specially related of King Agrippa that he had done this, and a curious
Haggadah sets forth that, when Jezebel was eaten of dogs, her hands
and feet were spared,'' because, amidst all her wickedness, she had y 2 Kings.
been wont to greet every marriage-procession by clapping of hands,
and to accompany the mourners a certain distance on their way to the
burying.*' And so we also read it, that, in the burying of the widow's f vaikut on
son of Nain, ' much people of the city was with her. ' « 35.V01. a. p.
. 36 a and h
In such circumstances, we would naturally expect that all connected ,. g^ i^^^q
with marriage was planned with care, so as to bear the impress of
sanctity, ami also to wear the aspect of gladness.* A special formality,
1 The Biblical proofs adduced for at- married.
tiicliiiig this benefit to a sa<;e. a l)ride- - In Yaicut on Ih. Ixi. 10(vol. ii. p. 37f?)
j^rooiii, aud a prince on enterin<>: on their Israel is said to have been ten times
new state, are certainl}' peculiar. In the called in Scripture ' bride ' (six times in
case of a bridegroom it is based on the Canticles, three times in Isaiah, and once
name of Esau's bride, Machalath (Gen. in Jeremiah). Attention is also called to
xxviii. 9), a luime which is derived from the 'ten o-arments ' with which succes-
the Rabbinic 'Machal,' to forijive. In sively the Holy One arrayed Himself ; to
Jer. Biccur. iii. p. 05 d, where this is also the symbolic priestly dignity of the
related, it is])ninte(l out that tlie original bridegroom, itc.
name of Esau's wife had been Baseuiatli '■• Everything, even a funeral, had to
(Gen. XXX vi. '.i), the name Mticlialath, give way to a nuii'riage-procession.
therefore, having been given wIumi Es;iu * For details 1 must refer to the Ency-
vii. 12
354
FROM JORDAN T(^ THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Jer. Yeb.
Ma.
t' Com p.
Tob. vii. 14
tliat of 'betrotlial' {Erusin Qiddushln), preceded the actual marriage
by a period varying in length, but not exceeding a twelvemonth in
the case of a maiden.' At the betrothal, the bridegroom, personally
or by deputy, handed to the bride a piece of money or a letter, it
being expressly stated in each case that the man thereby espoused
the woiiian. From the moment of betrothal both parties were regarded,
and treated in law (as to inheritance, adultery, need of formal divorce),
as if they had been actually nmrried, except as regarded their living
together. A legal document (the Shitre Erusin) fixed the dowry which
each brought, the mutual obligations, and all other legal points.^
Generally a festive meal closed the ceremony of betrothal — but not in
Galilee, where, habits being more simple and pure, that which some-
times ended in sin was avoided.
On the evening of the actual marriage {Nissuin, Chathnuth), the
biide was led from her paternal home to that of her husband. First
came the merry sounds of music; then they who distributed among
the people wine and oil, and nuts among the children; next the
bride, covered with the bridal veil, her long hair flowing, surrounded
by her companions, and led by 'the friends of the bridegroom,' and
'the children of the bride-chamber.' All around were in festive
array; some carried torches, or lamps on poles; those nearest had
myrtle-branches and chaplets of flowers. Every one rose to salute the
procession, or join it; and it was deemed almost a religious duty to
break into praise of the beauty, the modesty, or the virtues of the
bride. Arrived at her new home, she was led to her husband. Some
such formula as ' Take her according to the Law of Moses and of
Israel,'" would be spoken, and the bride and bridegroom crowned with
garlands.^ Then a formal legal instrument, called the Kethubah,
was signed,'' which set forth that the bridegroom undertook to work
for her, to honour, keep, and care for her,* as is the manner of the
men of Israel; that he promised to give his maiden- wife at least two
hundred Zuz^ (or more it might be)/ and to increase her own dowry
clopsedias, to the article iu CasseWs 'Bible
Educator,' aiul to the corresponding chap-
ters in ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life.'
1 Pesiq. R. 15 applies the first clause
of Prov. xiii. 12 to a long engagement,
the second to a short one.
* The reader who is curious to see
these and other legal documents in ex-
tenso, is referred to Dr. Sammter\'< ed.
of the tractate Baba Metsia (notes at the
end, fol. pp. 144-148).
■^ Some of these joyous demonstrations,
sucli as the wearing of crowns, ana even
the bridal music, were for a time pro-
hibited after tlie destruction of Jeru-
salem, in token of national mourning
(Sot. ix. 14). On these crowns comp.
Wfiffe/iseil, Sota, pp. 965-967.
■* I quote the very words of the formula,
which, it will be noticed, closely agree
with those in our own Marriage Service.
5 If the Znz be reckoned at 7rf., about
51. Us. M.
8 Tins, of cour.se, represents only the ??ii-
ouvunn. In the case of a priest's daughter
the ordinary le<jal minimum was doubled.
CANA OF GALILEE.
355
(which, in the case of a poor ori)haii, the authorities supplied) b}' at
least one half, and that he also undertook to lay it out for her to the
best advantage, all his own possessions being guarantee for it. ^ Then,
after the prescribed washing of hands and benediction, the marriage-
supper began — the cup being tilled, and the solemn prayer of bridal
benediction spoken over it. And so the feast lasted — it might be
more than one day — while each sought to contribute, sometimes
coarsely,^ sometimes wisely, to the general enjoyment, Hill at last 'the
friends of the bridegroom ' h'd the bridal pair to the Cheder and the
Chuppah^ or the bridal chamber and bed. Here it ought to be
specially noticed, as a striking evidence that the writer of the fourth
Gospel was not only a Hebrew, but intimately acquainted with the
varying customs prevailing in Galilee and in Judaea, that at the
marriage of Cana no 'friend of the bridegroom,' or 'groomsman'
(ShoshebJieyna), is mentioned, while he zs referred to in St. John iii. 29,
where the words are spoken outside the boundaries of Galilee. For
among the simpler and purer Galileans the practice of having ' friends
of the bridegroom,' which must so often have led to gross impropriety,''
did not obtain,^ though all the invited guests bore the general name
of 'children of the bridechamber ' {bene Chuppah)."
It was the marriage in Cana of Galilee. All connected with the
account of it is strictly Jewish — the feast, the guests, the invitation
of the stranger Rabbi, and its acceptance by Jesus. Any Jewish
Rabbi would have gone, but how differently from Him would he have
spoken and acted ! Let us first think of the scenic details of the
narrative. Strangely, we are not able to fix with certainty the site of
the little town of Cana.* But if we adopt the most probable indentifl-
cation of it with the modern pleasant village of Kefr Kenna,^ a few
miles north-east of Nazareth, on the road to the Lake of Galilee, we
picture it to ourselves as on the slope of a hill, its houses rising terrace
CHAP.
IV
" Comp.
Ber. 6 6
h Comp.
Kethub.
Via; Jer.
Kethub, i.
p. i.'5 a
"■ Comp. St.
Matt. ix. 15
1 The Talmud (Tos. Kethub.) bero puts
llie not inapt question, ' How if the
l)rideo;room lias no f>;oods and chattels ?'
but ultimately comforts itself with the
tliou^ht that every man has some prop-
erty, if it were only the six feet of ground
in which he is to l)e buried.
-' Not a few such instances of riotous
merriment, and even dubious jokes, on
the part of tlie greatest Rabbis are men-
tioned, to check which some were wont
to adojit the curious device of breaking
valuable vases, &c.
^ This, and the other great ditl'erences
in favour of moralitv and decencv which
distinguished the customs of Galilee from
those of tlie rest of Palestine, are enume-
rated in Jer. Kethub. i. 1, p. 25 a, about
the miildle.
* Two such sites have l)een proposed —
that by Dr. Robinson being very unlikely
to represent the ancient ' Cana of Galilee.'
'"• Comj*. the memoir on the suljject
l)y ZclJn- in tlie Quarterly Report of the
Palestine Explor. Fund (for ISGt), No. iii.,
and for April 1878, by Mr. Hepwortk
Dixnn); and Lieut. Coiider, Tent-Work
in Palestine, vol. i. pp. 150-155. Zeller
makes it five miles from Nazareth,
Coiider only three and three-quarters.
356 FROM .lOKDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK upon terrace, looking north and west over a large plain(tliat of Battauf),
in and south upon a valley, beyond which the hills rise that separate it
^^■^t ' from Mount Tabor and the plain of Jezrcel. As we approach the
little town through that smiling valley, we come upon a fountain of
excellent water, around which the village gardens and orchards
clustered, that produced in great abundance the best pomegranates in
Palestine. Here was the home of Xathanael-Bartholomew, and it seems
not unlikely, that with him Jesus had passed the time intervening
between His arrival and 'the marriage,' to which His Mother had
come — the omission of all mention of Joseph leading to the supposi-
tion, that he had died before that time. The inquiry, what had brought
Jesus to Cana, seems almost worse than idle, remembering what had
passed between Him and Nathanael, and what was to happen in the
first ' sign,' which was to manifest His glory. It is needless to specu-
late, whether He had known beforehand of 'the marriage.' But we
can understand the longing of the ' Israelite indeed ' to have Him
under his roof, though we can only imagine what the Heavenly Guest
would now teach him, and those others who accompanied Him. Nor
is there any difficulty in understanding, that on His arrival He would
hear of this ' marriage,' of the presence of His Mother in what seems
to have been the house of a friend, if not a relative; that Jesus
and His disciples would be bidden to the feast; and that He resolved
not only to comply Avith the request) but to use it as a leave-taking
from home and friends — similar, though also far other, than that of
Elisha, when he entered on his mission. Yet it seems deeply sig-
nificant, that the ' true Israelite ' should have been honoured to be the
first host of ' Israel's King.'
And truly a leave-taking it was for Christ from former friends and
home — a leave-taking also from His past life. If one part of the
narrative^that of His dealing with His Mother — has any special
meaning, it is that of leave-taking, or rather of leaving home and
family, just as with this first 'sign' He took leave of all the past.
When he had returned from His first Temple-visit, it had been in the
self-exinanition of voluntary humility: to 'be subject to His Parents.'
That period was now ended, and a new one had begun — that of
active consecration of the whole life to His 'Father's business.' And
what passed at the marriage-feast marks the beginning of this
period. We stand on the threshold, over which we pass from the old
to the new — to use a New Testament figure: to the marriage-supper
of the Lamb.
Viewed in this light, what passed at the marriage in Cana seems
MEANING OF THE MIRACLE AT CANA.
357
like taking up the tliread, where it liad been dropped at the first CHAP.
manifestation of His Messianie conseiousness. In the Temple at IV
Jerusalem He had said in answer to the misapprehensive question of ^— ^r'*-'
His Mother: 'Wisfc ye not that I must be about My Father's busi-
ness?' and now when about to take in hand that 'business,' He tells
her so again, and decisively, in reply to her misapprehensive sugges-
tion. It is a truth which we must ever learn, and yet are ever slow
to learn in our questionings and suggestings, alike as concerns His
dealings with ourselves and His rule of His Church, that the highest
and only true point of view is * the Father's business,' not our personal
relationship to Christ. This thread, then, is taken up again at Cana
in the circle of friends, as immediately afterwards in His pul^lic
manifestation, in the purifying of the Temple, What He had first
uttered as a Child, on His first visit to the Temple, that He manifested
forth when a Man, entering on His active work — negatively, in His
reply to His Mother; positively, in the 'sign' He wi'ought. It all
meant: 'Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?'
And, positively and negatively. His first appearance in Jerusalem ■* il^v'^^nd"
meant just the same. For, there is ever deepest unity and harmony vv.18-23
in that truest Life, the Life of Life.
As we pass through the court of that house in Cana, and reach,
the covered gallery which opens on the various rooms — in this instance,
particularly, on the great reception room— all is festively adorned. In
the gallery the servants move about, and there the ' water-pots ' are
ranged, ' after the manner of the Jews,' for purification — for the wash-
ing not only of hands before and after eating, but also of the vessels
used.'' How detailed Rabbinic ordinances were in these respects, will ^comp. st.
i ' Mark vii.
be shown in another connection. ' Purification ' was one of the ^-^
main points in Rabbinic sanctity. By far the largest and most
elaborate ^ of the six books into which the Mishnah is divided, is ex-
clusively devoted to this subject (the ^Seder Tohoroth,' purifications).
Not to speak of references in other parts of the Talmud, we have
two special tractates to instruct us about the purification of 'Hands'
( Yadayim) and of ' Vessels ' (Kelim). The latter is the most elaborate
in all the Mishnah, and consists of not less than thirty chapters.
Their perusal proves, alike the strict accuracy of the Evangelic nar-
1 The wliole Mishliah is divided into Neziqin — contains 6S9 Mislniayoth). Tlie
six Sedarim (Orders), of wliich the last tirst tractate in this ' Ord(>r " of Puriti-
is tlie Seder To/io7-otfi, treating of ' i)uri- cations ' treats of the piiritication of
locations.' It consists of twelve tractates vessels (Kelim), and contains no fewer
(Mdsslkhtnlh), VM chapters (Perar/im), than thirty chapters; •l'c/rA/////»" ('hands')
and contains no fewer than 1001 separate is the eleventh tractate, and contains
MishiKiijoth (the next largest Seder — four chapters.
358
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OP TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
Sanh. 17 a
i> Jos. Ant.
viii. 2. 9
<■ Shabb.
77 h. So
Li<;ht£oot
in toe.
ratives, and tlio justice of Christ's denunciations of the unreality and
gross hypocrisy of this elaborateness of ordinances.^ This the more
•so, when we recall that it was actually vaunted as a special qualifi-
cation for a seat in the Sanhedrin, to be so acute and learned as to
know how to prove clean creeping things (which were declared unclean
by the Law)."" And the mass of the people would have regarded
neglect of the ordinances of purification as betokening either gross
ignorance, or daring impiety.
At any rate, such would not be exhil)itcd on an occasion like the
present; and outside the reception-room, as St. John with graphic
minuteness of details relates, six of those stone pots, which we know
from Rabbinic writings,^ were ranged. Here it may be well to add,
as against objectors, that it is impossible to state with certainty the
exact measure represented by the' two or three firkins apiece.' For,
although we know that the term metretes (A.V. 'firkin') was intended
as an equivalent for the Hebrew ^hath,' ^ yet three dificrent kinds of
^batK were at the time used in Palestine: the common Palestinian
or ' wilderness ' bath, that of Jersusalem, and that of Sepphoris.^ The
common Palestinian ' bath' was equal to the Roman amphora^ con-
taining about 5 \ gallons, while the Sepphoris ' bath' corresponded to
the Attic metretes^ and would contain about 8^ gallons. In the former
case, therefore, each of these pots might have held from 10| to 15|
gallons; in the latter, from 17 to 25 1. Reasoning on the general
ground that the so-called Sepphoris measurement was common in
Galilee, the larger quantity seems the more likely, though by no means
certain. It is almost like trifling on the threshold of such a history,
and yet so many cavils have been raised, that we must here remind
ourselves, that neither the size, nor the number of these vessels has
anything extraordinary about it. For such an occasion the family
would produce or borrow the largest and handsomest stone-vessels
that could be procured; nor is it necessary to suppose that they
were filled to the brim; nor should we forget that, from a Talmudic
notice," it seems to have been the practice to set apart some of these
vessels exclusively for the use of the bride and of the more dis-
tinguished guests, while the rest were used by the general company.
Entering the spacious, lofty dining-room,* which would be bril-
1 Comp. St. Mark vii. 2-5; St. Matt,
xxiii. 2r), 26; St. Luke xi. 38, 39.
- These 'stowa-x qssqW {Kelfy Abhanim)
are often si)oken of (for example, Chel.
X. 1). In Yuday. i. 2 tliey are expressly
mentioned for tlie purification of the
hands.
^ For further details we refer to the
excursus on Palestinian money, wei.ijhts,
and measures, in Ilerz/eUVs Ilandels-
gesch. d. Juden. pp. 171-185.
^ The Tcraqlin, from which the other
IX.
THE REQUEST OF MARY AND THE REPLY OF JESUS. 359
liantly liiilited with lamps and candlesticks, the guests are disposed chap.
round tables on couches, soft with cushions or covered witli tapestry, ' iv
or seated on chairs. The bridal blessing has l)een spoken, and the ^ — • '
bridal cup emptied. The feast is proceeding — not the common meal,
which was generally taken about even, according to the Rabbinic
saying," that he who postponed it beyond that hour was as if he »Pvss. i8 6
swallowed a stone— but a festive evening meal. If there had been
disposition to those exhibitions of, or incitement to, indecorous and
light merriment,* such as even the more earnest Rabbis deprecated,
surely the presence of Jesus would have restrained it. And now
there must have been a painful pause, or something like it, when
the Mother of Jesus whispered to Him that 'the wine failed.''^
There could, perhaps, be the less cause for reticence on this point
towards her Son, not merely because this failure may have arisen from
the accession of guests in the persons of Jesus and his disciples, for
whom no provision had been originally made, but because the gift of
wine or oil on such occasions was regarded a meritorious work of
charity." bBabas.
Rut all this still leaves the main incidents in the narrative
untouched. How are w^e to understand the implied request of the
Mother of Jesus? how His reply? and what was the meaning of the
miracle? It seems scarcely possible to imagine that, remembering
the miraculous circumstances connected with His Birth, and informed
of what had passed at Jordan, she now anticipated, and by her sug-
gestion wished to prompt, this as His Royal Messianic manifestation.^
With reverence be it said, such a beginning of Royalty and triumph
would have been i)altry: rather that of the Jewish miracle-monger
than that of the Christ of the Gospels. IS'ot so, if it was only ' a sign,'
pointing to something beyond itself. Again, such anticipations on
the part of Mary seem psychologically untrue — that is, untrue to her
history. She could not, indeed, have ever forgotten the circum-
side-rooms opened (Jer. Rosh haSh. moment she had entered the Teraqlin,
59 h; Yonia 15 b). From Baba B. vi. 4 before she had actually gone to the
we learn, that such an apartment was at Chii/ipdh.
least 15 feet square and 15 feet high. ' Thus it was customarj^, and deemed
Height of ceiling was characteristic of meritorious, to sing and perform a kind
Palestinian houses. It was always half of play with myrtle branches (Jer. Peah
the breadth and length i>ut together. 15 d)\ although one Rabbi was visited
Thus, in a small house consisting of one with sudden death for excess in this
room: length, 12 feet, breadth, 9 feet, the respect.
height would be 10|- feet. In a large -' St. John ii. 3, A.Y. : 'when they
house: length, 15 feet, breadth, 12 feet, wanted wine.'
the height would be V6\ feet. From Jer. •■ This is the view of many commenta-
Kethub. p. 28 d we learn, that tlie bride tors, ancient and modern.
was considered as actually married the
360 FRO.Af JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK stances wliich had i^urrounded His Birth; but the deeper she 'kept
III all these things in her heart,' the more mysterious would they seem,
^- — ^.^ ' as time passed in the dull round of the most simple and uneventful
country-life, and in the discharge of every-day duties, without even
the faintest appearance of anything beyond it. Only twelve years
had passed since His Birth, and yet they had not understood His
saying in the Temple! How much more difficult would it be after
thirty years, when the Child had grown into Youth and Manhood,
with still the same silence of Divine Voices around? It is difficult
to believe in fierce sunshine on the afternoon of a long, grey day.
Although we have no absolute certainty of it, we have the strongest
internal reasons for believing, that Jesus had done no miracles these
thirty years in the home at Nazareth,' but lived the life of quiet sub-
mission and obedient waiting. That was the then part of His Work,
It may, indeed, have been that Mary knew of what had passed at
Jordan; and that, when she saw Him returning with His first
disciples, who, assuredly, would make no secret of their convictions
— whatever these may have conveyed to outsiders — she felt that a
new period in His Life had opened. But what was there in all this
to suggest such a miracle? and if it had been suggested, why not
ask for it in express terms, if it was to be the commencement,
certainly in strangely incongruous circumstances, of a Royal mani-
festation?
On the other hand, there was one thing which she had learned,
and one thing which she was to unlearn, after those thirty years of the
Nazareth-Life. What she had learned — what she must have learned
— was absolute confidence in Jesus. What she had to unlearn, was
the natural, yet entirely mistaken, impression wiiich His meekness,
stillness, and long home-submission had wrought on her as to His
relationship to the family. It was, as we find from her after-history,
a very hard, very slow, and very painful thing to learn It;^ yet very
needful, not only for her own sake, but because it was a lesson of
absolute truth. And so when she told Him of the want that had
arisen, it was simply in absolute confidence in her Son, probably
without any conscious expectancy of a miracle on His part.* Yet
1 Tholuck aud Lilcke, however, holil ^ This meets the objection of Strauss
the opposite view. and others, that Mary could not have
- Luthardt rightly calls it the com- expected a miracle. It is scarcely con-
mencement of a very painful education, ceivable, how CV??ct« could have imagined
of which the next stage is marked in that Mary had intended Jesus to deliver an
St. Luke viii. 19, and the last in St. John address witii the view of turning away
xix. 2(). tliought IVuHi the want of wine; or
THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE IN AYHAT MARY SPAKE. 361
not without a touch of inatcrual scU-cousriousue.ss, ahuost i)ride, that chap.
He, Whom she could trust to do anything that was needed, was her IV
Son, Whom she could solicit in the friendly family whose guests the} ^— ^r— i--"
were — and if not for her sake, yet at her request. It was a true
earth-view to take of their relationship; onl}^, an earth-view which
must now for ever cease: the outcome of His misunderstood meekness
and weakness, and which yet, strangely enough, the Romish Church
puts in the forefront as the most powerful plea for Jesus' acting.
But the fundamental mistake in what she attempted is just this, that
she spake as His Mother, and placed that maternal relationship in
connection with His Work. And therefore it was that as, on the
first misunderstanding in the Temple, He had said: ' Wist ye not that
I must be about my Father's business?' so now: < Wonnin, what have
1 to do with thee? ' With that ' business ' earthly relationship, how-
ever tender, had no connection. With everything else it had, down
to the utter self-forgetfulness of that teuderest commendation of her
to John, in the bitterest agonies of the Cross; but not with this.
No, not now, nor ever henceforth, with this. As in His first
manifestation in the Temple, so in this the first manifestation of His
glory, the finger that pointed to ' His hour ' was not, and could not be,
that of an earthly parent, but of His Father in Heaven.^ There was,
in truth, a twofold relationship in that Life, of which none other but
the Christ could have preserved the harmony.
This is one main point — we had almost called it the negative one;
the other, and positive one, was the miracle itself All else is but
accidental and circumstantial. No one who either knows the use of
the language,^ or remembers that, when commending her to John on
the Cross, He used the same mode of expression,^' will imagine, that »st.joiin
there was anything derogatory to her, or harsh on His part, in
addressing her as ' woman ' rather than ' mother. ' But the language
is to us significant of the teaching intended to be conveyed, and as
the beginning: of this further teaching: ' Who is My mother? and My
brethren? And He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples,
and said, Behold My mother and My brethren 1 ' " xfi!"46-5"'
And Mary did not, and yet she did, understand Him, when she
turned to the servants with the direction, imifiicitly to follow His
behests. What happened is well known: how, in the excess of their
zeal, they fille<l the water-pots to the brim — an accidental circum-
Bengel, that she iiiteiuled to give a hint forth is: My FatluM- and I.'
that the company should break up. - Conip. the passages from the chissics
' (rof/e;! aptly says, 'His motto hence- quoted l>y Wetstcin m his Commentary.
362 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK stance, yet useful, as much that seems accidental, to show that there
in could be neither delusion nor collusion; how, probably in the drawing
^- — ^r^— ' of it, the water became best wine—' the conscious water saw its God,
and blushed;' then the coarse proverbial joke of what was probably
»Eccuis. the master of ceremonies and purveyor of the feast," intended, of
course, not literally to apply to the present company, and yet in its
accidentalness an evidence of the reality of the miracle; after which
the narrative abruptly closes with a retrospective remark on the part of
him who relates it. What the bridegroom said; whether what had
been done became known to the guests, and, if so, what impression
it wrought; how long Jesus remained; what His Mother felt — of
this and much more that might be asked, Scripture, with that
reverent reticence which we so often mark, in contrast to our shallow
talkativeness, takes no further notice. And best that it should be so.
St. John meant to tell us, what the Synoptists, who begin their
a'ccount with the later Galilean ministry, have not recorded,^ of the first
of His miracles as a ' sign, ' ^ pointing to the deeper and higher that
was to be revealed, and of the first forth-manifesting of ' His glory. '^
That is all; and that object was attained. Witness the calm, grateful
retrospect upon that first day of miracles, summed up in these simple
but intensely conscious words: ' And His disciples believed on Him.'
A sign it was, from whatever point we view its meaning, as
previously indicated. For, like the diamond that shines with many
colours, it has many meanings; none of them designed, in the coarse
sense of the term, but all real, because the outcome of a real Divine
Life and history. And a real miracle also, not only historically, but
as viewct^ in its many meanings; the beginning ot^all others, which
in a sense are but the unfolding of this first. A miracle it is, which
cannot be explained, but is ouly enhanced by the almost incredible '
•platitudes to which negative criticism has sunk in its commentation,*
' On the omission of certain parts of passage.
St. John's narrative by the Synoptists, ^ In this, the first of his miracles, it
and vice vei-sd, and on the supposed dif- was all the more necessary that He
ferences, I can do no better than refer should manifest his glory,
the reader to the admirable remarks ■* Thus ;S'c/«e«A:e; regards Christ's answer
of Canon WestcoU, Introduction to the to Mary as a proof that He was not on
Study of the Gospels, pp. 280 &c. good terms with His family; Paidus
- According to the best reading, and suggests, that Jesus had brought the
literally, 'This did— l)eginning of signs wine, and that it was afterwards mixed
— Jesus in Cana.' Upon a careful review with the water in the stone- vessels;
the Raljbinic expression Sirmind (taken Gfrdi-ei; that Mary had brought it as a
from the Greek word here used) would present, and at the feast given Jesus the
seem to me more fully to render the idea appropriate hint when to have it set on.
than the Hel^rew 0/h. But the signiti- The gloss of Benan seems to me even
cant use of the word sign should be well more untenable and repulsive,
marked. See Canon WestcoU on the
THE MIRACLE 'A SIGN.'
363
for whicli there assuredly exists no Ic^-ondary basis, either in Old
Testament history, or in contemporary Jewish expectation; ' which
cannot be sublimated into nineteenth-century idealism;'' least of all
can be conceived as an after-thought of Ilis disciples, invented by an
Ephesian writer of the second century.^ But even the allegorical
illustration of St. Augustine, who reminds us that in the grape the
water of rain is ever changed into wine, is scarcely true, save as a
bare illustration, and only lowers our view of the miracle. For miracle
it is,* and will ever remain; not, indeed, magic,^ nor arbitrary power,
but power with a moral puri)ose, and that the highest/ And we
believe it, because this ' sign ' is the first of all those miracles in which
the Miracle of Miracles gave 'a sign,' and manifested forth His
glory — the glory of His Person, the glory of His I'urpose, and the
glory of His Work.
CHAP
IV
' Aijainst this view of Sfrauss, see
Lilcke, u. s. \). 477.
^ So Lunge, in liis ' Life of Christ,' im-
asiiiiiis tliat converse .with Jesns had jiut
all in that higher ecstasy in which He
gave them to drink from the fulness
of Himself. Similar spiritualisation —
thougli T)y each in his own manner — has
been attempted hyBaiir, Keim, Einild,
II/l;/f'i>fe/d.am\ others. But it seems more
rational, with Schweizer and lIV^v.s'^^, to
deny the historical accuracy of the wliole,
than to resort to such exi)edieiits.
* Hilgenfeld, however, sees in this
miracle an evidence that tiie Christ of
the fourth Gospel proclaimed another
and a higher than the God of the Old
Testament — in short, evidence of the
Gnostic taint of the fourth Gospel.
* Meyer well reminds us that ' physical
incom]irehensibility is not identical with
absolute impossibility.'
^ Uodct has scarcely rightly marked
the difference.
'' If I rightly understand the meaning
of Dr. Alilott's remarks on the miracles
in the fourth Gosi)el (Encycl. Britan. vol.
X. ]). 825 b), they imi)ly that the cliange
of the water into wine was an emblematic
reference to tlie Eucharistic wine, this
view being supporttMl by a reference to
1 John V. 8. But could this be considered
sufficient ground for the inference, that
no historic reality attaches to the whole
history ? In that case it would have to be
seriously maintained, that an Ei)hesian
writer a.t the end of the second century
had invented the fiction of the miracu-
lous change of water into wine, for the
purpose of certain Eucharistic teaching I
364
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
m
« St. Matt,
iv. 13; ix. 1;
St. Mark ii.
1
^ St. Mark
vi. 3
CHAPTER V.
THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE — ' THE SIGN,' WHICH IS NOT A SIGN.
(,St. John ii. 13-25.)
It has been said that Mary uiulerstood, and yet did not understand
Jesus. And of this there seems fresh evidence in the circumstance that,
immediately after the marriage of Cana, she and the ' brethren of
Jesus ' went with Him, or followed Him, to Capernaum, which hence-
forth became ' His own city, ' * during His stay by the Lake of Galilee.
The question, whether He had first returned to Nazareth, seems
almost trifling. It may have been so, and it may be that His brothers
had joined Him there, while His ' sisters,' being married, remained at
Nazareth.'' For the departure of the family from Nazareth many
reasons will, in the peculiar circumstances, suggest themselves. And
yet one feels, that their following Jesus and His disciples to their new
home had something to do with their understanding, and yet not
understanding, of Him, which had been characteristic of Mary's silent
withdrawal after the reply she had received at the feast of Cana, and
her significant direction to the servants, implicitly to do what He bade
them. Equally in character is the willingness of Jesus to allow His
family to join Him — not ashamed of their humbleness, as a Jewish
Messiah might have been, nor impatient of their ignorance: tenderly
near to them, in all that concerned the humanness of His feelings;
sublimely far from them, in all connected with His Work and Mission.
It is almost a relief to turn from the long discussion (to m' hich
reference has already been made): whether those who bore that
designation were His ' brothers ' and ' sisters ' in the real sense, or the
children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, or else His cousins — and
to leave it in the indefiniteness which rests upon it.^ But the observant
^ In support of the natural interpreta-
tion of these terms (whicli I frankly own
to be my view) not only St. Matt. i. 25
and St. Luke ii. 7 may be urged, but
these two questions may be put, suggested
by Archdeacon Xorris (who himself holds
them to iiave been the children of .Joseph
bv a fDriiicr marriage): How could our
Lord have been, through Joseph, the heir
of David's tin-one (according to the gene-
alogies), if Joseph had elder sons? And
again, What became of the six young
motherless children when Joseph an<l tlie
Virgin went tir.st to Bethlehem, and then
into Egypt, and why are the elder sons
iu)t mentioned on the occasion of the
CAPERNAUM. 3(55
reader will ])r()l)!il)ly iiiai-k, in connection with this controversy, that chap.
it is, to say the least, strange that 'brothers' of Jesus should, Avith- v
out I'urther explanation, have been introduced in the fourth Gospel, ^ r^^
if it was an Ei)hesian i)ro(luction, if not a fiction of spiritualistic
tendency; strange also, that the fourth Gospel alone should have
recorded the removal to Capernaum of the 'mother and l)rothers ' of
Jesus, in company with llim. But this by the way, and in reference
to recent controversies about the authorship of the fourth Gospel.
If we could only feel quite sure — and not merely deem it most
probable — that the Tell Ham of modern exploration marks the site of
the ancient Capernaum, Kephar Nachum, or Tanchumin (the latter,
perhaps, 'village of consolation '), with what solemn interest would
we wander over its ruins.' We know it from New Testartient history,
and from the writings of Josei)hus.'' A rancorous notice and certain » Jewish
. . War iii. 10.
vile insinuations^ of the Rabbis, '' connecting it with ' heresy,' pre- 8;Life72
sumably that of Christianity, seem also to point to Kephar Nachum ecci^u r!^
as the home of Jesus, where so many of His miracles were done, ed.wrrsh^'
At the time it could have been of only recent origin, since its Syna- T&^asnT
gogue had but lately been reared, through the friendly liberality of
that true and fiuthful Centurion." But already its importance was °st. Matt.
'' ^ viii. 5, &c.
such, that it had become the station of a garrison, and of one of the
principal custom-houses. Its soft, sweet air, by the glorious Lake of
Galilee, with snow-capped Hermon full in view in the North — from a
distance, like Mount Blanc over the Lake of Geneva;^ the fertility of
the country — notably of the plain of Gennesaret close by; and the
merry babble, and fertilising proximity of a spring which, from its
teeming with fish like that of the Nile, was popularly regarded as
springing from the river of Egypt — this and more must have made
Capernaum one of the most delightful places in these ' Gardens of
Princes,' as the Rabbis interpreted the word 'Gennesaret,' by the
'cither-shaped lake' of that name.* The town lay quite up on its
north-western shore, only two miles from where the Jordan falls into
the lake. As we wander over that field of ruins, about half a mile in
visit to the Temple ? (Commentary on the The second of the two notices evidently
New Testament, vol. i. p. 117. » refers to the first. The 'heretic' Jacob
' Bobinson, Sep]}, and, if I nnderstand spoken of, is the bete noire of t\w Rabbis,
llim aright, Lieut. Cornier, regard Khan The implied charges against the Chris-
Mhiycli (Tent-Work in Palest, vol. ii. tians remind one of the description, Rev.
pp. 1S2 etc.) as the site of Capernaum; ii. 20-24.
but most modern writers are agi"(>ed in -^ The comparison is Canon Tristrarn's
lixlng it at TeU Ihlin. (Land of Israel, p. 427).
- The stories are too foolish, and the ^ This is another Rabbinic interpreta-
iusinuations too vile, to be here repeated. tion of the term Gennesaret.
366
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" St. Mark
ii. 15 ;
com p.
ill. 20, 31
•> St. Matt,
viii. 14
"St. .John
Vi. 49, 59
d A.D. 27
length by a quarter in breadth, which in all probability mark the site
of ancient Capernaum, we can scarcely realise it, that the desolate-
iiess all around has taken the place of the life and beauty of eighteen
centuries ago. Yet the scene is the same, though the breath of judg-
ment has long swei)t the freshness from its face. Here lies in
unruffled stillness, or wildly surges, lashed by sudden storms, the
deej) blue lake, 600 or 700 feet below the level of the Mediterranean.
We can look up and down its extent, al)out twelve miles, or across it,
about six miles. Right over on the other side from where we stand
— somewhere there, is the place where Jesus miraculously fed the five
thousand. Over here came the little ship, its timbers still trembling,
and its sides and deck wet with the spray of that awful night of
storm, when He came to the weary rowers, and brought with Him
calm. Up that beach they drew^ the boat. Here, close by the shore,
stood the Synagogue, built of white limestone on dark basalt founda-
tion. North of it, up the gentle slopes, stretched the town. East
and south is the lake, in almost continuous succession of lovely small
bays, of which more than seventeen may be counted within six miles,
and in one of which nestled Capernaum. All its houses are gone,
scarce one stone left on the other: the good Centurion's house, that
of Matthew the publican," that of Simon Peter," the temporary home
which first sheltered the Master and His loved ones. All are unre-
cognisable— a confused mass of ruins — save only that white Syna-
gogue in which He taught. From its ruins we can still measure its
dimensions, and trace its fallen pillars; nay, we discover over the
lintel of its entrance the device of a pot of manna, which may have
lent its form to His teaching there " — a tlevice different from that of
the seven-branched candlestick, or that other most significant one of
the Paschal Lamb, which seem to have been so frequent over the
Synagogues in Galilee.^
And this, then, is Capernaum — the first and the chief home of
Jesus, when He had entered on His active work. But, on this
occasion. He ' continued there not many days. ' For, already, ' the
Jews' Passover was at hand,' and He must needs keep that feast in
Jerusalem. If our former computations are right — and, in the
nature of things, it i.s impossible to be absolutely certain about
exact dates — and John began his preaching in the autumn of the
year 7*79 from the building of Rome, or in 26 of our present reckon-
ing, while Jesus was baptized in the early winter following,'*^ then
' Conip. ospecially Warren's Recovery
of Jerusalem, pp. 337-351.
2 W/'fi.s-pfer and most modern writers
place tlie Baptism of Jesus in tbe summer
PREPARING FOR THE FIRST PASSOVER.
3G7
this Passover must have taken place in the spring (about April) of
the same year." The piei)aratiuus for it had, indeed, conunenced a
montli before. Not to speak of the needful domestic arrangements
for the journey of pilgrims to Jerusalem, the whole land seemed in
a state of preparation. A month before the feast (on the 15th Adar)
bridges and roads were i)ut in rei)air, and sepulchres whitened, to
prevent accidental pollution to the pilgrims. Then, some would
select this out of the three great annual feasts for the tithing of
their flocks and herds, which, in such case, had to 1)0 done two
weeks before the Passover; while others would fix on it as the time
for going up to Jerusalem before the feast ' to purify themselves " '' —
that is, to undergo the ju'cscribed purification in any case of Levitical
defilement. But wliat must have appealed to every one in the land
was the appearance of the 'money-changers' (ShulcJianhn), who
opened their stalls in every country-town on the 15tli of Adar (just a
month before the feast). They were, no doubt, regularly accredited
and duly authorised. For, all Jews and proselytes — -"svomen, slaves,
and minors excepted — had to pay the annual Temple-tribute of half
a shekel, according to the 'sacred' standard, equal to a common
Galilean shekel (two dcnars), or about Is. 2d. of our money. From
this tax many of the priests — to the chagrin of the Rabl)is — claimed
exemi)tion, on the ingenious plea that in Lev. vi. 23 (A.Y.) every
offering of a priest was ordered to be burnt, and not eaten; while
from the Temple-tribute such offerings were paid for as the two wave
loaves and the shewbread, which were afterwards eaten by priests.
Hence, it was argued, their payment of Temple-tribute would have
been incompati1)le with Lev. vi. 23!
But to return. This Temple-tribute had to be paid in exact
half-shekels of the Sanctuary, or ordinary Galilean shekels. When
it is remembered that, besides strictly Palestinian silver and especially
copper coin,' Persian, Tyrian, Syrian, Egyptian, Grecian, and Boman
CHAP.
V
" 780 A.T-.O.
or 27 A.D.
'' St. .John
xi. 55
of 27 A.D., and, accordingly, the first
Passover iu spring, 28 a.d. But it seems
to me highly improbable, that so long an
interval as nine or ten months should
have elapsed between John's first jtreach-
ing and the Baptism of Jesus. Besides,
in that case, how are we to account for
the eight or nine months between the
Bai)tlsm and the Passover ? So far as I
know, tlie only reason for this strange
hypothesis is St. John ii. 20, which will
be explained in its proper jjlace.
' Simon Maccabee had copper money
coined; the so-called copper shekel, a
little more than a penny, and also half
and quarter shekels (about a half-penny,
and a farthing). His successors coined
even smaller copper money. During the
whole period from the death of .Simon
to the last Jewish war no Jewish silver
coins issued from the Palestinian mint,
but only copper coins. Hn-zfeld (Han-
delsgesch. pp. 178, 179) suggests that
there was sutficient foreign silver coin-
age circulating in the country, while
naturally only a very snuUl amount of
foreign copper coin would be brought to
Palestine.
368 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK iiionoy cireuhitcd in the country, it will ho understood what work
ni these ' inoney-chaiigers ' must have had. From the 15th to the 25th
^— '^^'^-^ Adar they had stalls in every country-towu. On the latter date,
wliicli must therefore be considered as marking the first arrivals of
festive pilgrims in the city, the stalls in the country were closed, and
the money-changers henceforth sat within the precincts of the
Temple. All who refused to pay the Temple-tribute (except priests)
were liable to distraint of their goods. The ' money-changers '
made a statutory fixed charge of a 3Iauh, or from firf. to 2d. ^ (or,
according to others, of half a maah) on every half-shekel. This
was called qolbon. But if a person tendered a Sela (a four-denar
piece, in value two* half-shekels of the Sanctuary, or two Galilean
shekels), he had to pay double qclbon; one for his half-shekel of
tribute-money, the other for his change. Although not only priests,
but all other non-obligatory officers, and those who paid for their
poorer brethren, were exempted from the charge of qolbon, it must
have brought in an immense revenue, since not only many native
Palestinians might come without the statutory coin, Inita vast number
of foreign Jews presented themselves on such occasions in the Temple.
Indeed, if we compute the annual Temple-tribute at about 15,000^.,
the bankers' profits may have amounted to from 8,000/. to 9,000/., an
immense sum in the circumstances of the countr^^^
But even this does not represent all the facts of the case. We
have already seen, that the ' money-changers ' in the Temple gave
change, when larger amounts than were equivalent to the Temple-
ti'ibute were proti'ered. It is a reasonable, nay, an almost necessary
inference, that many of the foreign Jews arriving in Jerusalem would
take the opportunity of changing at these tables their foreign money,
and for this, of course, fresh charges woul<l be made. For, there was
a great deal to be bought within the Temple-area, needful for the
feast (in the way of sacrifices and their adjuncts), or for purification,
and it would be better to get the right money from the authorised
changers, than have disputes with the dealers. We can picture to
ourselves the scene around the table of an Eastern money-changer —
the weighing of the coins, deductions for loss of weight, arguing, dis-
puting, bargaining — and we can realise the terrible truthfulness of
* It is extremely difficult to tix the witliin bounds. All tlie rejjulations about
e./;ac< equivaleot. Cassel comymies it nt the Tri//u(e and Qolboti are enumerated
one-tifth, Ilerzfeld at one-sixth, Zunz at in Sheqal. i. I have not <i;iven references
one-third, and Winer at one-fourth of a for eacli of the statements advanced, not
denar. because they are not to hand in reiiurd
- Comp. Winer's Real-Wdrterb. I have to almost every detail, but to avoid
taken a low estimate, so as to Ijc well needless quotations.
THE OFFERERS IN THE TEMPLE. 309
our Lord's charo'c tliat they had made the Father's House a mart and ciIAP.
place of traflic. But even so, the business of the Temple money- V
changers would not be exhausted. Through their hands would i)ass ^— — r^— ^
tile iunnense votive ofl'erings of foreign Jews, or of proselytes, to the
Temi)le; indeed, they probably transacted all business matters con-
nected with the Sanctuary. It is difficult to realise the vast accuniu-
hition of wealth in the Temple-treasury. But some idea of it may
1)0 formed from tlie circumstance that, despite many previous spolia-
tions, the value of the gold and silver which Crassus" carried from "54-53 b.c.
the Temple-treasury amounted to the enormous sum of about two
and a half millions sterling. Whether or not these Temple money-
changers may have transacted other banking business, given drafts,
or cashed those from correspondents, received and lent money at
interest — all which was common at the time— must remain unde-
termined.
Readers of the New Testament know, that the noisy and incon-
gruous business of an Eastern money-lender was not the only one
carried on within the sacred Temple-enclosure. It was a great
accommodation, that a person bringing a sacrifice might not only
learn, but actually obtain, in the Temple from its officials what was
required for the meat- and drink-offering. The prices were fixed by
tarifl' every month, and on payment of the stated amount the offerer
received one of four counterfoils, which respectively indicated, and,
on handing it to the proper official, procured the prescribed comple-
ment of his sacrifice.^ The Priests and Levites in charge of this made
up their accounts every evening, and these (though necessary) trans-
actions must have left a considerable margin of profit to the treasury.
This would soon load to another kind of traffic. Ofl'erers might, of
course, bring their sacrificial animals with them, and we know that
on the Mount of Olives there were four shops, specially for the sale
of pigeons and other things requisite for sacrificial purposes.''^ But 'jer.Taan.
then, when an animal was brought, it had to be examined as to its
Leviticaf fitness by persons regularly qualified and appointed. Disputes
might here arise, due to the ignorance of the purchaser, or the greed
of the examiner. A regularly qualified examiner was called mumcJieh
(one approved), and how much labour Avas given to the acquisition of
1 Coinp. 'The Temple and its Ser- him that these wore the C7tanu>/of/i, or
vices, etc.,' pp. 118, Hi). sliops, of the family of Annas, to wliich
-' M. Dercnhou rg (Ilistoire (le Palest.. tlie Saiiliedrin migrated forty years be-
1). 4()7) liolds tliat tliese sliops were kept fore tlie destruction of Jerusalem. See
by priests, or at any rate tliat the jirofits farther on.
went to them. But I cannot agree with
IV. 8
370
FROM JORDAN TO TIIR MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
111
'' Jerus.
Chag. 78 a
the rc(inisit(' knowledge ai)i)ears from the cireumrftaiice, that a certain
teacher is said t(^ have spent eighteen months with a farmer, to learn
what faults in an animal were temporary, and which permanent/
Now, as we are informed that a certain mumcheh of firstlings had
been authorised to charge for his inspection from four to six Isar
{l^cl. to about 2d.), according to the animal inspected,^ it is but
reasonable to suppose that a similar fee may have been exacted
for examining the ordinary sacrificial animals. But all troulMe and
diflieulty would be avoided by a regular market within the Temple-
enclosure, where sacrificial animals could bo purchased, having
presumably been duly inspected, and all fees paid before being
offered for sale.^ It needs no comment to show how utterly the
Temple would be profaned by such traflic, and to what scenes it
might lead. From Jewish writings we know, that most improper
transactions were carried on, to the taking undue advantage of the
poor people who came to offer their sacrifices. Thus we read," that
on one occasion the price of a couple of pigeons was run up to the
enormous figure of a gold denar (a Roman gold denar, about 15s. 3c7.),
when, through the intervention of Simeon, the grandson of the great
Hillel, it was brought down before night to a quarter of a silver
denar, or about 2(7. each. Since Simeon is represented as intro-
ducing his resolve to this effect with the adjuration, ' by the Temple,'
it is not unfair to infer that these prices had ruled within the sacred
enclosure. It was probably not merely controversial zeal for the
peculiar teaching of his master Shammai, but a motive similar to
that of Simeon, which on another occasion induced Baba ben Buta
(well known as giving Herod the advice of rebuilding the Temple),
when he found the Temple-court empty of sacrificial animals, through
the greed of those who had ^ thus desolated the House of God,' to
bring in no less than three thousand sheep, so that the people might
offer sacrifices.'^ ^
This leads up to another question, most important in this con-
nection. The whole of this traffic — money-changing, selling of doves,
and market for sheep and oxen — was in itself, and from its attendant
circumstances, a terrible desecration; it was also liable to gross
' It is certain that this Teiiii)le-market
could not have been ' on both sides of
the Eastern Gate — the ijate Shushan — as
far as Solomon's Porch ' (Dr. Farirtr).
If it Iiad been on both sides of this ^ate,
it must have l)een in Solomon's Porch.
But this supposition is out of the ques-
tion. There would have been no room
there for a market, and it formed tlie
in-incipal access into the Sanctuary. The
Temple-market was undovibtediy some-
where in tlie 'Court of the Gentiles.'
■^ It is. however, quite certain that Baba
l)en Buta had not 'been the first to intro-
duce ' ( Dr. Farnir) t ids traffic. A i)erusal
of Jer. Cha"r. 78 d shows thissutliciiMitly.
THE TEMPLE-MAE KET.
371
abuses. But was there about tlio tiuie of Christ anythin<2: to make it chap.
specially obnoxious and unpopular'!' The priesthood must always v
have derived considerable prolit from it — of course, not the ordinary "— ^r^ '
priests, who came up in their 'orders' to minister in the Temple, but
the permanent priestly oflQcials, the resident leaders of the priest-
hood, and especially the High-Priestly family. This opens up a
most interesting inquiry, closely connected, as we shall show, with
Christ's visit to the Temple at this Passover. But the materials
here at our command are so disjointed, that, in attempting to put
them together, we can only suggest what seems most probable, not
state what is absolutely certain. What became of the profits of the
money-changers, and who were the real owners of the Temple-market?
To the first of these cjuestions the Jerusalem Talmud'' gives no "Jor. sheq.
less than five different answers, showing that there was no fixed rule lines, p. 4g
b
as to the employment of these profits, or, at least, that it was no longer
known at that time. Although four of these answers point to their
use for the public service, yet that which seems most likely assigns
the whole profits to the money-changers themselves. But in that
case it can scarcely be doubted, that they had to pay a considerable
rental or percentage to the leading Temple-ofiicials. The profits
from the sale of meat- and drink-ofierings went to the Temple-
treasury. But it can hardly be believed, that such was the case in
regard to the Temple-market. On the other hand, there can be
little doubt, that this market was what in Rabbinic writings is
styled ' the Bazaars of the sons of Annas ' {CJianuyoth beney Chanan),
the sons of that High-Priest Annas, Avho is so infamous in New Testa-
ment history. When we read that the Sanhedrin, forty years before
the destruction of Jerusalem, transferred its meeting-place from ' the
Hall of Hewn Stones ' (on the south side of the Court of the Priests,
and therefore partly within the Sanctuary itself) to 'the Bazaars,'
and then afterwards to the City," the inference is plain, that these "Eosii
Bazaars were those of the sons of Annas the High-Priest, and that they
occupied part of the Temple-court; in short, that the Temple-market
and the Bazaars of the sons of Annas are identical.
If this inference, which is in accordance with received Jewish
opinion, be admitted, we gain much light as regards the purifi-
cation of the Temple by Jesus, and the words which He spake on that
occasion. For, our next i)osition is that, from the unrighteousness of
the traffic carried on in these Bazaars, and the greed of their owners,
the ' Temple-market ' was at the time nu:)st unpopular. This appears,
not only from the conduct and words of the patriarch Simeon and of
372
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" Sii>hiv on
Deut. § 105,
end. ed.
Frifdniann,
p. 9o h • Jer.
Peah 1. 6
'■ St. Matt,
xxi. 12
"^ Ant. XX. 9.
2-4
a Pes. 57 a
'' Pes. u. 8.
Baba ben Buta (as above quoted), but from the fact that popular in-
dignation, three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, swept away
the Bazaars of the family of Annas,'' and this, as expressly stated, on
account of the sinful greed which characterised their dealings. And
if any doubt should still linger in the mind, it would surely be removed
by our Lord's open denunciation of the Temple-market as ' a den of
robbers. ' " Of the avarice and corruption of this infamous High-
Priestly family, alike Josephus and the Rabbis give a most terrible
picture. Josephus describes Annas (or Ananus), the son of the-
Annas of the New Testament, as '■ a great hoarder up of money, '
very rich, and as despoiling by open violence the common priests of
their official revenues." The Talmud also records the curse which
a distinguished Rabbi of Jerusalem (Abba Shaul) pronounced upon
the High-Priestly families (including that of Annas), who were
' themselves High-Priests, their sons treasurers (Gizbarin), their
sons-in-law assistant-treasurers (Ammarkalin), while their servants
beat the people with sticks. ' ^ What a comment this passage offers
on the bearing of Jesus, as He made a scourge to drive out the very
servants who ' beat the people with sticks, ' and upset their unholy
traffic ! It were easy to add from Rabbinic sources repulsive details of
their luxuriousness, w^astefulness, gluttony, and general dissoluteness.
No wonder that, in the figurative language of the Talmud, the Temple
is represented as crying out against them: ' Go hence, ye sons of
Eli, ye defile the Temple of Jehovah!"' These painful notices of
the state of matters at that time help us better to understand what
Christ did, and who they w^ere that opposed His doing.
These Temple-Bazaars, the property, and one of the principal
sources of income, of the family of Annas, were the scene of the
purification of the Temple by Jesus; and in the private locale
attached to these very Bazaars, where the Sanhedrin held its meetings
at the time, the final condemnation of Jesus may have been planned,
if not actually pronounced. All this has its deep significance. But
w^e can now al'so understand why the Temple officials, to whom these
Bazaars belonged, only challenged the authority of Christ in thus
purging the Temple. The unpopularity of the whole traffic, if not
their consciences, prevented their proceeding to actual violence.
Lastly, we can also better perceive the significance, alike of Christ's
action, and of His reply to their challenge, spoken as it was close
to the spot where He was so soon to be condemned by them.
Nor do we any longer Avonder that no resistance was offered by
the people to the action of Jesus, and that even the remonstrances
45 &c.
THE PURGATION OF THE TEMPLE. :-J73
of tlio priests were not direct, l)iit in the Ibrni of a i)er|)lexiii<i ciiap.
question. V
Foi' it is in the direction just indicated, and in no other, that "- — c — '
objections have been raised to the narrative of Christ's lirst jjuhlic
act in Jerusalem: the purgation of the Temple. Commentators have
sutliciently pointed out the ditl'ercnces between this and the purga-
tion of the Temple at the close of His Ministry."^ Indeed, on com- "St. Matt.
, 1 • 1 i 1 1 ji -V- xxi. 12. Jtc. ;
parison, these are so obvious, that every reader can mark them. JSor st.Mark xi.
11 ttc. : St.
does it seem difficult to understand, rather does it seem not only Lukexix. "
lifting, but almost logically necessary, that, if any such event had
occurred, it should have taken place both at the beginning and at the
close of His public ministry in the Temple. Nor yet is there any-
thing either 'abrupt' or 'tactless' in such a commencement of his
Ministry. It is not only profane, but unhistorical, to look for calcula-
tion and policy in the Life of Jesus. Had there been such. He would
not have died on the Cross. And ' abrupt ' it certainly was not.
Jesus took up the thread where he had dropped it on His tirst re-
corded appearance in the Temple, when he had spoken His wonder,
that those who knew Him should have been ignorant, that He must
be about His Father's business. He was now about His Father's
liusiness, and, as we may so say, in the most elementary manner. To
put an end to this desecration of His Fatlier's House, which, by a
nefarious traffic, had been made a place of mart, nay, ' a den of
robbers,' was, what all who knew Mis Mission must have felt, a most
suitable and almost necessary beginning of His Messianic Work.
And many of those present must have known Jesus. The zeal
of His early disciples, who, on their tirst recognition of Him, pro-
claimed the new-found Messiah, could not have given place to absolute
silence. The many Galilean pilgrims in the Temple could not but
have spread the tidings, and the report must soon have passed from
one to the other in the Temple-courts, as He first entered their sacred
enclosure. They would follow Him, and watch what He did. Nor
were they disappointed. He inaugurated His Mission by fulfilling
the prediction concerning Him Who was to be Israel's refiner and
purifier (Mai. iii. 1-3). Scarce had He entered the Temple-porch,
and trod the Court of the Gentiles, than He drove thence what
profanely defiled it.^ There was not a hand lifted, not a word spoken
' It must, however, be admitted, that Komment. (on St. Joliii), p. 142, notes,
even Lvthpr\\i\.(\ grave doubts whetlier •^ And so He ever does, l)e<i;inning His
the narrative of the Synoptists and that Ministry l).vi)urlfying, whetlier as regards
of the fourth Gospel did not refer to one the individual or the Church,
and the same event. Comi). Meyer,
374 FROM JORDAN TO THE .MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK to arrest Iliin, as He niade the scourge of small cords (even this not
III without significance) and with it drove out of the Temple both the
^— 'V'^"^ sheep and the oxen; not a word said, uor a hand raised, as He poured
into their receptacles the changers' money, and overthrew their tables/
His Presence awed them, His words awakened even their consciences;
they knew, only too well, how true His denunciations were. And
behind Him was gathered the w^ondering multitude, that could not
but sympathise with such 1)old, right royal, and Messianic vindication
of Temple sanctity from the nefarious traffic of a hated, corrupt, and
avaricious Priesthood. It was a scene worth witnessing l)y any true
Israelite, a protest and an act which, even among a less emotional
people, would have gained Him respect, approbation, and admiration,
and which, at any rate, secured his safety.^
For when 'the Jews,' by which here, as in so many other places,
we are to understand the rulers of the people — in this instance, the
Temple officials — did gather courage to come forward, they ventured
not to hiy hands on Him. It was not yet the time for it. In pre-
sence of that multitude they would not then have dared it, even if
policy had not dictated quietness within the Temple-enclosure, when
the Roman garrison so close by, in Fort Antonia, kept jealous watch
^Actsxxi. for the first appearance of a tumult." Still more strangely, they did
not even reprove Him for what He had done, as if it had been wrong
or improper. With infinite cunning, as appealing to the multitude,
they only asked for ' a sign ' which would warrant such assumption
of authority. But this question of challenge marked two things:
the essential opposition between the Jewish authorities and Jesus, and
the manner in which they \^'ould carry on the contest, which was
henceforth to be waged between Him and the rulers of the people.
That first action of Jesus determined their mutual positions; and
with and in that first conflict its end was already involved. The action
of Jesus as against the rulers must develop into a life-opposition;
their first step against Ilini must lead on to the last in His condemna-
tion to the Cross.
And Jesus then and there knew it all, foresaw, or rather saw it
all. His answer told it. It was — as all His teaching to those who
seeing do not see, and hearing do not hear, whose understanding is
' Canon Wes'cott calls attention to tlie taking against-wblch the Hand of Christ
use of two difTerent terms for money- is specially directed,
changers in vv. 14, 15. In the latter '^ Yet Benan ventures to characterise
only itis K-o/l.Au^7crr7)c.of which the Ara- this as a sudden, ill-advised outburst of
maic form is qolbon. It is this qolbon- ill-humour.
THE •8I(;n' in answer to the challenge. 375
darkened and heart hardened — ini)aral)()lic lan<i:uag'e, whiehonly the CIIAP.
after-event would make clear.* As lor * the sign/ then and ever again V
sought by an 'evil and adulterous generation ' — evil in their thoughts ' — -r — '
and ways and adulterous to the God of Israel — He had then, as °st. Matt.
•^ ' xiii. 11-15;
afterwards/' only one 'sign 'to give: 'Destroy this Tem])le, and in st.Markiv.
three days I will raise it up.' Thus lie met their challenge for a 1 st. Matt.
sign by the challenge of a sign: Crucify Plim, and He would rise '"'■ '^'^'^
again; let them suppress the Christ,- He would trium])h.^ A sign
this which they understood not, but misunderstood, and by making-
it the ground of their false charge in His final trial, themselves
unwittingly fulfilled.
And yet to all time this is the sign, and the only sign, wiiich the
Christ has given, which He still gives to every ' evil and adulterous
generation,' to all sin-lovers and God-forsakers. They will destroy,
so far as their power reaches, the Christ, crucify Him, give His words
tlie lie, suppress, sweep away Christianity — and they shall not suc-
ceed: He shall triumph. As on that first Easter-day, so now and
ever in history, He raises up the Temple, which they break down.
This is the 'sign,' the evidence, the only 'sign,' which the Christ
gives to His enemies; a sign which, as an historical fact, has been
patent to all men, and seen by them; which might have been evidence;
but being of the nature of miracle, not explicable by natural agencies,
they have misunderstood, viewing ' the Temple ' merely as a building,
of which they fully know the architecture, manner, and time of
construction,^ but of whose si)iritual character and upbuilding they
have no knowledge nor thought. And thus, as to that generation, so
' I cannot see in the words of .Jesus autumn of the year 734-35. But it has
any dii'ect rof(M-ence to the abroii;ation of ah^eady been explaiued that, in Jewish,
tiie material Temple and its services, and reckoning, the beginHinir of a new year
the substitution of the Church for it. Of was recl^oned as a year. Thus if, accord-
course, such was the case, and implied in iug to universal oi)inion (comp. Wieseler,
His Crucitixion and Resurrection, though Chronolog. Synopse, pp. 1(15, 166), the
not alluded to here. Temple-building began in Kislev 73-i,
'^ From the expression (St. John ii. 20) forty-uine years after it would briug us
'Forty and six years was this Temple iu to the autumn 770, and the I^assover of
building,' it has been inferred by most 780, or 27 a.d.. would be regarded and
writers that this Passover was of the s])oken of as ' forty and six years.' If a
year 791 a.u.c, or 2S a.d., and not, as Jew had calculated the time at Die Pass-
we have argued, of the year 780 A.r.r., over 781, he would not have said ■ forty-
or27A.D. But their cal("ulation rests (111 six' but 'forty-seven j'ears ' 'was this
an oversiglit. Admittedly the rebuild- Temple in building.' The mistake of
iug of the Temple began in the autumn writers lies in forgetting that a fresh
of the eighteenth year of Herod's reign year had begun after the autumn — or at
(Jos. Ant. XV. 11. 1-6). As Herod's reign any rate at the Passover. It may here
dates fi'om 717 a.u.c, the Temple- be added, that the Temple was not tinally
building must have commenced in the completed till 63 a.d.
376
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
to all which liavc followed, this i.s still the 'sign,' if the}' understand
it — the only sign, tlie Great Miracle, which, as they only calculate
from the visible and to them ascertained, these ' despisers behold, and
wonder, and perish, 'for He worketh 'a work in their days, a work
which they shall in no wise believe.*
THE WORDH OF CHRIST AS VIEWED BY THE DI.SCIPLES. 377
CHAPTER VL
THE TEACHER COME FROM GOD AND THE TEACHER FROM JERUSALEM —
JESUS AND NICODEMUS.
(St. John iii. 1-21.)
But there were those who beheld, and heard His words, and did in CHAP.
some measure understand them. Even before Jesus had spoken to the ^^
Temple-officials, His disciples, as silently they Avatched Him, saw an ^~^^' '
old Scripture-saying kindled into light by the halo of His glory. It
was that of the suffering, self-forgetful, God-dedicated Servant of
Jehovah, as His figure stood out against the Old Testament skj^,
realising in a hostile world only this, as the deepest element of His
being and calling: entire inward and outward consecration to God, a
l)urnt-oft'ering, such as Isaac would have been. Within their minds
sprang up unbidden, as when the light of the TJrim and Thummim
fell on the letters graven on the precious stones of the High-Priest's
1)reastplate, those words of old: 'The zeal of Thine house eateth me
up.' "• Thus, even in those days of their early learning, Jesus purg- "Ps. isix. 9
ing the Temple in view of a hostile rulership was the full realisation
of that picture, which must be prophetic, since no mere man ever bore
those lineaments: that of the ideal Nazarite, whom the zeal of God's
house was consuming. And then long afterAvar'ds, after His Passion
and Death, after those dark days of loneliness and doubt, after the
misty dawn of the first recognition — this word, which He had spoken
to the rulers at the first, came to them, with all the convincing power
of pixdiction fulfilled by fact,, as an assured conviction, which in its
strong grasp held not only the past, but the present, because the pre-
sent is ever the fulfilment of the past: ' When therefore He was risen
from the dead, His disci]ilcs remembered that He had said this unto
them; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had
said.'
Again, as we think of the meaning of His refusing ' a sign ' to
the rulers of Israel — or rather think of the only ' sign ' which He did
give them — we see nothing incompat il>le with it in the fact that, at the
378 FROM JOliDAX TO THE MOUNT OF TRAXi-iFIGURATION.
I5()()K same feast, He did many ' signs ' ' in sight of the people. For it was
1 1 1 only the rulers who had entered on that eonflict, of which, from the cha-
^^ — ','^^ racter and aims of the two parties engaged, the l)cginning involved the
terrible end as its logical sequence. In presence of such a foe only
one 'sign ' could be given: that of reading their inmost hearts, and
in them their real motives and final action, and again of setting forth
His own final triumph — a predictive description, a ' no sign ' that was,
and is, a sign to all time. But neither challenge nor hostile demand
for a sign had been addressed to Him by the people;. Indeed even at
the last, when incited by their rulers, and blindly following them,
' they knew not what they did.' And it was to them that Jesus now,
on the morning of His Work, spoke by 'signs.'
The Feast of the Passover commenced on the 15th Nisan, dating
it, of course, from the preceding evening. But before that — before
the slaying of the Paschal Lamb, on the afternoon of the 14th Nisan
— the visitor to the Temple would mark something peculiar.^ On the
evening of the 13th Nisan,with which the 14th, or 'preparation-day,'
commenced, the head of each household Avould, with lighted candle
and in solemn silence, search out all leaven in his house, prefacing his
search with solemn thanksgiving and appeal to God, and closing it by
an equally solemn declaration that he had accomplished it, so far as
within his knowledge, and disavowing responsibility for what lay
beyond it. And as the worshippers went to the Temple, they would
see prominently exposed, on a bench in one of the porches, two dese-
crated cakes of some thankoff'ering, indicating that it was still lawful to
eat of that which was leavened. At ten, or at latest eleven o'clock, one
of those cakes was removed, and then they knew that it was no longer
lawful to eat of it. At twelve o'clock the second cake was removed,
and this was the signal for solemnly burning all the leaven that had
been gathered. Was it on the eve of the 14th, when each head of a
house sought for and put aside the leaven, or else as the people
watched these two cakes, and then the removal of the last of them,
which marked that all leaven was to be 'purged out,' that Jesus, in
real fulfilment of its national meaning, ' cleansed ' the Temple of its
leaven?
AVe can only suggest the question. But the ' cleansing of the
- ^t.johnii. Temple ' undoubtedly preceded the actual festive Paschal week." To
1 Although our A.Y. translates in ver. ^ We reserve a detailed account of the
18 'sijin'aud in ver. 23 ' miracles,' the Paschal celebration for our account of
Greek word is the same in both cases, the last Passover of Jesus,
and moans a 'sij::n.'
MIRACLES OF CHRIST AND CONTEMPORARY TIIOUCJIIT. :;V
those who were in Jerusalem it Avas a week .such as had never been chap.
before, a Aveek Avhen Hhey saAv the signs Avhicli He did,' and when, V[
stirred by a strange impulse, ' they believed in llis Name ' as the ^- — ^.^
Messiah. 'A milk-taith,' as Luther pithily calls it, Avhich fed on, and
required for its sustenance, ' signs,' And like a vision it passed Avith
the thing seen. Not a faith to Avhich the sign was only the fingerpost,
but a faith of which the sign, not the thing signified, was the sub-
stance; a faith Avhich dazzled the mental sight, but reached not doAvn
to the heart. And Jesus, Who with heart-searching glance saw what
Avasinman, Who needed not any to tell Him, but with immediateness
kncAV all, did not commit Himself to them. They Avere not like His
first Galilean disciples, true of heart and in heart. The Messiah
Whom these found, and He Whom those saw, met different concep-
tions. The faith of the Jerusalem sign-seers Avould not have compassed
Avhat the Galileans experienced; itAvould not have understood nor
endured, had He committed Himself to them. And yet He did, in
Avondrous love, condesc'end and speak to them in the only lan-
guage they could understand, in that of ' signs. ' Nor Avas it all
in A'ain.
Unrecorded as these miracles are — because the Avords they spoke
were not recorded on many hearts — it was not only here and there,
by this or that miracle, that their power Avas felt. Their grand
general effect Avas, to make the more spiritually minded and thoughtful
feel that Jesus Avas indeed ^a teacher come from God.' In thinking
of the miracles of Jesus, and generally of the miraculous in the New
Testament, we are too apt to overlook the principal consideration in
the matter. We regard it from our present circumstances, not from
those of the Jews and people of that time; Ave judge it from our
standpoint, not from theirs. And yet the main gist of the matter
lies here. We would not expect to be convinced of the truth of
religion, nor converted to it, by outAvard miracles; we would not ex-
pect them at all. Not but that, if a notable miracle really did occur,
its impression and effect would be oA^erwhelming; although, unless a
miracle submitted itself to the strictest scientific tests, Avhen in the
nature of things it would cease to be a miracle, it Avould scarcely find
general credence. Hence, truth to say, the miraculous in the Ncav
Testament constitutes to modern thought not its strong, but its weak
point; not its convincing evidence, but its point of attack and diflfi-
culty. Accordingly, treating of, or contemplating the miracles of the
New Testament, it is always their moral, not their natural (or supra-
380
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
' Sanh. 65 6
' Baba
Mez. 59 6
natural), aspect whieli lias its chief infliienc(3 upon us. But what is
tliis hut to say that ours is modern, not ancient thought, and that the
evidential power of Christ's miracles has given place to the age and
dispensation of the Holy Ghost? With us the process is the reverse
of what it was with them of old. They approached the moral and
spiritual through the miraculous; we the miraculous through the
moral and spiritual. His Presence, that one grand Presence is, indeed,
ever the same. But God always adapts His teaching to our learning;
else it were not teaching at all, least of all Divine teaching. Only
what carries it now to us is not the same as what carried it to them
of old: it is no more the fingerpost of ' signs,' but the finger of the
Spirit. To them the miraculous was the expected — that miraculous
which to us also is so truly and Divinely miraculous, just because it
applies to all time, since it carries to us the moral, as to them the
physical, aspect of the miracle; in each case. Divine reality Divinely
conveyed. It may therefore safely be asserted, that to the men of
that time no teaching of the new faith would have been real without
the evidence of miracles.
In those days, when the idea of the miraculous was, so to speak,
fluid — passing from the .natural into the supernatural — and men re-
garded all that was above their view-point of nature as supernatural,
the idea of the miraculous would, by its constant recurrence, always
and prominently suggest itself. Other teachers also, among the Jews
at least, claimed the power of doing miracles, and were popularly
credited with them. But what an obvious contrast between theirs
and the ' signs ' which Jesus did! In thinking of this, it is necessary
to remember, that the Talmud and the New Testament alike embody
teaching Jewish in its form, and addressed to Jews, and — at least so far
as regards the subject of miracles — at periods not far apart, and brought
still nearer by the singular theological conservatism of the people.
If, with this in our minds, we recall some of the absurd Rabbinic pre-
tensions to miracles — such as the creation of a calf by two Rabbis
every Sabbath eve for their Sabbath meal," or the repulsive, and in
part blasphemous, account of a series of prodigies in testimony of the
subtleties of some great Rabbi" — we are almost overwhelmed by the
evidential force of the contrast between them and the ' signs ' vviiich
Jesus did. We seem to be in an entirely new world, and we can
understand the conclusion at which every earnest and thoughtful mind
must have arrived in witnessing them, that He was, indeed, ' a Teacher
from God.'
NICODEMUS. 381
Such an ol)server was Nicodeiuus {Naqdimon),^ one of the Phari- CHAP.
sees and a lucuibcr of the Jerusalem Sanhedriu. And, as we gather VI
I'roni his mode of cxi)ression,^ not he only, but others with him. ^ — "r- — '
From the Gospel-history we know him to have been cautious by na-
ture and education, and timid of character; yet, as in other cases,
it was the greatest offence to his Jewish thinking, the Cross, which
at last brought him to the light of decision, and the vigour of bold
confession." And this in itself would show the real character of his »st. John
xix. b9
inquiry, and the efl'ect of what Jesus had first taiight him. It is, at
any rate, altogether rash to speak of the manner ol'his first approach
to Christ as most commentators have done. We can scarcely
realise the difficulties which he had to overcome. It must have been
a mighty power of conviction, to break down prejudice so far as to
lead this old Sanhedrist to acknowledge a Galilean, untrained in the
Schools, as a Teacher come from God, and to repair to Him for
direction on, perhaps, the most delicate and important point in Jewish
theology. But, even so, we cannot wonder that he should have
wished to shroud his first visit in the utmost possible secrecy. It was
a most compromising step for a Sanhedrist to take. With that first
l)old purgation of the Temple a deadly feud betw^een Jesus and the
Jewi'Sh authorities had begun, of which the sequel could not be
doubtful. It was involved in that first encounter in the Temple, and
it needed not the experience and wisdom of an aged Sanhedrist to
forecast the end.
Nevertheless, Nicodemus came. If this is evidtuice of his intense
earnestness, so is the bearing of Jesus of His Divine Character, and
of the truth of the narrative. As he was not depressed by the re-
sistance of the authorities, nor by the ' milk-faith ' of the multitude,
so He was not elated by the possibility of making such a convert as a
member of the great Sanhedrin. There is no excitement, no undue
deference, nor eager politeness; no compromise, nor attempted per-
suasiveness; not even accommodation. Nor, on the other hand, is
there assumed superiority, irony, or dogmatism. There is not even
a reference to the miracles, the evidential power of which had wrought
' A Nicodemus is spoken of in tlie the Talmud amon,2;tlie disciples of Jesus,
Talmud as one of the richest and most and a story is related how his dauf:;hter,
distiuii'uished citiseus of .Jerusalem (Taan. after immense wealth, came to nH)st ab-
20 r/:'Kethub. 66 b: Gitt. 56 a; Ab. de ject poverty. But there can scarcely be
R. Nath. 6 comp. Ber. R. 42. Midr. on a doubt that this somewhat leg;endary
Eccles. vii. 12, and on Lament, i. 5). But Naqdimon was nut the Nicodemus of the
this name was only g:iven him on account Gospel.
of a miracle whicli hajipened at his re- ^ ' We know that Thou art a Teacher
([uest, his real name beiuii' Biiuai, the come from God.'
sou of Goriou. A Bu)tai is mentioned in
382 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRAX^^FIGURATION.
BOOK in His visitor the initial convictiiju, that He was a Teacher come IVom
III (to(1. All is calm, earnest, dig-nified — if we may reverentl}' say it — as
^•^"^y—^ ])ecame the God-Man in the humiliation of His personal teaching.
To say that it is all un-Jewish were a mere truism: it is Divine. No
fabricated narrative would have invented such a scene, nor so repre-
sented the actors in it.^
Dangerous as it may be to indulge the imagination, we can
almost picture the scene. The report of what passed reads, more
than almost any other in the Gospels, like notes taken at the time
by one who was present. We can almost put it again into the form
of brief notes, by heading what each said in this manner, Nicode-
mus:— or, Jesus:. They are only the outlines of the conversation,
given, in each case, the really important gist, and leaving . abrupt
gaps between, as would 1)0 the manner in such notes. Yet quite
sufficient to tell us all that is important for us to know. We can
scarcely doubt that it was the narrator, John, who was the witness
that took the notes. His own reflections upon it, or rather his after-
look upon it, in the light of later facts, and under the teaching of
the Holy Ghost, is described in the verses with which the writer
follows his account of what had passed between Jesus and Nico-
demus (St. John iii. 16-21). In the same manner he winds up with
similar reflections (ib. vv. 31-36) the reported conversation between
the Baptist and his disciples. In neither case are the verses to which
1 This, of course, is not the view of the fourth Gospel, since otherwise it were
Ttibiugeu School, which regards the impossible that, when expressly treating
whole of this narrative as rei)resentiug a of Baptism, he should have omitted it.
later development. Dr. Abbott (Encycl. To us, on the other hand, the oi)posite
Brit, Art. 'Gospels,' p. 821) regards the seems the legitimate inference. Treat-
expression, ' born of water and of the ing confessedly of Baptism, it was only
Spirit,' as a reference to Christian Bap- necessary for his argument, which iden-
tism, and tliis again as evidence for the tified regeneration with Baptism, to in-
late authorship of the fourth Gospel, troduce the reference to the Spirit. Other-
His reasoning is, that the earliest refer- wise the ([notation is so exactly that from
ence to regeneration is contained in St. the fourth Gospel, including even the ob-
Matt. xviii. 3. Then he supposes a re- jection of Nicodemus, that it is almost
ference in Justiti's Apologia (i. 61) to be impossible to imagine that so literal a
& further development of this doctrine, transcription could have originated other-
and he denies what is generally regarded wise than from the fourth Gospel itself,
as Justin's quotation from St. John iii. .5 and that it is the result of a supposed
to be such, because it omits the word series of developments in which Justin
'water.' A third stage he su|)poses to would represent the second, and the
be implied in 1 Pet. i. 3, 23; with which fourth Gospel the fourth stage. But
he connects 1 Pet. iii. 21. The fourth besides, the attentive reader of the chap-
stage of development he regards as em- ter in Justin's Apologj' cannot fail to re-
bodied in the words of St. John iii. 5. mark that Justin represents a hder, and
All these hypotheses — for they are no not an earlier, stage than tlie fourth
more than such — are built on Justin's Gospel. For, with Justin, Bai>tism and
omission of tlie word ' water,' which, as regeneration are manifestly identified.
Dr. Aljbott argues, i)roves that Justin not with renovation of our nature, but
nuist have been unacquainted with the with the forgiveness of sins.
iii. 8
THE INTERVIEW IN THE 'UPPER CIIAMlJKi;.' 333
\vc refer, part of what citlier Jesus or John said at the time, but wluit,
in view of it, John says in name of, and to the Cliiii'ch of tlie New
Testament.^
If from 8t. John xix. 27 we mi^iAiit infer that St. John had 'a
home' in.Ierusalem itself — whieh, considering- the siniplieity of living
at the tiuK^, and the cost of houses, would not necessarily imply that
he was rich — the scene about to be described would have taken jjlace
under the roof of him who has given us its record. In any case, the
circumstances of life at the time are so well known, that we have no
difficulty in realising the surroundings. It was- night — one of the
nights in that Easter week so full of marvels. Perhaps v/e may be
allowed to suppose that, as so often in analogous circumstances, the
spring-wind, sweeping up the narrow streets of the City, had suggested
the comparison, ''Mvhich was so full of deepest teaching to Nicodemus. »st. John
Up in the simply furnished AH yah — the guest-chamber on the roof
— the lamp w^as still burning, and the Heavenly Guest still busy with
thought and words. There was no need for Nicodemus to pass through
the house, for an outside stair led to the upper room. It was night,
when Jewish superstition would keep men at home; a wild, gusty
spring night, when loiterers would not be in the streets; and no one
would sec him as at that hour he ascended the outside steps that led
u}) to the Aliyali. His errand was soon told: one sentence, that which
admitted the Divine Teachership of Jesus, implied all the (juestions
he could wish to ask. Nay, his very presence there spoke them.
Or, if otherwise, the answer of Jesus spoke them. Throughout,
Jesus never descended to the standpoint of Nicodemus, but rather
sought to lift him to His own. It was all about ' the Kingdom of
God,' ^ so connected with that Teacher come from God, that Nicodemus
would inquire.
And yet, though Christ never descended to the standpoint of
Nicodemus, we must bear in mind what his vieAvs as a Jew would be,
if we would understand the interview. Jesus took him straight to
whence alone that ' Kingdom ' could be seen. '■ Except a man be
born from above,* he cannot see the Kingdom of God.' It has been
1 For detailed examination and proof Gospel. Otherwise the expression 'My
I must here refer the reader to Canon Kiniidom ' is used in xviii. 3(i. This ex-
WestcotCs Commentary. ceptional use of the Synoptic term, ' King-
- I cannot a.iiTee with Archdeacon domofGod.'is noteworthy in this con-
Wiitkfus, who would render it, 'The nectlon, and not without its imi)ortant
Spirit breathes' — an opinion, so far as I bearing: on the question of the authorship
know, unsupported, and which seems to of tiie fourtli Gosjiel.
me ill-accordant with the whole context. ■• Notwithstandin<2; the hiii-li aulliority
^ The expression, 'King'dom of God,' of Professor Wesfcott, I must still hold
occurs only in iii. 3 and iii. 5 of the fourth that this, and now 'anew,' is the right
384
Fi;().M JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" Yebam.
tlioiiiiiit by (•oiiiiiK'ntaloi's, that there is here an allusion to a Jewish
mode of expression in regard to proselytes, who were viewed as
' new-born.' But in that case Nicodemus would have understood it,
and answered differently — or, rather, not expressed his utter inability
to understand it. It is, indeed, true that a Gentile on becoming a
proselyte — though not, as has been suggested, an ordinary penitent^
— was likened to a child just born.'' It is also true, that persons in
certain circumstances — the bridegroom on his marriage, the Chief of
the Academy on his promotion, the king on his enthronement —
'Yaikuton wcrc Hkcncd to those newly born.'' The expression, therefore, w^as
not only common, but, so to speak, fluid; only, both it and what it
implied must be rightly understood. In the first place, it was only a
simile, and never meant to convey a real regeneration (Uis a child').
So far as proselytes were concerned, it meant that, having entered into
a new relation to God, they also entered into new relationship to man,
just as if they had at that moment been newly born. All the old
relations had ceased — a man's father, brother, mother, sister were no
longer his nearest of kin: he was a new and another man. Then,
secondly, ° it implied a new state, when all a man's past was past, and
his sins forgiven him as belonging to that past. It will now be
perceived, how impossible it was for Nicodemus to understand the
teaching of Jesus, and yet how all-important to him was that teaching.
For, even if he could have imagined that Jesus pointed to repentance,
as that which would give him the figurative standing of ' born from
above,' or even 'born anew,' it would not have helped him. For,
first, this second birth was only a simile. Secondly, according to
the Jewish view, this second birth was the consequence of having
taken upon oneself 'the Kingdom;' not, as Jesus put it, the cause
and condition of it. The proselyte had taken upon himself ' the
Kingdom,' and therefore he w^as 'born' anew, while Jesus put it
1 As in
I'alkut
reiiderinii;. The word ccvgoBev has always
the meaning ' above ' in the fourth Gos-
pel (ch. ill. 3, 7, 31; xix. 11, 23); and
otherwise also St. .John always speaks of
' a birth ' from God (St. John i. 13 ; 1 John
ii. 29; ili. 9; iv. 7; v. 1. 4, 18).
1 This is at least imiilied by Wilnsche,
and taken for jjranted by others. But
ancient Jewish tradition and the Talmud
do not speak of it. Comp. Yebam. 22 a,
62 a ; 97 a and 6; Beklior. 47 a. Proselytes
arc always spoken of as ' new creatures,'
Ber. R. 39, ed. Warsh. p. 72 a: Remidb.
R. 11. In Vayyikra R. 30, Ps. cii. 18, ' the
people that sliall be created' is explained :
' For the Holy One, blessed be His Name,
will create tliem a new creature.' In
Yalkut on Jud^. vi. 1 (vol. ii. p. 10 c,
about the middle) this new creation is
connected with the forgiveness of sins,
it being maintained tliat whoever has a
miracle done, and i^raises God for it, his
sins are forgiven, and he is made a new
creature. This is illustrated by the his-
tory of Israel at the Red Sea, by that of
Deborah and Barak, and by that of
David. In Shem. R. 3 (ed. Warsh. ii. )).
11 r/) the words Ex. iv. 12, 'teach tlieo wliat
thou shalt say, ' are explained as e(iui valont
to 'I will create thee a new creation.'
'EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN FROM ABOVE.' 335
that he must be l)()rii again in order to see the Kingdom of God. CHAP,
Lastly, it was ' a birtli Iroui above' to whieh ret'ereuee was made. VI
Judaism eould understand a new reUitionship towards God and man, ^— ^r^— ^
and even the forgiveness of sins. But it had no eonception of a
moral renovation, a spiritual birth, as the initial condition for reforma-
tion, far less as that for seeing the Kingdom of God. And it was
because it had no idea of such ' birth from above, ' of its reality or
even possibility, that Judaism could not be the Kingdom of God.
Or, to take another view of it, for Divine truth is many-sided —
perhaps some would say, to make ' Western ' application of what
was first spoken to the Jew — in one respect Nicodemus and Jesus
had started from the same premiss: Tlie Kingdom of God. But
how different were their conceptions of what constituted that King-
dom, and of what was its door of entrance! What Nicodemus had
seen of Jesus had not only shaken the confidence wdiich his former
views on these subjects had engendered in him, but opened dim
possibilities, the very suggestion of wiiich filled him with uneasiness
as to the past, and vague hopes as to the future. iVnd so it ever is
with us also, when, like Nicodemus, we first arrive at the conviction
that Jesus is the Teacher come from God. What He teaches is so
entirely different from what Nicodemus, or any of us could, from any
other standpoint than that of Jesus, have learned or known concerning
the Kingdom and entrance into it. The admission, however reached,
of the Divine Mission of this Teacher, implies, unspoken, the grand
question about the Kingdom. It is the opening of the door through
which the Grand Presence will enter in. To such a man, as to us in
like unspoken questioning, Jesus ever has but one thing to say:
' Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of
God.' The Kingdom is other, the entrance to it is other, than you know
or think. That wdiich is of the flesh is flesh. Man may rise to high
possibilities — mental, even moral: self-development, self-improvement,
self-restraint, submission to a grand idea or a higher law, refined
moral egotism, assthetic even moral altruism. But to see the Kingdom
of God: to understand what means the absolute rule of God, the one
high calling of our humanity, by which a man becomes a child of
God — to perceive this, not as an improvement upon our present
state, but as the submission of heart, mind, and life to Him as our
Divine King, an existence which is, and which means, proclaiming
unto the world the Kingship of God: this can only be learned from
Christ, and needs even for its perception a kinship of spirit — for that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit. To see it, needs the birth from
386 FROM JORDAN TO THE xMOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK above; to enter it, the double baptismal birth ot" what John's Baptism
ni had meant, and of what Christ's Baptism was.
^— '^r'""^ According'ly, all tiiis sounded quite strange and unintelligible to
Nicodemus. He could understand how a man might become other,
and so ultimately he other; but how a man could tirst he other in
order to become other — more than that, needed to be ' born from
above,' in order to 'see the Kingdom of God' — passed alike his
experience and his Jewish learning. Only one possibility of being
occurred to him: that given him in his natural disposition, or as a Jew
would have put it, in his original iunocency when he first entered
"ver. 4 the world. And this— so to express ourselves — he thought aloud.''
But there was another world of being than that of which Xicodemus
thought. That world was the ' Kingdom of God ' in its essential con-
trariety to the kingdom of this world, whether in the general sense
of that expression, or even in the special Judaistic sense attaching to
the ' Kingdom ' of the Messiah. There was only one gate by which
a man could pass into that Kingdom of God — for that which was
of the flesh could ever be only flcshlj-. Here a man might strive,
as did the Jews, by outward conformity to become, but he would never
attain to being. But -that ' Kingdom ' was spiritual, and here a man
must be in order to become. How was he to attain that new being?
The Baptist had pointed it out in its negative aspect of repentance
and putting away the old by his Baptism of water; and as regarded
its positive aspect he had pointed to Him Who was to baptize with
the Holy Ghost and with fire. This was the gate of being through
which a man must enter into the Kingdom, which was of the Messiah,
because it was of God and the Messiah was of God, and in that sense
' the Teacher come from God ' — that is, being sent of God, He taught
of God by bringing to God. This but a few who had gone to the
Baptist had perceived, or indeed could perceive, because the Baptist
could in his Baptism only convey the negative, not the positive, aspect
of it. And it needed that positive aspect — the being born from
above — in order to see the Kingdom of God. But as to the mystery
of this being in order to become — hark! did he hear the sound of that
wind as it swept past the AWjaJi? He heard its voice; but he
neither knew whence it came, nor whither it went. So was every
one that was born of the Spirit. You heard the voice of the Spirit
"Who originated the new being, but the origination of that new being,
or its further development into all that it might and would become,
lay beyond man's observation.
Nicodemus now understood in pome measure ivhat entrance into
•HOW CAN THESE THINGS BE ? ' 38*7
the Kingdom meant; but its lioio seinned only involved in greater CHAr.
mystery. That it was such a mystery, untiioiiiiht and unimagined ^'i
in Jewish theology, was a terribly sad manifestation of what the "— ^r — '
teaching in Israel was. Yet it had all been told them, as of personal
knowledge, by the Baptist and l)y Jesus; nay, if they could only have
received it, by the whole Old Testament. He wanted to know the
hoiv of these things before lie l)elieved them. He believed them
not, though they passed on earth, because lie knew not their lioiv.
How then could he believe that lioiv, of which the agency was
unseen and in heaven? To that spring of being no one could ascend
but He that had come down from heaven,^ and Who, to bring to us
that spring of being, had appeared as 'the Son of Man,' the Ideal
Man, the embodiment of the Kingdom of Heaven, and thus the only
true Teacher come from God. Or did Nicodcmus think of another
Teacher — hitherto their only Teacher, Moses — whom Jewish tradi-
tion generally believed to have ascended into the very heavens, in oi'der
to bring the teaching unto them?- Let the history of Moses, then,
teach them! They thought they understood his teaching, but there
was one symbol in his history before which tradition literally stood
dumb. They had heard what Moses had taught them; they had
seen Hhe earthly things' of God in the Manna which had rained
from heaven — and, in view and hearing of it all, they had not lielieved,
but murmured and rebelled. Then came the judgment of the fiery
serpents, and, in answer to repentant prayer, the symbol of new
bei7ig, a life restored from death, as they looked on their no longer
living but dead death lifted up before them. A symlwl this, showing
forth two elements: negatively, the putting away of the past in their
dead death (the serpent no longer living, but a brazen serpent) ; and
positively, in their look of faith and hope. Before this symbol, as has
been said, tradition has stood dumb. It could only suggest one
meaning, and draw from it one lesson. Both these were true, and
yet both insuflicient. The meaning which tradition attached to it
was, that Israel lifted up their eyes, not merely to the serpent, but
rather to their Father in heaven, and had regard to His mercy,
This,^ as St. John afterwards shows (ver. 16), was a true interpreta-
1 The clause 'Who is m heaven' is re- been rapt in spirit to lieaven. fConi]). 'The
yarded, on critical grounds, as a gloss. History and Development of Sociniau-
But. even so, it seems almost a necessary ism,' in the North. Brit. Rev. May lSo9.)
fj;loss, in view of tlie Jewish notions about - Tliis in many phaces. Conip., for ex.,
the ascent of Moses into heaven. Strange Jer. Targ. on i)eut. xxx. 12, and the
to say, the passage referred to forced So- sliocking notice in Bemid. K. 19.
ci^;?/.'; to the curious dogma that before the Anotlier view, liowever, Sul<k. f) a.
commencement of His ministry Jesus had ■' So already in Wisdom of Solomon
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
"Yalkut,
VOL 1. p. 240
tiou; but it left wholly out of sight the Antitype, in gazing on Whom
our hearts are uplifted to the love of God, Who gave His ouly-l)egot-
tcn Son, and we- learn to know and love the Father in His Sou. And
the lesson which tradition drew from it was, that this symbol taught,
the dead would live again; for, as it is argued,^ 'behold, if God
made it that, through the similitude of the serpent which brought
death, the dying should be restored to life, how much more shall He,
Who is Life, restore the dead to life.' And here lies the true in-
terpretation of what Jesus taught. If the uplifted serpent, as symbol,
brought life to the believing look which was fixed upon the giving,
pardoning love of God, then, in the truest sense, shall the uplifted
Son of Man give true life to everyone that believeth, looking up in
Him to the giving and forgiving love of God, which His Son came to
bring, to declare, and to manifest. 'For as Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that
whosoever believeth should in Him have eternal life.' ^
With this final and highest teaching, which contains all that
Nicodemus, or, indeed, the whole Church, could require or be able to
know, He explained to him and to us the lioio of the new birth — alike
the source and the flow of its spring. Ours it is now only to ' believe,'
where w^e cannot further know, and, looking up to the Son of Man in
His perfected work, to perceive, and to receive the gift of God's love
for our healing. In this teaching it is not the serpent and the Son
of Man that are held side by side, though we cannot fail to see the
symbolic reference of the one to the other, but the uplifting of the
one and the other — the one by the sin, the other through the sin of
the people: l)oth on account of it — the forthgoing of God's pardoning
mercy, the look of faith, and the higher recognition of God's love in
it all.
And so the record of this interview abruptly closes. It tells all,
but no more than the Church requires to know. Of Nicodemus we
shall hear again in the sequel, not needlessly, nor yet to complete
xvi. 7 ; still more clearl.y in the Tarji;um
Prieudo-Jonathau on Numb. xxi. 8, 9:
' He who lifted up his heart to the name
of the Memra of .Telioval), lived;' and in
tlie Jerusalem Tar,ii;um on the passage:
' And Moses made a serpent of lirass, and
set it on a place aloft [of uplifting] {tale
— the same term, curiously, which is
api)lied by the Jews to Christ as the ' Up-
lifted ' or ' Crucified ' One). And it was
that every one that was bitten with the
serpent, and lifted his face in ])i'ay(M' (the
word implies humbled prayer) unto His
Father Wlio is in heaven, and looked
unto tlie l)razen serpent, he was healed.'
Similarly Rosli haSh ill. 8. Buxtorf's
learned tractate on the Brazen Serpent
(Exercitationes, pp. 458-492) adds little
to our knowledge.
1 This seems the correct reading.
Conip. Canon Westcott's note on the
passage, and in general his most full
and thorough criticism of the various
readings in this chapter.
ST. JOHN'S RETROSPECT. 3^9
a biography, were it even that of" Jesus; but as is necessar}^ for the CIIAP.
uiKhjrstandiug of this History. What follows" are not the words of vi
Christ, but of St. John. In them, looking back many years after- ^— ~y- — •
wards in the light of completed events, the Ai)ostle takes his stand, " st. John
as becomes the circumstances, where Jesus had ended His teaching
of Nicodemus — under the Cross. In the Gift, unutterable in its
preciousness, he now sees tlie Giver and the Source of all.'' Then, "ver. le
following that teaching of Jesus backward, he sees how true it has
proved concerning the world, that ' that which is. of the flesh is flesh; '
how true, also, concerning the Spirit-born, and what need there is to
us of ' this birth from above. '
But to all time, through the gusty night of our world's early
spring, flashes, as the lamp in that Aliyah through the darkened
streets of silent Jerusalem, that light; sounds through its stillness,
like the Yoice of the Teacher come from God, this eternal Gospel-
message to us and to all men: • God so loved the world, that He gave
His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.'
390
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER YII.
BOOK
HI
= St. Jotin
iii. 22
^ St. Jolin
vi. 2
<; St. .John
iv. 1
■i Rom. iv. 3
IN JUD.EA AND THROUGH SAMARIA — A SKETCH OF SAMARITAN HISTORY
AND THEOLOGY — JEWS AND SAMARITANS.
(St. John iv. 1-4.)
We have no means of determining how long Jesus may have
tarried in Jerusalem after the events recorded in the previous two
chapters. The Evangelic narrative " only marks an indefinite period
of time, which, as we judge from internal probability, cannot have
been protracted. From the city He retired with His disciples to ' the
country,' which formed the province of Judsea. There He taught,
and His disciples baptized."^ From what had been so lately wit-
nessed in Jerusalem, as well as from what must have been known as
to the previous testimony of the Baptist concerning Him, the number
of those who professed adhesion to the expected new Kingdom, and
were consequently baptized, was as large, in that locality, as had
submitted to the preaching and Baptism of John— perhaps even
larger. An exaggerated report Avas carried to the Pharisaic authori-
ties:^ 'Jesus maketh and baptizeth more disciples than John.'"
From which, at least, we infer, that the opposition of the leaders of
the party to the Baptist was now settled, and that it extended to
Jesus; and also, what careful watch they kept over the new move-
ment.
But what seems at first sight strange is the twofold circumstance,
that Jesus should for a tiuie have established Himself in such appa-
rently close proximity to the Baptist, and that on this occasion, and
on this only. He should have allowed His disciples to admiuister the
rite of Baptism. That the latter must not Ije confounded with
Christian Baptism, which was only introduced after the Death of
Cln'ist,'' or, to speak more accurately, after the outpouring of the
Holy Ghost, needs no special explanation. But our difficulties only
' Tlie Baptism of preparation for the
Kiiii;;(l()m could not have been admuiit*-
tereil by Hlni Who opened the Kingdom
of Heaven.
- The Evangelist reports the message
which was brouglit to the Pharisees in
the very words in whicli it was delivered.
111. 20
THE ZEAL OF JOHN'S DLSCH'LES FOR THEIR MASTER. 39I
increase, as we remember the essential diUerence between them, chap.
grounded on that between the Mission of John and tlie Teaching ^'H
of Jesus. In the former, the Baptism of repentant preparation for " — ^r — ^
the coming Kingdom had its deepest meaning; not so in presence
of that Kingdom itself, and in the teaching of its King. But, even
were it otherwise, the administration of the same rite by John and
by the disciples of Jesus in apparently close proximity, seems not
only unnecessary, but it might give rise to misconception on the part
of enemies, and misunderstanding or jealousy on the part of weak
disciples.
Such was actually the case when, on one occasion, a discussion
arose 'on the part of John's disciples with a Jew,' ^ on the sulyect
of purification.* We know not the special point in dispute, nor » st. John
does it seem of much importance, since such 'questions' would
naturally suggest themselves to a caviller or opponent ^ who en-
countered those who were administering Baptism. What really
interests us is, that somehow this Jewish objector must have con-
nected what he said with a reference to the Baptism of Jesus'
disciples. For, immediately^ afterwards, the disciples of John, in their
sore zeal for the honour of their master, brought him tidings, in the
language of doubt, if not of complaint, of what to them seemed
interference with the work of the Baptist, and almost presumption on
the part of Jesus. While fully alive to their grievous error, perhaps
in proportion as we are so, we cannot but honour and sympathise
with this loving care for their master. The toilsome mission of
the great Ascetic was drawing to its close, and that without any
tangible success so far as he was concerned. Yet, to souls susceptible
of the higher, to see him would bo to be arrested; to hear him, to be
convinced; to know, would be to love and venerate him. Xever before
had such deep earnestness and reality been witnessed, such devoted-
ness, such humility and self-abnegation, and all in that great cause
which set every Jewish heart on fire. And then, in the high-day
of his power, when all men had gathered around him and hung on
his lips; when all wondered whether he would announce himself as the
Christ, or, at least, as His Forerunner, or as one of the great Prophets;
when a word from him would have kindled that multitude into a
1 This, and not 'the Jews,' is the bet- in the other too lii.<;h. In either case the
ter reading. siil)j(>ct in dispute would not be baptisms,
- Probably the discussion orii^inated but the, iieneral subject of /*'//'/;/ert//o;^s —
with John's disciples — the objector being a sul)ject of such wide range in Jewisli
a Jew or a professing disciple of Christ, theology, that one of the six sections into
who deprecated their views. In the one wliicii the Mishnali or tratlitional Law is
case they would in his opinion be too low ; divided, is specially devoted to it.
392 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK frcuzy of cutliusiasm — he had disclaimed everything for himself, and
III pointed to Another! But this 'Coming One,' to whom he had borne
"— ^Y- — ' witness, had hitherto been quite other than their Master. And, as if
this had not been enough, the multitudes, which had formerly come
to John, now flocked around Jesus; nay, He had even usurped the one
distinctive function still left to their master, humble as it was. It was
evident that, hated and watched by the Pharisees; watched, also, l)y
the ruthless jealousy of a Herod; overlooked, if not supplanted, by
Jesus, the mission of their master was nearing its close. It had
been a life and work of suffering and self-denial; it was about to end
in loneliness and sorrow. They said nothing expresslj" to complain
of Him to Whom John had borne witness, but they told of what He
did, and how all men came to Him.
The answer which the Baptist made, may be said to mark the
high point of his life and witness. Never before was he so tender,
almost sad; never before more humble and self-denying, more earnest
and faithful. The setting of his own life-sun was to be the rising
of One infinitely more bright; the end of his Mission the begin-
ning of another far higher. In the silence, which was now gathering
around him, he heard but one Voice, that of the Bridegroom, and he
rejoiced in it, though he must listen to it in stillness and loneliness.
For it he had waited and worked. Not his own, but this had he
sought. And now that it had come, he was content; more than con-
tent: his 'joy was now fulfilled.' 'He must increase, but I must
decrease.' It was the right and good order. With these as his last
words publicly spoken,^ this Aaron of the New Testament unrobed
himself ere he lay down to die. Surely among those born of women
there was not one greater than John.
That these were his last words, pul)licly spoken and recorded,
may, however, explain to us why on this exceptional occasion Jesus
sanctioned the administration by His disciples of the Baptism of John.
It was not a retrogression from the position He had taken in
Jerusalem, nor caused by the refusal of His Messianic claims in the
Temple."* There is no retrogression, only progression, in the Life of
Jesus. And yet it was only on this occasion that the rite was
administered under His sanction. But the circumstances were ex-
ceptional. It was John's last testimony to Jesus, and it was preceded
by this testimony of Jesus to John. Far divergent, almost opposite,
as from the first their paths had been, this practical sancti(m on the
1 The next event was John's impris- - This strange suggestion is made by
onment I)}' Herod. Godef.
CHRIST'S TESTIMONY TO THE BAPTIST.
393
part of Jesus of Johirs l)ai)tisiii, when the JJaptist was aljout to
be forsaken, betrayed, and murdered, was Christ's highest testimony
to him, Jesus adopted his Baptism, ere its waters for ever ceased to
flow, and thus He blessed and consecrated them. He took up the
work of His Forerunner, and continued it. The ])aptismal rite of
John administered with the sanction of Jesus, was the highest witness
that could be borne to it.
Tliere is no necessity for supposing that John and the disciples of
Jesus baptized at, or quite close to, the same place. On the contrary,
such immediate juxtaposition seems, for ol)vious reasons, unlikely.
Jesus was within the boundaries of the province of Judtea, while
John baptized at JEnon (the springs), near to Salim. The latter site
has not been identified. But the oldest tradition, which places it a
few miles to the south of Bethshean (Scythopolis), on the border of
Samaria and Galilee, has this in its favour, that it locates the scene of
John's last public work close to the seat of Herod Antipas, into whose
power the Baptist was so soon to be delivered.^ But already there
were causes at work to remove both Jesus and His Forerunner from
their present spheres of activity. As regards Christ, we have the
express statement,"- that the machinations of the Pharisaic party in
Jerusalem led Him to withdraw into Galilee. And, as we gather from
the notice of St. John, the Baptist was now involved in this hostility,
as being so closely connected with Jesus. Indeed, we venture the
suggestion that the imprisonment of the Baptist, although occasioned
by his outspoken rebuke of Herod, was in great part due to the
intrigues of the Pharisees. Of such a connection between them and
Herod Antipas, we have direct evidence in a similar attempt to bring
about the removal of Jesus from his territory. '' It would not have
been difficult to rouse the suspicions of a nature so mean and jealous
as that of Antipas, and this may explain the account of Josephus,''
who attributes the imprisonment and death of the Baptist simply to
CHAP.
VH
" St. John
iv. 1
^ Si. Luke
xiii. 3], 32
1 No fewer than four localities have
been identified with ^Enon and Salim.
Ewald, Ileiigstenberg, Wfeseler, and
Godet, seelv it on the southern border of
Judaea {En-rimmun, Neh. xi. 29, comp.
Josh. XV. 1, 32). This seems so improb-
able as scarcely to require discussion.
Dr. B((rclny (City of the Great Kinij. \^\^.
558-571) finds it a few miles from Jeru-
salem in the Wadtj Fdr\i/i, but admits
(p. 565) that tliere are doubts about the
Arab pronunciation of this iS'r/Z^VH. Lieut.
Conder (Tent-Work in Palest., vol. i. pp.
91-93) finds it in the Wady 7^«/-Vr/(, which
leads from Samaria to tlie Jordan. Here
he describes most pictorially 'tlie spriuiis'
' in the open valley sui'rounded by deso-
late and shapeless hills,' with the viHase
of Sa/i'm tliree miles south of the valley,
and the villajie of 'Ainan four miles north
of the stream. Against this there are,
however, two objections. First, both
iEnon and Salim would have been in
Samaria. Secondly, so far from being
close to each otlier, yEuon would have
been seven miles from Salim.
394
FROM JORDAN TO Till-: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
••'Sf.M.-ifk i.
14: St. Mark
iv. 1?
'' See spe-
cially St.
Matt. Iv. 13
to end
<: St. John
XX. 30, 31 ;
xxi. 25
d Jo.s-. Life,
52
<■ Ant. XX.
6. 1
fSt. Matt.
X. 5
Ilorod's susi)ieious lear of John's unbounded iiilliiencu with the
people.'
Leavino- for the present the Baptist, we follow the footsteps ot the
Master. They are only traced by the disciple who best understood
their direction, and who alone has left us a record of the beginning of
Christ's ministry. For St. Matthew and St. Mark expressly indicate
tiie imprisonment of the Baptist as their starting-point,'' and, though
St. Luke docs not say this in so many words, he characteristically com-
mences with Christ's public Evangelic teaching in the Synagogues of
Galilee. Yet the narrative of St. Matthew" reads rather like a brief
summary; ^ that of St. Mark seems like a succession of rapid sketches;
and even that of St. Luke, though with deeper historic purpose than
the others, outlines, rather than tells, the history. St. John alone
does not profess to give a narrative at all in the ordinary sense; but
he selects incidents which are characteristic as unfolding the meaning
of that Life, and records discourses which open its inmost teaching; "
and he alone tells of that early Judasan ministry and the journey
through Samaria, which preceded the Galilean work.
The shorter road from Judaea to Galilee led through Samaria; *
and this, if we may credit Josephus," was generally taken by the
Galileans on their way to the capital. On the other hand, the
Judgeans seem chiefly to have made a detour through Pergea, in order
to avoid hostile and impure Samaria. It lay not within the scope of
our Lord to extend His personal Ministry, especially at its com-
mencement, beyond the boundaries of Israel,'' and the expression, 'He
must needs go through Samaria,' ^ can only refer to the advisability
' Ant. xviii. 5. 2 : ' But to some of the
Jews it appeared, that the destruction of
Herod's arm.y came from God, and, in-
deed, as a righteous punishment on ac-
count of what had been done to John,
who was surnamed the Baptist. For
Herod ordered him to be killed, a good
man, and who commanded tlie Jews to
exercise virtue, botii as to rigliteousness
towards one anotlier. and piety towards
God, and so to come to baptism. For
that the baptizing would be acceptable
to Him, if they made use of it, not for the
putting away (remission) of some sins,
hnt for the i)urification of the body, after
that the soul had been previously cleansed
by righteousness. And when otliers had
come in crowds, for they were* exceed-
ingly moved by hearing th(>se words,
Herod, fearing lest such influence of his
over the people might lead to some re-
bellion, for they seemed ready to do any-
thing by his counsel, deemed it best, be-
fore anything new should happen through
him, to ])ut him to death, rather than
that, when a change should arise in affairs,
he might have to repent.' Comp. also
Krebs. Observatioues inNov. Test, e FI.
Jos. pp. 35, 36.
'■* I am so strongly impressed with this,
that I do not feel sure about Godot's
theory, that tlie calling of the four Apos-
tles recorded by the Svno])tists (St. Matt,
iv. 18-22; St. Mark i. 16-20: St. Luke v.
1-11), had really taken place during our
Lord's first stay in Capernaum (St. John
ii. 12). On the whole, however, the cir-
cumstances recorded by the Synoptists
seem to indicate a period in the Lord's
Ministry beyond that early stay in Caper-
naum.
SAMARIA AND THE SAMARITANS.
395
ill tlio circunistanccs of takiiiii' the most direct road, ' or else to tlic
wish of avoiding Pcraja a.s the seat of Herod's government.- Such
prejudices in regard to Samaria, as tliose which alfccted the ordinary
Judaean devotee, would, of course, not influence the conduct of Jesus.
But great as these undoubtedh^ were, they have been unduly exagge-
rated by modern writers, misled by one-sided quotations from Rabbinic
works.*
The Biblical history of that part of Palestine which bore the name
of Samaria need not here be repeated. " Before the final deportation
of Israel by Shalmaneser, or rather Sargon,* the ' Samaria' to w'hich
his operations extended must have considerably shrunk in dimensions,
not only owing to previous conquests, but from the circumstance that
the authority of the kings of Judah seems to have extended over a
considerable portion of what once constituted the kingdom of Israel."
Probably the Samaria of that time included little more than the city
of that name, together with some adjoining towns and villages. It is
of considerable interest to remember that the places, to which the
inhabitants of Samaria were transported," have been identified with
such clearness as to leave no reasonable doubt, that at least some of
the descendants of the ten tribes, whether mixed or unmixed with
Gentiles, must be sought among what are now known as the Nestorian
Christians.^ On the other hand, it is of no practical importance for
our present purpose to ascertain the exact localities, whence the new
' Samaritans ' were brought to take the place of the Israelitish exiles. •*
Suffice it, that one of them, perhaps that which contributed tlie
principal settlers, CutJiali, furnished the name Cuthim, by which the
Jews afterwards persistently designated the Samaritans. It was in-
tended as a term of reproach, Ho mark that they were of foreign
race,*'® and to repudiate all connection between them and the Jews.
Yet it is impossible to believe that, at least in later times, they did
not contain a considerable admixture of Israelitish elements. It is
difficult to suppose, that the original deportation was so complete as
to leave bcliind no traces of the original Israelitish inhabitants.^
CI I A I'.
VII
" Com p. 1
Kings xiil.
32; xvl. 24
&c. ; Tig-
lath-
pileser, 2
Kings XV.
29; Shal-
maneser,
xvil. H~'>;
xvlii. 9-11 ;
Sargon,
xvil. 6, &c.
>> 2 Chron.
XXX. 1-26;
xxxlv. 6
•^ 2 Kings
xvil. 6
' I cannot agree with Archdeacon
Watknis, that the 'needs <»:o ' was in
order ' to teach in Samaria, as in Judaea,
the principles of true relis;ion and wor-
ship.'
- So Benr/el and Lxthardt.
^ Much as has been written about
Samaria, tlie subject has not been quite
satisfactorily treated. Sonu' of tlie
jjassages referred to by DeuUch {Smith's
Diet, of the Bible, vol. iii., Art. Samaritan
Pentat. ]). 1118) cannot l>e verified — pro-
bably owinu; to printer's mistakes.
•1 Comp. Sniifh's Rible Diet.. Art. Sar-
gon; and Schrader. Keil-Inschr. u. d.
Alte Test. p. 158 &c.
•'' Of course, not all the ten tribes.
Coini). previous remarks on their migra-
tions.
^ The expression cannot, however, be
pressed as implying that the Samaritans
were of entirely Gentile blood.
'' 2 Kings
xvli. 24-26;
comp. Ezr.
iv. 2, 10
<■ St. .John
viii. 48
f St. Luke
xvil. 16.
? Comp. 2
Chron.
xxxlv. 6, 9;
Jer. xli. 5:
Amos V. 3
396
FROM JORDAN TO THE j\IOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Jn.t.
Xi. 8,
Ant.
2, 6, 7
* 2 Kings
xvii. 30, 31
Tlicir nuiuhcr would i)r()l)a1)ly be swelled by fugitives Ironi Assyria,
and by J ewish settlers iii tiie trouljlous times that followed. After-
wards, as we know, they were largely increased by apostates and
rebels against the order of things established by Ezra and Nehemiah.*
Similarly, during the period of internal political and religious troubles,
which marked the period to the accession of the Maccabees, the
separation between Jews and Samaritans could scarcely have been
generally observed, the more so that Alexander the Great placed them
in close juxtaposition.^
The first foreign colonists of Samaria brought their peculiar forms
of idolatry with them.'' But the Providential judgments, by which they
were visited, led to the introduction of a spurious Judaism, consisting
of a mixture of their former superstitions \\'ith Jewish doctrines and
rites." Although this state of matters resembled that which had
obtained in the original kingdom of Israel, perhaps just because of
this, Ezra and Nehemiah, when reconstructing the Jewish common-
wealth, insisted on a strict separation between those who had returned
from Babylon and the Samaritans, resisting equally their offers of
co-operation and their attempts at hindrance. This embittered the
national feeling of jealousy already existing, and led to that constant
hostility between Jews and Samaritans which has continued to this
day. The religious separation became final when (at a date which
cannot be precisely fixed ^) the Samaritans built a rival temi)le on
Mount Gerizim, and Manasseh,^ the ])rother of Jaddua, the Jewish
High-Priest, having refused to annul his marriage with the daughter
of Sanballat, was forced to fiee, and ])ecame the High-Priest of the
new Sanctuary. Henceforth, by impudent assertion and falsifica-
tion of the text of the Pentateuch,* Gerizim was declared the right-
ful centre of worship, and the doctrines and rites of the Samaritans
exhibited a curious imitation and adaptation of those prevalent iu
Judgea.
We cannot here follow in detail the history of the Samaritans,
nor explain the dogmas and practices peculiar to them. The latter
would 1)0 the more difficult, because so many of their views were simply
corrui)tions of those of the Jews, and because, from the want of an
authenticated ancient literature,^ the origin and meaning of many of
Gescb. d. Yolkes
1 Comp. Herzfekl
Isr. ii. p. 120.
■^ Jost thinks it existed even before
the time of Alexander. Comp. yutt,
Saniar. Hist. p. 16, note 2.
3 Tiie difficult ([uestion, whether this
is the Sanbalhit of the Book of Nehe-
miah, is fully discussed by Fetermann
{llcrzog's Real-Enc. vol. xiii. p. 366).
■• For a very full criticism of that
Pentateuch, see Mr. Deutsch's Art. in
.Smith's Bible-Diet.
^ Comp. the sketch of it in Xutt's
Samar. Hist., and Petermnnn's Art.
HISTORY OF SA.MARIA.
307
CHAP.
tlieiii li;ivc ])ocn forgotten.' Sullicicnl, however, must 1)(> said to
explain the luiitiial relations ut the time when the Lord, sitting on Vll
Jacob's well, tirst spake to tlic Samaritans of the better worship ' in ^^ — -^r~
spirit and truth,' and opened that well of living water which has
never since ceased to flow^
Tlu! political history of the people can be told in a few sentences.
Their Tenii)lc,^ to which reference has been made, was built, not in
Samaria but at Shechem — probably on accouni of the position held
l)y that city in the former history of Israel — and on Mount Gerizim,
which in th(} Samaritan Pentateuch was substituted for Mount Ehal
in Dent, xxvii. 4. It was Shechem also, with its sacred associations
of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, which became the real capital of the
Samaritans. The fate of the city of Samaria under the reign of
Alexander is uncertain — one account speaking of the rebellion of the
city, the murder of the Macedonian governor, the consequent destruc-
tion of Samaria, and the slaughter of part, and transportation of the
rest, of its inhabitants to Shechem,^ while Josephus is silent on these
events. When, after the death of Alexander, Palestine became the
field of battle between the rulers of Egypt and Syria, Samaria suffered
even more than other parts of the country. In 320 B.C. it passed
from the rule of Syria to that of Egypt (Ptolemy Lagi). Six years
later"- it again became Syrian (Antigonus). Only three years after- ^inau
wards," Ptolemy reconquered and held it for a very short time. On Mnmi
bis retreat, he destroyed the walls of Samaria and of other towns.
In 301 it passed again by treaty into the hands of Ptolemy, but in
298 it was once more ravaged by the son of Antigonus. After that
it enjoyed a season of quiet under Egyptian rule, till the reign of
Antiochus (III.) the Great, when it again passed temporarily, and
under his successor, Seleucus IV. (Philopator)," permanently under mst-h.-,
Syrian dominion. In the troublous times of Antiochus I Y. Epiphanes,** "^ i'''''-i6i
the Samaritans escaped the fate of the Jews by repudiating all con-
1 As instances we may mention tlie Belaud (cle Monte Gads iii., apud Ugo-
names of the Angels and devils. One lini, Thes. vol. vii. pp. 717, 718), wlio ex-
of tlie latter is called Yatsara (J?"'!*"'), plains the name as TTfAf Got; T'aof, .sV^^rro-
which Petermrnui derives from Deut. reum delahrum, corresponding: to the
xxxi. 21, and Nutt from Ex. xxiii. 2S. I Samaritan desiiination of the Temple at
have little doubt, it is only a corruption Jerusalem as N.-l'-^r'-^r ."T^D a'des s/erco-
of Yefser halia. Indeed, the latter and rea. Frnnkel himself (PaUist. Ex. p. 248)
Satan are expressly identified in Baba B. derives the expression from nXdTavo<;
l(w^ Many of the Samaritan views seem with reference to Gen. xxxv. 4. But
only corruptions and adaiitations of those this seems quite untenable. May not
current in Palestine, which, indeed, in the the term be a compound of 1-^, to spit
circumstances, miii'ht have been expected. ^,,ff ;|,)d vad'^^'.
2 The Jews termed it C"i:'w:':'C (Ber. R. •' Comp. Ilerzfdd, u. s. ii. i). 120.
81). Frankel ridicules the derivation of
398
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" According
to Jns. Ant.
xll. 5. 5,
eAAiJi'io?;
according
to •> Mace,
vi. 2
•2. f t-rios
" Betwpen
ll.i and 105
■' Ant. XX. 8.
5: Jowisli
War i. 21. 2
fSee spe-
ciallyWar
iii. d. i, 5
K For ex.
Baba B. iii.
'' For ex.
Jer. Chag.
iii. i
^ War iii. 3.
i, 5
nection with Israel, and dedicating their temple to Jupiter.^ In the
contest between Syria and the Maccabees which followed, the
Samaritans, as might be expected, took the i)art of the former. In
1 30 B.C. John Ilyrcanus destroyed the Tcuii)le on Mount Gerizim,^
which was never rebuilt. The city of Samaria was taken several
years afterwards '' ^ by the sons of Hyrcanus ( Antigouus and Aristo-
bulus), after a year's siege, and the successive defeat of Syrian and
p]gyi)tian armies of relief Although the city was now not only
destroyed, but actually laid under water to complete its ruin, it was
rebuilt by Gal)inius shortly before our era," and greatl^^ enlarged and
beautified by Herod, who called it Seliaste in honour of Augustus, to
whom he reared a magnificent temple.'' Under Iloman rule the city
enjoyed great privileges — had even a Senate of its 0^11.*= By one of
those striking coincidences which mark the Rule of God in liistory,
it was the accusation brought against him by that Samaritan Senate
Avhich led to the deposition of Pilate. By the side of Samaria, or
Sebaste, we have already marked as perhaps more important, and as
the religious capital, the ancient Shechem, which, in honour of the
Imperial family of Rome, ultimately obtained the name of Flavia
Neapolis, which has survived in the modern IS^ablus. It is interesting
to notice tliat the Samaritans also had colonies, although not to the
same extent as the Jews. Among them we may name those of
Alexandria, Damascus, in Babylonia, and even some by the shores of
the Red Sea.''
Although not only in the New Testament, but in 1 Mace. x. 30,
and in the writings of Josephus,^ Western Palestine is divided into
the provinces of Jud^a, Samaria, and Galilee, the Rabbis, whose
ideas w^ere shaped by the observances of Judaism, ignore this division.
For them Palestine consisted only of Jud^a, Pertea, and Galilee.^
Samaria appears merely as a strip intervening between Judasa and
Galilee, being 'the land of the Cuthajans."' Nevertheless, it was
not regarded like heathen lands, but pronounced clean. Both the
Mishnah' and Josephus" mark Anuath (\s:,n "r ■;£:) as the southern
boundary of Samaria (towards Judaea). Northward it extended to
' It is very probable that the date
2.5 Marcheshvau (Nov.) in the Megill.
Taan. refers to the capture of Samaria.
Both the Talmud (Jer. Sot. ix. 14; Sot.
33 a) and Jnsephus (Ant. xiii. 10. 7)
refers to a Bath Qol announcing this
victory to Hyrcanus while he ministered
in the Sanctuary at Jerusalem.
^ Not a few of the events of Herod's
life were connected with Samaria. There
he married the ])eautiful and ill-fated
Mariamme (Ant. .\iv. 12. 1); and there,
thirty years later, her two sons were
strangled by order of the jealous tyrant
(Ant. xvi. 11. 2-7).
3 Comp. Xuff, Samar. Hist. p. 26, note,
and the authorities there quoted.
JEWS AND SAMARITANS.
399
6. 1
GiiiEca (the ancient En-Cjlaiiniiii) on the south side of tlie jjlain of CHAP.
Jezreel; on the east it was hounthMl b^^ the Jordan; and (jn the west VII
by tlie phiin of Sharon, wliich was reckoned as belonging to Jiula.'a. ^— -v — '
Thus it occupied the ancient territories of Manasseh and p]phraini,
and extended about forty-eiglit miles (north and south) by forty (east
and west). In aspect and climate it resembled Judaea, only tliat tlie
scenery was more beautilul and tlie soil more fertile. Tlie political
enmity and religious separation between the Jews and Samai'itans
account for their mutual jealousy. On all public occasions the
8anuiritans took the i)art hostile to the Jews, while they seized every
opportunity of injuring and insulting them. Thus, in the time of
Antiochus III. they sold many Jews into slavery.'' Afterwards they ^Ant. xu.
i 1
sought to mislead the Jews at a distance, to whom the beginning of
every month (so important in the Jewish festive arrangements) was
intimated by beacon tires, by kindling spurious signals." We also ''Eosh
read that they tried to desecrate the Temple on the eve of the
Passover; "^ and that they waylaid and killed pilgrims on their road '=Ant. xvui.
to Jerusalem.'* The Jews retaliated by treating the Samaritans with -i Ant. xx.
every mark of contempt; by accusing them of falsehood, folly, and
irreligion; and, what they felt most keenly, by disowaiing them as of
the same race or religion, and this in the most offensive terms of
assumed superiority and self-righteous fanaticism.
In view of these relations, we almost wonder at the candour and
moderation occasionally displayed towards the Samaritans in Jewish
writings. Tliese statements are of practical importance in this history,
since elaborate attempts have been made to show what articles of
food the disciples of Jesus might have bought in Samaria, in ignorance
that almost all would have been lawful. Our inquiry here is, how-
ever, somewhat complicated by the circumstance that in Rabbinic
writings, as at present existing, the term Samaritans (Cuthim^) has,
to avoid the censorship of the press, been often purposely substituted
for 'Sadducees,' or 'heretics,' i.e. Christians. Thus, ■when" the ;;insanh.
Samaritans are charged with denying in their books that the Resur-
rection can be proved from the Pentateuch, the real reference is
supposed to have been to Saddiicean or Christian heretical writings.
Indeed, the terms Samaritans, Sadducees, and heretics are used so
interchangeably, that a careful inquiry is necessary, to show in each
case which of them is really meant. Still more frequent is the. use
1 The more exact translation would, of reasons, it is impossible always to adopt
course, be Ki(tli/in, hut I have written a uniform or exact system of translitera-
Cuthim on account of the reference to tiou.
2 Kings xxvii. 24. Indeed, for various ^ Thus in Ber. 57 h Culha'an is e^i-
•■Mb
400
FROM .J()i;i)AN TO THE MOl'NT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Ecclus. 1.
25, 20
I' Test.
Levi. vii.
' Ber. viii. 8
d Sheq. i. 5
<■ Jer.
Abhod.
Z. V. i,
i>. a d
fS.-^.nh. 8.5 6;
Chilli. 3 h;
Kidcl, 75 6
f .Jer. Sheq.
46 6
■' .Jer.
Denial lii. 4
'Comp.also
Jer. Dem.
vi. 11 : .Jer.
Ber. vii. 1;
and .Jer.
Kelh. 27 a
of the term ' Siiiuaritaii ' (*n";r) I'oi" 'stranger' (":::), the lattei', and
not strictly Samaritan descent Ijcing jneant.* The popular inter-
change of these terms casts light on the designation of the Samaritan
as ' a stranger ' by our Lord in St. Luke xvii. 18.
In general it may be said that, while on certain points Jewish
opinion remained always the same, the judgment passed on the
Samaritans, and especially as to intercourse with them, varied, accord-
ing as they showed more or less active hostility towards the Jews.
Thus the Son of Sirach would correctly express the feeling of con-
tempt and dislike, when he characterised the Samaritans as ' the
foolish people ' which his 'heart abhorred.'" The same sentiment
appears in early Christian Pseudepigraphic and in Rabbinic writings.
In the so-called ' Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ' (which probably
dates from the beginning of the second century), 'Sichem' is the
City of Fools, derided by all men." It was only natural, that Jews
should be forbidden to respond by an Amen to the benediction of
Samaritans, at any rate till they were sure it had been correctly
spoken, "" since they were neither in practice nor in theory regarded
as co-religionists."*^ Yet they were not treated as heathens, and
their land, their springs, baths, houses, and roads were declared clean. ^
The question was discussed, whether or not they were to be con-
sidered ' lion-i^roselytes ' (from fear of the lions), or as genuine
converts; ^ and, again, whether or not they were to be regarded as
heathens." This, and the circumstance that different teachers at
different times gave directly opposite replies to these questions, proves
that there was no settled princii)le on the subject, but that opinions
varied according to the national bearing of the Samaritans. Thus,
we are expressly told,'' that at one time both their testimony and
their religious orthodoxy were more credited than at others, and they
are not treated as Gentiles, but placed on the same level as an ignorant
Jew. A marked difference of opinion here prevails. The older
tradition, as represented by Simon the son of Ganmlicl, regards them
as in every respect like Israelites;' whilst later authority (Rabbi
(l('i)tly iLsed for ' idolator.' An instance
of the .lewLsh use of the term Cuthiean
for Christian occurs in Ber. R. G4, where
tiie Imperial permission to rebuild the
Temple of Jerusalem is said to have been
frustrated by Cuthi^an intri<?ue, the text
here evidentl.y referrin,<!; by that exi;)res-
sioii not to Samaritans, but to Christians,
however silly the charj^e a,ii;ainst them.
See Joel, Blicke in d. Reli<;-. Gescli. p.
17. Comp. also Frankel u. s. p. 214;
Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. i. p. 49. note 2.
^ Frciiikd quotes as a notable instance
of it, Ber. viii. 8, and refers in proof to
the Jerus. Talmud on this Mishnah. But,
for reasons soon to be explained, I am
not prepared in this instance to adopt his
view.
- As in the case of heathens, neither
Temple-trilnite, nor any oilier than free-
will and votive olferings were received
from them.
THE JEWS HAVE NO DEALINGS WITH THE SAMAIMTANS.'
401
.Iclmda the Holy) would have them considered and treated as heathens.
Again, it is expressly stated in tlic BaV)ylon Talmud,'' that the Samari-
tans observed the letter of the Pentateuch, while one authority adds,
that in that which they observed they were more strict than the
Jews themselves.'' Of this, indee<1, there is evidence as re,u-ards sev-
eral ordinances. On the other hand, later authorities ag'ain reproach
them with falsification of the Pentateuch, charge them witli worsliij)-
ping a dove," and even wlicn, on further inquir}", they absolve them
from this accusation, ascribe their excessive- veneration for Mount
Gerizim to the circumstance that they worshipped the idols which
Jacob had buried under the oak at Shechem. To the same hatred,
caused by national persecution, we must impute such expressions
as'^ that he, whose hospitality receives a foreigner, has himself to
blame if his children have to go into captivity.
The expression, 'the Jews have no dealings with the Sanm-
ritans,'" finds its exact counterpart*' in this: ^ May I never set eyes
on a Samaritan; ' or else, ' May I never be thrown into company with
him!' A Rabbi in Cassarea explains, as the cause of these changes
of opinion, that formerly the Samaritans had been observant of the
Law, which they no longer were; a statement repeated in another
form to the effect, that their observance of it lasted as long as they
were in their own cities.^ Matters proceeded so far, that they were
entirely excluded from fellowship." The extreme limit of this direc-
tion,' if, indeed, the statement applies to the Samaritans,^ is marked
by the declaration, that to partake of their bread was like eating-
swine's flesh. This is further improved upon in a later Rab-
binic work," which gives a detailed story of how the Samaritans
had conspired against Ezra and Nehemiah, and the ban been laid
ujjon them, so that now not only was all intercourse with them
forbidden, but their bread declared like swine's flesh; jiroselytes
were not to be received from them; nor would they have part
in the Resurrection of the dead.^ Rut there is a great differ-
ence between all this extravagance and the opinions prevailing
at tlie time of Jesus. Even in the Rabbinic tractate on the Sama-
ritans'" it is admitted, that in most of their usages they resembled
Israelites, and many rights and privileges are conceded to them, from
which a heathen would have been excluded. They are to be ' cred-
CHAP.
VII
» Bcr. f 7 h
'' Com p.
ChuU. 4 a
'ChuU. Ga
•iSanh.
104 c.
= St. John
Iv. 9
f MeglU. 2
e Jer.
Abhod.
Zar. V. 4
i Shebhyith
vlii. 10
"■Yalkut li.
p. 36 </
' The expi'essiou literally applies to
idolaters.
- Ill Jer. Kil. ix. 4, p. 32 c (middle) the
question of the Resurrection is discussed,
when it is said that the Samaritan iiilia-
liitants of Palestine, far from enjoying
the blessings of that period, would be
made into sections (or, made like cloth
['!]), and then burnt up.
m Masse-
ehtth
Kuthim, ill
Kirchlirim,
Septeni
Libri parvi
Talmudlci,
pp. ai-36
402
FROM J()i;i)AX TO TIIH MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
ited ' on many points; thcii- meat is (loclarcd clean, if an Israelite
liad witnessed its killing, or a Samaritan ate of it;'' their bread'
and, under certain conditions, even their wine, are allowed; and the
tinal prospect is held out of their reception into the Synagogue, when
they shall have given up their faith in Mount Gerizini, and acknow-
ledged Jerusalem and the Resurrection of the dead. But Jewish
toleration went even further. At the time of Christ all their food was
declared lawful.'' There could, therefore, be no difficulty as regarded
the purchase of victuals on the part of the disciples of Jesus.
It has already been stated, that most of the peculiar doctrines
of the Samaritans were derived from Jewish sources. As might be
expected, their tendency was Saddiicean rather, than Pharisaic.^
Nevertheless, Samaritan 'sages' are referred to." But it is diffi-
cult to form any decided opinion about the doctrinal views of the
sect, partly from the comparative lateness of their literature, and
partly because the Rabbinist charges against them cannot be abso-
lutely trusted. It seems at least doubtful, whether they really denied
■isiphre on the Rcsurrection, as asserted by the Rabbis,'' from whom the Fathers
Numb. XV. ^ Ki 1
have copied the charge.^ Certainly, they hold that doctrine at pre-
sent. They strongly believed in the Unity of God; they held the
doctrine of Angels and devils;* they received the Pentateuch as of
sole Divine authority;^ they regarded Mount Gerizim as the place
chosen of God, maintaining that it alone had not been covered by
the flood, as the Jews asserted of Mount Moriah; they were
most strict and zealous in what of Biblical or traditional Law they
BOOK
III
"Chull. -ib
^ Jer.
Abhod.
Zar. V. 4
•^GUt. 10 b
Nidd. 33 &
:n: Sanh
90 6
1 111 .Jer. Orlah ii. 7 the question is dis-
cussed, how long after the Passover it is
not lawful to use bread baked by Samar-
itans, showing that ordinarily it was law-
ful.
^ The doctrinal views, the festive ob-
servances, and the literature of the Sam-
aritans of a later period, cannot be dis-
cussed in this place. For further infor-
mation we refer to the following: — The
Articles in Smith's Dictionary of the
Bible, in TT7»er'.s' Bibl. Real-Worterb.,
and esiiecially in Herzor/s Real-Encykl.
{})}• Fetf^rmuitn); to JuynboU, Comment,
in Hist. GentisSaniarit. ; .Tost. Gesch. des
Judenth. ; Hevzfeld, Gesch. des jiidisch.
Volkes, -passim; Frankel. Eintluss der
raUist. Exeg. pp. 237-2.')-t; yntt, Sketch
of Samarilan History, &c.
^ Ejii/Jiciiiins, Haeres. ix., xiv. ; Leon-
fiits, De Sectis viii. ; G-rerjorii the Great,
Moral, i. xv. (Jh-imm (Die Samariter &c.,
pp. !)1 il-c), not only stronglv defends
the position of the Fathers, but holds that
the Samaritans did not even believe in
tlie immortality of the soul, and main-
tained that the world was eternal. The
' Samaritan Chrouicje ' dates from the
tliirteenth century, but Grimm main-
tains that it embodies the earlier views
of that people (u. s. p. 107).
^ This seems inconsistent with their
disbelief of the Resurrection, and also
casts doubt on the patristic testimony
about them, since Leontins falsely accuses
them of rejecting the doctrine of Angels.
Epiphanins. on the other hand, attrib-
utes to them belief in Angels. Pn-ldinl
maintains, that they regarded the Angels
as merely ' powers ' — a sort of imi)ersoiial
abstractions; Griinm thinks tliere were
two sects of Samaritans — one believing,
the other disbelieving, in Angels.
'" For their horrible distortion of later
Jewish Biblical history, see Grimm (u.
s.), p. 107.
CHRIST AND THE SAMARITANS.
403
received; and lastly, and most important of all, tlicy looked for the
coming of a Messiah, in Whom the promise would be fulfilled, that
the Lord God would raise up a Prophet from the ujidst of them, like
unto Moses, in Whom his words were to be, and unto Whom they
should hearken/^ Thus, while, in some respects, access to them
would be more difficult than to His own countrymen, yet in others
Jesus would find thei-e a soil better prepared for the Divine Seed, or,
at least, less encumbered bj the thistles and tares of traditionalism
and Pharisaic bigotry.
CHAP.
VII
■Deut.
xvlil. 15. 18
1 They expected that this Messiali
wouUl tinally convert all nations to
Saniaritanism {Grimm, p. 99). But there
is no historic ground for the view of
Mr. Nutt (Sketch of Samar. Hist. pp. 40,
r)9) that the i<lea of a Messiali the Sou of
Joseph, which holds so large a place in
later Rabbinic theology, was of Samari-
tan oriKiu.
404 FKOM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRAJN'SriGURATION.
CHAPTER VIII.
JESUS AT THE AVELL OF SYCHAR.
(St. John iv. 1-42.)
BOOK There is not a district in ' the Land of Promise ' Avhich presents a
in scene more fair or rich than the plain of Samaria (the modern El
• — Y ' Mukhna). As we stand on the summit of the ridge, on the way
from Shiloh, the eye travels over the wide sweep, extending more
than seven miles northward, till it rests on the twin heights of
Gerizim and Ebal, which enclose the valley of Shechem. Follow-
ing the straight olive-shaded road from the south, to where a spur
of Geriziin, jutting south-east, forms the Vale of Shechem, we stand
by that ' Well of Jacob ' to which so many sacred memories attach.
Here, in 'the parcel of ground' afterwards given to Joseph,^ which
Jacob had bought from the people of the land, the patriarch had,
at great labour and cost, sunk a well through the limestone rock.
At present it is partially filled with rubbish and stones, but originally
it must have gone down about 150 feet.^ As the whole district
abounds in springs, the object of the patriarch must have been to
avoid occasion of strife with the Amorite herdsmen around. That
well marks the boundary of the Great Plain, or rather its extensions
bear other names. To the left (westwards), between Gerizim^ (on the
south) and Ebal (on the north), winds the valley of olive-clad Shechem,
the modern Nablus, though that town is not in view from the Well
of Sychar. Still higher up the same valley, the mud hovels of
1 The reference here is to Gen. xlviii. hand, this may Ije regarded as another
22. Wiinsch", indeed, objects that this undcsiiiiied i)roof of the Johannine au-
applicatiou of the pas.sage is inaccurate, tlioi'ship of the Fourth Gospel,
and contrary to universal Rabbinic tra- -' The present depth of tliewpj] is about
ditiou.. But in this, as in other in- seventy-tive feet.- Most travellers have
stances, it is not the Gospel, but rather given more or less pictorial accounts of
Dr. Wiinschf, who is inaccurate. If the Jacolj's Well. We refer liere especially
reader will refer to ^re/'/er'.s" Urschr. p. so. to Mr. Kinr/s Report (Quarterly Stat,
he will lind ;;roo/ that the Evaugeli.st's of the Pal.Explor. Fund, Ap. 1879),
rendering of Gen. .xlviii. 22 was in ac- although it contains the strange mistake
cordance with ancient Rabbinic tradition, that Jesus had that day come from
which was only afterwards alt(M'ed for Jerusalem, and reached Jacob's AVell hy
anti-Samaritan purposes. On the other mi(hlay.
AT 'THE WELL OF JACOB.'
405
Sebastiyeh mark the site of ancient Sainarin, the maguiticent Scbastc CHAP,
of Ilerod. North of the entrance to the Vale of Shechc^ni rises Vlll
Mount Ebal, which also forms, so to speak, the western wall of the "- — y-^—
northern extension of the I'lain of Samaria. Here it l)ears the name
of El 'Askar, from Askar, the ancient Sycliar, which nestles at the
foot of Ebal, at a distance of about two miles from Shechem.
Similarly, the eastern extension of the plain l)ears the nanie of the
Valley of Shalem, from the hamlet of tliat name, which prol)al)ly
occupies the site- of the ancient city before which Jacob pitched his
tent on his return to Canaan.'' "Gen.
At ' the Well of Jacob ' which, for our present purjiose, nmy be la
regarded as the centre of the scene, several ancient lloman roads meet
and part. That southward, to which reference has already been
made, leads close by Shiloh to Jerusalem; that westward traverses the
vale of Shcchem; that northward brings ns to the ancient Sychar,
only about half a mile from ' the Well. ' Eastward there are two ancient
Roman roads: one winds south-east, till it merges in the main road;
the other strikes first due east, and then descends in a south-easterly
direction through Wady Fardh, which debouches into the Jordan. We
can trace it as it crosses the waters of that Wady, and we infer, that
its immediate neighbourhood must have been the scene where Jesus
had taught, and His disciples baptized. It is still in Juda?a, and yet
sufficiently removed from Jerusalem; and the Wady is so full of springs
that one spot near it actually bears the name of 'Ainun, ' springs,'
like the ancient jEnon. But, from the spot which we have indicated,
it is about twenty miles, across a somewhat difficult country to Jacob's
Well. It would be a long and toilsome day's journey thither on a
summer day, and we can understand how, at its end, Jesus Avould
rest weary on the low parapet which enclosed the Well, while His
disciples went to buy the necessary provisions in the neighbouring
Sychar.
Audit was, as we judge, the evening of a day in early summer,^
when Jesus, accompanied by the small band which formed His
disciples,^ emerged into the rich Plain of Samaria. Far as the eye
could sweep, 'the fields' were 'already white unto the harvest.'
1 For 'the location of Sycliar,' and the
vinflicatioii of the view that the event
took place at tlie lie^iiniini;- of tlie wheat
harvest, or al)out tlie middle of May, see
A]ipeiidix XV. The question is of con-
siderable importance.
^ From the silence of the Synoptists,
and the p:eneral designation of the dis-
ciples without nanuni; them, Ctisjun-t
concludes that oidy .lohii, and perhaps
Nathanael, but none t)f the other apostles,
had accompanied Jesus on this journey
(Chrouol. Geogr. Einl. p. 104).
406 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGUPATION.
BOOK TliC}- had reached 'the Well of Jacol).' There Jesus waited, while
I'l the others went to Sjchar on their work of ministry. Probably John
^— ^.^ remained with the Master. They would scarcely have left Him alone,
especially in that i)lace; and the whole narrative reads like that of
one who had been present at what passed.^ More than any other,
perhaps, in the Fourth Gospel, it bears the mark, not only of Judaean,
but of contemporary authorship. It seems utterly incompatible with
the modern theory of its Ephesian origin at the end of the second
century. The location of the scene, not in Sebasteor Shechem, l)ut
at Sychar,- which in the fourth century at least had so entirely ceased
to be Samaritan, that it had become the home of some celebrated
Rabbis;^ the intimate knowledge of Samaritan and Jewish relations,
wiiich at tlie time of Christ allowed the purchase of food, but would
certainly not have conceded it two centuries later; even the intro-
duction of such a statement as 'Salvation is of the Jews,' wholly
inconsistent with the supposed scope of an Ephesian Gospel — tliese
are only some of the facts which will occur to the student of that
period, as ])earing unsolicited testimony to the date and nationality
of the writer.
Indeed, tliere is such minuteness of detail about the narrative,
and with it such charm of simplicity, alTectionateness, reverence, and
depth of spiritual insight, as to carry not only the conviction of its
truthfulness, but almost instinctively to suggest to us 'the beloved
disciple ' as its witness. Already he had taken the place nearest to
Jesus and saw and spake as none other of the disciples. Jesus
wear}^, and resting while the disciples go to buy food, is not an
Ephesian, but a truly Evangelic presentation of the Christ in His
human weakness and want.
All around would awaken in the Divinely-attuned soul of the Divine
Redeemer the thoughts which so soon afterwards found appropriate
words and deeds. He is sitting by Jacob's Well — the very well
which the ancestor of Israel had digged, and left as a memorial of his
first and symbolic possession of the land. Yet this was also the scene
of Israel's first rebellion against God's order, against the Davidic line
and the Temple. And now Christ is here, among those who are not
of Israel, and who persecute it. Surely this, of all others, would be
1 Caspari (u. s. p. 103) thinks that is mentioned by the Rabbis, argues that
John only related that of whicli he him- the use of tlie name Sycliar for Shechem
self was an eyewitness, except, perhaps, affords evidence that the Fourth Gospel
iu ch. xviii. 33, &c. is of Gentile-Christian origin.
■^ It is very characteristic when Schen- ^ See Appendix XV.
kel, in ignorance of the fact that Sychar
THE WIDER BEAKING 01- TllLS HISTORY.
407
the place where the Son of David, east out of Jerusalem and the
Tenii)le, would think of the breach, and of what alone could heal it.
He is hungry, and those fields are white to the harvest; yet far more
hungering for that sjjiritual harvest which is the food of Ilis soul.
Over against Him, sheer up 800 feet, rises Mount Gerizim, with the
ruins of the Sanurriian rival Temple on it; just as far behind Him,
already overhung by the dark cloud of judgment, are that Temple and
City which knew not the day of their visitation. The one incpiiring
woman, and she a Samaritan, and the few only partially conn)re]iend-
ing and much misundei'standing disciples; their inward thinking that
for the spiritual harvest it was but seed-time, and the reaping yet
'four months distant,' while in reality, as even their e3-es might see if
the}' but lifted them, the fields were white unto the harvest: all ihis,
and much more, forms a unique background to the picture of this
narrative.
To take another view of the varying lights on that ])icture: Jesus
weary and thirsty by Jacob's Well, and the water of life which was to
spring I'rom, and by that Well, with its unfailing supply and its un-
ending refreshment! The spiritual in all this bears deepest symbolic
analogy to the outward — yet with such contrasts also, as the woman
giving to Christ the one. He to her the other; she unconsciously be-
ginning to learn, He unintendingly (for He had not even entered
Sychar) beginning to teach, and that, Avhat He could not yet teach in
Juda3a, scarcely even to His own dis(*iples; then the complete change
in the wonmn, and the misapprehension'' and non-reception'' of the
disciples — and over it all the weary form of the Man Jesus, opening
as the Divine Christ the well of everlasting life, the God-Man satisfied
witli the meat of doing the AVill, and finishing the Work, of Him
that sent Him: such are some of the thoughts suggested by the
scene.
And still others rise, as we think of the connection in the narra-
tive of St. John of this with what preceded and with what follows.
It almost seems as if that Gos])el were constructed in cycles, each
beginning, or at least connected, with Jerusalem, and leading up to a
grand climax. Thus, the first cycle'' might be called that of purifi-
cation : first, that of the Temple; then, inward purification b}^ the
Baptism from above; next, the symbolic Baptism of water; lastly, the
real water of life given by Jesus; and the climax — Jesus the Restorer
of life to them that believe. Similarly, the second cycle," beginning
with the idea of water in its symbolic application to real worship and
life from Jesus, would carry us a stage further; and so onward through-
CHAP.
VIII
" St. Jolin
iv. 33
i> n. 13-iv.
54
v.-vl. 3
408 FlUm JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK out the (jos])el. Along- with this wc may note, as another peculiarity
III of the Fourth Gospel, that it seems arranged according to this definite
^~-^-y — ' plan of grouping together in each instance the tvork of Christ, as
followed by the illustrative word of Christ. Thus the fourth would,
Isoth externally and internally, be the pre-eminently Judcean Gospel,
characterised by cyclical order, illustrative conjunction of work and
ivord, and progressively leading up to the grand climax of Christ's
last discourses, and finally of His Death and Resurrection, with the
teaching that flows from the one and the other.
It was about six o'clock in the evening,^ when the travel-stained
pilgrims reached that ' parcel of ground ' which, according to ancient
Jewish tradition, Jacob had given to his son Joseph.'^ Here (as
already stated) by the * Well of Jacob ' where the three roads — south,
to Sliechem, and to Sychar (Askar) — meet and part, Jesus sat down,
while the disciples (probably with the exception of John) went on to
the closely adjoining little town of Sychar to buy food. Even this
latter circumstance marks that it was evening, since noon was not the
time either for the sale of provisions, nor for their purchase by travellers.
Once more it is when the true Humanity of Jesus is set before us, iii
the weakness of His hunger and weariness, ° that the glory of His
Divine Personality suddenly shines through it. This time it was a
poor, ignorant Samaritan woman, "* who came, not for any religious
purpose — indeed, to whom religious thought, except within her own
very narrow circle, was almost unintelligible — who became the occasion
of it. She had come — like so many of us, who find the pearl in the
field Avhich we occupy in the business of everyday-life — on huml)le,
ordinary duty and work. Men call it common ; but there is nothing
common and unclean that God has sanctified by making use of it, or
which His Presence and teaching may transform into a vision from
heaven.
1 We have ah-eady expressed oiir belief, to Jesus 'to tarry' with them (v. 40),
that in the Fourth Gospel time is reckoned are in favour of our view. Indeed, St.
not accordinn- to the Jewish mode, but John xix. U renders it impossible to
according- to the Roman civil day, from adopt the Jewish mode of reckoning,
midnight to mi(hrm-lit. For a fill! dis- - See a i)revioa3 note on p. 404.
cussion and proof of this, with notice of '■ Godet rightly asks what, in view ot
objections, see McLendn's New Test. vol. this, becomes of the sui)i)0sed Docetism
i. pp. 737-74.S. It must surely be a hcpaus which, according to the Tiibingen school,
when at p. 288 (note o), thesame author is one of the characteristics of the Fourili
seems to assume the contrary. Mei/er Gospel ?
oljjects, that, if it had been 6 p.m.. ■» By which we are to understand a
there would not have been time for woman from the co?/;?/;-?/, not the town of
the after-events recorded. But tliey Samaria, a Samaritaness. The sugges-
could easily tind a i)laco in the delicious tion, that she resorted to Jacob's Well
cool of a summer's evening, and both the on account of its sanctity, scarcely re-
coming ui) of the Samaritans (most un- ([uires refutation,
likely at noon-timej, and their invitation
'GIVE ME TO DRINK.' 409
Tlioro was another well (the 'Ain \4.skar), on the cast side of the chap.
little town, and niucli nearer to Sycliar than ' Jaeob's Well;' and vm
to it prol)al)ly the women of Sycliar generally resorted. It should ^- — r^"^
also be borne in mind, that in tliose days such work no longer de-
volved, as in early times, on the matrons and maidens of fair degree,
but on women in much humbler station. This Sanmritaness may have
chosen 'Jacob's Well,' perhaps, because she had been at work in the
fields close by; or else, because her abode was nearer in that direction—
for the ancient Sychiw may have extended southward; perhaps,because,
if her character was what seems implied in verse 18, the concourse
of the more common women at the village-well of an evening might
scarcely be a pleasant place of resort to one with her history. In any
case, Ave may here mark those Providential leadings in our everyday
life, to which we arc so often almost as much spii'itually indebted, as
to grace itself; which, indeed, form part of the disj^ensation of grace.
Perhaps we should note how, all unconsciously to her (as so often
to us), poverty and sin sometimes bring to the well by which Jesus
sits weary, when on His return from self-righteous Judtea.
But these are only symbols; the barest facts of the narrative are
themselves sufficiently full of spiritual interest. Both to Jesus and
to the woman, the meeting was unsought, Providential in the truest
sense — God-brought. Reverently, so far as the Christ is concerned,
we add, that both acted truly — according to what was in them. The
request: ' Give Me to drink,' was natural on the part of the thirsty
traveller, when the woman had come to draw water, and they who
usually ministered to Him were away.'' Even if He had not spoken, »ver. s
the Samaritaness would have recognised the Jew by His appearance '
and dress, if, as seems likely. He wore the fringes on the border of
His garment.- His speech would, by its pronunciation, place His
nationality beyond doubt. ^ Any kindly address, conveying a request
not absolutely necessary, would naturally surprise the woman: for, as
' Accordin.2; to the testimony of travel- '• Tliere were, undoubtedly, marked
lers the Samaritans, with the exception ditferences of pronunciation l)etween
of the Iliiih-Priestly family, have not the the Jews and tiie Samaritans. Witiiout
co.nmon, well-known type of Jewish face enterinii- into details, it may be said, that
and feature. they chiefly concern the vowel-sounds;
■^ The 'frin,!2;es' on the TaUith of the and among consonants the r/i(tti(rals
Samaritans are blue, while those worn l)y (which are generally not pronounced),
the Jews, whether on X\\QArbi( luoiphaili the aspirafes. and the letter r. which is
or the TaUith, are white. The Samaritans not, as in Hebrew, either r (i)ro-
do not seem to have worn phyldctcru'n nounced s), or u (pronounced .s7/), but is
(Menach. 42 h). But neither did many always pronounced as -.s//.' In connection
(if the Jews of old — nor, I feel persuaded. with this we may notice one of those
our Lord (comp. Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. instances, how a strange mistake comes
vol. i. p. GO). 'by tradition" to l)e commonly received. It
410 FROM JOIIDAX TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
j'.ooK the Evangelist cxplaiialivcly adds: ' J(!\vs have no doalino-s v\itli
III Samaritans," ' or rather, as theexpression implies, no needless, friendly,
"- — ^.^^"^ nor familiar intercourse with them — a statement true at all times.
Besides, we nnist rememl)er that this Avas an ignorant Samaritaness
of the lower order. In the mind of 'such an one, two points would
mainly stand out: that the Jews in their wicked pride would have no
intercourse with them; and that Gerizim, not Jerusalem, as the Jews
falsely asserted, was the place of rightful worship. It was, therefore,
genuine surprise which expressed itself in the question: 'How is it.
Thou, being a Jew, of me askest to drink ?' It was the first lesson
she learned, even before He taught her. Here was a Jew, not like
ordinary Jews, not like what she had hitherto thought them: what
was the cause of this difference ?
Before we mark how the answer of Jesus met this very question,
and so as to direct it to spiritual profit, another and more general re-
flection presses on our minds. Although Jesus may not have come
to Sychar with the conscious purpose of that which ensued, yet, given
the meeting with the Samaritan woman, what followed seems almost
matter of necessity. For it is certain that the Christ, such as the
Gospels descrilie Him, could not have been brought into contact with
spiritual ignorance and want, any more than Avith physical distress,
without oflering it relief. It was, so to speak, a necessity, alike of
His Mission and of His Nature (as the God-Man). In the language
of another Gospel, ' power went out from Him; ' and this, whether
consciously sought, or unconsciously felt after in the stretching forth
of the hands of the sightless or in the upward look of the speechless.
The Incarnate Son of God could not Init bring health and life amidst
disease and death; the Saviour had come to seek and to save that
Avhich was lost.
And so it was, that the ' Hoav is it ?' of the Samaritan woman
so soon, and so fully, found its answer. ' How is it ? ' In this, that
He, Who had spoken to her, was not like what she thought and knew
has been asserted that if Jesus had said first to have heen made — though re7'j/
to the woman: T^'ni li lisMofh (' Give me douhifully — by Stier (Reden Jesn, iv. ji.
to driuii'), a Samaritan would liave pro- 134). Stier, however, atleast rendered tl)e
nounced it ^/.s<,7^//, since the Samaritans words of .lesus : Teni U liNhtoth. Godet
l)ronounced the ah as s. But tlie reverse (ad loc.) accepts Stier's suggestions, but
of this is the fact. The Samaritans pro- renders the words: Teni li lishc/^oth.
nounced the s {'sin') as sh {' shia') — Later writers have repeated this, only
and not the sh as s. The mistake arose altering lishchoth into lishA-oth.
from confoundiiig the old Ephraimite ^ The article is wanting in the ori-
(.Judg. xii. 5, ()) with the Samaritan mode ginal.
of pronouncing. Tlie suggestion seems
THE LIYINfJ WATER UNTO ETERNAL EIFE. 411
of the Je\\>*. He was what Israel was intended to liave become to chap.
mankind; what it was the hnal ol)ject ot Israel to have been. In Vlll
Him was God's gift to mankind. Had she- but known it, the present ^— ^-r — '
relation between them W(juld have been reversed; the Well of Jacob
would have been a symbol, yet but a symbol, of the living water,
which she would have asked and He given. As always, the seen is
to Christ the emblem of the unseen and spiritual; Nature, that in
and through which, in manifold and divers colouring, He ever sees
the supernatural, even as the light lies in varying hues on the moun-
tain, or glows in changeful colouring on the edge of the horizon. A
view this of all things existent, which Hellenism, even in its sublimest
poetic conception of creation as the impress of heavenly archetypes,
has only materialised and reserved. But to Jesus it all pointed up-
ward, because the God of Nature was the God of Grace, the One
Living and True God in Whom all matter and spirit lives. Whose
world is one in design, workmanship, and purpose. And so nature
was but the echo of God's heard Voice, which ever, to all and in all,
speaks the same, if there be but listening ears. And so He would
have it speak to men in paral)lcs, that, to them who see, it might be
the Jacob's ladder leading from earth to heaven, while they, whose
sight and hearing are bound in the sleep of heart-hardening, would
see but not perceive, and hear but not understand.
It was with the ignorant woman of Sychar, as it had been with
the learned ' Master in Israel.' As Nicodemus had seen, and yet not
seen, so this Samaritaness. In the birth of which Jesus spoke, he had
failed to apprehend the * from above ' and ' of the Spirit; ' she now the
thought suggested by the contrast between the cistern in the lime-
rock and the well of living w^ater. The ' How can these things be ? '
of Nicodemus finds its parallel in the bewilderment of the woman.
Jesus had nothing wherewith to draw from the deep well. Whence,
then, the '■ living water ' ? To outward appearance there was a physi-
cal impossibility. This was one aspect of it. And yet, as Nicodemus'
question not only similarly pointed to a physical impossibility, but
also indicated dim searching after higher meaning and spiritual
reality, so that of the woman: 'No ! art Thou greater than our father
Jacob ? ' who, at such labour, had dug this well, finding no other
means than this of supplying his own wants and those of his descend-
ants. Nor did the answer of Jesus now difter in spirit from that
which He had given to the Rabbi of Jerusalem, though it lacked the
rebuke, designed to show how thoroughly the religious system, of
412 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
]?()()K which Nicodoinns was a teacher, failed in its highest object. But to
III this woman His answer must be much simpler and plainer than to the
^— ^r^-' Kabbi. And yet, if it be Divine teaching, it cannot be quite plain,
but must contain that which will point upward, and lead to further
inquiry. And so the Divine Teacher explained, not only the differ-
ence between ordinary water and that of which He had spoken, but
in a manner to bring her to the threshold of still higher truth. It
was not water like that of Jacob's Well which He would give, but
' living water.' In the Old Testament a perennial spring ha<l, in
aGeu.xxvi. tigurative language, been thus designated,'' in significant contrast to
19 ; Lev. ""
xiv. 5 water accumulated m a cistern." But there was more than this: it
b Jer. ii. 13 ^^.^g water which for ever quenched the thirst, by meeting all the in-
Avard wants of the soul; water also, which, in him avIio had drunk of
it, became a well, not merely quenching the thirst on this side time,
but ' springing up into everlasting life.' It was not only the meeting
of wants felt, but a new life, and that not essentially different, but the
same as that of the future, and merging in it.
The question has sometimes been asked, to what Jesus referred by
that well of living water springing up into everlasting life. Of the
various strange answers given, that, surely, is almost the worst, which
would apply it to the doctrine of Jesus, supporting such explanation
by a reference to Rabbinic sayings in which doctrine is compared to
' water.' This is one of those not unfrequent instances in which Ra1>
binic references mislead rather than lead, being insufficiently known,
imperfectly understood, or misapplied. It is quite true, that in many
passages the teaching of the Rabbis is compared to loater,^ l)ut never
to a ' well of water springing up.' The difference is very great. For
it is the boast of Rabbinism, that its disciples drink of the waters of
their teachers; chief merit lies in receptiveness, not spontaneity, and
higher praise cannot be given than that of being ' a well-plastered
cAb. ii. 9 cistern, which lets not out a drop of water,' " and in that sense to ' a
spring whose waters ever grow stronger.' But this is quite the
opposite of what our Lord teaches. For, it is only true of what man
can give when we read this (in Ecclus. xxiv. 21): ' They that drink
me shall yet be thirsty.' ^ More closely, related to the words of Christ
1 Those who wish to see the well-worn sions as that of St. Bn-nard of Clairraux
Rabbinic references will find them in (followed by so many nioderu hymuol-
Lightfoot and Schbttgen ad loc. ogists):
2 There is much spurious religious sen- ' Qui Te gustaiit esuriunt,
timent which, in contravention to our Qui bibunt adhuc sitiunt.'
Lord's saying, delights in such expres- (Ap. Daniel, Thes. i. p. 223.)
THE NEW SPlRlTfAL LIFE IN THE >^AMAUITAXESS. 413
is it, wlicii we rrad-' of a ' louiitaiii of wisdom; " while, in llic Tar^'uiii CIIAI'.
on Cant. iv. 14, ' the words oi" tiiu Law" arc likened 'unto a well of ^ni
living waters. ' The same idea was carried i)erhaps even further, when, ' — ~r — ■
at the Feast of Tabernacles, amidst universal rejoicing, water from MnBar.m.
Siloam was poured from a golden pitcher on the altar, as emblem of
the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. ^ But the saying of our Lord to
the Samaritaness referred neither to His teaching, nor to the Holy
Ghost, nor yet to faith, but to the gift of that new spiritual life in
Him, of which faith is but the outcome.
M the humble, ignorant Samaritaness had formerly not seen,
though she had imperfectly guessed, that there was a higher meaning
in the words of Him Who spake to her, a like mixture of ill-appre-
hension and rising faith seems to underlie her request for this water,
that she might thirst no more, neither again come thither to draw.'^
She now believes in the incredible; believes it, because of Him and
in Him; believes, also, in a satisfaction through Him of outward
wants, reaching up beyond this to the everlasting life. But all these
elements are yet in strange confusion. Those wiio know how
ditRcult it is to lodge any new idea in the mind of uneducated
rustics in our (jwn land, after all our advantages of civilising
contact and education, will understand, how utterly at a loss this
Samaritan countrywoman must have been to grasp the meaning
of Jesus. But He taught, not as we teach. And thus He reached
her heart in that dimly conscious longing which she expressed,
though her intellect was incapable of distinguishing the new
truth.
Surely, it is a strange mistake to find in her w^ords" 'a touch bver. is
of irony,' while, on the other hand, it seems an exaggeration to
regard them simply as the cry of realised spiritual need. Though
reluctantly, a somewhat similar conclusion is forced upon us with
reference to the question of Jesus about the woman's husband, her
reply, and the Saviour's rejoinder. It is difficult to suppose, that
Christ asked the woman to call her husband with the primary object
of awakening in her a sense of sin. This might follow, but the text
gives no hint of it. Nor does anything in the bearing of the woman
The tlieoloay of tliis is not only sickly, commentators, any extraui'diiiary mark
but initrue and misknidinij. of risini;- reverence in tlie use by her of
1 Pee 'The Temple and its Ministry,' the word ' Sir ' in vv. 11 and 15. It seems
pp. 241-243. only natural in the circumstances.
'^ I cannot bring myself to see, as some
414
FROM JOIJDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFKjrRATION.
IJOOK
III
vor. 19
' ver. '29
' St. John :
48,49
'' Comp.
St. John
vi. 6
indicate any siu'li eH'cct; indeed, her i-ei)l\' ' and her aiter-rel'crenec
to it'' rather imply the contrary. We do not even know lor certain,
whether the five i)reviou.s husl)ands had died or divorced her, and, it*
the latter, with whom the blame lay, although not only the peculiar
mode in which our Lord refers to it, but the present condition of the
woman, seem to point to a sinful life in the past. In Judasa a course
like hers would have been almost impossible; but wo know too little
of the social and moral condition of Samaria to judge of what might
there be tolerated. On the other hand, we have abundant evidence
that, when the Saviour so unexpectedly laid open to her a past, which
He could only supernaturally have known, the conviction at once
arose in her that He was a Prophet, just as in similar circumstances
it had been forced upon Nathanael." But to be a Prophet meant to a
Samaritan that He was the Messiah, since they acknowledged none
other after Moses, Whether or not the Messiah was known by the
present Samaritan designation of Him as * the Converter ' and ' the
Returner' (Restorer?), is of comparatively small importance, though,
if we felt certain of this, the influence of the new conviction on the
mind of the woman would appear even more clearly. In any case it
was an immense, almost immeasurable, advance, when this Samaritan
recognised in the stranger Jew, Who had first awakened within her
higher thoughts, and pointed her to spiritual and eternal realities, the
Messiah, and this on the strength of evidence the most powerfull}''
convincing to a mind like hers: that of telling her, suddenly and
startlingly, what He could not have known, except through higher
than human means of information.
It is another, and much more ditficult question, why Jesus should
have asked for the presence of her husband. The objection, that
to do so, knowing the while that she had no husband, seems un-
worthy of our Lord, may, indeed, be answered by the consideration,
that such ' proving ' of those who were in His training was in accord-
ance with His mode of teaching, leading upwards by a series of moral
questions,'^ But perhaps a more simple explanation may otfer even a
better reply. It seems, as if the answer of verse 15 marked the utmost
limit of the woman's comprehension. We can scarcely form an ade-
quate notion of the narrowness of such a mental horizon as hers.
This also explains, at least from one aspect, the reason of His speaking
to her about His own Messiahship, and the worship of the future, in
words far more ])lain than He used to His own disciples. Xc)ne but
the plainest statements could she grasp; and it is not unnatural to
suppose that, having reached the utmost limits of which she was
THE riM)l'lIET WHO WAS TIIH MKSSIAII. 415
capal)lo, tlio Saviour now ask('(l lorhor husl)aii(l., in oi-dci'tluit, tlirouii'h (-map.
the introduction of another so near to her, the horizon nii<ilit )»- ^'Hl
enhiriicd. This is also substantially the view of some of the Fathers.' ^- — -r^"^
But, if Christ was in earnest in asking for the presence of her husband,
it surely cannot be irreverent to add, that at that moment the peculiar
relationshi]) between the man and the woman did not stand out before
His mind. Nor is there anything strange in this. The man was,
and was not, her husband. Nor can we be sure that, although un-
married, the relationship involved anything absolutely contrary to the
law; and to all intents the man might be known as her husband.
The woman's answer at once drew the attention of the Christ to this
aspect of her history, which immediately stood out fully before His
Divine knowledge. At the same time her words seemed like a
confession — perhaps we should say, a concession to the demands of
her own conscience, rather than a confession. Here, then, was the
required opi)ortunity, both for carrying further truth to her mind, by
proving to her that He Who spake to her was a Prophet, and at the
same time for reaching her heart.
But whether or not this view of the history be taken, it is difficult
to understand, how any sobei- interpreter could see in the five
husbands of the woman either a symbolical, or a mythical, reference
to the five deities whom the ancestors of the Samaritans worshipped,'' '2 Kings
'■ ' ' xvii. 24: &c.
the spurious service of Jehovah representing the husband, yet no
husband, of the woman. It is not worth while discussing this
strange suggestion from any other than the mythical standpoint.
Those who regard the incidents of tlie Gospel-narratives as myths,
having their origin in Jewish ideas, are put to even greater straits
by the whole of this narrative than they who regard this Gospel as of
Ephesian authorship. We may put aside the general objections
raised by Strauss, since none of his successors has ventured seriously
to urge them. It is more important to notice, how signally the
author of the mythical theory has failed in suggesting any historical
basis for this ' myth.' To speak of nieetings at the well, such as those
with Rcbekahor Zipporah, is as much beside the question as an appeal
to Jewish expectancy of an omniscient Messiah. Out of these two
elements almost any story might be constructed. Again, to say that
this story of Jesus' success among the Samaritans was invented, in
order to vindicate the later activity of the Apostles among that
people, is simply to beg the whole (piestion. In these straits so
' Coiiip. Liicke, Evang. .Joli. vol. i. p. 588.
416 Fi;().M .rOllDAN to the mount of TIIANSFIGURATION.
BOOK (listiiiii-iiishcd a -wi'iter .as 7v'e//yi' has hazarded tlic statement: 'The
111 meeting- with the Samaritaness has, fur every one who lias eyes, only
^- — -,' — ' a symbolical meaning, by the side of which no historical fact exists.'
An assertion this, which is })erhaps best refuted by being simply
quoted.'^ On the other hand, of all the myths likely to enter into
Jewish imagi-nation, the most unlikely would be one representing the
Christ in familiar converse with a woman, and she a Samaritan, offer-
ing to her a well of water springing into everlasting life, and setting
before her a spiritual worshij) of which Jerusalem was not the centre.
Wliero both the Ephesian and the mythical theory so signally fail,
shall we not fall back upon the natural explanation, borne out by the
simplicity and naturalness of the narrative — that the story here
related is real and true ? And, if so, shall we not all the more
thankfully gather its lessons ?
The conviction, sudden but firm, that He Who had laid open the
past to her was really a Prophet, was already faith in Him ; and so
the goal had been attained — not, perhaps, faith in His Messiahship,
about which she might have only very vague notions, l)ut in Him.
And faith in the Christ, not in anything about Him, but in Himself,
has eternal life. Such faith also leads to farther inquiry and know-
ledge. As it has been tlie traditional practice to detect irony in this
or that saying of the woman, or else to impute to her spiritual
feelings far in advance of her possible experience, so, on the other
hand, has her inquiry about the place of {)ropcr worship, Jerusalem
or Gerizim, been unduly depreciated. It is indeed too true that those,
whose consciences are touched b}^ a presentation of their sin, often
seek to turn the conversation into another and quasi-religious channel.
But of neither the one nor the other is there evidence in the present
case. Similarly, it is also only too true, that their one point of
difference is, to narrow-mindsd sectarians, their all-in-all of religion.
But in this instance we feel that the woman has no after-thought, no
covert purpose in what she asks. All her life long she had heard that
Gerizim was the mount of worship, the holy hill which the waters of
the Flood had never covered,^ and that the Jews were in deadly error.
' The references here are to Strroisfs, ahuttin.a; itself up against faitli. But hi
vol. i. pp. 510-519, and to Keiin i. 1, p. that case why make the prhicipal person
116. a Samaritan, and not a heathen, and
'^ Meyer, Komment. vol. ii. p. 20s, why attribute to her belief in a Messiah,
rightly remarks on the theory of Baar, which was entirely foreigu to heathen-
Hih/ei/fchr, itc. Accordiug to them, the ism ?
whole of this history is only a type of ^ Curiously enough, several instances
heathenism as receptive to faith, in con- are related in Rabljinic writings in
trast to Nicodemus, the type of Judaism which Samaritans enter into dispute with
THE WORSHIP IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH. 417
But liere was an undoubted Propliet, and He a Jew. Were they then CHAP,
in error about the right place of worslii}), and what was siic to think. Vlii
and to do? To apply with sueh a question to Jesus was already to ^ — ^r^^
tind the right solution, even although the question itself might indi-
cate a lower mental and religious standpoint. It reminds us of the
inquiry which the healed Naaman put to Elisha about the Temple of
Rimmon, and of his request for a mule's burden of earth from the
land of the True God, and for true worship.
Once more the Lord answers her question by leading her far
beyond it — beyond all controversy: even on to the goal of all His
teaching. So marvellously does He speak to the simple in heart. It
is best here to sit at the feet of Jesus, and, realising the scene, to
follow as His Finger points onwards and upwards. ' There cometh
an hour, when neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, ye shall
worship the Father.' Words of sad warning, these; words of pro-
phecy also, that already pointed to the higher solution in the
worship of a common Father, which would be the worship) neither of
Jews nor of Samaritans, but of children. And yet there was truth
in their present differences. ^Ye worship ye know not what: we
worship what we know, since salvation is from out the Jews. ' ^ The
Samaritan was aimless worship, because it w^anted the goal of all
the Old Testament institutions, that Messiah ' Who was to be of the
seed of David ' ^ — for, of the Jews, ' as concerning the flesh, ' was Christ » Rom. i. 3
to come." But only of present interest could such distinctions be; •■Rom. ix.o
for an hour would come, nay, already Avas, when the true worshippers
would ' worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father also
seeketh such for His worshippers. Spirit is God ' ^ — and only wor-
ship in spirit and in truth could be acceptable to such a God.
Higher or more Christlike teaching than this could not be uttered.
And she who heard, thus far understood it, that in the glorious pict-
Rabbis who pass by Mount Gerizim on under the heavens were covered, and so
then- way to Jerusalem, to convince tliem .silenced the Samaritan. (Deb. R. 3;
that Gerizim was the proper place of comp. Ber. R. .'52.) On the other hand, it
worship. One instance may liere be on.iiht to l)e added, that in Ber. R. X^ the
mentioned, when a Samaritan maintained Mount of Olives is .said not to have been
that Gerizim was the mount of blessins;, covered by the Flood, and that Ezek.
because it was not covered by the Flood, xxii. 24 is applied to this,
ciuotina; in jn-oof Ezek. .xxii. 24. The ' He had formerly tausht her the
Rabbi replied, tiiat if such had been the ' where,'' and now teaches her the •what,'
case, God would have told Noah to flee of true worshij).
there, instead of making an ark. The -' It is remarkable, that most of the
Samaritan retorted, that this was done alterations in the Samaritan Pentateuch
to try him. Tiie Rablii was silenced, but are with the view of removing anthro-
his nndctci'r ajipealed to Gen. vii. 1!). pomorphisms.
according;- to wliich all the hiiih hills
418 FROiM JOllDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TIIAXSFIGURATION.
BOOK uro, which was set before her, she saw the coming of the Kingdom
in of the Messiah. ' I know that Messiah cometh/ When He cometh,
' -r — He will tell us all things.' It was then that, according to the need
of that untutored woman, He told her plainly what in Jud«a, and
even by His disciples, would have been carnally misinterpreted and
misapplied: that He was the Messiah. So true is it, that • babes' can
receive what often must remain lung hidden ' from the wise and
prudent. '
It was the crowning lesson of that day. Nothing more could be
said; nothing more need be said. The disciples had returned from
Sychar. That Jesus should converse with a woman, was so contrary
to all Juda^an notions of a Rabbi,' that they wondered. Yet, in their
reverence for Him, they dared not ask any questions. Meanwhile the
woman, forgetful of her errand, and only conscious of that new well-
spring of life which had risen within her, had left the unfilled water-
pot by the Well, and hurried into 'the City.' They were strange
tidings which she brought; the very mode of her announcement
affording evidence of their truth: 'Come, see a man who told me
all that I have done. No — is this the Christ?' We are led to
infer, that these strange tidings soon gathered many around her; that
they questioned, and, as they ascertained from her the indisputable
fact of His superhuman knowledge, believed on Him, so far as the
»vv. 39, 40 woman could set Him before them as object of faith.'' Under this
impression ' they went out of the City, and came on their way to-
b ver. 30 wards Him. " ^
Meantime the disciples had urged the Master to eat of the food
which they had brought. But His Soul was otherwise engaged.
Thoughts were present of the glorious future, of a universal worship of
the Father by those whom He had taught, and of which He had just
seen such unexpected earnest. These mingled with feelings of pain at
the spiritual dulness of those by whom He was surrounded, who could
see in that conversation with a Samaritan woman nothing but a
strange innovation on Rabbinic custom and dignity, and now
1 The words 'whicli is called Christ' bidden; comp. the story in Bemid. R. 9.
should l)e within brackets, and are the " Following the suggestion of Professor
explanation of the writer. Westroft. I would thus give the real
2 In the original, ver. 31 has it: 'Rabbi meaning of the original. It may save
(not Master), eat.' Surely such an needless notes if I add, that where the
address to Christ is sufficiently anti- rendering difters from the A.V. the
Ephesian. Readers know how thoroughly change has been intentional, to l)ring
opposed to .Jewish notions was any need- out the meaning of the Greek; and that
less converse with a woman (com]i. Ab. i. where words in the A.V. are omitted, it
5 ; Ber. 43 /^ ; Kidd. 70 a; also Erub. 53 Z^). is because they are either spurious, or
To instruct a woman in the Law was for- doubtful.
FOUR MONTHS AND THE HARVEST COMETH.
419
thought of notliiug beyond tlie immediate errand on which they CHAP,
had gone to Sychar. Even His words of rebuke only made them vni
wonder whether, unknown to them, some one liad l)rought Ilim food. ^-^ — -^.' —
It was not the only, nor the last, instance of their dulness to spir-
itual realities." "st. Matt.
... . xvi. 6, 7
Yet with Divme patience He bore with them: 'My meat is, that
I may do the Will of Him that sent Me, and that I may accomplish
(bring to a perfect end) His work.' To the disciples that work
appeared still in the far future. To them it. seemed as yet little
more than seed-time; the green blade was only sprouting; the
harvest of such a Messianic Kingdom as they expected was still
months distant. To correct their mistake, the Divine Teacher, as
so often, and as best adapted to His hearers, chose His illustration
from what was visible around. To show their meaning more clearly,
we venture to reverse the order of the sentences which Jesus spoke:
' Behold, I say unto you, lift up your eyes and look [observantly] at
the tields, that they are white to the harvest. [But] do ye not say
(viz. in your hearts ') that there are yet four months, and the harvest
cometh? ' The words will appear the more striking, if (with
Professor Westcott) we bear in mind that, perhaps at that very
moment, the Samaritans, coming to Him from Sychar, were appearing
in sight.
But we also regard it as marking the time, when this conversa-
tion took place. Generally the words, '■ yet four months, and then
cometh the harvest,' are regarded either as a proverbial expression,
or as indicating, that the Lord spake at the Well of Jacob four
months before the harvest-time — that is, about the month of January,
if the barley-harvest, or in February, if the wheat-harvest, was
meant. The suggestion that it was a proverb may be dismissed,
tirst, because there is not a trace of such a proverb, and then because,
to give it even the scantiest meaning, it is necessary to supply:
' Between seed-time and harvest there are four months,' which is not
true, since in Palestine about six months intervene between thein.
On the other hand, for reasons explained in another place, ^ we
conclude, that it could not have been January or February when
Jesus was in Sychar. But why not reverse the common theory, and
see in the second clause, introduced by the words, 'Behold! lift up
your eyes and observe,' a mark of the time and circumstances; while
the expression, ' Do ye not say, There are yet four months, and then
1 This is a Hebraism. "'' See tlieiu in Appendix XV.
420 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK coiiicth harvest, ' would be understood as parabolically spoken? Admit-
in tedly, one of iiie two clauses is a literal mark of time, and the other is
^— -^r^^ spoken i)aral)olically. But there is no reason why the second clause
may not mark the time, while on independent grounds we must
conclude,' that Christ returned Irom Judaea to Galilee in the early
summer.
Passing from this point, we notice how the Lord further unfolded
His own lesson of present harvesting, and their inversion of what
was sowing, and what reaping time. ' Already ' ^ he that reajjcd
received wages, and gathered fruit unto eternal life (which is the
real reward of the Great Reaper, the seeing of the travail of His
soul), so that in this instance the sower rejoiced equally^ as the
reaper. And, in this respect, the otherwise cynical proverb, that one
was the sower, another the reaper of his sowing, found a true appli-
cation. It was indeed so, that the servants of Christ were sent to
reap what others had sown, and to enter into their labour. One had
sowed, another would reap. And yet, as in this instance of the
Samaritans, the sower would rejoice as. well as the reaper; nay, both
would rejoice together, in the gathered fruit unto eternal life. And
so the sowing in tears is on the spiritual field often mingled with the
harvest of gladness, and to the spiritual view both are really one.
'Four months' do not intervene between them; so that, althougli
one may sow and another reap, yet the sower seeth that harvest for
which the harvester gets wages, and rejoices with him in the fruit
wdiich is gathered into the eternal storehouse.
It was as Christ had said. The Samaritans, who believed
' because of the word ' (speech) ' of the woman [what she said] as she
testified ' of the Christ, ' when they came ' to that well, ' asked Him
to abide with them. And He abode there two days. And many more
believed because of His own word (speech, discourse), and said unto
the woman: No longer because of thy speaking* do we believe.
1 Comp. Appendix XV. the reaper.' But the translation in tlie
■'' We follow Canon Westcott, who. for text seems to agree better with what
reasons explained by him. joins the word follows. The whole passage is perhaps
' already ' to ver. 3G, omitting the parti- one of the most difficult, from tlie curt-
cle ' and.' ness and rai)id transition of the sentences.
^ It will be noticed that, in ver. 3fi, Iva Tlie only apology which I can oti'er for
has been translated -so that,' the Kai proposing a new rendering and anew
omitted, and 6/<ou rendered 'equally as.' interpretation is, that those with which I
Linguistically, no apology is required for am acquainted have not conveyed any
these renderings. I, however, hesitate distinct or connected meaning to my own
between tills and the rendering: ' in or- mind,
der that the sower may rejoice along witli * AcrA/a, speech, talking.
TWO DAYS IX SAMARIA. 421
Foi-Ave ourselves have heard, and know, lliat this is truly the Saviour chap.
of the world." Viii
We know not what passed these two days. Apparently no miraeles ^— ^.-^-^
were wrought, but those of His Word only. It was the deepest and
purest truth they learned, these simple men of simple faith, who had
not learned of man, but listened to His Word only. The sower as
well as the reaper rejoiced, and rejoiced together. Seed-time and
harvest mingled, when for themselves they knew and confessed, that
this was truly the Saviour of the world.
1 We have omitted the words 'the as faithfully as possible, so as to bring
Christ,' ill ver. 42. as appareiitl^y spurious, out the real meaoiDg.
lu general, the text has been rendered
422
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER IX.
BOOK
III
=^ St. John
iv. 45
^ St. Matt.
iv. 12
« St. Mark
i. U
■J St. Luke
Iv. It
<: St. Matt,
iv. 17
fRt. Marki.
15
THE SECOND VISIT TO CANA — CURE OP THE ' NOBLEMAN'S ' SON
AT CAPERNAUM.
(St. Matt. iv. 12; St. Mark i. U; St. Luke iv. 14, 15; St. John iv. 43-54.)
The brief harvest in Samaria was, as Jesus had indicated to His
disciples, in another sense also the beginning of sowing-time, or at
least that when the green blade first appeared aljove ground. It
formed the introduction to that Galilean ministry, when ' the Galileans
received Him, having seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem
at the Feast. ' " Nay, in some respects, it was the real beginning of
His Work also, which, viewed as separate and distinct, couimenced
when the Baptist Avas cast into prison.^ Accordingly, this circum-
stance is specially marked by St, Matthew,'' and by St. Mark," while
St. Luke, as if to give greater emphasis to it, abrui)tly connects this
beginning of Christ's sole and separate Work with the history of the
Temptation.'^ All that intervened seems to him but introductory,
that ' beginning ' which might be summed up by the words, ' in the
power of the Spirit,' with which he describes His return to Galilee.
In accordance with this view, Christ is presented as taking up the
message of His Forerunner,'' only with wider sweep, since, instead of
adding to His announcement of the Kingdom of Heaven and call to
repentance that to a Baptism of preparation. He called those who
heard Him to 'believe the Gospel' which He brought them.'
But here also,— as Eusebius had already noted '^ — the Fourth
Gospel, in its more comprehensive presentation of the Christ, as add-
ing, not merely in the external succession of events, but in tlieir in-
ternal connection, feature to feature in the portraiture of the Divine
Redeemer, supplies the gap in the Synoptic narratives, which so often
read only like brief historical summaries, witli here and there special
1 The hLstory of the Baptist's imprison-
ment will he uciveii in the sequel.
'^ The orii^in. authorship, and occasion
of the Synoi)tic Gospels and of that ])y
St. John, as well as tlielr interrelation, is
discussed in Enfteh. Hist. Eccles. iii. 24,
the discussion beins the more im]iortant
that Eusebius throughout appeals for his
statements to ' the testimony of the an-
cients.'
THE SECOND \'1SIT TO CANA.
423
('l)is()(k's or reports of teaching inserted. For St. John not only lelis us
of that early Ministry, wiiieh the Synoptists designedly i)ass over,
but while, like tlieni, referring to the captivity of John as the occasion
of Christ's witlidrawal from the machinations of the Pharisaic party
in Juda?a, he joins this departure from Juda?a with the return to
Galilee by supplying, as connecting link, the brief stay in Samaria
with its eventful results. St. John, also, alone supplies the first-
recorded event of this Galilean ministry. "^ We therefore follow his
guidance, simply noting that the various stages of this Galilean resi-
dence should be grouped as follows: Cana,^ Nazareth," and Capernaum,
with general itineration from that centre.'^ The period occupied, b}'
what is thus briefly indicated in the Gospels, was from early summer,
say, the beginning of June, to the unnamed 'feast of the Jews.' " If
it is objected, that the events seem too few for a period of about three
months, the obvious answer is, that, during most of this time, Jesus
was in great measure unattended, since the call of the Apostles*
only took place after the * unnamed feast;' that, indeed, they had prob-
ably returned to their homes and ordinary occupations when Jesus
went to Nazareth, ° and that therefore, not having themselves been
eye-witnesses of what had passed, they confined themselves to a
general summary. At the same time, St. Luke expressly marks that
Jesus taught in the various Synagogues of Galilee,'' and also that He
made a longer stay in Capernaum.'
When Jesus returned to Galilee, it was in circumstances entirely
different from those under which He had left it. As He Himself said,"
there had, perhaps naturally, been prejudices connected with the
humbleness of His upbringing, and the familarity engendered by
knowledge' of His home-surroundings. These were overcome, when
the Galileans had witnessed at the feast in Jerusalem, what He had
done. Accordingly, they were now prepared to receive Him with the
reverent attention which His Word claimed. We may conjecture,
that it was partially for reasons such as these that He first bent His
steps to Cana. The miracle, which had there been wrought,"' would
still further prepare the people for His preaching. Besides, this was
the home of Nathanael, who had probably followed Him to Jerusalem,
and in whose house a gladsome homage of welcome would now await
Him. It was here that the second recorded miracle of His Galilean
ministry was wrought, with what effect upon the wdiole district, may
' I cannot believe that the expression I'Sin? ('his own'). Conip. St. Matt. Ix. 1;
' His own country,' refers to .Juda'a. Such also St. John vii. 40-42. Sfj-anss's arc;u-
an explanation is not only unnatural, but nients (T^eben Jesu, i. p. 65!)) seem here
contrary to the usage of the expression conclusive.
CHAP
IX
" St. .Ti)hn
iv. 4:^-54
•' St. John
iv. 45-54
" St. Luke
iv. 10-30
<! St. Matt,
iv. i:i-17;
St. Mark i.
14, 15 : St.
Luke iv. 31,
32
<■ St. John
V. 1
f St. Matt,
iv. 18-22 &c.
c St. Luke
iv. 16
'■ St. Luke
iv. 15
: St. Luke
iv. ol :
comi).
St. Matt. iv.
13-16
>' St. John
iv. 44
"> St. John
ii. 1-11
424
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» St. Luke
iv. 23
b Ber. 34 6 ;
Jer.Ber.9 d.
be judged from the expectancies Mliicli tlie fame of it excited even in
Nazareth, the city of His early ui)l)ringing.''
It appears that the sou of one of Herod Antipas' officers, either
civil or military,^ was sick, and at the point of death. When tidings
reached the father that the Pro})het, or more than Prophet, AVhose
fame had preceded Him to Galilee, Inid come to Cana, he resolved, in
his despair of other means, to apply to Him for the cnre of His child.
Nothing can be gained for the spiritual interest of this or any other
Biblical narrative, by exaggeration; l)ut much is lost, when the
historical demands of the case are overlooked. It is not fhun any
disljolief in the supernatural agency at work, that we insist on the
natural and rational sequence of events. And having done so, wo
can all the more clearly mark, by the side of the natural, the distinc-
tively higher elements at work. Accordingly, we do not assume that
this ' court-officer ' was actuated by spiritual belief in the Son of God,
when applying to Him for help. Rather would we go to almost the
opposite extreme, and regard him as simply actuated by what, in the
circumstances, might be the views of a devout Jew. Instances are
recorded in the Talmud, which may here serve as our guide. Yarious
cases are related in which those seriously ill, and even at the point of
death, were restored by the prayers of celebrated Rabbis. One
instance is specially illustrative.* We read that, when the son of
Rabban Gamaliel was dangerously ill, he sent two of his disciples to
one Chanina ben Dosa to entreat his prayers for the restoration of liis
son. On this, Chanina is said to have gone up to the Aliyah (upper
chamber) to pray. On his return, he assured the messengers that the
young man was restored, grounding his confidence, not on the posses-
sion of any prophetic gift, but on the circumstance that he knew his re-
quest was answered from the freedom he had in prayer. The messengers
noted down the hour, and on their arrival at the house of Gamaliel
found, that at that very hour ' the fever left him, and he asked for
water.' Thus far the Rabbinic story. Even supposing that it was
either invented or coloured in imitation of the New Testament, it
shoAvs, at least, what a devout Jew might deem lawful to expect from
a celebrated Rabbi, who was regarded as having power in prayer.
Having indicated the illustrated part of this story, we may now
mark the contrast between it and the event in the Gospels. There
restoration is not merely asked, ])ut expected, and that, not in answer
' fiaaiXiKo?, used by .Tosepluis in the
freneral senst; of otlicers in the service of
Herod Antipas. Com;). Kn^hs, Obs. in
N. Test, e Fl. .Joseplio, pp. 144, 145,
wlio notes tliat tlie expression occurs (iOO
times in tlie writings of Josephus.
THE rilAYER OF THE COUHT-OFFICTAL. 425
to prayer, but by Christ's Personal jjrcsence. IJ'it the li'reat and riiAl\
vital contrast lies, alike in what was thoug-ht ot" Ilini AVho was instru- IX
mental in the cure — perlbnned it — and in the min-M ellects wliich it "■— -^r — '
wroug'ht. The history just quoted i'roni the Talmud is immedialely
followed by another of similar imi)ort, when a celebrated Kabl»i
accounts on this wise for his inaljility to do that in which Chaiiina
had succeeded, that Chanina was like 'a servant of the Kina,-,' who went
in and out familiarly, and so mit>htbeg- favours; while he (the failin<^'
Rabbi) was ' like a lord before the King,' who would not l)e accorded
mere favours, l)ut discussed matters on a footing of ecjuality. 'Hii.s
profane representation of the relation between God and His servants,
the utterly unspiritual view of prayer Avhich it displays, and the daring
self-exaltation of the Ka1)l)i, surely mark sufficiently an absolute
contrast in spirit between the Jewish view and that which underlies
the Evangelic narrative.
Enough has been said to show, that the application to Jesus on
the part of the ' royal officer ' did not, in the peculiar circumstances,
lie absolutely beyond the range of Jewish ideas. What the 'court-
officer ' exactly expected to be done, is a question secondary to that
of his state of reeeptiveness, as it may be called, which was the nu)ral
condition alike of the outward help, and of the inward blessing Avhich
he received. One thing, however, it is of importance to notice. We
must not suppose, that when, to the request that Jesus would come
down to Capernaum to perform the cure, the Master replied, that
unless they saw ^ signs and wonders they would not believe. He
meant thereby to convey that his Jev.ish hearers, in oi)position to
the Samaritans, required 'signs and Avonders'in order to believe.
For the application of 'the officer' was itself an expression of fait li,
although impei'fect. Besides, the cure, which was the object of the
application, could not have been performed without a miracle. AN'liat
the Saviour reproved was not the nnpiest for a, miracle, which was
necessary, but the urgent plea that lie should come down to Cai)er-
naum for that purpose, which the father afterwards so earnestly
repeated.* That request argued ignorance of the real character of "vrr.io
the Christ, as if He were either merely a Rabbi endowed with sjjccial
power, or else a miracle-monger. What He intended to teach this
man Avas, that He, Who had life in Himself, could restore life at a
distance as easily as by His rresence; by the word of his Power as
readily as by personal application. A lesson this of the deepest im-
' Tlie emphasis must lie on tiie word tions to this (Ev. Job. i. }). G22) are not
'see," yet not exclusively. LRc/l-c's oMjec- well founded.
426
KROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" ver. 50
'' vor. 53
'• St. .Tohn ;
vi. 50, 51
'1 St. Matt,
viii. 5 fzc. ;
SI. Luke
vii. 1 *ic.
portance, as regarded the Person ol' Clirist; a lesson, also, of the
widest ai)j)lieati()n to us and for all cireunistanees, temporal and
si)iritiial. When the ' eourt-officer ' had learned this lesson, he be-
eanie 'obedient nnto the faith,' and 'went his way, ' " presently to
lind his laith both erowned and perfected." And when both ' he and
his liouse'had learned that lesson, they would never afterwards
tliink of the Christ either as tlie Jews did, who siin])ly witnessed His
miracles, or unsi)iritually. It was the completion of that teaching
which had first come to Xathanael, the first believer of Cana." So,
also, is it when we have learned that lesson, that we come to know
alike the meaning and the blessedness of believing in Jesus.
Indeed, so far as its moral import is concerned, the whole history
turns ui)on this i)oint. It also marks the fundamental difi'crence
between this and the somewhat similar history of the healing of the
Centurion's servant in Cai)ernauni.'' Critics have noticed marked
divergences in almost every detail of the two narratives,' which
some — both orthodox and negative interpreters — have so strangely
represented as only ditferent presentations of one and the same
event.'^ But, besides these marketl differences of detail, tliere is also
fundamental difference in the substance of the narratives, and in the
spirit of the two applicants, which made the Saviour in the one
instance reprove as the re(]uirement of sight, which b}' itself could
only produce a transitory faith, that which in the other He marvelled
at as greatness of faith, for which He had in vain looked in Israel.
The great point in the history of the ' court-officer ' is Israel's mis-
taken view of the Person and Work of the Christ. That in the
narrative of the Centurion is the preparedness of a simple faith,
unencnmliered by Jewish realism, although the outcome of Jewish
teaching. The carnal realism of the one, which looks for signs and
"wonders, is contrasted with the simplicity and straightforwardness of
the other. Lastly, the point in tlie histoi-y of the Syro-Phrcnician
woman, which is sometimes confounded with it,^ is the intensitv of
> These will readily occur on com-
parison of the two narratives. Arch-
deacon Wdtkiiis {ad loc.) has ^'rouped
these under ei,2:ht distinct particulars.
Conip. Lilc/rt' (Ev. Joh.) i. ]>. 626.
■•^ So partially and hesitatin.2;ly Orig'en,
C/iri/sosfoiH, and more decidedly f/ieo-
p/n/i(s, Eiitlnjmiiis, Ireno'xs, and Ense-
biiis. All modern negative critics hold
this view; but Gfrorey regards the nar-
rative of St. John, Strauss and Weiss
that of St. Matthew, as the original ac-
count. And yet Kehn ventures to assert :
' Ohne alien Zweifel (!) ist das die selbe
Geschichte.'
^ Alike Sfrmiss and Keim discuss this
at some length from the point of view of
seeming contradiction between the re-
ception of the heatlien Centurion and the
first refusal of the Syro-I'luenlcian
woman. Keim's treatment of tlie whole
subject seems to me inconsistent with it-
self.
THE MIRACULOUS CURE.
427
the same i'aitli ^\ili('ll, despite (liscoiii-aiionieiits, nay, secniiusi im- chap.
probabilities, liolds fast by the conviction which lier spiritual instinct IX
had grasped — that such an One as Jesus must be not (Uily. the ' , —
Messiah of the Jews, but the Savioui' of the world.
We may as well here comi)lete our critical notices, at least as
concerns those views which have of late been propounded. The
extreme school of negative critics seems here involved in hoi)eless
self-contradiction, P'or, if this narrative of a Jewish courtier is really
only antither recension of that of the heathen centurion, iiow ccnncs
it that the 'Jewish' (J()Si)el of St. Matthew makes a Gentile, while
the so-called 'anti-Jewish,' ' Ephesian ' Gospel of St. John makes a
Jeiv, the hero of the story? As signally does the ' mythical " theory
break down. For, admittedly, there is no Kabbinic basis for the
invention of such a story; and by far the ablest representative of the
negative school' has conclusively shown, that it could not have origi-
nated in an imitation of the Old Testament account of Xaaman's
cure by Elisha the prophet.^ But, if Christ had really spoken those
words to the courtier, as this critic seems to admit, there remains
only, as he puts it, this ^trilemma: ' either He could really work the
miracle in question; or, lie spoke as a mere fanatic; or else, .He
was simply a deceiver. It is a relief to find that the two last
hypotheses are discarded. But, as negative criticism^may we not
say, from the same spirit which Jesus reproved in the courtier — is
unwilling to admit that Jesus really wrought this miracle, it is sug-
gested in explanation of the cure, that the sick child, to whom the
father had communicated his intended application to Jesus, had been
in a state of expectancy which, when the courtier returned with the
joyous assurance that the request Avas granted, issued in actual re-
covery.'' To this there is the obvious answer, that the explanation
wants the first requirement — that of an historical basis. There is
not a tittle of evidence that the child expected a cure; while, on the
other hand, the narrative expressly states that he was cured before
his father's return. And, if the narrative may be altered at will to
suit the necessities of a groundless hypothesis, it is difficult to see
which, or whether any, part of it should be retained. It is not so
that the origin of a faith, which has transformed the world, can be
' Keim, .Tesu v. Nazara, H. i. pp. 179- he means tluit tlie faith of tliecliild alone
185. I regret to say, that the laugiiage brougiit abont (lie cnre. in which case
of Keim at p. 181 is among the most there was no need for the fathers journey,
painful in his boolc. Kciin naively asks, what objections there
'^ So .SYrrr ».«.**. Leben Jesu, vol. ii. \)\). can be to this view, unless for the ' word-
121, 122 (1st ed.). ing of St. ,Iohn ' ? But the whole narra-
^ At least I so understand Keim, unless five is derived from that • wording.'
428 Fmm JOIiDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK explained. But we have here another evidence of the fact, that ob-
in jections wliicli, when regarded as part of a connected system, seem
. ^- . so formidable to some, utterly break down, Avlien each narrative is
carefully examined in detail.
There are other circumstances in this history, which require
at least passing consideration. Of these the principal are the time
when the servants of the court-officer met him, on his return journey,
with the joyful tidings that his son lived; and, connected with it, the
"ver. 52 time when 'he began to do nicely;'"-^ and, lastly, that when the
' court-oflicial ' applied to Jesus. The two latter events were evi-
bver. 53 dently contemporaneous." The exact time indicated by the servants
as the commencement of the improvement is, ' Yesterday, at the
seventh hour.' Now, however the Jewish servants may originally
have expressed themselves, it seems impossible to assume, that
St. John intended any other than the Roman notation of the civil
daj, or that he meant any other hour than 7 p.m. The opposite view,
that it marks Jewish notation of time, or 1 p.m., is beset by almost
unsurmountable difficulties.^ For it must be borne in mind, that, as
the distance between Capernaum and Cana is about twenty-five ndles,
it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the
courtier, leaving his home that morning, not only to have reached
Cana, but to. have had the interview with Jesus by 1 p.m. The diffi-
culty is only increased, when we are asked to believe, that after such
a journey the courtier had immediately set out on his return. But
this is absolutely necessary for the theory, since a Jew would not have
set out on such a journey after dusk. But farther, on the above sup-
position, the servants of the court official must have taken the road
immediately, or very soon after, the improvement commenced. This
is itself unlikely, and, indeed, counter-indicated by the terms of the
conversation between the courtier and the servants, which imply that
they had waited till they were sure that it was recovery, and not merely
<^ver. 52 ^ temporary improvement." Again, on the theory combated, the
servants, meeting the 'courtier,' as we must suppose, midway, if not
near to Capernaum, would have said, ' Yesterday at the seventh hour
the fever left him,' meaning thereby, that, as they spoke in the
evening, when another Jewish day had begun, the fever had left him
on the afternoon of the same day, although, according to Jewish
' So literally; the A.V. has: 'began such mifjht not have been the usual prac-
U) amend.' tiee. However this be, we contend that
2 The Jcnvish servants may have ex- St. John's notation of time was accord-
pressed the time accoi'din.^- to Jewish no- m<^ to tlie Roman civil day, or rather ac-
tation, thoug-h in such a house in Galilee cordini; to tliat of Asia Minor.
HIGHER TEACIIIXC OF TIIK MIRACLE. 42!)
rGck()iiiD>i', 'ycstci'day," since I p.m. would !)(■ i-cckoiicd as the previous CHAP,
day. Jiut it may I"' safely allinii ,d, that no -lew woidd have so IX
expressed hiuisell'. if, on the evening of a day, they had referred to ^-^^r^—
what had taken plaee live or six liours previously, at 1 p.m., they
would have said: 'At the seventh hour the fever left him;" and not
' Yesterday at the seventh hour.'
It is needless to follow the matter further. We ean undei'stand
how, leaving Capernaum in the morning, the interview with Jesus
and the simultaneous eure of the child would have taken i)lace about
seven o'clock of the evening. Its I'esult was, not only the restora-
tion of the child, but that, no longer requiring to see signs and
wonders, 'the man believed the Avord which Jesus had si)oken unto
him.' In this joyous assurance, which needed no more ocular
demonstration, he ' went his way, ' either to the hospitable home of
a friend, or to some near lodging-place on the way, to be next day
met by the gladsome tidings, that it had been to him according
to his faith. As already noted, the whole morale of the history lies
in this very matter, and it marks the spiritual receptiveness of the
courtier, which, in turn, was the moral condition of his desire being
granteil. Again, we learn how, by the very granting of his desire,
the spiritual object of Christ in the teaching of the courtier was
accomplished, how, under certain spiritual conditions in him and
ui)on him, the temporal benefit accomplished its spiritual object.
And in this also, as in other points which will occur to the devout
reader, there are lessons of deepest teaching to us, and for all times
and circumstances.
Whether this 'royal officer ' was CJiuza, Herod's steward, whose
wife, under the abiding impression of this miracle to her child, after-
wards humblv, gratefully ministered to Jesus, "■ must remain undeter- "St. Luke
..." . vlii. '.i
mined on this side time. 8ufhce it, to mark the progress in the
' royal officer ' from belief in the power of Jesus to faith in His
word,'' and thence to absolute faith in Him," with its blessed exjian- ■■ver, 50
sive effect on that whole household. And so are we ever led faitiifully ' ^'"■- ^^
and effectually, yet gently, by His benefits, upwards from the lower
stage of belief by what we see Him do, to that higher faith which is
absolute and unseeing trust, springing from experimental knowledge
of what He is.
430
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION,
CHAPTER X.
BOOK
III
THE SYNAGOGUE AT NAZARETH — SYNAGOGUE-WORSHIP AND ARRANGE-
MENTS.
(St. Luke iv. 16.)
The stay in Cana, thou!i:h we have no means of determining its
length, was probably of only short duration. Perhaps the Sabbath
^'^''■r^'^ of the same week already found Jesus in the Synagogue of Nazareth.
We will not seek irreverently to lift the veil of sacred silence, which
here, as elsewhere, the Gospel-narratives have laid over the Sanctuary
of His inner Life. That silence is itself theopneustic, of Divine
breathing and inspiration; it is more eloquent than any eloquence,
a guarantee of the truthfulness of what is said. And against this
silence, as the dark background, stands out as the Figure of Light
. the Person of the Christ. Yet, as we follow Jesus to the city of Hi.s
Childhood and home of His humility, we can scarcelj^ repress thoughts
of what must have stirred His soul, as He once more entered the
well-known valley, and beheld the scenes to each of which some early
memory must have attached.
Only a few months since He had left Nazareth, but how much
that was all-decisive to Him, to Israel, and to the world had passed !
■ As the lengthening shadows of Friday's sun closed around the quiet
valley, He would hear the well-remembered double blast of the
trumpet from the roof of the Synagogue-minister's house, proclaim-
»shabb.3.5ft ing the advent of the holy day." Once more it sounded through the
ijer.shabb .s;till summer-air, to tell all, that work must be laid aside." Yet a
xvU. p. 16 a . . . '
third time it was heard, ere the 'minister' put it aside close by
where he stood, not to profane the Sabbath by carrying it; for now
the Sabbath had really commenced, and tlio festivo Sal)batli-lanip
was lit.
Sabbath morn dawned, and early He repaired to that Synagogue
where, as a Child, a Youth, a ^lan, He had so often worshipped in
the humble retirement of His rank, sitting, not up there among the
elders and the honoured, but far back. The old Avell-known faces
were around Him. the old \vell-remenil)er('(i words and services fell
IN.STJTI'TION OF THE SYNAGOGUE. 431
on His ear. How diU'crcnt they had always hocii to Him than to CHAP,
them, with whom He had thus mingled in common worshii)! And X
now He was ao;ain among- them, truly a stranger among His own ^— — r-^-^
eountrymcn; this time, to be looked at. listened to, tested, tried,
used or cast aside, as the case might be. It was the first time,^ so
far as wc know, that He taught in a Sjmagogue, and this Synagogue
that of His own Nazareth.
It was, surely, a wondrously linked chain of circumstances, which
bound the Synagogue to the Church. Such a result could never have
been foreseen, a^s that, what really was the consequence of Israel's
dispersion, and, therefore, indirectly the punishment of their sin,
should become the means of fulfilling Israel's world-mission. Another
instance this, of how Divine judgment always bears in its bosom
larger mercy; another illustration how the dying of Israel is ever
life to the world; another manifestation of that supernatural Rule
of God, in which all is rule, that is, law and order, and all the super-
natural, bringing to pass, in the orderly succession of events, what at
the outset would have seemed, and really is, miraculous. For the
Synagogue became the cradle of the Church. Without it, as indeed
without Israel's dispersion, the Church Universal woidd, humanely
speaking, have been impossible, and the conversation of the Gentiles
have required a succession of millennial miracles.
That Synagogues originated during, or in consequence of the
Babylonish captivity, is admitted by all. The Old Testament con-
tains no allusion to their existence,- and the Ral)binic attempts to
trace them even to Patriarchal times'^ deserve, of course, no serious
1 The remark iu the ' Speaker's Com- ?N'""'~r.'i^i~?w'1. nzr. • Let us suppress
mentary' (St. Luke iv. Ki), that Jesus ,. ,', ', ^ 1 1 ^i 111*1 e
I, ,1 1,, „ ;,; fi, . i,oi.it ^f „.-.,^„„,ii.i„. fi,„ altogether — the Sabbath ami all the fes-
nad been ui the habit ot expouiuluiii the ,. " • <.i 1 i j /-■ t^? ^
Scriptures in Nazareth, is not only ^H'. ^«^^^"^, '" ^^'t, f; Comp i'/.r^
groimdless, but inconsistent with the f}"^^^'' ^''^- "• ^^^^^l" '^- ^'■•'^^- ^'^'-
narrative. See ver. 22. Still more -i ml ■ -, t ,■ t ■ • 1
strange is the supposition, that -Jesus , ^he introduction ot morning, mid-
offered to' read and to expound, and sig- f.">-, ^'"^ .altenioon prayers is respec-
nih^d this intention by standing up. t'vely ascribed to Abrahan. saac. am
This might be done by any memTjer of i^'""^'- The Targum of Onkelos and
the congTegation.' Mo.st assuredly such fl^e Targum Ps.-Jon. on Gen. xxv. 2/
.,^, 1.1 .?^t K. +i,„ „ ■ imply their existence in the time of
would not be the case. t S t r> r^ 00 1 ■, -ir
., m -^ <^ ^• * • 1 4- • ■ f f Jacob. In B. Kama iS2 <(. and Jer. Me-
■* This seems at hrst sight inconsistent .,, _. .. . . i * ^i
.*, r> 1 • o T> * *i .1- 1 1 iiib- 75 a, its services are traced to the
with Ps. Ixxiv. 8. But the term rendered T. ,,,' . ,. ♦ o 1 n.>,
,0 ^ > • n t ir 1 1 tune of Moses. According to Sauh. 9-i b,
'Synagogues' in the A. V. has never been r. „ • * 1 • .1 +• f tt
used in that sense. The solution of the '^-Vif go^ues existed in the ime of Ileze-
ditticultv here comes to us through the !^'^,^ J '^"^ "^"1'''^ I? ^"""'' ^''^ '''^'■
LXX. Their rendering, Kara7ravac^/iuv -ject further. ^\ e take the present oppor-
(let us make to cease) shows that in their tunity of a.hling, that, as the Kabbimc
Hebrew MSS. thev read in2r. If so, Quotations m this chap er would be so
then the 1 probably belonged to the numerous, only thos<> will be given which
next word, 4nd the text would read: i-'^f^^i". to.Points hitherto unnoticed, or of
special importance.
432
K1{()M JUliDAN TO TIIH MOl'XT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Baba K.
82 a
consideration. We can readily nnderstand how (hiring the k)ng years
of exile in Babylon, places and opportunities I'or common worship on
Sabbaths and feast-days must have been felt almost a necessity.
This would furnish, at least, the basis for the institution of the
Synagogue. After the return to Palestine, and still more by ' the
dispersed abroad, ' such 'meeting-houses' {Battey Khenesiyoth, do-
mus congregationum, Synagogues) would become absolutely requisite.
Here those wlu) were ignorant even of the language of the Old
Testament would have the Scriptures read and ' targumed ' to
them.' It was but natural that prayers, and, lastly, addresses,
should in course of time be added. Thus the regular Synagogue-
service would gradually arise; first on Sabbaths and on feast- or
fast-days, then on ordinary days, at the same hours as, and with a
sort of internal correspondence to, the Avorship of the Temple. The
services on Mondays and Thursdays w^ere special, these being the
ordinary market-days, when the country-people came into the towns,
and would avail themselves of the opportunity for bringing any case
that might require legal decision before the local Sanhedrin, which
met in the Synagogue, and consisted of its authorities. Naturally,
these two days would be utilised to atford the country-people, who
lived far from the Synagogues, opportunities for w^orship; ^ and the
services on those days were of a somewhat more elaborate character.
Accordingly, Monday and Thursday were called ' the days of congre-
gation ' or ' Synagogue ' {Yo7n lia-Kenisali).
In another place Mt has been shown, how rapidly and generally
the institution of Synagogues spread among the Jews of the Disper-
sion in all lands, and what important purposes they served. In
Palestine they were scattered over the whole country, though it is
only reasonable to suppose, that their number greatly increased after
the destruction of the Temple, and this without crediting the Jewish
legend as to their extraordinary number in certain cities, such as
480, or 460, in Jerusalem.' In the capital, and probably in some
other large cities, there were not only several Synagogues, but these
arranged according to nationalities, and even crafts.* At the same time
it deserves notice, that even in so important a place as Capernaum
1 The expressions ' Targum ' and • tar-
guming ' have been previously explained.
The tir.st indication of such paraphras-
ing in the vernacular is found in Neh.
viii. 7, 8.
■■2 See Book I. pp. 19, 77.
^ These numljers, however, seem to
have been symbolical. The number 480
is, by Gimatveyn, deduced from the word
'She that was full of (meleathi) in Is. i.
21. Comp. Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 40 d, towards
the end, or else 480 = 4 x 10 x 12.
* Comp. Megill. 26.
sYNA(j()()iri':s IN i'aij:stink. 433
there seems either not to have been a Syiiagogiic, or that it wa.s cilAl*.
utterly insignificant, till the want was supplied by the pious Gentile X
centurion." This Avould seem to dispose of the question whether, as ' -<
is generally assumed, a Jewish community in a place, if numbering ^j^'-g^"'"'
ten heads of families, was obliged to build a Synagogue, and could
enforce local taxation for the puri)Ose. Such was undoubtedly the
later Rabbinic ordinance,'' but there is no evidence that it obtained in •■ Maimo-
nides, Hilc.
Palestine, or in early times. Tephui, xi.
Generally, of ciMirse, a conununity would build its own Synagogue,
or else depend on the charitable assistance of neighbours, or on pri-
vate munificence. If this failed, they miglit meet for worship in a
private dwelling, a sort of 'Synagogue in the house.'" For, inearlv 'Comp.
' ^' , -1,1 PhUem. 2
times the institution would l)e much more sim})le than at a later
period. In this, as in other respects, we must remember that later
Jewish arrangements aftbrd no evidence of those which prevailed while
the Temple stood, nor yet the ordinances of the chiefs of l^abylonian
Academies of the customs existing in Palestine, and, lastly, that the
Rabbinic directions mark rather an ideal than the actual state of
things. Thus — to mention an instance of some importance, because
the error has been so often repeated as to be generally believed, and
to have misled recent exi)lorers in Palestine — there is no evidence
that in Palestine Synagogues always required to be built in the highest
situation in a town, or, at least, so as to overtop tlie other houses. To
judge from a doubtful' passage in the Talmud,' this seems to have ''siiabb. u
been the case in Persia, while a later notice"' appeals in support of it eTos.
to Prov. viii. 2. Rut even where the Jews were most powerful and ivfls^ '
influential, the rule could not have been universally enforced, although
later Rabbis lay it down as a iirinciple.'' Hence, the inference, that ^ Maimn-
■^ 11) J »,V/<.x. Hllc.
the Galilean Synagogues lately excavated cannot date from an early Tephiii. xi.
period, because they are not in prominent positions, is erroneous.-
But there were two rules observed, which seem to bave been en-
forced from early times. One of these enjoined, that a Synagogue
should not be erected in a place, unless it contained ten Baflnnim,'
or men of leisure, who could devote their time to the Synagogue
• Seo the notes in MaimonUics. Ililc. Alexander Severus, is nil the iikhc un-
Tephill. xi. 2; p. 75 h. lironnded, that at that time, it ever, the
'" Comp. Liput. Kitchener'' ft article on .tewisli authorities would strictly adhere
the Syna<i-o,2;ues of Galilee (P.E.F. Re- to Talniudie directions as to the struc-
l)ort, July 1878, pp. 12(5 &c.). The infm'- tare of Synac-osucs.
ence, that they date from tlie be.t!;iiuiin,i;; •' From 'battel,' wliicli here seems to
of the third century, when the .lews have the same rneaninc: as the Latin
were in hi2:h favour with the Emperor vacare rei, to have leisure for a rhini:;.
434
FIJOM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
"Comp.Jer.
Ber. iv. 5;
BabaB. 25 a
'• Tos.
Megill.iii. 3
<: Baba B.
25 a and b ;
Jer. Ber. iv.
5
a Tos.
Meg. ill. 3
worsliip and adiniiiistration.' This was proved by the consideration,
that common worship implied a congregation, which, according to
Jewish Law, mnst consist ol' at least ten nieu.^ Another, and perhaps
more important rule was as to the direction in which Synagogues were
to be built, and which worshippers should occupy during prayer.
Here two points must be kept in view: 1st. Prayer towards the
east was condemned, on the ground of the false worship towards the
east mentioned in Ezok. viii. 16.'' 2ndly. The prevailing direction
in Palestine was towards the west, as in the Temple. Thus, we read "
that the entrance into the Synagogue was by the east, as the entrance
through the Beautiful Gate into the Sanctuary. This, however, may
refer, not to the door, but to the passage (aisle) into the interior of
the building. In other places," the advice is simply given to turn
towards Jerusalem, in whatever direction it be. In general, however,
it was considered that since the Shekhinah was everywhere in Pales-
tine, direction was not of paramount importance.
If wo cond)ine these notices, and keep in view the general desire
to conform to the Temple arrangements, the ruined Synagogues lately
excavated in the north of Galilee seem, in a remarkable manner, to
meet the Talmudic requirements. With the exception of one (at
'Irbid, which has its door to the east), they all have their entrances on
the south. We conjecture that the worshippers, imitating in this the
practice in the Temple, made a circuit, either completely to the north,
or else entered at the middle of the eastern aisle, where, in the
ground-plan of the Synagogue at Capernaum, which seems the most
fully preserved ruin, two pillars in the colonnade arc wanting.' The
so-called 'Ark' would be at the south end; the seats for the elders
and honourable in front of it, facing the people, and with their back
to the Ark.* Here two pillars are wanting in the Synagogue at
Capernaum. The lectern of the reader would be in the centre, close
to where the entrance was into the double colonnade which formed
the Synagogue, where, at present, a single pillar is marked in the
plan of the Capernaum Synagogue; while the women's gallery was
at the north end, where two columns and pillars of peculiar shape,
' This Ls expressly stated in .Ter.
Megill. i. 6, p. 70 b, towards the end.
2 Comp. Mesjill. iv. 3 ; Sanh. i. 6. That
ten constituted a oon2:re,2;ation was de-
rived from Numb. .\iv. 27. Similarly, it
was thought to be imjilied in the fact,
that if ten ri,iz;hteous men had been in
Sodom, the city would not have been
destroyed. But in case of necessity the
number ten mi^ht be made up by a male
child under a^e (Ber. R. 91, pp. IfiO a
and h).
'■'■ On the next pajre we give a i)lan of
the Synagogue excavated at Tell Hum
(Capernaum). It is adapted from Capt.
Wi7so>i\'i i)lan in the P.E.F. Quarterly
Statement. No. 2.
PLAN AND STRUCTURE OF THE .SYNA(i(K;UK. 435
whicli niaj have siii)i)()rto(l the gallery, are traceable. For it is a CHAP,
mistake to suppose that the men and women sat in opposite aisles, X
separated by a low wall. PliiJo notices, indeed, this arraiiiicinent in ^- — r —
connection with the Tlierapeuta3; '' but there is no indication that the »DeVit.
Con tempi. :J
practice prevailed m the Synagogues, or in Palestine. and 9, ed.
We can now, with the help given by recent excavations, form a pp. 476, 4s<'2
conception of these ancient Synagogues. The Synagogue is built of
the stone of the couutrv. On the lintels over the doors there are
II
PLAN OF SYNAfiilGUE AT 'TELL HrM."
various ornamentations— a seven-branched candlestick, an open flower
between two Paschal lambs, or vine-leaves with bunches of grapes,
or, as at Capernaum, a pot of manna between representations of
Aaron's rod. Only glancing at the internal decorations of mould-
ings or cornice, we notice that the inside plan- is generally that of
two double colonnades, which seem to have formed the body of the
Synagogue, the aisles east and west being probably used as passages.
The intercolumnar distance is very small, never greater than9| feet.^
1 Comp. Palestine Exploration Fund Report, Quarterly Statement, ii, p. 42 &c.
436
FliOM .lOKDAN TO TllK MUL'XT OF TIfANSFIGL'KATIUN.
BOOK
ni
*■ Megill.
26 b ; Taan.
■^ Exod.
xxvii. 20
■i St. Matt,
xxiii. 6;
To.s.
Megill. ed.
Z. iv. 21
' MegUl. 32
f MeglU. 26
b
The * two coriu'i- eulumn.s at the northern end invariably have their
two exterior faces square like piUars, and the two interior ones formed
by half-engaged pillars.' Here we suppose the women's gallery to
have risen. The flooring is formed of slabs of white limestone; ^ the
walls are solid (from 2 even to 7 feet in thickness), and well built of
stones, rough in the exterior, but plastered in the interior. The
Synagogue is furnished with sufficient windows to admit light. The
roof is flat, the columns being sometimes connected by Ijlock's of
stone, on Avhich massive rafters rest.
Entering by the door at the southern end, and making tiie circuit
to the north, we take our position in front of the women's gallery.
These colonnades form the body of the Synagogue.^ At the south
end, facing north, is a movable ' Ark, ' containing the sacred rolls of the
Law and the Prophets. It is called the Holy Chest or Ark, Avon
haqqodesh (to call it simply ' aron ' Avas sinful), '^ but chiefly the Tebltah,
Ark.^ It Avas made movable, so that it might be carried out, as on
public fasts.'' Steps generally led up to it (the Darga or Saphsel).
In front hangs (this probably from an early period) the Vilon or
curtain. But the Holy Lamp is never wanting, in imitation of the
undying light in the Temple." Right l)efore the Ark, and facing the
people, are the seats of honour, for the rulers of the Synagogue and
the honourable. '^ The place for him Avho leads the devotion of the
people is also in front of the Ark, either elevated, or else, to mark
humility, lowered.* In the middle of the Synagogue (so generally)
is the Bima,^ or elevation, on which there is the Luach, or desk,'' from
which the Law is read. This is also called the Kiirseyo, chair, or
throne,' or Kisse, and PergulaJi. Those Avho are to read the Law will
stand, while he who is to preach or deliver an address will sit. Beside
them will be the Methurgeman, either to interpret, or to repeat-aloud;,
what is said.
As yet the Synagogue is empty, and we may therefore call
to mind what we ought to think, and hoAV to bear ourselves. To
neglect attendance on its services would not only involve personal
' Comp. Wai'ren's ' Recovery of Jeru-
salem,' p. 3J:3 &c.
- There is a curious iiassace in Ber.
8 a, which states that although there
were thirteen Synagogues in Tiberias, it
was the jjractice of the Raljbis only to
pray ' between the columns where they
studied.' This seems to imply that the
Academy consisted also of colonnades.
For it would be difficult to believe
that all the supposed Synagogues exca-
vated in Galilee were Academies.
■■' It was also called Argas and Qomtar
(Megill. 2G li), but more generally Chest.
* Hence the expression 'yored liphney
hattebhah,' and 'obhed liphney hatte-
bhah.'
^ Seems also to have been called
' Kathedrah,' just as by our Lord (St.
Matt, xxiii. 2). Comp. Buxtorfs Lexi-
con, p. 2164.
SANCTITY OF THE SVNACJOUrE. 437
;;i;uilt, t)ut briiiiz,' j)iiui!5liiiiuiit upon the whole district. IikUhmI, to he CHAP,
ett'ectual, prayer must be ottered in the Synagogue.' At tlie same X
time, the more strict ordinances in regard to th(! Temple, such as, ^— ^' —
that we must not enter it carrying a stali', nor with shoes, nor even Bor.'eaami
dust on the teet, nor with scrip or purse, do not ap])ly to the ''^^
Synagogue, as of comparatively inferior sanctity.'' However, the '>Ber. ca-/
Synagogue must not be made a thoroughfare. We must not behave
lightly in it." We mav not ioke, laugh, eat, talk, dress, nor resort "7^'^% .
there for shelter from sun or rain. Only Rabbis and their disciples, ^- '"• ■"
to whom so many things are lawful, and who, indeed, must look upon
the Synagogue as if it were their own dwelling, may eat, driid<, pci-
haps even sleep there. Under certain circumstances, also, the poor
and strangers may be fed there.'* But, in general, the Synagogue <ipes. loid
must be regarded as consecrated to God. Even if a new one be
built, care must be taken not to leave the old edifice till the other is
linished. Money collected for the building may, in cases of neces-
sity, be used for other purposes, but things dedicated for it are in-
alienable by sale. A Synagogue may be converted into an Academy,
because the latter is regarded as more sacred, but not vice versa.
Village Synagogues may be disposed of, under the direction of the
local Sanhedrin, provided the locale be not afterwar<ls used for incon-
gruous })urposes, such as public baths, a wash-house, a tannery, &c.
But town Synagogues are inalienable, because strangers may have
contributed to them; and, even if otherwise, they have aright to look
for some place of worshij). At the same time, we must bear in mind
that this rule had its exceptions; notably that, at one time, the guild
of coppersmiths in Jerusalem sold their Synagogue.' ■ Megui.-inn
All this, irrespective of any llabbinic legends, shows with what
reverence these 'houses of congregation' were regarded. And now
the weekly Sabbath, the pledge between Israel and God, had once
more come. To meet it as a bride or queen, each house was adorned
on the Friday evening. The Sabbath lamp was lighted; the festive
garments put on; the table provided with the best which the family
could afl'ord; and the Qiddush, or benediction, sj^okenover the cup of
wine, which, as always, was mixed with water.' And as Sabbath
morning broke, they hastened with quicksteps to the Synagogue: for
such was the Rabbinic rule in going, while it was ])rescribed to retui-n
Math slow and lingering stei)s. Jewisli punctiliousness delhicd every
1 This, not for symbolical reasons, but rules liow the cup is to be liehl, or even
probably-oii account of the strength of the litura;ical formula of tlie Qlddusii.
the wine. It is needless here to give the Couip. .hn: Ber. p. 3 r, cZ; vii. li. p. II r, d.
438
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
ROOK
III
» St. LuKe
iv. 20
1' Comp.
Schiirer,
Gemeind.
Verfass. in
Kom.pp. 27
' Schiirer,
U.S., pp. 18-
20
<'Sanh.92a;
C'hag. .5 h
>■ Gitt. 60 a
movement and attitude in i)ra}er. If those rules were ever observed in
their entirety, devotion must have been crushed under their weight.
But we have evidence that, in the time of our Lord, and even later,
there was much personal freedom left; ^ for, not only was much in the
services determined by the usage of each place, but the leader of the
devotions might preface the regular service by free prayer, or insert
such between certain parts of the liturgy.
We are now in the Nazareth Synagogue. The officials are all
assembled. The lowest of these is the C'hazzan, or minister," who
often acts also as schoolmaster. For this reason, and because the
conduct of the services may frequently devolve upon him, great care
is taken in his selection. He must be not only irreproachable, but,
if possible, his family also. Humility, modesty, knowledge of the
Scriptures, distinctness and correctness in pronunciation, simplicity
and neatness in dress, and an absence of self-assertion^ are qualities
sought for, and which, in some measure, remind us of the higher
qualifications insisted on by St. Paul in the choice of ecclesiastical
officers. Then there are the elders (Zeqenim), or rulers {apxovTes)^
whose chief is the Archisynagogos, or Hosh ha-Keneseth. These are
the rulers {Parnasim) or shepherds {Troi/Aevsg). There can be no
(Question (from the inscriptions on the Jewish tombstones in Romej,''
that the Archisynagogos^ was cJiief among the rulers, and that,
whether or not there was, as in the community at Rome, and probably
also among the dispersed in the West, besides him, a sort of political
chief of the elders, or Gerousiarch." All the rulers of the Synagogue
were duly examined as to their knowledge, and ordained to the
office. They formed the local Sanhedrin or tribunal. But their
election depended on the choice of the congregation; and absence of
pride, as also gentleness and humility, are mentioned as special
qualifications.'* Sometimes the office was held by regular teachers.'
If, as in Rome, there was an apparently unordained eldership
(Gerousia), it had probably only the charge of outward affairs, and
acted rather as a committee of management. Indeed, in foreign
Synagogues, the rulers seem to have been chosen, sometimes for a
specified period, at others for life. But, although it maybe admitted
^ A3 to all this, and the pjeat liberty
in prayer, comp. Zuuz, Gottesd. Vortr. d.
Jud. pp. 368, 369, and notes a, b, and d;
and Ritiis des Synag- Gottesd. pp. 2 and 3.
'■* In St. Mark v. 22, several Archi-
synagogoi seem to be spoken of. But the
expression may only mean, as Weiss sug-
gests, one of the order of the Archi-
synarjoijoL The i)assa2:e in Acts xiii. 15
is more difficult. Possibly it may depend
upon local circumstances — the term
Archisynagofjoi including others beside
the Archisynagogoi in the strictest
sense, such as the OerousiarcJis of the
Roman inscriptions.
SYNAGOGUE-PRAYERS.
439
that the Archisynagogos, or chief ruler of the Synagogue, was only the
first among his equals, there can be no doubt that the viitual rule of
the Synagogue devolved upon him. He would have the superintend-
ence of Divine service, and, as this was not conducted by regular
officials, he would in each case determine who were to be called up to
read from the Law and the Prophets, who was to conduct the prayers,
and act as tShdiuch Tsibbur, or messenger of the congregation, and
who, if any, was to deliver an address. He would also see to it that
nothing improper took place in the Synagogue,'' and that the i)rayers
were proi)('rly conducted. In short, the sujjreme care, both of the
services and of the building, would devolve upon him. To these regular
officials we have to add those who officiated during the service, the
Sheliach Tsihhnr, or delegate of the congregation — who, as its mouth-
piece, conducted the devotions — the Interpreter or Methurgeman, and
those who were called on to read in fhe Law and the I^rophets, or else
to preach.
We are now in some measure prepared to follow the worship on
that Sabbath in Nazareth. On His entrance into the Synagogue, or
perhaps before that, the chief ruler would request Jesus to act for
that Sabbath as the Sheliach Tsibbur. For according to the Mishnah,'"
the person who read in the Synagogue the portion from the Prophets,
was also expected to conduct the devotions, at least in greater part.*
If this rule was enforced at that time, then Jesus would ascend the
Bima, and standing at the lectern, begin the service by two prayers,
which in their most ancient form, as they probably oV)tained in the
time of our Lord, were as follows:- —
I. ' Blessed be Thou, O Lord, King of the world, Who formest
the light and createst the darkness, Who nmkest peace, and createst
everything; Who, in mercy, givest light to the earth, and to those
who dwell upon it, and in Thy goodness, day by day, and everyday,
renewest the works of ci'cation. Blessed be the Lord our (iod for the
glory of His handiworks, and for the light-giving lights which He has
made for His praise. Selali. Blessed be the Lord our God, Who has
formed the lights.'
II. ^ With great love hast Thou loved us, 0 Lord our God, and
with much overflowing })ity hast Thou i)itie(l us, our Father and our
King. For the sake of our fathers who trusted in Thee, and ''I'hou
taughtest them the statutes of life, have mercy upon us, and teach
us. Enlighten our eyes in Thy Law; cause our hearts to cleave to
Thy commandments; unite our hearts to love and fear Thy Name,
' Part of the Shema, and the wliole of tlie Eulogies.
CHAP
X
« St. Luke
xiii. 14
^ Megill.
V. 5
440
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
»Deut. vi
4-9; xi. Vi-
'21; Numb.
XV. 37-41
I' Ber. ii. 2
and wc shall not be put to shauic, world without end. For Thou art
a God Who preparest salvation, and us hast Thou chosen from among
all nations and tongues, and hast in ti'uth brought us near to Thy
great Name — Selah — that we may lovingly i)raise Thee and Thy
Unity. Blessed be the Lcn-d, AVho in love chose His people Israel.'
After this followed what may be designated as the Jewish Creed,
called the <S7<e//ia, from tiie word ' shetna,' or 'liear,' with Avhich it
begins. It consisted of three passages frc^m the Pentateuch," so
arranged, as the Mishnah notes,'' that the worshipper took upon him-
self first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and only after it the
yoke of the commandments; and in the latter, again, first those that
applied to night and day, and then those that applied to the day only.
They were probably but later determinations, conceived in a spirit of
hostility to what was regarded as the heresy of Christianity, which
insisted that, as the first sentence in the Shema, asserting the Unity
of God, was the most important, special emphasis should be laid on
certain words in it. The recitation of the Sheinawds followed by this
prayer: —
' True it is that Thou art Jehovah, our God, and the God of our
fathers, our King, and the King of our fathers, our Saviour, and the
Saviour of our fathers, our Creator, the Rock of our Salvation, our
Help and our Deliverer. Thy Name is from everlasting, and there
is no God beside Thee. A uew^ song did they that were delivered
sing to Thy Name by the sea-shore; together did all praise and own
Thee King, and say, Jehovah shall reign, world without end ! Blessed
be the God Who saveth Israel.'
This prayer finished, he who officiated took his place before the
Ark, and there repeated what formed the prayer in the strictest sense,
or certain ' Eulogies ' or Benedictions. These arc eighteen, or rather
nineteen, in number, and date from ditterent periods. But as on
Sabbaths only the three first and the three last of them, which are also
those undoubtedly of greatest age, were repeated, and between them
certain other prayers inserted, only these six, with which the series
respectively began and ended, need here find a place. The first Bene-
diction was said with bent body. It was as follows: —
I, ' Blessed be the Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the
Great, the Mighty, and the Terrible God, the Most High God, Who
showeth mercy and kindness. Who createth all things. Who re-
membereth the graci(jus promises to the fathers, and bringeth a
Saviour to their ehildi-eii's children, for His own Name's sake, in
SYNA(;()(jrE-lM{AVERS.
441
lovo. 0 Kiiiii', IIclpoi', Saviour, and Shield ! Blessed art. Thou,
0 Jehovah, the Shield of Ahi-ahani.'
II. ' Thou 0 Lord, art mighty for ever; Thou. AA'lio quickenest
the dead, art mighty to save. In Thy mercy Thou preservest the
living. Thou (piickenest the dead; in Thine al)undant pity Tluni
bearest uj) those who fall, and healest those who are diseased, and
loosest those who are bound, and fulfillest Thy faithful word to those
who sleep in the dust. Who is like unto Thee, Lord of strength, and
who can be compared to Thee, Who killest and makest alive, and
causcst salvation to spring forth? And faithful art Thou to give
life to the i\i'i\(\. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah, Who (juickenest the
dead!'
III. ' Thou art Holy, and Thy name is Holy. Selah. Blessed
art Thou Jehovah God, the Holy One. '
After this, such prayers were inserted as were suited to the day.
And here it may be noticed that considerable latitude was allowed.
For, although'' it was not lawful to insert any petition in the three
first or the three last PJulogies, but only in the intermediate Benedic-
tions, in practice this was certainly not observed. Thus, although,
by the rubric, ])rayer for rain and dew was to be inserted u\) to the
season of the Passover in the ninth Benediction, yet occasionally
reference to this seems also to have been made in the second Benedic-
tion, as connected with the quickening of that which is dead." Nay,
some Rabbis went so far as to recommend a brief summary of the
eighteen Eulogies, while yet another (R. Eliczer) repudiated all
fixed forms of prayer.^ But gradually, and especially after thv, inser-
tion of the well-known prayer against the heretics or rather Christian
converts (Eulogy XI.'-), the present order of the eighteen Eulogies
(Amidah) seems to have been established. Both the Jerusalem" ami
the Babylon Talmud '' contain nnieh on this subject which is of very
great interest.^
Following the order of the service, we now come to the conclud-
ing Eulogies, which were as follows : —
XV^II. (XYI.) ' Take gracious pleasure, O Jehovah our (iod, in
CHAP.
X
» According
to Ber. 34 a
".Ter. Ber.
iv. 3 to end
■i Ber. 33 a
&c.
' There is even doubt, whether the e.\-
act words of at least some of the Bene-
dictions were ti.\ed at an early period.
See Ziinz, u. s.
'-' Originally the enlo2;ies were eiiiiiteen
in nuniiier. The addition of tiuit against
the heretics would iiave made them nine-
teen. Accordingly, Eulogy xv., whicli
prayed for the coming of the Branch of
David, was joined to the previous one in
order to preserve the number eighteen.
Comp. Jer. Ber. iv. 8. It is sadly char-
acteristic tluit, together witii a curse
ui)on Christian converts, the Messianic
hope of Israel should tinis Iiave been
pushed into the background.
'■' For the sake of brevity, I can only
liere refer the reader to the passages.
412
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
ij()()K 'riiv i)('()i)le Israel and in their i)ravors, and in love accept the burnt-
Ill ofl'erings ol" Israel, and their prayers with Thy good pleasure, and
— <^''~^ may the services of Thy people be ever acceptable unto Thee. And
O that our eyes may see it, as Thou turnest in mercy to Zion. Blessed
be Thou, 0 Jehovah, Who restoretli His Shekhinah to Zion.'
XVIII. (XYII.) In saying this Eulogy, which was simply one of
thanks, it was ordered that all should bend down. It was as follows :
— ' We give praise to Thee, because Thou art He, Jehovah, our God,
and the God of our fathers, for ever and ever. The Rock of our life,
the Shield of our salvation. Thou art He, from generation to genera-
tion. We laud Thee, and declare Thy praise. For our lives which
are bound up in Thine Hand, for our souls which are committed to
Thee, and for Thy wonders which are with us every day and for Thy
marvellous deeds and Thy goodnesses which are at all seasons, evening,
and morning, and midday — Thou Gracious One, for Thy compassions
never end. Thou Pitying One, for Thy mercies never cease, for ever
do we put our trust in Thee. And for all this, blessed and exalted be
Thj' Xame, our King, always, world without end. And all the living
bless Thee — Selah — and praise Thy Name in truth, 0 God, our
Salvation and our Help. Selah. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah. The
Gracious One is Thy Name, and to Thee it is pleasant to give praise.'
After this the priests, if any were in the Synagogue, spoke the
)t. vii. 6 blessing, elevating their hands up to the shoulders '' (in the Temple
above the head). This was called the lifting up of hands.'' In the
Synagogue the priestly blessing was spoken in three sections, the
people each time responding h\ an Amen." Lastly, in the Synagogue,
the word ' Adonai ' was substituted for Jehovah.' ' If no descend-
^^^^{^a^' ants of Aaron were present, the leader of the devotions repeated
Numb. vi. tlic usual pricstly benediction.'' After the benediction followed the
last Eulogy, which, m its abbreviated form (as presently used m the
Evening Service), is as follows : —
XIX. (XYIII.) '0 bestow on Thy people Israel great peace for
ever. For Thou art King, and Lord of all peace. And it is good in
Thine eyes to bless Thy people Israel at all times and at every hour
with Thy peace. Blessed art Thou, Jehovah, Who blesseth His
people Israel with peace!'
It was the practice of leading Rabbis, probably dating from very
early times, to add at the close of this Eulogy certain prayers of their
'' Comp.
1 Tim. ii. 8
■= Sot. 37 b
38a
I Siphre on
' Minor differences need not here be detailed, espacially as they are by no means
certain.
TIIK BENEDICTION.
443
own, cither fixed oi- I'ree, ol' which the 'rahiiud gives specinioiis. From
very early times also, the custom seems to have obtained that the
descendants of Aaron, belore pronouncing the blessing, put off" their
shoes. In the benediction the priests turned towards the people,
while he who led the ordinary prayers stood with his back to the
ptjople, looking towards the Sanctuary. The superstition, that it was
unlawful to look at the priests while they spoke the blessing," must
be n^gardcd as of later date. According to the Mishnali, they who
pronounce the benediction must have no blemish on their hands, face,
or feet, so as not to attract attention; but this presumably refers to
those officiating in the Temple.^ It is a curious statement, that
priests from certain cities in Galilee were not allowed to speak the
words of blessing, because their pronounciation of the gutturals was
misleading." According to the Jerusalem Talmud, ' moral blemishes,
or even sin, did not disqualify a priest from pronouncing the benedic-
tion, since it was really God, and not man, Who gave the blessing.^
On the other hand, strict sobriety was insisted on on such occasions.
Later Judaism used the priestly benediction as a means for counter-
acting the effects of evil dreams. The public prayers closed with an
Amen, spoken by the congregation.
The liturgical part being thus completed, one of the most impor-
tant, indeed, what had been the primary object of the Synagogue
service, began. The Chazzan, or minister, approached the Ark, and
brought out a roll of the Law. It was taken from its case {teq, teqah),
and unwound from those cloths (mitpachoth) which held it. The
time had now come for the reading. of portions from the Law and the
Prophets. On the Sabbath, at least seven persons were called upon
successively to read portions from the Law, none of them consisting
of less than three verses. On the 'days of congregation' (Monday
and Thursday), three persons were called up; on New Moon's Day,
and on the intermediate days of a festive week, four; on feast days,
five; and on the Day of Atonement, six.^ No doubt, there was even
CHAP.
X
"ChaK. k;
''Megni.-i4''
<-Jer. Gitl.
V. 9. p 47 ^ :
comp.
Ihtschak,
Jiid. Kul-
tus. i>. -.iTO
' It seems also to liave been the rule,
that they must wash their hands Ijefore
pronouncing the benediction (Sot. 39 a).
- The question is discussed: first, who
blessed the priests ? and, secondly, wliat
part God had in that benediction ? The
answer will readily be guessed (Chull. 4!)
a). Tn Sipln-e on Numbers, i)ar. 48, the
words are quoted (Numb. vi. 27) to show
that the Ijlessing came fi'oni God, and not
from, altluough tln'ougii, the priests. In
Bemidb. R. 11 ed. Warsh. iv. i). 40 n
there is a beautiful prayer, in which Israel
declares that it only needs the blessing ol
God, according to Deut. xxvi. 15. on
which the answer comes, that although
the priests bring the benediction, it is (lod
Who stands and blesses His ixM>i)le. Ac-
cordingly, the benediction of the [irie-sts
is only the symbol of God's blessing.
•^ For these dillerent numbers very
curious symbolical reasons are assigned
(Megill. 23 <i).
444
FROM .I(»i;i)AX TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
HOOK
III
• Meg. -i'J b
'' -Tor.
Sliabb.
xvi. 1:
Sopher.xvi.
10
« Comp.
Megill. 31 ('
« Gltt. 59 6
: Megill iv.
fComp.
ICor. xiv.
27, 28
in ancient times a lectionary, though certainly not that presently in
use, which occupies exactly a year.' On the contrary, the Palestinian
lectionary occupied three "or, according to some, three and a half
years,'' lialf a Sabbatic period. Accordingly, we find that the Mas-
sorah divides the Pentateuch into 154 sections. In regard to the
lectionary of three and a half years we read of 175 sections. It re-
(juires, however, to be borne in mind, that preparatory to, and on
certain festive days, the ordinary reading was interrupted, and por-
tk)ns substituted which bore on the subject of the feast. Possibly, at
difi'erent periods different cycles may have obtained — those for three
and a half years, three j'ears, and even for one year.'' ^ According to
the Talmud,'^ a descendant of Aaron was always called up first to the
reading;^ then followed a Levite, and afterwards five ordinary
Israelites. As this practice, as well as that of priestly benediction,*
has been continued in the Synagogue from father to son, it is possible
still to know who are descendants of Aaron, and who Levites. The
reading of the Law was both preceded and followed by brief Bene-
dictions.
Upon the Law followed a section from the Prophets,* the so-called
Haphtarah.^ The origin of this practice is not known, although it is
one that must evidently have met a requirement on the part of the
worshippers. Certain it is, that the present lectionary from the
Prophets did not exist in early times; nor does it seem unlikely that
the choice of the passage was left to the reader himself. At any rate,
as regarded the ordinary Sabbath days,'' we are told that a reader might
omit one or more verses, provided there w^as no break. As the Hebrew
was not generally understood, the Methurgeman, or Interpreter, stood
by the side of the reader,^ and translated into the Aramaean verse
by verse, and in the section from the Proi)hets, or Haphtarah,
' This division seems to have origin-
ated in Babylon. Comp. Zioiz, Gottesd.
Vortr. pp. 3, 4.
- Comp. Duschak, Gescb. des jiid.
Cultus, pp. 251-258.
^ Some of the leading Rabbis resisted
this iiractice, and declared that a Rabbi
who yielded to it deserved death (Megill.
28 a; comp. Megill. 22 a. See generally
Duschak, u. a. p. 255).
* Every descendant of Aaron in the
Synagogue is bound to join in the act of
benediction, on pahi of forfeiture of the
blessing on himself, accordhig to Gen.
xii. 3. Otherwise he transgresses three
commands, contained in Numb. vi. 27
(Sot. 38 //_). .The present mode of divid-
ing the fingers when pronouncing the
blessing is justified by an ai)peal to Cant,
ii. 9 (Bemidb. R. 11), although no doubt
the origin of the practice is mystical.
5 The reasons commonly assigned for
it are unhistorical. Com]). ' Sketches of
.Jewish Life,' p. 278. Tlie term Haph-
tarah, or rather Aphtarali M^AAplitarta,
is derived ivom ^^atar, to dismiss — either,
like the Latin Missa, because it ended
the general service, or else because the
valedictory discourse, called ApJitnrah,
was connected with it.
^ In a few places in Babylon (Shabb.
116 h), lessons from the Ilagiographa
were read at afternoon services. Besides,
on Purim the whole Book of Esther was
read.
TIIK Si:i!M()N. 445
after every tlu-ee verses. ' l>iit the jMcthnrrjeman was not allowed to ciiaf.
read his translation, lest it niii>;ht i)oi)ularly be reii'arded as autiiorita- X
tive. This may lielp us in some measure to understand the i)oi)ular ^- — ~ r — '
mode of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. So long •Megm.24a
as the substanee of the text was given eorreetl}', the Mcfhurgoitax
might paraphrase for better popular understanding. Again, it is but
natural to suppose, that the Methurgeman would prepare himself for
his work by such materials as he would find to hand, among which, of
course, the translation of the LXX. would hold a prominent place.
This may in part account alike for the employment of the LXX., and
for its Targumic modifications, in the New Testament quotations.
The reading of the section from the Prophets (the Haphtarali)
was in olden times immediately followed by an address, discourse, or
sermon (Derashah), that is, where a Rabbi capable of giving such
instruction, or a distinguished stranger, w^as present. Neither the
leader of the devotions ( ' the delegate of the congregation ' in this mat-
ter, or Sliel'iacJi Tsibbur), nor the Methurgeman, nor 3'et the preacher,
required ordination.' That was reserved for the rule of the congre-
gation, whether in legislation or administration, doctrine or discii)line.
The only points required in the i)rea('her were the necessary quali-
fications, both mental and moral. ^ When a great Rabbi enq^loyed a
Metliurgeman to explain to the i)eople his sermon, he would, of
course, select him for the purpose. Such an interpreter was also
called A mora, or speaker. Perhaps the Rabbi would whisi)er to him
his remarks, while he would repeat them aloud; or else he would
only condescend to give hints, which the Amora would amj)lity; or
he would speak in Hebrew, and the ^Imora translate it into Aramajan,
Greek, Latin, or whatever the language of the people might be, for
the sermon must reach the people in the vulgar tongue. The Amora
w^ould also, at the close of the sermon, answer (juestions or meet
objections. If the preacher was a very great num, he Avould, perhaps,
not condescend to connnunicate Avith the Amora directly, but enq^lo^'
one of his students as a middleman. This was also the practice
when the preacher was in mourning for a very near relative — for so
important Avas his office that it must not be interrupted, even by the
sorrows or the religious o])li<i-atioiis of ' mourn inu".'" 'MoedK
'^ ' ' 21(1
' At a later period, however, ordina- wlio were ordained and did not pn-aeli
tion seems to have been required for (Sot. 22 a).
preachinfj. By a curious Rabljinic e\e- - Tims, we have a sayiim' of the tirst
fi;esis, the tirst clause of Prov. vii. 2(i was century ' You preach beautifully, but you
applied to those who preached without do not i)ractice beautifully ' (Cliag. 14
ordination, and the second clause to those ft; Yebani. (iS ft).
446 VllOM .lORDAN TO TIIK MOINT OK TRANSFIGURATION.
iJooK ludced, .Icwinli tradition uses the iiio.st extravagant terms to
111 extol the institution of preaching. To say tiiat it glorified God, and
^- — ^. — ^ brought men back, or- at least nearer to Him, or that it quenched the
soul's thirst, was as nothing. The little city, weak and besieged, but
"Ecoi.ix. 15 d(^liveredby the wise man in it,^' served as symbol of the benefit which
the preacher conferred on his hearers. The Divine Spirit rested on
liiiii, and his office conferred as much merit on him as if he had
'Ab. dell, oilered both the blood and tlie fat upon the altar of burnt offering.''
Nath. 1 . ...
No wonder that tradition traced the institution back to Moses, who
had directed that, previous to, and on the various festivals, addresses,
explanatory of their rites, and enforcing them, should be delivered to
•^^ Meg. in the people."' The Targum Jonathan assumes the practice in the
'iTarguiii tunc of tlic Judgcs;'' the men of the Great Synagogue arc, of course,
2. •' credited with it, and Shemayali and Abhtalyon are expressly desig-
<■ Darsiut- nated as ' preachers. "' How general the practice was in the time of
7o"; "" Jesus and His Apostles, the reader of the New Testament need not
'Ag.Ap.il. be told, and its witness is fullv borne out ])y Joseph us ^ and Philo."
18 ' • " .
=iii Fiacc, Both the Jerusalem and the Babylon Talmud assume it as so common,
p';'s)7/f<ie fhat in several passages 'Sabbath-observance" and the ' Sabbath-
p.'hw^Leg. sermon " are identified. Long before Hillel we read of Rabbis
idili'ioas^^" pi'caching — in Greek or Latin — in the Jewish Synagogues of Rome,"
• For ex. iust as the Apostles preached in Greek in the Synagogues of the dis-
persed. That this practice, and the absolute liberty of teaching,
subject to the authority of the ' chief ruler of the Synagogue,'
formed important links in the Christianisation of the world, is another
evidence of that wonder-working Rule of God, which brings about
marvellous results through the orderly and natural succession of events
— nay, orders these means with the view to their ultimate issue.
But this is not all. We have materials for drawing an accurate
picture of the preacher, the congregation, and the sermon, as in
those days. We are, of course, only speaking of the public addresses
in the Synagogues on Sabbaths — not of those delivered at other
times or in other places. Some great Ral)bi, or famed preacher, or
else a distinguished stranger, is known to be in the town. He would,
of course, be asked by the ruler of the Synagogue to deliver ;i dis-
course. But who is a great ijreachei'y We know that siu'h a
reputation was much coveted, and conferred on its jjossessor great
distinction. The popular preache)- was a i)owcr, and (piite as much
an ol)ject of jiopular homage and ffattery as in our days. Many a
learned Rabbi l)itterly complained on finding his ponderous expositions
neglected, whi](» the multitude ]mslHMl and crowded into the neigh-
THK I'OlTI.Ai; I'lJKACIIKi;.
44:
hoiiriii^- Syiuig-ogue to hear tho (UH-laiiiatioiis of some sluillow i)()i)iilar CHAP.
Hag^adirft.' Aud so it fame, tliat many eultivated this braneli of X
theology. When a popular preacher was expected, men crowded — ^ - —
the area of the Synagogue, while women filled the gallery." On sucii • su.-. . ..i /.
occasions, there was the additional satisfaction of feeling that they
had done something specially meritorious in running with quick steps.
and crowding into the Synagogue.'' For, was il not to cany out the i}jer. o/-
.spirit of Hos. vi. 3; xi. 10 — at least, as Kabbinically undc^rstood/
p]ven grave Rabbis joined in this ' pursuit to know the Lord," and
one of them comes to the somewhat caustic conclusion, that 'the
]"eward of a discourse is the haste.''' However. nioi-(> unworthy isor. iw-
motives sometimes influenced some of the audience, and a Talniiidic
passage' traces the cause of many fiists to the meetings of the two "Kiu.i.sirt
sexes on such occasions.
The type of a popular })reacher was not very ditfcrent from wliat
in our days would form his chief requisites. He ought to have
a good figure,'' a pleasant expression, and melodious voice (his words 'Taan. le.?.
ought to be ' like those of the bride to the bridegroom'), fiuencv. '■/<'//,■, u. s. p.
speech ' sweet as honey,' ' pleasant as milk and honey ' — ■ finely siftetl
like fine flour," a diction richly adorned. ' like a bride on her wedding-
day; ' and sufficient confidence in his own knowledge and self-
assurance never to be disconcerted. Above all he must be conciliatory,
and avoid being too personal. Moses had addressed Israel as rebellious
and hard-hearted, and he was not allowed to bring them into the land
of promise. Elijah had upbraided them with having broken the
covenant, and Elisha was immediately appointed his successor. Even
Isaiah had his lips touched with burning coals, because he s])oke of
dwelliuii; among a peoi)le of sinful lips.' - As for the mental (lualifi- fY.iikutii.
toll 1 1 p.i-.i,,. I,e-
<^atit)ns()f the preacher, he must know his I>d)le well. Asa bndekiiows frhnunfr
' lu Sot. 40 a we have an account of 'Woe unti) liim tliat saitli to tlic wood,
how a iiopular preacher comforted iiis A\val<e; to tlie dunili !<toiie. Arit-e. it
deserted lirother theoloirian by tlie foi- sliall teacli !' (Saiili. 7 h). It was prolja-
lowiiii;- i)aral)le: ' Two men met in a city. Idy on account of isudi scenes, that tiie
tlie one to sell jewels and precious things. Nasi was not allowed afterwards to or-
Ihe other toys, tinsel, and trifles. Tlien dain without the consent of the Sanhe-
till the ])eople ran to the latter sho)). he- drin.
cause they did not understand the wares - In coiniection with this the proveil)
of the former. A curious instance of ([uoted in the New Testament is thuH
Itopular wit is the followin<i;: It was ex- tised by Rabl)i Tari)hoii: 'I wonder
pected that a person lately ordained whether anyone at jiresent would accept
y^hould deliver a discourse before the jteo- i-eproof. If you said. Remove the mote
pie. The time came, Jjut the ISlethurfic- from thine eye, he would innnediately
mail in vain bent his ear closer antl reply. First remove the beam out of tliine
•closer. It was evident that the new own eye' (Aracli. IC b). May this not
preacher had noUiinii; to say. On which indicate how very widely the saying's of
the Methiirijeniftn quoted Habak. ii. I'.i: ("lirist \va<\ spreail anion*; the i)eople?
448
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
HI
" Com p.
Zuuz,
Gottesd.
\ortr. jiji.
101-106, aol
•■As in Ber.
E. 14
<-Shem. R.
15
jji-opcii}^ to make use of her twenty-four oriiaiiients, so must the
l)reiU'hcr of the twenty-four books of the BiWe. He must carefully
prepare his subject — he is ' to hear himself before the people hear him.
But whatever else he may be or do, he must be attractive.' In earlier
times the sermon mis2:ht have consisted of a simi)l(? exposition of some
passages from Scripture, or the Book of Sirach, which latter was
treated and quoted by some of the Rabbis almost as if it had been
canonical. "^ But this, or the full discussion of a, single text" (""p, to
l)ore), would probably not be so attractive as the adaptation of a text
to present circumstances, or even its modification and alteration for
such purposes. There were scarcely bounds to the liberties taken by
the preacher. lie would divide a sentence, cut olf one or two syllables
from a word and join theui to the next, so producing a different
meaning, or giving a new interpretation to a text. Perhaps the
strangest method was that of introducing Greek words and expressions
into the Hebrew, and this not only to give a witty repartee," but in
illustration of Scripture. "^ Xay, many instances occur, in which a
Hebrew word is, from the similarity of its sound with the Greekj
rendered as if it were actually Greek, and thus a new meaning is given
to a passage.^
If such licence was taken, it seems a comparatively small thing
that a doctrine was derived from a word, a particle, or even a letter.
But, as already stated, the great point was to attract the hearers.
Parables, stories, allegories, witticisms, strange and foreign words,
absurd legends, in short, anything fliat might startle an audience,
was introduced.* Sometimes a discourse was entirely Haggadic; at
1 Evon tlie celebrated R. Eliezor had
the misfortune that, at a festival, iii.s
hearers one by one stohj out diirinir the
sermon (Bez. 1.') h). On the other liand,
it is said of R. Akiba, altliou2;li liis suc-
cess as a preaclier was very varied, that
liis api)lication to Israel of the sufferings
of Job and of his final deliverance moved
his hearers to tears (Ber. R. ?,'.>).
^ See Ziinz, (xottesd. Vortr. \). 352,
Note b.
■^ Thus, in Tanch. on Ex. xxii. 24 (ed.
War.sli. p. 10,5 a and h, sect. 15, towards
tiie end), the expression in Deut. xv. 7.
' MeacliiUha,' from thy Ijrother, is i-ender-
ed '/") acliikha,' not tliy brother. Sim-
ilarly, in tiie Pesiqta, the statenu?nt ui
G-en. xxii. 7, 8, • God will provide Him-
self a laml) for a burnt-offerini^.' is para-
phrasi'(l. -And if not a St^h (iamb) for
a burnt-offerinii;, my .son. 6e (thee) for a
burnt offering. It is added, ' se leolaii is
Greek, meaning, thou art the buriit-
offering.' But the Greek in the forniei"
])assage is also explained l)y rendering I he
' acliikha ' as an Aramaic form oieoiKa,
in which case it would targumically
mean • Withliold not thy hand from tiie
jioor, who is like to thee." Comp. the in-
teresting tractate of Bri'dl (Fremdspr.
Redens. p. 21). A play upon Greek
words is also supposed to occur in the
Midrasli on Cant. ii. 9, wlicrc tlie word
'dodi,' by omitting the .second '/, and
transposing the nod and the rnr. is made
into the Greek 6ioi. divine. But I confe.s.s.
Idoiiot feel quite sure aboutthis, although
it has tlie countenance of Lcri/. In the
]\Iidrash on Cant, ii, 15, a whole Greek
sentence is inserted, only Aramaically
written. See also Sar/is, Beitr. ])p. 11) A'C,
' Thus, wlien on one occasion the hearers
of Akiba were going to sleep during his
•sermon, he called out: ' Why was E.sther
ti;eat.mi-:.\t of a subject. 449
otlier.s, tlie Haggadah .served to iiiti'oduce the Halakhali. 8(jnietiiiies cilAP.
the object ortho preacher was ])urely lioniiletical; at others, he (h-ah X
ehietlv with the exi)]aiiatiou of S('ri})ture, or ol" the rites and iiieaniiig ^—^ ,^ — -
of lestivals. A favourite method was that which (h'rived its name
Iroiii the stringing togetlier of [)earls [Charaz), when ;i pi'eaeher,
liaving quoted a i)assage or section iroin tlie J'entateucli, strung on
to it another and I i ice-sounding, or really siniihir, from the Prophets
ami the Hagiograj)ha. Or else he would divide a sentence, generally
under three heads, and connect with each of the clauses a separate
doctrine, and then try to support it by Scrii)ture. It is easy to
imagine to what lengths such })reachers might go in their misinter-
pretation and misi'cpresentations of the plain text of Holy Scri{)ture.
And yet a collection of short expositions (the Fcsiqta), which, though
not dating from that period, mayj^et fairly l)e taken as giving a good
idea of this nu'thod of exjjosition, contains not a little that is fresh,
earnest, useful, and devotional. It is interesting to know that, at
the close of his address, the preacher very generally referred to the
great Messianic hope of Israel. The service closed with a short
l)rayer, or what we would term an ' ascription.'
We can now j)icture to ourselves the Synagogue, its worship, and
teaching. We can see the leader of the people's devotions as (accord-
ing to Talmudic direction) he first refuses, with mock-modesty, the
honour conferred on him by the chief ruler; then, when urged, pre-
pares to go; and when pressed a third time, goes up with slow and
measured steps to the lectern, and then before the Ark. ^Xv can
imagine how one after another, standing and facing the people, un-
rolls and holds in his hand a copy of the Law or of the Prophets, and
reads from the Sacred Word, thv 3rethurgein(:in mtor\)vctini>:. Finally,
we can picture it, how the i)reacher would sit down and begin his dis-
course, none interrujjting him with questions till he had tlnished,
when a succession of objections, answers, or inquiries might aAvait the
Ainora, if the pi'cachcr had employed such help. And help it cer-
tainly was not in mniiy cases, to judge by the depreciatory and caustic
remarks, which not unfrequently occur, as to the nmnners. tone,
vanity, self-conceit, and silliness of the A)ii()r(( ' win), as he stood "MiUr.on
Eccl. Vli. .'i;
ix. 17 h
Queen in Persia over 127 provhices ? to the quefition, wlio ^lie was: -It was
Answer: Slie was a descendant of Sarali, .Tochebed, wlio bore Moses, wlio is refl<-
wlio lived 127 years ' (Be r. K. 58). On oned equal to all tiie (iOO.OOO of Israel'
a similar occasion R. Jehudali startled (Midr. Sliir liaSii. R., ed. Warsii.. i». II
the sleepers by the question: 'One woman A, towards tlie end. on Cant. i. 15).
in Eiiypt bore 600,000 men in one birth.' • In both these pa-ssaji-es • tlie fools ' are
One of his hearers immediately replied explained to refer to the Mcf/na-r/etnaii.
450 FKOM .I()i;i)AX TO TlIK MOlXT OF THAXSFlGrKATlON.
BOOK beside the l\al)l)i. tlinu,<ilit lar iiinrc of attract iiiii' attention and
in ai)plause to himself, tlien of lienetiting his hearers. Henee sonic
"- — -,' — l{abl)i.s woidd only eniplo}' speeial and trnsted interi)retcrs of their
"Chaj:. u« own, who were above tifty years of age. ' in short, so far as the
.sermon was coneerned, the impression it produced must have been
very similar to what we know the addresses of the nujuks in the
Middle Ages to have wrought. All the better can we understund,
even from the human as])ect. how the teaching of Jesus, alike in its
substance and form, in its manner and matter, differed from that of
tlu' scrilx's; how multitudes would hang entranced on His word;
and how, everywhere and by all. its imin-ession was felt to be over-
])owering.
Hut it is certainly not the human asi)ect alone which here claims
our attention. The i)erplexcd inquiry: • Whence hath this man this
wisdom and this knowledge ?' must hud another answer than the men
of Nazareth could suggest, although to those in our days also who
deny His Divine character, this must ever seem an unanswered and
iinanswerable question.
THE VISIT TU NAZAKETH. 451
CHAPTER XI.
THH FIRST (JALIl.KAX MIXISTHV.
(St. Matt. iv. 13-17: St. Mark i. 14, 1."): St. Luke iv. l.-)-;i2.]
The visit to Xazarotli was in uiany respects decisive. It presented chaI'.
hy anticipation an epitome of the history of the Christ. He came to XI
His own, and His own received Him not. Tlie tirst time He taught ^- — ~.— ^'
in the Synagogue, as the first time He taught in the Temple, they cast
Him out. On tlie one and the other occasion, they questioned His
authority, and they asked for a ^sign.' In both instances, the power
which they challenged was, indeed, claimed by Christ, but its display,
in the manner which they expected, refused. The analogy seems to
extend even farther — and if a misrepresentation of what Jesus had
said when puritying the Temple formed the ground of the final lalse
charge against Him,'' the taunt of the Xazarenes: 'Physician, heal ^'St. Matt,
thyself! ' found an echo in the mocking cry, as He hung on the Cross :
' He saved others. Himself He cannot save."" "st. Matt.
It is difficult to understand how, either on historical grounds, oi-
after study of the character of Christ, the idea could have arisen '
that Jesus had offered, or that He had claimed, to teach on that
Sabbath in the Synagogue of Nazareth. Had He attempted what,
alike in spirit and form, was so contrary to all Jewish notions, the
whole character of the act would have been changed. As it was, the
contrast with those ]iy whom He was surrounded is almost as striking,
as the part which He bore in the scene. We take it for granted,
that what had so lately taken place in Cana, at only foui- miles'
distance, or. to speak more accurately, in Capernaum, had become
known in Nazareth. It raised to tlie highest pitch of ex])ectancy the
interest and curiosity previously awakencMl by tlie i-ejioils, wiiich the
Galileans had brought from Jerusaleui, and by the general i'ame which
had spread ab(Mit Jesus. The.v were now to test, whether their
' And yet most coiniiieiitatort; — follow- that Christ had -.stood np'iii tlie sense
ing. I suppose, the lead of .l/r^/p/*— hold of otlerinir or claimiiiii' to read.
452
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOl'XT OF TRAXSFIGrRATIOX.
BOOK
TIT
»>St. Luke
iv. 18, 19
' Baba B.
13?.
eniiulryiiKiii would l)e ('(jiuil to the occasion, and do in His own city
what thcj had heard had l)eendoue tor Cai)ernanni. To any ordinary
man the return to Nazaretli in such circumstances must have been an
ordeal. 2s ot so to the Christ, AYho, in utter self-forgetlulness, had only
this one aim of life — to do the Will of ITim that sent Him. And so
His bearing that day in the Synagogue is itself evidence, that while //?,
He was not o/, that time.
Realising the scene on such occasions, we mark the contrast. As
there could be no un-Jewish forwardness on the part of Jesus, so,
assuredly, would there be none of that mock-humility of reluctance
to officiate, in which Rabbinism delighted. If, as in the circumstances
seems likely, Jesus commenced the first part of the service, and then
pronounced liefore the '■ Ark ' those I^ulogies whieh were regarded as,
in the strictest sense, the prayer [TepldUali)^ we can imagine — though
Ave can scarcely' realise — the reverent solemnity, which would seem to
give a new meaning to each well-remembered sentence. And in His
mouth it all liad a ne^^' meaning. We cannot know what, if any,
petitions He inserted, though we can imagine wliat their spirit would
have been. And now, one b}' one. Priest, Levite, and, in succession,
five Israelites, had read from the Law. There is no reason to disturb
the almost traditional idea, that Jesus Himself read the concluding-
portion from the Prophets, or the so-called Hapldarah. The whole
narrative seems to imply this. Similarly, it is most likely that the
Haphtarah for that da}' was taken from the prophecies of Isaiah,^ and
that it included the passage quoted by the Evangelist as read b}^ the
Lord Jesus." We know that the ' rolls " on which the Law was
written were distinct from those of the Prophets; " and every proba-
l)ility points to it, that those of tlie Prophets, at least the Greater,
were also written on separate scrolls. In this instance we are
expressly told, that the minister ' delivered unto Him the book of the
prophet Esaias,' we doubt not. for the HaphfaraJi,- and that, 'when
He had unrolled the book,' He 'found' the place from which the
Evangelist makes quotation.
' Although we cannot feel quite sure
of this.
- 1 infer this from tlie fact, that the Bool-c
of the Prophet Isaiah was r/iven to Him
hy the Minister of the Synagogue. Since
the time of Bpur/el it has been a kind of
trailitional idea tliat. if this was the
JIiii>Jit(iriih for tlie day, tlie sermon of
Clirist in Nazareth must have taken place
on the Day of Atonement, for which in
the modern .J<'\vir<h lectionarv Ts. Ivili. c
forms part of the Ildiiliturah. There are
however, two objections to this view: 1.
Our modern lectiouary of Ilaphtarahft
is certainly Jiot the same as that in the
time of Christ. 2. Even in our modern
lectionary. Is. Ixi. 1, 2 forms no part of
the Udphtarah, either for the Day of
Atonement, nor for any other Sabbath
or festive day. In the modern lectionary
Is. Ivii. 1-t to Is. Iviii. 14 is the Ilnpliffi-
vdh for the Dav of Atonement.
Soph. xii. 7
TIIK IIAIMITAIJAH AND TIIK TKXT (JF Cin'JST\S DISCOUUSK. 453
When iiiii-()l!iiii>.', ;iml lioldiug tlic scroll, imicli mure than the sixty- (miap
first chapter of Isaiali iimst have been within range ol" His eyes. On ix
tlie other hand, it is (piite certain that the verses quoted hy the ^- ,^^.^
Evangelist could not have ibrnied the whole Hajihtarah. According
to traditi(jnal rule," the Haphtarah ordinarily consisted of not less »Mas.soi;h.
than twenty-one A'crses,' though, if the passage was to be 'targunied,'
or a sermon to follow, that nund)er might be shortened to seven, five,
or even three verses. Now the passage quoted by St. Luke consists
really of only one verse (Is. Ixi. 1 ), together with a clause from Is. Iviii.
6,- and the first clause of Is. Ixi. 2. This could scarcely have formed
the whole Haplitaralt. There are other reasons also against this
supposition. No doubt Jesus read alike the Haphtarah and the text
of His discourse in Hebrew, and then ' targumed ' or translated it;
while St. Luke, as might be exijected,- quotes (with but two trifling-
alterations') from the rendering of the LXX. But, on investigation,
it appears that one clause is omitted from Is. Ixi. 1,'and that between
the close of Is. Ixi. 1 and the clause of verse 2, which is added, a
clause is inserted from the LXX. of Is. Iviii. 6.^ This could scarcely
have l)een done in reading the Haphtarah. But il', as we suppose,
the passages ipioted formed the introductory text of Christ's dis-
course, such quotation and combination were not only in accordance
with Jewish custom, but formed part of the favourite mode of teach-
ing— the Charaz — or stringing, like pearls, passage to passage, illus-
trative of each other.'' • In the present instance, the portion of the
scroll which Jesus unrolled may have exhibited in close proximit}^
the two i)assages which formed the introductory text (the so-called
Pethlchah). But this is of comparatively small interest, since both
the omission of a clause from Is. Ixi. 1, and the insertion of an-
other adai)ted from Is. Iviii. G, wei-e evidently intentional. It might
be presumptuous to attempt stating the reasons which nmy have
influenced the Saviour in this, and yet some of them will instinctively
occui' to every thoughtful reader.
' This sytnlKiliciilly : 7 x :>, since (nicli Itrokeu-hearti'd,' is .spurious.
of the seven readei's in tiie Law had to * All the liest MSS. oniil the words,
read at least tliree verses. ' To heal the In'oken -hearted.'
- 'To set at liberty those that are ^ See above. Note 2.
bruised.' The words are taken, with but "^ See the remarks on (his jKuiit in tLie
a slight necessary alteration in the verb, previous chapter. If I rightly under-
froni the LXX. rendering of Is. Iviii. 6. stand the somewhat obscure language
The clause from Is. l.\i. 2 is: 'To preach of SHrenhnsius (Biblos Katallages, pj).
the acceptable year of the Lord.' 33;)-.S'15). such is also the view of that
* P)-eachuif/ \n!itQa(\ of proclaim/'i/;/, m learned writer. This jieculiarly .Tewisli
Is. l.xi. 2, and in tl)e form of tlie verb in method of Scriptural (|Ui)tation by
the clause from Is. Iviii. (1. Besides, the -stringing together" is employed by St.
insertion of the clause: -to heal the I'aul in IJoni. iii. 10 is.
ili. 50
454 Fi;()M JOK'DAX TO Tin-; MorNT OV TRANSFIGURATION.
i;()()K it was, indeed, Diviuc 'wisdom" — 'the Spirit of the Lord ' upon
111 llini, which directed Jesus in the choice of such a text for His first
^— ^,^-^ Messianic Sermon. It struck the key-note to the whole of His
(iaiilean ministry. The ancient Synaii'o<"'ue re.uarded Is. Ixi. 1, 2, as
"The ouier ouc of the three ])assaii-es, ' in which mention of tlie Holy Ghost was
il. xxxiL ('(^nnected with the i)romised redemption.' In this view, the ai)i)li-
14, 15, anil ,. 1-1x1 • 1 • ii T 1- T 1
Lament. cation whicli the passage receive<l in tlie discourse oi our Lord was
peculiarly suitable. For the words in which St. Luke reports what
followed the /'ct/iic/KiIt, or introductory text, seem rather a sum-
mary, than either the introduction or ])art of the discourse of
Christ. 'This day is this Scripture fullilled in your ears.' A sum-
mary this, which may well serve to guide in all preaching. As
regards its form, it would he: so to present the teaching of Holy
Scripture, as that it can be drawn together in the focus of one
sentence; as regards its substance, that this be the one focus: all Scrij)-
tiire fullilled l)y a present Christ. And this — in the Gospel which He
bears to the jioor, the release which He announces to the captives,
the healing which He offers to those Miiom sin had blinded, and
the freedom He brings to them who Avere bruised; and all as the
trumpet-blast of God's Jubilee into His world oi' misery, sin, and
want! A year thus begun would be glorious indeed in the blessings
it gave.
T'here was not a word in all this of what common Jewish expect-
ancy would have connected with, nay, chiefly accentuated in an an-
nouncement of the Messianic redemption; not a word to raise carnal
hopes, or flatter Jewish pride. Truly, it was the most un-Jewish
discourse for a Jewish Messiah of those days, Avith which to open His
Ministry. And yet such was the power of these 'words of grace."
that the hearers hung spell-bound upon them. Every eye was fastened
on Him with hungry eagerness. For the time they forgot all else —
Who it was that addressed them, even the strangeness of the message,
so unspeakably in contrast to any preaching of Rabbi or Teacher that
iiad l)een heard in that S.vnagogue. Lideed, one can scarcely conceive
the imju'ession which the Words of Christ must have produced,
when promise and t"ulfilment. hope and reality, mingled, and wants
of the heart, hitherto unrealised, Avere wakened, only to be moi-e
than satisfied. It was another sphere, another life. 'i'ruly, the
anointing of the Holy Ghost was on the Preachei-, from Whose lips,
dropped these -words of grace." And if such was the announcement
of the Year of God's Jubilee, what blessings must it bear in its bosom!
' See the Ai)i)eiiili.\ on tln' ^h'ssiaiiic ))as.sages.
THE iii;ai;i-:i;s in the SYNA(;()(;i'i-:
455
The discourse hnd been s])ok('ii, and tlie breathless .silence with
which, even according to Jewish custoiu, ithadl)ecn listened to,' gave
place to the usual aftcr-serinou hnui of an Kastei-n Synagogue. On
one point all were agreed: that tlie\ were niarvcUoiis words of grace,
which had proceeded out of His mouth. And still the ['readier
wailed, with deep longing of soul, for some question, wliidi wonid hav(;
marked the spiritual application of what He had spoken. Sim-Ii i\i'r\)
longing of soul is kindred to, and passes into almost slci-iiness, just
because he who so longs is so intensely in earnest, in the conviction
of the reality of his message. It was so with Jesus in Nazareth.
They were indeed making a})i)licatioii of the Sermon to the Picaclicr,
but in quite ditl'erent manner from that to which His discourse had
l)ointed. It was not the fultilment of the 8('rii)ture in Him, but
the circumstance, that siu'h an one as the Son of Joseph, their village
carpenter, should have spoken such words, that attracted their atten-
tion. Not, as we take it, in a malevolent spirit, but altogether
unspiritually, as regarded the ett'ect of Christ's words, did one and
another, here and there, express wonderment to his neiglibour.
They had Jieard, and now they woidd fain have seen. But already
the holy indignation of Him, Whom they only knew as Joseph's son^
was kindled. The turn of matters; their very admiration and ex-
pectation; their vulgar, unspiritual comments: if was all so entirely
contrary to the Character, the Mission, and the Words of Jesus. No
doubt they would next expect, that here in His own city, and all the
more because it was such. He would do what they had heard had
taken place in Capernaum. It was the world-old saying, as false,
except to the ear, and as s])eciously popular as most such sayings:
' Charity begins at home' — or, according to the Jewish proverb, and
in application to the special circumstances: ' Physician, heal thyself." ^
Whereas, if there is any meaning in truth and pi-incii)le; if there
was any meaning and reality in Christ's Mission, and in the discourse
He had just spoken, Charity does 7?of begin at home: and ' Physician,
heal thyself is not of the Gospel for the pooi", nor yet the i)reaching
of God's Jubilee, Init that of the Devil, whose works Jesus had come
to destroy. How could He, in His holy abhorrence an<l indignation,
say this better than by again repeating, though now Avith different
application, that sad experience, 'No prophet is accepted in his own
country,' which He could have li()pe(l was for ever behind llim: ' and
' See the previous cluii)ter. It was afterwards,
the universal rule to listen to the sermon -' Tiie proverb really is: ■ Pliysician,
in perfect silence (Pes. 1 tO a ; Moed K. n). hf-ai tliine own lameness ' (I3er. W. 2^^. ed.
The questions and objections conunenccil Warsh. p. 45 h).
CHAP
XI
' St. John
iv. u
4:,(; I'liOM .lOliDAX TO TlIK Mol'NT OF THANSFIGURATION.
i;ooK !>y i»()iiiliiiii- lo those two Old Tesiaiiiciit iiKstanccs of it, whose names
111 and authority were most Ireciuently on Jewish lipsy Xot they Avho
^— ^^-^ were ' their own, ' but tliey who were most receptive in faith — not Israel,
but Gentiles, were those most nuirkedly lavoureil in the ministry of
Elijah and of Elisha/
As Ave read the report of Jesus" Avords, we perceive only dindy
that aspect of them which stirred the wrath of His hearers to the
utmost, and yet we do undei'stand it. That He should have turned
so fully the li<>-lit upon the Gentiles, and flung its large shadows
uixni them; that 'Joseph's Son' should have taken up this position
towards them; that He would make to tlieni spiritual application
unto death of His sermon, since they Avould not make it unto life:
it stung them to the quick. Away He must out of His city; it coidd
not bear His Presence any longer, not even on that holy Sabbath.
Out they thrust Him from the Synagogue; forth they pressed Him
out of the city; on they followed, and around they beset Him along
the road by thebroAv of the hill on which the city is built — perhaps
to that western angle, at present pointed out as the site.* This, with
the unsixjken intention of crowding Him over the cliff, ^ Avliich there
rises abruptly about forty feet out of the valley beneath.* If we
are correct in indicating the locality, the road here l)ifurcates,^ and
^VQ can conceive how Jesus, Who had hitherto, in the silence of sad-
ness, allowed Himself almost mechanically to be pressed onwards by
the surrounding crowd, now turned, and by that look of connnanding
majesty, the forthbreaking of His Divine Being, Avhich ever and
again Avrought on those around miracles of subjection, constrained
them to halt and give Avay before Him, while unharmed He passed
through their midst.''' So did Israel of old jmss through the cleft waves
of the sea, which the wonder-working rod of Moses had converted into
1 The stateiiiciit that tlie famine ui the Cliurch.
time of Elijah lasted three and a half ■'' See the plau of Nazareth in SocZe^rr'.'?
years is in accordance witli universal (Socin's) Pahestina, p. 255. Tlie road to
Jewish tradition. Coni|). Yalkut on 1 the left aoes westward, that tliroiiiili tlie
Kiii^s xvi., vol. ii. p. y>2 />. northern ])art of the town, towards Ca-
■■' See Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. pernaum. Our localisation ^ains in i)i-ob-
:^(>3. But surely it could not have been alnlity. if the ancient .Syna^o,t;-ue stood
the .sr>?^^//-western corner {Conder. Tent- wiiere tradition places it. At i)resent it
Work, i. p. UO, and all later writers). is in the hands of the Maronites.
■* The i)rovision. which awarded in- " Tlie circumstance that the Xazarenes
fitant death without formal trial in case did not avow the jmrpose of castiuir
of oix'u l)lasph('my or profanation iSanii. Him over theclift'. but intended accident-
Si I,), would not apply in this instance. ally to crowd Ilim over, explains how,
Probal)ly the i)urpose was, that the crowd when He turned sharply round to the
around should, as it were accidentally. risht, and |)assed throuuh Ilie crowd,
push Him over the clifT. they did not follow Him.
* The sjiot is just al)ove the Maronite
TUK liKTlKX TO CAI'KIfXAl M.
4r>7
»st.
ix. :
Matt.
I
'• St.
vii.
Luk.'
5
V. 2;
Mark
2
lels
a wall of safet}^ Yet, although He paitfd lioiii it in jiid.iiiucnt, ciiai'.
not thus could the Christ have tinally and I'oi- ever lelt His own XI
Nazareth." ^—^ re-
cast out of His own city, Jesus pursued His solitary way towards
Ca])ei'nauui.'- There, at least, devoted friends and believing disciples
would welcome Him. There, also, a large draught of souls would till
the Gospel-net. Capernaum would be His Galilean home.^' Here He
would, on the Sabbath-days, preach in that Synagogue, of which the
good centurion was the builder,'' and Jairus the chief I'uler.' These
names, and the memories connected with them, are a sufficient com-
ment on the etfect of His preaching: that ' His word was with power."
In Capernaum, also, was the now believing and devoted household
of the court-officer, whose only son the Word of Christ, spoken at a
distance, had restored to life. Here also, or in the immediate neigh-
bourhood, was the home of His earliest and closest disciples, the
brothers Simon and Andrew, and of James and John, the sons of
Zebedee.
From the character of the narrative, and still more from the later
call of these four,'* it would seem that, after the return of Jesus from ist. Matt.
Judseainto Galilee, His disciples had left Him, probably in Cana, and aufiparai-
returned to their homes and ordinary avocations. They were not yet
called to forsake all and follow Him— not merely to discipleship, but
to fellowship and Apostolate. AVhen He went from Cana to Nazareth,
they returned to Capernaum. They knew He was near them.
Presently He came; and now His Ministry was in their own Caper-
naum, or in its immediate neighbourhood.
' Many, even orthodox commentators, not many. 4. In narrative A lie is thrust
hold that this history is the same as that out of the city immediately after His ser-
related in St. Matt. .xiii. 54-58, and St. mon, while narrative B implies, that He
Mark vi. 1-G. But. for the reasons about continued for some time in Nazareth,
to be stated, I have come, although some- only wondering at their unbelief,
what hesitatingly, to the conclusion, If it be objected, that Jesus could
that the narrative of St. Luke and those scarcely have returned to Nazareth after
of St. Matthew and St. Mark refer to dif- the attempt on His life, we must bear in
ferent events. 1. The narrative in St. mind that this purpose had not l)eeu
Luke (which we shall call A) refers to the avowed, and that His growing fame dur-
commencement of Christ's Ministry, wiiile ing the intervening period may have
those of St. Matthew and St. Mark (which rendered such a return not only possible,
we shall call B^ are placed at a later but even advisable,
period. Nor does it seem likely, that our The coincidences as regards oui- Lord's
Lord would have entirely abandoned statement about the I'roi)het, and their
Nazareth after one rejection. 2. In nar- objection as to His being tlie carpenter's
rative A, Christ is without disciples; in son, are only natural in the circum-
narrative B He is accompanied by them, stances.
8. In narrative A no miracles are record- -' I'robably resting in the immediate
ed — in fact, His words about Kiijah and neiglibomhood of Nazareth, and pursuing
Elisha preclude any idea of them; while His joiu'ney next day, when the Sabbatli
in narrative B there are a few, liiongh was past.
458 FROM .l<)i;i)AX T(.) TllH MOINT OF TRANSFHUliATlON.
HOOK ForCapcniauiii was not the only place where He taught. Katlier
III was it the centre for itinerancy throu<ih all that district, to preach in
^— ^" — its Syna<i'o<rues." Amidst such ministry of (piiet 'power,' chietly
»st. Matt. ;ii,,u(. and unattended hv His disciples, the summer passed. Tnd^ .
IV. ia-i( • ' ' ^
it was summer in tiie ancient land of Zehulun and Xaplitali, in the
({alilec of the (Jentiles, when the iiloi-ious Light that had risen chased
away the long wiiitei-"s (hirkness, and those wlio had ])ecn the first
exiles in Assyrian bondage were the tirst brought 1)ack to Israel's true
lil)erty, and l)y Israel's Messiah-King. To the writer of the -first
Gospel, as, long years afterwards, he looked back on this, the happy
time when he had first seen the Light, till it had sprung up even to
him 'in the region and shadow of death,' it must have been a time ol'
ju'culiarly bright memories. How often, as he sat at the receipt of
custom, must he have seen Jesus passing by: how often must he
have heard His AVords, some, perhai)s, spoken to himself, but all
falling like good seed into the field of his heart, and jireparing him
at once and Joyously to obey the summons when it came: Follow Me!
And not to him only, but to many more, would it be a glowing, grow-
ing time of heaven's own summer.
^u. ix. '2 There was a dim tradition in tlie Synagogue, that this prediction,''
' The i)eople that walk in the darkness see a great light,' referred to the
new light, with which God would enlighten the eyes of those who had
l)enetrated into the mysteries of Kal)binic lore, enabling them to
])erceive concerning -loosing and binding, concerning what was clean
-Tanth. on and wliat was unclean.'' Others' regarded it as a promise to the
Gen. vi. '.>:
ert.warsh. cai-jy cxilcs, fulfilled whcn the u'reat libertv came to them. To Levi-
1>. 11 ;; •
Matthew it seemed as if both inter] )retations had come true in those
days of Christ's first Galilean ministry. Nay. he saw them com])incd
in a higher unity when to their o\G:i, enlightened by the great Light,
canu' the new knowledge of what was ])ound and what loosed, what
unclean and clean, though quite differently from what Judaism had
declared it to them; and Avlien, in that orient Sun. the promise oi'
liberty to hmg-banished Israel was at last seen fulfilled. It was.
imleed. the highest and only true fulfilment of that prediction of
Isaiah." in a history where all was prophetic, every partial fulfilment
only an unfolding and opening of the bud, and each symbolic of
fuither unfolding till, in the fulness of time, the great Reality came.
' See MihrnotJi ilp'loJotli on tlie pa.-;- primary and literal puri)ose. Tliey ro-
saj.;;*'- pre.sent a frefpieDt mode of citation
- Tlie words. • That it miglit be fnl- amonii .Jewish writers, indicatiiif;; a rpiil
tilled which was si)okeii by Esaias.' do fiiililmeiit of the spirit. tiiou<i;h not tdways
nut bear tiie mcaiiinu;, tliat this was their of tli<' letter, of a i)roi)liecy. On this sid)-
•THE PEOPLE THAT WALK L\ DAIiKNESS .SEE A GREAT LIGHT.' 459
U) wliifh all that was prophetic in Icsraers history and picdietions cjiaI'.
pointed. And so as, in the evening of his da} s, Lcvi-Matthew looked XI
back to distant Galilee, the glow of the setting sun seemed once more ^— ^r"— '
to rest on that lake, as it lay Ijallicd in its sheen of gold. It lit up
that city, those shores, that custoiii-liousc: it spread far off', over
tlK^sc hills, and across the Jordan. Truly, and in the only true sense,
ha<l then the promise been fulfilled: ' "To them which sat in the re- »st. Matt.
. . 'X. 16
gion and shadow of death, light is s])rung up."
ject see alsn SiinuiJuisliis. 11. .s.. j). 21s. miiclit he fallill('(l wiiicli \va.S8poken '), u.
and his a(lminil)l(' exi)o.sitioii of tlie .lew- s.. itp. 2-4.
ish formula -':N:*i' H*^ Q^-pb (_-that it
460 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER XII.
AT THE ' UNKNOWN " FEAST IN JERUSALEM, AND BY THE POOL OF BETHESDA.
(St. Jolm V. )
BOOK The sliorter (Uuvs of early autiiinn liad eoiiie," and the eountry stood
III in all its luxurious wealth of beauty and fruitfulness, as Jesus passed
-^r^-~^ from (Jalileo to what, in the absence of any certain evidence, we must
still be content to call ' the Unknown Feast ' in Jerusalem. Thus much,
however, seems clear that it was either the ' Feast of Wood-offering '
on the 15th of Abh (in August), when, amidst demonstrations of joy.
willing givers brought from all parts of the country the Avood required
for the service of the Altar; or else the 'Feast of Trumpets' on the
1st of Tishri (about the middle of September), which marked the be-
ginning of the New (civil) Year.'' The journey of Christ to that Feast
and its results are not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, because that
Judaean ministr.y which, if the illustration be lawful, was the histor-
ical thread on which St. John strung his record of what the Word
spake, lay, in great measure, beyond their historical standpoint.
Besides, this and similar events belonged, indeed, to that grand Self-
Manifestation of Christ, with the corresponding growth of opposition
consequent upon it, which it was the object of the Fourth Gospel to
set forth; but it led to no permanent results, and so was outside the
scope of the more i)opular, pragmatic record, which the other Gospels
had in view.
There nmy in this instance, however, have been other reasons
also for their silence. It has already been indicated that, during the
summer of (Mu'isfs first Galilean ministry, when Capernaum was His
centre of action, the disciples had i-etui-ned to their homes and usual
avocations, while Jesus moved about chiefly alone and unatfemled.
This explains the circumstance of a second call, even to His most
intimate and closest followei-s. It also accords best with that gradual
' Botli Godcf and Prof. Wpsfcoff ftlie indicate immediate succession of time,
latter moi-e fully) have pointed out tiie - For a full di-scussion of the question
distinction between /icrd rn-ura (literal- see vol. ii. App. XV. ])]>. 765, 766: for
ly: • after tho.se thin.ij;s — as in St. John v. the -Feast of Wood-offering.' 'The
r).and i/erd tovto. The former dues not Temple and its Services. Ac' pp.29.5. 296.
CHRIST AT THE UNKNOWN FEAST.' 4fjl
(Icvelopiiiout in Clirisfrs activity, wliidi (;oiiiin('iiciii<i- with the inoro CHAP,
private teacliing of tiic new Preacher of Righteousness in the villages XII
by the lake, or in the Synagogues, expanded into that publicity in ^— "^v '
which He at last appears, surrounded by His Apostles, attended by
the loving ministry of those to whom He had brought healing of body
or soul, and followed by a multitude which everywhere pressed around
Him for teaching and helj).
This more public activity commenced with the return of Jesus
from ' the Unknown Feast ' in Jerusalem. There He had, in answer
to the challenge of the Jewish authorities, for the first time set forth
His Messianic claims in all their fulness. And there, also, He had for
the first time encountered that active persecution unto death, of which
Golgotha was the logical outcome. This Feast, then, was the time of
critical decision. Accordingly, as involving the separation from the
old state and the commencement of a new condition of things, it
was immediately followed by the call of His disciples to a new Apostle-
ship. In this view, we can also better understand the briefness of the
notices of His first Galilean ministry, and how, after Christ's return,
from that Feast, His teaching became more full, and the display of His
miraculous power more constant and public.
It seems only congruous, accordant Avith all the great decisive steps
of Him in Whose footprints the disciples trod, only after He had
marked them, as it were, with His Blood — that He should have gone
up to that Feast alone and unattended. That such had been the case,
has been inferred by some from this, that the narrative of the healing
of the impotent man reads so Jewish, that the account of it appears
to have been derived by St. John from a Jew at Jerusalem." ' Others^ r^wetstdn
have come to the same conclusion from the meagreness of details
about the event. But it seems implied in the narrative itself, and
the marked and exceptional absence of any reference to disciples leads
to the obvious conclusion, that they had not been with their Master.
But, if Jesus was alone and unattended at the Feast, the (iuestion
arises, whence the report was derived of what He said in reply to the
challenge of the Jews? Here the answer naturally suggests itself, that
the Master Himself may, at some later period of His life — perhaps
during His last stay in Jerusalem — have communicated to His disciples,
or else to him who stood nearest to Him, the details of what
' Tlie reader will have no difficulty in would take too niiicli space to particu-
linding not a few i)oiuts in St. .John v. larise them,
utterly irreconcilable with the theory of - So Gess, Godet, and others,
a second century Ephesiaii Gospel. It
32; xii. 39
462 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK had passed on the tirst occasion when the Jewish authorities had
in sought to extinguish His Messianic claims in His blood. If that
^ r^"^ communication was made when Jesus was about to be offered up, it
would also account for what otherwise might seem a difficulty: the
very developed form of expression in which His relation to the Father,
and His own Office and Power, are presented. We can understand
how, from the very first, all this should have been laid before the
teachers of Israel. But in view of the organic development of Christ's
teaching, w^e could scarcely expect it to have been expressed in such
very full terms, till near the close of His Ministry.'
But we are anticipating. The narrative transports us at once to
what, at the time, seems to have been a well-known locality in Jeru-
salem, though all attempts to identify it, or even to explain the
name Bethesda, have hitherto failed. All we know is, that it was a
pool enclosed within five porches, by the sheep-market, presumably
"Neh.m. 1, close to the 'Sheep-Gate.''' This, as seems most likely, opened from
the busy northern sul)urb of markets, bazaars, and workshops, east-
wards upon the road which led over the Mount of Olives and Bethany
to Jericho.^ In that case, most probability would attach to the
identification of the Pool Bethesda with a pool somewhat north of
the so-called Birket IsraU. At present it is wholly filled with rubbish,
but in the time of the Crusaders it seems to have borne the name of
the Sheep-pond, and, it was thought, traces of the five porches could
still be detected. Be this as it may, it certainly bore in the ' Hebrew "
— or rather Aramaean — 'tongue,' the name Bethesda. No doubt this
name was designative, though the common explanations — Beth C'hisrla
(so most modern writers, and Watkins) 'House of Mercy' (?), Beth
Istebha (Nr^yN, Delitzsch), ' House of Porches,' and Beth Zeytha ( West-
cott) ' House of the Olive ' — seem all unsatisfactory. More pro])ability
attaches to^the rendering Beth Asutha (Wiuische), or Beth Asyatha,
' House of Healing. ' But as this derivation offers linguistic difficulties,
we would suggest that the second part of the name (Beth-Esda) Avas
really a Greek word Aramaiscd. Here two different derivations sug-
gest themselves. The root-word of Esda might either exj^ress to
^become ivclV — Beth idcrOai — or something akin to the Rabbinic .i^'ff "
( *c^i^^^r/di). In that case, the designation would agree with an
' Even Sfra?tss admit?, tliat tlie dis- St. John, is a curious instance of critical
course contains nothing which niiglU not arirumentation (Leben Jesu, i. p. 64G).
have been sjjoken by Christ. His objec- - Comp. specially liiehm's Handvvor-
tion to its autlieuticity, on the <i;round of terb. ad voc.
the analogies to it in certain portions of -^ Said when people sneezed. Hive
the Fourth Gospel and of the Epistles of ' Prositl '
THE TROUBLIN(; OF THE WATER.'
463
uiicieiit reading of the name, Bethzatha. Or else, the name Bethesda CHAP.
might eombine, aeeording to a not uneonnnon l{al)])iiii(' practice, tlie XH
Hebrew Beth with some Aramaised form derived Irom tlie (ireek word '— '^^ ^
8,t(iO^ 'to boil' or ' V)ubble up' (sul)st. Sttcru:)] in whidi case it would
mean 'the House of Bubbling-up, " viz. water. Any of the three
derivations just suggested would not only give an apt designation for
the pool, but explain why St, John, contrary to his usual practice,
does not give a Greek equivalent for a Hebrew term.
All this is, however, of very subordinate importance, compared with
the marvellous facts of the narrative itself. In the tive porches sur-
rounding this pool lay ' a great multitude of the impotent,' in anxious
hope of a miraculous cure. We can picture to ourselves the scene.
The popular superstitions,' which gave rise to what we would regard as
a peculiarly painful exhibition of human misery of body and soul, is
strictly true to the times and the people. Even now travellers de-
scribe a similar concourse of poor crippled sufferers, on their miserable
pallets or on rugs, around the mineral springs near Tiberias, filling, in
true Oriental fashion, the air with their lamentations. In the present
instance there would be even more occasion for this than around any
ordinary thermal spring. For the po]:>ular idea was, that an Angel
descended into the water, causing it to l)ubble up, and that only he
\w\\o first stepped into the pool would be cured. As thus onl}' one
person could obtain l)cnefit, we may imagine the lamentations of the
' many ' who would, perhaps, day by day, be disappointed in their
hopes. This bubbling up of the water was, of course, due not to
supernatural but to physical causes. Such intermittent springs are
not uncommon, and to this day the so-called ' Fountain of the Virgin '
in Jerusalem exhibits the phenomenon. It is scarcely necessary
to say, that the Gospel-narrative does not ascribe this ' troubling of
the waters ' to Angelic agency, nor endorses the belief, that only the
first who afterwards entered them, could be healed. This was evidently
the belief of the impotent man, as of all the waiting multitjLule.'' But »st. johnv.
the words in verse 4 of our Authorised Version, and perhaps, also,
the last clause of verse 3, are admittedly an interpolation,*
In another part of this book it is explained at length,^ how Jewish
belief at the time attached such agency to Angels, and how it localised
' Indeed, belief in ' holy wells ' seems
to have been very common in ancient
times. From the cuneiform inscriptions
it appears to have been even entertained
by the ancient Babylonians.
'^ I must here refer to the critical dis-
cussion in Canon Wrsfcoff's Commentary
on 8t. John. I only wish I could without
unfairness transport to these pages the
results of his masterly criticism of this
chapter.
•' See the Appendix on • Angels.'
464 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK (SO to speak) special Angels in si)i-ings and rivers; and vvc shall have
III presently to siiow, what were the i)opnhir notions about miraculous cures.
"- — -r — ' If, however, the belief about I>ethesda arose merely from the mistaken
ideas about the cause of this bubbling of the water, the question would
naturally suggest itself, whether any such cases as those descrilxid had
ever really occurred, and, if not, how such a superstition could have
continued. But that such healing might actually occur in the circum-
stances, no one would be prepared to deny, who has read the accounts
of pilgrimages to places of miraculous cure, or who considers
the influence of a firm expectancy on the imagination, especially in
diseases which have their origin in the nervous system. This view
of the matter is confirmed, and Scripture still further vindicated
from even the faintest appearance ofendorsing the popular superstition,
by the use of the article in the expression ' a multitude of the impo-
tent ' (TrXyOog rc^v aaSEvovvrcov), which marks this impotence
as used in the generic sense, while the special diseases, afterwards
enumerated without the article, are ranged under it as instances of
those who were thus impotent. Such use of the Greek term, as not
applying to any one specific malady, is vindicated by a reference to
St. Matt. viii. 17 and St. Mark vi. .56, and by its employment by the
physician Luke. It is, of course, not intended to imply, that the
distempers to which this designation is given had all their origin in the
nervous system; but we argue that, if the term ' impotent ' was the
general, of which the diseases mentioned in verse 3 were the specific
— in other words, that, if it was an '■ impotence,' of which these were
the various manifestations — it may indicate, that they all, so far as
relieved, had one common source, and this, as we would suggest, in
. the nervous system.'
With all reverence, we can in some measure understand, what
feelings must have stirred the heart of Jesus, in view of this suffering,-
waiting 'great multitude.' Why, indeed, did He go into those five
porches, since He had neither disease to cure, nor cry for help had
come to Him from those who looked for relief to far other means?
Not, surely, from curiosity. But as one longs to escape from the
stifling atmosphere of a scene of worldly pomp, with its glitter and
unreality, into the clearness of the evening-air, so our Lord may have
longed to pass from the glitter and unreality of those who held rule
' Another term for 'sick' in the N. T. is Mai. i. 8. In 1 Cor. xi. .30 tlie two
a ppoo(Tro<=^ (St. Matt. xiv. 14; St. Mar]< words are used together, appooaroi
vi. 5, 1.3; xvi. 18; (comp. Ecclus. vii. 35). and ocadEvrii.
This corresponds to the Hebrew "?".
'YE WILL NOT COME TO ME." 465
ill the Temple, or who occuipied the scat of Moses in their Academies, CHAP,
to what was the atmosphere oi" His Life on earth, His real Work, Xli
anioni^ that sutferinii-^ ig-norant multitude, which, in its sorrow, raised ^-— ^r^^ — ■
a piteous, longing cry for hel}) where it liad been misdirected to seek it.
And thus we can here also })erceive the deep internal coniicctioii
between Christ's miracle of healing ' the impotent man ' and the
address of mingled sadness and severity,'' in which He afterwards set -st. John
V. 17-47
before the Masters m Israel the; one truth fundamental in all things.
We have only, so to speak, to reverse the formal order jind succession
of that discourse, to gain an insight into what prompted Jesus to go
to Bethesda, and l\v His power to perform tliis healing.' He had
been in the Temple at the Feast; He had necessarily been in contact
— it could not be otherwise, when in the Temple — with the great ones
of Israel. What a stifling atmosphere there of glitter and unreality!
What had He in common with those who ' received glory one of
another, and the glory which cometh from the One only God ' they
sought not?" How could such men believe? The first meaning, and wer. i4
the object of His Life and Work, Avas as entirely diflerent from their
aims and })erceptions, as were the respective springs of their inner
being. They clung and appealed to Moses; to Moses, whose successors
they claimed to be, let them go!" Their elaborate searching and ^w. 45-47
sifting of the Law in hope that, by a subtle analysis of its every
))article and letter, by inferences from, and a careful drawing of a pro-
hibitive hedge around, its letter, they would possess themselves of
eternal life,'^ what did it all come to? Utterly self-deceived, and far iver. 39
i'rom the truth in their elaborate attempts to outdo each other in
local ingenuity, they would, while rejecting the Messiah sent from
God, at last become the victims of a coarse Messianic impostor.'' And ' ^"^- *o-^
even in the present, what was it all? Only the letter — the outward!
All the lessons of their past miraculous history had been utterly lost
on them. What had there been of the merely outward in its miracles
and revelations ?'^ It had been the witness of the Father; but this fver. 37
was the very element which, amidst their handling of the external
form, they perceived not. Nay, not only the unheard Voice t)f the
Father, but also the heard voice of the Prophets — a voice which they
might have heard even in John the Baptist. They heard, but did not
perceive it — just as, in increasing measure, Christ's sayings and doings,
and the Father and His testimony, were not perceived. And so all
hastened on to the judgment of final unbelief, irretrievable loss, and
' Such a logical inversion seems necessary in passing from the objective to the
subjective.
466
FROM .loRDAX TO THH MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
TTI
»> w. 19-32
<= St. John
XX. 30
self-caused condemnation." It was all utterly mistaken; utter, and,
alas! guilty perversion, their elaborate trifling with the most sacred
things, while around them were suH'cring, perishing men, stretching
' lame hands ' into emptiness, and wailing out their mistaken hopes
into the eternal silence.
While they were discussing the niceties of what constituted
labour on a Sabbath, such as what infringed its sacred rest or what
constituted a burden, multitudes of them who laboured and were
heavy laden were left to perish in their ignorance. That was
the Sabbath, and the God of the Sabbath of Pharisaism; this the
rest, the enlightenment, tlie hope for them who laboured and were
heavy laden, and who longed and knew not where to find the true
Sabbatismosl Nay, if the Christ had not been the very opposite of
all that Pharisaism sought. He would not have been the Orient Sun of
the Eternal Sabbath. But the God AVho ever Avorked in love. Whose
rest was to give rest. Whose Sabbath to remove burdens, was His
Father. He knew Him; He saw His working; He was in fellowship
of love, of work, of power with Him. He had come to loose every
yoke, to give life, to bring life, to be life — because He had life: life in
its fullest sense. For, contact with Him, whatever it may be, gives
life: to the diseased, health; to the spiritually dead, the life of the
soul; to the dead in their graves, the life of resurrection. And all
this was the meaning of Holy Scripture, when it pointed forward to
the Lord's Anointed; and all this was not merely His own, but the
Father's Will — the Mission which He had given Him, the Work which
He had sent Him to do."
Translate this into deed, as all His teachings have been, are, and
will be, and we have the miraculous cure of the impotent man, with
its attendant circumstances. Or, conversely, translate that deed, with
its attendant circumstances, into words, and we have the discourse of
our Lord. Moreover, all this is fundamental to the highest understand-
ing of our Lord's history. And, therefore, we understand how, many
years afterwards, the beloved disciple gave a place to this miracle,
when, in the full ripeness of spiritual discernment, he chose for record
in his Gospel from among those ' many signs,' which Jesus truly did,*^
only five as typical, like the five porches of the great Bethesda of
His help to the impotent, or like the five divisions into which the
Psalter of praise was arranged. As he looked back, from the height
where he stood at his journey's end, to where the sun was setting in
purple and golden glory far across the intervening landscape, amidst
its varying scenes this must have stood out before his sight, as what
CHRIST AMON(; THE IMl'OTENT' AT BETHESDA. 467
nii<;lit show to us that ' .Jesus was the Clirist, the Sou of (iod, and cilAl'.
that believing we might have life through His Nanu,'/' Xll
And so, understanding from what He afterwards said to ' the Jews ' "— ^r — '
what He thought and felt in going thither, we are better prepared to ^xVi^^"
follow the Christ to Bethesda. Two pietures must have been here
simultancousl}^ present to His mind. On the one side, a multitude
whose sufferings and false exi)ectancies rose, like the wail of the
starving for bread ; and, on the other side, the neighboui-ing Temple,
with its priesthood and tcaehers, who, in their self-seeking and the
trilling of their religious externalism, neither understood, heard, nor
would have cared for such a cry. If there was an Israel, Prince with
God, and if there was a God of the Covenant, this must not, cannot
be ; and Christ goes to Bethesda as Israel's Messiah, the Truth, and
the Life. There was twofold suffering there, and it were difficult to
know which would have stirred Him most : that of the body, or the
mistaken earnestness which so trustfully looked for Heaven's relief —
yet within such narrow limits as the accident or good fortune of being
first pushed into the Angel-troubled waters. But this was also a true
picture of His people in their misery, and in their narrow notions of
God and of the conditions of His blessing. And now Israel's Messiah
had at last come. What would we expect Him to have done? Surely
not to preach controversial or reformatory doctrines; but to do, if it
were in Him, and in doing to speak. And so in this also the Gospel-
narrative proves itself true, by telling that He did, what alone would
be true in a Messiah, the Son of God. It is, indeed, impossible to
think of Incarnate Deity — and this, be it remembered, is the funda-
mental postulate of the Gospels — as brought into contact with misery,
disease, and deatli without their being removed. That power went
forth from Him always, everywhere, and to all, is absolutely necessary,
if He was the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. And so the
miracles, as we mistakingly term the result of the contact of God
with man, of the Immanuel (God with us), are not only the golden
ladder which leads up to the Miracle, God manifest in the flesh, but
the steps by which He descends from His height to our lowliness.
The waters had not yet been 'troubled,' when He stood among
that multitude of sufferers and their attendant friends. It was in
those breathless moments of the intense suspense of expectancy,
when every eye was fixed on the pool, that the eye of the Saviour
searched for the most wretched object among them all. In him, as a
typical case, could He best do and teach that for which He had come.
This < impotent ' man, for thirty-eight years a hopeless sufferer, with-
4 68
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
m
» ver. 7
•> ver. 14
" Comp. St.
John Ix. 3
* ver. 13
out attoiKhiut ()!• IriciKl" among tliof^e ^\il()lll iiii^;ei'y^i— in this also the
true outcome of , sin — made so intensely seltish; and whose sickness
was really the consequence of his sin/' and not merely in the sense
which the Jews attached to it" — this now seemed the fittest object for
power and g-race. P'or, most marked in this history is the entire
spontaneity of our Lord's help.' It is idle to speak either of faith or
of receptiveness on the man's par-t . The essence of the wliole 1 ies in the
utter al)sence of both; in Christ's raising, as it Avere, the dead, and
calling the things that are not as though they were. This, the fun-
damental thought concerning His Mission and i)ower as the Clirist
shines forth as the historical background in Christ's subsequent,
explanatory discourse. The ' Wilt thou be made whole ? ' with which
Jesus drew the man's attention to Himself, was only to probe and lay
bare his misery. And then came the word of power, or rather the
power spoken forth, which made him whole every whit. Away from
this pool, in which there waT^ no healing; away — for the Son of God
had come to him with the outflowing of His power and jiitying help,
and he ivas made whole. Away with his l)ed, not, although it was the
holy Sabbath, 1)ut just because it was tlie-Sabbath of holy rest and
holy delight !
In the general absorljedness of all around, no ear. l)ut that to
which it had been spoken, had heard what the Saviour liad said.
The waters had not been troubled, and the healing had l)een all un-
seen. Before the healed man, scarcely conscious of what had passed,
had, with ncAv-born vigour, gathered Iiimself up and rolled together
his coverlet to luisten after Him, Jesus had already withdrawn.''^
In that multitude, all thinking only of their own sorrows and wants.
He had come and gone unobserved. But they all now knew and
observed this miracle of healing, as they saw this unl)efriended and
most wretched of them all healed, without the troubling of waters or
first immersion in them. Then there was really help in Israel, and
help not limited to such external means! How could Christ have
taught that multitude, nay, all Jerusalem and Jewry, all this, as well
as all about Himself, but by Avhat He did ? And so we learn here also
anotlier aspect of miracles, as necessary for those who, wcaiw of
Ka1)l)inic wrangling, could, in their felt impotence, only learn by what
He did that which He would say.
We know it not, but we cannot believe that on that day, nor,
perhaps, thenceforth on any other day, any man stepped for healing
1 Thiscliaracteristic is specially marked
by Canon Wrsfrott.
' The meaninir of the expression is
retired' or 'witlidnnvn ' Himself.
TUP] HEALED MAN IN THE TE.Ml'LE.
469
into the bubhling waters of Bethesda. Ratlici- would they ask tlio cilAE'
healed man, Whose was the word that had brought him healing? XII
But he knew Him not. Forth he stej)ped into (j(j(r.s free air, a new ^— ^r —
man. It was truly the holy Sabbath within, as around him; ])ut he
thought not of the <hiy, only of the rest and relief it had brought. It
was the holy Sabbath, and he carried on it his bed. If he remem-
bered that it was the Sabbath, on which it was unlaAvful to carry
forth anytliing — a burden, he would not be conscious that it was a
Ijurden, or that lie had any burden; but very conscious that He, Who
had made him whole, had bidden him take up his bed and walk.
These directions had been bound up v.ith the very word ('Rise') in
which his liealing liad come. That was enough for him. And in this
lay the beginning and root of his inward healing. Here was simple
trust, unquestioning obedience to the unseen, unknown, ]:)ut real
Saviour. For he believed Him,' and therefore trusted in Him, that
He must be right; and so, trusting without questioning, he obeyed.
The Jews saw him, as from Bethesda he carried home his ' l)ur(h'n.'
Such as that he carried were their only burdens. Although the law
of Sabbath-observance must have been made strictei- in later Rabbinic
development, when even the labour of moving the sick into the waters
of Bethesda would have been unlawful, unless there had been present
danger to life,- yet, admittedly, this carrying of the bed was an in-
fringement of the Sabbatic law, as interpreted by traditionalism.
Most characteristically, it was this external infringement which they
saw, and nothing else; it was the Person Who had commanded it
Whom they would know^, not Him Who had made whole the impotent
man. Yet this is quite natural, and perhaps not so ditlerent from
what we may still witness among ourselves.
It could not have been long after this — most likely, as soon as pos-
sible—that the healed man and his Healer met in the Temple. What
He then said to him, conq:)leted the inward healing. On the ground
of his having lieen healed, let him be whole. As he trusted an<l
obeyed Jesus in the outward cure, so let him now in^\ardly and
morally trust and obey. Here also this looking through the external
to the internal, through the tempoi-al to the spiritual and eternal,
which is so characteristic of the after-discourse of Jesus, nay, of all
1 In connection with tills see ver. 24. 30; viii. ^^0, .'51; 1 .Joini v. 10).
where tlie expression is ' believetb Him,' - Tiie whole subject of tiie Sabbath-
not 'on Him' as In the A.V., which Law will be specially discussed in a
occasionally obliterates the difference later cliapter. See also Aj)pendi.x XVII.
between the two, which is so important, on 'The Law of the Sabbath' accord-
the one implying credit, the other its ing to the Mishuah and Talmud,
outcoming trust (conip. St. John vi. 29,
470 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK His discourses and of His deeds, is most marked. The healed man
III now knew to Whom he owed faith, gratitude, and trust of obedience;
^— '--r and the consequences of this knowledge must have been incalculable.
It would make him a disciple in the truest sense. And this was the
only additional lesson which he, as each of us, must learn indivi-
dually and personally: that the man h(>aled by Christ stands in quite
another position, as regards the morally right, from wliat he did be-
fore— not only before his healing, but even before his felt sickness, so
that, if he were to go back to sin, or rather, as the original implies,
'continue to sin,'' a thing infinitely worse would come to him.
It seems an idle question, why the healed man told the Jews that
it was Jesus. It was only natural that he should do so. Rather do
we ask. How did he know that He Who had spoken to him was Jesus?
Was it by the surrounding of keen-eyed, watchful Rabbis, or by the
contradiction of sinners? Certain we are, that it was far better Jesus
should have silently withdrawn from the porches of Bethesda to make
it known in the Temple, Who it was that had done this miracle. Far
more eflectually could He so preach its lesson to those who had been
in Bethesda, and to all Jewry.
And yet something further was required. He must speak it out
in clear, open words, what was the hidden inward meaning of this
miracle. As so often, it was the bitter hatred of His persecutors
which gave Him the opportunity. The first forthbursting of His
Messianic Mission and Character had come in that Temple, when He
realised it as His Father's House, and His Life as about His Father's
business. Again had these thoughts about His Father kindled within
Him in that Temple, when, on the first occasion of His Messianic
appearance there. He had sought to purge it, that it might be a House
of Prayer, And now, once more in that House, it was the same con-
sciousness about God as His Father, and His Life as the business of
His Father, which furnished the answer to the angry invectives about
His breach of the Sabbath-Law. The Father's Sabbath was His,
the Father worked hitherto and He worked; the Father's work and
• ver. 17 His wcrc the same; He was the Son of the Father.'' And in this
He also taught, what the Jews had never understood, the true mean-
ing of the Sabbath-Law, by emphasising that which was the funda-
mental thought of the Sabbath — 'Wherefore the Lord blessed the
Sabbath day, and halloived it:' not the rest of inactivity, but of
blessing and hallowing.
Once more it was not His whole meaning, but only this one
' See Westcott ad loc.
CLOSE OF THE FIRST .STAGE OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 47I
point, tliat He claimed to l)e e<iiial with God, of wliieli they took CHAP,
hold. As we understand it, the diseourse I)e,<<'innin<>- with verse 19 is XII
not a continuation of that which liad been l)(\ii,-un in verse 17, but was ^ — "^ — -"
delivered on another, though probably pi'oxiniate occasion. By what
He had said about the Father working' hitherto and His working, He-
had silenced the multitude, who must have felt that God's rest was
truly that of beneticence, not of inactivity. But He had raised
another question, that of His equality with God, and for this He was
taken to task by the Masters in Israel. To them it was that He
addresse<l that discourse which, so to speak, pi-eached His miracle at
the Pool of l>ethesda. Into its details we cannot enter further than
has already been done. Some of its reasonings can be clearly traced,
as starting from certain fundamental positions, held in common alike
by the Sanhedrists and by Christ. Others, such as probal)ly in answer
to unreportetl olyections, we may guess at. This may also account
for what may seem occasional aliruptness of transitions.
But what most impresses us, is the majestic grandeur of Christ's
self-consciousness in presence of His enemies, and yet withal the tone
of pitying sadness which pervades His discourse. The time of the
judgment of silence had not yet come. And for the present the majesty
of His bearing overawed them, even as it did His enemies to the end,
and Christ could pass unharmed from among them. And so ended
that day in Jerusalem, And this is all that is needful lor us to know
of His stay at the Unknown Feast. With this inward separation, and
the gathering of hostile parties closes the tirst and begins the second,
stage of Christ's Ministry.
472 FROU JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER XIII.
BY THE SEA OF GALILEE — THE FINAL CALL OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES,
AND THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES.
(St. Matt. iv. 18-22; St. Mark i. I(J-20: St. Luke v. l-Il.)
BOOK We are once again out of tlie ^^titling- spiritual atmosphere of the
ni great City, and by 'the glorious Lake of Galilee. They were other
— -r — ' men, these honest, simple, earnest, impulsive Galileans, than that self-
seeking, sophistical, heartless assemblage of Rabbis, whose fh'st active
persecution Jesus had just encountered, and for the time overawed by
the majesty of His bearing. His return to Capernaum could not have
remained unknown. Close by, on either side of the city, the counti-y
was studded with villages and towns, a busy, thriving, happy multi-
tude. During that bright summer He had walked along that Lake,
and by its shore and in the various Synagogues preaclied His Gospel.
And they had been ' astonished at His doctrine, for His word was
with power.' For the first time they had heard what they felt to l)e
'the Word of God,' and they had learned to love its sound. Wliat
wonder that, immediately on His return, ' the people pressed upon
Him to hear ' it.
If we surrender ourselves to the impression which the Evangelic
narratives give us when pieced together,^ it would almost seem, as if
what we are about to relate had occurred wliile Jesus was returning
from Jerusalem. For. the better reading of St. Mark i. 16 gives this
as the mark of time: ' As He was passing on by the Sea of Galilee.'
But perhaps, viewed in connection with Avliat follows, the impression
may be so far modified, that we may think of it as on the fir.st morn-
ing after His return. It had ])rol)ably been a night of storm on the
' The accounts in the tliree Synoptic which is evidential of the Petrine origin
Go3i)els must be carefully pieced together, of the information. St. Luke seems to
It will be seen that only thus can. they have made si»ecial inquiry, and, while
be understood. Tlie narratives of St. adopting the narrative of the others, su))-
Matthew and St. Mark are almost liter- plements it with what without them
ally the same, only adding in St. Mark i. would be almost unintelligible.
20 a notice about • the hired servants,'
FISHING IN THE LAKE OF GALILEE.
473
Lake. For, the toil of the risherinen had brought thciii no <lrauglit
of fishes," and tliey stood by the shore, or in the bouts drawn up on the
beach, casting in their nets to ' wasli ' them ' of the sand and pebbles,
with which such a night's work would clog them, or to mend what
had been torn by the violence of the weaves. It was a busy scene;
for, among the many industries by the Lake of Galilee, that of fish-
ing w^as not only the most generally pursued, but }jerhaps the most
lucrative.
Tradition had it, that since the days of Joshua, and ])y one of his
ten ordinances, fishing in the Lake, though under certain necessary
restrictions, was free to all.^ And as fish was among the favourite
articles of diet, in health and sickness, on week-days and especially at
the Sabbath-meal, many must have been employed in connection with
this trade. Frequent, and sometimes strange, are the Rabbinic
advices, what kinds of fish to eat at difierent times, and in Avhat
state of preparation. They Avere eaten fresh, dried, or pickled;'' a
kind of * relish ' or sauce was made of them, and the roe also prepared."
We are told, how the large fish was carried to market slung on a ring
or twine, '^ and the smaller fish in baskets or casks. In truth, these
Rabbis are veritable connoisseurs in this delicacy; they discuss their
size with exaggerations, advise when they are in season, discern a
peculiar fiavour in the same kinds if caught in difierent w^aters, and
tell us how to prepare them most tastfully, cautioning us to wash
them down, if it cannot be w^th water, with beer rather than wine,"'
It is one of their usual exaggerations, when we read of 300 difierent
kinds offish at a dinner given to a great Rabbi, ^ although the com-
mon proverb had it, to denote what w'as abundant, that it was like
' bringing fish to Acco. ' "-' Besides, fish was also largely imported from
abroad,* It indicates the importance of this traffic, that one of
the gates of Jerusalem was called ' the fish-gate, ' '' Indeed, there is
a legend' to the ettect, that not less than 600,000 casks of sardines
were every week supplied for the fig-dressers of King Jannseus. But,
apart from such exaggerations, so considerable was this trade that,
at a later period, one of the Patriarchs of the Sanhedrin engaged
in it, and actually freighted ships for the transport offish."
CHAP.
XIII
" St. Luko
'' St. Matt,
vli. 10 : xiii.
47 ; XV. 36
■' Bab. Mez.
ii. 1
f Moed K.
11 a, last
Une
f Jer. Sheq.
vi. '2, p. 50 a
BShem. R. 9
h Neh. iu. 3
' Ber. 44 a
^ Jer. Ab. Z.
ii, 10, p. 42 a
' St. Matt. iv. 18 &c. ; St. Mark i, 16
A-e. as compared with St. Luke v. 2.
- Iu order not to iiiijiede iiaviiiation, it
was forbidden to fix nets. For these two
ordinances, see Baba K. 80 b, hist line .fee.
The reference to the lisliing in the lake is
in 81 //. But see Tos. Baba K. viii. 17, 18.
■■' Tliree Hues before that we read this
sayinii; of a fishernian : ' Roast fish with
his brother (salt), lay it beside his father
(water), eat it with his son (fisli-juice),
and drink upon it his father ' (water).
* Specially from Egypt and Spain,
Machsh. vi. 3.
474
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» So in
Erub. 30 a
i> Ab. i. 1 ;
Sanh. 91 b
e St. John 1.
37 &c.
1 St. Matt,
iv. 20, 22
These notices, whicli might be largely multiplied, are ol" more than
antiquarian interest. They give a more vivid idea of life by the
Lake of Galilee, and show that those engaged in that trade, like
Zebedee and his sons {~T'?]i 'the God-given,' like Theodore and
Dorothea), were not unfrcquently men of means and standing. This
irrespective of the fact, that the Rabbis enjoined some trade or indus-
trial occupation on every man, whatever his station. We can picture
to ourselves, on that bright autumn morning, after a stormy night of
bootless toil, the busy scene by the Lake, with the fishermen cleaning
and mending their nets. Amidst their work they would scarcely
notice the gathering crowd. As we have suggested from the better
reading of St. Mark i. 16, it was Christ's first walk by the Lake on
the morning after His return from Judaea. Engaged in their fishing
on the afternoon, evening, and night of His arrival in Capernaum,
they would probably not have known of His presence till He spake to
them. But He had come that morning specially to seek four of these
fishers, that He might, now that the time for it had come, call them
to permanent discipleship — and, what is more, fit them for the work
to which he would call them.
Jewish customs and modes of thinking at that time do not help
us further to understand the Lord's call of them, except so far as they
enable us more clearly to apprehend what the words of Jesus would
convey to them. The expression ' Follow Me ' would be readily
understood, as implying a call to become the permanent disciple of a
teacher.'' Similarly, it was not only the practice of the Rabbis, but
regarded as one of the most sacred duties, for a Master to gather
around him a circle of disciples." Thus, neither Peter and Andrew,
nor the sons of Zebedee, could have misunderstood the call of Christ,
or even regarded it as strange. On that memorable return from His
Temptation in the wilderness they had learned to know Him as the
Messiah," and they followed Him. And, now that the time had come
for gathering around Him a separate discipleship, Avhen, with the
visit to theUnknowai Feast, the Messianic activity of Jesus had passed
into another stage, that call would not come as a surprise to their
minds or hearts.
So far as the Master was concerned, we mark three points. First,
the call came after the open breach with, and initial persecution of,
the Jewish authorities. It was, therefore, a call to fellowship in His
peculiar relationship to the Synagogue. Secondly, it necessitated
the abandonment of all their former occupations, and, indeed, of all
earthly ties.'* Thirdly, it was from the first, and clearly, marked as
'1 WILL MAKE YOU FISHERS OF MEN.' 475
totally ditforent from u call to such discipleship, as that of any other CHAP.
Master in Israel. It was not to learn more of doctrine, noi- more XIII
fully to follow out a life-direction already taken, but to begin, and to ^— -v^-^^
become, something quite new, of which their former occupation offered
an emblem. The disciples of the Rabbis, even those of John the
Baptist, 'followed,' in order to learn; they, in order to do, and to
enter into fellowship with His Work. ' Follow Me, and I will make
you fishers of men.' It was then quite a new call this, which at the
same time indicated its real aim and its untold difficulties. Such a
call could not have been addressed to them, if they had not already
been disciples of Jesus, understood His Mission, and the character of
the Kingdom of God. But, the more we think of it, the more do we
perceive the magnitude of the call and of the decision wiiich it implied
— for, without doubt, they understood what it implied, as clearly, in
some respects perhaps more clearly, than we do. All the deeper,
then, must have been their loving belief in Him, and their earnest
attachment, when, with such unquestioning trust, and such absolute
simplicity and entireness of self-surrender, that it needed not even a
spoken Yea on their part, they forsook ship and home to follow Him.
And so, successively, Sinu)n ' and Andrew, and John and James —
those who had been the first to hear, w^ere also the first to follow Jesus.
And ever afterwards did they remain closest to Him, who had been the
first fruits of His Ministry.
It is not well to speak too much of the faith of men. Witn all
the singleness of spiritual resolve — perhaps, as yet, rather impulse —
which it implied, they probably had not themselves full or adequate
conception of what it really meant. That would evolve in the course
of Christ's further teaching, and of their learning in mind and heart.
But, even thus, we perceive, that in their own call they had already,
in measure, lived the miracle of the draught of fishes which they
were about to witness. What had passed between Jesus and, first,
the sons of Jona, and then those of Zebedee, can scarcelj^ have occu-
pied many minutes. But already the people were pressing around
the Master in eager hunger for the Word; for, all the livelong night
their own teachers had toiled, and taken nothing which they could
give them as food. To such call the Fisher of Men could not be deaf.
1 The name Peter occurs also among chuma in JeUuwk's Betli ba-Midr. voL
the Jews, but not that of Paul. Thus, in vi. p. 95, wliere, liowever, lie is called
Pesiqta (ed. Bubn; p. 158 a, line 8 from Ben Petio. In Menor. Hamm. tlie name
bottom, see also the Note tiiere) we read is changed into Plu'nehas. Comp. Jelli-
of a R. Jose the son of Peytros, and nek, Beth ha-Midr. vol. vi. Pref. xi.
similarly in the fragments iwnw Tan-
476 FliOM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
HOOK Tlio boat of Peter shall be His pulpit; He had consecrated it by
in consecrating' its owner. The boat has been thrust out a little from
'^ — > ' the land, and over the soft ripple of the waters comes the strange
melody ol' that Word. We need scarcely ask what He spake. It
would be of the Father, of the Kingdom, and of those who entered it
— like what He spake from the Mount, or to those who lalioured and
were heavy laden. But it would carry to. the hearers th(3 wondrous
beauty and glory of that opening Kingdom, and, by contrast, the deep
poverty and need of their souls. And Peter had heard it all in the
boat, as he sat close by, in the shadow of His Majesty. Then, this
was tiie teaching of which he had l)ecome a disciple; this, the net
and the fishing to which he was just called. How utterly miserable,
in one respect, must it have made him. Could such an one as he ever
hope, with whatever toil, to be a successful fisher?
Jesws had read his thoughts, and much more than read them. It
was all needed for the qualifying of Peter especially, but also of the
others wlio ha<l been called to be fishers of men. Presently it shall
be all brought to light; not only that it may be made clear, Init that,
alike, the lesson and the help may be seen. And this is another ob-
ject in Christ's miracles to His disciples: to make clear their inmost
thoughts and longings, and to point them to the riglit goal. ' Launch
out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.' That they
toil in vain all life's night, only teaches the need of another begin-
ning. The ' neverthless, at Thy word,' marks the new trust, and the
new work as springing from that trust. When Christ is in the boat
and bids us let down the net, there must be ' a great multitude of
fishes.' And all this in this syml)olic miracle. Already ' the net was
breaking, ' when they beckoned to their partners in the other ship, that
they should come and help them. And now both ships arc burdened
to the water's edge.
But what did it all mean to Simon Peter? He had been called
to full discipleship, and he had obeyed the call. He had been in his
boat beside the Saviour, and heard what He had spoken, and it had
gone to his heart. And now this miracle which he had witnessed!
Such shoal offish in one spot on the Lake of Galilee was not strange.
The miraculous was, that the Lord had seen through those waters
down where the multitude of fishes was, and ])i(l(lcn him let down
for a draught. He could see through the intervening waters, right
down to the bottom of that sea; Ho could see through him, to the
very bottom of Peter's heart. He did see it — and all that Jesus had
just spoken meant it, and showed him what Mas there. And could he
'THEY KOKSOOK AIJ., AND FOLLOWED IILU.' 477
then be a fisher ol" men. out of whose heart, alter a liCc's ni^'ht ol" toil, CHAP.
tlie net woiihl come u]) cii^jty, or rather only clog,ii'e(l with sand and XHI
torn with pebbles^ 'Phis is wiiat he meant wiien ' he Tell (h)wn at ^— — v-^-'
Jesus' knees, sayin.ii,-: l)('j)art IVom me, lor I am a sinful man, () l^ord.'
And this is why .lesus eomlorted him: 'Fear not; from henceforth
thou shalt catch men." And so also, and so only, do we, each of us,
learn the lesson of our callin.n', and receive the ti'ue comfort in it.
Nor yet can anyone become a true fisher of men in any other than
such manner.
The teachiuii: and the coiidbrt i'e(|uir(Ml not to be re})ealed in the
life of Teter, nov in that of the others who witnessed and shared in
what had passed. Many are the truths wdiich shine out from the
symbolism of this scene, when the first disciples were first called.
That call itself; the boat; the command of Christ, despite the ni<i:ht
of vain toil; the unlikely success; the net and its cast at the bidding-
of Christ, with the absolute certitude of result, wlun-e He is and when
He ])ids; the miraculous direction to the spot; the multitude of fishes
enclosed; the net about to break, yet not breaking; the suri)rise, as
strange perhaps as the miracle itself; nnd then, last of all, the lesson
of self-knowledge and humiliation: all these and much more has the
Church most truly read in this histoi-y. And as we turn from it,
this stands out to us as its final outcome and lesson: ' And wiien
they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all and followed
Him."'
' AVp would call special attention to first Evann-elists, but rejects that of the
the aiTansement of tliis narrative. The third, on iirounds which neither admit nor
explanation 2:iven in the text will, it is require detailed examination. The latest
hoped, l)e sutticieiU answer to the diffl- ami most curious idea of the Tiil)iniien
cullies raised by some commentators. sciiool has Iteen, to see in the account of
Sf.rfiufis' attemjit to indicate the mythic St. Luke a refiection on Peter as Juda-
ori<^in of this narrative forms one of the istically cramped, and to understand the
weakest parts of liis book. Keiiii holds beckoning to his partners as implying
the 2;enuinenessof the account of the two the calliiii^ in of Pauline teachers.
4jti FROM .J(JKL)AN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER XIY.
A SABBATH IN CAPERNAUM.
(St. Matt. viii. 14-17: St. Mark i. 21-34; St. Uiike iv. :i:'.-41.)
BOOK iT ^^''^^ tlie Holy Subhatli — the tirst after He had caUeil around Hiin
III His tirst permanent <liseiples; the first, also, after His return from
^— v-*^ the Feast at Jerusalem. Of both we eaii trace indications in the
account of tiiat morning, noon, and evening wtiich the Evangelists
furnish. The greater detail with which St, ^lark, who wrote under
the intiueuee of St. Peter, tells these events, shows the freshness and
vividness of impression on the mind of Peter of those earh' days of his
new life. As indicating that what is here recorded took i)lace
immediately after the return of Jesus irom Jei'usalem, we mark, that
as yet there were no watehtul enemies in wailing to entraj) Him in
such breach of the Law, as might furnish ground for judicial pro-
'.st. Luke ('('dure. But, from their presence and activity so soon afterwards."
v\.~-' '' " we infer, that the authorities of Jerusalem had sent some of their
familiars to track His steps in Galilee
J3ut as yet all seemed calm and undisturbed. Those simi)le,
warm-hearted Galileans yielded themselves to the power of His words
and works, not discerning hidden 1)laspliemy in what He said, nor yet
Sabbath-desecration in His healing on God's holy day. It is morning,
and Jesus goes to the Synagogne at Ca})ernainu.' To teach there,
was now His wont. But frequency could not lessen the impression.
In describing the Intluence of His Person or words the Evangelists
use a term, which really means amazement.- And when we find the
.St. Matt, sanu^ word to describe the impression of the ' Sermon on the Moimt,"*
the inference is naturally suggested, that it presents the t\\)^\ if it
does not sum u]) the contents, of some of His Synagogue-discourses.
' Tlie accounts of this iriven by St. in tiio cliaiitors of tlie presont work.
Mark and St. Luke chronologically pre- - The foUowinf;: are the passaj^e.s ir
cede what is i-elated in St. Matt. viii. which the same term is used: St. Matt.
14-17. The reader is requested in each vii. 2S; xiii. .')4: xi.\. 2.5; x.xii. .33; St.
case to peruse the Biblical nari-atives be- Mark i. 22; vi. 2; vii. ."57; x. 2(i; xi. 18; St.
fore, or aloni;; witli tlieir com mentation Uuke ii. 48: iv. :)2 : ix. 43; Acts xiii. 12.
Tii. -JH
THE DEMONISED' IX THE NEW TESTAMENT.
479
It is not iiccessai'v to siipiXtsc that, wliat held His hearers spoll-boiiiul, CHAP,
hud ueeessaril}' also its ellcet on their hearts and lives. Men may be XIII
enraptured by the ideal without trying to make it the real. Too ^— ^r^-^
often it is even in inverse proportion; so that those who lead not the
most moral lives even dare to denounee the New Testament stand-
point, as below their oAvn (.'onceptions of right and duty. I>i!t there
is that in man, evidenee of his origin and destiny, -whicli always and
involuntarily responds to the presentation of the higher. And in
this instance it was not only what He taught, but the contrast with
that to which they had been accustomed on the part of ' the Scribes,'
which filled them with amazement. There was iio appeal to human
authority, other than that of the conscience; no subtle logical dis-
tinctions, legal niceties, nor clever sayings. Clear. lini])i(l, and crys-
talline, flowed HisAvords from out the spring of the Divine Life that
was in Him.
Among the hearers in the Synagogue that Sabbath morning was
one of a class, concerning whose condition, whatever ditticulties may
attach to our proper understanding of it, the reader of the New-
Testament must form some definite idea. The term 'demoniacal
possession ' occurs not in the New Testament. AVe owe it to
Josephus,'' from whom it has passed into ecclesiastical language, ^comp.
,^, 1- • •, ,, Ti 1 , • • • Belitzsclt in
We dismiss it the more readily, that, m our view, it conveys a wrong mehm-s
impression. The New- Testament speaks of those A\ho had a spirit, w<.rter-
or a demon, or demons, or an unclean s])irit, or the spirit of an
unclean demon, but cheifly of persons who were 'demonised."^
Similarly, it seems a strange inaccuracy on the part of commentators
to exclude from the Gospel of St. John all notice of the -demonised.'
That the Fourth Gospel, although not reporting any healing of th(^
ilemonised, shares the fundamental view of the Synoi)tists. ai)]iears
not only from St. John vii. 20, viii. 48, 52. ))ut especially from
viii. 49 and x. 20, 21.- We cannot believe that the writer of the
Fourth Gosi)el would have jiut into the mouth of Jesus the answer
• I am not a demon.' or have alloAved Him to be descril)ed bv His
buch
' The won! • sjiirit ' oi- • si)irits ' ooours
hrice in St. Matthew, thrice in St. Mark
and twice, in St. Luke; witli tlie addition
' evil.' twice in St. Luke; with that of ' un-
clean," once in St. Matthew, eleven times
in St. Mark, and fonf times in St. Luke.
The word dai'itoov in .sinp;ular or plural
occurs once in each of the Synoptists;
wliile Sai/ioviov, in sing'ular or i)hu"al.
occui-s nine times in St. Mattliew. tlnve
times in St. Mark, fourteen times in St.
Luke, and six times in St. .lohn. Tiie
expression • tlie spirit of an unclean de-
mon ' occurs once in St. Luke, while the
verb -to be demonised " occurs, in one
form or another, seven times in St. Mat-
thew, four times in St. Mark, once in St.
Luke, and once in St. Jolm. Comp. also
the careful broc/nrre of Pastor Konz, Die
Besessenen im N.T.. altliou^h we difler
from his conclusions.
- Com]), also ItV^V.s', T^eben .Tesn i. p. 457.
480
FliOM JOIiDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" St. Matt.
X. 8
'■ St. Luke
X. 17, 18
•■ St. Matt,
xvii. 21;
com p. also
xii. 43 &c.,
also
8ix)ken to
the dis-
ciples
friends as not one ' demonised,' without a single word to show
dissent froni the poi)idar view, if he had not shared tlie ideas of the
Synoptists. In discussing a question of such very serious import in
the study and criticism of the Gospels, the precise facts of the case
should in the first place be clearly ascertained.
The first question here is, whether Christ Himself shared the
views, not indeed of His contemporaries (for these, as we shall see,
were very different), but of the Evangelists in regard to what they
call the 'demonised'? This has been extensively denied, and Christ
represented as only unwilling needlessly to disturb a popular pre-
judice, which He could not at the time effectually combat. But the
theory requires more than this; and, since Christ not only tolerated,
l)ut in addressing the demonised actually adopted, or seemed to
adopt, the prevailing view, it has been argued, that, for the sake of
these poor affiicted persons. He acted like a physician who appears
to enter into the fancy of his patient, in order the more effectually
to heal him of it. This view seems, however, scarcely worth refuting,
since it imputes to Jesus, on a point so important, a conduct not
only unworthy of Him, or indeed of any truly great man, but
implies a canon of ' accommodation ' which might equally be applied
to His Miracles, or to anything else that contravened the notions of
an interpreter, and so might transform the whole Gospel-narratives
into a series of historically untrustworthy legends. But we will
not rest the case on what might be represented as an appeal to
prejudice. For, we find that Jesus not only tolerated the popular
'prejudice,' or that He 'adopted it for the sake of more readily
healing those thus afflicted' — but that He even made it part of
His disciples' commission to ' cast out demons,"" and that, when the
disciples afterwards reported their success in this, Christ actually
made it a matter of thanksgiving to God.'' The same view underlies
His reproof to the disciples, when failing in this part of their work;"
while in St. Luke xi. 19, 24, He adopts, and argues on this view
as against the Pharisees. Regarded therefore in the light of history,
impartial criticism can arrive at no other conclusion, than that Jesus
of Xazareth shared the views of the Evangelists as regards the
' demonised." '
Our next inquiry must be as to the character of the phenomenon
thus designated. In view of the fact that in St. Mark ix. 21, the
demonised had been such -of a child,' it is scarcely possible to
ascribe it simply to itioraf causes. Similarly, personal faith does not
• This is also tlic coiicliisioii lUTiveil at by Wei.ss, u. s.
I'OWKi; OV THE DEMONS OVKU TIIK DEMONISEl).' 4^1
seem to have been a requisite condition of licaliii.ii-. A<i:ain, as other CHAP.
diseases are mentioned without being- attributed to demoniacal XIV
intiuenee, and as all who were duuil), deal', or paralysed Avould not " ■, '
have been described as • demonised,' it is evident that all physical,
or even mental distempers of the same class were not ascribed to the
same cause: some might l)e natural, while others were demoniacal.
On the other hand, there were more or less violent symptoms of
disease in every demonised person, and these were greatly agoravated
in the last paroxysm, when the demon quitted his habitation. We
have, therefore, to regard the phenomena described as caused by the
influence of such ' spirits," primarily, ui)on that which forms the nexus
l)etween body and mind, the nervous system, and as producing dif-
ferent physical efiects, according to the part of the nervous sj'stem af-
fected. To this must be added a certain impersonality of consciousness,
so that for the time the consciousness was not that of the demonised,
but the demoniser, just as in certain mesmeric states the conscious-
ness of the mesmerised is really that of the mesmeriser. "We might
carry the analogy farther, and say, that the two states are exactly
])arall('l — the demon or demons taking the place of the mesmeriser,
only tliat the ettects were more powerful and extensive, perhaps more
enduring. But one point seems to have been assumed, for which
there is, to say the least, no evidence, viz. , that because, at least in
many cases, the disease caused by the demon was permanent, there-
fore those who were so affected were permanently or constantly
under the poAver of the denujn. Neither the New Testament, nor
even Rabbinic literature, conveys the idea of permanent demoniac
indwelling, to which the later term 'possession 'owes its origin.' On
the contrary, such accounts, as that of the scene in the Synagogue
of Capernaum, convey the inqiression of a sudden influence, which
in most cases seems occasioned by the spiritual effect of the Person
orofthe Wordsofthe Christ. To this historical sketch we have only
to add, that the phenomenon is not referred to either in th<> Old
Testament,^ or in tln^ Apocrypha,^ nor, for that matter, in the
Mishnah,* where, indeed, from the character of its contents, one
' Tlic nearest approach to it, so far as could not luiv(> remembered the e.\i)res-
1 am aware, occurs in Pirqe de R. El. c. sions in 1 Sam. xvi. 14. 15, &c., wheu he
i:! (ed. Eembers, p. IG h, 17 r?), where sees a parallel to demoniacal possessions
the influence of Satan over the serpent in the case of Saul.
(in the history of the Fall) is likened to ■' Tob. viii. 2. 3, is not a case in point,
that of an evil spirit over a man, all ^ Gfrorer (.Jahrh. d. Ileils, i. i)p. 410,
whose deeds and words are done under 412) quotes Erub. iv. 1 and Gitt. vii. 1;
the inHuence of the demon, so that he but neither of tliese passages implies
only acts at his bidding. anythinu- like demoniac possession.
■■^ Surely Stnmss (Leben Jesu, ii. 10)
482 ¥\U)y\ JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF THAN><FlGrHATlON.
BOOK would scarcely expect to tiud it. l>ut wo timl it mentioned not only
III in the New Testament, l)iit in the writing:^ of Josepkvs.^ The
^— — ,- — references in heathen or in Christian writings i)Osterior to those of the
XcAv Testament lie beyond our i)resent inquiry.^
Jn view of these facts, we luay arrive at some more definite
conclusions. Those who contend that the representations of the
Evangelists are identical with tlu' popular Jewish notions (jf the
time, must he ill acquainted with tlie latter. What these were, is
explained in another place.'' Sullicc it here to state that, whatever
want ()l"ch'arness there may he about the Jewish ideas of demoniac in-
tluences, there is none as to the means proposed for their removal.
These nmy be broadly classified as: magical means for the prevention
of such influences (such as the avoidance of certain places, times,
nuud)ers, or circumstances; amulets, i*cc.); magical means for the
cure of diseases; and direct exorcism (either by cei'tain outAvard
means, or else by formulas of incantation). .Vgain, while the New
Testament furnishes no data by which to learn tlu^ views of Jesus
or of the Evangelists regarding the exact character of the i)henom-
enoii. it furnishes the fullest details as to the maunei' in which the
denioiiiscd were set free. This was always the same. It consisted
neither in magical means nor formulas of exorcism, but always in
the AVord of Power which Jesus spake, or entrusted to His disciples,
and which the demons always obeyed. There is here not only
difference, but contrariety in conq^arison Avith the current Jewish
notions, and it leads to the conclusion that there was the same
contrast in His views, as in His treatment of the ' demonised."
Jewish superstition in regard to the demoniacal state can, there-
fore, no more afiect the question of the credibility of the Gospel-
accounts of it, than can quotations from heathen or from post-
Apostolic Christian Avriters. In truth, it must be decided purely on
New Testament grounds; and resolves itself into that of the general
trustworthiness of the Evangelic narratives, and of our estimate of
the Person of Christ. Thus viewed, he wdio regards Jesus as the
Messiah and the Son of God can be in no doubt. If we are asked
to explain the rationale of the phenomenon, or of its cessation — if,
indeed, it has wholly and cNcrywhere ceased — we might simply
decline to attem])t that for which \\v have iu)t sufficient data, and
' See, for example. Ant. vi. >■. 2: II. Ter^t. i. ii]"- 279~284i. iiinl in Nanzs
3; viii. 2. ;>: War vii. (J. 3. Ijrocluu'e.
''■ The reader will tind full references ■' See Appendix XVI. : ' .Jewish Views
in the Encyclopa'dias. in Wefsltnn (Nov. about Delnon:^ and the demonised.'
THE DKMONI.sTJ) STATK. 4g3
tliis, without iiiiplyin.ii- that sucli did not exist, or tliat, if kiiowii, CHAI'.
they woiihl not wholly vindicate the facts of tlic case. At any rate, XIV
it does not follow that tliere are no snch data because we do not ^— ^r-*^
])ossess them; nor is there any i>Tonnd for tlie contention that, if
they existed, wo ought to possess them. For. admittedly, the phe-
nomenon was only a temj^oi-ary one.
And yet certain considerations will occur to tlie thougjitful
reader, which, if tliey do not explain, will at least make him hesitate
todcsig-nate as inexplicable, the tacts in question. In our view, at
least, he would be a bold interpreter who would ascribe all the
phenomena even of heathen mag-ic to jugglery, or else to i)urely
physical causes. Admittedly they have ceased, or perhaps, as much
else, assumed other forms, just as, so far as evidence goes, demoniac
influence has — at least in the form presented in the New Testament.
But, that it has so ceased, does not i)rove that it never existed. If
we believe that the Son of Clod came to destroy the works of the
Devil, we can understand the developed enmity of the king(h:)m of
darkness; and if we regard Christ as Very God, taking, in manner to
us mysterious. Humanity, Ave can also perceive how the Prince of
Darkness might, in counterfeit, seek through the demonised a tem-
porary dwelling in Humanity for jnirposes of injury and destruction,
as Christ for healing and salvation. In any case, holding as we do
that this demoniac influence was not permanent in the demonised,
the analogy of certain mesmeric influences seems exactly to apply.
No reference is here made to other supernatural spirit-influences of
which many in our days speak, and which, despite the lying and
imposture probably connected with them, have a background of truth
and reality, which, at least in the present writer's experience, cannot
be absolutely denied. In the mysterious connection between the
sensuous and supersensuous, spirit and matter, there are many things
which the vulgar ' bread-and-butter philosophy ' fails rightly to a])por-
tion, or satisfactorily to explain. Tliat. without the intervention of
sensuous media, mind can. may, and does aftect mind; that even
animals, in proportion to their sensitiveness, or in special circum-
stances, are aflected by that which is not, or else not yet, seen, and
this quite independently of man ; that, in slnn-t. there are not a few
phenomena 'in heaven and earth ' of which oui- i)hilosophy dreams
not — these are considerations which, however the superficial sciolist
may smile at them, no earnest inquirer would care to dismiss with
peremptory denial. And superstition only begins when we look for
Mark i. 23
484 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOrXT OF TRANSFiOURATIOX.
IU)0K them, or else wiien we attempt to accoiuit Ibr and explain tlicni, not
ni in the admission of their possibility.
^■^^^ — -" But, in our view, it is of the deepest importance always to keep in
mind, that the ' demonised ' was not 'a permanent state, or possession
by the powers of darkness. For, it establishes a moral element, since,
during the period of their temporary liberty, the demonised might
have shaken themselves free from the overshadowing power, or sought
release from it. Thus the demonised state involved ])ersonal re-
sponsibility, although that of a diseased and disturbed consciousness.
In one respect those who were ' demonised ' exhibited the same
phenomenon. They all owned the Power of Jesus. It was not other-
wise in the Synagogue at Capernaum on that Sabbath-morning.
What Jesus had spoken produced an immediate effect on the demon-
ised, though one Avhich could scarcely have been anticipated. For,
»inst. there is authority for inserting the word ' straightway ' " immediately
after the account of Jesus' preaching. Yet, as we think of it, we
cannot imagine that the demon would have continued silent nor yet
that he could have spoken other than the truth in the Presence of the
God-Man. There must be, and yet there cannot be, resistance. The
very Presence of the Christ meant the destruction of this work of
the Devil. Involuntarily, in his confessed inability of disguise or re-
sistance, he OAvns defeat, even before the contest. ' What have we to
do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth?^ Thou art come to destroy us !^
I know Thee Who Thou art, the Holy One of God. " And yet there
seems in these words already an emergence of the consciousness of
the demonised, at least in so far that there is no longer confusion
between him and his tormenter, and the latter speaks in his own
name. One stronger than the demon had affected the higher part in
the demonised. It was the Holy One of God, in Whose Presence the
powers of moral destruction cannot be silent, but must speak, and
own their subjection and doom. The Christ needs not to contend :
that He is the Christ, is itself victory.
But this was not all. He had come not only to destroy the
works of the Devil. His Incarnation meant this — and more: to set
the prisoners free. By a Avord of command He gagged '' the confes-
sions of the demon, unwillingly made, and even so with hostile
1 I have omitted, on critical grounds, =* This is the real nieauiiig of the ex-
the clause. 'Let us alone.' The expres- pression rendered, ' Hold thy peace.' it
sion, ' What between us and Thee, Jesu stills the raging of the })owero of evil ■
Nazarene,' contains a well-known He- just as, characteristically, it is again eni-
^I'aisin. ployed in the stilling of the storm, St.
^ This seems the more correct rendering. Mark, iv. 39.
'A NEW DOCTIMNK WITH Al'TFIORITY!' 485
iutoiit. It wat^ not by siicli Noii-r.s tliat He would luivt; His Messiah- CHAP.
ship ever proclaiuuMl. Such testimony was wholly unfitting and Xiv
incongruous; it would have been a strange discord on tlu' witness of "— -v — '
the Baptist and the Voice Which had proclaimed llini from heaven.
And, truly, had it been admitted, it would have strangely jarred in a
Life which needed not, anel asked not even the witness of men, but
ai)pealed straightway to God Himself. Nor can we fail to i)erceive
how, had it been allowed, it would have given a true ground to what
the Pharisees sought to assign as the interpretation of His Power,
that by the Prince of Demons He cast out demons. And thus there
is here also deep accord with the fundamental idea which was the
outcome of His Temptation: that not the seemingly shortest, but the
Divine way must lead Him to the goal, and that goal not Royal pro-
clamation, Init the Resurrection.
The same power which gagged the confession also bade the demon
relinipiish his prey. One wild paroxysm — and the sufferer was for
ever free. But on them all who saw and heard it fell the utter stupor
and confusion of astonishment.^ Each turned to his neighbour with
the inquiry: 'What is tliis? Anew doctrine with authority! And
He comnmndeth the unclean si)irits, and they obey Him."' Well
might they inc|uire. It had been a threefold miracle: 'a new
doctrine;' 'with authority;' and obedience of the unclean spirits to
His command. There is throughout, and especially in the account of
the casting out of the demon, such un-Jewish simplicity, with entire
absence of what would have been characteristic in a Jewish exorcist;
sucli want of all that one would have expected, if the event had been
invented, or coloured for a purpose, or tinged by contemporary notions;
and, withal, such sublimity and majesty, that it is difficult to under-
stand how^ any one can resist the impression of its reality, or that He
Who so spake and did was in truth the Son of God.
From tlic Synagogue we follow the Saviour, in company with His
called disciples, to Peter's wedded home. But no festive meal, as Avas
Jewish wont, awaited tlieni there. A sudden access of violent ' burn-
ing fever, ' ^ such as is even now common in that district, had laid
Peter's motlier-in-law prostrate. If we had still any lingering
' The Greek term impfies this. Be- ^ This seems the better rendering,
aides its use in this narrative (St. Mar]< i. ■' Such is tlie meaning of the Greek
27; St. Luke iv. 3(i, in tlie tatter in tlie word. I cannot understand, wliy tlie
sultstautive form), it occurs in St. Mari< corresponding term in St. fjuke should
X. 24, 132 ; Acts ix. (5; and as a substan- have been interpreted in -The Speaker's
tive in Acts iii. 10. Commentary as ' typhoid fever.'
486
FROM .l(»i;i)AX TO TIIH MOt^'T OF TRANSFKU'RATION.
BOOK
Til
» Shatob.
67 a
Thought 1)1" .Jewish iiiairical cures as connected witli those of Jesus,
what is now rehited must dispel it. The Tahiuid gives this disease
precisely the same name (Nr-*':"^' NrrN. Eshatho Tsemlria), 'burning
fever," and prescribes for it a magical remedy, of which the principal
part is to tie a knife wholly of iron by a l)raid of hair to a thornbush.
and to repeat on successive days Exod. iii. 2, 3, then ver. 4, and tinally
ver. 5, after which the bush is to be cut down, while a certain magical
formnla is pronounced.' How different from this, alike in its sublime
simplicity and in the majestic bearing of Him Who healed, is the
Evangelic narrative of the cure of Peter's mother-in-law. To ignore,
in our estimate of the trustworthiness of the Gospels, this essential
contrast, would be a grave historical mistake. Jesus is ' told ' of the
sickness; He is besought for her Avho is stricken down. In His
Presence disease and misery cannot continue. Bending over the
suflerer. He 'rebuked the fever,' just as He had rebuked' 'the
demon ' in the Synagogue, and for the same reason, since all disease,
in the view of the Divine Healer, is the outcome of sin. Then lifting
her by the hand, she rose up, healed, to ' minister ' unto them. It
Avas the first Diaconate^ of woman in the Church — might we not
almost say, in the world? — a Diaconate to Christ, and to those that
were His: the Diaconate of one healed by Christ; a Diaconate
immediately folloAving such healing. The first, this, of a long-
course of Avoman's Diaconate to Christ, in which, for the first time,
woman attained her true position. And Avhat a Sabbath-meal it
must have been, after that scene in the Synagogue and after that
healing in the house, when Jesus Avas the Guest, they who had Avit-
nessed it all sat at meat Avitli Him, and she who had been healed was
the Deaconess. Would that such Avere ever our Christian festive
meals!
Jt Avas evening. The sun Avas setting, and the Sabbath past. All
that day it had been told from home to home Avhat had been done
in the Synagogue; it had been Avhispered what had taken place in
the house of their neighbour Simon. This one conviction had been
borne in upon them all. that ' tcith aufJiority ' He spake, AA'ith author-
ity and poAver He commanded even the unclean spirits, and they
obeyed. No scene more characteristic of the Christ than that on
this autumn evening at Capernaum. One by one the stars had shone
out over the tranquil Lake and the festive city, lighting n]) earth's
1 Tlie word is the same in both cases.
^ The term is the same. See the re-
marks of Volktaar (Marcus, pp. 9'J. lOOi.
•AT i-:vKX. i;i!K Till-: srx was set." 4^7
(hirknc.-s wit li licnvcirs soft liiiHuiiicy, as il' they stood i hcic w il iicsscs, cilAP.
tluit (iod liad lultlllcd His jiood promise to Abraham.' 0\i that XIV
cveiiiii.ii' no one in ('ai)ei-naiini thought of l)tisiness. ])l('asiiiv, or ^— ^,— *-^
I'est. 'I'hei'e must have been manv homes of sorrow, eare. and sick- "tJen. xxu.
17, 18
iiess there, and in the })oi)ulous nei.ghbourhoud around. To them, to
all, iiad the dooi- of hope now been opened. Truly, a new Sun had
risen on tiiem. with liealin.ii- in His wiiiii's. No disease too desperate,
Avhen even the demons owned tiie authority of His mere I'ebuke.
From all ])arts they brin_u- them: nu)thers, widows, wives, fathers,
children, husbands — their loved ones, the treasures 'hoy had almost
lost; and the wiiole city throngs — a hushed, solemnised, overawed
multitude — expectant, waiting at the door of 8inion"s dwelling.
There they laid them, along the street up to the nmrket-place. on
their beds; or brought them, Avith beseeching look and word. What
a symbol of this world's miser}', need, and hope; what a symbol,
also, of what the Christ really is as the Consoler in the world's numi-
foldwoe! Never, surely, was He more truly the Christ: nov is He
in symbol more truly siu-h to us and to all time, than when, in
the stillness of that evening, under the starlit sky, He went through
that sut!ering throng, laying His hands in the blessing of healing on
every one of them, and casting out numy devils. No i)icture of the
Christ more dear to us, than this of the unlimited healing of whatever
disease oi' body or soul. In its blessed indetiniteness it eon\'eys the
infinite i)otentiality of relief, Avhatever misery have fallen on us, or
whatever care or sorrow oppress us. He must 1)e blind, indeed, wlio
sees not in this Physician the Divine Healer; in this Christ the Light
of the World; the Restoror of what sin had lilighted; the Joy in our
worhl's deep sorrow. Never was i)roi)hecy more truly fulfilled than,
on tiiat evening, this of Isaiah: -Himself took our infirmities, and
bare our sicknesses.' " By His Incarnation and Coming, by His taking >• is. un.
our infirmities, and bearing our sicknesses — for this in the truest and
widest sense is the meaning of the Incarnation of the Christ — did
He become the Healer, the Consoler of humanity, its Saviour in all
ills of time, and from all ills of eternity. The most real fulfilnuMit
this, that can be conceived, of Isaiah's rajtt vision of Who and what
the Messiah was to be, and to do; not, indeed, what is sometimes
called fulfilment, or expected as such, in a literal and verbal
correspondence with the prediction. An utterly mechanical, external,
and unspiritual view this of prophecy, in which, in quite Jewish
literalism, the spirit is crushed by the letter. I>ut. viewed in its real
bearing on mankind with its wants. Christ, on that evening, was the
488
FIIO.M JORDAN TO TllK iMOl'XT OF TRANSFIGURATKJN.
BOOK real, tlioii.n'h as yet only initial, riiKilmcnt oC the world's <>;rL'at lio])e,
III to wiiicli, centuries beloi-e, the (Jod-dii'ected liand ol" the prophet
'"^^r^^ had i)ointed.'
80 ended that Sabbath in Capernauni: a Sabbath of healinsi', joy,
and true rest. But lar and wide, into every place of the counti-y
around, throughout all the region ot Galilee, spread the tidings, and
with tlieni the lame of Jliin Whom demons must obey, though they
dare not pronounce Him the Son of Uod. And on men's ears fell
His Name with sweet softness of infinite promise, 'like rain upon the
mown u'rass, as showers that water the earth."
' I cull sciirccly timl words stroni;'
eiiouu'li to e.\|)rpss my dissent from tliosc
who would timit Is. Hii. -i, eitlu'r on tlic
one luuid to spiritual, or on the other to
physical ' sicknesses.' The promise is one
of future deliverance from both, of a
Restorer from all the woe which sin had
brought. In the same way the expres-
sion 'taking upon Himself,' and 'bear-
ing' refers to tlie Christ as our Deliverer,
because our .Suljstitute. Because lie took
upon Himself our iutirmities, therefore ll(>
bore our sicknesses. That the view here
given is that of the N.T., appears from a
comparison of the application of the
passage in St. Matt. viii. 17 with that in St.
John i. 20 and 1 Pet. ii. 24. The words,
as given by St. Matthew, are most truly
a N.T. 'Targum' of the original. The
LXX. renders, ' This man carries our
sins and is pained for us; ' SijmDwrhtis,
' Surely He took up our sins, and endured
our labors; ' the Targum .Ion., ■ Thus for
our sins He will pray, and our ini(iuities
will for His sake be forgiven.' (Gomii.
UrirerawA Neubaiier, The .lewisli Inter-
jireters on Isaiah liii., vol. ii.) Lastly, it is
with reference to this jiassagc tliat the
Messiah liears in tlie Taliniid Die desig-
nation, ' The Leprous One," and • tii(! Sick
One' (Sanh. 98 b).
MIRACLES AS I'AKT OF GlllllST'S HUMILIATION, 439
CHAPTER XV.
SKCONl) JOURNEY THROIKJH GALILKE — THE HEALING OF THE LEPER.
(8t. Matt. iv. 2:5; viii. 2-4; St. Mark i. 35-4.5; St. Luke iv. 42-44; v. 12-16.)
A DAY and an evening such as of that 8al)l)atli of healing in Caper- CHAP,
nauni must, with reverence be it written, have been followed by what ^^
opens the next section.' To the thoughtful observer there is such ^— "v^^
unbroken harmony in the Life of Jesus, such accord of the inward
and outward, as to carry instinctive conviction of the truth of its re-
cord. It was, so to speak, an inward necessity that the God-Man,
when brought into C(jntact with disease and misery, whether from
physical or supernatural causes, should remove it by His Presence,
by His touch, by His Word. An outward necessity also, because no
other mode of teaching equally convincing would have reached those
accustomed to Rabbinic disputations, and who must have looked tor
such a manifestation from One Who claimed such authority. And
yet, so far from being a mere worker of miracles, as we should have
expected if the history of His miracles had Ijcen of legendary origin,
there is nothing more marked than the pain, we had almost said the
humiliation, which their necessity seems to have carried to His heart.
'Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe;' 'an evil and
adulterous generation seeketh a sign;' ' blessed are they that have
not seen, and yet have believed' — such are the utterances of Him
Who sighed when He opened the ears of the deatV and bade His "St. Mark
. vii. 34
Apostles look for higher and better things than ])ower over all dis-
eases or even over evil si)irits."'^ So would not the Messiah of Jew- ^st. Luke
ish legend have spoken or done; nor would they wlio in\ented such
miracles have so referred to them.
Tn truth, when, through the rift in His outward history, we catch
a glimpse of Christ's inner Being, these miracles, so far as not the
outcome of the mystic union of the Divine and the Human in His
Person, but as part of His Mission. Ibriu part of His Humiliation.
1 So both in St. Mark (i. li'i-H!)) and in accdril even in St. Mattlunv (iv. 23).
St. Luke (iv. 42-44), and in sul).stantial ' So also St. Taui. 1 Cor. xii. ;51 : xiii. 1.
J. 35
490 FIJO.M .loKDAX TO THE MUlNT OF TKANSFIGUKATION.
BOOK 'i'liey also hcloii.ii' to tliat way whicli lie had chosen in his initial con-
^^^ quest of the TeHii)ter in tlie ^^'il(lel'ness, when He ehose, not the siul-
^-"^'^^^ (loii display of absolute power for the sul)dual of His people, but the
painful, slow method of nieetinii' the wants, and addressing' Himself
to the understamliug ami eapacity of those over Whom He would
reign. In this view, it seems as if we could gain a fresh under-
standing, not only of the expediency of His tinal dei)arture, so far as
concerned the future teaching of the disciples by the Holy Spirit, but
of His own hjnging for tlie Advent of the Comforter. In truth, the
Two teachers and the two modes of teaching could not be together,
and the Ascension of the Clirist, as the end of His Ilumiliation,
marked the Advent of the Holy Ghost, as bestowing another mode of
teaching than that of the days of His Hunuliation.
And so, thinking of the scene on the evening before, we can mi-
» St. Mark derstand how. 'very early, while it was still very dark,"" Jesus rose
up. and went into a solitary place to i)ray. The use of the sanu' ex-
l)ression' in 8t. Mark xiii. 35 enables us to fix the time as that of
the fourth night-watch, or Ix'tween three and six o'clock of the morn-
ing. It was not till some time afterwards, that even those, who had
so lately been called to His closest fellowshi}), rose, and, missing
Him, followed. Jesus had prayed in that solitude, and consecrated
it. After such a day, and in i)rosi)ect of entering on His second
journey through Galilee- — this time in so far ditj'erent circumstances
— He must prevent the dawn of the morning in })rayer. And by this
also would they learn, that He was not merely a Avorker of miracles,
but that He, Whose Word demons obeyed, lived a Life, not of out-
ward but of inward power, in fellowshi]) with His Father, and l)ap-
tized his work with prayer. But as yet, and, indeed, in measure all
through His Life on earth, it seemed difficult for them in any measure
to realise this. 'All men seek for Thee,' and therefore they would
liavc had Him return to Gaiicrnaum. But this was the very reason
why He had withdrawn ere dawn of day. He had come forth, and
that,-^ not to attract the crowds, and l)e proclaimed a King, but to
preach the Kingdom of God. Once inoi'c we say it: so speaks not,
nor acts the hero of Jewish legend !
As the three Synoptists accordantly state, Jesus now entere(l on
His second (ialilean joui'ney. There can lie little doul)t. that the
cliroiutlogical succession of events is here accui'ately imlicated l)y the
' TT/jcuji". sliows. that the •(•omnia' foi'tli" (Si. Murk
'-' The circuinstaiici's will lie I'cfcrrcil 111 i. :>S) faniiet lif Hinitoil to His Icavlii;^;
hi the .sequel. ("aiieniainn.
■' The exjin'ssioii in St. I.iike iv. 4;;
A NEW PHASE IN THE WOlfK OK (MIKIST.
491
more circumstantial narrative ill St. Mark's Gospel.' The arrange-
ment ol' St. Luke appears that of historical grouping, while tiiat of
St. Mattliev\' is (letenniiied hy the ILebraie plan of liis (jiosi)el, which
seems eoiistrueted (»ii the model of the Pentateuch,'' as if the estab-
lisliment of the Kiiig(h)m by the Messiah were presented as the fulfil-
ment of its ))re|^aratory i)lanling in Israel. But this second journey
through (iablee, which the three Gospels connect with the stay at
Capernaum, marks a turuing-poiut in the working of the Ciirist. As
already stated, the occurrences at the • Unknown Feast.''' in Jerusa-
lem, formed a new [joint of (U'parture. Christ had fully presented
His claims to the Sanhedrists, and they had been fully rejected by
the Scribes and the people. Henceforth He separated Himself from
that • untoward generation;' henceforth, also, began His systenmtic
l)ersecution by the authorities, when His movements were tracked
and watched. Jesus went alone to Jerusalem. .This, also, was
fitting. Equall\ so, that on His return He called His disciples to be
His followers: and that from Capernaum He entered, in their com-
l)any, on a new phase in His Work.
Significantly, His Work began where that of the Rabbis, we had
almost said of the Old Testament saints, ended. Whatever remedies,
medical, magical, or synii)athetic, Ralibinic writings nuiy indicate for
various kinds of disease, leprosy is not included in the catalogue.
They lett aside what even the Old Testament marked as moral death,
by enjoining those so stricken to avoid all contact with the living,
and even to bear the apix'araiice of mourners. As the le])er ])assed
by. his clothes rent, his hair dishevelled,* and the lower i)art of his
face and his ui)i)er lip covered,'' it was as one going to death who
reads his own burial-service, while the mournful words. -I'liclean!
Unclean!' which he uttered, i)roclaiine(l that his was both living and
moral death. Again, the Old Testament, and even Habbinism. took.
CHAr.
XV
Lev. xiil.
' Till' followiiiu' arc. Itrictly. .^oiiic of
tlie considerations wliicli (Ictcnniiic tin'
chronological order here adopted: (l.i
This eveut could not have taken i)lace
aflrr the Sermon on tiie Mount, since
tiieu the twelve Apostles were alrea<ly
^•alled. nor yet after the call of St.
Mattiiew. (2.) From the similes em-
ployed (about the lilies of the field, ttc. ).
the Sermon on the Mount seems to have
taken i)lacein sprinu;; tliis event in early
siutiann. On tlie other haiul. the order
in St. Mark exactly tits in. and also in
tin; main a.ii;rees, with that in St. Luke,
while, lastly, it exhibits the lirowin^' per-
secutiiuis from .Jerusalem, of which we
iiave here the first traces.
- This is ini^eniously iiulicatt-il in Pro-
fessor Delitzsch's Entsteh. d. Kanon.
Evan;;"., although, in my view, the theory
cannot be carried out in th(> full details
attempted l)y the Profes.^or. P.ut such a
,i2;enei'al concepti(ui of the (Jospel by St.
.Matthew is not only i'easonal)le in itself,
but explains his peculiar arrangement of
events.
■' On the dale of tiiis feast ciuup. .\p-
pendix XV.
* Vnnw this women were excepted.
Sot. ill. S.
492
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
in the measures prescribed in leprosy, primarily a uioral, or rather a
I'itual, and only secondarily a sanitary, view ol' the case. The iso-
^~— ^r — -" lation already indicated, which banished lepers from all intercourse
except with those similarly stricken, ' and Ibrebade their entering not
only the Temple or Jerusalem, ])ut any walled city,^ could not have;
been merely prompted by the wish to prevent infection. For all the
laws in regard to leprosy are expressly stated not to have application
in the case of heathens, proselytes before their conversion, and even
of Israelites on their birth. ^ The same inference must also be drawn
from the circumstance, that the priestly examination and subsequent
isolation of the leper were not to commence during the marriage-
"Neg. iii. 2 wcck, or ou fcstivc days,'' since, evidently, infection would have been
most likely to spread in such circumstances.*
It has already been stated, that Rabbinism confessed itself power-
less in presence- of this living death. Although, as Michaelis rightly
suggests,*" the sacrificial ritual for the cleansed leper implies, at least,
the possibility of a cure, it is in every instance traced to the direct
agency of God.^ Hence the mythical theory, whicli, to be rational,
must show some precedent to account for the origination of the
narrative in the Gospel, here once more breaks down.** Keim cannot
deny the evident authenticity of the Evangelic narrative, and has no
better explanation to offer than that of the old Rationalists — which
Strauss had already so fully refuted' — that the poor sufferer only asked
of Jesus to declare^ not to make, him clean.'* In truth, the possibility
of any cure through human agency was never contemplated b.y the
Jews. Josephus speaks of it as possibly granted to prayer," but in a
manner betokening a pious phraseology without serious meaning. We
may go further, and say that not only did Rabbinism never suggest
the cure of a leper, but that its treatment of those sufferers presents
the most marked contrast to that of the Saviour. And yet, as if
* Das Mos,
Eecht, vol
iv. p. 195
<^ Ant. Iii
11. 3
' TliL'y were not allowed to hold inter-
course with persons under other detile-
ment than leprosy, Pes. 67 a.
'' These were considered as walled since
the time of .loshua, Kel. i. 7, and their
sanctity e([ual to thatoftiie camp of Israel,
and iiireater than that of unwalled towns.
■' Nei;. iii. 1 : vii. 1 ; \i. 1 ; xii. 1.
■* The foUowiiiii; parts are declared in
the Mislniaii as untainted )jy lejirosy:
within the eye. ear, nose, and mouth;
the folds of the skin, especially those of
the neck; under the female breast; the
armpit; the sole of the foot, the nails, the
head, and the beard (Neg. vi. S).
•'' Mich<teUs views the whole question
chiefly from the standpoint of sanitary
l)olice.
'■ It is. though I think hesitatingly,
propounded by Strauss (vol. ii. i)p. nil.
.'j7). He has been satisfactorily answerei!
by Volkmar (Marcus, p. 110).
■" u. s. i)p. 5,3, 54.
'' .Jesu von Naz. ii. p. 174. This is
among the weakest portions of the book.
Keim must have strongly felt ' the telling
marks of the authenticity of this narra-
tive,' when he w^is driven to an explana-
tion which makes Jesus 'present Him-
self as a Scribe.'
THE LAW OF LEPROSY.
493
writing its own eondenination, one of the titles which it gives to the
Messiah is ' the Leprous, ' t lie King M essiah being represented as seated
in the entrance to Rome, surrounded by, and relieving all misery and
disease, in fulfilment of Is. liii. 4.''
\Vq need not here enumerate the various symptoms, by Avhich tlic
Rabbinic law teaches us to recognise true leprosy.- Any one capable
of it might make the medical inspection, although only a descendant
of Aaron could formally pronounce cleaner unclean." Once declared
leprous, the sufferer was soon made to feel the utter heartlessness of
Rabbinism. To banish him outside walled towns " may have been a
necessity, which, perhaps, required to be enforced by the threatened
penalty of forty stripes save one.'' Similarly, it might be a right,
CA^en merciful, provision, that in the Synagogues lepers were to be the
first to enter and the last to leave, and that they should occupy a
separate compartment {Mechitsah}, ten palms high, and six feet wide."'
For, from the symbolism and connection between the physical and the
psychical,^ the Old Testament, in its rites and institutions, laid the
greatest stress on 'clean and 'unclean.' To sum it up in briefest
compass, and leaving out of view leprosy of clothes or houses,*
according to the Old Testament, defilement was conveyed only by the
animal bod}^, and attached to no other living body than that of man,
nor could any other living body than that of man communicate defile-
ment. The Old Testament mentioned eleven principal kinds of defile-
ment. These, as being capable of communicating further defilement,
were designated AbhotJi hattumeoth — ' fathers of defilements ' — the
defilement which they produced being either itself an Abh Jiattumeah,
or else a ' Child,' or a • Child's Child of defilement ' (n»sr:"i-~ i'i'i ibi. ibi).
We find in Scripture thirty-two Abhoth hattumeoth, as they are called.
To this Rabbinic tradition added other twenty-nine. Again, accord-
ing to Scripture, these ' fathers of defilements ' afi'ected only in two
degrees; the direct efffect produced by them being designated 'the
beginning,' or ' the first.' and that further propagated, 'the second'
degree. But Rabbinic ordinances added a third, fourth, and even
fifth degree of defilement.^ From this, as well as the equally intricate
CHAP.
XV
' Sanh. 98 b
Neg. iil. 1
"i Pes. 67
<■ Neg. xiu.
12
' See the passage in full in the Appen-
dix on Messianic Prophecies.
- These are detailed in Neg. i. 1-4 ; ii.
1; iii. 3-6; vii. 1; ix. 2, 3.
■^ Undoubtedly the deepest and most
philosophical treatment of this subject is
that in the now somewliat rare, ami un-
fortunately uncompleted, work oiMolilor.
Philosophie d. Gesch. (see vol. iii. pp. 12(i
A'C, and 253 <tc.). The author is. how-
ever, perhaps too much imbued with the
views of the Kabbalah.
* According to Tos. Neg. vi. no case of
leprosy of houses had ever occurred, but
was only mentioned in Scripture, in order
to give occasion to legal studies, so as to
procure a Divine reward.
■'' I have here followed, oi- rather sum-
494
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
' Neg. xiil.
11
« Shabb.
55 a
'1 Neclar.
41a
■■ Ber. 33 a
f Ber. 5 6
? Ber. 5 a
i Bemidb.
K. 13
k Tanch. on
Hammet-
sora i ; ed.
Lemberg
ii. p. 24 a
<" U. 8., 2, p.
23 a;
Arach. 15 0 ;
and In
many pas-
sages
arrangements al)out i)urilication, the Mishnic section about ' clean
and unclean ' is at the same time the largest and most intricate in
the Rabbinic code, while its provisions touched and interfered, more
than any others, with every department of life.
In the elaborate code of defilements le])rosy was not only one of
'the fathers of uncleanness,' but, next to defilement from the dead,
stood foremost amongst them. Not merely actual contact with the
leper, but even his entrance defiled a habitation,'' and everything in
it, to the beams of the roof.'' But beyond this. Rabbinic harshness or
fear carried its provisions to the utmost sequences of an unbending
logic. It is, indeed, true that, as in general so especially in this
instance, Rabbinism loved to trace disease to moral causes. ' No
death without sin, and no pain without transgression;'" 'the sick
is not healed, till all his sins are forgiven him."^ These are oft-
repeated sayings; but, when closely examined, they are not quite so
spiritual as they sound. For, first, they represent a reaction against
the doctrine of original sin, in the sense that it is not the Fall of
man, but one's actual trangression, to wiiich disease and death are to
be traced according to the saying: <Not the serpent kills, l)ut sin."= ^
But their real unspirituality appears most clearly, when we remember
how special diseases were traced to particular sins. Thus,'' child-
lessness and leprosy are described as chastisements, which indeed
procure for the sufferer forgiveness of sins, but cannot, like other
chastisements, be regarded as the outcome of love, nor be received in
love.^ And even such sentiments in regard to sufferings^ are
immediately followed by such cynical declarations on the part of
Rabbis so afflicted, as that they loved neither the chastisement, nor its
reward.*" And in regard to leprosy, tradition had it that, as leprosy
attached to the house, the dress, or the person, these were to be
regarded as always heavier strokes, following as each successive
warning had been neglected, and a reference to this was seen in
Prov. xix. 29.'^ Eleven sins are mentioned'' which bring leprosy,
among them pre-eminentl}- those of which the tongue is the organ.'"
marised, Maimonides. It was, of course,
impossible to give eveu the briefest de-
tails.
' The story, of which this saying is the
moral, is that of the crushing of a ser-
])ent by the great uiiracle-iuonger Cha-
uina ben Dosa, witliuut his being hurt.
But I cannot help feeling that a double
entendre is here intended — on the one
hand, tliat even a serpent could not hurl
one like Chanina, and, on the other, the
wider Vjearing on the real cause of death:
not our original state, but our actual sin.
- The Midrash enumerates four as in
that category: the poor, the blind, the
cliildh'ss, and the leprous.
■■ Fron) Zech. xiv. 12 it was inferred,
that this leprosy would smite the Gen-
tiles even in the Messianic age (Tau-
chuma. Tazria. end).
•IF THOU Wll/r, THOU CAN^T MAKE ME CLEAN.' 495
Still, if such had been the real views of Rabbiiiism one iiiiglit have CHAP,
expected that Divine compassion would have been extended to those, XV
who bore such heavy burden of their sins. Instead of this, their bur- ^— ^^^^^
dens were needlessl}^ increased. True, as wrapped in mourner's ^'arb
the leper passed by, his cry ' Unclean! ' was to incite others to pray
for him— but also to avoid him." No one was even to salute him; his "MoedK.
5 a
bed was to be low, inclining towards the ground.'' If he even put bu. s. 15^
ids head into a place, it became unclean. No less a distance than
four cubits (six feet) must be kept from a leper; or, if the wind came
from that direction, a hundred were scarcely sufficient. Rabbi Meir
would not eat an egg purc^hased in a street where there was a leper.
Another Rabbi boasted, that he always threw stones at them to keep
them far ofl", while others hid themselves or ran away."^ To such "Vayyik.K.
. . . . . . 1^- [Lep-
extent did Rabbinism carry its inhuman logic in considering the rosy is
•' . there
leper as a mourner, that it even forbade him to wash his face.'^ brought
'■ ' into con-
We can now in some measure appreciate the contrast between nsction
'^ ^ _ with cal-
Jesus and His contemporaries in His bearing towards the leper. Or, umny]
conversely, we can judge by the healing of this leper of the impression 15 a°^' '
which the Saviour had made upon the people. He would have lied
from a Rabbi; he came in lowliest attitude of entreaty to Jesus.
Criticism need not so anxiously seek for an explanation of his
approach. There was no Old Testament precedent for it: not in the
case of Moses, nor even in that of Elisha, and there was no Jewish
expectancy of it. But to have heard Him teach, to have seen or
known Him as healing all manner of disease, must have carried to
the heart the conviction of His absolute power. And so one can
understand this lowly reverence of approach, this cry which has so
often since been wrung from those who have despaired of all other
help: ' If Thou wilt. Thou canst make me clean.' It is not a i)rayer,
but the ground-tone of all prayer — faith in His Power, and absolute
committal to Him of our helpless, hopeless need. And Jesus, touched
with compassion, willed it. It almost seems, as if it were in the very
exuberance of power that Jesus, acting in so direct contravention of
Jewish usage, touched the leper. It was fitting that Elisha should
disappoint Naaman's expectancy, that the prophet would heal his
leprosy by the touch ofhis hand. It was even more lifting that
Jesus should surprise the Jewish leper by touching, ere by His
' And yet Jewish symbolism saw in the healing of that disease and the provi-
the suflerings of Israel and the destruc- sions for declaring the leper clean, a
tiou of the Temple the real fulfilment of close analogy to what would liapi)en in
the punishment of leprosy with its atten- Israel's restoration (Vayyikra R. 15, 17;
dant ordinances, while it also traced in Yalkut i. par. 551, 563).
496 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK Word He cleansed him. And so, experience ever finds that in
ni Christ tlie real is far beyond tlie ideal. We can understand, how,
^— 'v — ' from his standpoint, Strauss should have found it impossible to un-
derstand the healing of leprosy by the touch and Word of Jesus. Its
explanation lies in the fact, that He was the God-Man. And yet, as
our inner tending after God and the voice of conscience indicate that
man is capable of adoption into God's family, so the marked power
which in disease mind has over body points to a higher capability
in Man Perfect, the Ideal Man, the God-Man, of vanquishing disease
by His Will.
It is not quite so easy at first sight to understand, why Christ
should with such intense earnestness, almost vehemence,' have sent
the healed man away — as the term bears, ' cast him out.' ^ Certainly
not (as Volkmar — fantastically in error on this, as on so many other
points — imagines) because He disapproved of his worship. Rather
do we once more gather, how the God-Man shrank fr(mi the fame
connected with miracles — specially with such an one — which as we
have seen, were rather of inward and outward necessity than of choice
in His Mission. Not so — followed l)y a curious crowd, or thronged
by eager multitudes of sight-seers, or aspirants for temporal benefits —
was the Kingdom of Heaven to be preached and advanced. It would
have been the way of a Jewish Messiah, and have led up to His
royal proclamation by the populace. But as we study the character
of the Christ, no contrast seems more glaring — let us add, more
painful — than that of such a scene. And so we read that, when,
notwithstanding the Saviour's charge to the healed leper to keep
silence, it was nevertheless — nay, as might perhaps have been expected
— all the more made known by him — as, indeed, in some measure it
could scarcely have remained entirely unknown. He could no more,
as before, enter the cities, but remained without in desert places,
whither they came to Him from every quarter. And in that withdrawal
He spoke, and healed, ' and prayed.'
Yet another motive of Christ's conduct may be suggested. His
injunction of silence was combined with that of presenting himself
to the priest and conforming to the ritual requirements of the
' On this term see the first note in this strange that the ' Speaker's Commen-
chapter. tary,' following Weiss, should have lo-
2 This, however, as Godet has shown cated the incident in a Synagogue. It
(Comm. ou St. Luke, German transl., p. could not jiossibly have occurred there,
137), does not imply that the event took unless all .Jewish ordinances and cus-
place either in a house or in a town, as toms had been reversed,
most commentators suppose. It is
SHOW THYSELF TO THE PRIEST FOR A TESTIMOMY.' 497
Mosaic Law in such cases.' It is scarcely necessary to reiutc tlie chap.
notion, that in this Christ was prompted either by the desire to sec xv
the healed man restored to the society of his fellows, or by the wish ^— ^r — ^
to have some oilicially recognised miracle, to which He might after-
wards aiDpeal. Not to speak of the uu-Christlikeness of such a wish
or purpose, as a matter of fact, He did not appeal to it, and the
iusaled leper wliolly disappears from the Gospel-narrative. And yet
his conforming to the Mosaic Ritual was to be ' a testimony unto
them.' The Lord, certainly, did not wish to have the Law of Moses
broken — and broken, not superseded, it would have been, if its pro-
visions had been infringed before His Death, Ascension, and the
Coming of the Holy Ghost had brought their fulfilment.
But there is something else here. The course of this history shows,
that the open rupture between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, which
had commenced at the Unknown Feast at Jerusalem, was to lead to
practical sequences. On the part of the Jewish authorities, it led
to measures of active hostility. The Synagogues of Galilee are
no longer the quiet scenes of His teaching and miracles; His Word
and deeds no longer pass unchallenged. It had never occurred to
these Galileans, as they implicitly surrendered themselves to the
power of His words, to question their orthodoxy. But now, imme-
diately after this occurrence, we find Him accused of blasphem}.* ast. Luke
They had not thought it breach of God's Law when, on that Sabbath,
He had healed in the Synagogue of Capernaum and in the home of
Peter; but after this it became sinful to extend like mercy on the
Sabbath to him whose hand was withered.'' They had never thouglit "st. Luke
'" vi 7
of questioning the condescension of his intercourse with the poor and
needy; but now they sought to sap the commencing allegiance of
His disciples by charging Him with undue intercourse with publicans
and sinners," and by inciting against Him even the prejudices and ^st. Luke
doubts of the half-enlightened followers of His own Forerunner.'' All
these new incidents are due to one and the same cause; the presence
and hostile watchfulness of the Scribes and Pharisees, who now for
the first time apjiear on the scene of His ministry. Is it too much
then to infer, that, immediately after that Feast at Jerusalem, the
' The Rabbinic ordinances as to the rit- ing .described in Miqv. i. 1-8). From
iial in such cases are in Neg. xiv. See ' The Parah vlii. 10 we gather, that among
Temple and its Services ' pp. 315-317. other rivers even tlie Jordan was not
Special attention was to be given, that deemed sufficiently pure, because in its
the water with which the puritied leper course other streams, which were not
was sprinkled was from a pure, flowing lawful for such purification, had mingled
spring (six different collections of water, witli it.
suited to dirterent kinds of impurity, bo-
•1 St. Luke
V. 33
498 - FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
HOOK Jewish authorities sent their familiars into Galilee after Jesus, and
ni that it was to the presence and influence of this informal deputation
^— "V"—^ that the opposition to Christ, which now increasingly appeared, was
due? If so, then we see not only an additional motive for Christ's
injunction of silence on those whom He had healed, and for His
own withdrawal from the cities and their throng, but we can under-
stand how, as He afterwards answered those, whom John had sent
to lay before Christ his doubts, by pointing to His works, so He
replied to the sending forth of the Scribes of Jerusalem to watch,
oppose, and arrest Him, by sending to Jerusalem as His embassy the
healed leper, to submit to all the requirements of the Law. It
was His testimony unto them — His, Who was meek and lowly in
heart; and it was in deepest accord with what He had done, and was
doing. Assuredly, He, Who brake not the bruised reed, did not cry
nor lift up His Voice in the streets, but brought forth judgment unto
truth. And in Him shall the nations trust!
CONCERNING THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 499
CHAPTER XVI.
THE RETURN TO CAPERNAUM — CONCERNING THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS-
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYSED.
(St. Matt. ix. 1-8; St. Mark ii. 1-12; St. Luke v. 17-26.)
It is a remarkable instance of the reserve of the Gospel-narratives, CHAP,
that of the second journey of Jesus in Galilee no other special event ^^^^
is recorded than the healing of the leper. And it seems also to in- ^— -y-'^
dicate, that this one miracle had been so selected for a special purpose.
But if, as we have suggested, after the ' Unknown Feast,' the activity
of Jesus assumed a new and what, for want of a better name, may be
called an anti-Judaic character, we can perceive the reason of it.
The healing of leprosy was recorded as typical. With this agrees
also what immediately follows. For, as Rabbinisin stood confess-
edly powerless in face of the living death of leprosy, so it had no
word of forgiveness to speak to the conscience burdened with sin, nor
yet word of welcome to the sinner. But this was the inmost meaning
of the two events which the Gospel-history places next to the healing
of the leper: the forgiveness of sins in the case of the paralytic, and
the welcome to the chief of sinners in the call of Levi-Matthew.
We are still mainly following the lead of St. Mark,^ alike as
regards the succession of events and their details. And here it is
noteworthy, how the accoimt in St. Mark confirms that by St. John '' of »st. .John^.
what had occurred at tlie Unknown Feast. Not that either Evan-
gelist could have derived it from the other. But if we establish the
trustworthiness of the narrative in St. John v., which is unconfirmed
by any of the Synoptists, we strengthen not only the evidence in
favour of the Fourth Gospel generally, but that in one of its points of
chief difficulty, since such advanced teaching on the part of Jesus,
and such developed hostility from the Jewish authorities, might
scarcely have been looked for at so early a stage. But when we com-
' The same order is followed by St. look for the fullest account of that earl\
Luke. From the connection between St. Capernaum-Ministry in the Second Go.>-
Mark and St. Peter, we should naturally pel.
500
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
' St. Mark
i. C, 7
•> St. John
V. 27
" St. Mark
11. 9
<i In St.
John V. 8
» St. John V.
36; com p.
St. Mark
11. 10
pare the language ot'8t. Mark with tlie narrative in tlie fifth chapter
of St, John's Gospel, at least four points of contact i)roininently appear.
For, first, the unspoken charge of the Scribes," that in forgiving sins
Jesus l)lasphemed by making Himself equal with God, has its exact
counterpart in the similar charge against Him in St. John v. 18,
which kindled in them the wish to kill Jesus. Secondly, as 'in that
case the final reply of Jesus pointed to 'the authority' {e^ovaia)
which the Father had given Him for Divine administration on earth, ''
so the healing of the paralytic was to show the Scribes tliat He had
'authority' (f^oi'fx/a') Mbr the dispensation upon earth of the for-
giveness of sins, which the Jews rightly regarded as the Divine
prerogative. Thirdly, the words which Jesus spake to the paralytic:
' Rise, take up thy bed, and walk, ' " are to the very letter the same ^
which are recorded '' as used by Him when He healed the impotent
man at the Pool of Bethesda. Lastly, alike in the words which
Jesus addressed to the Scribes at the healing of the paralytic, and in
those at the Unknown Feast, He made final appeal to His works
as evidential of His being sent by, and having received of, the Father-
'the authority' to which He laid claim. '^ It would be utterly
iri-ational to regard these as coincidences, and not references. And
their evidential force becomes the stronger, as we remember the
entire absence of design on the part of St. Mark.^ But this corre-
spondence not only supports the trustworthiness of the two indepen
dent narratives in St. Mark and in St. John, but also confirms alike
that historical order in which we have arranged the events, and the
suggestion that, after the encounter at the UnknowMi Feast, the
authorities of Jerusalem had sent representatives to watch, oppose,
and, if possible, entrap Jesus.
In another manner, also, the succession of events, as we have
traced it, seems confirmed by the' account of the healing of the
' The A. V. mars the ineaiiiiii;" by ren-
dering it: ' power.'
■■^ So accordiiis' to the best readinais.
^ It is, of course, not pretended by
negative critics that the Fonrtli Gospel
borrowed from St. Mark. On the con-
trary, the supposed differences in form
and spirit between the Synoptists and
tlie Fourth Gospel form one of the main
arguments against tiie authenticity of
the latter. In regard to the 5th chap,
of St. John, Di'. Abbott writes (Art.
' Gospels,' Encycl. Brit. p. 833 b): ' That
part of the discourse in which Christ
describes Himself in the presence of the
multitude as having received all power
to Judge and to quicken the dead, does not
resemble anything in the Synoptic narra-
tive'—except St. Matt. xi."27; St. Luk(>
X. 22, and 'that was uttered privately to
the disciples.' To complete the irony of
criticism. Dr. Abbott contrasts the ' faith
of the Synoptists,' such as 'that half-
])hysical thrill of trust in the presence of
Jesus, which enables the limbs of a
paralysed man to make the due jjhysical
response to the emotional shock con-
sequent on the word " Ai-ise," so that in
the strength of that shock the ])aralytic
is enabled to shake off the disease of
many years,' with faith such as the
Fourth Gospel presents it.
CHRIST AGAIN IN CAPERNAUM.
501
paralytic. The soooiul jounioy of Jesus throii^-li Galilee Imd com- CIIAP.
menced in autuiiiu ; the return to Capernaum was 'alter days,' ^^'^
which, in coniiuon Jewish pliraseology,' meant a considerable in- ^^.^ ,
terval. As we reckon, it was winter, which would equally account for
Ciirist's return to Capernaum, and for His teaching- in the house.
For, no sooner 'was it heard that lie was in the house,' or, as some
have rendered it, 'that He was. at home,' than so many flocked to
the dwellinjj; of Peter, which at that period may have been ' the house '
or temporary ' home ' of the Saviour, as to fill its limited space to over-
flowing, and even to crowd out to the door and l)eyoiid it. The
general impression on our minds is, that this audience was rather in
a state of indecision than of sympathy Avith Jesus. It included
' Pharisees and doctors of the Law,' who had come on purpose from
the towns of Galilee, from Judaea, and from Jerusalem. These
occupied the 'uppermost rooms,' sitting, no doulit, near to Jesus.
Their influence must have been felt by the people. Although
irresistibly attracted by Jesus, an element of curiosity, if not of
doubt, would mingle with their feelings, as they looked at their
leaders, to whom long habit attached the most superstitious veneration.
If one might so say, it was like the gathering of Israel on Mount
Carmel, to witness the issue as between Elijah and the priests of Baal.
Although in no wise necessary to the understanding of the event,
it is helpful to try and realise the scene; We can picture, to ourselves
the Saviour ' speaking the Word ' to that eager, interested crowd,
Avhich would soon ])ecome forgetful even of tlie presence of" the
watchful ' Scribes. ' Though we know a good deal of tlie structure
of Jewish houses,^ we feel it difficult to be sure of the exact place
which the Saviour occupied on this occasion. Meetings for religious
study and discussion were certainly held in the AliyaJi or upper
chamber." But, on many grounds, such a locale seems utterly un- ^shabb. i.
suited to the requirements of the narrative.^ Similar objections skini.'aifc,
Jfki. Peg 30
attach to the idea, that it was the front room of one of those low (-.and often
houses occupied by the poor.* Nor is there any reason for supposing
that the house occupied by Peter was one of those low buildings,
' D''?2*'T'. See Wetufei)! in loc. of such a house, and if so, how ditl tlie
^ 'Sketches of Jewish life,' pp. 93-96. multitude see and hear Him? Nor can
^ Such a crowd could scarcely have I see any reason for represent inji" Peter
assembled there — and where were those as so poor. Professor Drh'fcsc/i's con-
about and beyond the door ? ception of the scene (in his ' Ein Ta.o; in
•* This is the sun;2;estion of Dr. Thnmfinyi Capern,') seems to me, so far as I follow
{'Th,e Land and tiie Book,' pp. 358, 359). it, though exceediucly beautiful, too
But even he sees difiicnlties in it. ]5e- ima,<i'inative.
sides, was Christ inside the small room
502
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
' Baba B.
ri. 4
»> In Jer.
Keth iv. 14,
p. 29 fc
■; Tos. B.
Mets. c. iv.
2
^ u. s., c.
viii. 31, ed.
Z.
■■ Baba
Mets. V. 2
which formed the dwellings of the very poor. It must, at any rate,
have contained, besides a large family room, accommodation for
Peter and his wife, for Peter's mother-in-law, and for Jesus as the
honoured guest. The Mislinah calls a small house one that is
9 feet long by 12 l)road, and a large house one that is 12 feet
long by 15 broad, and adds that a dining-hall is 15 feet square, the
height being always computed at half the length and breadth." But
these notices seem rather to apply to a single room. They are part
of a legal discussion, in which reference is made to a building which
might be erected by a man for his son on his marriage, or as a
dwelling for his widowed daughter. Another source of information is
derived from what we know of the price and rental of houses. We
read" of a house as costing ten (of course, gold) dinars, which
would make the price 250 silver dinars, or between 11. and 8^. of our
money. This must, however, have been 'a small house,' since the
rental of such is stated to have been from T.s. to 2Hs. a year,'' while
that of a large house is computed at about 9/. a year,"* and that of a
courtj^ard at about 14.s. a year."
All this is so far of present interest as it will help to show, that
the house of Peter could not have been a ' small one. ' We regard it
as one of the better dwellings of the middle classes. In that case
all the circumstances fully accord with the narrative in the Gospels.
Jesus is speaking the Word, standing in the covered gallery that ran
round the courtyard of such houses, and opened into the various
apartments. Perhaps He was standing within the entrance of the
guest-chamber, while the Scribes were sitting within that apartment,
or beside Him in the gallery. The court before Him is thronged, out
into the street. All are absorbedly listening to the Master, when of
a sudden those appear who are bearing a paralytic on his pallet. It
had of late become too common a scene to see the sick thus carried
to Jesus to attract special attention. And yet one can scarcely
conceive that, if the crowd had merely filled an apartment and
gathered around its door, it would not have made way for the sick, or
that somehow the bearers could not have come within sight, or been
able to attract the attention of Christ. But with a courtyard crowded
out into the street, all this would be, of course, out of the question.
In such circumstances, what was to be done ? Access to Jesus was
simply impossible. Shall they wait till the multitude disperses, or
for another and more convenient season ? Only those would have
acted thus who have never felt the preciousness of an opportunity,
because thev have never known what real need is. Inmost in
88 a
THE PARALYTIC LET DOWN THROUGH TJIE ROOK 503
the hearts of those who bore the paralysed was the belief, that Jesus chap.
coiikl, aiul that he wouhl, heal. They must have heard it from others; xvi
tliey must have witnessed it themselves in other instances. And in- ^-^^r — '
most in the heart of the paralytic was, as we infer IVom the first words
of Jesus to him, not only the same conviction, but with it weighed
a terrible fear, born of Jewish belief, lest his sins might hinder his
healing. And this would make him doubly anxious not to lose the
present oi)portunity.
And so their resolve was quickly taken. If they c.mnot approach
Jesus with their burden, they can let it down from above at His feet.
Outside the house, as well as inside, a stair led n\) to the roof. They
may have ascended it in this wise, or else reached it by what the
Rabbis called ' the road of tlie roofs,' " passing from I'oof to rool" if the » Jos. Ant.
' ^ " . . xUi. 5. 3;
house adjoined others in the same street. The root itself, which had Bab. Mez
hard beaten earth or rul)ble underneath it, was paved withlu'ick, stone,
or any other hard substance, and surrounded l)y a balustrade which,
according to Jewish Law, was at least three feet high. It is scarcely
possible to imagine, that the bearers of the paralytic would have
attempted to dig through this into a room below, not to speak of the
interrujition and inconvenience caused to those below by such an
operation. But no such objection attaches if we regard it, not as the
main roof of the liouse, but as that of the covereil gallery under wiiich
we are supposing the Lord to have stood. This could, of course, have
been readily reached from above. In such case it would have been
comparatively easy to 'unroof the covering of 'tiles,' and then,
' having dug out " an opening through the lighter framework which
supported the tiles, to let down their burden ' into the midst before
Jesus.' All this, as done by four strong men, would l)e but tlie work
of a few minutes. But we can imagine the arresting of the discourse
of Jesus, and the breathless surprise of the crowd as this opening-
through the tiles appeared, and slowly a pallet was let down before
them. Busy hands would help to steady it, and bring it safe to the
ground. And on that i)allet lay one paralysed — his fevered face and
glistening eyes u])turned to Jesus.
It must have been a marvellous sight, even at a time and in
circumstances when the marvellous might be said to have become of
every-day occurrence. Tliis energy and determination of faith ex-
ceeded aught that had been witnessed before. Jesus saw it, and He
spake. For, as yet, the blanched lips of the sutferer had not parted
to utter his petition. He believed, indeed, in the power of Jesus to
heal, with all the certitude that issued, not only in the detc^riniua-
504
FROM JORDAN TO TJIE iMOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
in
' St. Matt.
ix. 2
tioii to be laid at His ieet, l)ut at whatever trouble and in any cii--
ciiinstances, however novel or strange. It needed, indited, faith to
overcome all the hindrances in the present instance; and still more
faith to be so absorbed and forgetful of all around, as to be let down
from the roof through the broken tiling into the midst of such an
assemloly. And this open outburst of laitli shone out the more
brightly, from its contrast with the covered darkness and clouds of
unbelief within the breast of those Scribes, who had come to watch
and ensnare Jesus.
As yet no one had spoken, for the silence of expectancy had fallen.
on them all. Could He, and, if He could, ivould He help — and what
would He do? But He, Who perceived man's unspoken thoughts,
knew that there was not only faith, but also fear, in the heart of that
man. Hence the first words which the Saviour spake to him were:
'Be of good cheer.' " He had, indeed, got beyond the coarse Judaic
standpoint, from which sutfering seemed an expiation of sin. It
was argued by the Rabbis, that, if the loss of an eye or a tooth
liberated a slave from bondage, much more would the sufferings of the
whole body free the soul from guilt; and, again, that Scripture itself
indicated this by the use of the word ' covenant, ' alike in connection
Lev. ii. 13 with the salt which rendered the sacrifices meet for the altar,'' and
suflerings," which did the like for the soul by cleansing away sin.**
We can readily believe, as the recorded experience of the Rabbis
shows, "^ that such sayings brought neither relief to the body, nor
comfort to the soul of real sufierers. But this other Jewish idea was
even more deeply rooted, had more of underlying truth, and would,
especially in presence of the felt holiness of Jesus, have a deep in-
fiuence on the soul, that recovery would not be granted to the sick
fNedar.4ia uulcss liis sius had first been forgiven him.*^ It was this deepest,
though, perhaps, as yet only partially conscious, want of the sufferer
before Him, which Jesus met when, in words of tenderest kindness.
He spoke forgiveness to his soul, and that not as something to come,
but as an act already past: 'Child, thy sins have been forgiven.'^
We should almost say, that He needed first to speak these words,
before He gave healing: needed, in the psychological order of things;
needed, also, if the inward sickness was to be healed, and because the
inward stroke, or paralysis, in the consciousness of guilt, must be
removed, before the outward could be taken away.
' Deut.
xxviii. 69 b
<■ Ber. 5 a
' Ber. 5 6
1 In our A.V. it 16 eiToneoiUjly Deut. of MSS., which have the verbia the per-
xxix. 1. feet tense.
* So* accordiuK to tlie i^reater numfjer
'WHY DOES THIS ONE SPEAK THUS? HE BLASI'HEMETH ! > 505
In another sense, also, there was a higher ^leed ])e' for the word chap.
which brought forgiveness, before tliat which gave healing. Although XVI
it is not for a moment to be supposed, that, in what Jesus did, He had "-^ — < — -'
primary intention in regard to the Scribes, 3'et here also, as in all
Divine acts, the undesigned adaptation and the undesigned sequences
are as fitting as what we call the designed. For, with God there is
neither past nor future; neither immediate nor mediate; l)ut all is
one, the eternally and God-pervaded Present. Let us recall, that
Jesus was in the presence of those in whom the Scribes would feign
have wrought disbelief, not of His power to cure disease — which was
patent to all — but in His Person and authority; that, [)crhai)s, such
doubts had already been excited. And here it deserves special notice,
that, by first speaking forgiveness, Christ not only presented the
deeper moral aspect of His miracles, as against their ascription to
magic or Satanic agenc}', but also established that very claim, as
regarded His Person and authority, which it was sought to invalidate.
In this forgiveness of sins He presented His Person and authority as
Divine, and He proved it such by the miracle of healing whi'ih im-
mediately followed. Had the two been inverted, there would have
been evidence, indeed, of His power, but not of His Divine Person-
ality, nor of His having authority to forgive sins; and this, not the
doing of miracles, was the object of His Teaching and Mission, of
which the miracles were only secondary evidence.
Thus the inward reasoning of the Scribes,^ which was open and
known to Him Who readeth all thoughts,^ issued in quite the oppo-
site of Avhat they could have expected. Most unwarranted, indeed,
was the feeling of contempt which we trace in their unspoken words,
whether we read them: 'Why doth this one thus speak blasphemies?'
or, according to a more correct transcript of them: 'Why doth this
one speak thus? He blasphemeth!' Yet from their point of view
they were right, for God alone can forgive sins; nor has that power
ever been given or delegated to man. But was He a mere man, like
even the most honoured of God's servants? Man, indeed; but 'the
Son of Man'^ in the emphatic and well-understood sense of being
' The expression, ' reasoning in tlieir sessiug was Ivilled.
hearts,', corresponds e,mc% to the Rat)- ■' That tlie expression 'Son of Man'
l)inic ID'^D ^mri?2. Ber. 22 a. The word (CIN ]2) was well understood as refer-
"iniri is frequently used in contradistinc- ring to the Messiah, api)ears from the
tiou to speaking. following remarkable anti-Christian pas-
2 In Sanh. 93 b this reading of the sage (Jer. Taan (55 h, at the bottom):
thouglits is regarded as the fulfilment of ' If a man shall say to thee, 1 am Gw\.
Is. xi. 'd, and as one of the marks of the he lies ; if he says, I am the Son of Man,
Messiah, which Bar Kokhabh not pos- his end will be to repent it; if he says,
506 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
HOOK tlie Rei)rcscntative Man, who was to bring a new Hie to liumanity;
III the Secontl Adam, the Lord from Heaven. It seemed easy to say:
^■^"•^-r^-^ 'Thy sins have been forgiven.' But to Him, AVho had 'authority' to
do so on earth, it was neither more easy nor more diffieult than to
say: 'Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.' Yet this latter, assuredly,
proved the former, and gave it in the sight of all men unquestioned
reality. And so it was the thoughts of these Scribes, which, as
applied to Christy were ' evil ' — since they imputed to Him blasphemy
— that gave occasion for offering real evidence of what they would
have impugned and denied. In no other manner could the object
alike of miracles and of this special miracle have been so attained as
by the 'evil thoughts' of these Scribes, when, miraculously brought
to light, they spoke out the inmost possible doubt, and pointed to the
highest of all questions concerning the Christ. And so it was once
more the wrath of man which praised Him!
'And the remainder of wrath did he restrain.' As the healed
man slowly rose, and, still silent, rolled up his pallet, a way was made
for him between this multitude which followed him with wondering
eyes. Then, as first mingled wonderment and fear fell on Israel on
Mount Carmel, when the Are had leaped from heaven, devoured the
sacrifice, licked up the water in the trench, and even consumed the
stones of the altar, and then all fell prostrate, and the shout rose to
heaven: 'Jehovah, He is the Elohim!' so now, in view of this mani-
festation of the Divine Presence among them. The amazement of
fear fell on them in this Presence, and they glorified God, and they
said: 'We have never seen it on this wise!'
I go up into heaven (to this applies whole passage, as will be seen, is an at-
Numb. xxiii. 19), hath he said and shall tempt to adapt. Numb, xxiii. 19 to the
he not do it ? [or, hath he spoken, and Christian controversy,
shall he make it good ?] Indeed, the
FORGIVENESS OV SIN AND WELCOME TO THE SINNER. SoJ*
CHAPTER XVII.
THE CALL OF MATTHEW — THE SAVIOUR'S WELCOME TO SINNERS — RAB-
BINIC THEOLOGY AS RECzARDS THE DOCTRINE. OF FORGIVENESS IN
CONTRAST TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST — THE CALL OF THE TWELVE
APOSTLES.
(SL Matt. ix. 9-13; St. Mark ii. 13-17; St. Luke v. 27-32; St. Matt. x. 2^;
SL Mark iii. 13-19; St. Luke vi. 12-19.)
In two things chiefly does the fundamental difference appear between chap.
Christianity and all other religious systems, notably Rabbinism. And xvil
in these two things, therefore, lies the main characteristic of Christ's ^-^"^y —
work; or, taking a wider view, the fundamental idea of all religions.
Subjcctivel}', they concern sm and the shiner; or, to put it objec-
tively, the forgiveness of sin and the welcome to the sinner. But
Rabbinism, and every other system down to modern humanitarianism
— if it rises so high in its idea of God as to reach that of sin, which
is its shadow — can only generally point to God for the forgiveness of
sin. What here is merely an abstraction, has become a concrete
reality in Christ. He speaks forgiveness on earth, because He is its
embodiment. As regards the second idea, that of the sinner, all
other systems know of no welcome to him till, by some means (inward
or outward), he have ceased to be a sinner and become a penitent.
They would first make him a penitent, and then bid him welcome to
God; Christ first welcomes him to God, and so makes him a penitent.
The one demands, the other imparts life. And so Christ is the Phy-
sician, Whom they that are in health need not, but they that are sick.
And so Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners — not to re-
pentance, as our conunon text erroneously puts it in St. Matthew ix.
.13, and St. Mark ii. 17/ but to Himself, to the Kingdom; and this
is the beginning of repentance.
Thus it is that Jesus, when His teaching becomes distinctive from
that of Judaism, puts these two points in the foreground: the one at
1 The words ' to reiientance ' are cer- jientance ' do certainly occur. But. with
tainly spurious in St. Matt, and St. Mark. Goch'f, I regard them "as referring to ' the
I regard theirs as the original and righteous,' and as used, in a sense, ironi-
aulheutic report of the words of Christ. cally.
In St. Luke v. 32, the words ' unto re-
508 FROM .!(»IM)AN TO TIIK MOUNT OF TRANSFIGITRATION.
BOOK t lie cure (»r the paralytic, the other in the call of Levi-Matthew. And
III this, also, further explains His miracles of healing as for the higher
^^ — v — presentation of Himself as the Great Physician, while it gives some
insight into the nexus of these two events, and explains their chrono-
logical succession.' It was fitting that at the very outset, when Rab-
binism followed and challenged Jesus with hostile intent, these two
spiritual facts should be brought out, and that, not in a controversial,
but in a positive and practical manner. For, as these two questions
of sin and of the possible relation of the sinner to God are the great
burden of the soul in its upward striving after God, so the answer to
them forms the substance of all religions. Indeed, all the cumbrous
observances of Rabbinism — its whole law — were only an attempted
answer to the question: How can a man be just with God?
But, as Rabbinism stood self-confessedly silent and powerless as
regarded the forgiveness of sins, so it had emphatically no word of
welcome or help for the sinner. The very term ' Pharisee,' or ' sepa-
rated one, ' implied the exclusion of sinners. With this the whole
character of Pharisaism accorded; perhaps, we should have said, that
of Rabbinism, since the Sadducean would here agree with the Phari-
saic Rabbi. The contempt and avoidance of the unlearned, which
was so characteristic of the system, arose not from mere pride of know-
ledge, but from the thought that, as ' the Law ' was the glory and
privilege of Israel — indeed, the object for which the world was created
and preserved — ignorance of it was culpal)le. Thus, the unlearned
blasphemed his Creator, and missed or perverted his own destiny. It
was a principle, that ' the ignorant cannot be pious. ' On the principles
of Rabbinism, there was logic in all this, and reason also, though sadly
perverted. The yoke of ' the Kingdom of God ' was the high destiny
of every true Israelite. Only, to them it lay in external, not internal
conformity to the Law of God: ' in meat and drink,' not ' in righteous-
ness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.' True, they also perceived,
that ' sins of thought ' and purpose, though uncommitted, were ' more
• Yoma 29 a gricvous than even sins of outward deed; ' "■ but only in this sense, that
each outward sin was traceable to inward dereliction or denial of the
Law — ' no man sinneth, unless the spirit of error has first entered into
b Sot. 3a him."' On this grcmnd the punishment of infidelity or apostasy in
the next world was endless, while that of actual transgressions was
«Rosh limited in duration."^
As ' righteousness came by the Law, ' so also return to it on the
^ So in all the three Gospels. " Comp. Sepher Iqqarim iv. 28.
RABBINIC VIEWS OF IMOI'ENTANCE. 509
part of the sinner. Hence, altliou^iih Rabbinism had no welcome to CHAP,
the sinner, it was unceasing in its call to re})entan('e and in extolling- XVll
its merits. All tlie prophets had prophesied only of re|)entance.^' The ^~— ^i
last pages of the Tractate on the Day of Atonement are lull of praises "^er. 34 u
of rei)entance. It not only averted punishment and prolonged life,
but brought good, even the llnal redemption to Israel and the W(n-ld
at large. It surpassed the observance of all the comniandnients, and
was as meritorious as if on(! had restored the Temple and Altar, and
ottered all sacrirtces.'' i)\\{\ hour of i)enitence and good works out- "Vayyik.
R. 7
weighed the whole world to come. These are only a lew ol the ex-
travagant statements by wliich Kabbinism extolled repentance. But,
when najre closely examined, we 11ml that this repentance, as preced-
ing the free welcome of invitation to the sinner, was only another
form of work-righteousness. This is, at any rate, one meaning ^ of
the saying which conjoined the Law and repentance, and represented
them as i>receding the Creation." Another would seem dei'ived from pes. 5ia;
a kind ot Manichajan view of sm. According to it, Uod llimselt was
really the author of the YeUer haRa, or evil impulse' (' the law in our
members'), for which, indeed, there was an absolute necessity, if the
world was to continue.''^ Hence, ' the penitent ' was really ' the great j Yoma 69
. . ., . ' 1 'j; Ber. R. 9,
one,' since his strong nature had more m itot the ' evil im[)ulse, and and in
. . , many
the conquest of it by the penitent was really ot greater merit than places
abstinence from sin." Thus it came, that the true penitent really -sanii.gga;
. , - Maimnn.
occupied a higher place — ' stood where the perfectly righteous could na. Tesh.
not stand."' There is then both work and merit in [)enitence; and fganii.gga
we can understand, how ' the gate of penitence is open, even when ^^'■- ^* ''
that of prayer is shut, ' ^ and that these two sentences are not onl}^ con- e Yaikut on
• Ps xxxii
sisteiit, Init almost cover each other — that the Messianic deliverance p. 101 b
would come, if all Israel did righteousness,'' and, again, if all Israel hsanh.gsa
repented for only one day; ' or, to put it otherwise — if Israel were all isanh.ssa;
saints, or all sinners." wa
We have already touched the point where, as regards repent- ''Sanh. 98,i
ance, as formerly in regard to forgiveness, the teaching of Christ
is in absolute and fundamental contrariety to that of the Rabbis.
According to Jesus Christ, when we have done all, we are to feel
that wc arc but unprofitable servants.™ According to the Rabbis, as -st.Luke
xvli. 10
' It would 1)e quite one-sided to repre- posthumous work,
sent this as the only meaniliii;, as, it - So in too nianj' passages for enunie-
seems to me, Wehf'7- has done in his ration.
'System d. altsynaa-oi::, ])ala^st. Theol.' •' Some of these points have already
This, and a certain defectiveness in the been stated. But it was necessary to re-
treatment, are amoiiij: the blemishes in peat them so as to give a connected view,
this otherwise intorestinu; and verv able
510
FK(JM JORDAN TO THE MOINT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Yoma I
i" Ber. 5 a,
h; Kldd. 81
h
' Yoma u. s.
<' Yoma u.
s.. and
many pas-
sages
« In almost
innumer-
able pas-
sages
f Ab. Zar.
5a
St. Paul puts it, ' righteousness cometli hy the Law; ' and, \siien it
is lost, the Law alone can restore life; ' while, according to Cliristian
teaching, it only Ijringeth death. Thus there was, at the very
foundation of religious life, absolute contrariety between Jesus and
His contemporaries. Whence, if not from heaven, came a doctrine
so novel as that which Jesus made the basis of His Kingdom?
In one respect, indeed, the Kabbinic view was in some measure
derived from the Old Testament, though by an external and, there-
fore, false interpretation of its teaching. In the Old Testament,
also, ' repentance ' was Teshubhah (riDVi'n), 'return;' while, in the
New Testament, it is 'change of mind' (/xeravoia). It would not
be fair here to argue, that the common expression for repenting was
' to do penitence ' (nzvi'n ~ry)> since by its side we frequently
meet that other: 'to return in penitence' (rcvr,"^D zvr)- Indeed,
other terms for repentance also occur. Thus Tohu (to) means
repentance in the sense of regret; Charatah, perhaps, more in that
of a change of mind; while Teyubha or TeshubJiah is the return of
repentance. Yet, according to the very common Rabbinic expres-
sion, there is a 'gate of repentance ' diZ'^r- ~Z'Z'r^. "JZ) through
which a man must enter, and, even if Charatah be the sorrowing
change of mind, it is at most only that gate. Thus, after all,
there is more in the ' doing of penitence' than appears at first sight.
In point of fact, the full meaning of repentance as Teshubhah, or
' return,' is only realised, when a man has returned from dereliction
to observance of the Law. Then, sins of purpose are looked upon as
if they had been unintentional — nay, they become even virtuous
actions.*
We are not now speaking of the forgiveness of sins. In truth,
Rabbinism knew nothing of a forgiveness of sin, free and uncon
ditional, unless in the case of those who had not the power of doing
anything for tlieir atonement. I]ven in the passage which extole
most the frecness and the benefits of reijentance (the last i)ages of
the Tractate on the Day of Atoncmont), there is the most painful
discussion about sins great and siiiall. about repentance from fear or
from love, about sins against commands (u- against prohibitions; and,
in what cases repentance averted, or else only deferred, judgment,
leaving final expiation to be wrought by other means. These were:
personal sufferings,*" death, '^ or the Day of Atonement.'* Besides these,
there were always the ' merits of the fathers:' " or, perhaps, some one
good work donc:*^ or. at any rate, the bi-icf jteriod of ))urgatoi-ial
' So, acconliui;" to Rutjljiiii.<m. l)Otli in tlic Seplicr Iqqar. and in Menor. IIaininai)r.
SORROW, SHAME, GONFKSSION, EXPIATION.
511
pain, wtiich inii;-ht open the ^-att; of mercy. These are the so-called
' advocates ' (rcraqlitiu, ■j'"j''?p-is) of the penitent sinner. In a classi-
cal passage on the subject,' repentance is viewed in its bearing on
four different spiritual ' conditions, which are supposed to be respec-
tively referred to in Jer. iii. 22; Lev. xvi. 30; Is. xxii. 14; and
Ps. Ixxxix. 32. The tirst of these refers to a breach of a command,
with immediate, and persistent cry for forgiveness, which is at
once granted. The second is that of a breach of a j^roJiibifion,
when, besides repentance, the Day of Atonement is required. The
third is that o^ purposed sin, on which death or cutting off had 1)een
threatened, when, besides repentance and the Day of Atonement,
sutferings are retpiired; while in opien profanation of the Name of
God, only death can make final atonement.''
But the nature of repentance has yet to be more fully explained.
Its gate is sorrow and shame." In that sense repentance may be the
work of a moment, ' as in the twinkling of an eye, ' '^ and a life's sins may
obtain mercy by the tears and prayers of a few minutes' repentance. ' -
To this also refers the beautiful sajdng, that all which rendered a
sacrifice unfit for the altar, such as that it was broken, fitted the
penitent for acceptance, since ' the sacrifices of God were a broken
and contrite heart.' ^ By the side of what may be called contrition,
Jewish theology places confession ( Viddui, *n*i). This was deemed so
integral a part of repentance, that' those about to be executed,"
or to die,'' were admonished to it. Achan of old had thus obtained
pardon.' But in the case of the living all this could only be regarded
as repentance in the sense of being its preparation or beginning.
p]ven if it were Charatah, or regret at the past, it would not yet be
Teshubhah, or return to God; and even if it changed puri)osed into
unintentional sin, arrested judgment, and stayed or banished its Angel,
it would still leave a man without those works which are not only his
real destiny and merit heaven, but constitute true repentance. For,
as sin is ultimately dereliction of the Law, beginning within, so
■j See also
Yoma 86
and foUow-
ing
■^^Ber. 12 6;
Chag. 5 a
* Pesiqta
ed. Bub. p.
163 6
' Ab. Zar.
17 a
f Vayyik. R,
7
' Sanh. vi. -I
i> Shabb. 32
' Sanh. u. a.
' In Menorath Hammaor (^QV \ . 1. 1.
2) seven kiiid!3of repentaiicp in roffard to
seven different conditions are mentioned.
They are repentance immediately after
ttie commission of sin ; after a course of
sin, but wliile there is still the power of
sinning; where there is no longer the
occasion for sinning ; where it is caused
by admonition, or f»>ar of danger; where
it is caused by actual atlliction; where a
man is old, and unable to sin; and,
lastly, repentance in prospect of death.
- This is illustrated, among other
tilings, by the history of a Rabbi wlio. at
the close of a dissolute life, became a
convert by repentance. The story of the
occasion of his repentance is not at all
nice in its realistic details, and the tears
with which a self-rigliteous colleague saw
the beatification of the penitent are pain-
fully illustrative of the elder brother in
the'Parable of the Prodigal Son (Ab. Z.
17 a).
512
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Ps. xcii.
>> Ber. R. 22
"^ 2 Chron.
xxxiii. 12,
13
<• Debar. K.
2; ed.
Warsli. p. 7
a; co:up.
Sanh. 102 b,
last lines,
and 103 a
' Ex. XV. 11
f Taan. 16 £i
BRosh
haSh. 17 h
•■BabaMcz.
85 a
i Ber. 17 a
kU. S.
"■ Baba
Mez. 85 a
" Tanch.
Noach i
» See the
discussion
in B. Mez.
37 a
repeutaiu'o is ultimately return to the Law. In this sense there is a
higher and meritorious confession, which not only owns sin but God,
and is therefore an inward return to Him. So Adam, when he saw
the ])cnitence of Cain, burst into this Psalm,'' ' It is a good thing to
confess' unto the Lord.'""' Manasseh, when in trouble, called n[)on
Grod and was heard,'' although it is added, that this was only done in
order to prove that the door of repentance was open to all. Indeed,
the Angels had closed the windows of Heaven against his prayers, but
God opened a place for their entrance beneath His throne of glory.''
Similarly, even Pharaoh, who, according to Jewish tradition, made in
the Red Sea confession of God," was preserved, became king of
Nineveh, and so brought the Ninevites to true rej^entance, which
verily consisted not merely in sackcloth and fasting, but in restitu-
tion, so that every one who had stolen a beam pulled down his whole
palace to restore it.''
But, after all, inward repentance only arrested the decrees of
justice." That which really put the penitent into right relationship
with God was r/ood deeds. The term must here be taken in its
widest sense. Fasting is meritorious in a threefold sense: as the
expression of humiliation,'' as an offering to God, similar to, but better
than the lat of sacrifices on the altar,' and as preventing further
sins by chastening and keeping under the body.'' A similar view
must be taken of self-inflicted penances.'"'* On the other hand, there
was restitution to those who had been wronged — as a Avoman once put
it to her husl)and, to the surrender of one's 'girdle.'"* Nay, it must
be of even more than was due iii strict law." To this must be added
public acknowledgment of public sins. If a person had sinned in one
direction, he must not only avoid it for the future,^ but aim at doing
all the more in the-opposite direction, or of overcoming sin in-the same
circumstances of temptation." Beyond all this were the really good
he has become impervious to the lire of
Gehinnom. For thirty clays he was suc-
cessful, l)ut after that it was noticed his
thi^lis were sinfi;ed, whence he was called
'the little one with the singed thiglis.'
* But such restitution was sometimes
not insisted on, for the sake of encour-
aging jienitcnts.
* Raljbinism has an apt illustration of
this in llie saying, that all the baths of
lustration would not cleanse a man, so
long as lie continued liolding in his hand
thatwliich had polluted him (Taan. H> n).
'■ These statements are all so tlior-
oughly Rabbinic tliat it is needless to
nialve special references.
^ So it would need to be rendered in
this context.
^ Anotlier beautiful allegory is that, in
the fear of Adam, as the night closed in
upon his guilt, God gave him two stones
to rub against each other, which pro-
duced the .spark of light — the rubbing of
these two stones being emblematic of
repentance (Pes. 54 a; Ber. R. II, 12).
3 Baba Mez. 84 b (([uoted i^y Weber)
is scarcely an instance. The whole of
that part of the Talmud is specially re-
pugnant, from its unsavory character
and grossly absurd stories. In one of the
stories in Baba Mez. 8'), a Rabbi tries by
sitting over the tire in an oven, whether
Gen. xlviii.
WHAT A I'Ai;i)()NEr) SINNER MUST DO. 5I3
works, whether occupation with the Law'' or outward deeds, which ciiap.
constituted perfect repentance. Thus we read,^ that every time xvii
Israel gave alms or did any kindness, they made in this world great "- — . ' —
peace, and procured great Paracletes between Israel and their Father ^vayyik.
in Heaven. Still farther, we are told " what a sinner must do who towaid«
' the end
would be pardoned. If he had been accustomed daily to read one bm B.Bab,
column in the Bible, let him read two; if to learn one chapter in the ^^"
' ' 1 c Vayyik.
Mishnah, lot him learn two. But if he be not learned enough to do k. 25, beg.
' " ed. Warsh.
either, let him become an administrator for the congregation, or a p- 38 «
public distributor of alms. Nay, so far was tlie doctrine of external
merit carried, that to be buried in the land of Israel was supposed to
ensure forgiveness of sins.'' This may, finally, be illustrated by an dTanch.on
instance, which also throws some light on the parable of Dives in
Hades. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish had in early life been the associate
of two robbers. But he repented, ' returned to his God with all his
heart, Avith fasting and prayer, was early and late before God, and
busied himself with the Torah (Law) and the commandments." Then
both he and his former companions died, Avhen they saAv him in glory,
while themselves were in the lowest hell. And when they reminded
God, that with Him there was no regard of persons. He pointed to
the Rabbi's penitence and their OAvn impenitence. On this they asked
for respite, that they might ' do great penitence,' when they were
told that there was no space for repentance after death. This is
farther enforced by a parable to the eflfect, that a man, Avho is going
into the wilderness, must provide himself with bread and water while
in the inhabited country, if he would not perish in the desert.
Thus, in one and another respect. Rabbinic teaching about the
need of repentance runs close to that of the Bible. But the vital
(lilference between Rabbinism and the Gospel lies in this: that
Avhereas Jesus Christ freely invited all sinners, whatever their past,
assuring them of welcome and grace, the last word of Rabbinism is
only despair, and a kind of Pessimism. For, it is expressly and
repeatedly declared in the case of certain sins, and, characteristically,
of heresy, that, even if a man genuinely and truly repented, he must
expect immediately to die — indeed, his death would be the evidence
that his repentance was genuine, since, though such a sinner might
turn from his evil, it would be impossible for him, if he lived, to lay
hold on the good, and to do it." eAb. zar.
It is in the light of Avhat Ave have just learned concerning tlie
Rabbinic vicAvs of forgiveness and repentance that the call of Lcvi-
Matthew must be i-ead,.if wo would poreoivo its full moaning. There
n a
514
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOTNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
' St. Mark
11.13
<> Gltt. 34 6
' Sheq. V. 1
"* Eduy. ii.
5; Yoma
84a
• Sanh. 43 a,
in the older
editions ;
comp,
Chesron.
haShas.
p. 22 6
is no need to suppose that it took pla(;e immediately on the cure of
the paralytic. On the contrary, the more circumstantial account of
St. Mark implies, that some time had intervened.^ If our suggestion
be correct, that it was winter when the paralytic was healed at
Capernaum, we may suppose it to liave been the early spring-time of
that favoured district, when Jesus 'went forth again by the seaside.'
And with this, as we shall see, l)ost agrees the succession of after-
events.
Few, if any, could have enjoyed better opportunities for hearing,
and quietly thinking over the teaching of the Prophet of Nazareth,
than Levi-Mattliew. There is no occasion for speculating which was
his original, or whether the second name was added after his conver-
sion, since in Galilee it was common to have two names — one the
strictly Jewish, the other the Galilean.'' Nor do we wonder, that in
the sequel the first or purely Jewish name of Levi was dropped, and
only that of Matthew {Mattl, Mattai, llatteija, Maftithyah), retained.
The latter which is the equivalent of Nathanael, or of the Greek
Theodore (gift of God), seems to have been frequent. We read that
it was that of a former Temple-ofticial," and of several Rabbis.'' It
is perhaps of more interest, that the Talmud ° names five as the
disciples of Jesus, and among them these two whom we can clearly
identify: Matthew ^ and Thaddgeus.^
Sitting before ^ his custom-house, as on that day when Jesus
called him, Matthew must have frequently heard Him as He taught
' A ridiculous story is told that Mat-
thew endeavored to avert sentence of
death by a play on his name, quoting
Ps. xlii. 2 : ' Mathai (in our version,
' When ') I shall come and appear before
God;' to which the judges replied by
similarly adapting Ps. xli. 5: ' Mnt/ini
(in our version, ' When ') he shall die,
and his name perish.'
The other three disciples are named:
Neqai, Netscr, and Boni, or Buni. In
Taan. 20 « a miracle is related which
gave to Boni the name of Nicodemus
(Naqdimon). But I regard this as some
confusion, of which there is much in con-
nection with the name of Nicodemus in
the Talmud. According to the Talmud,
like Matthew, the other three tried to save
their lives by punning appeals to Scrip-
ture, similar to that of St. Matthew.
Thus, Neqai quotes Exod. xxiii. 7, ' Naqi
('the iiMiocent' in our version) and the
righteous shalt thou not slay,' to which
the judges replied by Ps. x. 8. ' in the
secret places he shall slay Naqi ('the
innocent ' in our version'). Again, Netser
pleads Is. xi. 1 : ' Netser (a branch) shall
grow out of his roots,' to which the
judges reply,, Is. xiv. 19: 'Thou art cast
out of thy grave like an abominable
Netser ' (branch), while Boni tries to save
his life by a pun on Exod. iv. 22 : ' My
first-born Beni (in our version, ' my son ')
is Israel,' to which the judges reply by
quoting the next verse, 'I will slay
Buikha (in our version, 'thy son'), thy
first-born ! ' If the Hebrew Beni was
sometimes pronounced Boni, this may
account for the Grecianised form Boan-
ert/es ('sous of thunder') for Beneji-
Reijosh, or Jii-gashn. In Hebrew the root
scarcely means even ' noise ' (see (re.s-
eniits^wh U."^"!), but it has that meaning
in the Aramaean. Kautzsch (Gram. d.
Bibl.-Aram.) suggests the word regaz,
'anger,' 'angry impetuosity.' But the
sviggestion does not commend itself.
* i.TT't TO mAcovoiv.
PUBLICANS' AND CUSTOM-HOUSE OFFICIALS.
515
by the sea-sliore. For this would ho the best, and therefore often
chosen, ])luce for the purpose. Thither not only the multitude from
Capernaum could easily follow; but here was the landing-place for
the many ships which traversed the Lake, or coasted from town to
town. And this not only for them who had business in Capernaum
or that neighbourhood, but also for those who would then strike
the great road of Eastern commerce, which led from Damascus to the
harbours of the West. Touching the Lake in that very neighbour-
hood, it turned thence, northwards and westwards, to join what was
termed the Upper Galilean road.
We know much, and yet, as regards details, perhaps too little
about those ' tolls, dues, and customs,' which made the Roman admin-
istration such sore and vexatious exaction to all 'Provincials,' and
.which in Judaea loaded the very name of pulilican with contempt and
hatred. They who cherished the gravest religious doubts as to the
lawfulness of paying any tribute to Cassar, as involving in principle
recognition of a bondage to which they would fain have closed their
eyes, and the substitution of heathen kingship for that of Jehovah,
must have looked on the publican as the very embodiment of anti-
nationalism. But perhaps men do not always act under the constant
consciousness of such aljstract principles. Yet the endless vexatious
interferences, the unjust and cruel exactions, the petty tyranny, and
the extortionate avarice, from which there was neither defence nor
appeal, would make it always well-nigh unbearable. It is to this
that the Rabbis so often refer. If ' publicans' were disqualified from
being judges or witnesses, it was, at least so far as regarded witness-
bearing, because ' they exacted more than was due.'" Hence also it
was said, that repentance was specially difficult for tax-gatherers and
custom-house officers.*"
It is of importance to notice, that the Talmud distinguishes two
classes of 'publicans': the tax-gatherer in general (Gabbai), and the
Mokhes, or MokJtsa. who was specially the douanier or custom-house
official.- Although both classes fall under the Rabbinic ban, the
douanier — such as Matthew was — is the object of chief execration.
And this, because his exactions were more vexatious, and gave more
scope to rapacity. The Gabbai, or tax-gatherer, collected the regular
dues, which consisted of grouml-, income-, and poll-tax. The ground-
CIL^P.
XVII
' Sanh. 25 b
b Baba K.
94 6
' With them herdsmen were conjoined,
on account of their frequent temptations
to dishonesty, and their wild lives far
from ordinances.
2 Wiinftche is mistaken in making tiie
(Jahbdi the suiterior. and the Mokhes the
subordinate, tax-collector. See Levy,
Neuiiebr. Worterb, iii. p. 116 a.
516
FHOM .I()i;i).VN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGUIIATIOX.
BOOK
ni
' Jer. Dem.
23 a ; coinp.
Bekhor.
31a
»InB.
Kamma
X. 2
■' Jer. Kidd.
Shabb. 78
tax amoimted to oiie-teutli (tfnll grain aud one-fifth of the wine and
frnit grown; ]jartly })aid in kind, and partly commuted into money.
The income-tax amounted to 1 per cent.; while the head-nnme} , or
poll-tax, was levied on all persons, bond and free, in the case of men
from the age of fourteen, in that of women from tlie age of twelve,
up to that of sixty-five.
If this offered many opportunities for vexatious exactions and
rapacious injustice, the 3Iokhes might inflict much greater hardshij)
upon the poor people. There was tax and duty upon all imports and
exports; on all that was bought and sold; l)ridge-money, road-money,
harbour-dues, town-dues, &c. The classical reader knoAvs the in-
genuity which could invent a tax, and find a name for every kind of
exaction, such as on axles, wheels, pack-animals, pedestrians, roads,
highways; on admission to markets; on carriers, bridges, ships, and
quays; on crossing rivers, on dams, on licences, in short, on such a
variety of objects, that even the research of modern scholars has not
been able to identify all the names. On goods the ad valorem duty
amounted to from 2i to 5, and on articles of luxury to even 12i per
cent. But even this was as nothing, compared to the vexation of
being constantly stopped on the journey, having to unload all one's
pack-animals, when every bale and package was opened, and the
contents tumbled about, private letters opened, and tlie Jlokhes ruled
supreme in his insolence and rapacity.
The very word 3Iokhes seems, in its root-meaning, associated with
the idea of oppressi(m and injustice. He was literally, as really, an
opjjressor. The Talmud charges them with gross partiality, remitting
in the case of those to whom they Avished to show favour, and exacting
from those who were not their favourites. They Avere a criminal race,
to which Lev. xx. 5 applied. It was said, that there ucA'er Avas a family
which numbered a Mokhes, in Avhich all did not become such. Still,
cases are recorded when a religious publican Avould extend favour to
Rabbis, or-giA^e them timely notice to go into hiding. If one belong
ing to the sacred association (a Cliabher) became either a Gahhai or a
Mokhes, he Avas at once expelled, although he might be restored on
repentance.'' That there Avas ground for such rigour, appears from
such an occurrence,'' as Avhen a Mokhes took from a defenceless person
his ass, giving him another, and very inferior, animal for it. Against
such unscrupulous oppressors every kind of deception Avas allowed;
goods might be declared to be votive offerings," or a person pass his
slaA^e as his son.''
The Mokhes was called ' great' " if he employed substitutes, and
LEVI-MATTIIKW THE PUBLICAN. ;, 1 f
' small ' if ho stood liiiiiscir at the receipt of custom. 'I'ill Ihc tiiiic CIIAI'.
of Ciesar the taxes were farmed lu Rome, at the highest hiihliiiii-, XVll
mostly by ajoiiit-stock company of tlu^ kiiiglitly order, which emi)loyed ^— ^^r — -'
publicans under them. l>iit by a decree of Caesar, the taxes of Juda'a
were no longer farmed, but levied ))y publicans in Judaea, and paid
directly to the Government, the oflicials being appointed by the
provincials themselves."' This was, indeed, a great alleviation, "•/"•>■• Am.
although it perhai)s made the tax-gatherers only nioi-e unpopular, as
Ixiing the direct officials of the heathen powM:'r.- This also exi)lains
how, if the Mishnah fori )ids'' even the changing of money from the ''B. Kam-
guilt-laden chest of a AloK-Jies, or (louanier, the Gemara'' adds, that cBabaK
su(di ai)})Iied to custom-house officers who either did not keep to the ^^^"■
tax appointed by the Government, or indeed to any fixed tax, and to
those who appointed themselves to such office — that is, as we take
it, who would volunteer for the service, in the hope of making profit
on their own account. An instance is, however, related of a Gabbed,
or tax-gatherer, Ijccoming a celebrated Rabbi, though the taint of his
former calling deterred the more rigid of his colleagues from inter-
course with him.*' On heathen feast days toll w\as remitted to those ''Bekhor.
w^ho came to the festival." Sometimes this w-as also done from kind- .xh.7.a.v.
ness.' The following story may serve as a final illustration of the ^'^"
. ' . f Tos. B.
l)oi)ular notions, abke about publicans and about the merit of good Mets. vm.
works. The son of a Mol'hcs and that of a very pious man had died, zuck."
The former received from his towmsmen all honour at his burial, Avhile
the latter was carried unmourned to the grave. This anomaly was
Divinely explained by the circumstance, that the pious man had
committed one transgression, and the publican had done one good
deed. But a few days afterw^ards a further vision and dream was
vouclisafed to the survivors, wiien the pious was seen walking in
gardens beside w^ater-brooks, while tlie publican was descried stretch-
ing out his tongue towards the river to quench his thirst, but unable
to reach the refreshing stream. '^ pjer. chag.
77 d: comp.
What has been described m such detail, will cast a peculiar light Jer. sanh.
' . '■ " 23 c, and
on the call of Matthew by the Saviour of sinners. For, avc remem- sauh. a;*
ber that Levi-Matthew was not only a 'publican,' but of the worst
kind: a '■ Mokhes^ or doiinnier; a 'little Mokhes,' who himself stood
at his custom-house; one of the class to whom, as w^e are told, re-
])entance offered special difflculti(^s. And, of all such officials, those
who had to take toll from s]iii)s were perhaps the worst, if we are to
' Comp. Wiesel er' s Be'itr. ])\). 7r)-7s. dinates, but direct officials of the Govern-
Hoiice the ' publicans' were not sul)()r- iiient'
518 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK judge by the i)ro verb: 'Woe to the sliip which sails without having
III paid the dues."' And yet, after all, Matthew may have been oidy
"~ — -, ' one of that numerous class to whom religion is merely a matter quite
• Ab. zar. outsidc of, and in another region from life, and Avho, having first gone
astray through ignorance, feel themselves ever farther repelled, or
rather shut out, by the narrow, harsh uncharitableness of those
whom they look upon as the religious and i)ious.
But now quite another day had dawned on him. The Prophet of
Nazai'cth was not like those other great Rabbis, or their pietist, self-
righteous imitators. There was that about Him which not only
aroused the conscience, but drew the heart — compelling, not repell-
ing. What He said opened a new world. His very appearance be-
spoke Him not harsh, self-righteous, far away, but the Helper, if not
even the Friend, of sinners. There was not Ix^tween Him and one
like Matthew, the great, almost impassable gap of repentance. He
had seen and heard Him in the Synagogue — and who that had
heard His Words, or witnessed His power, could ever forget, or lose
the impression? The people, the rulers, even the evil spirits, had
owned His authority. But in the Synagogue Jesus was still the Great
One, far-away from him; and he, Lcvi-Matthew, the 'little Mokhes '
of Capernaum, to whom, as the Rabbis told him, repentance was next
to impossible. But out there, in the open, by the seashore, it was
otherwise. All unobserved by others, he observed all, and could
yield himself, without reserve, to the impression. Now, it was an
eager multitude that came from Capernaum; then, a long train bear-
ing sufl'erers, to whom gracious, full, immediate relief was granted —
whether they were Rabbinic saints, or sinners. And still more gra-
cious than His deeds were His Words.
And so Matthew sat before his custom-house, and hearkened and
hoped. Those white-sailed ships would bring crowds of listeners; the
busy caravan on that highway would stop, and its wayfarers turn
aside to join the eager multitude — to hear the Word or see the Word.
Surely, it was not ' a time for buying and selling, ' and Levi would have
little work, and less heart for it at his custom-house. Perhaps he
may have witnessed the call of the first Apostles; he certainly must
have known the fishermen and shipowners of Capernaum. And now
it appeared, as if Jesus had been brought still nearer to Matthew.
For, the great ones of Israel, 'the Scribes of the Pharisees," and
their pietest followers, had condnned against Him, and would exclude
I Tills is perhaps the'better reading of St. Mark ii. 16.
THE CALL OF LEVI-MATTHEW. 519
Him, not on account of sin, but on account of the sinners. And so, CHAP,
wc take it, long l)cfore that eventful day which for ever decided his xvn
life, Matthew had, in heart, become the disciple of Jesus. Only he '^ — r — '
dared not, could not, have hoped for pergonal recognition — far less
for call to discipleship. But when it came, and Jesus fixed on him
that look of love which searched the inmost deep of the soul, and
made Him the true Fisher of men, it needed not a moment's thought
or consideration. WIumi he spake it, '■ Follow Me,' the past seemed all
swallowed up in the present heaven of bliss. He said not a word,
for his soul was in the speechless surprise of unexpected love and
grace; but he rose up, left the custom-house, and followed Him. That
was a gain that day, not of Matthew alone, but of all the poor and
needy in Israel — nay, of all sinners from among men, to whom the
door of heaven was opened. And, verily, by the side of Peter, as the
stone, we place Levi-Matthew, as tpyical of those rafters laid on the
great foundation, and on which is placed the flooring of that halnta-
tion of the Lord, wliich is His Church.
It could not have been. long after this — probal)lj almost imme-
diately— that the memorable gathering took place in the house ot
Matthew, which gave occasion to that cavil of the Pharisaic Scribes,
which served further to bring out the meaning of Levi's call. For,
opposition ever brings into clearer light positive truth, just as
judgment comes never alone, Init always conjoined with disj)lay of
higher mercy. It was natural that all the publicans around should,
after the call of ^latthow, have come to his house to meet Jesus.
Even from the lowest point of view, the event would give them
a new standing in the Jewish world, in relation to the Prophet of
Nazareth. And it was characteristic that Jesus should improve
such opportunity. Whcii we read of 'sinners" as in comjiany with
these publicans, it is not necessary to tiiink of gross or open otlenders,
though such may have been included. For, we know what such
a term may have included in the Pharisaic vocabulary. E(iually
characteristic was it, that the Rabbinists should have addressed their
objection as to fellowship with such, not to the ^Mastei-. but to the
disciples. Perhaps, it was not only, nor chiefly, from moral cowardice,
though they must have known what the reply of Jesus would have
been. On the other hand, there was wisdom, or i-ather cunning,
in putting it to the disciples. They were but initial learners — and
the question was one not so much of principle, as of acknowledged
Jewish propriety. Had they been able to lodge this cavil in their
minds, it would have fatally shaken the ccmfldencc of the disciples
520
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOIXT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» St. Matt.
Ix. 14-17
in the Master; iiiid, if they could have liccu turned aside, the cause
of the new Christ would have been grievou.sly injured, if not de-
stroyed. Jt was witli the same olyeet, tliat they shortly afterwards
enlisted the aid of tlie well-meaning, but only partially-instructed
disciples of John on the question of fasting,-' which presented a still
stronger consensus of Jewish opinion as against Christ, all the more
telling, that here the practice of John seemed to clash with that of Jesus.
But then John was at the time in prison, and passing through
the tcniporai'y darkness of a thick cloud towards the fuller light.
But Jesus could not leave His disciples to answer for themselves.
What, indeed, could or would they have had to say? And He ever
speaks for us, when we cannot answer for ourselves. From their own
standpoint and contention — nay, also in their OAvn form of speech —
He answered the Pharisees. And He not only silenced their gain-
saying, but further opened up the meaning of His acting — nay, His
very purpose and Mission. * No need have they who are strong and
i- The latter in health'* of a physician, but they who are ill.' It was the very
V. .31 " principle of Pharisaism which He thus set forth, alike as regarded their
self-exclusion from Him and His consorting with the diseased. And,
as the more Hebraic St. Matthew adds, ai)plying the very Rabbinic
formula, so often used when superficial speciousness of knowledge is
directed to further thought and information: ' Go and learn! '^ Learn
what? What their own Scriptures meant; what was implied in the
further prophetic teaching, as correction of a one-sided literalism and
externalism that misinterpreted the doctrine of sacrifices — learn that
fundamental principle of the spiritual meaning of the Law as ex-
planatory of its mere letter, 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.'
They knew no mercy that was not sacrifice^ — with merit attaching;
He no sacrifice, real and acceptable to God, that was not mercy. And
this also is a fundamental principle of the Old Testament, as spiritually
understood; and, being such a fundamental principle, He afterwards
c Ho8. vi. 6 again applied this saying of the prophet ' to His own mode of viewing
and treating the Sa]>bath-question.''
This was one aspect of it, as Jesus opened up anew the Old
Testament, of which their key of knowledge had only locked the
<! St. Matt,
xU. 7
^ T2"'' Ni*. a voiy foniinon formula,
where furtlier tliouulit and instructiou
are required. Ho comnion, indeed, is it,
that it is applied in Ibe sense of ' let,'
such, or such thiii^ ' come and teach '
(niO^T'l N'i*). Sometimes the formula is
varied, as "Nil N'D. -come and .see'
(Baba Bath. 10 a), or *N~"1 *Na. 'go and
see ' (u. s., b).
- Even in that beautiful page in the
Talnuid (Succ. 49 b) righteousness and
sacrifices are compared, the formerbeing
declared the greater; and then righteous-
ness is compared with works of kindness,
with alms, &c.
THE CALLING OV THE TWELVE Al'O.STLES 521
door. There Avas yet aiiothcr and liigher, quite explaining and CHAP.
api)lying alike this saying and the whole Old Testament, and thus XVH
His Own Mission. And this was the fullest unlolding and highest ^— ^.- —
vindication of it: ' For, I am not come to call righteous men, but
sinners.'' The introduction of the words 'to repentance ' in some
manuscripts of St. Matthew and St. Mark shows, how early the full
meaning of Christ's words was misinterpreted by prosaic apologetic
attempts, that failed to fathom their depth. For, Christ called
sinners to better and higher than repentance, even to Himself and
His Kingdom; and to ' emendate ' the original record by introducing
these words from another Gospel - marks a purpose, indicative of retro-
gression. And this saying of Christ concerning the purpose of His
Incarnation and Work: 'to call not righteous men, but sinners,'
also marks the standpoint of the Christ, and the relation which each
of us, according to his view of self, of righteousness, and of sin —
personally, voluntarily, and deliberately — occupies towards the King-
dom and the Christ.
The history of the call of St. Matthe^v has also another, to some
extent subordinate, historical interest, for it was no doubt speedily
followed by the calling of the other Apostles." This is the chrono- ast. Matt.
X 2-4 ■
logical succession in the Synoptic narratives. It also affords some si. Mark
. lii 1.3-19
insight into the history of those, whom the Lord chose as bearers of st.Luke'vi.
■^ . . . . . 12-19
His Gospel. The difficulties connected with tracing the family descent
or possible relationship between the Apostles are so great, that we
must forego all hope of arriving at any certain conclusion. Without,
therefore, entering on details about the genealogy of the Apostles,
and the varied arrangement of their names in the Gospels, which,
with whatever uncertainty remaining in the end, may be learned
from any work on the subject, some points at least seem clear.
First, it appears that only the calling of those to the Apostolate is
related, which in some sense is typical, viz. that of Peter and
Andrew, of James and John, of Philip and Bartholomew (or Bar
Tclamyon, or Temalyon," generally supposed the same as Nathanael), >> vayyik.
and of Matthew the publican. Yet, secondly, there is something b! 22, ed.
Frledtn. p.
which attaches to each of the others. Thomas, who is called 113 a
Didymus (which means ' twin '), is closely connected with Matthew,
both in St. Luke's Gospel and in that of St. Matthew himself.
James is expressly named as the son of Alphseus or Clopas.''^ This -^st. joun
xlx. 25
^ Mark the absence of the Article. the Less,' or rather 'the Little,' a son of
■■^ See the note on p. 507. Mary, the sister-in-law of the Virgin-
•^ Thus he would be tlie sauic as • James Mother.
522
FROM .lORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TIIANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
HI
* St. Luke
vi. 15;
comp.
St. .John
xlv. 22
>> War. iv.
3, 9
■-" Euseb.
H. E. Hi. 11;
iv. 22
•• Josh. XV.
25
we know to li.ivc been al^^o tlic iiaiiic (>rMattlie\v-Levi"t< father. But,
as the name was a common one, no inlerence can be drawn from it, and
it does not seem likely that the father of Matthew was also that of
James, Judas, and Simon, for these three seem to have been brothers.
Judas is designated by St. Matthew as Lebba^us, from the Hebrew
lebJi, a heart, and is also named, both by him and by St. Mark,
Thaddseus — a term which, however, we would not derive, as is
cohimonly done, from thad, the 'female breast,' but following the
analogy of the Jewish name Thodah, from ^ praise.''^ In that case
both Lebbseus and Thaddaeus would j^oint to the heartiness and
the Thanksgiving of the Apostle, and hence to his character. St.
Luke simply designates hiin Judas of James, which means that he was
the brother (less probably, the son) of James." Thus his real name
would have been Judas Lebbgeus, and his surname Thaddaeus. Closely
connected with these two we have in all the Gospels, Simon, surnamed
Zelotes or Cananajan (not Canaanite),both terms indicating his original
connection with the Galilean Zealot party, the ' Zealots for the Law.'"
His position in the Apostolic Catalogue, and the testimony of
Hegesippus,' seem to point him out as the son of Clopas, and brother
of James, and of Judas Lebbgeus. These three were, in a sense,
cousins of Christ, since, according to Hegesippus, Clopas was the
brother of Joseph, while the sons of Zebedee were real cousins,
their mother Salome being a sister of the Virgin.^ Lastly, we have
Judas Iscariot, or Ish Kerioth, * a man of Kerioth,' a town in Judah.*
Thus the betrayer alone would be of Judsean origin, the others all
of Galilean; and this may throw light on not a little in his after-
history.
No further reference than this briefest sketch seems necessary,
although on comparison it is clear that the Apostolic Catalogues in the
Gospels are ranged in three groups, each of them beginning with
respectively the same name (Simon, Philip, and James the son of
Alphaeus). This, however, we may remark — how narrow, after all,
was the Apostolic circle, and how closely connected most of its mem-
bers. And yet, as we remember the history of their calling, or those
notices attached to their names which aftbrd a glimpse into their
history, it was a circle, thoroughly representative of those who would
' As is done in the Rabbinic story
where ThuddaMis appeals to Ps. c. 1
(superscription) to save his life, while the
Rabbis reply by appealino; to Ps. 1. 2,3:
'Whoso otiereth praise {fhodfih) ijlori-
figth Me' (Sanh. 43 d, Chesr. haSh.).
^ As to the identity of the names Al-
pluTus and Clopas. comp. Wefze/ in the
Theol. Stud. n. Krit. for ISS,",. Heft iii.
See also further remarks on the sons of
Clopas, in the comment on St. .John .\ix.
25 in I?ooi< V. ch. xv.
THE A1'(JST(JL1G COMMISSION.
523
gatlier around the Christ. Mo«t marked and most solemn of all, it was CHAP,
after a night of solitary prayer on the mountain-side, that Jesus at xvii
early dawn 'called His discii)les, and of them He chose twelve, whom — ^i —
also He named Apostles," 'that they should be with Him, and that
He might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal
vSickness and to cast out devils. ' ^
' As to the designation Boanerges (sous of thunder), see note 2, p. 514.
524
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER XVIII.
BOOK
III
» St. Luke
vi. l;i
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT — THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST AND
RABBINIC TEACHING.^
(St. Matt, v.-vii.)
It was probably on one of those mountain-ranges, which stretch to
the nortli of Capernaum, that Jesus had spent the night of lonely
prayer, whiqh preceded the designation of the twelve to the Aposto-
late. As the soft spring morning broke, He called up those who
had learned to follow Him, and from among them chose the twelve,
who were to be His Amljassadors and Representatives." ^ But already
the early light had guided the eager multitude which, from all parts,
had come to the broad level plateau beneath to bring to Him their
need of soul or body. To them He now descended with words of
comfort and power of healing. But better yet had He to say, and to
do for them, and for us all. As they pressed around Him for that
touch which brought virtue of healing to all. He retired again to the
mountain-height, and through the clear air of the bright spring day
spake, what has ever since been known as the ' Sermon on the Mount,'
from the place where He sat, or as that 'in the i)lain' (St. Luke vi.
17), from the place where He had first met the multitude, and which
so many must have continued to occupy while He taught.
The first and most obvious, perhaps, also, most superficial thought,
is that which brings this teaching of Christ into comparison, we shall
not say with that of His contemporaries — since scarcely any who
lived in the time of Jesus said aught that can be compared with it —
but with the l)est of the wisdom and piety of the Jewish sages, as
' As it was impo.-Jsible to quote sepa-
rately the ditrerent verses in the Sermon
on the Mount, the reader is requested to
have the Bil)ie before him, so as to com-
pare the versp.s rpferr(>d to with their
commentation in this cliajjter.
''■ It is so that we ijroup toi^ether St.
Lukevi. 12, i:^. 17-1!)! compared with St.
Mark iii. IS-lfi and St. Matthew v. 1. 2.
^ According to traditional view this
momitaln was the so-called ' Karn
Hattin ' (Horns of Hattin) on the road
from Tiberias to Nazareth, about 1^
hours to the north-west of Tiberias. But
the tradition dates only from late Cru-
sadino; times, and the locality is, for many
reasons, unsuitable.
THE -SERMON ON THE MOUNT' AND TFH-] TAEMUD. 525
preserved in Rabbinic; writinj^s. Its essential diflcrence, or rather chap.
contrariety, in si)irit and snbstanee, not only when viewed as a whole, XVHI
l)ut in almost each oi' its individual parts, will be briefly shown in the ^^^r*^^
sequel. For the j)resent we only express this as deepest conviction,
that it were difiicult to say which brings greater astonisliinent(though
ol' opposite kind): a. first reading of the 'Sermon on the Mount,' or
that of any section of the Talmud. The general reader is here at a
doul)le disadvantage. From his u{)bringing in an atmosphere which
Christ's Words have filled with heaven's music, he knows not, and
cannot know, the nameless feeling which steals over a receptive soul
when, in the silence of our moral wilderness, those voices first break
on the ear, that had never before been wakened to them. How they
hold the soul entrfinced, calling up echoes of inmost yet unrealised
aspiration, itself the outcome of the God-born and God-tending within
us, and which renders us capable of new birth into the Kingdom;
call up, also, visions and longings of that world of heavenly song, so
far away and y(>t so near us; and fill the soul with subduedness,
expectancy, and ecstasy! So the travel-stained wanderer flings him
down on the nearest height, to feast his eyes with the first sight of
home in the still valley beneath; so the far-of exile sees in his dreams
visions of his child-life, all transfigured; so the weary prodigal leans
his head in silent musing of mingled longing and rest on a mother's
knee. So, and much more; tor, it is the Voice of God Which speaks
to us in the cool of the evening, amidst the trees of the lost Garden;
to us who, in very shame and sorrow, hide, and yet even so hear, not
words of judgment but of mercy, not concerning an irrevocable, and
impossible past, but concerning a real and to us possible future, which
is that past, only better, nearer, dearer, — for, that it is not the human
which has now to rise to the Divine, but the Divine which has come
down to the huuian.
Or else, turn fioni this to a first i-eading of the wisdom of the
Jewish Fathers in their Talmud. It little matters, what part be
chosen for the i)ur])ose. Here, also, the reader is at disadvantage,
since his instructors present to him too frequently broken sentences,
extracts torn from their connection, words often mistranslated as re-
gards their ical meaning, or misapi)lied as regards their bearing and
spirit: at b(>st, only isolated sentences. Take these in their connec-
tion and real nu'aning, and what a terrible awakening! Who, that
has read half-a-dozen pages successively of any i>art of the Talmud,
canfeelothcM'wisethan by turns shocked, jjaiiied, amused, or astounded?
There is hei-e wit and logic, quickness and readiness, earnestness and
526 FROM JORDAN TO TIIR MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
ijooK zeal, but by the nidc oi" it terrible profanity, uncleanness, superstition,
"1 and tolly. Taken as a whole, it is not only utterly unspiritual, but
"-^^^ — anti-si)iritual. Not that the Talmud is worse than might be expected
ol' such wi'itings in such times and circumstances, perhaps in many
respects much l)etter — always l)earin<i: in mind the ])articular stand-
point of narrow nationalism, without which Talmudism itself could not
have existed, and wiiich therefore is not an accretion, but an essential
part of it. But, taken not in abrupt sentences and quotations, but
as a whole, it is so utterly and immeasurably unlike the New Testa-
ment, that it is not easy to determine which, as the case may be, is
greater, the ignorance or the presumption of those who put them
side by side. Even where spiritual life pulsates, it seems propelled
through valves that are diseased, and to send the ]jfe-blood gurgling-
back upon the heart, or along ossified arteries that quiver not with
life at its touch. And to the reader of such disjointed Rabbinic
quotations there is this further source of misunderstanding, that the
form and sound of loords is so often the same as that of the sayings of
Jesus, hoM^ever different their spirit. For, necessarily, the wine — be
it new or old — made in Judgea, comes to us in Palistinian vessels.
The new teaching, to be historically true, must have emplo.yed the old
foi'uis and spoken the old language. But the ideas underlying terms
e(pK\lly employed by Jesus and the teachers of Israel are, in everything
that concerns the relation of souls to God, so absolutely different as
not to bear conqjarison. Whence otherwise the enmity and oi)i)osi-
tion to Jesus from the first, and not only after His Divine claim had
been i)ronounced? These two, starting from principles alien and
hostile, follow opposite directions, and lead to other goals. He who
has Ihirsted and quenched his thirst at the living fount of Christ's
Teaching, can never again stoop to seek drink at the broken cisterns
of Rabbinism.
We take here our standi)oint on St. Matthew's account of the
' Sermon on the Mount,' to which we can scarcely doubt that by St.
-St. Luke Luke" is i)arallel. Not that it is easy, or perhaps even possible, to
determine, whether all that is now grouped in the 'Sermon on the
Mount' was really spoken by Jesus on this one occasion. P"'rom the
])lan and structure of St. Matthew's Gospel, the presumption seems
rather to the contrary. For. isolated parts of it are introduced by
St. Luke in other connections, yet quite fitly.^ On the other liand,
' The reader will find tliese parallelisms tary for English Readers, vol. i. of the
in Dean Pbimptn-'s Notes on St. Mat- N.T. \). 20).
thew V. 1 (in Bishop EUicoff's Connnen-
VI.
ARKANGlvMKNT OF THE 'SEIJMON ON THE MOUi\T.' 527
cvou ill accordance with llic tiaditioiial cliaracteriHatioii ol' St. CHAP.
Matthew's narrative, we expect in it the liillest account ol" our Lord's XVHI
Discourses/ wliile we also notice that His Galilean Ministiy forms *— -v^*-'
the main subject of the First (iospel.- And tliei'c is (nie character-
istic of the 'Sermon on the Mount' which, iiuh-ed, throws li<iiit on
the plan of St. Matthew's work in its apparent chronoloii-ical inversion
of events, such as in its placing the ' Sermon on the Mouni ' before,
the calling of the Apostles. ^^Q will not designate the ' Sermon on
the Mount' as the promulgation of the New Law, since that would be
ii far too narrow, if not erroneous, view of it. But it certainly seems
to corresi)ond to the Divine Revelation in the ' Ten Words ' from
Mount Sinai. Accordingly, it seems approi)riate that the (Jenesis-
])art ol" St. Matthew's Gospel should ))e innnediately followed by tiie
Exodus-i)art, in which the new Revelation is placed in the Ibrefront,
to the seeming breach of historical order, leaving it afterwards to be
followed by an appropriate groui^ing of miracles and events, which we
know to have really preceded the ' Sermon on the Mount.'
Very many-sided is that ' Sermon on the Mount," so that ditferent
writers, each viewing it from his standpoint, have ditferently sketched
its general outline, and yet carried to our minds the feeling that thus
far they had correctly understood it. We also might attempt humble
contribution towards tlie same end. Viewing it in the light of the
time, we might mark in it alike advancement on the Old Testament
(or rather, nnfolding of its inmost, yet hidden meaning), and contrast
to contemporary Jewish teaching. And here we would regard it as
presenting the full delineation of the ideal man of God, of ])rayer, and
of righteousness — in short, of the inward and outward manifestation
■of discipleshi]). Or else, keeping l)efore us the dift"erent standpoint
of His hearers, we might in this •Sermon " follow uj) tliis contrast to its
nnderlyiiig ideas as regards: First, tiie right relationship between
man and (iod. or true righteousness — what inward gi'aces characterise
and what prospects attach to it, in opposition to Jewish views of
merit and of reward. Secondly, we would mark the same contrast
as regards sin {iKniuirfoUxjii), temptation, &c. Thirdly, we would
note it, as regards salvation (soteriolof/)/): and, lastly, as regards
what may be termed moral theology: personal Ceelings, married and
other relations, discipleship. and the like. And in this great contrast
' Coiiip. Euseh. H. Eccl. iii. 39. to tho la^t Pa.s.sover, while lie devotes not
'-' Thus Bt. Mivttliew jiasses over those U>ss than fourteen chapters and a lialf lo
earlier events in tlie Gospel-history of the luilf-year's activity in Galilee. If St.
whicli Judani was tlie scene, and even over .Tolni's is the .Tudtean. St. Matthew's is
the visits of .Tesus to .Terusaleni jirevious \\w Galilean (iosiiel.
528 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK two points would iH'oiniiieiitlj stand out : New Testament humility,
HI as opposed to Jewish (the latter being really pride, as only the con-
^— — ^'^-^ sciousncss oi' failure, or rather, of inadequate perfeetness, while New
Testament humility is i-eally despair of self); and again, Jewish
as opposed to New Testament perfeetness (the former being an
attempt by means external or internal to strive up to God: the
latter a new life, springing from God, and in God). Or, lastly, we
might view it as upward teaching in regard to God: the King]
inward teaching in regaril to man: the subjects of the King] and
outward teaching in regard to the Church and the world: the
boundaries of the Kingdom.
This brings us to what alone we can here attempt: a general
outline of the * Sermon on the Mount. ' Its great subject is neither
righteousness, nor yet the New Law (if such designation be proper
in regard to what in no real sense is a Law), but that which was
innermost and uppermost in the Mind of Christ — the Kingdom of
God. Notably, the Sermon on the Mount contains not any detailed
or systematic doctrinal,' nor any ritual teaching, nor yet does it
firescribe the form of any outward oljservances. This marks, at least
negatively, a difference in principle from all other teaching. Christ
came to found a Kingdom, not a School; to institute a fellowship, not
to propound a system. To the first disciples all doctrinal teaching
sprang out of fellowship with Him. They saw Him, and therefore
believed; they believed, and therefore learned the truths connected
with Him, and springing out of Him. So to speak, the seed of truth
which fell on their hearts was carried thither from the flower of His
Person and Life.
Again, as from this point of view the Sermon on the Mount
differs from all contemporary Jewish teaching, so also is it impossible
to compare it with any other system of morality. The difference
here is one not of degree, nor even of kind, but of standpoint. It is
indeed true, that the Words of Jesus, properly understood, marks the
utmost limit of ail possible moral conception. But this point does not
come in (piestion. livery nu)ral system is a road by which, through
self-denial, discipline, and effort, men seek to reach the goal. Christ
begins with this goal, and places His disciples at once in the position
to which all othoi- teachers point as the end. They work up to the
1 On this i)oint there seems to me commonly called do2;mas — since, besides
some confusion of hui.uua,2;e on the i)art St. Matt. vii. 22, 28. as Piofessor Wac(^
of controversialists. Those who main- has so well nr<i'ed. love to God and to our
tain that the Sermon on the .Mount con- neiijhbour mark both the startin.ii;-i)oint
tains no doctrinal elements at all must and the tinal outcome of all tlieolofry-
mean systematic teachinsr — what are
ANALYSIS OF TIIK
;ki;m<)N on tiik moint
529
^oal of Ix'eoining' the 'children ol" tlie Kingdom;' He makes men CIIAP.
«iieh, freely, and ol' His grace: and this /.s- the Kiniidom. Whal the XViii
others labour for, He gives. They begin by demanding, He by l)e- ^— -^r—
stowing: because he brings good tidings of forgiveness and mercy.
Accordingly, in the real sense, there is neither new law nor moral
system here, but entrance into a new life : ' Be ye therefore perfect,
as your Father Which is in heaven is perfect. '
But if the Sei'uion on the Mount contains not a new, nor, indeed,
any system of morality, and addresses itself to a new condition of
things, it follows that the promises attaching, tor example, to the so-
called ' Beatitudes ' must not be regarded as the reward of the spiritual
state with which they are respectively connected, nor yet as their
result. It is not because a man is poor in spirit that his is the King-
dom of Heaven, in the sense that the one state will grow into the other,
or be its result; still less is the one the reward of the other. ^ The
connecting link — so to speak, the theological copula between the ' state '
and the promise — is in each case Christ Himself: because He stands
between our present and our future, and ' has opened the Kingdom of
Heaven to all believers.' Thus the promise represents the gift of
grace by Christ in the new Kingdom, as adapted to each case.
It is Christ, then, as the King, Who is here flinging open the gates
of His Kingdom. To study it more closely: in the three chapters,
under which the Sermon on the Mount is grouped in the first Gospel,*
the Kingdom of God is presented .si*cce.s.s'iyeZ</, progressively^ and exten-
sively. Let us trace this with the help of the text itself.
In the first part of the Sermon on the Mount '' the Kingdom of
God is delineated generally, f^v^i positively, and then negatively, mark-
ing especially how its righteousness goes deeper than the mere letter
of even the Old Testament Law. It opens with ten Beatituch^s. which
are the New Testament counterpart to the Ten Commandments. 'I'hese
present to us, not the observance of the Law wi-itten on stone, but
the realisation of that Law which, by the Spirit, is written on the
tleshly tables of the heart.'
These Ten Commandments in the Old Covenant were preceded l)y a
Prologue.'* The ten Beatitudes have, characteristicallv. not a Prologue '' f-x. xix.
but an Epilogue." which corresponds to the Old Testament Prologue. ^^^ ^^^^^
This closes the first section, of which the object was to present ^- ^'■^-'^^
'clis.v.-vii.
■St. Matt. V.
St. Matt.
' To adopt tlic lan,i;uaffe of St. Tlioinas
Aquinas — it is neither meritinn ex co/i-
r/ruo, nor yet is it ex condi(/)io. Tlie He-
formers fully showed not onlv tlie error
(if Iionianisin in this respect, but the
untenablcness of the theological dis-
linctidn.
530
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANt^FIGURATlON.
BOOK
III
» TV. 21 to
endof ch.v.
* Alms, vi.
1-4: Praya-
w. 5-15 ;
Fasting, 16-
18
<^ vv. 22, 23
<! VT. 22-24
<■ vv. 25 to
end of eh.
the Kiiio'doin of (}o(l ill its cliaractcristic features.' But here it waft
iieeessarv, in order to mark the real eoiitinuity oftlieNcw Testaineut
with the Ohl, to show the rehitioii of tlio one to the other. And this
is the object of verses 17 to 20, the hist-nientioncd verse forming at
the same time a grand climax and transition to the criticism of the
Old Testa iiient-LaAv in its merely literal application, such as the Scribes
and I'harisees made.'' For, taking even the letter of the Law, there
is not only ])rogression, but almost contrast, between the righteousness
of the Kingdom and that set forth by the teachers of Israel. Accord-
ingly, a detailed criticism of the Law noAv follows — and that not as
interpreted and applied by 'tradition,' but in its barely literal meaning.
Li this part of the 'Sermon on the Mount' the careful reader will
mark an analogy to Exod. xxi. and xxii.
This closes the first part of the 'Sermon on the Mount.' The
second part is contained in St. Matt. vi. Li this the criticism of the
Law is carried deeper. The (piestion now is not as concerns the Law
in its literality, but as to what constituted more than a mere observance
of tlie outward commandments: pieti/, spirituaUty^ sanctifi/. Three
points here stood out specially — nay, stand out still, and in all ages.
Hence this criticism was not only of special api)licatioii to the Jews,
but is universal, we might almost say, prophetic. These three high
points are alius, praiier, c\m\ fa.sf in fj — or, to put the latter more gener-
ally, the relation of the jihysical to the spiritual. These three are
successively presented, negatively and positively.'' But even so. this
would have l)een but the external aspect of them. The Kingdom of
God carries all back to the grand underlying ideas. What were this
or that mode of giving alms, unless the right idea be apprehended, of
what constitutes riches, and where they should be sought ? This is
indicated in verses 19 to 21. Again, as to prayer: what matters it if*
we avoid the externalism of the Pharisees, or even catch the right form
as set forth in the 'Lord's Prayer,' unless we realise what underlies
prayer? It is to lay our inner man wholly open to the light of (rod
in genuine, earnest simplicity, to lie <[uite shone through by Ilim.' It
is, moreover, absolute and undi\i<l('d self-dedication to God.'* And in
this lies its connection, alike with the spirit that prompts r^/w.sr//i?/??//,
and with that which prompts vvi\\ fa.sfhu/. That which underlies all
such fasting is a right view of the rclalion in which the body with its
wants stands to God — the temporal to the spiritual.' It is the si)irit
of prayer vrhich must rule alike alms and fasting, and pervade them:
the upward look and self-dedication to God, the seeking first after the
Kingdom of God and His Righteousness, that man. and self, and life
.<L'l"l'UtED lIAliDlNlC I'AIJALI.EI.S. ;j31
may bo l)ciptizo(l in it. Such arc the real alms, the real prayers, tlie ciiAl'.
real lasts of tlic Kiu<r(l()i!i of God. XVlii
II' we have riii'htly apprehended the ineaninji- oi'the two tirst parts ^— ^r^--'
of the 'Sermon on the Mount/ we cannot be at a loss to understanil
its tlili'd part, as set fortli in the seventh chapter of St. Matthew's
Gospel. J3riefly, it is this, as addressed to His contemporaries, nay,
with wider application to the men of all times: Firsts the Kin.iidom
of God cannot be circumscribed, as you would do it.'' Secoudlij, it 'vn. 1-5
cannot be extended, as you would do it, ])y external means," but conieth '■ vor. «
to us from God," and is entered by i)ersonal determination and sepa- ■ w. t-ij
ration.'' Thirdlij, it is not lyreaclted, as too often is attempted, when ■' w. 13, u
thoughts of it are merely of the external.'' Lastly, it is not iiiani- 'w. 15, le
fested in life in the numner too common among' religionists, but is ver^'
real, and true, andgood inits etfects.'^ And this Kingdom, as received fw. it-jo
by each of us, is like a solid house on a solid foundation, wiiich nothing
from without can shake or destroy. ° . ^^w. 24-27
The intinite contrast, just set forth, between the Kingdom as pre-
sented by the Christ and Jewish contemporary teaching is the more
striking, that it was expressed in a form, and clothed in words Avith
which all His hearers were familiar; indeed, in modes of expression
current at the time. It is this which has misled so many in their
quotations of Rabbinic parallels to the ' Sermon on the Mount." They
perceive outward similarity, and they straightway set it (iown to
identity of spirit, not understanding that often those things are most
unlike in the spirit of them, which are most like in their form. No
part of the Xew Testament has had a larger array of Rabbinic
parallels adduced than the ' Sermon on the Mount; ' and this, as we
might expect, because, in teaching ad(h-essed to His contemi)oraries,
Jesus would naturally use the forms with which they were familiar.
Many of these Rabbinic quotations are, however, entirely inapt, the
similarity lying in an expression or turn of words.' Occasionally, the
misleading error goes even further, and that is quoted in illustration
of Jesus' sayings which, either by itself or in the context, implies quite
the opposite. A detailed analysis would lead too far. but a few speci-
mens will sufficiently illustrate our meaning.
To begin with the first Beatitude, to the i)oor in spirit, since theirs
is the Kingdom of Heaven, this early Jewish saying" is its very ''Ab. iv. i
counterpart, nuirking not the optimism, but the pessimism of life:
'■ Ever be more and more lowly in spii'it. since the exj)ectaiu\v of man
' So in the quotations of many writers on tlie subject, notably tliose of Wiinsrhe.
o32
FROM J OK DAN TO THE .MOL'NT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
rii
^ Vayyik.
U. l.ftd.
Warsh. p.
2 6
<•■ Abhodah
Zarah
is to become the food of worms. ' Another contrast to Christ's promise
of grace to the ' poor in spirit ' is presented in this utterance of self-
righteousness " on the part of Rabbi Joshua, who compares the reward
(",rr) formerly given to him who brought one or another offering
to the Temple with tliat of him who is of a lowly mind ("zz inrirn),
to whom it is reckoned as if he had brought all the sacrifices. To this
the saying of the great Hillel '' seems exactly parallel: ' My humility is
my greatness, and my greatness my humility,' which, be it observed,
is elicited by a Rabbinic accommodation of Ps. cxiii., 5, 6: 'Who is
exalted to sit, who humbleth himself to behold. ' It is the omission on
the part of modern writers of this explanatory addition, which has
given the saying of Hillel even the faintest likeness to the first
Beatitude.
But even so, what of the promise of ' the Kingdom of Heaven? '
What is the meaning which Rabbinism attaches to that phrase, and
would it have entered the mind of a Rabbi to promise what he under-
stood as the Kingdom to all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, who were
poor in spirit? We recall here the fate of the Gentiles in Messianic
days, and, to prevent misstatements, summarise the opening pages of
the Talmudic tractate on Idolatry.' At the beginning of the coming
era of the Kingdom, God is represented as opening the Torah, and
inviting all who had busied themselves Avith it to come for their reward.
On this, nation by nation appears — first, the Romans, insisting that
all the great things they had done were only done for the sake of
Israel, in order that they might the better bus}' themselves with the
Torah. Being harshly repulsed, the Persians next come forward with
similar claims, encouraged by the fact that, unlike the Romans, they
had not destroyed the Temple. But they also are in turn repelled.
Then all the Gentile nations urge that the Law had not been offered to
them, which is proved to be a vain contention, since God had actually
offered it to them, but only Israel had accepted it. On this the nations
reply by a peculiar Rabbinic explanation of P]xod. xix. 17, according
to which God is actually represented as having lifted Mount Sinai like
a cask, and threatened to put it over Israel unless they accepted the
Law. Israel's obedience, therefore, was not willing, but enforced.
On this the Almighty proposes to judge the Gentiles by the Noachic
commandments, although it is added, that, even had they observed
them, these would hav(! carried no reward. And, although it is a prin-
ciple that even a heathen, if he studied the Law, was to be esteemed
like the High-Priest, yet it is argued, with the most perverse logic,
that the reward of heathens who observed tlie Law must be less than
CONTRAST IN irM'.r.INK' TEACIIIXi;. 533
that of those wlio did so because tlie Law was jiiveii tlieiu, siiiee the CHAP,
former aeted ironi iiiii)ulse, and not Iroiu olK'dieucc! Will
Even thus I'ar the contrast to the teaching of Jesus is tremendous. ^— ^,'-'»-'
A lew further extracts will finally point the dill'erence between the
largeness of Christ's World-Kingdom, and the narrowness of Judaism.
Most painful as the exhil)ition of i)rolanity and national conceit is, it
is needful in order to refute what we must call the daring assei'tion,
that the teaching of Jesus, or the Sermon on the Mount, had ])een
derived from Jewish sources. At the same time it must carry to the
mind, with almost irresistible force, the question whence, if not from
(jod, Jesus had derived His teaching, or how else it came so to differ,
not in detail, but in principle and direction, from that of all His
contemporaries.
In the Talmudic passages from which quotation has already been
made, Ave further read that the Gentiles would enter into controversy
with the Almighty about Israel. They would urge, that Israel had
not observed the Law. On this the Almighty would propose Himself
to bear witness for them. But the Gentiles would ol)ject, that a
father could not give testimony for his son. Similarly, they would
object to the proposed testimony of heaven and earth, since self-
interest might compel them to be partial. For, according to Ps.
Ixxvi. 8, 'the earth was afraid,' because, if Israel had not accepted
the Law, it would have been destroyed, but it 'became still' when at
Sinai they consented to it. On this the heathen would l)e silenced
out of the mouth of their own witnesses, such as Nimrod, Laban,
Potiphar, Nebuchadnezzar, A:e. They would then ask, that the Law
might be given them, and promise to observe it. Although this was
now impossible, yet God would, in His mercy, try them ))y giving them
the Feast of Tabernacles, as perhaps the easiest of all observances.
But as they were in their tabernacles, God would cause the sun to
shine forth in his strength, when they would forsake their tabei'nacles
in great indignation, according to Ps. ii. 3. And it is in this man-
ner that Rabbinism looked for the fulfilment of those words in Ps. ii.
4: ' lie that sitteth in the lieavens shall laugh, t lie Lord shall have
them in derision,' this being the only occasion on which God laughed!
And if it were urged, that at the time of the ^Nfessiah all nations
would become Jews, this was indeed true; but although they would
adopt Jewish practices, they would apostatise in the war of Gog and
Magog, when again Ps. ii. 4 would be realised: 'The Lord si'.all
laugh at them.' And this is the teaching which some writers would
compare with that of Christ! hi view of such statements, we can
534
Fl{OM JOKKAX TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
HOOK
III
Erub. 41 h
>> Baba B.
10 «
<: Baba B.
10 b ; coinp.
Pes. 8 a :
Rosh haSh.
4 a
•1 B. Bath.
u. s.
•■ B. Bath,
f Chag. 27 a
only ask witli astonislinient: What Ibllowsliii) of si)irit can there be
between Jewisii teaching and the first Beatitiulei'
It is the same sad scU'-rigliteousness and utter carnahiess of vicAV
which underlies the other Rabbinic parallels to the Beatitudes,
pointing- to contrast rather than likeness. Thus the Rabbinic
blessedness of mourning consists in this, that much misery here
makes up for punishment hereafter.'' We scarcely wonder that no
Rabbinic parallel can be found to the third Beatitude, unless we
recall the contrast which assigns in Messianic days the possession of
earth to Israel as a nation. iSlor could we expect any parallel to the
fourth Beatitude, to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.
Rabbinism would have quite a ditiercnt idea of ' righteousness, ' con-
sidered as 'good works,' and chiefly as almsgiving (designated as
Tsedaqah, or righteousness). To such the most special reward is
promised, and that ex opere operator Similarly, Rabbinism speaks
of the perfectly righteous ( -v:; p*~i) and the perfectly unrighteous,
or else of the righteous and unrighteous (according as the good or the
evil might weigh heaviest in the scale) ; and, besides these, of a kind
of middle state. But such a, conception as that of ' hunger ' and
' thirst ' after righteousness would have no place in the system. And,
that no doubt may obtain, this sentence maybe quoted: *He that
says, I give this ''Sela" as alms, in order that (^^y^2) my sons
may live, and that I may merit the world to come, behold, this is the
perfectly righteous.'" Along with such assertions of Avork-righteous-
ness we have this principle often repeated, that all such merit at-
taches only to Israel, while the good works and mercy of the Gentiles
are actually reckoned to them as sin,'^ though it is only fair to add
that one voice (that of Jochanan ben Zakkai) is raised in contradic-
tion of such horrible teaching.
It seems almost needless to i)rosecute this subject; yet it may
l)e well to remark, that the same self-righteousness attaches to the
tpiality of mercy, so highly ])rized among the Jews, and which is
supi)oscd not only to luring reward,'' but to atone for sins." With
regard to purity of heart, there is, indeed, a discussion between the
school of Shammai and that of Hillel — the former teachin<>: that
1 In Jer. B. Kaiuiiiii (1 r, we liavc tliis
sayiuii; in the luuiie of R. Gamaliel, and
therefore near Cliristian times: 'When-
soever thou liast mercy, God will have
mercy upon thee; if thou hast not mercy,
neither will God have mercy ui)on thee; '
to which, however, this sayinu' of Ral)
must be put as a pendent, that if a man
lias in vain sou,ii;ht forttiveness from his
nei.2;hbour, he is to get a whole row of
men to try to assuage his wrath, to which
.Tob xx.xiii. 2S applies; the excejition,
however, being, according to R. .lose,
tliat if one had brought an evil name
upon his neighbour, he would never ob-
tain forgiveness, ."^eealso .^ha))1). 151 b.
THE (iUEAT SAYINT; of IIILLEL, and that of ClIULST. 535
ii-uilty tli()Uij;-hts coiistitulc sin, wiiilc the hitter (•xi)rcs.<l\ roniiiics it CHAP.
to .iicuilty deeds/' The Beatitude attaehiiig to peacc-iiiakiug- has XVIII
many analogies in Rahbinisui; l)ut the latter woidd never liave con- ^- — -^/- — "
ucctcd tile desiii'nation of 'children ofCiod " with any but Israel." A "I'msz-
i'.i li and
siniihir remark ai)])lics to the use of tiu^ exijression ' Kinii'dom of a " ■■ comv.
Heaven' in the next Beatitude. 12 /<
A more full eomparison than has been made would almost reijuire ''^"•'^' '*
a separate treatise. One by one, as we place the sayings of the Ra bbis
by the si<le of those of Jesus in this Sermon on the Mount, we mark
the same essential contrariety of spirit, whether as regards righteous-
ness, sin, repentance, faith, the Kingdom, alms, prayer, or fasting.
Only two points may be specially selected, because they are so
frequently brought tbrward by writers as proof, that the sayings of
Jesus did not rise above those of the chief Talmndic authorities.
The lirst of these refers to the well-known words of our Lord:'' ■ st. Matt.
vll. 12
'Therefore all things whatsoever ye wonld tiiat men should do to
3'ou, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.'
This is compared with the following Rabbinic parallel,'* in which the 'shabb.
'" 31 a
gentleness of Hillel is contrasted witli the opposite disposition of
►Shammai. The latter is said to have harshly repelled an intending
proselyte, ^\•h() wished to be taught the whole Law while standing on
one foot, while Hillel received him with this saying: ' What is hateful
to thee, do not to another. Tliis is the whole Law, all else is only its
explanation.' But it will be noticed that the words in which the Law is
thus summed up are really only a quotation from Tob. iv. 15, although
their presentation as the substance of the Law is, of course, original.
But apart from this, the merest beginner in logic must perceive,
that there is a vast difference between this negative injunction, or the
prohibition to do to others what is hateful to ourselves, and tlie
positive direction to do unto othei-s as we would have them do unto
us.' The one docs not rise above the standpoint of the Law, being as
yet far from that love wliich w(ndd lavish on others the good we
ourselves desire, while the C'hristian saying embodies the nearest
approach to absolute love of which human nature is capable, nuiking
that the test of our conduct to others which we ourselves desire to
possess. And. be it observed, the Lord does not put self-love as the
principle of oui' conduct, but only as its ready test. Besides, the
furthei- explanation in St. Luke vi. 3S should her(^ lie kept in view,
' As ah-eady stated, it occurs in this lislicii Ji6ax>) tgjv ScbSe^a anoa-
negative and unsi)iritual form in Tob. iv. roXij^iv U'd. Briicmiios) cii. i. It occurs in
15,andis also so quoted in the lately pub- tliesunu' form in Clem. Ptrom. ii. c. 23.
536 FROM JOUDAN TO THE iMOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK as also what may be regarded as the exphiiiatory additions in St.
HI Matt. V. 42-48„
^ — ' — ' The second instance, to which it seems desirable to advert, is the
» St. Walt. sui)poscd simihirity between petitions in tlie Lord's Prayer" and
vi 9-1*3
l\abbiiiic pra.yers. Here, we may remark, at the outset, that both
the spirit and the manner of prayer are presented by the Rabbis
so externally, and with sucli details, as to make it ({uite different
from prayer as our Lord tauglit His disciples. This apjiears from
'•Berak- the Taluiudic tractate specially devoted to that subject,'' wliere the
exact position, the degree of inclination, and other trivialities, never
referred to l)y Christ, are dwelt upon at length as of primary
importance.'" Most painful, for example, is it ' to find this inter-
^Ber. 34 a, pretatiou of Hczekiah's prayer, "^ when the King is represented as
" jer. Ber. apjiealing to the merit of his fathers, detailing their greatness in
^ ^ contrast to Rahab or the Shunammite, who yet liad received a reward,
"■ Is. " •' '
xxxviii. L'. ai)(i closing with this: ' Lord of the world, I have searched the 248
Beautitul "^^ _
piayer.siu members which Thou hast given me, and not found that I have
Ber. 16 b, 17 ;-. ?
a: but most i:>rovoked Tliee to anger with any one of them, how much more
painful i t^ J 1
Instances tlicu shouldcst Thou Oil accouut of thcsc prolong mv life? ' After
very f re- _ i i^ .
quentiy tliis, it is scarccly necessarv to point to the sclf-ri<i:htcousncss which,
occur m _ ' '' * . . ' .
t^e in this as in other respects, is the most painful characteristic of
such as in iiabbinism. That the warning against prayers at the corner of streets
Sliem. R. 43 r> o i. j
f. Jer. Ber. was takcii froin life, appears from the well-known anecdote'' con-
cerning one, Rablii Jannai, who was ol)served saying his jirayers in
the public streets of Sepplioris, and then advancing four cubits to
make the so-called supplementary prayer. Again, a perusal of some
BBer. 29 b of the rccordcd prayers of the Ralibis ' Avill show, how vastly different
many of them were from the i)etitions which our Lord taught.
Witliout insisting on this, nor on the circumstance that all recorded
Talmudic prayers are of much later date than the time of Jesus, it
may, at tlic same time, l)e ftvcly adniittc^l that here also the form,
and sometimes even the si)ii'it, approached closely to the words of
our Lord. On tlu^ other liand. it would be folly to deny tliat the
Lord's Prayer, in its sublime si)ii'it, tendency, combination, and suc-
cession of petitions, is unicpic; and that sucli expressions in it as
' Our Father. ' ' the Kingdom, ' ' forgiveness, ' ' temptation, ' an<l others,
represent in lvabl)inism something entirely ditferent from that which
our Lord had in view. But, even so, such ])etitions as ' forgive us
our debts,' could, as has been shown in a ])rcvious chapter, liave no
true paralled in Jewish tlieology.'
^ For some intcrcst'mii; Rabhinic narallelri to th(> Lord's Pravcr. see Dr.
LHMIT FROM llABIUMC WIMTING.S ON THE LANGUAGE USED. 537
F'ui'thcr details would lead beyond our present seope. It. must CIIAP.
suffice to indicate that sucli sayings as tSt. Matt. v. 6, 15, 17, 25, XVIII
29, 31, 46, 47; vi. 8, 12, 18, 22, 24, 32; vii. 8, 9, 10, 15, 17-19, ^^ r '
22, 23, have no parallel., in any real sense, in Jewish writings, whose
teaching, indeed, olten eud)odies opposite ideas. Here it may ])e
interesting, by one instance, to show what kind of Messianic teaching
would haA'(! interested a Ivubl)]. In a passage '' which describes the »Abhod.
great danger of intercourse with Jewish Christians, as leading to and 27//
heresy, a Habbi is iutrodueed, who, at Sepjdioris, had met one of
Jesus' discijjles. iKiine(l Jacob, a ' man of Kefr Sekanya,' re[)uted as
working miraculous cures in the name of his Master.' It is said, that
at a later i)eriod the Ral)])i sulfered grievous persecution, in punish-
ment for the delight he had taken in a comment on a certain pas-
sage of Scripture, which Jacob attributed to his Master. It need
scarcely be said, that the whole story is a fabrication; indeed, the
supposed Christian interpretation is not even fit to be reproduced;
and we only mention the circumstance as indicating the contrast
between what Talmudism would have delighted in hearing from its
Messiah, and what Jesus spoke.
But there are points of view which may be gained from Rabbinic
writings, helpful to the understanding of the ' Sermon on the Mount.'
although not of its spirit. Some of these may here ])e mentioned.
Thus, when'' we read that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the "inSt.
■ •' ' . Matt. V. 18
Law, it is painfully interesting to find in the Talmud the following
quotation and mistranslation of St. Matt. v. 17: * I have come not to
diminish from the Law of Moses, nor yet have I come to add to the
Law of Moses.'"- But the Talmud here significantly omits the ^ sbai.b.
■ 116 b
addition made by Christ, on which all depends: Hill all be fulfilled.'
Jewish tradition mentions this very letter Fof? as irremovable,'' adding, ■^ Jw- sanii-
p. 20 (■
that if all men in the world were gathered together to aljolish the
least letter in the Law, they would not succeed." Not a letter could -sinr.
' ■ _ , , . liaSh. K. on
be removed from thcLaw ^ — a saying illustrated by this curious c<uiceit. >h- v. 11. ed.
Warsh.
I.. 27 «
Taylors learneil edition of the 'Sayings which furnishes this meaning, ' but I am fShem.B. G
of the Jewish Fathers,' A"'.w'//r.s7/.s- U. (t)p. come to add.' The passage occurs in a
138-145). The reader witl also find much very curious conneciion, and fortlie ])ur-
to interest him in Excio-sks IV. pose of sliowing tlie utter dislionesty of
• Comp. tiie more full account of this Christians — a Christian pliilosoplier first
Jacob's proposal to lieal Ehnizar ben arguing from interested 'iiotives, tiiat
Dama when bitten of a serpent in Jcr. since the disitersioii of tlie Jews the Law
Shabb. xiv. end. Kofr Sekanya seems of ^foses was abrogatiMl. an<l a new Law
to have been tlie same as Kefr Simai, given: and the next (hiy, iiaving received
betweenSepphorisand Acco (com]). AV/'- a larger l)ril)e, reversing his decision,
haiier, Geogr. |). 2:^4). and api)eaiing to this rendering of St.
'■' Dp^;Y2.sr// accepts a difierent reading. Matt. v. 17.
538 V\Hn\ -lOUDAX TO TlIK MOINT OF TRANSFIGUUATIOX.
BOOK that the Yod which was takini l\v (icxl out oi' tlic uaiiie of Sarah
ni (Sarai), was added to that of lloshea, inakiug him Joshua (Jehoshua)."
'^ — ~, ' Siniikirly,'' the guilt of changing those little hooks ('tittles') which
"Sanh. make the distinction between such Hebrew letters as -; and i, n and
other pas- r,, D and 3, is declared so great, that, if such were done, the world
Mnvlvvik ^^'f'uld be destroyed/ Again the thought about the danger of those
^'- ^•' who broke the least cominandnient is so freciuently expressed in
Jewish writings, as scared}' to need s})ecial quotation. Only, there
it is put on the ground, that we know not what reward may attach to
<• St. Matt, one or another commandment. The expression 'they of old,'"' quite
corresponds to the Rabbinic appeal to those that had i>roceded, the
Zeqenim or Blshonim. In regard to St. Matt. v. 22, we remember
tliat the term ' brother ' applied only to Jews, while the Rabbis used
■1 B.Kara- to designate the ignorant'' — or those who did not believe such
exaggerations, as that in the future God would hiiild u}) the gates
^saiiii. looa of Jerusalem with gems thirty cubits high and broad — as Heyqa,^
with this additional remark, that on one sucli occasion the look
of a Rabbi liad immediately turned the unbeliever into a heap of
bones !
Again, the opproln'ious term 'fool' was by no means of un-
fsotahm. commou occurrcncc among the sages; "^ and yet tliey themselves
13 b state, that to give an opprobrious by-name, or to i)ut another openl}^
?Bab. Mez. to shainc, was one of tlie three things which deserved (Jelienna.- To
bottom verse 26 the folloAving is an instructive parallel: • To one who had
defrauded the custom-house, it was said: "Pay the duty." He said
to them: "Take all that I have with me." But the tax-gatherer
answered liim, " Thinkcst thou, we ask only this ime ])ayment ol"
duty? Nay, rather, that duty be paid for all the times in which
I'Pesiqt.ed. according to thy wont, thou hast defrauded the custom-house."'''
««&. 161a 'j^Ij^^, ]^^^)^\Q „|' swearing mentioned in verse 35 was very frequently
adopted, in order to avoid ])ronoun<'ing the Divine Name. Accordingly,
they swore by the Covenant. l)y the Service of the Tem])le. oi- ])y the
Temjile.. l^ut ]>ei"haps the usual mode of swearing, wliich is attributed
even to the Almighty, is ' By thy life" (-•*-). Lastly, as regards our
iiiithf^ Lord's admonition, it is mentioned' as characteristic of the pious,
:\Iiflrash(>n .,..,•, • , i i.i • •
Kuth.iii.is that tlicir • vea is vea. and their ' nav nav.
' The followinjj: are nieiitioned as in- Jer. v. 12; 2 into D 1 Sara. ii. 2. It
stance.s: The cliunfje of ~ into T in oiiii;ht to be marked, tliat lT7i«.sc/^e'iS quo-
Dent, vi. 4; of 1 into 1 in Exod. xx.\iv. talions of these passa,<ie.s (Bibl. Rabb. on
14; of n into H Lev. xxii. ;^>2 ; of " into Shir haSh. R. v. 11) are not alway.-J cor-
n lirst verse of Ps. cl. ; of 2 into 2 in rect.
JEWISH RATINGS AND THE 'SEiniOX OX THE MolNT.' 539
I*a.ssing to St. Mall, vi., wc reinciiiher, in re<>,ar(l to verse 2, that chap.
the boxes for eliarita.l)le eoiitriluitioiis in the 'renij)le were Irumpet- xvni
sliaped, and we can unikM-staiul the tigurative allusion of Christ to v— -v— '
demonstrative }3iety.' The ])arallelisnis in the language of the Lord's
Prayer — at least so far as the wording, not the s])irit, is concerned.
— have been frequently sliown. If the closing doxology, ' Thine is
the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory," ' were genuine, it would ■ ver. 1:1
corres})ond to the common Jewish ascription, from which, in all
])rol)al)ilily. it has been derived. In regard to verses 14 and 1,5.
although there are many Jewish i)arallels concerning the need of
Ibrgiving those that have ofl'ended us, or else asking forgiveness, we
know what meaning Rabbinism attached to the tiorgiveness of sins.
Similarly, it is scarcely necessary to discuss the Jewish views concern-
ing fasting. In regard to verses 25 and 34. we may renuu-k this ex-
act i)arallel: '' ' Everv one who has a loaf in his basket, and sa vs. What " in sot.
slmll I eat to-morrow^ is one of little faith. I3ut Christianity goes
further than this. While the Rabbinic saying only forbids care when
there is bread in the basket, our Lord would banisli anxious care
even if there were no bread in the basket. The expression in verse 34
seems to be a Rabl)iiiic })roverb. Thus.'" we read : • Care not for the mor- ' sanh.
row, for ye know not what a day may bring tbrth. rerhajis he may not be
on the morrow, and so have cared Ibr a world that does not exist for
him." Only here, also, we mark that Christ significantly says not as the
Rabbis, but, • the morrow shall take tliought for the things of itself."
In chapter vii. , verse 2, the saying about having it measured tons
with the same measure that we mete, occurs in precisely the same
manner in the Talmud,'^ and, indeed, seems to have 1)een a jirovcrbial ' '^"t- i- "
expression. The illustration in verses 3 and 4, al)out the mote and
the lieain, appears thus in Rabbinic literature:' • I wonder if there is •M-nch.iei,
any one in this generation who would take rei)roof. If one said. Take
the mote out of thine eye, he would answer, Take the beam from out
thine own eye." On which the additional (piestion is raised, whether any
one in that generation were cai)able (jf reproving. As it also occurs
with onlv triflins: variations in other iiassages,^ we conclude that this ^b. Bath,
also was a iiroverbial exin-ession. Tln^ same mavbesaid of "•atherinu- ii"i--:w'':
^ . . ... Yalk. on
• graj^es of thorns." ^' Similarly, the designation of • pearls "(verse (!) i^"<*»
for the valuable sayings of sages is common. To verse 11 there is a i-pes. 49"
realistic parallel,'' when it is related. Hiatal a certain last, on ac- iinBer. k-
count of draught, a Ralilii admonished the jieople to good deeds, on
wliich a man gave money to the woman from whom he had been di-
' See -The TtMiiplt\ its Miuivtry aii<l Services.' &{■.. pp. 2G. 27.
540
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" Jer. Ber.
13 d, to-
wards the
end
' In Sukk.
45 h he pro-
poses to
conjoin
with him-
self his
son. in-
stead of
Abraham.
<■ In Ab. iil.
* Ab. de R.
Nath. 24
vorccd, because she was in vrant. This deed was made a, plea in
prayer by the Rabbi, that it' siicli a man cared for liis wile who no
more belonged to him, how much more should the Almighty care for
the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Upon this, it is
added, the rain descended plentifully. If difference, and even con-
trast of spirit, together with similarity of form, were to be further
pointed out, we should tlnd it in connection with ver.se 14, which
speaks of the fewness of those saved, and also verse 26, which refers
to the absolute need of doing, as evidence of sonship. We compare
with this what the Talmud '■" says of Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, whose
worthiness was so great, that during his whole lifetime no rainbow
was needed to ensure immunity I'roni a flood, and whose power was
such that he could say to a valley : Be tilled with gold dinars. The
same Rabbi was wont to say : ' I have seen the children of the
world to come, and they are few. If there are three, I and my son
are of their number; if they are two, I and my son are they.' After
such expression of boastful self-righteousness, so opposed to the
passage in the Sermon on the Mount, of which it is supposed to be the
parallel, we scarcely wonder to read that, if Abraham had redeemed
all generations to that of Rabbi Simon, the latter claimed to redeem
by his own merits all that followed to the end of the world — nay, that
if Abraham were reluctant, he (Simon) would take Ahijah the Shilo-
nite with him, and reconcile the whole world!" Yet we are asked by
some to see in such Rabbinic passages parallels to the sublime teach-
ing of Christ!
The ' Sermon on the Mount' closes with a parabolic illustration,
which in similar form occurs in Rabbinic writings. Thus/" the man
whose wisdom exceeds his works is compared to a tree whose branches
are many, but its roots few, and which is thus easily upturned by the
wind; while he whose works exceed his wisdom is likened to a tree,
whose branches are few, and its roots many, against which all the
winds in the world would strive in vain. A still more close parallel
is that " in which the man who has good works, and learns much in
the Law, is likened to one, who in building his house lays stones first.
and on them bricks, so that when the flood cometh the house is not
destroyed; while he who has not good work, yet busies himself much
with the Law, is like one who puts bricks below, and stones above
which are swept away by the waters. Or else the former is like one
who puts mortar between the bricks, fastening them one to the other:
and the other to one who merely puts mortar outside, which the rain
dissolves and washes awav.
JIE TAUCIIT THEM NOT AS THE SCRIBES.
M\
The above comparisons of Rabbinic sayings with those of our CHAI'.
Lord lay no claim to completeness. They will, however, suffice to XVHI
explain and ami)ly to vindicate the account of the impression left '— ^y- —
on the hearers of Jesus. But what, even more than all else, must
hav(^ tilled them with wonderment and awe was, that He Who so
taught also claimed to l)e the God-appointed final Judge of all, whose
fate would be decided not merely by professed discipleship, but by
their real relation to Tlim (St. Matt. vii. 21-23). And so we can
understand it, that, alike in regard to what He taught and wdiat He
claimed, 'The people were astonished at His doctrine: for He taught
them as One having authority — and not as the Scribes.'' •
M had collected a larije number of sup- mental position taken in this chapter,
posed or real Rabbinic parallels to the and, indeed, in this book: the contrariety
'Sermon on the Mount.' But as they of spirit, by the side of similarity of
would have occu])ied by far too large a form and expressions, between the teach-
space, I have been obliged to omit all ing of Jesus and that of Rabbinism.
but such as would illustrate the fun da-
542
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
« St. Luke
xl5
b St. John
iv.
" St. Mark
HI. 19-21
CHAPTER XIX.
THE RETURN TO CAPERNAUM — HEALING OF THE CENTURION'S SERVANT.
(St. Matt. viii. 1, 5-15; St. Mark iii. 20, 21; St. Luke vii. 1-10.)
We are once again in Cai)ernaum. It is remarkable how much, con-
nected not only with the Ministry of Jesus, but with His innermost
Life, gathers around that little fishing town. In all probability its
prosperity was chietiy due to the neighbouring Tiberias, which
Herod Antipas ^ had built, about ten years previously. Noteworthy
is it also, how many of the most attractive characters and incidents
in the Gospel-history are connected with that Capernaum, which, as
a city, rejected its own real glory, and, like Israel, and for the same
reason, at last incurred a prophetic doom commensurate to its former
privileges."
But as yet Capernaum was still 'exalted uj) to heaven.' Here
was the home of that believing Court-official, whose child Jesus had
healed.'' Here also was the household of Peter; and here the
paralytic had found, together with forgiveness of his sins, health of
body. Its streets, with their outlook on the deep blue Lake, had
been thronged by eager multitudes in search of life to body and
soul. Here Matthew-Levi had heard and followed the call of Jesus;
and here the good Centurion had in stillness learned to love Israel,
and serve Israel's King, and built with no niggard hand that Syna-
gogue, most splendid of those yet exhumed in Galilee, which had
been consecrated by the Presence and Teaching of Jesus, and by
prayers, of which the conversion of Jairus. its chief rider, seems the
blessed answer. And now, from the ^Nlount of Beatitudes, it was
again to His temporary home at Capernaum that Jesus retired."
Yet not either to solitude or to rest. For. of that multitude which
had hung entranced on His Words many followed Him. and there
was now such constant pressure around Him, that, in the zeal of
their attendance upon the wants and demands of those who hungered
' For a discus-sion of the i)recise date
of the bnildiiiff of Tiberias, see Sc?iurer,
Neutest. Zeit.2;escli. p. 2'M, note 2. For
details, conip. -/««. Ant. xviii. 2. 3; 6. 2;
xix. S. 1 ; War ii. 9. 1; 21. ^^, 6, 9; Life
9. 12. 17. C)C>, and many oilier place.s.
HE IS BESIDE lll.MSEEF
543
after the Bread of Life, alike Master and disciples found not leisure
so much as for the necessary sustenance of the body.
The circumstances, the incessant work, and the all-consuming
zeal which even ' His friends ' could but ill understand, led to the ap-
prehension— the like of which is so often entertained by well-meaning
persons in all ages, in their i)ractical ignorance of the all-engr(jssing
but also sustaining character of engagements about the Kingdom —
that the balance of judgment might be overweighted, and high
reason brought into bondage to the poverty of our earthly frame.
In its briefness, the account of what these 'friends,' or rather 'those
from Him' — His home — said and did, is nujst pictorial. On tidings
reaching theni,^ witli reiterated, growing, and perhaps Orientally
exaggerating details, they hastened out of their house in a neighbour-
ing street^ to take i)ossession of Him, as if He had needed their
charge. It is not necessary to include the Mother of Jesus in the
number of those who actually went. Indeed, the later express
mention of His 'Mother and 1)rethren' * seems rather opposed to the
supposition. Still less does the objection deserve serious refutation,^
that any such procedure, assumedly, on the part of the Virgin-
Mother, would be incompatil)le with the history of Jesus' Nativity.
For, all must have felt, that 'the zeal' of God's House was, literally,
' consuming ' Him, and tiie other view of it, that it was setting on fire,
not the physical, but the psychical framework of His humiliation,
seems in no way inconsistent with what loftiest, though as yet dim,
thought had come to the Virgin about her Divine Son. On the other
hand, this idea, that He was 'beside Himself,' atlbrded the only
explanation of what otherwise would have been to them well-nigh
inexplicable. To the Eastern mind especially this want of self-
possession, the being 'beside' oneself, would point to possession by
another — God or Devil. It was on the ground of such supi)ositiou
that the charge was so constantly raised l)y the Scribes, and unthink-
ingly taken up by the i)eo])le, that Jesus was mad. and had a devil:
not a demoniacal possession, be it marked, but possession by the Devil,
in the absence of self-possessedness. And hence our Lord character-
ised this charge as really ])lasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And
this also explains how, while unable to deny the reality of His Works,
they could still resist their evidential force.
CIIAl'.
XIX
^ I take this as the general meanhif?,
although the interpretation which jiara-
phrases the eXsyov yap ('they said,' ver.
21) as referring to tlie report which
reached the oi nap avrov, seems to me
strained. Those who are curious will
find all kinds of proposed interpretations
collected in Afei/er, ad loc.
' The idea that they were iu Nazareth
seems wholly unfounded.
^ Urged even by ALi^yer.
" St. Mark
in. 31
544 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK However that incident nuiy Ibr the present have ended, it cuiild
ni have caused but brief interruption to His Work. Presently there
^ — -r — ' came the summons of the heatlien Centurion and. the healing of His
servant, which both St. Matthew and St. Luke record, as specially
bearing on the progressive unfolding of Christ's Mission. Notably —
these two Evangelists; and notably — with variations due to the pecu-
liar standpoint of their narratives. No really serious difficulties will
be encountered in trying to harmonise the details of these two narra-
tives; that is, if any one should attach importance to such precise
harmony. At any rate, we cannot fail to perceive the reason of these
variations. Meyer regards the account of St. Luke as the original,
Keim that of St. Matthew — both on subjective rather than historical
grounds.^ But we may as well note, that the circumstance, that the
event is passed over by St. Mark, militates against the favourite
modern theory of the Gospels being derived from an original tra-
dition (what is called the 'original Mark,' Ur-Marcus').'^
If Ave keep in view the historical olyect of St. Matthew, as
primarily addressing himself to Jewish, while St. Luke wrote more
especially for Gentile readers, we arrive, at least, at one remarkable
outcome of the variations in their narratives. Strange to say, the
Judaean Gospel gives the pro-Gentile, the Gentile narrative the pro-
Jewish, presentation of the event. Thus, in St. Matthew the history
is throughout sketched as personal and direct dealing with the
heathen Centurion on the part of Christ, while in the Gentile narra-
tive of St. Luke the dealing with the heathen is throughout indirect,
by the intervention of Jews, and on the ground of the Centurion's
spiritual sympathy with Israel. Again, St. Matthew quotes the
saying of the Lord which holds out to the faith of Gentiles a blessed
equality with Israel in the great hope of the future, while it puts aside
the mere claim of Israel after the flesh, and dooms Israel to certain
judgment. On the other hand, St. Luke omits all this. A strange
inversion it might seem, that the Judaean Gospel should contain
what the Gentile account omits, except for this, that St. Matthew
argues with liis countrymen the real standing of the Gentiles, while
■ St. Luke pleads with the Gentiles for sympathy and love with Jewish
modes of thinking. The one is not only an exposition, but a justifi-
cation, of the event as against Israel; the other an Eirenicon, as well
1 The difficulties which Eehn raises not .cjrounded on evidence,
seem to me little deservino; of serious ^ Qoaet has some excellent remarks
treatment. Sometimes they rest on on this point,
assumptions which, to say the least, are
AUTHENTICITY OF THE NARRATIVE. 545
US a touching representation of the plea of the younger with his elder cHAP.
])n)ther at the door of the Father's House. xix
But the fundamental truth in both accounts is the same; nor is ^-^r — '
it just to say that in tlie narrative the Gentiles are preferred before
Israel. So far from this, their faith is only put on an equality with
that of believing Israel. It is not Israel, but Israel's fleshly claims
and unbelief, that are rejected; and Gentile faith occupies, not a new
position outside Israel, but shares with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
the fulfilment of the promise made to their faith. Thus we have
here the widest Jewish universalism, the true interpretation of
Israel's hope; and this, even by the admission of our opponents,^
not as a later addition, but as forming part of Christ's original teach-
ing. But if so, it revives, only in accentuated manner, the question:
Whence this essential difference between the teaching of Christ on
this subject, and that of contemporary Rabbinism.
Yet another point may be gained from the admissions of negative
criticism, at least on the part of its more thoughtful representatives.
Keim is obliged to acknowledge the authenticity of the narrative.
It is immaterial here w^hich ' recension ' of it may be regarded as the
original. The Christ did say what the Gospels represent! But
Strauss has shown, that in such case any natural or semi-natural
explanation of the healing is impossible. Accordingly, the ' Tri-
lemma' left is: cither Christ was really what the Gospels represent
Ilim, or He was a daring enthusiast, or (saddest of all) He must be
regarded as a conscious impostor. If either of the two last alterna-
tives were adopted, it would, in the first instance, be necessary to
point out some ground lor the claim of such power on the part of
Jesus. What could have prompted Him to do so? Old Testament
precedent there was none; certainly not in the cure of Naaman by
Klisha.'^ And Ra1)l)inic parallelism there was none. For, although
a sudden cure, and at a distance, is related in connection with a
Ixabbi,^ all the circumstances are absolutely different. In the Jewish "Ber. 34 b
story recourse was, indeed, had to a Rabbi; but for prayer that the
sick might be healed of God, not for actual healing by the Rabbi.
Having prayed, the Rabbi informed the messengers avIio had come
to imi)lore his help, that the fever had left the sick. But when
asked by them whether he claimed to be a prophet, he expressly
repudiated any proplietic knowledge, lar more any supernatural power
of healing, and explained that lilierty in prayer always indicated to
him that his prayer had been answered. All analogy thus failing,
' So notably Keim. '^ The diflereiices have been \\e\l marked by Keim.
54G
FItO.M JOi.'DAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
''Jos. Ant.
six. 9. 1, 2
•■ Ohal
xxvlil. 7
the only explanation left to negative critieism, in view of the
admitted authenticity of the narrative, is, that the cure was the
result of the psychical influence of the Centurion's faith and of that
of his servant. But what, in that case, of tlu; words wliich Jesus
admittedly spoke? Can we, as some would have it, rationally account
for their use l)y the circumstance that Jesus had had experience of
such psychical influences on disease? or that Christ's words were, so
to speak, only an aflirmation of the Centurion's faith — something
between a ' benedictory wish ' and an act? Surely, suggestions like
these carry their own refutation.
Apart, then, from explanations which have been shown untenable,
what is the impression left on our minds of an event, the record of
which is admitted to be authentic? The heathen Centurion is a
real historical personage. He was captain of the troop quartered in
Capernaum, and in the service of Herod Antipas. AVe know that
such troops were chiefly recruited from Samaritans and Gentiles of
Ca3sarea.'' Nor is there the slightest evidence that this Centurion
was a ' proselyte of righteousness.' The accounts both in St. Matthew
and in St. Luke are incompatil)le with this idea. A ' proselyte of
righteousness ' could have had no reason for not approaching Christ
directly, nor would he have spoken of himself as ' unfit " that Christ
should come under his roof. But such language quite accorded with
Jewisli notions of a Gentile, since the houses of Gentiles were con-
sidered as defiled, and as defiling those who entered them.'' On the
other hand, the ' proselytes of righteousness ' were in all respects
equal to Jews, so that the words of Christ concerning Jews and
Gentiles, as reported by St. Matthew, would not have been applic-
able to them. The Centurion was simply one who had learned to
love Israel and to reverence Israel's God; one who, not only in his
official position, but from love and reverence, had built that Syna-
gogue, of which, strangely enough, now after eighteen centuries, the
remains,' in their rich and elaborate carvings of cornices and entabla-
tures, of capitals and niches, show w^ith what liberal hand he had
dealt his votive offerings.
We know too little of the history of the man, to judge what earlier
impulses had led him to such reverence for Israel's God. There
might have been something to incline him towards it in his early
upbringing, perhaps in Caesarea; or in his family relationships;
perhaps in that very servant (possibly a Jew) whose implicit obedience
to his master seems in part to have led him up to faith in analogous
1 Coiiii). ]V(frf{'ii, Recoverj' of Jerusalem, p. 385 &c.
THE FAITH Ol" THE (JENTH.E CENTURION. 547
submission of all things to tlie behests of Christ/ Thccirciunstances, chap.
the times, the place, the very position of the man, make such sup- XIX
positions rational, even suggest tliem. In that case, his whole bearing ^— ^r — -
would be consistent with itself, and with what we know of the views "^t-^P'^*'
' y\\. 8, last
and feelings of the time. In the place where the son of his fellow- ciauHe
official at the Court of Herod had been healed by the Word of Jesus,
spoken at a distance," in the Capernaum which was the home of '-st. John
' . . . iv. 46-53
Jesus and the scene of so many miracles, it was only what we might
expect, that in such a case he should turn to Jesus and ask His help.
Quite consistent with his character is the straightforwardness of his
expectancy, characteristically illustrated by his military experience—
what Bengel designates as the wisdom of his faith beautifully shining
out in the bluffness of the soldier. When he had learned to own
Israel's God, and to believe in the absolute unlimited power of Jesus,
no such difficulties would come to him, nor, assuredly, such cavils
rise, as in the minds of the Scribes, or even of the Jewish laity. Nor
is it even necessary to suppose that, in his unlimited faith in Jesus,
the Centurion had distinct apprehension of His essential Divinity.
In general, it holds true, that, throughout the Evangelic history,
belief in the Divinity of our Lord was the outcome of experience of
His Person and Work, not the condition and postulate of it, as is
the case since the Pentecostal descent of the Holy Ghost and His
indwelling in the Church.
In view of these facts, the question with the Centurion would be:
not. Could Jesus heal his servant, but, Would He do so? And again,
this other specifically: Since, so far as he knew, no application from
any in Israel, be it even publican or sinner, had been doomed to dis-
appointment, would he, as a Gentile, be barred from share in this
blessing? was he 'unworthy,' or, rather, ' unlit ' for it? Thus this
history presents a crucial question, not only as regarded the character
of Christ's work, but the relation to it of the Gentile world. Quite
consistent witli this — nay, its necessary outcome — were the scruples
of the Centurion to make direct, personal application to Jesus. In
measure as he reverenced Jesus, would these scruples, from his own
standpoint, increase. As the houses of Gentiles were * unclean,' '' •^ohai
xviii. 7
entrance into them, and still more familiar fellowship, would ' defile.'
The Centurion must have known this; and the higher he placed
Jesus on the pinnacle of Judaism, the more natural was it for hira
to communicate with Christ through the elders of the Jews, and not
to expect the Personal Presence of the Master, even if the applica-
tion to him were attended with success. And here it is important
548
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» St. Luke
vii. 6
>> St. Matt,
viii. 5
(lor tlie criticism of tliis history) to luiii-k that, alike in th(! view ol"
the Centurion, and even in that of the Jewish elders who under-
took his commission, Jesus as yet occupied the purely Jewish stand-
point.
Closely considered, whatever verbal differences, there is not any
real discrepancy in this respect between the Judsean presentation of
the event in St. Matthew and the fuller Gentile account of it by St.
Luke. From both narratives we are led to infer that the house of
the Centurion was not in Capernaum itself, but in its immediate
neighbourhood, probably on the road to Tiberias. And so in St.
Matt. viii. 7, we read the words of our Saviour when consenting:
'1, having come, will heal him; ' just as in St. Luke's narrative a
space of time intervenes, in which intimation is conveyed to the
Centurion, when he sends ' friends ' to arrest Christ's actual coming
into his house.'' Nor does St. Matthew speak of any actual request
on the part of the Centurion, even though at lirst sight his narrative
seems to imply a personal appearance." The general statement
' beseeching Him ' — although it is not added in what manner, with
what words, nor for what special tiling — must be explained by the
more detailed narrative of the embassy of Jewish Elders.^ There is
another marked agreement in the seeming difterence of the two
accounts. In St. Luke's narrative, the second message of the
Centurion embodies two different expressions, which our Authorised
Version unfortunately renders by the same word. It should read:
' Trouble not Thyself, for I am not tit (Levitically speaking) that
Thou shouldest enter under my roof;' Levitically, or Judaistically
speaking, my house is not a tit place for Thy entrance; ' wherefore
neither did 1 judge myself worthy (spiritually, morally, religiously)
[f}^i&j(rn', pondus habens, ejusdem ponderis cum aliquo, pretio
aequans] to come unto Thee.' Now, markedly, in St. Matthew's
presentation of the same event to the Jews, this latter ' Avorthiness '
is omitted, and we only have St. Luke's first term, 'fit' (iKaro?:):
' I am not fit that thou shouldest come under my roof,' my house is
unfitting Thine entrance. This seems to bear out the reasons
previously indicated for the characteristic peculiarities of the two
narratives.
But in their granrl leading features the two narratives entirely
agree. There is earnest sui)plication for his sick, seemingly dying ser-
vant.'^ Again, the Centurion in the fullest sense believes in the power
' Witliont the article; i)erli!ii).-i only ^ St. Matt. viii. (i, literiilly, ■ my servant
some of them went on tliis errand of has heen thrown down (by disease) in
mercy. tlie house, paralytic' The /jefi\7/rai
'WITH AlJHAllAM, ISAAC, AND JACOU IN THE KINGDOM.' 549
of Jesus to heal, in the same manner as he knows his own coinuKinds as chap.
an officer would be implicitly obeyed; lor, surely, no tliou.iiiitrul reader XIX
would seriously entertain the suggestion, that the military language '^^—r — '
of the Centurion only meant, that he regarded disease as caused by
evil demons or noxious powers v.ho ol)eyed Jesus, as soldiers or
servants do their officer or master. Such might have been the under-
lying Jewish view of the times; but the fact, that in this very thing
Jesus contrasted the faith of the Gentile with that of Israel, indicates
that the language in question must be taken in its obvious sense.
But in his self-acknowledged ' untitness ' lay the real ' fitness ' of this
good soldier for membership with the true Israel; and in his deep-felt
' unworthiness ' the real 'worthiness' {the ejusdem2)onder is) for 'the
Kingdom ' and its blessings. It was this utter disclaimer of all claim,
outward or inward, which prompted that absoluteness of trust which
deemed all things possible with Jesus, and marked the real faith of
the true Israel. Here was one, who was in the state described in the
first clauses of the 'Beatitudes,' and to whom came the promise of the
second clauses; because Christ is the connecting link between the
two, and because He consciously was such to the Centurion, and,
indeed, the only possible connecting link between them.
And so Ave mark it, in what must be regarded as the high-point in
this history, so far as its teaching to us all, and therefore the reason
of its record in the New Testament, is concerned: that participation
in the blessedness of the Kingdom is not connected with any outward
relationship towards it, nor belongs to our inward consciousness in
regard to it; but is granted by the King to that faith which in
deepest simplicity realises, and holds fast by Him. And yet, although
discarding every Jewish claim to them — or, it may be, in our days,
everything that is merely outwardly Christian — these blessings are
not outside, still less beyond, what was the hope of the Old Testa-
ment, nor in our days the expectancy of the Church, but are literally
its fulfilment: the sitting down ' ivitJi Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob
in the Kingdom of Heaven.' Higher than, and beyond this not even
Christ's provision can take us.
But for the fuller understanding of the words of Christ, the
Jewish modes of thought , which He used in illustration, require to be
briefly explained. It was a common belief, that in the day of the
Messiah redeemed Israel would be gathered to a great feast, together
with the patriarchs and heroes of the Jewish faith. This notion,
which was but a coarsely literal application of such prophetic figui-es
corresponds to the Hebrew '?;;"ii:. Tlie Peter's mother-in-law is described as
same word is used in ver. 14. when • thrown down and fever-burnin":.'
550
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Bemid.
R. 21, ed.
Warsh. iv.
p. 85 a, 57 a
>> Erub. 19 a
' Taiuid.
32 h
'1 Targ. on
1 Sam. ii.
9; Ps.
Ixxxviii. 12
"•Amos.v. 20
♦^Yalkut 11.
p. 42 c
Bu. s. niue
lines
higher up
h St. Matt.
viii. 12
as in Is. xxv. 6, liad perhaps yet another and deeper meaning. As
each weekly Sabbath was to be honoured by a feast, in which the
best which the taniily could procure was to be placed on the board, so
would the workl's great Sabbath be marked by a feast in which the
Great Householder, Israel's King, would entertain His household and
guests. Into the painfully, and, from the notions of the times, grossly
realistic description of this feast, '^ it is needless here to enter. One
thing, however, was clear: Gentiles could have no part in that feast.
In fact, the shame and anger of ' these ' foes on seeing the * table
spread ' for this Jewish feast was among the points specially noticed
as fulfilling the predictions of Ps, xxiii. 5." On this point, then, the
words of Jesus in reference to the believing Centurion formed the most
marked contrast to Jewish teaching.
In another respect also we mark similar contrariety. When our
Lord consigned the unbelieving to ' outer darkness, where there is
weeping and gnashing of teeth,' he once more used Jewish language,
only with opposite application of it. Gehinnom — of which the
entrance, marked by ever-ascending smoke," was in the valley of
Hinnom, between two palm trees — lay beyond ' the mountains of dark-
ness. ' '" It was a place cf darkness,'' to which, in the day of the Lord,''
the Gentiles would be consigned. "^ On the other hand, the merit of
circumcision would in the day of the Messiah deliver Jewish sinners
from Gehinnom. 5 It seems a moot question, whether the expression
' outer darkness ' ^ ^ may not have been intended to designate —
besides the darkness outside the lighted house of the Father, and even
beyond the darkness of Gehinnom — a place of hopeless, endless night.
Associated with it is ' the weeping^ and the gnashing of teeth.' In
Rabbinic thought the former was connected with sorrow,* the latter
almost always with anger ^ — not, as generally supposed, with anguish.
1 One mi,i2;ht say that all the species
of animals are put in requisition for tliis
great feast: Leviathan (B. Bath. 75 a);
Behemoth (Pirlve d. R. Eliez. 11): the
gigantic bird Bar .locliani (B. Bath. 73 b ;
Belvhor. .57 6, and other passages). Simi-
larly, fabulous fatted geese are mentioned
— probably for that feast (B. Batli. 7:5 h).
The wine there dispensed had been Ivepl
in tlie grapes from the creation of tlie
world (Sanii. 9!) a; Targum on Cant. viii.
2); while there is dilticulty as to who is
worthy to return tlian]<s, wlien at last
the duty is undei'tal<en l)y David, accord-
ing to Ps. cxvi. i:^ (Fes. 119 b).
^ All commentators regard this as a
contrast to the light in the palace, but so
far as I know the Messianic feast is not
described as taking place in a palace.
■' The use of the article makes it em-
phatic— as Bengel has it: In hue vita
dolor nondnm, est dolor.
* In Succ. 52 a it is said that in the
age to come (Athid labho) God would
bring out the Yetser haRa (evil impulse),
and slaughter it before the just and be-
fdi'e the wicked. To the one he would
api)ear like a great mountain, to the
otlusr like a small thread. Both would
weep — the righteous for joy, that they
had been able to subdue so great a
mounttiin; the wicked for sorrow, that
they had not been able even to break so
small a thread.
'" This is also the meaning of the e.\-
pression in Ps. cxii. 10. The verb is used
•THE (^IILDREN OF THE KINGDOM' AND 'OUTER DARKNESS.' 55)
To complete our apprehension of the contrast between the views cilAl'.
of tlie Jews and the teaching of Jesus, we must bear in mind that, as XIX
the Gentiles could not possibly share in the feast of the Messiah, so ' — ". — '
Israel had claim and title to it. To use Rabbinic terms, the former
were 'children of Gehinnom,' but Israel 'children of the Kingdom,''' »st. Matt.
or, in strictly Rabbinic language, 'royal children,' ''' children of bshabb
God,' 'of heaven," 'children of the upper chamber' (\hQ Al'njali)^ ^^^-^
and ' of the world to come. ' " In fact, in their view, God had first Cil.*^^
sat down on His throne as King, when the hymn of deliverance (Ex. Ab'/ili. u
XV. 1 ) was raised by Israel — the people which took upon itself that K^ioT'efr'
yoke of the Law which all other nations of the world had rejected.' middle
Never, surely, could the Judaism of His hearers have received 97//; siicc.
... . 45 6
more rude shock than by this inversion of all their cherished beliefs, e jer. Ber.
There was a feast of Messianic fellowship, a recognition on the part ^^ ''' '^'^'^
^ Pgsio ta
of the King of all His ftiithful subjects, a joj'ous festive gathering i6(^;Shem.
with the fathers of the faith. But this fellowship was not of out-
ward, but of spiritual kinship. There were 'children of the King-
dom,' and there was an ' outer darkness ' with its anguish and despair.
But this childship was of the Kingdom, such as He had opened it to
all believers; and that outer darkness theirs, who had only outward
claims to present. And so this history of the believing Centurion is
at the same time an application of the ' Sermon on the Mount ' — in
this also aptly following the order of its record — and a further carrying
out of its teaching. Negatively, it differentiated the Kingdom from
Israel; while, positively, it placed the hope of Israel, and fellowship
with its promises, within reach of all faith, whether of Jew or Gentile.
He Who taught such new and strange truth could never be called a
mere reformer of Judaism. There cannot be 'reform,' where all the
fundamental principles are different. Surely He was the Son of God,
the Messiah of men, Who, in such surrounding, could so speak to Jew
and Gentile of God and His Kingdom. And surely also, He, Who
could so bring spiritual life to the dead, could have no diificulty by the
same word, ' in the self-same hour,' to restore life and health to the
servant of him, whose faith had inherited the Kingdom. The first
grafted tree of heathendom that had so blossomed could not shake ofF
unripe fruit. If the teaching of Christ was new and was true, so
must His work have been. And in this lies the highest vindication
of this miracle, — that He is the Miracle.
with this idea in Acts vii. 54, and in the 12; and in Rabbinical writings, for ex-
LXX., Job. xvi. 9; Ps. xxxv. iti; xxxvii. ample, .Jer. Keth. :i5 b\ Shem. R. 5, &c.
552 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFKUIRATION.
1]-13
CHAPTER XX.
THE RAISING OF THE YOUN(} MAN OF NAIN — THE MEETING OF LIFE
AND DEATH.
(St. Luke vii. 11-17.)
BOOK That early spring-tide in Galilee was surely the truest realisation of
III the picture in the Song of Solomon, when earth clad herself in
— r- — ' garments of beauty, and the air was melodious with songs of new
Cant. u. life.'' It seemed as if each day marked a widening circle of deepest
sympathy and largest power on the part of Jesus; as if each day
also brought fresh surprise, new gladness; opened hitherto un-
thought-of possibilities, and pointed Israel far beyond the horizon
of their narrow expectancy. Yesterday it was the sorrow of tlie
heathen Centurion which woke an echo in the heart of the Supreme
Commander of life and death; faith called ont, owned, and placed
on the. high platform of Israel's worthies. To-day it is the same sorrow
of a Jewish mother, which touches the heart of the Son of Mary,
and appeals to where denial is unthinkable. In that Presence grief
and death cannot continue. As the defilement of a heathen house
could not attach to Him, Whose contact changed the Gentile stranger
into a true Israelite, so could the touch of death not render unclean
Him, Whose Presence vanquished and changed it into life. Jesus
could not enter Nain, and its people pass Him to carry one dead to the
burying.
For our i)resent purpose it matters little, whether it was the
very ' day after ' the healing of the Centurion's servant, or ' shortly
afterwards," that Jesus left Cajiernaum for Nain. Probably it was
the morrow of that miracle, and the fact that * much people,' or
rather ' a great multitude,' followed Him, seems conlirmatory of it.
The way was long — as we reckon, more than twenty-five miles; but,
even if it was all taken on foot, there could be no difficulty in reach-
ing Nain ere the evening, when so often funerals took i)lace. Various
' This depends on whether we iidopt the reading hv ri^ or hv tSj tqiji.
NAIN. 553
roads lead to, and from Nuiu;' that which stretches to the Lake of cHAP.
Galilee and up to Capernauiii is quite distinctly marked. It is diffi- XX
cult to understand, how most of those who have visited the spot could "- — - — -^
imagine the place, where Christ met the funeral })rocession, to have
been the rock-hewn tombs to the west of Nain and towards Naza-
reth.^ For, from Capernaum the Lord would not have come that
way, but approach it from the north-east by Endor. Hence there
can be little doubt, that Canon Tristram correctly identifies the now
unfenced burying-ground, about ten minutes' walk to the east of
Nain, as that whither, on that spring afternoon, they were carrying
the widow's son.'^ On the path leading to it the Lord of Life for the
first time burst open the gates of death.
It is all desolate now. A few houses of mud and stone with low
doorways, scattered among heaps of stones and traces of walls, is all
that remains of what even these ruins show to have been once a
city, with walls and gates.* The rich gardens are no more, the
fruit trees cut down, ' and there is a painful sense of desolation '
about the place, as if the breath of judgment had swept over it.
And yet even so we can understand its ancient name of Nain, ' the
pleasant,'^ which the Rabbis regarded as fulfilling that part of the
promise to Issachar: 'ke saw the land that it was pleasant."* From
the elevation on which the city stood we look northwards, across the
wide plain, to wooded Tabor, and in the far distance to snow-capped
Hermon. On the left (in the west) rise the hills beyond which
Nazareth lies embosomed; to the right is Endor; southwards
Shunem, and beyond it the Plain of Jezreel. By this path, from
Endor, comes Jesus with His disciples and the great following multi-
tude. Here, near by the city gate, on the road that leads eastwards
to the old burying-ground, has this procession of the ' great multi-
tude, ' which accompanied the Prince of Life, met that other ' great
multitude ' that follow(!tl the dead to his burying. Which of the
two shall give way to the other? We know what ancient Jewish
usage would have demanded. For, of all the duties enjoined, none
1 I cannot uiulerstaiKl what Dean issued upon tlie rock-hewn tombs.
Stanley means, when he says (Sinai and •' 'Land of Israel,' pp. 129, 180.
Palest, p. ,552): 'One entrance alone it ■• Captain f^W/^^/f'/- (Tent-Work in Pal. i.
could liave had.' I have counted not jtp. 121, 122) has failed to discover traces
fewer than six roads leading- to Nain. of a wall. But see the description of
■■* So Dean Stanley, and even Captain Canon Tn'fttrtim (Land of Isr. ii. 129)
Conder. Canon Fan^fv re,2;ards this as which I have followed in my account,
one of ' the certain sites.' But, even ac- ^ I cannot accept the rend(>rin,t!: of
cordin<>; to his own description of the Nain by ' pascHiim.'
route taken from Capernaum, it is diffi- " Ber. R. 98, ed. Warsh. p. 175 b:
cult to understand liow .Jesus could have .CTi " -n^irj *2 yNTl ,^N1
554
FROM JORDAN TO THK MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
liOOK
III
' Ber. 28 6
<■ Nedar. 40
1, lines 6
and 7 from
bottom
<■ Moed K.
27 b
f Jer. Moed.
K. 83 d
e Moed K.
86
•' Rosh
haSh 17 a
and other-
wise
more strictly ciirorccd hy every consideruticjii of liuuuinity and piety,
even by the example of Uod Himself, than that of comforting the
mourners and showing respect to the dead by accomi)anying him
to the burying."' The popular idea, that the spirit of the dead
hovered about the unburied remains, must have given intensity to
such feelings.
Putting aside later superstitions, so little has changed in the
Jewish rites and observances about the dead,- that from Talmudic
and even earlier sources,'^ we can form a vivid conception of what
had taken place in Isain. The watchful anxiety; the vain use of
such means as were known, or within reach of the widow; the deep-
ening care, the passionate longing of the mother to retain her one
treasure, her sole earthly hope and stay; then the gradual fading
out of the light, the farewell, the terrible burst of sorrow: all these
would be common features in any such picture. But here we have,
besides, the Jewish thoughts of death and after death; knowledge
just sufficient to make afraid, but not to give firm consolation, which
would make even the most pious Rabbi uncertain of his future;''
and then the desolate thoughts connected in the Jewish mind with
childlessness. We can realise it all: how Jewish ingenuity and
wisdom woidd resort to remedies real or magical; how the neigh-
bours would come in with reverent step, feeling as if the very
Shekhinah were unseen at the head of the pallet in that humble
home;*^ how they would whisper sayings about submission, which,
when realisation of God's love is wanting, seem only to stir the
heart to rebellion against absolute power; and how they would resort
to the prayers of those w^ho were deemed pious in Nain.''
But all was in vain. And now the well-knoAvn blast of the horn
has carried tidings, that once more the Angel of Death has done his
dire behest." In passionate grief the mother has rent her upper
garment.^ The last sad offices have been rendered to the dead. The
body has been laid on the ground; hair and nails have been cut, ^
and the body washed, anointed, and WTapped in the best the widow
could procure; for, the ordinance which directed that the dead should
be buried in * wrappings ' (Takhrlkhin), or, as they significantly called
it, the ' provision for the journey ■ {Zevadatha),^ of the most inex-
' For the sake of brevity I must here
refer to ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life,'
ch. X., and to the article in 'The Bible
Educator,' vol. iv. jjp. 330-33.3.
■^ Ildneberg (Relig. Alterth. j)]!. 502.
503) gives the apt reasons for this.
■' The Tractate Ehhel Rahhntin ( ■ Great
Mourning') euphemistically called Mas.se-
kheth Semachoth, ' Tractate of Joys.' It
is already quoted in the Talmud : com]).
Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. p. 90, note d. It
is inserted in vol. ix. of the Bab. Talmud,
pp. 28 a to 31 h.
THE BURYING OF THE Wn)0\V'S SON.
555
pensive linen, is of later date than our jjci-iod. It is impossible to
say, whether the later practice already prevailed, ofcoveriuij: the body
with metal, gias;-!, or salt, and laying it either upon earth or salt.^'
And now the mother was lett Oneiieth (moaning, lamenting) — a
term which distinguished the mourning beibre from tliat after burial.'
She would sit on the floor, neither eat meat, nor drink wine. What
scanty meal she would take, must be without prayer, in the house of
a neighbour, or in another room, or at least with her back to the dead."
Pious friends would render neighbourly offices, or busy themselves
about the near funeral. If it was deemed duty for the poorest Jew,
on the death of his wife, to provide at least two flutes and one moui-n-
ing woman," we may feel sure that the widowed mother had not
neglected what, however incongruous or difficult to procure, might be
regarded as the last tokens of aflection. In all likelihood the custom
obtained even then, though in modified form, to have funeral orations
at the grave. For, even if charity provide<l for an unknown wayfarer
the simplest funeral, mourning-women would be hired to chaunt in
weird strains the lament: 'Alas, the lion! alas, the hero! ' or similar
words, '^ while great Rabbis were wont to bespeak for themselves a
warm funeral oration' {HesjK'd, or Hespeda).' For, from the funeral
oration a nmn's fate in the other world might be inferred;' and,
indeed, 'the honour of a sage was in his funeral oration.'' And in
this sense the Talmud answers the question, whether a funeral oration
is intended to honour the survivors or the dead.=
But in all this painful pageantry there was nothing for the heart
of the widow, bereft of her only child. We can follow in spirit the
mournful procession, as it started from the desolate home. As it
issued, chairs and couches were reversed, and laid low. Outside, the
funeral orator, if such was employed, preceded the bier, proclaiming
the good deeds of the dead." Immediately before the dead came the
women, this being peculiar to Galilee,* the Midrash giving this reason
of it, that woman had introduced death into the world." The body
was not, as afterwards in preference,'" carried in an ordinary coffin of
wood {Aron), if possible, cedarwood — on one occasion, at least, made
with holes beneath; " but laid on a bier, or in an open coffin [Mittah).
In former times a distinction had been made in these biers between
CHAP.
XX
•Shabb. 151
&; Seinach.
I
'' Jer. Ber.
Kethub.
V. 4
^ Mass.
Seniach.
i. S)
•■ Sliabb.
153 a
f Moed K.,
25 a
!■ Shabb.
153 a
i Shabb.
153 a
k Ber. K. 17.
end
■» Ber. 19 a
" -Tor. KU.
■Ai I: : Ber.
E. 100
• The mourning; up to the time of
burial or duriiii;- the first day was termed
Aniruth (widowed-inournino;, nioanluii;)
Jer. Horay. 4S a. Tlie followinii; three,
seven, or thirty days (as tiie case mi<i-ht
be) were those of EbheJ. ' mournin,<>-.'
Otlier forms of the same word need not
be mentioned.
'-' Of these a number of instances are
given in tlie Tainuid — tliouiili probably
only of the prologue, or epilogue, or of
the most striking thoughts.
556
FI{()M JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
i" Moed K.
27 a anil l>
" Semacli.
C. 8
>" Bez. 6 a
NkUl. 37 a
« Moed K.
27 b ; Ber.
63 a
f Jer.
ii. 7
Sheq.
e Ber. ill. 1
»■ Ber. 18 a
i Jer. Sot.
17 6, end
rich and poor, 'riio foriiici' were carried on tlie «o-ealle(l JJargash —
as it were, in state — while the poor were conveyed in a )-eccptacle
made of wickerwork {Kelibha or Kelikhah), having sometimes at the
loot what was termed 'a horn,' to wliicli the body was made fast/
l>ut this distinction between ri(;h and poor was abolished by Rabbinic
oi'dinance, and l)oth alike, if carried on a bier, were laid in tliat
made of wickerwork.'' Commonly, though not in later practice, the
face of the dead body was uncovered.'' The body lay with its face
turned up, and his hands folded on the breast. We may add, that
when a person had died unmarried or childless, it was customary to j)ut
into the coffin something distinctive of them, such as pen and ink, or
a key. Over the coffins of bride or bridegroom a baldachino was carried.
Sometimes the coffin was garlanded with myrtle.'* In exceptional
cases we read of the use of incense," and even of a kind of libation.'
We cannot, then, be mistaken in supposing that the body of the
widow's son was laid on the ' bed ' {3Iittah), or in the ' willow basket,'
already described (Kelibha, from Kelubh).^ Nor can Ave doubt that
the ends or handles were borne by friends and neighbours, different
parties of bearers, all of them unshod, at frequent intervals relieving
each other, so that as many as possible might share in the good
work.' During these pauses there was loud lamentation; but this
custom was not observed in the burial of women. Behind the bier
walked the relatives, friends, and then the sympathising 'multitude.'
For it was deemed like mocking one's Creator not to follow the dead
to his last resting-place, and to all such want of reverence Prov. xvii.
5 was applied.*' If one were absolutely prevented from joining the
procession, although for its sake all work, even study, should be
interrupted, reverence should at least be shown by rising up before
the dead.' And so they would go on to what the Hebrews beautifully
designated as the ' house of assembly ' or ' meeting, ' the ' hostelry, ' the
' place of rest,' or 'of freedom,' the ' field of weepers,' the ' house of
eternity,' or ' of life.'
We can now transport ourselves into that scene.- Up from the
city close by came this ' great multitude ' that followed the dead,
with lamentations, wild chaunts of mourning women, ^ accompanied
' It is evident the yoniifi; man could
not have been 'oofiined,' or it would
have been impossible for him to sit up at
Christ's biddinij. I must difter from tlie
learned Delitzsch, who uses the word
pIN in translatinfj; aop6<i. Very re-
markable also it seems to me, that those
who advocate wicker-basket interments
are without knowing it, resorting to the
old Jewisli practice.
2 Sometimes the lament was chaunted
simply in chorus, at others one woman
began and then the rest joined in chorus.
The latter was distinctively termed the
Qinah, see Moed K. iii. 9.
'BE NOT WEEPING!' 557
by flutes and the melancholy tinkle of cymbals, perhni)s l)y tnim- chap.
pets/' amidst expressions of general sympathy. Along the road XX
from Endor streamed the great multitude which followed the 'Prince ' r — '
of Life.' Here they met: Life and Death. The connecting link l)e- 'Keth.
tween tliem wiss the deci:) sorrow of the widowed mother. He recos'- Moeu k.
nised her as she went before the bier, leading him to the grave whom
she had brought into life. He recognised her, but she recognised
Him not, had not even seen Him. She was still weeping; even after
He had hastened a step or two in advance of His followers, quite
close to her, she did not heed Him, and was still weeping. But,
'beholding her,' the Lord- 'had compassion on her.' Those bitter,
silent tears Avhich blinded her eyes were strongest language of de-
spair and utmost need, which never in vain appeals to His heart,
Who has borne our sorrows. We remember, by way of contrast, the
common formula used at funerals in Palestine, 'Weep with them, 'all
ye who are bitter of heart!'" It was not so that Jesus spoke to 1. MoeuK. s
those around, nor to her, but characteristically: 'Be not weeping."-' andTfrom
And what He said, that He wrought. He touched the bier — per- ^°"*''"
haps the very wicker basket in wliich the dead youth lay. He
dreaded not the greatest of all defilements, — that of contact with the
dead,*" which Rabbinism, in its elaboration of the letter of the Law, ' Kei. i
had surrounded with endless terrors. His Avas other separation than
of the Pharisees: not that of submission to ordinances, l)ut of con-
quest of what made them necessary.
And as He touched the bier, they who bore it stood still. They
could not have anticipated what would follow. But the awe of the
coming wonder — as it were, the shadow of the opening gates of life,
had fallen on them. One word of sovereign comman(l, 'and he that
was dead sat up, and began to speak.' Not of that world of wliich
he had had brief glimpse. For, as one who suddenly ])asses from
dream-vision to waking, in the abruptness of the transition, loses
what he had seen, so he, who from that dazzling brightness was hur-
ried back to the dim light to which his vision had been accustomed.
It must have seemed to him, as if he woke from long sleej). Where
was he now? who those around \\\\\\'. what this strange ass(Mnl)lage'r
and Who He, Whose Light and Life seemed to fall u))on him/
And still was Jesus the link between the mother and the sou, w!io
' Apparently sonietinios turclics were ■■ So literally. We liei'e recall the un-
used at funerals (Ber. 5:^ cO- feeliiin' threats by K. lluna of I'urther
''■ The term K't'pzoS for -the Lord' is hereavenients to a niotlier who we))!
peculiar to St. Luke and St. .lohn- a very nmch, and theii- fnllilment iMocd.
sisniticant conjunction, it occurs (nily K. '_'7 /').
once ill St. Mark (xvi. 1'.)).
;-)5S FROM .loKDAX TO THK .MOl'XT OF TlJAXSFIGrRATION.
l{OOK liii'l ii.iiaiii round each other. And so, in the tnicst sense, 'Jle gave
III him ' to his mother." Can an}' one doubt tiiat mother and son hence-
'>— -^- — forth owned, h)ve(l, and trusted Him as the true Messiah? If tliere
was no moral motive for this niiraeh-, outside Christ's S3'nii)athy with
intense sutl'ering and tlie bereavement of deatli, was tliere no moral
I'esult as the outcouK! of it? II" nujtlier and son had not called
upon llim before the mij'aele, would they not henceforth and for ever
call ui)on Him? And if there was, so to si)eak, inward necessity,
that Life Incarnate should conquer death — symbolic and typic neces-
sity of it also — was not everything here congruous to the central
I'act in this history? The simplicity and absence ol' all extravagant
details; the Divine calmness and majesty on the pait of the Christ,
so different from the manner in which legend would have coloured the
scene, even from the intense agitation which characterised the con-
dm't of an Elijah, an Elislia, or a Peter, in somewhat similar circum-
stances; and, lastly, the beauteous harmony where all is in accord,
from the tirst touch of compassion till when, forgetful of the bystand-
ers, heedless of 'effect,' He gives the son Inick to his mother^are
not all these worthy of the event, and evidential of the truth of the
narrative?
But, after all, may we regard this iiistory as real — and, if so,
what are its lessons?'* On one point, at least, all serious critics are
now agreed. It is impossible to ascribe it to exaggeration, or to
explain it on natural grounds. The onlj^ alternative is t(-> regard it
either as true, or as designedly false. Be it, moreover, remembered,
that not only one Gospel, but all, relate some story of raising the
dead — whether that of this youth, of Jairus' daughter, or of Lazarus.
They also all relate the Resurrection of the Christ, which really
underlies those other miracles. But if this history of the raising
of the young man is false, Avhat motive can l)e suggested for its in-
vention, for motive there must have been for it? Assuredly, it was no
])art of Jewish expectancy concerning the Messiah, that He would
perform such a miracle. And negative criticism has admitted,"
that the differences between this history and the raising of the dead
))y Elijah or Elisha are so numerous and great, that these narratives
' So 1 item lly -anil vi'i-y si^iiillcinitl\ . iiucstioii of tlie crodibility of such a
-' Minor ditiicultic.s may ix' nmdily miracle, suice similar miracles are re-
dismissed. Such is the ((iiestion. wliy lated in all the four Gospels,
tins miracle has not been recorded by •' So Keim, who finally arrives at the
St. Matthew. Possibly St. Matthew may conclusion that the event is fictitious.
have remained a day tjehind in Caper- His account seems to me painfully un-
nauMi. In any case, the omission eainiot fair, as well as luisatisfactory in the e.\-
be of real importance as reiiards the trenie.
HVIDKNCI': Oi' THIS MIRACLE. 559
cauuot he ivgarded as sii^'^csliuii" that of Hit' I'aisiiig- of tin- yoiiii.u- ciiAl'.
uuiu ol" Naiii. ^V^' ask a^aiii: NN'heiice, tliuu, tliis history, if it was XX
not true? It is au in«i-eiiious historical suggestion — rather an ad- ^— -y^ — '
mission In' negative eritieisui ^ — that so insigniticant, and otherwise
unknown, a phice as Nain woukl not have been fixed upon as the site
of this miracle, if some great event had not occurred there which
made lasting impression on the mind of the Church. What was
that event, and does not the reading of this record carry conviction
of its truth ' Legends have not been so written. Once more, the
miracle is described as having taken place, not in the seclusion of a
chamber, nor before a few interested witnesses, but in sight of the
great multitude which had followed Jesus, and of that other great
multitude which came from Cana. In this twofold great multitude was
there none, from whom the enemies of Christianity could have wrung
contradiction, if the narrative was false? Still further, the history
is told with such circumstantiality of details, as to be inconsistent
with the theory of a later invention. Lastly, no one will question,
that ))elief in the reality of such 'raising from the dead' was a
prinud article in the faith of the primitive Church, for which — as a
fact, not a possibility — all were ready to offer up their lives. Nor
should we forget that, in one of the earliest apologies addressed to
the R(jman Emperor, Quddratus appealed to the fact, that, of those
who had heen healed or raised from the dead by Christ, some were
still alive, and all were well known.' On the other hand, the only '£«»•-*.
. . • • T 1 .• ,. ■ I T.^- 1 Hist. Eccl.
real ground for rejecting this narrative is disbeliei in the Miraculous, iv. a
including, of course, rejection of the Christ as the Miracle of
Miracles. But is it not vicious reasoning in a circle, as well as
begging the question, to reject the Miraculous because we discredit
the Miraculous? and does not such rejection involve much more of
the incredible than faith itself?
And so, with all Christendom, we gladly take it, in simplicity of
faith, as a true record by tj-ue men — all the more, that they who told
it knew it to be so incredible, as not onlv to provoke scorn," but to 'Acts xvii.
' ■ . . -i'i •■ xxvl. 8 :
e.\pose them to the charge of cunningly devising fables.' liut they icor. xv.
who believe, see in this history, how the Divine Conqueror, in His .jivt. i.ic
accidental meeting with Death, with mighty arm rolled back the
tide, and how through the portals of heaven which He opened stole
in upon our world the first beam of the new day. Yet another — in
some sense lower, in another, practically higher — lesson do we learn.
For, this meeting of the two ]irocessions outside the gate of Xaiu
' This is till' ailmissidii of Ki'htt.
560 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK was accidental, jet not in tlic conventional sinise. Xcither the
III arrival of Jesus at that place and time, nor that of the funeral pro-
'^--'"Y^'-^ cession Ironi Nain, nor their meeting, was either designed or else
uiiraeulous. Both liapjx'ned in the natural eoui'se of natural events,
but their concurrence [crvyKvpla^) was desifjiied, and directly God-
caused. In this God-caused, designed concurrence of events, in
themselves ordinary and natural, lies tlie mystery of special Provi-
dences, which, to wliomsoever they happen, he may and should regard
them as miracles and answer to prayer. And this principle extends
much iartiier: to the i)i-ayer foi-, and provision of, daily bread, nay, to
mostly all things, so that, to those who have ears to hear, all things
around speak in i)arables of the Kingdom of Heaven.
But on those who saw this miracle at Nain fell the fear ^ of the
felt Divine Presence, and over their souls swept the hymn of Divine
praise: fear, because '^ a great Prophet was risen up among them;
praise, because God had visited * His people. And further and wider
spread the wave — over Judaja, and beyond it, until it washed, and
broke in faint murmur against the ])rison-walls, within which the
Baptist awaited his nnirtyrdom. Was He then the 'Coming One?'
and, if so, why did, or how could, those walls keep His messenger
within gras]) of the tyrant?^
' The term avyKvpia rendered in the * Signilicautiy, the same expression as
A.V. -chance' (St. Luke x. 31), means in St. Luke i. 68.
literally, the coming together, the meet- ■'' The embassy of the Baptist will be
ing, or concurrence of events. described in connection with the account
^ Lit. 'fear took all.' of his martyrdom.
■' on.
CHliONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT. 561
CHAPTKR XXI.
THP] WOMAN WHICH WAS A SINNER.
(>St. Luke vii. 3(5-50.)
The precise date and i)lace of the next recorded event in this Galilean chap.
journey of the Christ are left undetermined. It can scarcely have XXI
occurred in tlie quiet little town of Nain, indeed, is scarcely con- ^— >'— i—
gruous with the scene which had been there enacted. And yet it must
have tbllowed almost immediately upon it. We infer this, not only
from the silence of St. Matthew, which in this instance might have
been due, not to the temporary detention of that Evangelist in Caper-
naum, while the others had followed Christ to Nain, but to what may
be called the sparingness of detail in the Gospel-narratives, each
Evangelist relating mostly only one in a group of kindred events.^
But other indications determine our inference. The endiass^^ of the
Baptist's disciples (which will be described in another connection^)
undoubtedly followed on the raising of the young man of Nain. This
embassy would scarcely liave come to Jesus in Nain. It probably
reached Him on His farther Missionary journey, to which there seems
some reference in the passage in the First Gosi)eP which succeeds the »st. Matt.
' ^ ' xi. 20-30
account of that embassy. The actual words there recorded can, in-
deed, scarcely have been spoken at that time. They belong to a later
period on that Mission-journey, and mark more fully develo})ed
opposition and rejection of the Christ than in those early days.
Chronologically, they are in their proi)er place in St. Luke's Gospel," '"^Jij^o''^
where they follow in connection with that Mission of the Seventy,
which, in part at least, was prompted by the growing enmity to the
Person of Jesus. On the other hand, this Mission of the Seventy, is
not recorded by St. Matthew. Accordingly, he inserts those prophetic
denunciations which, according to the plan of his Gospel, could not
have been omitted, at the beginning of this Missionary journey,
• This Is specially ciuiracteiistic of the Gospel by St. Luke.
^ See note in i)revious chai>ter.
)fi2
FROM JORDAN To TIIK MOIXT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» St. Matt.
xi. 16-19
*■ St. Matt.
xl. 2&-30
<■ St. Luke
Tii. 36
hccausc it marks the be'i'inninii' oftliat systematic ojiijositioii.-' tlicfull
(level()i)meut of wliicli. as already stated, jji-ompted tlie Mission of
llie Seventy.
Vet, even so, tlie impression left u[)on us l)y St. Matt. xi. '2()-:^()
(which Ibllows oil the aeeouut of tlie Baptist's cmhassy) is, that Jesus
was ou a journey, and it uiay well be that tliose precious words of en-
couraii'enu'ut and invitation, spoken to the burdened and wearily
labouring:,'' formed part, i)erha})s the substance, of His preaching-
on that journey. Truly these were 'good tidings," and not only to
those borne down by weiglit of conscious sinfulness oi' deep sorrow,
who wearily toiled towards the light of far-ofl' peace, or those dreamt-
of lieights where some comprehensive view might be gained of life
with its labours and pangs. ' Good news,' also, to them who would
fain have ' learned ' according to their capacity, but whose teachers
had weighted 'the yoke of the Kingdom' ' to a heavy l)urden, and
made the Will of God to them labour, weary and unaccomplishable.
But, whether or not spoken at that special time, Ave cannot fail
to recognise their special suital)leness to the ' forgiven sinner ' in the
Pharisee's house,*" and their inward, even if not outward, connection
with her history.
Another ])oint requires notice. It is how, in the unfolding of
His Mission to Man, the Christ progressively placed Himself in
antagonism to the Jewish religious thought of His time, from out of
which He had historically sprung. In thisi)art of His earthly course
the antagonism appeared, indeed, so to speak, in a positive rather
than negative form, that is, rather in what He afiirmed than in what
He coml)ated. because the opposition to Him was not yet fully de-
veloped: whei-eas in the second part of His course it was, for a
similar reason, I'ather negative than positive. From the first this
antagonism was there in what He taught and did: and it appeared
with increasing distinctness in proportion as He taught. We find it
in the whole spirit and l)earing of what he did and said — in the
house at Capernaum, in the Synagogues, with the Gentile Centurion,
at the gate of Nain, and esj^ecially here, in the history of the much
forgiven woman who had much sinned. A Jewish Rabbi could not
have so acted and sjioken: he would not even have understood
Jesus; nay, a Rabbi, however gentle and pitiful, would in woi'd and
deed have taken precisely the o]iposite directiim from that of the
Christ.
' Made ' the yoke of. tlie Kiiiudoiu of
Heaven " ("""^r Tv""^ ~*"l equal to • the
yoke of Ihe Law ■ ("1*71 !'1i') or to that
•of the eommandments' (.11*^ ^U').
TIIK WOMAN THAT WAS A SINNER. 5f)3
As St. (xregoi'V ('xi)res.s('s it, tliis is jxTliaps a liistory more lit to CHAP.
be wept over than coiiniieuted upon. For comnients seem so often XXI
to intei'i)ose Ix^tween the simple Ibi'ee ol' a narrative and our hearts, ^— -^-r'**-'
and I'ew events in tlie Gos})eI-history have been so blunted and
turned aside as this histoiw, llirou<>-h verbal controvei'sies and do<>--
matic wrangling.
The tirst impression on our minds is, that tlie history itself is
but a fi'agment. We must try to learn from its structure, where
and how it was l)roken off. We understand the infinite delicaey
that left her unnamed, the record of whose 'much Ibrgiveness ' and
great love had to be joined to that of her much sin. And we mark,
in contrast, the coarse clumsiness which, without any reason foi' the
assertion, to meet the cravings of morbid curiosity, or for saiut-
Avorshij), has associated her history with the name of Mary Magdalene.^
Another, and perhaps even more painful, mistake is the attempt
of certain critics to identify this history with the much later anoint-
ing of Christ at Bethanv, " and to determine which of the two is the 'St. Matt.
simpler, and which the more ornate — which the truer of the accounts. aiKii>arai-
. ... '"^is-
and whence, or why, each of the Evangelists has franu'd his distinc-
tive narrative. Yet the two narratives have really nothing in com-
mon, save that in each case there was a ' Sinntn ' — perhaps the
commonest of Jewish names; a woman who anointed; and that
Christ, and those who were present, si)oke and acted in accordance
with other passages in the Gospel-history:'' that is, true to their
respective histories. But, such twofold anointing — the first, at the
beginning of His works of mercy, of the Feet l)y a forgiven, loving-
sinner on whom tlie Sun had just risen; the second, of His Head,
by a loving disciple, when the full-orl)ed Sun was setting in blood,
at the close of His Ministry — is, as in the twofold purgation of the
Temple at the beginning and close of His Work, only like the com-
pleting of the circle of His Life.
The invitation of Simon the Pharisee to his table does not
necessarily indicate, that he had l)een impressed by the teaching of
Jesus, any more than the sup{)osed a])plication to his case of what is
called the 'parable' of the much and the little forgiven debtor
implies, that he had received from the Saviour si)iritual benefit,
great or small. W Jesus had taught in tlie • city," and, as always.
' The untenablenesis of this strange bulkiiii;; largely when heaped together
lijl)Othesis has been shown in almost all by him, seem not only unfair, but, when
commentaries. There is not a tittle of examined one by one. are seen to l)e
evidence for it. groundless.
2 The objections of Keim. though
5(34 FROM JOlfDAN TO Till'] MOUNT OF TKANSFIGUKxVTION.
BOOK irrosistibly drawn to Iliiu the multitude, it would l)e only in accord-
ni ance with the nuinners of the time il" the leading Pharisee invited
^- — -. — ' the distinguished ' Teacher ' to his table. As such he undoubtedly
» St. Luke treated llini." The question in Simon's mind was, whether He w^as
vii 40
more than 'Teacher' — even ' Prophet;' and that such question rose
within him indicates, not only that Christ openly claimed a position
dirtcrcnt Irom that of Rabbi, and that His followers regarded Him at
least as a i)rophet, but also, within the breast of Simon, a struggle
in which strong Jewish i)rejudice was bearing down the mighty
impression of Christ's Presence.
They were all sitting, or ratlier ' lying ' ' — the Mishnah some-
times also calls it ' sitting down and leaning ' — around the table, the
body resting on the couch, tlie feet turned away from the table in the
direction of the Avail, while the left ellx)w rested on the table. And
now^, from the open courtyard, up the verandah-step, perhaps through
kAb. iv. 16 an antechamber," and by the open door, passed the figure of a
w^oman into the festive reception-room ami dining-hall — the Teraqlin
{triclinium) of the Rabbis.' How did she obtain access? Had she
mingled with the servants, or was access free to all — or had she,
perhaps, knowai the house and its owner?'' It little matters^as
little as whether she ' had been,' or ' was' u}) to that day, ' a sinner,' *
in the terrible acceptation of the term. But we must bear in mind
the greatness of Jewish prejudice against any conversation witli
woman, however lofty her character, fully to realise the absolute
incongruity on the part of such a wonuin in seeking access to the
Rabbi, Whom so numy regarded as the God-sent Pi-oi)het.
But this, also, is evidential, that here w^e are far Ijcyond tlie
Jewish standpoint. To this woman it was not incongruous, Ijecause
to her Jesus had, indeed, been the Prophet sent from God. We
have said before that tliis story is a fragment; and here, also, as in
the invitation of Simon to Jesus, we have evidence of it. She had,
no doubt, heard His words that day. What He had said would be,
' Ber. vi. 6 makes the followiiiii- curious urenieut for such a hall was lit'teen feet
clistlnction: if they sit at the table, each (ten cubits) breadth, leiiiilh, and height
says ' the grace ' for himself; if they ' lie (Baba B. vi. 4).
down ' to table, one says it in the name ^ The strangeness of the circumstance
of all. If w'ine is handed them during suggests this, which is, alas! by no
dinner, each says • the grace ' over it means inconsistent with what we know
for him.self; if after dinner, one says it of the morality of some of these Rabbis,
for all. although this page must not be stained
^ The Terarjlin was sometimes en- by detailed references,
tered by an antechamber (Prosedor), * The other and harsher reading, 'a
Ab. iv. 16, and opened into one (Jer. woman which was in the city a sinner,'
Rosh haSh. 5!) b), or more ( Yom. 15 b), need scarcely be discussed,
side- or bed-rooms. The common meas-
P.KHIM) FflM. AT HIS FEET. 555
in substance, it" not in words: -Conic unto Me, all ye that lal)our an<l CHAP.
are heavy laden, and I will iiivcvou rest. . . . Leai'n ol'Me, for 1 am XXI
meek and lowly in heart. . . . Ye shall tind rest unto your souls, v— ^-^--^^
. . . . ' This was to her the Prophet sent from (iod with the <i-ood
news that opened even to her the Kingdom of Heaven, and laid its
yoke upon her, not bearing her down to very hell, but easy of wear'
and light of burden. She knew that it was all as He said, in regard
to the heavy load of her past; and, as she listened to those Words,
and looked on that Presence, she learned to believe that it was all as
lie had promised to the heavy burdened. And she had watched, and
followed Him afar ofi'to the Pharisee's house. Or, perhaps, if it be
tliought that she had not that day heard for herself, still, the sound
of that message must have reached her, and wakened the echoes of
her heart. And still it was: Come to Me] learn of J/e; / will give
rest. What mattered all else to her in the hunger of her soul, which
had just tasted of that Heavenly Bread?
The shadow of her form must have fallen on all who sat at meat.
But none spake; nor did she heed any but One. Like heaven's own
music, as Angels' songs that guide the wanderer home, it still sounded
in her ears. There are times when we forget all else in one absorbing
thought; when men's opinions — nay, our own feelings of shame — are
effaced by that one Presence; when the ' Come to J/e; learn of Me; I
will give you rest,' are the all in all to us. Then it is, that the
fountains of the Great Deep within are broken open by the wonder-
working rod, with which God's Messenger to us — the better Moses —
has struck our hearts. She had come that day to ' learn " and to ' find
rest.' What riuittered it to her who was there, or what they thought?
There was only One Whose Presence she dared not encounter — not
from fear of Him, but from knowledge of herself. It was He to Whom
she had come. And so she ' stpod l)ehind at His Feet.' She had
brought with her an alabasfron (phial, or tiask, commonly of alaliaster)
of i^erfume.^ It is a coarse suggestion, that this had originally been
bought for a far different purpose. We know that perfumes were
much sought after, and very largely in use. Some, such as true
balsam, were worth double theii" weight in silver: others, like the
' I liave so translated tlie woi'd /a'poK, coiiniion was tlie use of lu'rriiiiu's. that
whk'li the A.Y. renders •ointment.' The Ber. vi. (5 mentions a iin'f/iiHn: or a kind
word is evidently the Hebrew and Rab- of incense, whicli was commoidy burnt
binic "li?2, which, however, is not always after a feast. As regards the word • <^/Z«-
the equivalent for myrrh, but seents also ^r^s^ro??,' the name was liiven to perfume-
to mean mnsk and mastic. In short. I i)hials in f>;eneral, even if not made of
re,i?ard it as designating any fluid unii-uent alabaster, because the latter was so
— or, generally speakina'. perfunit'.' So fr(M[ueiitly used for such flasks.
560
KiioM .nHJDAX TO TIIK MOI'XT ()V TIlAXSFKM'liATKJN.
BOOK
!• Jer. De-
mai 22 li
<■ Ab. S.
35 ft
•1 Shabb.
si)ik«'ii;ir(l ( wlict her as juice or uii.ii'iiciit. aloii.ii' willi i»rlic|- iiiii'nMliciits),
tlioiiiili not equally costly, were also 'precious.' We have evidence
that perfunied oils — notably oil of roses," nnd ol' the iris ])lant, but
chietly the iiii.xtiire known in anti(]ui1y as fo/idfmii. wcvc larjrely
manni'actured and used in Palestine.'' A Mask with this perfume was
worn l)y women round the neck, andhun<>- down l)elow the breast (the
Tseloch/fh sliel I'alin'ton).'' 8o common was its use as to Ix' allowed
even on the Sal)bath.'' This ' flask "(possibly the (Innnarta de Fhilon
of Gift. 69 6) — not always of glass, l)ut of silver or gold, proba])ly
often also of alabaster — containing ^ pahjeton "(evidently, thefoliatum
of Pliny) was used both to sweeten the breath and perfume the
person. Hence it seems at least not uidikely, that the alabasfron
which she brought, who loved so much, was none other than the
'flask of foliatum," so connnon among Jewish wonum.'
As she stood behind Him at His Feet, reverently IxMiding, a
shower of tears, like sudden, quick summer-rain, that refreshes air
and earth, ' bedewed ' - His Feet. As if surpi-ised, or else afraid to
awaken His attention, or defile Him by her tears, she quickly^ wiped
them away with the long tresses of hei- hair that luul fallen down
and touched Him.* as she bent over His Feet. Xay. not to wash
them in such imi)ure waters had she come, but to show such loving
gratefulness and reverence as in her poverty she could, and in her
humility she might offer. And, now that her faith had grown bold
in His Presence, she is continuing' to kiss those Feet which had
brought to her the ' good tidings of peace," and to anoint them out of
the alabastron round her neck. And still she spake not, nor yet He.
For, as on her part silence seemed most fitting utterance, so on His,
that He sulTered it in silence was best and most fitting answer to her.
Another there Avas whose thoughts, tar other than hers or the
Christ's, were also unuttered. A more painful contrast than that of
' the Pharisee ' in this scene, can scarcely be imagined. We do not
insist that the desifjnation 'this Man, '"^ given to Christ in his un-
' Tht; derivation of tlie Raliltiiiic term in
Bu.rJorfs Lexicon (p. 1724) is certainly
incorrect. I liave no doubt the "jV^'^'J was
Xhefolidfum of Pliny (\l\si. Nat. xiii. 1,
2). In .lew. AVar iv. 0. 10, Joftephns seems
to inu)ly that women occasionally poured
over themselves unfi;uents. According' to
Kethul). vi. 4, a woman mii^ht ai)pareiitiy
spend a tenth of her dowry on sucii tliinijs
as unguents and perfumes. For, in
Kethub. 66 h we have an exasfTd'ated ac-
coiuit of a woman si)tMiilin.iC upwanls of
:)()()/. on perfumes! This will at any rate
l)rove tiieir common and al>unilant use.
- This is the Teal meaning of the verb.
' Tliis is imi)lied in tlie tense.
* It is certainly not implied, that she
had her hair dislievelled as in mourning,
or as by women before drinking the
waters of jealousy.
'■' The tense implies tiiis.
THE MICH AND TIIK LITTI.K F<)l{(;i\'EN. e^^^■^
i^pokou tliouglits, or tlic iiianiicr in w liicli urtcrwui'ds lie r('])li('(l to chap.
the Saviour's question by a sui)ercilious 'I sujjposo," or ' presume," ' XXI
necessarily imply contempt. But they certainly indicate the mood ^ r—^
of his spirit. One thing, at least, seems now clcnr to this Pharisee: 'ver. «
If 'this Man,' this strange, wandering, i)()[)ular idol, with His
strange, novel ways and words, Whom in politeness he must call
'Teacher,' ^ Rabbi, were a Prophet, He would have known who the
woman was, an<l, if He had known Avho she was, then Avould He
never have allowed such approach. So do we, also, often argue as
to what He would do, if He knew. But He does know; and it is just
because He knoweth that He doeth what, from our lower standpoint,
we cannot understand. Had He been a Baltbi, He would certaiidy,
and liad he been merely a Prophet, He would- probably, have repelled
such approach. The former, if not from self-righteousness, j^et from
ignorance of sin and forgiveness; the latter, because such homage
was more than man's due.'^ But, He was more than a prophet — the
Saviour of sinners; and so she miglit quietly weep over His Feet, and
then quickly wipe away the 'dew' of the 'better morning,' and
then continue to kiss His Feet and to anoint them.
And yet Prophet He also was, and in far fuller sense than Simon
could have imagined. For, He had read Sim<ni's unspoken thoughts.
Presently He would show it to him; yet not, as we might, by open
reproof, that would have put him to shame before his guests, but
with infinite delicacy towards His host, and still in manner that he
could not mistake. What follows is not, as generally supposed, a
parable but an illustration. Accordingly, it must in no way be
pressed. With this explanation vanish all the supposed difficulties
about the Pharisees being 'little forgiven,' and hence 'loving little.'
To convinc(» Sinuni of the error of his conclusion, that, if the life of
that woman had been known, the prophet must have for])idden her
touch of love, Jesus entered into the Pharisee's own modes of reason-
ing. Of two debtors, one of whom owed ten times as much as the
other,-' who would best love the creditor' who had freely' forgiven
' In tho A.V. luul iiidiu'i'il filial reverence in liis son
- The Talnuul. with its usual exai^ijer- (u. s., cot </}.
alion, has tiiis story when commenting •' Tiie one suni^upwards of 1.')/. ; the
on the reverence due by children to their otlier=ui)wards of 1/. lO.s'.
l)arents, that R. Ishnuiel's mother had -■ Money-lender — though perhaps not
comiilained lier son would not allow liei', in the evil sense which we attach to the
when he came from tlie Academy, to /m.s7/ term. At the same time, the fre<iuent
/lis feet and then drink the water — on allusion to such and to their harsh ways
which the sages made the Rabbi yield ! otters painful illustration of the social
(Jer. Peah 15 c). Again, some one came state at the time,
to kiss Ti. Joxathati's feet, because he ■■ So rather than iVunkly' in the A.V.
568 FliOM JORDAN TO THE .MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK them r ' Though to both the (U'bt might have been equally impos-
III sible of discharge, and both might love equally, yet a Eabbi would,
"— 'v — according to his Jewish notions, say, that he would love most to
Avhom most had l)ecn tbrgivcn. If this was the undoubted outcome
of Jewish theology — the so much for so much — let it be applied to
the present case. If there were much l)enefit, there would be much
love; if little benetlt, little love. And conversely: in such case
much love would argue much benefit; little love, small benefit. Let
him then aj^ply the reasoning by marking this woman, and contrast-
ing her conduct with his own. To wash the feet of a guest, to give
him the kiss of welcome, and especially to anoint him,^ were not,
indeed, necessary attentions at a feast. All the more did they
indicate special care, affection, and respect.^ Xone of these tokens
of deep regard had marked the merely polite reception of Him by
the Pharisee. But, in a twofold climax of which the intensity can
only l)e indicated,* the Saviour now proceeds to show, how different
it had been with her, to whom, for the first time. He now turned!
On Simon's own reasoning, then, he must have received but little,
she much benefit. Or, to apply the former illustration, and now to
reality: ' P'orgiven haxQ been her sins, the many ' ^ — not in ignorance,
but with knowledge of their ])eing ' many.' This, by Simon's former
admission, Avould explain and account tor her much love, as the effect
of much forgiveness. On the other hand — though in delicacy the
Lord does not actually express it — this other inference would also hold
true, that Simon's little love showed that 'little is being forgiven."'
What has been explained will dispose of another controversy
which, with little judgment and less taste, has been connected with
this nuirvellous history. It must not ])e made a question as between
Ronmnist and Protestant, nor as between rival dogmatists, whetlier
love had any meritorious i)art in her forgiveness, or whether, as after-
wards stated, her 'faith' had 'saved' her. Undoubtedly, her faith
Jiad saved her. What she had heard from His lips, what she knew
of Him, she- had believed. She had believed in 'the good tidings of
peace " wliicli He had brought, in the love of God, and His Father-
' Tlu' points of resemblance and of ^ Thou ga vest me no water, she washed
diflercnce with St. Matt, xviii. 2:! will not with water but tears: no kiss, she
readily appear on comparison. kisscil my tVet: no oil. she unguent; not
■■^ Conip. for ex. St. .John xiii. 4. to the h(>ad. liut to the feet. And yet:
•' Washing: Gen. xviii. 4; xix. 2; xxiv. emphafica/f>/ — into f/n/ house I came,
32; Judg. xix. 21; 1 Sam. xxv. 41; &c.
kissing: Ex. xviii. 7: 2 Sam. xv. 5; xix. = So literally.
39; anointing: Eccl. ix. 8; Amos vi. 6, as ^ Mark the tense,
well as Ps. xxiii. 5.
•THY FAITH HAS SAVED THHE: GO INTO PEACE.' 559
hood (»r i)itv to the most smil<i'ii niid needy; in Christ, as the CHAI".
Messenger of Reconciliation and Peace witli (Jod; in tlie Kingdom of XXI
Heaven whicli He had so suddenly and unexpectedly opened to lier. - — -r^^
from out of whose unfohied golden gates Heaven's light had I'alleii
upon her, Heaven's voices had come to her. She had believed it all:
the Father, the Son — Revealcr, the Holy Ghost — Revealing. And
it had saved her. When she came to that feast, and stood behind
with humbled, loving gratefulness and reverence of heart-service,
she UHis already saved. Slie needed not to be forgiven: she had
been forgiven. And it was because she was Ibrgiven that she
bedewed His Feet with the summer-shower of her heart, and, quickly
wiping away the tlood with her tresses, continued kissing and anoint-
ing them. .Vll this Avas the impulse of her heart, who, having come
in heart, still came to Him, and learned of Him, and found rest to
her soul. In that early springtide of her new-born life, it seemed
that, as on Aaron's rod, leaf, Ijud, and tlower were all together in
tangled confusion of rich forthbursting. She had not yet reached
order and clearness; perhaps, in the fulness of her feelings, knew not
how great were her blessings, and felt not yet that conscious rest which
grows out of faith in the forgiveness which it obtains.
And this was now the final gift of Jesus to her. As formerly for
the first time He had turned, so now for the first time He spoke to
her — and once more with tenderest delicacy. ' Thy sins have been for-
given''— not, are forgiven, and not now — ' the many.' Nor does He
now heed the murmuring thoughts of those around, who cannot
understand Who this is that forgiveth sins also. But to her, and
truly, though not literally, to them also, and to us, He said in
explanation and application of it all: 'Thy faith has saved thee: go
into peace.'- Our logical dogmatics would have had it: 'go in
peace;' more truly He, ' info peace' '^ And so she, the first who had
come to Him for spiritual healing, the first of an unnund)ered host,
went out into the better light, into peace of heart, peace of faith,
peace of rest, and into the eternal peace of the Kingdom of Heaven
and of the Heaven of the kingdom hereafter and for ever.
' So, iiroperly rendered. Romanisiii. ■' Tliis distinction between tiie two
in tliis also arrogatin<j; to man more tban modes of expression is marked in Moed.
Christ Himself ever spotce, has it: K. 29 a: 'into peace.' as said to the
Absolro fe, not ' tliy sins have been for- living; 'in peace,' as referring to the
given,' but I absolve thee! dead.
•^ So literally.
5t0
FROM JUUDAN TO THE MUUxNT UF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER XXII.
BOOK
III
=' St. Lul;p
viii.1-3: St.
Matt. Ix. :i."i
THE MINISTRY OF LOVE, THE BLASPHEMY OF HATRED, AND THE MISTAKES
OF EARTHLY AFFECTION — THE RETURN TO CAPERNAUM — HEALINCJ
OF THE DEMONISED DUMB — PHARISAIC CHARGE AGAINST CHRIST—
THE VISIT OF CHinsT'S MOTHER AND BRETHREN.
(St. Luke viii. 1-:^: St. .Matt. ix. 32-:5.i : St. Mark iii. 22. &c.; St. Matt. xii. 46-.)0
and jiarallcls. )
However interesting and important to follow tlic steps of our Lord
on His journey through Galilee, and to group in their order the
notices of it in the Gospels, the task seems almost hopeless. In
truth, since none of the Evangelists attempted — should we not say,
ventured — to write a ' Life ' of the Christ, any strictly historical
arrangement lay outside their i)urpose. Their point of view was that
of the internal, rather than the external development of this histoi-y.
And so events, kindred in purpose, discourses bearing on the same
subject, or })arables pointing to the same stretch of truth, were
grouped togetlier; or, as in the present instance, the unfolding
teaching of Christ and the growing opposition of His enemies
exhibited by joining together notices which, perha])s. liclong to
dirterent periods. And the lesson to us is, that, just as the Old
Testament gives neither the national history of Israel, n(jr the
biography of its heroes, but a history of the Kingdom of God in its
progressive development, so the Gospels present not a ' Life of
Christ,' but the history of the Kingdom of God in its j)rogressive
manifestation.
Yet, although there are difficidties connected with details, we
can trace in outline the general succession of events. AVe conclude,
that Christ was now returning to Capernaum from that Missionary
journey " of which Nain had been the southernmost point. On this
journey He was attended, not only by the Twelve, but l)y loving,
grateful women, who ministered to Him of their substance. Among
them three are specially named. '.Mary, called Magdalene,' had
MACIDALA AND TIIK MACDAI.KNE.
571
received IVdiii llim special bciictit of licaliii.ii' to IxmI}- and sold.' Her
d('sigiiatioii as Magdalcuc was })r()l)ably dcriNtMl froiu licr native city.
Maii'dala,- just as several Rabbis arc spoken of in the Tuhuud as
'Magdalene' i^Mmjdchidli. or Magdelaya^). Magdala, which was a
iSabbath-day's journev Irom Tiberias," was celebrated tor its dye-
works,'' and its nianutactories of line woolen textures, of which
eighty are mentioned.' Indeed, all that district seems to have been
engaged in this industry.' It was also reputed for its ti'atlic in
turtle-doves and pigeons for purifications — tradition, with its usual
exaggeration of numbers, mentioning three liundred such shops.'"
Accordingly, its wealth was very great, and it is named among the
three cities whose contributions were so large as to be sent in a
wagon to Jerusalem.'' But its moral corruption was also great, and
to this the Rabbis attributed its final destruction.'' Magdala had a
Synagogue.'''^ Its name was probably derived from a sti'ong tower
wliich defended its approaches, or served for outlook. This suggestion
is supported by the circumstance, that M'liat seems to have foi-med
j)art, or a suburb of Magdala,*^ bore the names of 'Fish-tower' and
'Tower of the Dyers." One at least, if not both these towers, would
be near the landing-place, by the Lake of Galilee, and overlook its
waters. The necessity for snch places of outlook and defence,
nudving the town a Magdala^ would l)e iuci-eased by the })roximity of
the magnificent ])lain of Gennesaret, of which Josephus speaks in
.such rapturous terms.'' Moreover, only twenty minutes to the
north of Magdala descended the so-called 'Valley of Doves " (the Wady
Hamiini), through which passed the ancient caravan-road that led over
I^azareth to Damascus. The name 'valley of doves' illustrates the
substantial accuracy of the Ral)binic (lescri])tions of ancient Mag-
dala. Modern travelers (such as Dean Stanh-ij. Trofessor /lobiiis<)».
CHAP.
XXTI
"Jen Friib.
22 d, end
'' Ber. }{. 79
'• Jer. Taan.
69", lilH' 15
from
bdttiiiii
d Midr. on
Lameui.
ii. 2
'■ Jer. Taan.
69 ((
f Jer. Taan.
u. .s. : Midr.
on Lament,
ii. 2, ed.
Warsh.
p. 67 l>
middle
p Midr. on
Eecl. X. K,
ed. WarHh
p. 102 /'
'' Jewish
War iii. 10
1 'Out of whom went seven deviit;."
Those who ure curious to see one attenii)t
at tin(lui,2; a ■ rational ' liasis for some of
the Tahnudical leuvuds al)out Mary Mag-
dalene and otliers t'onnected witli tlie
iiistory of Ciirist. may consult the essay
of Hdsrk in the Studien and KritiUen for
1873. pp. 77-115 (Die .Tesus-Mythen d.
Judenth.).
-' The su2;£jestion that the word meant
' curler of liair," which is made by Liijht-
t'ont, and rejieated by his modern follow-
are found. Ills renuirk about tiu'ce coins
laid on each other like a tower nuiiiit, if
it liad not ])een connected with such a
,iz;rave discussion, haxc almost si-emcHl a
pun on M(iijd(thi.
* Thus in regard to another village
(iu)t mentioned either by Rchnidus oi
Neiibi(Krr) in the Midr. on Lament, ii. 2,
ed. War.sli. p. ()7 h. line 1.'? from bottom.
■' This Synan'ogut' is introduced in the
alnuist blasphemous account of the
miracles of Simon ben .lochai. when he
ers, depends on entire misapprehen- declared Tiberias free from the detilement
sion. of dead bodies, buried tlu>re.
■' In Baba Mets. 25 (t, middle, R. Isaac '' This has been well shown t)y Ne.fi-
the Magdalene is introduced in a highly lutiicr, (Jeogr. de la Palestine, pp. 217,
characteristic discussion about coins that 21S.
5(2
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Baedeker's
Paliistina,
pp. 268, 269
i> St. Matt,
xxvii. 56
'• St. Luke
xxiil. .5.5
f St. Luke
xxiv. 10
F SPb. 62 h
1' St. .John
iv. 4G-54
' Yebam.
70 a
Farrar, and others) have noticed the strange dcsignati(jn ' Valley of
Doves ' without being able to suggest the explanation of it, which the
knowledge of its traliic in doves for i)urposes of purification at once
supplies. Of the man}' towns and villages that dotted the shores of
the Lake of Galilee, all have passed away except Magdala, which is
still represented by the collection of mud hovels that bears the name
of Mejdel. The ancient watch-tower which gave the place its name
is still there, probably standing on the same site as that which looked
down on Jesus and the Magdalene. To this day Magdala is cele-
brated for its springs and rivulets, which render it specially suitable
for dyeworks; while the shell-fish with which these waters and the
Lake are said to abound, '' might supply some of the dye.^
Such details may help us more clearly to realise the home, and
with it, perhaps, also the upbringing and circumstances of her who
not only ministered to Jesus in His Life, but, with eager avarice of
love, watched * afar off' His dying moments,'' and then sat over
against the new tomb of Joseph in which His Body was laid.'' And
the terrible time which followed she spent with her like-minded
friends, who in Galilee had ministered to Christ,** in preparing those
'spices and ointments'" which the Risen Saviour would never re-
quire. For, on that Easter-morning the empty tomb of Jesus was only
guarded 1)y Angel-messengers, who announced to the Magdalene and
Joanna, as well as the other women, "^ the gladsome tidings that His
foretold Resurrection had become a reality. But however difficult
the circumstances may have been, in which the Magdalene came to
profess her faith in Jesus, those oi' Joanna (the Hebrew Yochani-)
must have been even more trying. She was the wife oi'Chuza, Herod's
Steward'^ — possibly, though not likely, the Court-official whose son
Jesus had healed by the word spoken in Cana.*" Tlie absence of any
reference to the event seems rather opposed to this supposition. In-
deed, it seems doubtful, whether Chuzawds a Jewish name. In Jewish
writings^ the designation (^*i"i-)' seems rather used as a bv-namo
' It i.s at any rate remarkable tliat the
Talmud (.Meffiil. (i n) tiiid.-? in the ancient
territory of Zebuhui the Ckiho// ("T"") .so
largely used in dyeing purple and scar-
let, and so very precious. !-!i)ui'ious dyes
of tiie same coioui- were also produced
(comi). Lewi/soJiii, Zool. d. Talni. |)p.
281-28:^).
■^ Curiously enough, the rii-eek term
^;r/r/^jo;ro? (steward) lias passiMl jnio ihe
R a b 1 } i n ic A ph iteroph as.
•' Ddltzsch (Zeitsch. fiir Lulhei- Theol.
for 1876. p. .598). seems to re,2:ard /wre////
(.TTir) as the .Jewish etfuivalent of Ghuza.
The word is mentioned in the,l;v^c/i (ed.
Ldiidau, J). 801 h. wlicre the references,
however, are mis((U0ted) as occurrinir in
Ber. R. 2.'3 and ol. No existin.<r copy of
tiie Midrash has the.se references, wiiicli
seem to have been i)uri)o.sely onntte'l.
It is curious that both occur in connec-
tion with iMessianic passajjes. In any
case, however, Kiizith was not a ))ro|)er
name. ])ut some mvstic desiii'iiation.
THE RETURN JOlIUNEY TO GAPEllNAL'M. 573
("littlf i)it('li«'r ") for a .small, iusignilicaut person, than as a proper chap.
name.' Only one other of those who ministered to Jesus is mentioned XXII
by name. It is Susayina, the 'lily.' The names of the other loving ^— -v-*-^
women arc not written on the page of earth's history, but only on that
of tlie 'Lamb's Book of Life.' And they 'ministered to Ilim of their
substance.' So early did eternal riches appear in the garb of poverty;
so soon did love to Christ find its treasure in consecrating it to His
Ministry. And ever since has this been the law of His Kingdom, to
our great humiliation andyetgi'eater exaltation in fellowship with llim.
It was on this I'cturn-journi'y to Capernaum, probably not far
from the latter place. that the two blind men had their siuht restored." "St. Matt.
' ix. 27-31
It was then, also, that the healing of the demonised dumb took
l)lace, which is recorded in St. Matt. ix. 32-35, and alluded to in
St. Mark iii. 22-30. This narrative must, of course, not be con-
founded with the somewhat similar event told in St. Matt. xii.
22-32, and in St. Luke xi. 14-26. The latter occurred at a much
later period in our Loi'd's life, when, as the whole context sliows, the
opposition of the I'harisaic party had assunu'd much larger proi)or-
tions, and the language of Jesus was more fully denunciatory of the
character and guilt of His enemies. That charge of the' Pharisees,
therefore, that Jesus cast out the demons through the Prince of the
demons,'' as well as His rei)lv to it. will best be considered wlien it '-st. Matt.
. ix. 34
sliall api)ear in its fullest de\-elopment. This all the more, that we
believe at least the great(>r ])ai't of our Lord's answer to their blas-
l)hemous accusation, as >ii\eii in St. Mark's Gospel,' to have been '.'^^•oo^.?;^^
*■ . * 111. ^i—o\)
spoken at that later period. -
It was on this return-joui'ucy to Capernaum from the uttermost
borders of txalilee, when I'or the tirst time He was not only followed
by His twelve A])ostles, but attended by the loving service of those
who owed their all to Ills MiiiistiT. that the demonized dumb was
restoi'ed l)y the easting oul of the demon. Even these cii-eiimstances
show that a new stage in the Messianic course had begun. It is
characteriseil liy fuller unfolding of Christ's teaehing and working,
Li(//i/f()()f {Unvw lli^l)!'. oil LuUc \iii. '.'>) ■ linr BiizdJi.'
roail-^ ill tlic iivnealoiiT of Hiuiian (in ' Dr. XeuhraN'r (Stu'lia Hilii. p. 225)
S()i)lu>r. .\iii. (i) Bar Kiiza. Hut it is roicard.s Chiizn as an Idiinia'an name,
really Bar Bizn, -son of roiitciniit ' -all coiinooted v.Uh the Edoinile li'od A'ox.
the names lieiiia; intended as defamatory - 1 re.n'ard St. Marl'; iii. 2:!-;!0 as com-
ofllanian. Similarly. Litjhffoof asserts biniiiij the event in St. Matt. i.\. (see St.
that the de.-iiinafion doe.s not occur in Mark iii. 23) with what is recorded in St.
the f>;enealo^y of Jlamau in the Tariium Matt. xii. and St. Luke xi., and I account
Esther. But in the Second Tari!;um for this eombinalion by the circumstance
Esther (Miqraoth G-edol. Part vi. p. .'> a) that the latter is not related by St. Mark,
the name does occur in the nenealouy as
^u
FROM .lOKDAX TO THE MOUNT OF TIIANSFIGIRATION.
BOOK
III
• St. Matt,
xi. 16-10
'• St. Lukn
vii. 17
<• St. Matt.
ix. 31
J St. Mark
ill. 32
and, pari passu, by more fully developed opjxj.-^itioii of the Pharisaic
jiarty. For the two went together, nor can they Ix' <listingui.shed as
cause or eti'ect. 'L'hat new stage, as repeatedly noted, had oi)ened
on His return from the 'Unknown Feast' in Jerusalem, whence He
seems to have been followed by the Pharisaic i)arty. AVe have marked
it so early as the call of the four disciples by the Lake of Galilee.
P>ut it tlrst actively ap])eared at tlie healing of the i)aralytic in
Ca[)ernauin, when, for the first time, we noticed the presence and
murmuring of the Scribes, and, for the first time also, the distinct
declaration about the forgiveness of sins on the jjart of .I(^sus. The
same twofold element appeared in the call of the publican Matthew,
and the cavil of the Pharisees at Chrisfs subse(pient eating and
drinking with 'sinners." It was in further development of this sepa-
ration from the old and now hostile element, that the twelve Apostles
were next ajipointed, and that distinctive teaching of Jesus addressed
to the people in the ' Sermon on the Mount," which was alike a vin-
dication and an appeal. On the journey throngli (ialilee. which now
followed, the hostile party does not seem to have actually attended
Jesus; but their growing, and now outspoken opposition is heard in
the discourse of Christ about John tlie Baptist after the dismissal of
his disciples,'' while its influence appears in the unspoken thoughts of
Simon the Pharisee.
But even l)efore these two events, that had happened whicli
would induce the Pharisaic party to increased njeasures against
Jesus. It has already been suggested, that the party, as such, did
not attend Jesus on His Galilean journey. But we are emphatically
told, that tidings of the raising of the dead at Xain had gone forth
into Judaea.'' No doubt they reached the leaders at Jerusalem.
There seems just sufficient time l^etween this and the healing of the
<lemonised dumb on the return-journey to Capernaum, to account
for the presence there of those Pharisees," who are expressly described
by St. Mark"* as 'the Scribes which came down from Jerusalem.'
Other circumstances, also, are thus explainc<l. Whatever view
the leaders at Jerusalem may have taken of the raising at Xain, it
could no longei' be denied that miracles were wrought by Jesus.
At least, wlmt to us seem miracles, yet not to them, since, as Ave
have seen, ' miraculous " cures and the expelling of demons lay within
the sphere of their 'extraordinary ordinary' — were not miracles in
our sense, since they were, or professed to l)e, done l)y theii- • own
children." The mere fact, therefore, of such cures, woidd i)resent no
difrHMilt\ to them. To ns a sinjjle well-ascertained mii'acle would
TllK (^IKSTION: I5V WHAT I'OWKU JESUS DID .SUCH DEEDS? 575
tbrm iri-i'lragal)le cvidciicc of tlic claiiii.s of Clu'ist ; to tlitiii it woukl CHAP,
not. The}" could believe in thi' • iiiii-aele.-^,' ami yet not in the Christ. XXII
To them the question would not be, as to us, whether the}' were ^— — r^^-^
miracles — but, Hy wliat power, or in what Name, He did these deeds/
From (nir stan(li)oint, their oi)[)osition to the Christ wouhl — in view
of His Miracles — seem not only wicked, but rationally' inex})licable.
\^\\X ours was not their point of view. And here, ati,'ain, we perceive
that it was enmity to the Pei-son and TeadiliKj of Jesus which led
to the denial of His claims. The inquiry: By what I'ower Jesus did
these works? they met by the assertion, that it was through that of
Satan, or the Chief of the Demons. They regarded Jesus, as not
only tenq)orarily, but permanently, i)ossessed by a demon, that is, as
the constant vehicle of Satanic intiuence. And this demon was. ac-
cording to them, none other than Beelzebub, the ])rince of the de\ils.' »st. Mark
' ill. '22
Thus, in their view, it was really Satan who acted in and through Him:
and Jesus, instead of being recognised as the Son of God, was regarded
as an incarnation of Satan; instead of being owned as the Messiah,
was denounced and treated as the representative of the Kingdom of
Darkness. All this, because the Kingdom which He came to open,
and which He preached, was precisely the opposite of what they re-
garded as the Kingdom of God. Thus it "was the essential contra-
riety of Rabbinism to the Gospel of the Christ that lay at the
foundation of their conduct towards the Person of Christ. We ven-
ture to assert, that this accounts for the whole after-history uj) to the
Cross.
Thus viewed, the history of Pharisaic oi)position ai)pears not only
consistent, but is, so to si)eak, morally accounted for. Their guilt
lay in treating that as Satanic agency which was of the Holy Ghost;
and this, because they were of their father the Devil, and knew not,
nor underst(^od. nor yet loved the Light, their deeds l)eing evil.
They were not childi'en of the light, but of that darkness which com-
l)i'('li('uded Him not "Who was the Light. And now we can also
understand the growth of active o[)i)osition to Christ. Once ai'rived
at the conclusion, that the miracles which Christ did were due to tin-
power of Satan, and that He was the representative of the Evil One,
tlieir course was rationally and morally chosen. To I'cgard every
fresh manifestation of Christ's Power as only a fuller development of
the i)ower of Satan, and to oppose it with increasing deterniiuation
and hostility, even to the Cross: such was henceforth the natui-al
l)rogi-ess of this history. On the other hand, such a course once
fully settled ujion, there would, and could, be no further reasoning
578
FIJOM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
111
" St. Matt.
xil. 22 &c.
St. Luke
xi. U &c.
b St. Matt.
xi. 17, 18;
St. Luke
vii. 31-32
" St. Matt.
tx. 33, 34
rt St. Matt.
xii
. 46 &e. :
St.
Mark
iii.
31 &c.
St.
Luke
viii. 19 kc.
■^St
;. Matt.
ix.
11
'u.
s.ver. 14
with, or against it on the part of Jcsut^. llencdortli His Discourses
and attitude to such Judaism must be chietly denunciatory, while
still seeking — as, from the inward necessity of His Nature and the
outward necessity of His Mission, He must — to save the elect rem-
nant from this ' luitoward generation,' and to lay broad and wide the
foundations of the future Church. But the old hostile Judaism must
henceforth be left to the judgment of condemnation, except in those
tears of Divine i)ity which the Jew-King and Jewish Messiah wept
over the Jerusalem that knew not the day of its visitation.
But all this, when the now beginning movement shall have
reached its full proportions.* For the present, we mark only its first
appearance. The charge of Satanic agency was. indeed, not quite
new. It had been suggested, that Jolin the Baptist Imd 1)een under
demoniacal influence, and this cunning pretext for resistance to his
message had been eminently successful with the people.'' The same
charge, only in much fuller form, was now raised against Jesus.
As ' the multitude marvelled, saying, it was never so seen in Israel, '
the Pharisees, without deining the facts, had tliis explanation of
them, to be presently developed to all its terrible consequences: that,
both as regarded the casting out of the demon from the dumb man
and all similar works, Jesus wrought it ' through the Ruler of the
Demons.' " ^
And so the edge of this manifestation of the Christ was blunted
and broken. But their ])esetinent of the Christ did not cease. It is
to this that we attribute the visit of Hhe mother and brethren ' of
Jesus, which is recorded in the three Synoptic Gospels.'' Even this
circumstance shows its decisive importance. It forms a parallel to the
tbrmer attempts of the Pharisees to influence the disciples of Jesus,"
and then to stir up the hostility of the disciples of John, ^6o^7io/^6'/i^e^
are recorded by the three Evangelists. It also 1)rought to light another
distinctive characteristic of the Mission of Jesus. We place this visit
of the 'mother and brethren' of Jesus immediately after His return
to Capernaum, and we attril)ute it to Pharisaic opposition, which
either filled those relatives of Jesus with fear for His safety, or made
them sincerely concerned about His proceedings. Only if it meant
some kind of interference with His ]\Hssion, whether jirompted by
fear oi' atfectiou, would Jesus have so diso\vue<l tlieir relationship.
' ' At the same time I have, with not a
few authorities, strong doubts whether
St. Malt. ix. M is not to be reirardert as
an Interpolation (see Wpstcott aiid Ilorf,
New Testament). Substantially, the
charfje was there ; but it seems doubtful
whether, in so many icords, it was made
till a later period.
i. 1
CIIRI^^T IX RKLATIOX To HIS MoTIlKir AND • I!IM:Tni.'P:X.' 57f
J>ut it lucaiit more tliaii thi.s. As always, tlic positive went side CHAP.
by side with the negative. Without going so far, as with some of XXII
the Fathers, to see pride or ostentation in tliis, that the Virgin- ^— — r'— ^
Mother summoned Jesus to her outside the house, since the opi)Osite
might as well have been her motive, we cannot l)ut regard the words
of Clirist as the sternest i)rophetic rel)uke of all Mariolatrj', prayer
for the Virgin's intercession, and, still more, of tlie strange doctrines
about her freedom from actual and original sin, up to their prurient
sequence in the dogma of the ' Innnaculate Conception."
On the other hand, we also rememljer the deep reverence among
the Jews for parents, which found even exaggerated expression in
the Talmud.-'' And we feel that, of all in Israel, He, Who was their ».Jer. Peah
King, could not have spoken nor done what might even seem tlisre-
spectful to a mother. There must have been higlier meaning in His
words. That meaning would be better understood after His Resur-
rection. But even before that it was needful, in presence of inter-
ference or hindrance by earthly relationships, even the nearest and
tenderest, and perhaps all the more in their case, to point to the
higher and stronger spiritual relationship. And beyond this, to still
higher truth. For, had Pie not entered into earthly kinship solely
for tlie sake of the higher spiritual relationship Avhich He was about
to found; and was it not, then, in the most literal sense, that not
those in nearest earthly relati(jnship, but they who sat ' about Him,
nay, whoever shall do the will of God," were really in closest kinship
with Him? Thus, it was not tluit Christ set lightly by His Mother,
l)ut that He confounded not the means with the end, nor yet sur-
rendered the spirit for the letter of the Law of Love, when, refusing
to he arrested or turned aside from His Mission, even for a moment,^
He elected to do the Will of His Father rather than neglect it by
attending to the wishes of the A^irgin-Mother. As Bengel aptly puts
it: He contemns not the Mother, but He places the Father first.*
And this is ever the right relationslii}) in the Kingdom of Heaven!
• An instance oftlii:^ lias been ,ii;iven in - Benr/el remarks on St. Matt. xii. AG:
the previous chai)ter, p. 5G7, note. Other ' Non plane hie conii-ruebat sensus Marise
examples of tilial reverence are men- cum sensu Filii.'
tioned, some painfully ludicrous, others '^ ■ Non speruit Matrem, sed autepouit
touching, and accompanied by sayinii's Patrem.'
wiiich sometimes rise to the sublime.
578
FllOM JC>KDAN TO THE AlOU^'T OF TKAlNttFlGUKATIUM.
CHAl'TKR XXI II.
BOOK
III
« St. Matt,
Vll. 25
'' u. s. vi,
28-30
« Tii. 16-20
NEW TEACHING ' IN PARABLES " — THE ]\VRABLE8 TO THE PEOPLE BY THE
LAKE OF GALILEE, AND TH08E TO THE DISCIPLES IN CAPERNAUM.
(St. Matt. xiii. 1-52; St. Mark iv. 1-34; St. Luke viii. 4-18.)
AVE ai'c once more with Je^iis and His disciples by the Lake of
(xalih'e. We love to think that it was in the early morning;, when
' — ' tlic liii'lit laid its o-oldcn shadows on the still waters, and the fresh air,
iiutiiiiitcd l)y man, was fragrant of earth's morning sacrifice, Avhen no
\i)ic(' of liiimnn discord marred the restfnlness of holy silence, nor
l)roke tlie J'salm of Nature's i)raise. It Avas a spring morning too, and
of such spring-time as oidy the East, and chiefly the Galilean Lake,
knows — not of mingled sunshine and showers, of warmth and storm,
clouds and l)iMg]itness, when life seems to return slowly and feehly to
the i)alsicd limbs ot our northern climes, but when at the warm touch
it l)ounds and throl)s with the vigour of youth. The imagery of the
'Sermon on tlic Mount' indicates that Avinter's rain and storms were
just past.' lender that sky Nature seems to meet tlie coming of
spring ])y arraying herself in a garb more glorious than Solomon's
royal pomp. Almost suddenly the blood-red anemones, the gay
tulijis, the sj)otless narcissus, and the golden ranunculus^ deck with
wondrous I'ichness the grass of the fields — alas! so soon to wither'' —
while all trees put forth their fragrant promise of fruit." As the
imagery cnii>loyed in the Sermon on the Mount confirmed the
inference, otherwise derived, that it was spoken during the brief
period after tlie winter rains, when the ' lilies ' decked the fresh grass,
so the scene dej^icted in the Parables spoken by the Lake of Galilee
indicates a more advanced season, when the fields gave first promise
' It adds interest to tliese Solomon-like
lilies that the Mishnah desiijnates one
class of them, s^rowin;; in fields and vine-
yards, by the name ' roj'al lilv ' (Kil.
V. 8. Bab. Talmud, p. 29 a). At t'li(> same
time, the term used by our Lord neeil not
be confined to • lilies " in the strictest
sense. 11 may represent the whole wild
flora of spring-, cliiefiy the anemones
(com)). Tristram. Nat. Ilist. of tlie Bible,
pj). 4fi2-46.'>). A word with the same
letters as Kpivoi ithouich of difl'erent
nu'anins;) is the Rabbinic Ndrkcs. the
narcissus — of course that N"2~1 tof
fields), not ND^ilji"! (of gardens). .
TIIH TIIHHE SERIES OF I'AIiAliLES. 579
(»r a liai'vcst. to he gathered in due time. And as we know tJiat the CHAP.
barh'y-liarvest coninicnced with the i^assover, we cannot be mistaken XVW
in supposing that tlic scene is laid a few wx'eks bctbrc that Feast. ^- — , — '
Other evidence of this is not wanting. From the ojjcning
verses "we infer, that Jesus had gone forth from ' the house ' with si. Matt.
' xiU. 1. 2
His disciples only, and that, as He sat by the seaside, the gathering-
multitude had obliged Him to enter a ship, whence He spake unto
them many things in Parables. That this parabolic teaching did not
follow, far less, was caused by, the fully developed enmity of the
Pharisees,''' will appear more clearly in the sequel. Meantime it 'st. Matt.
should be noticed, that the first series of Parables (those spoken by
the Lake of Galilee) bear no distinct reference to it. In this resi)cct
we mark an ascending scale in the three series of Parables, spoken
respectively, at three different periods in the History of Christ, and
with reference to three ditferent stages of Pharisaic opposition and
popular feeling. The first series is that," when Pharisaic opposition ■ st. Matt.
had just devised the explanation that His works Avere of demoniac
agency, and when misled atiection would have converted the ties of
earthly relationship into bonds to hold the Christ. To tliis there
was only one reply, when the Christ stretched out His Hand over
those who had learned, by Ibllowing Him, to do the Will of His
Heavenly Father, and so become His nearest of kin. This was the
real answer to the attempt of His mother and brethren; that to the
Phai'isaic charge of Satanic agency. And it was in this connection
that, first to the multitude, then to His disciples, the first series of
Parables was spoken, which exhibits the elementary truths concerning
the planting of the Kingdom of Uod, its development, reality, value,
and final vindication.
In the second series of Parables we mark a' different stage. The
fifteen Parables of which it consists'' were spoken after the Trans- -ist. Luke
figuration, on the descent into the Valley of Humiliation. They also xvuZ!"
concern the Kingdom of God, but, although the prevailing character- ^'^^^""
istic is still -pare net iv,'- or, rather, p]vaiigelic, they luave a controversial
aspect also, as against some vital, active opposition to the Kingdom,
chiefly on the part of the I'hai'isees. Accordingly, they appear
among 'the Discourses' (»f Christ,'' and are connected with \\w "St. Luke
. . xi.-xiv.
climax of Pharisaic opposition as presented in the charge, in its
' This seems to be the view of Goehel Herrii, Berlin 1884) is very disai)pointiii^-.
in Ills ' Parabeln Jesu.' a book to wliieli - Admonitory, iiortatory — a term used
I would here, in .i^eneral, ackno\vled,2;e my in thenloicy. of wliich it is not easy to
oliligations. The latest work on the ijive the exact etinivalent.
subject {F. L. Steinmrypr, d. Par. d.
580
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
^ St. Matt,
xvili., XX.,
xxl., xxll.
xxiv.,xxv.
St. Luke
xix.
• St. Mark
iv. 11
most fully developed Ibriii, that Je«us was, so to speak, the lucaruatioii
of Satan, the eoustaut medium and vehicle ol" his activity.'' This
2vas the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, All the Parables spoken
at that period bear more or less direct reference to it, though, as
already stated, as yet in positive rather than negative form, the
Evangelic element in them being primary, and the judicial only
secondary.
This or^ler is reversed in the third series, consisting of eight Par-
ables." Here the controversial has not only the ascendency over the
Evangelic element, but the tone has become judicial, and the Evan-
gelic element appears chiefly in the form of certain predictions con-
nected with the coming end. The Kingdom of God is presented in its
final stage of ingathering, sei)aration, reward and loss, as, indeed, we
might expect in the teaching of the Lord immediately before His
final rejection by Israel and betrayal into the hands of the Gentiles.
This internal connection between the Parables and the History of
Christ best explains their meaning. Their artificial grouping (as by
mostly all modern critics ') is too ingenious to be true. One thing,
however, is common to all the Parables, and forms a point of connec-
tion l)etween them. They are all occasioned by some unreceptiveness on
the part of the hearers, and that, even when the hearers are professing
disciples. This seems indicated in the reason assigned by Christ to
the disciples for His use of parabolic teaching: that unto them it was
'given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God. but unto them
that are without, all these things are done in parables."' And this
may lead uj) to such general remarks on the Parables as are necessary
for their understanding.
Little infonuation is to lie gained from discussing the etymology
of the Avord Parcbk'.' The verb from which it is derived means to
project; and the term itself, the placing of one thing by the side
f)f another. Perhaps no other mode of teaching was so common
among the Jews ^ as that by Parables. Only in their case, they
were almost entirely illustrations of what had been said or taught;*
' Even Goehel, thouji;li ri^litly following
the purely historical method, has, in the
interest of so-called higher criticism,
attempted such artificial grouping.
-' From TtcxpaftdXXoD, iivojicio, ad-
moveo rem rei. coniparationis causa
{Grimm). Little can be learned from the
classical definitions of the TtapafinX)}.
See Archljishop Trench on the I'arables.
^ F. L. Steiiimeyer has most strangely
attempted to deny this. Yet every
ancient Rabbinic work is literally fii'n
of paraljles. In Sanh. 38 b we read that
R. Meir's discourses consisted in third of
legal determinations, in third of Hagga-
dah, and in tliird of parables.
■* I am here referring only to the form,
not the substance, of se Jewish
parables.
THE PARABOLIC TEACHING OF TIH-] .JEWS AM) OF (HinST.
581
while, in the case of Christ, the}' s(^'1'vim1 as llie tbuiidatiou for His
teaching. In the one ease, the light of earth was cast heavenwards,
in the other, that of heaven earthwards; in the one case, it was in-
tended to make si)iritual teaching appear Jewish and national, in the
other to convey spiritual teaching in a tbrm adapted to the stand-
point of the hearers. This distinction will be found to hold true,
even in instances where there seems the closest parallelism between
a Rabbinic and an Evangelic Parable. On further examination, the
difference between them will appear not merely one of degree, but
of kind, or rather of standpoint. This may be illustrated ])y the
Paral)le of the woman who made anxious search for her lost coin,'* to
which there is an almost literal Jewish parallel.'' But, whereas in
the Jewish Parable the morid is, that a man ought to take much
greater jjains in the study of the Torah than in the search for coin,
since the former procures an eternal reward, while the coin would, if
found, at most only procure temporary enjoyment, the Parable of
Christ is intended to set forth, not the merit of study or of works,
but the compassion of the Saviour in seeking the lost, and the joy
of Heaven in his recovery. It need scarcely be said, that comparison
between such Parables, as regards their spirit, is scarcely possible,
except by way of contrast.'
But, to return. In Jewish writings a Parable {Jlimshal, Mashal,
Mathla) is introduced by some such formula as this: '■ I will tell
thee a parable' fr:,-'; "? tIw^n). 'To what is the thing like? To
one,' &c. Often it begins more briefly, thus: ' A Parable. To what
is the thing like?' or else, simply: 'To what is the thing like?'
Sometimes even this is omitted, and the Parable is indicated by the
preposition '■ to ' at the beginning of the illustrative story. Jewish
writers extol Paral)les, as placing the meaning of the Law within
range of the comprehension of all men. The ' Avise King ' had intro-
duced this method, the usefulness? of which is illustrated by the Parable
of a great palace which had many doors, so that people lost their way
in it, till one came who fastened a ball of thread at the chief entrance.
when all could readily lind their way in and out.'' p]ven this will
illustrate what has been said of the difference between Rabbinic
Parables and those employed l)y our Lord.
The general distinction between a Paral)le and a Proverb, Fable
iind Allegorv, cannot here be discussed at lenu-th.'- It will sufficientlv
CHAP.
XXIII
« St. Luke
XV. 8-10
!> In the
Midrash on
Cant. i. 1
"^ Midr. OB
Cant. i. 1
' It is, indeefl, itossiljle that the frame-
work of some of Clirist's Parables may
have been adopted and adapted by later
Rabbis. No one who knows the earlv
intefconrse between .lews and Jewi.sh
Christians would deny this d priori.
- I must here refer to the various
Biblical Dictionaries, to Professor We.tf-
582
i;()M JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
•■' St. Matt.
XX iv. 32:
St. Mark
iii. 23:
St. LukP
V. 36
!• St. Luke
iv. 23
•= St. Matt.
XV. lo
appear Iroiii the eliaracter and the cliararteristierf of tlie I'lirablcs of
our Tjord. That designation is, indeed, sometimes applied to wliat
are not l*iiral)les, in the strictest sense; while it is wanting where
we might have expected it. Thus, in the Synoptic Gospels illustra-
tions," and even proverbial sayings, such as ' Physician, heal thyself,"'
or that about the blind leading the blind, "^ are designated Parables.
Again, the te-rm ' Parable,' although used inour Authorised Version,
does not occur in the original of St. John's Gospel; and this, although
not a few illustrations used in that Gospel might, on superficial ex-
amination, appear to be Parables. The term must, therefore, be here
restricted to special conditions. The first of these is, that all Para-
bles bear reference to well-known scenes, such as those of daily
life; or to events, either real, or such as every one would exi)e(t in
given circumstances, or as would be in accordance with i)rev;iiling
notions. '
Such pictures, familiar to the popular mind, are in the Parable
connected with corresponding spiritual realities. Yet, here also,
there is that which distinguishes the Parable from the mere illus-
tration. The latter conveys no more than — perhaps not so much as —
that which was to be illustrated ; while the Parable conveys this and
a great deal beyond it to those, who can follow up its shadows to
the light by which they have been cast. In truth, Parables are the
outlined shadows — large, perhaps, and dim — as the light of heavenly
things falls on well-known scenes, which correspond to, and have their
higher counterpart in spiritual realities. For, earth and heaven are
twin-parts of His works. And, as the same law, so the same order,
prevails in them; and they form a grand unity in their relation to
the Living God Who reigneth. And, just as there is ultimately but
one Law^, one Force, one Life, which, variously working, effects and
affects all the Phenomenal in the material universe, however diverse
it may seem, so is there but one Law and Life as regards the intel-
lectual, moral — nay, and the spiritual. One Law, Force, and Life.
l)inding the earthly and the heavenly into a Grand Unity — the out-
come of the Divine Unity, of which it is the manifestation. Thus
things in earth and heaven are kindred, and the one may become
to us Parables of the other. And so, if the place of our resting l)e
Bethel, they become Jacob's ladder, by which those from heaven come
down to earth, and those from earth ascend to heaven.
Another characteristic of the Parables, in the stricter sense, is
cott\<> Introduction to the Study of the
Gospels (pp. 28, 286), and to the works
of Archb'.sliop Trench and Dr. Goebel.
' Every reader of the Gospels will be
able to distinsruish these various classes.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARABLES. 5H3
tliut ill tluMii the whole pictui-c or narrative is used in illii>tratioii ol' CHAP.
some heaveiilj teacliiii,ii-, and not nierelv one feature or piiase of it,' XXHI
as in some of the parabolic illustrations and jiroverbs of the Syuop- ^— -y-^--^
tists, or the para))olie narratives of the Foiirtii (losjx'l. Thus, in the
parabolic illustrations ab(jut the new jiieee of eloth on the old ii'ar-
ment/' about the blind leadinii- the blind,'' about the forth-i)uttiim- of ■ si. Luke
V. 30
leaves on the ti<»--tree;' or m the iiarabolie proverb, • riiysieian. heal ,,j^j j,,,.^
thyself;"'' or in such iiarabolie narratives of St. John, as about the ■^'*- •*'•'
Good Shepherd,' or the Vine ' — in each case, only-one part is selected xxiV. 32
as parabolic. On the other hand, even in the shortest Parables, such i^?^'"^''
as those of the seed growing secretly," the leaven in the meal,'' and '■st-j.-imx.
the ])earl of great price,' the picture is complete, and has not only in ^^t. John
one feature, but in its whole bearing, a counteri)art in s])iritual -st. Mark
' Iv. -26- 29
realities. But, as shown 111 the Paral)le of the seed growing secretly," 1, st. Man.
it i# not necessary that the Parable shonld always contain some nar- -'^"'- *^
rative, provided that not only one feature, but the whole thing related. ,, ^t! Mark
have its spiritual application. '^- -'^^'''
In view of what has been explained, the arrangement of the
Parables into ■'^j/iubolical and tiipical' can only ai)ply to their form,
not their substance. In the first of these classes a scene from nature
or from life serves as basis for exlii])iting the corresi)onding si)iritual
reality. In the latter, what is related serves as type (rt'Trocr). not in
the ordinary sense of that term, but in that not nnfrequent in
Scripture: as example — whether for imitation,'" or in w^arninii-." In "'^Piiii;.'''-
1 1 _ _ ' ' _ 17 : 1 Tim.
the typical Paral)les the illnstration lies, so to speak, on the outside: j^- 1'^*
in the symbolical, within the narrative or scene. The former are to n
be applied; the latter must be explained.
It is here that the characteristic difference between the various
classes of hearers la}'. All the Paraliles. indeed, implied some back-
ground of opi^osition. or else of unreceptiveness. In the record of
this first series of them," the fact that Jesus spake to the jn'ople in .i^fj', ■^^""'
Parables.'' and o/?/?/ in Parables,'' is strongly marked. It a])])ears, rst. Man.
. ' ■ . xiii. 3. and
therefore, to have been the first time that this mode of popular ])araiieis
'I St. Matt,
xili. :;4:
St. Mark
iv. :«. ;u
method.' The answer of the Lord makes a distinction between those ^st. Matt.
xlii. 11), and
teaching was adopted by him.'* Accordingly, the disciples not only
expressed their astonishment, but iiKpiired the reason of this novel
Ijarallels
' Cremer (Lox. of X. T. Greek, p. 124) ■' Tii tlie Old Testament there are para-
lays stress on the idea of a comparison, l)olic desoriptioiis and utterances — esjje-
which is manifestly incorrect; Goebel, cially in Ezekiel (xv. ; xvi. ; xvii. : .\ix.),
witli not much better reason, on that of and a fal)le (.lud;;-. ix. 7-15). l)iit only
a narrative form. two ParaV)les: the one tiipival (2 Sam.
'■^ So by (roe^e/. xii. l-(i). theother.s7//»yw/Kv//(Is. v. 1-6).
584
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» St. Matt.
xiii. 36, 44-
52
'• St. Matt.
xi. 13-17
« St. Matt.
xiii. 1-9, 24-
33
■J St. Matt,
xlli. 13-15
to whom it is given to know tho mysteries of the Kingdom, and
those to whom all things wore done in Parables. But, evidently,
this method of teaching eould not have lieen adopted for the people,
in (Mtntradistinetion to the disciples, and as ajudicial measure, since
even in the first series of Parables three were addressed to the dis-
ciples, after the people had been dismissed.^ On the other hand, in
answer to the disciples, the Lord specially marks this as the ditfer-
ence between the teaching vouchsafed to them and the Parables
spoken to the people, that the designed effect of the latter was
judicial: to complete that hardening which, in its commencement,
had been caused by their voluntary rejection ol' what they had heard."
But, as not only the people, but the disciples also, were taught by
Parables, the hardening effect must not be ascribed to the parabolic
mode of teaching, now for the first time adopted by Christ. Nor is
it a sufficient answer to the question, by what this darkening effect,
and hence hardening influence, of the Parable on the people was
caused, that the first series, addressed to the multitude,"' consisted
of a cumulation of Paral)les, without any hint as to their meaning
or interpretation.^ For, irrespective of other considerations, these
Parables were at least as easily understood as those spoken imme-
diately afterwards to the disciples, on which, similarly, no comment
was given by Jesus. On the otlier hand, to us at least, it seems
clear, that the ground of the different effect of the Parables on the
unbelieving multitude and on the believing disciples was not objec-
tive, or caused by the substance or form of these Parables, but sub-
jective, being caused by the different standpoint of the two classes of
hearers toward the Kingdom of God.
This explanation removes what otherwise would be a serious
difficulty. For, it seems impossible to believe, that Jesus had adopted
a special mode of teaching for the purpose of concealing the truth,
which might have saved those who heard Hini. His words, indeed,
indicate that such icas the effect of the Parables. But they also
indicate, with at least equal clearness, that the cause of this harden-
ing lay, not in the parabolic method of teaching, but in the state of
spiritual insensibility at which, by their own guilt, they had pre-
viously arrived. Through this, what might, and, in other circum-
stances, would, have conveyed spiritual instruction, necessarily be-
came tliat which still further and fatally darkened and dulled their
minds and hearts. Thus, their own hardening merged into the
judgment of hardening.''
' !^o even Goehd (i. \)\). ?>?>-A'l. uiid especially p. 38.)
THE 'MYSTERIES OK THE KlN(;i)().M.-
585
We are now in soiue nu'a.surc abU: to uiKlcrstaiKl, why Christ now cHAP.
for the lirst time adopted })arabolic teaehing. Its reason lay in the XXHI
altered eircuinstances of the ease. All his former teaehiug had been ^— ^-r^^
plain, although initial. In it He had set forth by Word, and ex-
hibited by faet (in miraeles), that Kingdom of God which He had
come to open to all believers. The hearers had now ranged them-
selves into two parties. Those who, whether temporarily or perma-
nently (OS the result would show), had admitted these premisses,
so far as they understood them, were His ))rofessing diseiples. On
the other iiand, tlie iMiarisaie party had now devised a consistent
theory, according to which the acts, and hence also the teaching,
of Jesus, were of Satanic origin. Christ must still i^reach the
Kingdom; lor that purpose had he come into tiie woi-ld. Only, the
presentation of that Kingdom nnist now be for (lecision. It must
separate the two classes, leading the one to clearer understanding of
the mysteries of the Kingdom — of what not oidy seems, l)ut to our
limited thinking really is, mysterious: while the other class of
hearers would now regard these mysteries as wholly unintelligible,
incredible, and to 1)0 rejected. And the ground of this lay in the
respective i)ositions of these two classes towards tiie Kingdom.
'Whosoever hath, to him shall b(^ given, and lie shall have more
abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away
even that he hath.' And the mysterious manner in which they were
presented in Parables was alike suited to, and corresponded with,
the character of these 'mysteries of the Kingdom,' now set forth, not
for initial instruction, but for tinal decision. As the light from
heaven falls on earthly objects, the shadows are cast. 13ut our
perception of them, and its mode, depend on the i)osition which we
occupy relatively to that Light.
And so it was not only l)est, luit most niercirul, that these
mysteries of substance should now, also, be ])resented as mysteries
of form in Tarables. Here each would see aecoi'ding to his standjioint
towards the Kingdom. And this was in turn determined by i)revious
acceptance or rejection of that ti'uth, which had foi'merly been set
fortli in a plain form in the teaclung and aetingof the Christ. Tims,
while to the opened eyes and hearing eai's of tlu' one class would be
disclosed that, which prophets and i-ighteous men of old had desired
but not attained, to them who had voluntarily cast aside what they
had, would only come, in their seeing and hearing, the final judgment
of hardening. So would it be to each according to his standpoint.
To the one would come the grace of final revelation, to the other the
586 FKOM .lOlJD.VX TO THE MOUNT OF TIJAXSFIOllfATlON.
liOOK filial judgiiu'ut which, in the tiist i)hic(', liad hccu of tlicirowiiclioice,
HI l)iit which, as they voluiitaril} occupied their ijo.sitioii rehitively to
— '-,' — ' Chri.st, had grown into the fultiinient of the teiTil)le prediction of
■' Is. vi. '.1,10 Esaias concerning the final hardening of Israel.''
Thus much in general explanation. The record of the first series
'■St. Mail, ol" Parables '' contains three separate accounts: that of the Parables
spoken to the peoi)le: that of the reason for the use of parabolic
teaching, and the ex})lanation of the first Parables (both addressed to
the disciples); and, finally, another series of I'aral)les spoken to the
disciples. To each of these we must briefly address ourselves.
On that bright sjn'ing morning, when Jesus spoke from ' the ship'
to the multitude that crowded the shore. He addressed to them these
four Parables: concerning Ilini Who sowed,' concerning the Wheat
and the Tares, concerning the Mustard-Seed, and concerning the
Leaven. The first, or ))erhaps the two first of these, must be supj)le-
mented by what may be designated as a ffth Parable, that of the
Seed growing unol)servedly. This is the only Parable of which St.
-St. Mark Mark alone has preserved the record.'' All these Parables refer, as is
expressly stated, to the Kingdom of (jod; that is, not to any special
l)hase or characteristic of it, but to the Kingdom itself, or, in other
words, to its history. They are all such as befit an open-air address
at that season of the year, in that locality, and to those hearers.
And yet there is such gradation and develoi)inent in them as might
well point upwards and onwards.
The first Parable is that of Him Who sowed. We can almost
picture to ourselves the Saviour seated in the prow of the Ijoat, as He
l)oints His hearers to the rich jilain over against Him. where the
young corn, still in the fii'st green of its growing, is giving i)roniise
of harvest. Like this is the Kingdom of Heaven which He has come
to proclaim. Like what? Not yet like that harvest, which is still
. in the future, but like that field over there. The Sower'-' has gone
foith to sow t\w. Good Seed. W we bear in mind a mode of sowing
ix'culiar (if we are not mistaken) to those times, the Parable gains
in vividness. According to Jewish authorities there Avas twofold
sowing, as the seed was eithei- cast by the hand (t T"*^":) <»i" by
•'Aiacii. means of cattle (cins' riTiS':'')- In tbc latter case, a sack with
-j.Ta. hneiH ]j^^j|,^ ^^,.j^ filled with com and laid on the back of tlie animal, so that,
as it moved onwards, the seed was thickly scattered. Thus it might
well be, that it would fall indiscriminately on beaten roadway.'' on
' The correct rcadiiii;- ill Sl. ^[att. \iii. -' Willi tin- lU'liiiilc articlf not -a
is is ruv mtfifj^xyroi, not a7n ijjuvro^ 8uvver.' us in our A.V., but the Sower.
ii.-> in tlic T. H. ■' TtaftCL zip' oSoi', not Ttapa rov
fiviiu
JjottolU
THE TARABLE OF THE SOWEK. 537
stony places but tliiiily covered witli soil, or where the thoi'iis had chap.
not l)ccn cleared away, or undergrowth I'roui the thorn-hedge ci'ept XXHI
into the field, ^ as well as on good ground. The result in each ease ^— ',^*-^
need not here be repeated. But what meaning would all this con-
vey to the Jevvisli hearers of Jesus? How could this sowing and
growing be like the Kingdom of God? Certainly not in the sense
in which they expected it. To them it was only a i-ich harvest, when
all Israel would bear plenteous fruit. Again, what was the Seed,
and who the Sower? or what could be meant by the various kinds
of soil and their unproductiveness?
To us, as explained b}^ the Lord, all this seems i)lain. But to
them there could be no possibility of understanding, but much occa-
sion for misunderstanding it, unless, indeed, they stood in right
relationship to the * Kingdom of God. ' The initial condition requisite
was to believe that Jesus was the Divine Sower, and His Word the
Seed of the Kingdom: no other Sower than He, no other Seed of the
Kingdom than His Word, li' this were admitted, they had at least
the right premisses for understanding 'this mystery of the Kingdom.'
According to Jewish view the Messiah was to appear in outward
pomp, and by display of power to establish the Kingdom. But this
was the very idea of the Kingdom, with which Satan had tempted
Jesus at the outset of His Ministry.- In opposition to it was this
'mystery of the Kingdom,' according to which it consisted in recep-
tion of the Seed of the Word. That reception would depend on the
nature of the soil, that is, on the mind and heart of the hearers.
The Kingdom of God was loithln: it came neither by a display of
power, nor even by this, that Israel, or else the Gospel-hearers, were
the field on which the Seed of the Kingdom was sown. He had
brought the Kingdom: the Sower had gone forth to sow. This was
of free grace — the Gospel. But the seed might lall on the roadside,
and so perish without even springing \\\). (Jr it might fall on rocky
soil, and so spring up rapidly, l)ut wither before it showed promise of
fruit. Or it might fiill where thorns grew along with, and more
rapidly than, it. And so it would, indeed, show promise of fruit;
the corn might ajipear in the ear; but that fruit would not come to
ripeness ('bring no fruit to perfecti(ni " '), because the thorns grow- '^.fj\- ^"^®
ing more rapidly woiUd choke the corn. Lastly, to this threefold
dypov. I cauiiot uii(UM\staii(l how tliis 011 tlie lii,ii;liway.
voiul fould be within tlit* i)Iouf;iied and ' Conip. the sli.^iit variations in the
tJdwed tield. Our view is further con- tlu'ee Gospels.
lirinedby St. Luke viii. ."), where the seed is - Oonip. tlie ciiapter on tlie Tenipla-
described as • trodden down' — evidently tion.
588 FIJOM .lOUDAX TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK faultiiiess ofsoil, tliroii.uii which the seed did not spring up at all, or
in merely sprung up, or just reached the promise, but not the perfec-
^•— "V*-^ tion ofl'ruit, corresi)ondcd a threefold degree of fruit-bearing in the
soil, according to which it brought forth thirtyfold, sixtyfold, or an
hundredfold, in the varying measure of its capacity.
If even the disciples failed to comprehend the Avhole bearing of
this 'Mystery of the Kingdom," Ave can believe how utterly strange
and un-Jew'ish such a Parable of the Messianic Kingdom must have
sounded to them, who had been influenced by the Pluirisaic repre-
sentations of the Person and Teaching of Christ. And yet the while
these very hearers were, unconsciously to themselves, fulfilling wliat
Jesus was speaking to them in the Parable!
• St. Mark Whether or not the Parable recorded by St. ]\Iark alone/ con-
Iv. 26-29
cerning the Seed growing unobservedly, was spoken afterwards in
private to the disciples, or, as seems more likely, at the first, and to
the people by the sea-shore, this appears the fittest place for insert-
ing it. If the first Paral^le, concerning the Sower and the Field of
Sowing, would prove to all who were outside the pale of discipleshij)
a 'mystery,' while to those within it would unfold knowledge of the
very mysteries of the Kingdom, this would even more fully l)e the
case in regard to this second or supplementary Parable. In it we
are only viewing that portion of the field, which the foi-mer Paralile
had described as good soil. ' So is the Kingdom of God, as if a man
had cast the seed on the earth, and slept and rose, night and day,
and the seed sprang up and grew: how, he knows not liimself
Automatons' [self-acting] the earth beareth fruit: first blade, then
ear, then full wheat in the ear! But when the fruit presents itself,
immediately he sendeth forth ^ the sickle, because the harvest is
come.' The meaning of all this seems plain. As the Sower, after
the seed has been cast into the ground, can do no more; he goes to
sleep at night, and rises by day, the seed the meanwhile growing, the
Sower knows not how, and as his activity ceases till the time that the
fruit is ripe, when immediately he thrusts in the sickle — so is the
Kingdom of God. The seed is sown; but its growfh goes on,
dependent on the law inherent in seed and soil, dependent also on
Heaven's blessing of sunshine and showers, till the moment of ripe-
ness, when fhe harvest-time is come. We can only go about our
' I would here reniai-k in jjeneral, that succession of the words.
I have always adojitcd what seemed to '^ This is a Hebraism — ex))laining the
me the best attested i-eadings, an<l en- Hebrew use of the verlj ri-^Z in anuio-
deavoured to transhite literally, i)reserv- gous circumstances,
in.ir. where it seemed desirable, even the
THE TARABLE OF THE TARES AMONG THE WHEAT.
589
(Uiily work, or lie down to rest, as da}' and night alternate; we see, but
know not the how of the growth of the seed. Yet, assuredly it will
ripen, and when that moment has arrived, immediately the sickle is
thrust in, for the harvest is come. And so also with the Sower.
His outward activity on earth was in the sowing, and it will be in
the harvesting. What lies between them is of that other Dispensa-
tion of the Spirit, till He again send forth His reapers into His field.
But all this must have been to those * without ' a great mystery, in
no wise compatible with Jewish notions; while to them 'Avithin' it
proved a yet greater, and very needful unfolding of the mysteries of
the Kingdom, with very wide application of them.
The ' mystery ' is made still further mysterious, or else it is
still further unfolded, in the next Parable concerning the Tares
sown among the Wheat. According to the common view, these
Tares represent what is botanically known as the ' bearded Darnel '
(Lolium temulentum), a poisonous rye-grass, very common in the
East, ' entirely like wheat until the ear appears,' or else (according
to some), the ' creeping wheat ' or ' couch-grass ' {Triticum rejoens), of
which the roots creep underground and become intertwined with
those of the wheat. But the Parable gains in meaning if we bear in
mind that, according to ancient Jewish (and, indeed, modern Eastern)
ideas, the Tares were not of different seed, "but only a degenerate kind
of wheat." Whether in legend or symbol, Rabbinism has it that even
the ground had been guilty of fornication before the judgment of the
P'lood, so that when wheat was sown tares sprang up." The Jewish
hearers of Jesus would, therefore, think of these tares as degenerate
kind of wheat, originally sprung at the time of the Flood, through
the corruptness of the earth, but now, alas! so common in their
fields; wholly undistinguishable from the wheat, till the fruit ap-
peared: noxious, poisonous, and requiring to be separated from the
wheat, if the latter was not to become useless.
With these thoughts in mind, let us now try to realise the scene
pictured. Once more we see the field on which the corn is growing
— we know not how. The sowing time is past. ' The Kingdom of
Heaven is become * like to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
But in the time that men sleep came his enemy and over-sowed tares ^
in (upon) the midst ^ of the wheat, and went away.' Thus far the
picture is true to nature, since such deeds of enmity were, and still
CHAP.
XXHI
' The tense should here be marked.
* The Greek Zi^dviov is represented
l)V the Hebrew ^i'or N2"-
" The expression is of great import-
ance. The riffht reading is inianeipev
{insuper sero — to SOW above), not
earcEipe (sowed).
KU. 1. 1
•> Jer. KU.
26 d
' Ber. E. 28,
ed. Warsli.
p. 53 a,
about the
middle
590
YlUm JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
in
1 St. Matt.
>< St. John
rli. 66-70
arc, conunoii in tlic East. And so matters would go on unobserved,
sint'o, wiiatc'ver kind of ' tares ' niay ha meant, it would, from their
likeness, be tVn- some time impossi))lo to distinguish them from the
wheat. ' But when the herbage grew and made fruit, then appeared
(became manifest) also the tares.' What follows is equally true to
fact, since, according to the testimony of travellers, most strenuous
efforts arc always made in the East to weed out the tares. Similarly,
in the })arable, the servants of the householder are introduced as
inquiring whence these tares had come; and on the reply: 'A hostile
person has done this,' they further ask: 'Wilt thou then that we go
(straightway) and gather them together? ' The absence of any reference
to the rooting up or burning the tares, is intended to indicate, that
the only object which the servants had in view was to keep the wheat
pure and unmixed for the harvest. But this their final object would
have been frustrated by the procedure, which their inconsiderate zeal
suggested. It would, indeed, have been quite possible to distinguish the
tares from the wheat — and the Parable proceeds on this very assump-
tion— for, l)y their fruit they would be known. But in the present
instance separation would have been impossible, without, at the same
time, uprooting some of the wheat. For, the tares had been sown
right into the midst, and not merely by the side, of the wheat; and
their roots and blades must have become intertwined. And so they
must grow together to the harvest. Then such danger would no
longer exist, for the period of growing was past, and the wheat had
to be gathered into the Ijarn. Then would be the right time to
bid the reapers first gather the tares into bundles for burning, that
afterwards the wheat, pure and unmixed, might be stored in the
garner.
True to life as the picture is, yet the Parable was, of all others,
perhaps the most un-Jcwish, and therefore mysterious and unin-
telligible. Hence the disciples specially asked explanation of this
only, which from its main sulyect they rightly designated as the
Parable ' of the Tares.' ^ Yet this was also perhaps the most import-
ant for them to understand. For already ' the Kingdom of Heaven is
become like ' this, although the appearance of fruit has not yet made
it manifest, that tares have been sown right into the midst of the
wheat. But they would soon have to learn it in bitter experience
anil as a grievous temptation," and not only as regarded the impres-
sionable, fickle multitude, nor even the narrower circle of professing
followers of Jesus, but that, alas! in their very midst there was
a traitor. And thev would have to learn it more and more in the
LESSONS OF FAITH AND PATIENCE. 59]
time to come, as we have to leani it to all ages, till the 'Age-' or CIIAP.
'yEon-coiiipletion/ ' Most iiccdiul, yet most mysterious also, is this XXIII
other lesson, as the experieiiee of tlie Chureh has shown, sinee almost ^•^-^,^^-^
every period of her hist(n-y has witnessed, not only the recurrenee of
the i)roi)osal to make the wheat unmixed, while growing, ])y gathering
out the tares, but actual attempts towards it. All such have proved
failures, because the field is the wide 'world,' not a narrow sect;
because the tares have been sown into the midst of the wheat, and
l)y the enemy; and because, if such gathering were to take place,
the roots and blades of tares and wheat would be found so inter-
twined, that harm would come to the wheat. But why try to gather the
tares together, unless from uudiscerniug zeal? Or what have we, who
are only the owner's servants, to do with it, since we are not bidden
of Him? The 'JEon-completion ' will Avitness the harvest, when the
separation of tares and wheat may not only be accomplished with
safety, but shall become necessary. For the wheat must be garnered
in the heavenly storehouse, and the tares bound in bundles to be
burned. Then the harvesters shall be the Angels of Christ, the
gathered tares 'all the stumbling-blocks and those who do the
lawlessness,' and their burning the casting of them -into the oven of
the fire."
More mysterious still, and, if possible, even more needful, was
the instruction that the Enemy who sowed the tares was the Devil.
To the Jews, nay, to us all, it may seem a myster}-, that in 'the
Messianic Kingdom of Heaven' there should be a mixture of tares
Avitli the v\dieat, the more mysterious, that the Baptist had predicted
that the coming Messiah would thorough^ purge His floor. But to
those who were capable of receiving it, it would be explained by the
fact that the Devil was 'the Eneni}^' of Christ, and of His Kingdom,
and that he had sowed those tares. This would, at the same time, be
the most effective answer to the Pharisaic charge, that Jesus was the
Incarnation of Satan, and the vehicle of his influence. And once in-
structed in this, they would have further to learn the lessons of faith
and patience, connected with the fact that the good seed of the
Kingdom grew in the field of the world, and hence that, by the very
conditions of its existence, separation by the hand of man was im-
possible so long as the wheat was still growing. Yet that separa-
tion would surely be made in the great harvest, to certain, terrible
^ ^on, or ^ age,' without the article - AVith the two articles: the well-
iu ver. 40, and so it should also he in known oveu of the well-kuown tire —
ver. 39. Gehenna.
592 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK \o6s of the chil'lrcn of the wieked one/ and to tlie 'i^un-like forthsliin-
III mg,' ill glory of the righteous in the Kingdom jji-eparcd ])\ their Fatiier.
^— "Y- — ' Tlie tirst l'aral)les were intended to ])resent the mysteries of the
Kingdom as illustrated by the sowing, growing, and intermixture of
the Seed. The concluding two Parables set forth another e(|iial]y
mysterious characteristic of the Kingdom: that of its development
and power, as contrasted with its small and weak beginnings. In the
Parable of the Mustard-seed this is shown as regards the relation of
the Kingdom to the outer world; in that of the Leaven, in refer-
ence to the world within us. The one exhilnts the extenslveness, the
other the intensiveness, of its power; in both cases at first hidden,
almost imperceptible, and seemingly wholly inadequate to the final
result. Once more we say it, that such Parables must have been
utterly unintelligibhi to all who did not see in the humble, despised,
Nazarene, and in His teaching, the Kingdom. But to those whose
ej'es, ears and hearts had been opened, they would carry most
needed instruction and most precious comfort and assurance. Ac-
cordingly, we do not find that the disciples either asked or received
an interpretation of these Parables.
A few remarks will set the special meaning of these Parables
more clearly Ijcfore us. Here also the illustrations used may have
been at hand. Close by the fields, covered with the fresh green or
growing corn, to which Jesus had pointed, may have been the garden
with its growing herbs, Ijushes and plants, and the home of the
householder, whose wife may at that moment have been in sight,
busy preparing the weekly provision of bread. At any rate, it is
necessary to keep in mind the hdineliness of these illustrations.
The very idea of Parables implies, not strict scientific accuracy, but
popular pictorial ness. It is characteristic of them to present vivid
sketches that appeal to the popular mind, and exhibit such analogies
of higher truths as can be readily perceived by all. Those addressed
were not to weigh every detail, either logically or scientifically, but
at once to recognise the aptness of the illustration as presented to
the popular mind. Thus, as regards the first of these two Parables,
the seed of the mustard-plant passed in popular parlance as the
smallest of seeds.^ In fact, the expression, 'small as a mustard-seed,'
1 Without here anticipating what may parabolic teachinij. but in the present
have to be said as to Christ's teaching of instance the Parable would have been
the tinal fate of the wicked, it cainiot be differently worded, if such dogmatic
questioned that at that period the doc- teaching had not been in the mind of
trine of endless' punishment was the Si)eaker and hearers,
common belief of the Jews. I am aware. ^ Certainly the Sinnpis nigra, and not
that dogmas should not be based upon the Salvadoru -parsica.
PAKAIJLES OF THE MUSTARD SEED AND OF THE EEAVEN. 593
had become proverbial, and was used, not only bj'our Lord,'' but f re- CIIAP.
quently by tne Rabbis, io indicate the smallest amount, such as the XXIII
least drop of blood,'' the least defilement," or the smallest remnant of ' r — '
sun-o'low in the sky.** 'But when it is ffrown, it is greater than the ''^'r^^tt.
garden-herbs. ' Indeed, it looks no longer like a large garden-herb b Ber. 31 a
or shrub, but ' becomes,' or rather, appears like, ' a tree ' — as St. Luke "^NWd. v. 2
puts it, ' a great tree, " ot course, not m comparison with other trees, e. 31 ed.'
but with garden-shrubs. Such growth of the mustard seed was also a vo?.'*iii."p.
fact well known at the time, and, indeed, still observed in the East.' " , ,
' ' ' '■ St. Luke
This is the first and main point in the Parable. The other, con- xui.is, 19
cerning the birds which are attracted to its branches and 'lodge '^
literally, 'make tents'- — there, or else under the shadow of it,^ is fst. Mark
. . iv. 32
subsidiary. Pictorial, of course, this trait would be, and we can the
more readily understand that birds would be attracted to the branches
or the shadow of the mustard-plant, when we know that mustard was
in Palestine mixed with, or used as food for pigeons,*^ and ijresumably '^J''\\ ,,
' 1 r> 7 1 J Shabb. 16 c
would be sought by other birds. And the general meaning would the
more easily be apprehended, that a tree, whose wide-spreading branches
aflbrded lodgment to the birds of heaven, was a familiar Old Testa-
ment figure for a mighty kingdom that gave shelter to the nations.'' "szek.
° o ./ o o ^ ^ ^ XXXI. (), 12;
Indeed, it is specifically used as an illustration of the Messianic ?^^^, \^'o^-'
Kingdom.' Thus the Parable would point to this, so full of mystery iEzek.xvii.
to the Jews, so explanatory of the mystery to the disciples: that the
Kingdom of Heaven, planted in the field of the world as the smallest
seed, in the most humble and unpromising manner, would grow till it
far outstripped all other similar plants, and gave shelter to all nations
under heaven.
To this extensive power of the Kingdom corresponded its intensive
character, whether in the world at large or in the individual. This
formed the subject of the last of the I'arables addressed at this time
to the people — that of the Leaven. We need not here resort to
ingenious methods of explaining ' the three measures,' or SeaJis, of
meal in which the leaven was hid. Three Seahs were an Ephah," of ''Men.vii. 1
wiiich the exact capacity difl'cred in various districts. According to
the so-called 'wilderness,' or original Biblical, measurenient, it was
' Comp. Tristram, Nat. Hist, of the glory of Palestine — tlie exaggerations
Bible, p. 472. The quotations in Bux- being of the grossest character.
torfu Lex. Rabb. pp. 822, 823, on wliich - Canon Trisfram's rendering of the
the sui)])osed Rabbinic ilhistrations of verb (u. s. p. 473) as merely iiercliiiig or
tiie growth of the plant are based {Light- resting does not give the real meaning of
font, Srhdttijen, Wefsfeiii, even Vorstius it. He has very aptly noticed how fond
and Wilier), are wholly inapt, being taken birds are of the mustard-seed,
from legendary descriptions of the future
594
FROM .TOKOAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
<^ St. Matt,
xiii. 36;
com p. ver.
10, and St.
Mark iv. 10
d St. John
iv. 35
supposed to ])0 a space holding* 432 eggs,'' while the Jerusalem ei)hah
was one-firth, and the Sei)phoris (or Galilean) ephah two-fillhs, or,
aecortling to another authority, oiic-lialf larger.^ To nii.v; 'three
measures ' of meal was common in Bil)lical, as well as in later times."
Xothing further was therefore convened than the common process of
ordinary, everyday life. And in this, indeed, lies the very point of
the Parable, that the Kingdom of God, when received within, would
seem like leaven hid, but would gradually pervade, assimilate, and
transform the whole of our common life.
With this most un-Jewish, and, to the unbelieving multitude,
most mysterious characterisation of the Kingdom of Heaven, the
Saviour dismissed the people. Enough had been said to them and
for them, if they had but ears to hear. And now He was again alone
witli the disciples 'in the house' at Capernaum, to which they had
returned.'' Many new and deeper thoughts of the Kingdom had
come to them. But why had He so spoken to tlie multitude, in a
nuinncr so different, as regarded not only the form, but even the
substance of His teaching? And did they quite understand its
solemn meaning themselves? More especially, who was the enemy
whose activity would threaten the safety of the harvest? Of that
harvest they had already heard on the way through Samaria.'' And
what were those 'tares,' which were to continue in their very midst
till the judicial separation of the end ? To these questions Jesus now
made answer. His statement of the reason for adopting in the pre-
sent instance the parabolic mode of teaching would, at the same
time, give them farther insight into those very mysteries of the
Kingdom which it had been- the object of these Parables to set
forth. '^ His unsolicited explanation of the details of the first Parable
would call attention to points that might readily have escaped their
1 Comp. Herzfeld, Handelsgesch. d.
Juden, pp. 183-i85.
- On Is. Ixi. 10, we read tlie following
beautiful illustration, alike of the words
of our Lord in St. Matt. xiii. 16, and of
the exclamation of the woman in St.
Luke xi. 27: ' Seven garments there are
with which the Holy One, blessed be His
Name, clothed Himself, from the time the
world was created to the hour when He
will execute punishment on Edom the
wicked (Rome). When He created the
world. He clothed himself with glory
and splendour (Ps. civ. 1); when He
manifi'sti'd Himself by the Red Sea, He
clothed Himself with majesty fPs. .vciii.
1); when He gave the Law, He clothed
Himself with strength {ib.)\ when He.
forgives the iniquity of Israel, He clothes
Himself in white (Dan. vii. 9); when
He executeth punishment on the nations
of the world, He clothes himself with
vengeance (Is. lix. 17). The sixth gar-
ment He will put on in the hour when
the Messiah shall be revealed. Then shall
He clothe Himself with righteousness
(ih.). The seventh garment is when He
taketh vengeance on Edom, then shall
He be clothed in red (Is. Ixiii. 2). And
the garment with which in the future He
will clothe Messiaii shall shine forth from
one end of the world to the other, accord-
ing to Is. Ixi. 10. And I.-srael shall enjoy
His light, and say, Blessed tlie hour in
PARABLES OF THE TTtEASlTRE IN THE FIELD, AND THE PEARL. 595
notice, but wliicli, lor waruiiiij: nud inst ruction, it most Ix'liovcd them CHAP,
to keep ill view. XXIII
Tlie uii(l('rstan(lin<>;ol' the first Parable seems to liavo shown tliem, ^— ^,-— ^
how much hidden meaning this teaching conveyed, and to have
stinudated their desire for com})rehending what the presence and
machinations of the hostile Pharisees might, in some measure, lead
them to perceive in dim outline. Yet it was not to the Pharisees
that the Lord referred. The Enemy was the Devil; the tield, the
world; the good seed, the children of the Kingdom; the tears, the
children of the Wicked One. And most markedly did the Lord, in
this instance, not explain the Parable, as the first one, in its details,
but only indicate, so to speak, the stepping-stones for its understand-
ing. This, not only to train the disciples, but because — unlike the
first Parable — that of the Tares would only in the future and in-
creasingly unfold its meaning.
But even this was not all. The disciples had now knowledge
concerning the mysteries of the Kingdom. But that Kingdom was
not matter of the understanding only, but of jiersonal apprehension.
This implied discovery of its value, personal acquisition of it, and
surrender of all to its possession. And this mystery of the Kingdom
was next conveyed to the disciples in those Parables specially
addressed to, and suited only for, them.
Kindred, or rather closely connected, as are the two Parables of
the Treasure hid in the Field and of the Pearl of Great Price — now
spoken to the disciples — their differences are sufficiently marked.
In the first, one who must probably be regarded as intending to buy
a, if not this, field, discovers a treasure hidden there, and in his joy
parts with all else to become owner ^ of the field and of the hidden
treasure which he had so unexpectedly found. Some difficulty has
been expressed in regard to the morality of such a transaction. In
reply it may be observed, that it was, at least, in entire accordance
with Jewish law."^ If a man had found a treasure in loose coins "B. Metz
25 a, b.
which Messiah was born; blessed the p. 140 tr and b.)
womb which bare Ilini ; blessed_ the ,2;en- ' The e/<7ropo? — in opposition to the
eration which seeth, blessed the ej'e which KdTTifXoS, or huckster, small trader — is
isdeemed worthy to behold Him, because the en gros merchant who travels from
that the opening of His lips is blessing jilace to place and across waters (from
and peace, His speech rest to the soul, and iropoi) to purchase,
security and rest are in His Word. And - But the instance quoted by Wetstein
on His tongue pardon and forgiveness; (N. Test. i. p. 407) from r>ablia Mez. 29<h
His prayer the incense of accepted sacri- is inai)t, and dei»ends on entire mlsun-
fice; His entreaty holiness and purity. derstaudiiig (if tlie pii*f^:ig"e. Tlie K'al)])i
Blessed are ye Israel — what is reserved who found tlie treasure, so far from claim-
for you! Even as it is written (Ps. xxxi. ing, urged its owner to take it back.
20; 19 in our A. v.). (Pesiqta, ed. 7?»/;.
596 FROM .IOI!I)AN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK among the corn, it would certainly be Lis, if he bought the corn. If
in he had found it on the ground, or in the soil, it would equally ccr-
^— 'V'^^ tainly belong to him, if he could claim ownership of the soil, and
even if the tleld were not his own, unless others could prove their
right to it. The law went so far as to adjudge to the purchaser of
fruits anything found among these fruits. This will suffice to vin-
dicate a question of detail, which, in iiny case, should not be too
closely pressed in a parabolic history.
But to resume our analysis. In tlie second Parable we have a
wise merchantman who travels in search of pearls, and when he finds
one which in value exceeds all else, he returns and sells all that he
has, in order to buy this unique gem. The supreme value of the
Kingdom, the consequent desire to appropriate it, and the necessity
of parting with all else for this purpose, are the points common to
this and the previous Parable. But in the one case, it is marked
that this treasure is hid from common view in the field, and the
finder makes unexpected discovery of it, which fills him with joy.
In the other case, the merchantman is, indeed, in search of pearls,
but he has the wisdom to discover the transcendent value of this one
gem, and the yet greater wisdom to give up all further search and to
acquire it at the surrender of everything else. Thus, tAvo different
aspects of the Kingdom, and two different conditions on the part of
those who, for its sake, equally part with all, are here set before the
disciples.
Nor was the closing Parable of the Draw-net less needful.
Assuredly it became, and would more and more become, them to
know, that mere discipleship — mere inclusion in the Gospel-net —
was not sufficient. That net let down into the sea of this world
would include much which, when the net was at last drawn to shore,
would prove worthless or even hurtful. To be a disciple, then, was
not enough. Even hero there would be separation. Not only the
tares, which the Enemy had designedly sown into the midst of the
wheat, but even much that the Gospel-net, cast into the sea, had in-
closed, would, when brought to land, prove fit only to be cast away,
into ' the oven of the fire where there is the wailing and the gnashing
of teeth. '
So ended that spring-day of first teaching in Parables, to the
people by the Lake, and in the house at Capernaum to the disciples.
Dim, shadowy outlines, growing larger and more faint in their
tracings to the people; shadowy outlines, growing l)righter and
clearer to all who were disciples. Most wondrous instruction to all,
CONTRAST TO JEWISH TEACHING.
59Y
and ill all aspects of it; wliicli even negative critics admit to liave
really tbi'ined part of Chiist's own original teaching. IJut if this be
tlu; case, we have two questions of decisive chai-acter to ask. Un-
doubtedly, these Parables were un-Jewish. This ajjpesirs, not only
from a cominirison with the Jewish views of the Kingdom, but from
the fact that their meaning was unintelligible to the hearers of
Jesus, and from this, that, rich as Jewish teaching is' in Parables,
none in the least parallel to them can be adduced.' Our first
question, therefore, is: Whence this un-Jewish and anti-Jewish
teaching concerning the Kingdom on the part of Jesus of Naza-
reth?
Our second question goes still farther. For, if Jesus was not a
Prophet — and, if a Prophet, then also the Son of God — yet no
more strangely unexpected pro})hecy, minutely true in all its details,
could be conceived, than that concerning His Kingdom which His
parabolic description of it conveyed. Has not History, in the
CHAP.
XXHI
^ The so-called Rabbinic illustrations
are inapt, exce\)t as jjer conij-r(. Thus, on
St. Mati. xiii. 17 it is to be remarktMl,
that in Ral)l)inic opinion revehition of
God's mysteries would only be granted
to those who were righteous or learned.
TheMidr. ouEccl. i. 7 contains the follow-
ing Parable in illustration (conip. Dan.
ii. 21): A nuitron is asked, to which of
two that would borrow she would lend
money — to a rich or a poor man. And
when she answers: To a rich man, since
even if he lost it, he would l)e able to
repay, she is told that similarly God gives
not wisdom to fools, who would employ
it for theatres and baths, &c., but to the
sages, who nuxke use of it in the Acade-
mies. A similar and even more strange
explanation of Exod. xv. 2(j occurs Ber.
40 (I, where it is shown that God su))-
ports the full, and not, as man, an empty
vessel. Hence, if we begin to learn, or
rejieat what we have learned, we shall
learn more, and conversely also. Fur-
ther, on ver. 12 we note, that 'to have
taken away what one hath ' is a Jewish
proverbial exi)ression : ' that which is in
their hand shall lie taken from them '
(Ber. K. 20, ed. Warsh. p. 3cS />, last two
lines). Expressions similar to ver. l(i
are used l)y the Rabbis, for ex. Chag. 14
b. In regard to ver. 17, R. Eliezer in-
ferred froui Exod. XV. '2 that servant-
maids saw at the Red Sea what mMtluM-
Ezekiel nor the prophets had seen, which
he corroborates' from Ezek. i. 1 and Hos.
xii. 10 (Mechilta, ed. Wei'ss ]). 44 a).
Another and much more beautiful i)aral-
lelism has been given before. On ver.
19 it ought to be remarked that the
Wicked One was not so much lepresented
by the Rabbis as the Enemy of the King-
dom of God, but as that of imiividuals —
indeed, was often described as identical
with the evil impulse (Yetser haRa, comp.
Chag. HJ a; B. Bathr. IGa; Succ. r)2 a).
On ver. 22 we renuxrk, that not riches,
but jioverty, was regarded by Ihc llabbis
as that which choked the good seed.
On ver. 39, we may ivmark a som(>wliat
similar expression in B. Mez. S3 />: 'Let
the Lord of the Vineyard come and re-
move the thorns.' On ver. 42, the ex-
pression 'oven of fire,' for Gehenna, is
the popular Jewisli one ("liP). Sinu-
larly, the expression, 'gnashing of teeth.'
chierty characteristic of the anger and
jealousy of those in Gehinnom, oeeurs in
the Midrash on Eccl. 1. 1.'). On ver. 44
we refer to the remarks and note on that
Parable (p. 595). In connection with
ver. 4(), we remember that, in Shabb. 119
a, a story is told concerning a pearl for
which a man had given his whole for-
tune, hoping thereljy to prevent the lat-
ter being alienated from him (comp.
Ber. R. 11). Lastly, in coimcction with
ver. 47 we notice, that the comparison
of men with fishes is a connnon Jewish
one (Abod. Zar. 3 6; 4 a).
598 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK strange, uiiex})ccte(l rultilling'of tliat which no human ing-enuity at the
ITI time could have forecast, and no pen have described witli more
'— ""v^^^ minute accuracy of detail, proved Him to be more than a mere man
— One sent from God, the Divine King of the Divine Kingdom, in all
the vicissitudes which such a Divine Kingdom must experience when
set up upou earth?
ON THE LAKE OF GALILEE. 599
CHAPTER XXIY,
CHRIST STILLS THE STORM ON THE LAKE OF GALILEE.
(St. Matt. viii. 18, 23-27; St. Mark iv. 35-41; St. Luke viii. 22-25.)
It was the evening of that day of new teaching, and once more CHAP.
great nuiltitudes were gathering to Ilim. What more, or, indeed, XXIV
wluit else, could He have said to those to whom He had all that ^— "^r —
morning sjjoken in Paral^les, which hearing they had not heard nor
understood? It was this, rather than weariness after a long day's
working, which led to the resolve to pass to the other side. To merely
physical weariness Jesus never subordinated his work. If, therefore,
such had been the motive, the proposal to withdraw for rest would
have come from the disciples, while here the Lord Himself gave
command to pass to the other side. In truth, after that day's teach-
ing it was better, alike for these multitudes and for His disciples,
that He should withdraw. And so ' they took Him even as He was '
— that is, proba])ly without refreshment of food, or even preparation
of it for the journey. This indicates how readily, nay, eagerly, the
disciples obeyed the behest.
Whether in their haste they heeded not the signs of the coming
storm; whether they had the secret feeling, that ship and sea which
bore such burden were safe from tempest; or, whether it was one of
those storms which so often rise suddenly, and sweep with such fury
over the Lake of Galilee, must remain undetermined. He was in ' the
ship ' ' — whether that of the sons of Jonas, or of Zebedee — the '^'ell-
known boat, which was always ready for His service, Avhether as
pulpit, resting-place, or means of journeying. But the departure had
not beeh so rapid as to pass unobserved; and the ship was attended
by other boats, which l)ore those that would fain follow Him. In the
stern of the ship, on the low bench where the steersman sometimes
takes rest, was pillowed the Head of Jesus. AVeariness, faintness,
hunger, exhaustion, asserted their mastery over His true humanity.
' Tlie definite article (St. Mark iv. 36) marks it as 'the' sliiii — a well-known boat
wliicli always bore Him.
600
FI^()^[ JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
ITT
" ' Y " '
' Phil. ii. 6
* St. Mark
iv. 37
<: l3. Vl. 0, 10
•1 Ps. cvl. 9 ;
evil. 2.5 ;
Is. li. 10;
Nah. 1. 4-7;
Hab. iii. 8
Ho, Whom earliest Ai)ostolic testimony'' prcjclaimcd to have l)een
in 'the form of CJod,' slept. Even this evidences the truth of the
whole narrative. If Apostolic tradition had devised this narrative
to exhibit His Divine Power, why represent Him as faint and
asleep in the ship; and, if it would portray Him as deeply sleep-
ing for very weariness, how could it ascribe to Him the power of
stilling the storm by His rebuke? Each of these hy themselves, but
not the two in their combination, would be as legends are written.
Their coincidence is due to the incidence of truth. Indeed, it is
characteristic of the History of the Christ, and all the more evidential
that it is so evidently undesigned in the structure of the nari'ative,
that every deepest manifestation of His Humanity is immediately
attended by highest display of His Divinity, and each special display
of His Divine Power followed by some marks of His true Humanity.
Assuredly, no narrative could be more consistent with the fundamental
assumption that He is the God-Man.
Thus viewed, the picture is unspeakably sublime. Jesus is as.leep,
for very weariness and hunger, in the stern of the ship. His head on
that low wooden bench, while the heavens darken, the wild wind
swoops down those mountain-gorges, howling with hungry rage over
the trembling sea; the waves rise and toss, and lash and break over
the ship, and beat into it, and the white foam washes at His feet.
His Humanity here appears as true as when He lay cradled in the
manger; His Divinity, as when the sages from the p]ast laid their
oflferings at His Feet. But the danger is increasing — 'so that the
ship was now filling.'" They who watched it, might be tempted to
regard the peaceful rest of Jesus, not as indicative of Divine Majesty
— as it were, sublime consciousness of absolute safety — because they
did not fully realize Who He was. In that case it would, therefore,
rather mean absolute weakness in not being able, even at such a time,
to overcome the demands of our lower nature; real indifference, also,
to tlieir fate — not from want of sympathy, but of power. In short,
it might lead up to the inference that tlie Christ was a no-Christ, and
the Kingdom of which he had spoken in Parables, not His, in the
sense of being identified with His Person.
In all this we perceive already, in part, the internal connection
between the teaching of that day and the miracle of that evening.
Both were quite novel: the teaching by Parables, and then the help
in a Parable. Both were founded on the Old Testament: the teach-
ing on its predictions,'' the miracle on its proclamations of the special
Divine Manifestations in the sea; '' and l)oth show that everything
'LORD, SAVE US— WE PERISH'! 601
(Icpondcd on the view taken ol" the Person of the (Miri.-:t. Further CHAl*.
teaclihiii: conies to us Ironi the details of the narrative which tbih)\vs. XXIV
It has been asked, with which of the words recorded hy the Synop- ^- — -r — '
lists tlie disciples had wakened the Lord: with those of entreaty to
save them," or witli those ol' inii)atience, perhaps uttered by Peter ' st. Matt,
himself?'' But why may not l)oth acconnts represent what had st. Luke
passed? Similarly, it has been asked, which came first — the Lord's ' ''*'^- ^^^''^^
rebuke of the disciples, and after it that of the wind and sea," or the • st. Matt,
converse?'^ Bnt, may it not be that each recorded that first which ''st. Mark
had most impressed itself on his mind? — St. Matthew, who had been st. Luke
in the ship that night, the needful rebnke to the disciples; St. Mark
and St. Luke, who had heard it from others, "^ the help first, and then > st. Mark
, , „ probably
the rebuke^ irom
Yet it is not easy to understand what the disciples had really ex-
l)ected, when they wakened the Christ with their 'Lord, save us — we
jierish! ' Certainly, not that which actually happened, since not only
wonder, but fear, came over them ^ as they witnessed it. Probaljly
theirs would be a vague, undefined belief in the unlimited possibility
of all in connection with the Christ. A belief this, which seems to
us quite natural as we think of the gradually emerging, but still par-
tially cloud-capped height of His Divinity, of which, as yet, only the
dim outlines were visible to them. A belief this, which also accounts
for the co-existing, not of disl)elief, nor even of unbelief, but of in-
ability of apprehension, which,- as we have seen, characterised the
bearing of the Virgin-Mother. And it equally characterised that of
the disciples up to the Resurrection-morning, bringing them to the
empty tomb, and filling them with unbelieving wonder that the tomb
was empty. Thus, we have come to that stage in the History of the
Christ when, in opposition to the now formulated charge of His
enemies as to" His Person, neither His Teaching nor His Working-
could be fully understood, except so tar as his Personality \\'as under-
stood— that He was of God and Very God. And so we are gradually
reaching on towards the expediency and the need of the coming of
the Holy Ghost to reveal that mystery of His Person. Similarly, the
two great stages in the history of the Church's learning were: the
first — to come to knowledge of what He was, by experience of what
He did; the second — to come to experience of what He did and does,
by knowledge of what He is. The former, which corresponds, in the
1 From the size of these boats it seems shi]i. Besides, the lanfjaa;i-e of those
unlikely, that any but His closest fol- who called for help and the answer of
lowers would have found room in the Christ Imply the same thinu'.
602
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOl'NT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
1U)()K
111
« St. Mark
iv. 38
1' Ps. cvi. 9;
Nah. i. 4
■■• St. Luke
iv. 39
d St. Mark
ix. 25
f St. Mark
i. 27
Old Testament, to the i)atriarclial a.n-e, is that of tiie period when
Jesus was on earth; the seeond, whieh answers to the history of
Israel, is that t)f tlie period after His Ascension into Heaven and
the Descent of tlie Holy Ghost.
When ' He was awakened ' " by the voice of His disciples, ' He
rebuked the wind and the sea,' as Jehovah had of old" — just as He
had ' rebuked ' the fevcr,'^ and the paroxysm of the demonised/ For,
all are His creatures, even when lashed to frenzy of the ' hostile
1)0 wer.' And the sea He commanded as if it were a sentient being:
'Be silent! Be silenced!' And immediately the wind was bound,
the panting waves throbbed into stillness, and a great calm of rest
fell upon the Lake. For, when Christ sleepeth, there is storm; when
He waketh, great peace. But over these men who had erst wakened
Him with, their cry, now crei)t wonderment, awe, and fear. No longer,
as at His first wonder-working in Capernaum, was it: ' What is this? ' "'
but ^Who, then, is this?'^ And so the grand question, which the
enmity of the Pharisees had raised, and which, in part, had been
answered in the Parables of teaching, was still more fully and prac-
tically met in what, not only to the disciples, but to all time, was a
Paraljle of help. And Jesus also did wonder, but at that which alone
could call forth His wonder— the unreachingnessof their faith: where
was it? and how was it, they had no faith?
Thus far the history, related, often almost in the same words, by
the three Evangelists. On all sides the narrative is admitted to form
part of the primitive Evangelic tradition. But if so, then, even on
the showing of our opponents, it must have had some foundation in
an event surpassing the ordinary facts in the history of Jesus. Accord-
ingly, of all negative critics, at most only two venture to dismiss it
as unfounded on fact. But such a bold assumption would rather in-
crease than diminish the difliculty. For, if legend it be, its invention
and insertion into the primitive record must have had some historical
reason. Such, however, it is absolutely impossible here to trace.
The Old Testament contains no analogous history which it might
have been wished to imitate; Jewish Messianic expectancy afforded
no basis for it; and there is absolutely no Rabbinic parallel ^ which
could be placed by its side. Similar objections apply to the sugges-
tion of exaggeration of some real event {Keim). For, the essence of
the narrative lies in its details, of which the origin and the universal
acceptance in the primitive belief of the Church have to be accounted
^ So literally. Wpfstf p/» (Bahhu^lez. '>9 I>)an(\Wi()isr/it>\<i
2 The .supposed Rabbinic parallels in (Cbull. 7 (i) works are (piite inapplicable.
THE STILLING OF THE STORM. 603
for. Nor is the task of those negative critics more easy, who, u(hiiil- chap.
ting the foun(Uition in ftict for this nai-rative, have snggested various XXlV
theories to account for its nii)"acuh)us (h'tails. Most of these cxphina- ^— ^r^^-'
tions are so unnatural,^ as only to })oint the contrast between the
ingenuity of the nineteenth century and the simple, vivid language
of the original narrative. For it seems equally imi)ossible to regard
it as based either on a misunderstanding of the words of Jesus
during a storm {Pai(lus), or on the calm faith of Jesus when even
the helmsman despaired of safety {Schcnkel), or to represent it as
only in some way a .symbol of analogous mental phenomena {Ammon,
ScMeiermacher, Hase, Weiszacker, and others). The very variety
of explanations proposed, of which not one agrees with the otliers,
shows, that none of them has proved satisfactory to any but their
own inventors. And of all it may be said, that they have no founda-
tion whatever in the narrative itself. Thus the only alternative left
is either wholly to reject, or wholly to accept, the narrative.
If our judgment is to be determined by the ordinary rules of
historical criticism, we cannot long be in doubt which of these proposi-
tions is true. Here is a narrative, which has the consensus of the
three Evangelists; which admittedly formed part of the original
Evangelic tradition; for the invention of which no specific motive can
l)0ssibly be assigned; and which is told with a simi)licity of language
and a pictorial vividness of detail that carry their own evidence. Other
corroborative points, such as the unlikeliness of the invention of
such a situation for the Christ, or of such bearing of the disciples,
have been previously indicated. Absolute historical demonstration
of the event is, of course, in the nature of things impossible. But,
besides the congruousness to the Parabolic teaching which had pre-
ceded this Parabolic miracle, and the accord of the Saviour's rel)uke
with His mode of silencing the hostile elements on other occasions,
some further considerations in evidence may be oftered to the
thoughtful reader.
For, first, in this 'dominion o\oy the sea,' we recognise, not only
the fullest refutation of the Pharisaic misrepresentation of the Person
of Christ, but the realisation in the Ideal Man of the ideal of man as
heaven-destined, "^ and the initial fulfilment of the i)romise which "Ps. viu.
; 4-8
this destination implied. ' Creation ' has, indeed, ])een ' made subject
to vanity;"" but this 'evil,' which implies not merely decay but I'Kom. vm.
' The strangest commentation, per- any kind of parallelism witli tlie history
liajis, is that of Volkmar (Marcus, i)p. of .lonali, nor yet see any references to
i507-312). For I cannot here perceive the history of St. Paul's shipwreck.
(504 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
P.OOK relx'llion, was directly duo to the Fall of man, and will ))c removed
HI at the final ' manifestation ol' the sons of God.' And here St. Paul so
"- — ^^-^ I'ar stands on the same ground as Jewish theology, which also teaches
that ' although all things were created in their perfectness, yet when
« Ber. R. 12 the first Adam sinned, they were corrupted. ' "■ Christ's dominion over
the sea was, therefore, only the Second ami Unfallen Adam's real
dominion over creation, and the pledge of its restoration, and of our
dominion in the future. And this seems also to throw fresh light on
Christ's rebuke, whether of storm, disease, or demoniac possession.
Thus there is a grand consistency in this narrative, as regards the
Scriptural presentation of the Christ.
Again, the narrative expresses very markedly, that the inter-
position of Christ, alike in itself, and in the manner of it, was wholly
unexpected by, indeed, contrary to the expectation of, the disciples.
This also holds true in regard to other of the great manifestations
of Christ, up to His Resurrection from the dead. This, of course,
proves that the narrative was not founded on existing Jewish ideas.
But there is more than this. The gratuitous introduction of traits
which, so far from glorifying, would rather detract from a legendary
Christ, while at the same time they seriously reflect on the disciples,
presumably the inventors of the legend, appears to us wholly incon-
sistent with the assumption that the narrative is spurious.
Nor ought we to overlook another circumstance. While we regard
the narrative as that of an historical occurrence — indeed^ because we
do so — we cannot fail to perceive its permanent symbolic and typical
bearing. It were, indeed, impossible to describe either the history of
the Church of Christ, or the experience of individual disciples, more
accurately, or with wider and deeper capability of application, than in
the Parable of this Miracle. And thus it is morally true to all ages;
just because it was historically true at the first. ^ And as we enter
on this field of contemplation, many views open to us. The true
Humanity of the Saviour, ])y the side of His Divine Power; the
sleeping Jesus and the Almighty Word of rebuke and command to the
elements, which lay them down obedient at His feet: this sharp-edged
contrast resolved into a higliei- unity — how true is it to the funda-
mental thought of the Gospel-History! Then this other contrast of
the failure of faith, and then the excitement of the disciples; and of
^ A fact may be tbe basis of a symbol; legend. But, even so, legend could never
but a sj'mbol can never be the basis of a have arisen but for a belief in Divine
fact. The former is the principle of history: it is the counterfeit coin of
Divine history, the latter of human Revelation.
LESSONS OF THE MIRACLE. 605
tlic calm of the slccpin.u-, and tlicii the Majesty of tlie wakening CHAP.
(.'Iirist. And, lastly, yet this third e(jntrast of the heli)lessuess and XXIV
despondency of the disciples and the Divine certitude of conscious ^— -y-^-^
Omnipotence.
We perceive only difficulties and the seeming-ly impossible, as
we compare what may be before us witli that which we consciously
possess. He also makes this outlook: 1)ut only to know and show,
that with Ilim there can be no difficulty, since all is His — and all nuiy
be ours, since He has come for our help and is in the ship. One tiling
only He wonders at — the shortcomings of our faith; and one thing
only makes it impossible for Him to help — our unbelief.
G06 F\l(m JOlfDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER XXV.
AT GERASA — THE HEALING OF THE DEMONISED.
(St. Matt. viii. 28-34; St. Alark v. 1-20; St. Luke viii. 26-39.)
BOOK That day of wonders was not yet ended. Most wTitcrs have, indeed,
III suggested, that the healing of the demonised on the other side took
— ~'^ — ' place at early dawn of the day following the storm on the Lake. But
the distance is so short that, even making allowance for the delay by
the tempest, tlie passage could scarcely have occupied the whole
night."^ This supposition would be further confirmed, if ' the evening '
when Jesus embarked was what the Jews were wont to call ' the
first evening,' that is, the time when the sun was declining in the
heaven, but before it had actually set, the latter time being ' the
second evening. ' ^ For, it seems most unlikely that multitudes would
have resorted to Jesus at Capernaum after 'the second evening,' or
that either the disciples or other boats would have put to sea after
nightfall. On the other hand, the scene gains in grandeur — has, so
to speak, a fitting background — if we suppose the Saviour and His
disciples to have landed on the other side late in the evening, when
perhaps the silvery moon was shedding her pale light on the weird
scene, and laying her halo around the shadows cast upon the sea by
the steep cliff" down which the herd of swine hurried and fell. This
would also give time afterwards for the dispersion, not only into ' the
city,' but into 'the country' of them who had fed the swine. In that
case, of course, it would be in the early morning that the Gerasenes
afterwards resorted to Jesus and that He again returned to Capernaum.
1 In the history rclatert in St. Matt. xiv. across would be five or six miles. But
22, &c. the emlnirkution was much hiUn- tlie passage from Capernaum to Gerasa
(see next note), ami it is expressly stated would not be so lon>i; as that,
that 'the wind was contrary.' But even -The distinction between the two
there, when it ceased they were 'imme- evenings seems marked in St. Matt. xiv.
diately' on shore (St. John vi. 2r),although 15, as compared with verse 23. In both
the distance formerly traversed had been verses precisely the same expression is
rather less than three-fourths of the way used. But between the first and the
(twenty-five or thirty furlongs, St. John second evening a considerable interval
vi. 19). At that place the whole distance of time must be placed.
Till': • DExMONISED ' AT GERASA.
60 ;
And, lastly, this would allow .suHicicnt time for those miracles which
took i)lace on that same day in Capernaum alter His return thither.
Thus, all the circumstanees lead us to regard the healing ol' the
demonised atGerasa as a night-scene, immediately on Christ's arrival
from Capernaum, and after the calming of the storm at sea.
It gives not only life to the narrative, but greatly illustrates it,
that we can with confidence describe the exact place where our Lord
and His disciples touched the otiier shore. The ruins right over
against the plain of Gennesaret, which still bear the name ol' Kersa or
Gersa, must represent the ancient Gerasa.^ This is the correct reading
in St. Mark's, and probably in St. Luke's, perhaps also in St. Mat-
thew's Gospel.^ The locality entirely meets the requirements of the
narrative. About a quarter of an hour to the south of Gersa is a
stee]i blutf, which descends al)ruptly on a narrow ledge of shore. A
terrified herd running do^wn this clifl' could not have recovered its
foothold, and must inevitably have been hurled into the Lake beneath.
Again, the whole country around is Inirrowed with limestone caverns
and rock-chaml)ers for the dead, such as those which were the dwell-,
ing of the demonised. Altogether the scene forms a fitting back-
ground to the narrati^ e.
From these tombs the demonised, who is specially singled out by
St. Mark and St. Luke, as well as his less prominent companion,''
came forth to meet Jesus. Much that is both erroneous and mis-
leading has been written on Jewish Uemonology. According to
common Jewish superstition, the evil spirits dwelt especially in lonely
desolate places, and also among tombs. ^ We must here remember
what has previously been explained as to the confusion in the
consciousness of the demonised between their own notions and the
ideas imposed on them by the demons. It is quite in accordance
with the Jewish notions of the demonised, that, according to the
CHAP.
XXV
' Comp. Tristrnm\s ' Land of Israel,'
p. 4(i5; Badeker^s (Socitt) Pillestiiia, ]).
267. The objection m Riehm's Hund-
wurtorb. p. 454. that Gerasa did not form
part of the Decapolis manifestly derives
no real support from ,St. Mark v. 20. The
two facts are in no way inconsistent. All
other localisations are im])ossible, since
the text requires close proximity to the
lake. Professor Socin describes this clitt
as steep ' as nowhere else by the lake.'
- In this, as in all other instances, I
can only indicate the critical results at
whicli I liave arrived. For the grounds,
on which these conclusions are based, I
must refer to the works which bear on
the respective subjects.
- See Appendix XIII., ' An,2:eloloi>y
and Demonoloiiy: ' and Aiipendlx XYI.,
'Jewish A'iews about Demons and tiie De-
monised.' Ai'chdeacon Farrat- has mis-
understood tlie reference of OtJio (Lex.
Ral)b. 14()). The alfections mentioned
in .ler. Terum. 40 h are not treatt'd as
'all demoniacs; ' on the contrary, most
of them, indeed all, with one exception,
are exi)ressly stated to be indications of
mental disease (comp. also Cha<r. 3 b).
The quotations of Gf rarer are. as too
often, for a purpose, and untrustworthy,
excei)t after examination of the context.
" St. Matt.
viii. '.iB
608 FRo:\r Jordan to the mount of tkan.<figlration.
BOOK more circuin.staiitiul account of St. Luke, he should I'eel as it were
ni driven into the deserts, and that he was in the tombs, while, accord-
^— '^'"'^ ing to St. Mark, he was ' night and day in the tomljs and in the
mountains,' the ver}^ order of the words indicating the notion (as in
Jewish belief), that it was chiefly at night that evil spirits were wont
to haunt burying-places.
In calling attention to this and similar particulars, we repeat,
that this must be kept in view as characteristic of the demonised,
that they were incapal)le of separating their own consciousness and
ideas from the influence of the demon, their own identity being merged,
and to that extent lost, in that of their tormentors. In this respect
the demonised state was also kindred to madness. Self-consciousness,
or rather what may be termed TncUviduism, i.e. the consciousness of
distinct and independent individuality, and with it the power of self-
origination in matters mental and moral (which some might term an
aspect of free volition), distinguish the human soul from the mere
animal spirit. But in maniacal disease this power is in abeyance, or
temporarily lost through physical causes, such as disease of the brain
as the medium of communication between the mind and the world of
sense; disease of the nervous system, through which ordinarily im-
pressions are conveyed to and from the sensorium: or disease of both
brain and nervous system, when previously existing impressions on
the brain (in memory, and hence possibly imagination) may be
excited without corresponding outward causes. If in such cases the
absolute power of self-origination and self-action is lost to the mind,
habits of sin and vice (or moral disease) may have an analogous efiect
as regards moral freedom — the power of moral self-origination and
action. In the demonised state. the two appear combined, the cause
being neither disease nor vice, but the presence of a superior power
of evil. This loss of individuism, and the subjection of one's identity
to that of the demon might, while it lasted, be called temporary
' possession,' in so far as the mental and moral condition of the per-
son was for the time not one of freedom and origination, but in the
control of the possessing demon.
One practical inference may even now be drawn from this some-
what abstruse discussion. The language and conduct of the demon-
ised, whether seemingly his own, or that of the demons who influenced
him, must always be regarded as a mixture of the Jewish-human and
the demoniacal. The demonised speaks and acts as a Jew under the
control of a demon. Thus, if he chooses solitary places by day, and
tombs by night, it is not that demons really preferred such habitations.
TIIK DEMONISi:!) COMIXCi OUT OF Till-: T().\IJ38. (^09
hut tliat the Jews iuiag'iiuMl it, and that tlie dcinon.s, acting on the chap.
existing consciousness, would lead him, in accordance with his pre- XXV
conceived notions, to select such places. Here also mental disease ^— ^.' — '
offers points of analog3^ For, the demonised would speak and act in
accordance Avith his previous (Jewish) demonological ideas. He
would not become a new man, but be the old man, only under the
influence of the demon, just as in mania a person truly and con-
sistently speaks and acts, although under the false impressions which
a diseased brain conveys to him. The fact that in the demonised
state a man's identity was not superseded, but controlled, enables us
to account for many phenomena Avithout either confounding demonism
with mania, or else imputing to our Lord such accommodation to the
notions of the times, as is not only untenable in itself, but forbidden
even by the language of the present narrative.
The description of the demonised, comingout of the tombs to meet
Jesus as He touched the shore at Gerasa, is vivid in the extreme.
His violence, the impossil)ility of control by others/ the absence of
self-control," his homicidal,^ and almost suicidal/ frenzy, are all
depicted. Evidently, it was the object to set forth the extreme
degree of the demonised state. Christ, Who had been charged by
the Pharisees with being the embodiment and messenger of Satan, is
here face to face with the extreme manifestation of demoniac power
and influence. It is once more, then, a Miracle in Parable which is
about to take place. The question, which had been raised by the
enemies, is about to be brought to the issue of a practical demonstra-
tion. We do not deny that the contest and the victory, this miracle,
nay, the whole series of miracles of which it forms part, are extra-
ordinary, even in the series of Christ's miracles. Our explanation
proceeds on the very ground that such was, and must have been, the
case. The teaching l\y Parables, and the parabolic miracles which
follow, form, so to speak, an ascending climax, in contrast to the
terrible charge which by-and-by would assume the projiortions of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and issue in the betrayal and
judicial murder of Jesus. There are critical epochs in the history of
the Kingdom of God, when the power of evil, standing out in
sharpest contrast, challenges that overwhelming manifestation of the
Divine, as such, to bear down and crush that which opposes it.
' St. Mark v. 3. 4. not the nnder-ffarments.
2 'Ware no clothes' (St. Luke viii. 27) •' St. Matt. viii. 28.
may, however. I'efer only to the upper, * St. Mark v. 5.
610
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" St. Mark
V. 6:
St. Luke
viii. 28
Periods ol'tluit l^iiid are characterised l)y miraculous interposition of
]K)\\'er, uiiicjue even in Bible-histoiT. Such a period was, undi'r the
Ohl Testament, that of Elijah and Elisha, with its altogether
exceptional scries of miracles; and, under the New Testament,
that after the first formulated charge of the Pharisees against the
Christ.
With irresistible power the demonised was drawn to Jesus, as
He touched the shore at Gcrasa. As always, the first effect of the
contact was a fresh paroxysm,^ but in this peculiar case not physical,
but moral. As always also, the demons knew Jesus, and His Presence
seemed to constrain their confession of themselves — and therefore
of Him. As in nature the introduction of a dominant element some-
times reveals the hidden presence of others, which are either attracted
or repelled by it, so the Presence of Christ obliged the manifestation,
and, in the case of these evil spirits, the self-confession, of the powers
of evil. In some measure it is the same still. The introduction of
grace brings to light and experience sin hitherto unknown, and the
new life brings consciousness of, and provokes contest with, evil
within, of which the very existence had previously been unsuspected.
In the present instance the innnediate effect was homage,'' which
presently manifested itself in language such as might have been
expected.
Here also it must be remembered, that both the act of homage, or
' worship,' and the words spoken, were not the outcome cither of the
demonised only, nor yet of the demons only, but a combination of
the two: the control of the demons being absolute over the nmn
such as he was. Their language led to his worship; their feelings
and fears appeared in his language. It was the self-confession of
the demons, when obliged to come into His Presence and do homage,
which made the man fall down and, in the well-known Jewish
formula, recorded by the three Evangelists, say: ' What have I to do
with Thee, ' oi" rather, ' What between me and Thee'— what have we
in common {Mah U valakh)? Similarly, although it was conscious-
ness of subjection and fear in His Presence, on the part of the
demons, which underlay the adjuration not to inflict torment on
them, yet the language itself, as the text shows, was that of the
1 In his endeavour to represent the de-
monised state as a species of mania,
wliich was afiected by tlie Presence of
Cln-ist. Archdeacon Farrar malies tlie
foUowinfif statement: ' The presence, the
look, the voice of Christ, even before He
addressed these sufferers, seems always
to have calmed and overawed them.'
But surely the very o])iiosite of this is the
fact, and the lirst eflect of contact with
Christ was not calm, but a paroxysm.
THE DEMONIAC EXPRESSED IN FORMS OF JEWISH TIIl.XKIXG. QH
(loinonisiMl, and tlic Ibriii in wliich their fear expressed itself was CHAP.
that of his thinking. Tlie (U'lnons, in their li(^hl on their victim, XXV
could not but own their inferiority, and apprehend their ilefeat and ^— ^r-— '
subjection, especially on such an occasion; and the .Jvw, whose con-
sciousness was under their control — not unified, but identified with it
— exclaimed: ' I adjure Thee by God, that Thou torment me not.'
This strange mixture of the demoniac with the human, or rather,
this expression of underlying demoniac thought in the forms and
modes of thinking of the Jewish victim, explains the expressed fear
of present actual torment, or, as St. Matthew, who, from the briefness
of his account, does not seem to have been an eye-witness, expresses
it: * Thou art come to torment us before the time;' and possibly also
for the 'adjuration by Gpd.'^ For, as immediately on the homage
and protestation of the demonised: 'What between me and Thee,
Jesus, Thou Son of the Most High God ? ' Christ had commanded
the unclean spirit to come out of the man, it may have been, that in
so doing He had used the Name of the Most High God; or else the
'adjuration' itself may have been the form in which the Jewish
speaker clothed the consciousness of the demons, with which his own
was identified.
It may be conjectured, that it was partly in order to break this
identification, or rather to show the demonised tliat it was not real,
and only the consequence of the control which the demons had over
him, that the Lord asked his name. To this the man made answer,
still in the dual consciousness, 'My name is Legion: for we are
many.' ^ Such might be the subjectiye motive for Christ's question.
Its objective reason may have been to show the power of the demoniac
possession in the present instance, thus marking it as an altogether
extreme case. The remembrance, that the answer is once more in
the forms of Jewish thinking, enables us to avoid the strange notion
(whether it express the opinion of some, or the difliculties of others),
that the word ' Legion ' conveys the idea of six thousand armed and
strong warriors of evil. ^ For, it was a common Jewish idea, that,
1 Both St. Mark and St. Luke Iiave it: 'was a tboroiii>;hly Jewish belief that
' Jesus, Son of the Most Hi<;-li God.' unclean spirits should pass into the
2 So substantially in St. I.uke, as in swine. I nuist take leave to denj'. One
St. Mark. or anotlier disease, such as rabies, were,
^ This is one of tlie difliculties men- indeed, attributed by some Rabbis to
tioned by Dean P//' «/;>//•?. Archdeacon the agency of evil spirits — but there is
Farrar seems to think that the man no u'round for either the general or the
imagined ' (iOOO devils were in posses- specific statement of Dr. Farrar as re-
siou of his soul.' His statement, that it gards this ' Jewish belief.'
612
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOIXT OF TILVXSFIGrRATION.
BOOK
HI
1= St. Mark
V. 13
under cci'tiiin circuinstaiicos, 'a Ic.u'ion of liurtl'iil si)irils'' (ofcourse
not ill tlie sense of a Konian lej^ion) 'were on tlie wateli for men,
saying: When shall he lall into the hands of one of these things, and
1)0 taken ? ' ="
This identification of the demons with the demonised, in conse-
quence of which he thought with their consciousness, and tlicy spoke
not only through him but in his forms of thinking, may also account
for the last and most difficult part of this narrative. Their main
object and wish was not to be banished from the country and peoi)le,
or, as St. Luke puts it — again to 'depart into the abyss.' Let us
now try to realise the scene. On the very narrow strip of shore,
between the steep cliff that rises in the background and the Lake,
stand Jesus witli His disciples and the demonised. The wish of the
demons is not to be sent out of the country — not iKick into the aliyss.
The one is the cliff overhead, the other the Lake beneath: so, sym-
bolically, and, to the demonised, really. Up on that cliff a great herd
of swine is feeding; up that cliff", therefore, is 'into the swine;' and
this also agrees with Jewish thoughts concerning uncleanness. The
rendering of our Autliorised Version," that, in reply to the demoniac
entreaty, ' forthwith Jesus gave them leave,' has led to misunder-
standing. The distinction here to be made is, though narrow, yet real
and important. The verb, which is the same in all the three Gospels,
would be better rendered by 'suffered' than by 'gave them leave.'
With the latter we associate positive permission. Xone such was
either asked or given. The Lord suffered it — that is, He did not
actually hinder it.- He only 'said unto them. Go ! '
What followed belongs to the phenomena of supersensuous
influences upon animals, of which many instances are recorded, but
the rationale of which it is impossible to explain. How the unclean,
spirits could enter into the swine, is a question which cannot be
entertained till we shall know more of the animal soul than is at
present within our range. This, however, we can understand, that
under such circumstances a panic would seize the herd, that it Avould
madly rush down the steep on which it could not arrest itself and so
perish in the sea. And this also we can ])erceive, how the real object
of the demons was thus attained; how they did /loHeave the country,
when Christ was entreated to leave it.
' The common Rabbinic word for Le-
gion is, indeed, Ligyon or Ligijona, but
the expression (Ber. 51 a) ,"1^4*' J?''!'?^^
(Istalginith) ri?2n *:n'"^
mean anything else than
T cannot
I learion of
hurtful spirit;*.
'-' Tlie verb iTtirpeTtoo is used botli in
the active sense of i)ermitting. and in
that of not hindering. As to tlie latter
use of the word. com]), specially St.
Matt. xix. 8; St. Mark x. 4.
'IN HIS KKillT MIND' 'SITTING AT THE FKKT OF JESUS.' 613
The weird .scene over which the iiioou had shed her ghostlike CHAP,
light, was past. The unearthly utterances of the demonised, the wild XXV
panic among the herd on the clilf, the mad rusli down the ste6p, the ^— "V"*-'
splashing waters as the helpless animals were precipitated into the
Lake — all this makes up a picture, unsurpassed for vivid, terrible
realism. And now sudden silence has fallen on them. From above,
the keepers of the herd had seen it all — alike what had passed
with the demonised, and then the issue in the destruction of the
herd. From the first, as they saw the demonised, for fear of whom
'no man might pass that way,' running to Jesus, they must have
watched with eager interest. In the clear Eastern air not a word
that was spoken could have been lost. And now in wild terror they
tied, into. Gerasa — into the country round about, to tell what had
happened.
It is morning, and a new morning-sacrifice and morning-Psalm
are about to be offered. He that had erst been the possession of foul
and evil spirits — a very legion of them — and deprived of his human
individuality, is now ' sitting at the feet of Jesus,' learning of Him,
'clothed and in his right mind.' He has been brought to God,
restored to self, to reason, and to human society — and all this by
Jesus, at Whose Feet he is gratefully, humbly sitting, 'a disciple.'
Is He not then the Very Son of God? Viewing this miracle, as an
historical fact, viewing it as a Parabolic Miracle, viewing it also as
symbolic of what has happened in all ages — is He not the Son of the
Most High God? And is there not now, on His part, in the morning-
light the same calmness and majesty of conscious Almighty Power
as on the evening before, when He rebuked the storm and calmed the
sea?
One other point as regards the healing of this domonism deserves
special consideration. Contrary to what was commonly the case,
when the evil spirits came out of the demonised, there was no
paroxysm of j^lujsical distress. Was it then so, that the more
complete and lasting the demoniac possession, the less of purely
physical symptoms attended it?
But now from town and country have they come, who had been
startled by the tidings which those who fed the swine had brought.
We may contrast the scene with that of the shepherds when on
Bethlehem's plains the great revelation had come to them, and they
had seen the Divine Babe laid in the manger, and had worshij^jied.
Far other were the tidings which these herdsmen brought, and their
effect. It is ii()t necessary to suppose, that their request that Jesus
614 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOIT^T OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK would (l('i)iU't out of tlieir coasts was promj:)te(l only by the loss of the
HI herd of swine. ^ There could be no doubt in their minds, that One
^— ""Y-"*-^ possessing supreme and unlimited power was in their midst. Among
men superstitious, and unwilling to submit absolutely to the Kingdom
Avhich Christ brought, there could only be one effect of what they
had heard, and now witnessed in the person of the healed demon.ised
— awe and fear! The ' Depart from me, for I am a sinful man,' is the
natural expression of a mind conscious of sin when brought into
contact with the Divine, Whose supreme and absolute Power is
realised as hostile. And this feeling would be greatly increased, in
measure as the mind was under the influence of superstitious
fears.
In such place and circumstances Jesus could not have continued.
And, as He entered the ship, the healed demonised humbly, earnestly
entreated, that he might go with his Saviour. It would have seemed
to him, as if he could not bear to lose his new found happiness; as
if there were calm, safety, and happiness only in His Presence; not
far from Him — not among those wild mountains and yet wilder men.
Why should he be driven from His fellowship, who had so long been
an outcast from that of his fellow-men, and why again left to himself?
So, perhaps, should we have reasoned and spoken; so too often do we
reason and speak, as regards ourselves or those we love. Not so He
Wlio appoints alike our discipline and our work. To go back, now
healed, to his own, and to pul^lish there, in the city — nay, through
the whole of the large district of the ten. confederate cities, the
Decapolis— how great things Jesus had done for him, such was
henceforth to be his life-work. In this there would be both safety
and happiness.
'And all men did marvel.' And presently Jesus Himself came
back into that Decapolis, where the healed demonised had prepared
the way for Him.^
^ This is tlie view of Archdeacon Far- p. 44), that it seems needless to reiterate
rar. The Gadara of which the poets them. To me at least it seems ditticult
Meleager and Philodemus were natives to understand, how any reader of the
was, of course, not the scene of this narrative, who comes to it without iire-
miracle. conceived ojnnions. can arrive at any
■^ As this healinir of the demoni.?ed other conchision than that either the
maybe reirarded as the ' test-case ' on whole must be rejected as mylhieal. or
the ijeneral ([ueslion. I have entered else be received as implyiiiir that tliere
more fully on the discussion. The ariru- was a demonised state, different from
ments in favour of the jiieneral view madness: that .lesus treated the present
taken of the demonised are so clearly as such; bade the unclean siiirits jjo out.
and forcil)ly stateil by Archbislio)) and by His word banislied them. Tlie
Trench (on 'The Miracles') and in 'The objection as to the morality of tlie de-
Speaker's Commentary * (N. Te.>t. vol. i. struction of the herd seems scarcely more
THE DEMONS ENTERING INTO THE SWINE.
615
wcinlity tliaii tlie sneer of Sfrauss, tliat
tlie (leviLs iiULst. have been stupitl in ini-
niadiiitely destroying tlieir new luibila-
tions. Tiie (luestion of morality cannot
even be raised, since Jesus did not com-
mand— only not hinder— the devils en-
tering into the swine, and as for the
destruction of their new dwellings, so far
from being stupid, it certainly did secure
their undisturb('(l continuance in the
country and the witiidiawai of Jesus.
All attempts to adapt Ihisiuiracle to our
modern experience, and the ideas ba.sed
upon it, by leaving out or rationalising
one or another trait in the narrative, are
emphatically failures. We repeat: the
history must be received as it stands —
or wholly rejected.
CHAP.
XXV
QIQ FROM JUliDAN TO THE MOL'xNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER XXYI.
THE HEALING OP THE WOMAN — CHRIST'S PEESONAL APPEARANCE —
THE RAISING OF JAIRUS' DAUGHTER.
(St. Matt. ix. 18-26; St. Mark v. 21-43; St. Luke viii. 40-56.)
BOOK There seems remarkable con-espondcnec between the two miracles
III which Jesus had wrought on leaving Capernaum and those which
. -^ He did on His return. In one sense they are complementary to each
other. The stilling of the storm and the healing of the demonised
were manifestations of the absolute power inherent in Christ; the re-
covery of the woman and the raising of Jairus' daughter, evidence of-
the absolute efficacy of faith. The unlikeliness of dominion over the
storm, and of command over a legion of demons, answers to that oi
recovery obtained in such a manner, and of restoration when disease
had passed into actual death. Even the circumstances seem to
correspond, though at opposite poles; in the one case, the Word
spoken to the unconscious element, in the other the touch of the
unconscious Christ; in the one case the absolute command of Christ
over a world of resisting demons, in the other absolute certainty
of faith as against the hostile element, of actual fact. Thus the
Divine character of the Saviour appears in the absoluteness of His
Omnipotence, and the Divine character of His ]\rission in the all-
powerfulness of faith which it called forth.
On the shore at Capernaum many were gathered on the morning
after the storm. It may have been, that the boats which had accom-
panied His had returned to friendly shelter, ere the storm had risen
to fidl fury, and had brought anxious tidings of the storm out on the
Lake. There they were gathered now in the calm morning, friends
eagerly looking out for the well-known boat that bore the Master
and His disciples. And as it came in sight, making again for Caper-
naum, the multitude also would gather in waiting for the return of
Him, Whose words and deeds were indeed mysteries, l)ut mysteries
of the Kingdom. And quickly, as He again stepped on the well-
known shore, was He welcomed, surrounded, soon 'thronged,' incon-
JAIRUS AND THE WOMAN WHO TOUCHED JESUS. GH
veni'.'iitly [)i'('sso(l upon,' l)y the crowd, c'a<i-er, furioiKs, ex])ectant. It CHAP.
seemed as if they had been all 'waiting ibr Him,' and He had been XXVI
away all too long Ibr their impatience. The tidings rapidly spread, ^— "^r — '
and reached two homes where His help was needed; where, indeed, it
alone could noAV be of possible avail. The two most nearly concerned
must have gone to seek that help al)out the same time, and prompted
by the same feelings of expectancy. Both Jairus, the Kuler of the
Synagogue, and the Avoman sulfering these many years from disease,
had faith. Jkit the weakness of the one arose from excess, and
threatened to merge into superstition, while the weakness of the
other was due to defect, and threatened to end in despair. In both
cases faith had to be called out, tried, purified, aud so perfected; in
both the thing sought for was, humanely speaking, unattainable, and
the means eni})loyed seemingly powerless; yet, in both, the outward
and inward results required were obtained through the power of
Christ, and by the pecnliar discipline to which, in His all-wise
arranging, faith was subjected.
It sounds almost like a confession of al)soluto defeat, when nega-
tive critics (such as Keim) have to ground their mythical cxi)lanation
of this history on the supposed synd)olical meaning of what they
designate as the fictitious name of the Ruler of the Synagogue —
Jair, ' he will give light ' ^ — and when they'' further appeal to the ^josuv.
correspondence between the age of the maiden and the years (twelve) p. 472 '
during winch the woman had suffered from the bloody flux. This Leben jesu
coincidence is, indeed, so trivial as not to deserve serious notice; "• p- iss
since there can be no conceivable connection betAveen the age of the
child and the duration of the Avouum's disease, nor, indeed, between
the tAvo cases, except in this, that both appealed to Jesus. As re-
gards the name Jairus^ the supposed symbolism is inapt; Avhile
internal reasons are opposed to the hypothesis of its fictitiousness.
For, it seems most unlikely that St. Mark and St. Luke Avould have
rendered tlie discovery of ' a myth ' easy by^ needlessly breaking the
silence of St. Matthew, and giving 1110 name of so Avell-knoAvn a
person as a Synagogue-ruler of Capernaum. And this the more
readily, that the name, though occurring in the Old Testament, and
in the ranks of the Nationalist party in the last JcAvisli War,"-" Avas <■ .m.--. .lew-
apparently not a connuon one." JJut these are comparatively small 1. 8. t-iose '
difficulties in the Avay of the mythical interpretation.
1 Conip. St. Luke viii. 45; St. ]\Iark (Numb, xxxii. 41; Jiulff.. x. :i). does not
V. ;^1. occur ill Rabbinic literature till after the
''■ Tlie name, a well-known O.T. one Middle Ages.
618 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK Jairus, one of the Synagogue-rulers' of Capernaum, had au only
ni daughter,'" who at the time of this narrative had just passed childhood,
^— '-Y^^^ and reached the period when Jewish Law declared a woman of age.^
Although St. Matthew, contracting the whole narrative into briefest
summary, speaks of her as dead at the time of Jairus' application to
Jesus, the other two Evangelists, giving fuller details, describe her
as on the point of death, literally, ' at the last breath ' (/// extremis).*'
Unless her disease had been both sudden and exceedingly rapid,
which is barely possible, it is difficult to understand why her father
had not on the previous day applied to Jesus, if his faith had been
such as is generally supposed. But if, as the whole tenour of the
history shows, his faith had been only general and scarcely formed,
we can account the more easily for the dela}^ Only in the hour of
supreme need, when his only child lay dying, did he resort to Jesus.
There was need to perfect such faith, on the one side into persever-
ance of assurance, and on the other into energy of trustfulness. The
one was accomplished through the delay caused by the application
of the woman, the other by the supervention of death during this
interval.
There was nothing unnatural or un-Jewish in the application of
this Ruler to Jesus. He must have known of the healing of the son
of the Court-official, and of the servant of the Centurion, there or in
the immediate neighbourhood — as it was said, by the mere word of
Christ. For there had been no imposition of silence in regard to
them, even had such been possible. Yet in both cases the recovery
might be ascribed by some to coincidence, by others to answer of
prayer. And perhaps this may lielp us to understand one of the
reasons for the prohibition of telling what had been done by Jesus,
while in other instances silence was not enjoined. Of course, there
were occasions — such as the raising of the young man at Xain and
of Lazarus — when the miracle was done so publicly, that a command
of this kind would have been impossible. But in other cases may
this not be the line of demarcation, that silence was not enjoined
when a result was achieved which, according to the notions of the
time, might have been attributed to other than direct Divine Power,
1 Kelm starts the theory that, accord- l)e .<:>;atliered from a comparison of the
ing to St. Matthew, Jairus was an tliree Gosi)els.
a p;i;ol)k in the sense of a civil magistrate. ■' A woman came of age at twelve
This, in order to make St. Matthew con- years and one day, boys at thirteen
tradict St. Mark and St. Luke, as if years and one day.
a pxoov wen> not one of the most com- * Godet ])oints out a like summari-
mon designations of Synagogue-rulers. sation in St. Alatthew's account of the
2 The particulars of her history must Centurion's servant.
THE MOTIVES AND FAITH OF JAIRUS. (319
wliilc in the latter cases ' i)ul)licity was (wlicnever possible) forbidden? CHAP,
And this for the twofold reason, that Christ's Miracles were intended XX\T
to aid, not to supersede, faith; to direct to the Person and Teachin,u- ^— — v— ^
of Christ, as that which proved the benefit to be real and Divine;
not to excite the carnal Jewish ex[)ectancies of the i)eoi)le, l)ut to
lead in huml)le discipleship to the Feet of Jesus. In short, if only
those were made known which would not necessarily imply Divine
Power (according to Jewish notions), then would not only the dis-
traction and tumult of poi)ular excitement be avoided, but in each
case faith in the Person of Christ be still required, ere the miracles
were received as evidence of His Divine claims. "^ And this need of
faith was the main point.
That, in view of his child's imminent death, and with the know-
ledg-e he had of the ' mighty deeds ' commonly reported of Jesus,
Jairus should have applied to Him, can the less surprise us, when
we remember how often Jesus must, with consent and by invitation
of this Ruler, have spoken in the Synagogue; and what irresistible
impression IHs words had made. It is not necessary to suppose,
that Jairus was among those elders of the Jews who interceded for
the Centurion; the form of his present application seems rather
opposed to it. But after all, there was nolhing in what he said
which a Jew in those days might not have spoken to a Rabbi, who
was regarded as Jesus must have been by all in Capernaum who
believed not the horrible charge, which the Juda^an Pharisees had
just raised. Though we cannot point to any instance where the
laying on of a great Rabbi's hands was sought for healing, such, com-
bined Avith prayer, would certainly be in entire accordance with
Jewish views at the time. The confidence in the result, expressed
by the father in the accounts of St. Mark and St. Matthew, is not
mentioned by St. Luke. And j^erhaps, as being the language of an
Eastern, it should not be taken in its strict litcrality as indicating
actual conviction on the part of Jairus, that the laying on of Christ's
Hands would certainly restore the maiden.
Be this as it may, when Jesus followed the Ruler to his
house, the multitude ' thronging Him ' in eager curiosity, another
approached Him from out that crowd, whose inner history was far
1 The following are the instances in - In general, we would once more thus
which silence was enjoined: — St. Matt. iovm\\\-A,iQO\\v\'\Q\\B: Iti fhe Da !,s of Christ
viii. 4 (St. Mark i. 44; St. Luke v. 14); men lea niec^first to believe in His Perfton,
St. Matt. ix. 30; xii. 1(5; St. Mark iii. andtheninHisWord; in t/ieDispensafion
12; V. 43 (St. Luke viii. 56); St. Mark of the Holy Spirit ice learn first toheliere
vii. 36; viii. 26. in His Word, and then in His Person.
620
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
« Shabb.
110 a ami b
b Shabb.
114 a
' Derekh
Erets S. x
towards
tlie end
« Babha
Mez. .52 a;
Chull. 84 6
f ,Ier.
Horay. 48 a,
4 lines from
bottom
different from that of Jairus. The disease from wiiicli this woman
had suttercd for twelve years woidd render her Levitically ' unelean.'
It must have been not unfrequent in Palestine, and proved as
intractable as modern science has found it, to judge by the number
and variety of remedies prescribed, and by their character. On one
leaf of the Talmud "^ not less than eleven different remedies are pro-
posed, of which at most only six can possibly be regarded as astringents
or tonics, while the rest are merely the outcome of superstition, to
which resort is had in the absence of knowledge.^ But what possesses
real interest is, that, in all cases where astringents or tonics are pre-
scribed, it is ordered, that, while the woman takes the remedy, she is to
be addressed in the words: ^ Arise (Qum) from thy flux.' It is not
only that psychical means are apparently to accompany the thera-
peutical in this disease, but the coincidence in the command. Arise
(Qum), with the words used by Christ in raising Jairus' daughter is
striking. But here also we mark only contrast to the magical cures
of the Rabbis. For Jesus neither used remedies, nor spoke the
word Qum to her who had come ' in the press behind ' to touch for
her healing ' the fringe of His outer garment.'
As this is almost the only occasion on which we can obtain a
glimpse of Christ's outward appearance and garb, it may be well to
form such accurate conception of it, as is afforded by a knowledge of
the dress of the ancient Hebrews. The Rabbis laid it down as a rule,
that the learned ought to be most careful in their dress. It was a
disgrace if a scholar walked abroad with clouted shoes; ^ to wear
dirty clothes deserved death;" for ' the glory of God was man, and
the glory of man was his dress. ' " This held specially true of the
Rabbi, whose appearance might otherwise reflect on the theological
profession. It was the general rule to eat and drink below (or else
according to) a man's means, Init to dress and lodge above them.** '
For, in these four things a man's character might be learned: at his
cups, in money matters, when he was angry, and by his ragged dress."
Nay, * The clothing of the wife of a Chabher (learned associate) is of
greater importance than the life of the ignorant (rustic), for the sake
of the dignity of the learned. "■ Accordingly, the Rabbis were wont
to wear such dress by which they might be distinguished. At a
^ Such as the ashes of an 0.strich-E,irir.
carried in summer in a linen, in winter
in a cotton rag; or a barley-corn found
in the dung of a white she-ass, &c.
- In Ber. 4?> b, it is explained to refer
to such shoes as had ' clouts on tlie top
of clouts.'
" Accordingly, when a person applied
for I'elief in food, inquiry was to be mad(>
as to his means, but not if he applied for
raiment (Babha B 9 a).
THE DRESS WHICH CIHHST WOKE. (J21
later i)efio(l they scciu at tlicir ordination to have been occasionally chap.
arrayed in a mantle of gold-stuff.' Perhaps a distinctive garment, xxvi
most likt'ly a head-gear, was worn, even by 'rulers' ('the elder,' pr), ^^^.' — '
at their ordination.' The Palestinian Nasi, or President ol" the "Babha
' Mez. 85 a
Sanhedrin, also had a distinctive dress," and the head of the Jewish I'Ber. 28a
connnunity in Babylon a distinctive girdle.'^ ■ Horay.
In referring to the dress which may on a Sabbath be saved from
a burning house — not, indeed, by carrying it, but by successively
initting it on, no fewer than eighteen articles ai-e mentioned.'' If the 'Shabb.
120 (I : Jer.
meaning of all the terms could be accurately ascertained, we should siiabb. lo'rf
know precisely Avhat the Jews in the second centur}', and presumably
earlier, wore, from the shoes and stockings on their feet to the gloves^
on their hands. Unfortunately, many of these designations are in
dispute. Nor must it be thought that, becanse there are eighteen
names, the dress of an Israelite consisted of so many separate pieces.
Several of them apply to different shajjcs or kinds of the same under
or upper garments, while the list indicates tlieir extreme number and
variety rather than the ordinary dress worn. The latter consisted,
to judge by the directions given for undi'essing and dressing in the
bathroom, of six, or perhaps more generally, of five articles: the
shoes, the head-covering, the Tall it h or upper cloak, the girdle, the
Chali'q or under-dress, and the AitJiqai^sin or innermost covering." '^neiekh
Erets R. x.
As regarded shoes, a man should sell his very i^oof-tree for them,* al- p- :«<< ""
though he might have to part with them for food, if he were in a
weak condition through blood-letting. "^ But it was 7?o^ the practice 'shabb.
, " . ' . 129 a :
to provide more than one ])air of sliocs," and to this may have re- com p. Pes.
. * 112 ((
ferred the injunction'' of Christ to the Apostles not to provide shoes ..jp^
for their journey, or else to the well-known distinction between shoes ^^^^^- "^'- '^
(Manalim) and sandals {Sandalini). The former, which were some- x.'io'
times made of very coarse material, (^overed the Avhole foot, and were
specially intended for winter or I'ainy weathei-: while the sandals,
which only i)rotc'ct('d the soles and sides of tiie feet, were specially
for snnnner use.' ib. Batm-a
"iS ((. lines 2
' But I admit tliat tlio iiassa-tMN'ayyik. cially to />'/■«//, Trachteii d. .ludcn. Tlic foj',' '' ^'''""
T\. 2) is iidt (luito'clcar. Thv Mitti/Jtm-f^f/t Article in TTanilnn-ijcr's Heal-Eiu'yi<l. is
tiuM'c iiR'ntioiu'il may not liave l)oe'n an little mori^ tlian a ivix'tition of lirull's.
ofticial dress, hut one whicli tii(> man From otlici' wi-itci-s I iuivc not lieon aliic
otluM'wise usod. and whii-li was only .sin'- to dci-ixc any lu'l)).
cially endearod to liim hytlic rocol lection ' So l.iniihin renders one of the words
tliat he had worn it at his ordination. in Shabh. 120 a. 1 need scarcely say
-' In ,i;eneral. I would here acknowl- that the rendering is very douhtful.
edffe my indebtedness on the very ditti- * Rrv.lJ regards this as controversial
cult subject of dress to Snclis. Beitriliie to the practices of the early Christians.
7.. Spracii- u. Alterth.-Forsch. ; to the Ar- But he coid'onnds sects with the Church.
tides in Lery's Dictionaries; and esi)e-
622
FROM .lol.'DAX TO TIIK .MOl'NT OF TRANSFIGrUATroN.
I'.OOK
m
« Exod.
xiv. 8
'• Kel.
xxix. 1
'■ Pes. Ill h.
See also t lie
somewliat
profane
etymology
Shabl). 77/),
'■ Jer. Sanh.
20 c, bottom
" Babha B.
57 /.
f Moed K.
14 a
est. Matt.
X. 10, aiul
parallels
'' St. John
xlx. 23
' Comp.
Rev. 1. l:;
In re<i,'ar(l to I lie (■()\('riii_u' ol' tiic licad, it was (Iccincd a mark of
disrespect to walk abroad, or to pass a person, witti bared liead.'
Slaves covered their heads in presence of their masters, and the
Targum Oiikdos indicates Isi'aeFs freedom by para[)hrasin<>- the ex-
pression thev -went out with a higii hand"' hy 'with uncovered
liead.' ' 'I'lic ordinai-y covering of the head was the so-called Sudar
(or Sudariiim ). a kerchief twistetl into a turban, and which might
also be worn round the neck. A kind of hat was also in use, either
of light material or of felt {Aphilyon shel rosh, or Philijon).^' The
Sudar was twisted by Rabbis in a peculiar manner to distinguish
them from others.' We read besides of a sort of ca]) or liood attached
to some kinds of outer or of inner garments.
Three, oi- else four articles commonly constituted the dress of the
body. First came tlie under-garment, commonly the Ghaluq or the
Kitfuna'^ (the JJiblical KetJioneth), from which latter some have de-
rived the word -cotton." The Chaluq might be of linen or of wool."
The sages Avore it down to the feet. It was covered by the upper
garment or Tallifh to within about a handbreadth.' The (lialnq lay
close to the body, and had no other ojxMiing than that round the
neck and for the arms. At the bottom it had a kind of hem. To
possess only one such 'coat" or inner garment was a mark of |)ov-
erty.' Hence, Avhen the A])ostles were sent on their temporary mis-
sion, they were directed not to take -two coats.'- Closely similar to,
if not identical Avitli, the Chxduq, was the ancient garment mentioned
in the Old Testament as Keflioiieth, to which the Greek 'Chiton'
(XiTGor) corresponds. As the garment which oui- Lord wore,"'* and
those of Avhich He s})oke to His Apostles are designated by that name,
we conclude that it represents the well-known Kethoneth or Rabbinic
Kittuna. This might be of almost any material, even leather,
though it was generally of wool or flax. It was sleeved, close-fitting,
reached to the ankles, and Avas fastened round the loins, or just under
the breast.' by a girdle. One kind of the latter, the Pundah or
AphundaJ).-' was ])rovided with ])ockets or other i-eceptacles,'' and
' On tile oilier liaiid. t(i walk about
witli shof'.s lot ).<('! 1 wa.-J I'ficardi'il as a
mark of ])ri(1»'.
- Tlic lil<e (Expression occiii's in tlio
Tari2;uin on .Tudi;-. v. !).
•■' Also. Kitf(iiiitli((. and Kittn iiitlia.
' As to Ihe mode of weaviiii; such
<;fannents, see the pictorial illustration
in Braunius, Vest. Sacerd. TIel)ra^or..
which is reproduced, with full details
from various other \voi')<s. in Unrtiixiini'.-i
lleln'. am I'ut/.t. vol. i.. explanatory
notes beinii' added at the l)e;;iiniinii- of
vol. iii. SmtDiifn-'s note in his edition
of B. Mezia, p. 151 a, is oidy a re|)ro-
duotion of llurtmniin's remarks.
■' It was worn outside (.Ter. Ber. 14 r,
top). Tliis is the girdle wliicli was not to
be worn in the Temple, i)robably as being
that of a i)erson engaged in business.
'' This is the explanation of the Ariich
led. L<(ii(l(ni. i. j). 137 Aj.
THE UPPER GAKiMENT WITH 'llli; ,<(MAIJJ:I) • KKIN(;ES.' ^23
lieiicc miglit not be worn ontsidi; by those who went into the Tenii)le,'' CHAP.
l)robiibl_v to indicate that he wiio went to worsliip should not be XXVI
engaged in, nor bear mark ol", any other oecupation. ^ — -, '
01" the two other garments mentioned as parts of a man's toilette. ' Jer. Ber.
® ^ Ur, top
the Aphqarsin or Aj^hikars us seems to have been an article of luxury
rather than of necessity. Its precise purpose is difheult to deter-
mine. A eonn)arison of the passages in which the term occui-s con-
veys the impression, that it was a large kerchief used partly as a
head-gear, and which hung down and was fastened under the right
arm.''^ Probably it was also used for tlie u]»])er i)ai't of the body. iKei. xxix.
But the circumstance that, uidike the other articles of (b'ess, it need 23^:24/*, m
not ])e rent m mourning,'' and that, when worn ))y females, it was oikwchief
11 1 i"' ii.1 ,1 1 i-i i. -i ' ^ worn in an
regarded as a mark 01 wealth, ' shows that it was not a necessary atccssibie
article of dress, and hence that, in all likeliliood, it was not win-n by pesiqt. i56,
Christ. It was otherwise with the upper (jannent. Various sha})es cioHetotiie
1 , • 1 ,. , ■ ,. ., ' 7, • 17) body and
and kinds ot such were m use, trom the coarser J>oresni ami Bar- yetcou-
deslit — the modern Burnoose — upwards. The Geliiun was a cloak dust; jer.
of which ' the border,' or ' hem,' is specially mentioned (n^*'-';, ^?ir*r).'' uneufi-oni
The Gunda was a peculiarly Pharisaic garb.' But the upper garment usecfft)i-
which Jesus wore would be either the so-called Goltha, or, most likely, me'Spp"?
the 2\dlith. Both the Goltha^ and tlie Tallith^' were provided, on body"
the four borders, with the so-called TsltsltJt, or ' fringes.' These were '^^^^^^°^'-^-
attached to the four corners of the outer dress, in supi)0sed fulfilment JNidd. is?/
of the command. Xuiid). xv. 38-41; Dent. xxii. 12. At first, this ob- :^!"f'^- ,
' 102 //, find
servauce seeins to ha\e been comparatively simi)le. The question as °"'""
to the number of filaments on these 'fringes ' was settled in accord- .'" ',
'^ e Jer, Sanli.
ance with, the teaching of the School of Shammai. Four filaihents '^''
(not three, as the Ilillelites proposed), each of four fin^-er-lengths 37//
(these, as later tradition put it, doubled), and attached to the four
corners of what must be a strictly square garment — such were the
earliest rules on the subject.' The Mishnah leaves it still a com- isii.hn.ed.
paratively oi)en question, whether these filaments were to be blue p.'ii7"'r(
or white.'* But the Targuin makes a strong point of it as between k Monach.
Moses and Korah, that there was to be a filament of hyacinth colour
among four of white."' It seems even to imi)ly the jieculiar sym- ... xarg.
bolical mode of'knotting them at present in use." Further symbolic on Numb.
XVI. ;
» u. s. on
details were, of course, added in the course of time.- As these
fringes were attached to the corners of any square garment, the Nujub. xv.
' This passage is botli curious and ditfi- -' Tlie number of l<nots and tlireads at
cult. It seems to imi)ly that the Ap//- present counted are. of course, later addi-
qar.shi was a garment worn in summer. tions. The little tractate Tsitnitli Kinli-
close to the l)ody, and having sleeves. heiiii. Septein Libri Talm. P. p)). 22-24j
624
FROM JORDAN To TllK MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
"Tos.
MoglU. Iv.
]). t5&, lines
17 and 16
from
bi'ttom
'■ St. John
xis. 23
• St. Matt,
svili. 5
question, wlictlicr the upper garment whicli Jesus wore was the
Goltha or the TaUith, is of secondary importance. But as all that
concerns His Sacred Person is of deepest interest, we may he allowed
to state our belief in favour of the TaUith. Both arc UK-utioncd as
distinctive dresses of teachers, but the Goltlia (so far as it differed
from the TaUith) seems the more peculiarly J\al)binic.
We can now form an approximate idea of the outward appearance
of Jesus on that spring-morning amidst the throng at Capernaum,
lie would, we may safely assume, go about in the ordinary, although
not in tlie more ostentatious, dress, worn by the Jewish teachers of
Galilee. His head-gear would probably be the Sudar (Sudarium)
wound into a kind of turban, or perhaps the Maaphoreth,^ which
seems to have served as a covering for the head, and to luive de-
scended over the back of the neck and shoulders, somewhat like the
Indian pugaree. His feet were probably shod Avith sandals. The
Chahiq, or more probably the Kittuna, which formed his inner
garment, must have been close-fitting, and descended to His feet,
since it was not only so worn by teachers, but was regarded as abso-
lutely necessary for any one who would publicly read or * Targum '
the Scriptures, or exercise any function in the Synagogue.-' As we
know^, it 'was without seam, woven from the top throughout;"" and
this closely accords with the texture of these garments. Round the
middle it would be fastened with a girdle.'^ Over this inner, He
would most probably wear the square outer garment, or TaUith,
with the customary fringes of four long white threads with one of
hyacinth knotted together on each of the four corners. There is
reason to believe, that three square garments were made with these
'fringes,' although, by way of ostentation, the Pharisees made them
l)articularly wide so as to attract attention, just as they made their phy-
lacteries broad." Although Christ only denounced the latter practice,
not the phylacteries themselves, it is impossible to believe that Him-
self ever wore them, either on the forehead or the arm.^ There was
certainly no warrant for them in Holy Scripture, and oidy Pharisee
externalism could represent their use as fulfilling the import of
is merely a sumniary. The various au-
thorities on the .subject, — and not a few
have been consulted- -are more or less
wanting in clearness and defective.
Com]), p. 277. note 2. of this volume.
' The dirtercnce between it ami the
-ly^/K/^^/-.s'/// seems to ])e. that the latter
was worn and fastened inside the dress.
The Mdiiphorcfh would in some measure
combine tin? uses (jf the SikJiu- and the
Aphqarsin.
- Canon Wefttcntt (Speaker's Comment.
on St. John xix. 23) seems to imply that
the girdle was worn outside tiie loose
outer garment. This was not the case.
^ On tills subject I must take leave
to refer to tlie Biljl. Cyclopiedias and to
'Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp.
220-224.
THE (JAKMENT FOR WHICH THEY CAST LOTS.
625
Exod. xiii. 9, 10; Dcut. vi. 8; xi. 18. The ndiuissioii tlint neither
the offleiatiiig- priestgi, nor the representatives of the people, wore
them in the Temple,'' seems to imply that this practice was not quite
universal. For our part, we refuse to believe that Jesus, like the
Pharisees, appeared wearing phylacteries every day and all day long,
or at least a great part of the day. For such was the ancient custom,
and not merely, as the modern practice, to wear them only at
prayer. '
One further remark may be allowed before dismissing this subject.
Our inquries enable us in this matter also to confirm the accuracy
of the Fourth Gospel. We read '' that the quaternion of soldiers who
crucified Christ made division of the riches of His poverty, taking
each one part of His dress, while for the fifth, which, if divided,
would have had to lie rent in pieces, they cast lots. This incidental
remark carries evidence of the Judajan authorship of the Gospel in
the accurate knowledge which it displays. The four pieces of dress
to be divided would be the head-gear, the more expensive sandals or
shoes, the long girdle, and the coarse Tallith — all about equal in
value. -^ And the fifth undivided and, comparatively, most expensive
garment. ' without seam, Avoven from the top throughout, ' probably
of wool, as l)efitted the season of the year, was the Kittuna, or inner
garment. How strange, that, what would have been of such price-
less value to Christendom, should have been divided as the poor
I' St. John
xix. 23
' As the ciiiestion is of considerable
practical imiwrtauce, the follo\viii,e;, as
l)eariiif!: upon it. may be noticed. From
Jer. Ber. 4 c, we gather: 1. That at one
time it was the practice to wear the
phylacteries all day loiiii', in order to pass
as pious. This is denounced as a mark
Of hypocrisy. 2. That it was settled, that
phylacteries should be worn during a
considerable part of the day, but not tlie
whole day. [In Ber. 23 a to 2i a wo have
rules and discussions about depositing
them under certain circumstances, and
where to place them at night.] 3. That
it was deenu''d objectionable to wear
them only during prayer. 4. That cele-
Ijrated Rabbis did not deem it necessary
.always to wear the phylacteries both on
the head and on the arm. Tiiis seems to
l)rove that their obligation could not
iuive been regarded as al)solately bind-
ing. Thus, R. Joclianan wore those for
the head only in winter, but nt>t in sum-
mer, l)ecause then he did not wear a
headgear. As another illustration, that
the wearing of phylacteries was not
deemed absolutely requisite, the follow-
ing passage may be quoted (Sanh. xi. 3):
' It is nu)re culpable to transgress the
words of the Scribes tlian those of the
Torah. He that says. There are no
phylacteries, transgresses the word of
the Torah. and is not to be regarded as
a rebel (literally, is free); but he who
says. There are five compartments (in-
stead of four), to add to the words of
the Scribes, he is guilty.
-' I hnd that the lowest price mentioned
for an upiier garment was 7i dhuirs, or
about 4.V. "td. (.ler. Kilay. i.\. \). The more
common i)rice. however, seems to have
been 12 dinars, or about 7.9. M. The
cost of making seems to have been 8
dinars, or about 5.s'. (Jer. Babha Mets. vi.
I), leaving 4 dinars, or 2.s-. Qd., for the
nuiterial. Of course, the latter might be
much nu)re expensive, and the cost of
the garment increased accordingly.
626 I'l^"^' lolfl'AN TO THE MOUNT OF TRAXSFIGl'KATlON.
BOOK booty of a rough, unappreeiativc soldiery! Yet how well for us,
HI since not even the sternest warning could have kept within the
"^— -v^^ bounds of mere reverence the veneration with which we should liave
viewed and handled that which He wore, Who died for us on the Cross.
Can we, then, wonder that this Jewish woman, ' having heard the
things concerning Jesus,' with her imperfect knowledge, in the weak-
ness of her strong faith, thought that, if slie might but touch His
garment, she would l)e made whole/ It is but what we ourselves might
think, if He were still walking on earth among men: it is but what, in
some form or otlier, we still feel when in the weakness — the rebound
or diastole — of our faith it seems to us, as if the want of this touch
in not outwardly-perceived help or Presence left us miserable and
sick, while even one real touch, if it were only of His garment, one
real act of contact, however mediate, would bring us perfect healing.
And in some sense it really is so. For, assuredly, the Lord cannot
be touched by disease and misery, without healing coming from Him,
for He is the God-Man. And He is also the loving, pitying Saviour.
Who disdains not, nor turns from our weakness in the manifestation
of our faith, even as He turned not from hers who touched IHs
garment for her healing.
We can picture her to our minds as, mingling with those wiio
thronged and pressed upon the Lord, she put forth her hand and
' touched the border of His garment,' most probably ^ tlie long Tsitsifh
of one of the corners of the Tallith. We can understand how, with
a disease which not only rendered her Levitically defiling, but Avhere
womanly shamefacedness would make public speech so difficult, she,
thinking of Him Whose Word, spoken at a distance, had brought
healing, might thus seek to have her heart's desire. What strong
faith to expect help where all human help, so long and earnestly
sought, had so signally failed! And what strong faith to expect, that
even contact with Him, the bare touch of His garment, would carry
such Divine Power as to make her ' whole.' Yet in this very strength
lay also its weakness. She believed so much in Him, that she felt as
if it needed not personal appeal to Him; she felt so deeply the
hindrances to her making request of Himself, that, believing so
strongly in Him, she deemed it sufficient to touch, not even Himself,
but tha.t which in itself had no power nor value, except as it was in
contact with His Divine Person. Rut it is here tliat her faith was
1 This, liowever, does not necessarily meaning. Comp. the excellent work of
follow, iilthoiisli in New Testament Ian- Brmnu'iis (Vest. Sac. Ilel). i)p. 72, 73 —
.iruaire KfjccaTtrSov seems to bear that nof j). 5.5, as Schli'usner note.s).
PERSONAL AND DIUECT TOmT OF rillilST. f52Y
beset by t^vo-lohl daDiici-. lii its excess it iiii.iilit (leii^enerate into chap.
superstition, as trees in their vi.iiour put I'ortli shoots, wliich, unless XXVI
tliey be cut oU*, will prevent the IVuit-beai'in^-, and even exhaust the ^-^(^^
life of the tree. Not the garments in which He appeared among
men, and which touched His Sacred Body, nor even that Body, but
Himself brings healing. Again, there was tin; danger of losing-
sight of that which, as the moral element, is necessary in faith:
personal application to, and personal contact with, Christ.
And so it is to us also. As we realise the Mystery of the Incar-
nation, His love towards, and His Presence with, His own, and the
Divine Power of the Christ, we cannot think too highly of all that
is, or brings, in contact with Him. The Church, the Sacraments,
the Apostolic Ministry of His Institution — in a word, the grand
historic Church, which is alike His Dwelling-place, His Witness, and
His Representative on earth, ever since He instituted it, endowed it
with the gift of the Holy Spirit, and hallowed it by the fulfilled
promise of His Eternal Presence, is to us what the garment He wore
was to her who touched Him. We shall think highly of all this in
measure as we consciously think highly of Him. His JJridc the
Church; the Sacraments which are the fellowship of His Body and
Blood, of His Crucifixion and Resurrection; the Ministry and Embassy
of Him, committed to the Apostles, and ever since continued with
such direction and promise, cannot be of secondary importance —
must be very real and full of power, since they are so connected,
and bring us into such connection with Him: the spirituo-physical
points of contact between Him, Who is the God-man, and those who,
being men, are also the children of God. Yet in this strength of our
faith may also lie its danger if not its weakness. Through excess
it may pass into superstition, which is the attachment of power
to anything other than the Living God; or else, in the con-
sciousness of our great disease, want of courage might deprive faith
of its moral element in personal dealing and personal contact with
Christ.
Very significantly to us who, in our foolish judging and merciless
condemning of one another, ever re-enacted the Parable of the Two
Debtors, the Lord did not, as Pseudo-orthodoxy would prescribe it,
disappoint her taith for the weakness of its manifestation. To
have disappointed her ftiith, which was born of such high thoughts
of Him, woidd have been to deny Himself — aiul he cannot deny
Himself. But very significantly, also, while He disappointed not
her faith. He corrected the error of its direction and manif(>station.
(i28
FliO.M JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" St. Luke
yiii. 47
And to this His sul)soqucnt ])earin(if toward her was directed. No
sooner had slie so touched the border of His garment than ' she
knew in the body lliat she was healed of the scourge.' ' No sooner,
also, had she so touched the border of His garment than He knew,
'perct'ived in Himself,' what had taken place: the forthgoing of the
Power that is from out of Him.-'
Taking this narrative in its true literality, there is no reason to
overweight and mar it by adding what is not conveyed in the text.
There is nothing in the language of St. Mark^' (as correctly I'endered),
nor of St. Luke, to oblige us to conclude that this forthgoing of
Power, which He perceived in Himself, had been through an act, of
the full meaning of which Christ was unconscious — in other words,
that He was ignorant of the person who, and the reason why, she
Had touched Him. In short, • the forthgoing of the Power that is
out of Him' was neither unconscious nor unwilled on His part. It
was caused by her faith, not by her touch. ' Thy faith hath made
thee whole.' And the question of Jesus could not have been mis-
leading, when ' straightway ' * He ' turned Him about in the crowd
and said, Who touched My garments?' That He knew who had
done it, and only wished, through self-confession, to bring her to
clearness in the exercise of her faitli, apjjcars n-om what is imme-
diately added: 'And JHe looked round about,' not to see who had
done it, but 'to see her that had done this thing.' And as His look
of unsi)oken appeal was at last fixed on her alone in all that crowd,
which, as Peter rightly said, was thronging and pressing Him, -the
woman saw that she was not hid,' '' and came forward to make full
confession. Thus, while in His mercy He had borne with her weak-
ness, and in His faithfulness not disappointed her faith, its twofold
errror was also corrected. She learned that it was not from the
garment, but from the Saviour, that the Power proceeded; she
learned also, that it was not the touch of it, but the faith in Him,
that made whole — and such faith must ever l)e of personal dealing
with Him. And so He spoke to her the Word of twofold help and
. ' So literally in St. Mark's Go-spel.
- Tliks <i,-ivc.s the full meaning — l)ut it
is difficult to irive a literal translation
wliich would give the entire nieaninii- of
the original.
•'' The Revised Version renders it : ' And
straightway Jesus, perceiving in Himself
tiiat the ])()\yi-v procf^.f'/ii/'j fvoiw Him iiail
gone forth, turned Him aljout.' Mark
the position of the first comma. In the
Speaker's Conniientary it is rendered:
' And immediately Jesus, having per-
ceived in Himself that the virtue had
gone forth from Him.' Dean Phnnp-
fre translates: -Knowing fully in Him-
self the virtue that liad gone out from
Him.-
' The arrangement of tlie words in
the A.V. is entirely mislcadiiiii'. The
word -immediately' refers to His turn-
ing round, not to His perceiving in
Himself.
TIDINGS OF THE DEATH OF 'THE MAIDEN.'
629
ussiiiraiu'c: 'Thy laitli liatli made tlicc whole — go Ibrtli into peace,'
and be healed of thy seoiu'iie.'
Brief as is the reeord of this occurrence, it nuist have caused
cousiderablc delay in the progress of our Lord to the house of Jairus.
For in the interval the maiden, who had been at the last gasp when
her father went to entreat the help of Jesus, had not only died, but
the house of mourning was already filled with relatives, hired
mourners, wailing Avomen, and musicians, in preparation for the
funeral. The intentional delay of Jesus wiien summoned to Lazarus •'
leads us to ask, whether similar purpose may not have influenced His
conduct in the present instance. But even were it otherwise, no
outcome of God's Providence is of chance, but each is designed.
The circumstances, which in their concurrence make u\) an event,
may all be of natural occurrence, but their conjunction is of Divine
ordering and to a higher purpose, and this constitutes Divine Provi-
dence. It was in the interval of this delay that the messengers came,
who informed Jairus of the actual death of his child. Jesus over-
lieardMt, as they whispered to the Ruler not to trouble the Kabbi
any further,'' but He heeded it not, save so far as it affected the father.
The emphatic admonition, not to fear, only to believe, gives us an
insiglit into the threatening failure of the Ruler's faith; perhaps,
also, into the motive which prompted the delay of Christ. The ut-
most need, which would henceforth require the utmost faith on the
part of Jairus had now come. But into that, which was to pass
within the house, no stranger must intrude. Even of the Apostles
only those, who now for the first time became, and henceforth con-
tinued, the innermost circle,* might witness, without present danger
to themselves or others, what was about to take place. How Jesus
dismissed the multitude, or else kept them at bay, or where He parted
from all his disciples except Peter, James, and John, docs not clearly
appear, and, indeed, is of no importance. He may have left the nine
Apostles with the peoi)le, or outside the house, or parted from them
in the courtyard of Jairus' house before he entered the inner apart-
ments.'^
CHAP.
XXVI
" St. John
xi. 6
' So literally.
^ I adopt the readina; itapaKovcra?,
which seems to me better rendered by
' overheariiiii;' than by • not heeding'. " as
in the Revised Version.
■* The word unquestionably means,
literally, Teacher — but in the sense of
Rabbi, or Master.
■* Those who believe in an • anti-
Petriue' tendency in the Gospel by St.
Luke must tind it difiicult to account for
the prominence given to him in the Third
Gospel.
'" I confess myself unable to see any real
discrei)ancy between the accounts of St.
Mark and St. Luke, such as S/rin(ss,
Kciiii, and others have tried to establish.
Ill St. Mark it is: -He snlfered no man
g30 FROM JORDAN TO THE >[OrNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK AVitliin. • the tumult" and weeping, the wail of the mourners, real
III or hired, and the melancholy sound of the mourning tlutes ^ — sad pre-
^—^7' — paratiou lor, and pageantry of, an p]astern funeral — broke with dismal
discord on the majestic calm of assured victory over death, with
which Jesus liad entered the house of mourning. But even so
He would tell it them, as so often in like circumstances He tells it to
us, that the damsel was not dead, but only sleeping. The Rabbis also
frequently have the expression 'to sleep' {demakh -,::-i, or -p^-;, when
the sleep is overpowering and oppressive), instead of ' to die. ' It may
well have been that Jesus made use of this word of double meaning
in some such manner as this : Talyetlia dimkJiath, ' the maiden sleepcth. '
And they understood Him well in their own way, yet understood Ilim
not at all.
As so many of those who now hear this word, they to whom it
was then spoken, in their coarse realism, laughed Him to scorn. For
did they not verily know that she had actually died, even before the
m3ssengers had been despatched to prevent the needless trouble of
His coming? Yet even this their scorn served a higher purpose.
For it showed these two things: that to the certain belief of those
in the house the maiden Avas really dead, and that the Gospel-
wi^ters regarded the raising of the dead as not only beyond the ordi-
nary range of Messianic activity, but as something miracidous even
among the miracles of Christ. And this also is evidential, at least so
far as to prove that the writers recorded the event not lightly, but
with full knowledge of the demand which it makes on our faith.
The first thing to be done by Christ was to 'put out" the
mourners, whose proper place this house no longer was, and who by
their conduct had proved themselves unfit to be witnesses of Christ's
great manifestation. The impression which the narrative leaves on
the mind is, that all this while the fatherof the maiden was stupefied,
passive, rather than active in the matter. The great fear, which had
come upon him when the messengers apprised him of his only child's
death, seemed still to numb his faith. He followed Christ without
taking any part in what happened; he witnessed the pageantry of
the approaching obsequies in his house witliout interfering; he heard
the scorn which Christ's majestic declaration- of the victory over
deatli provoked, without checking it. llie tire of his faith was that
• Is. xiii. 3 of ' dim!} burning flax.'" But ' He will not quencL' it.
mail to accompany Him' (whither?); in ' Thej- are specially called 'flutes for
St. Luke: ' He suffered not any man to the dead-' (13. Mez. vi. 1): n^:'" C*!'*'";.
enter in with Him.'
'TAL.IKTIIA. KT'M!' fj31
lie now led the fiitlici' iiinl the iiiotlKT iiitn the rliiinihci- wlici'c CHAP,
the (lead maiden lay, rollowcd by tlie tlii'ec Apostle?;, witnesses ol" XXVI
His chicrest Avoi-kiiio; and ol' His utmost earthly glory, but also of ^— ^r^— ^
His inmost suH'crings. AVithoul doubt or hesitation He took her
by tlu' hand and spoke oidy these two words: Tahjetlia Qum [K^nii^
^~ip Nr'r'j ')j Maiden, arise! 'Ami straightway the damsel ai'ose.'
But the great astonishment whieh rame upon them, as well as the
' sti'ait charge" that no man shouhl know it, are further evidence, if
such were required, how little their faith had been prepared foi* that
which in its weakness was granted to it. And thus Jesus, as He
had formerly corrected in the woman that weakness of faith which
came through very excess, so now in the Ruler of the Synagogue the
weakness which was l)y failure. And so 'He hath done all things
Avell: He maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.' ^ "St. Mark
^ vil. 37.
How Jesus conveyed Himself away, whether through another
entrance into the house, or by ' the road of the roofs,' we are not told.
But assuredly. He must have avoided the multitude. Presently we
lind Him far from Capernaum. Probably He had left it immediately
on quitting the house of Jairus. But what of tliat multitude ? The
tidings must have speedily reached them, that the daughter of
the Synagogue-Ruler was not dead. Yet it had been straitly charged
that none of them should be informed, how it had come to pass that
she lived. They were then with this intended mystery before them.
She teas not dead: thus much was certain. The Christ had, ere
leaving that chamber, given command that meat should be brought
her; and, as that direction must have been carried out by one of the
attendants, this would liecome immediately known to all that house-
hold. Had she then not really died, but only been sleeping ? Did
Christ's words of double meaning refer to literal sleep? Here then
was another Parable ot twofohl ditferent bearing: to them that had
hearts to understand, and to them who understood not. In any case,
their former scorn had l)een misplaced; in any case, the Tea'-her of
' The readins; which aocorfliiiicly seem.-! tlie reading; ' Talitha ' is very uncertain,
best is that adopted by Westvott and As reii'ards tlie second word, fjiim [pro-
Jloii , TaXeifJd kov^. Tlie Aramaic or nounced k/rnt]. most writers have, witli-
Rabbinic for maiden is either TaJyefka out ditticulty. shown that it should be
or 7>//v"?'/'" (Nnr"'*JV In the second qmni. not qmn. Nevertheless, the same
^ '' '■ ' ' command is spelt u'JT in the Talmud (as
Taruum on Esther n. 7, 8, the readin.a; is \x is pronounced in the Syriac) when a
N,"nri; (Tahft/ia), where Lei-i/ conjee- tnmianis addressed. In t^habb. 110 i'/,
t„vQ^ ti.o ,.Qnri;„r,. vn*n«. / 'p 1*1 thc comnuuid iiim, as addressed to a
tures tue reaaintj JsJi ~w (L(ihfh(i\ or ,r ■ c „, ii i « ,.
^ T • - V woman sutlernii;- from ;i Ijlondv tiux.
(dse Tdlijclhd. The latter seems also occurs not less than i
the proper eriuivalent of raAe/Oa', wliile one page (~p21T^ C^p).
(532 FROM .l()i;i)AN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK Nazareth was far otlicr tliau all the Rabbis. In what Name, and by
ni wliat Powe]', (lid He ooiiie and act ':' Who was He really ? Had
^— '>''*— ' they but known of the ' Tahjttha Qioh,' and how these two words had
burst open the two-leaved doors of death and Hades! Nay, but it
woidd have only ended in utter excitement and complete misundcr-
stan<ling, to the final inii)ossi)jility of the carryin.u' out of Christ's
Mission. For. the full as well as the true knowledge, that He was
the Son of God, could onlj' come after His contest and suffering.
And our faith also in Him is first of the sutlering Saviour, and then of
the Son of (iod. Tiius was it also from tlu' first. It was through
what He did for them that they learned Who He was. Had it been
otherwise, the full blaze of the Sun's glory would have so dazzled
them, that they could not liave seen the Cross.
Yet to all time has this question engaged the minds of men:
Was the maiden really dead, or did she only sleep ? With it this
other and kindred one is connected: Was the healing of the woman
miraculous, or oidy caused by the influence of mind over bod}', such
as is not unfreciuently Avitnessed, and such as explains modern so-
called miraculous cures, where only superstition perceives sui)ernatui'al
agency? But tliese very words 'Influence of mind over l)ody,' with
which we are so familiar, are they not, so to speak, synd)olic and typical?
Do the}' not point to the possibility, and, lieyond it, to the fact of such
influence of the God-Man, of the comnmnd which he wielded over
the ])ody ? May not comnmnd of soul over body be ])art of unfallen
Man's original inheritance; all most fully realised in the Perfect Man,
the God-Man, to Whou) has l)een given the absolute rule of all things,
and Who has it in virtue of His Nature ? These are only dim feelings
after possible higher truths.
No one who carefully reads this histoi-y can doubt, that the
Evangelists, at least, viewed this healing as a real miracle, and in-
temU^d to tell it as such. Kvcn the statement of Christ, that by the
forthgoing of Power He knew the moment when the woman touched
the hem of His garment, would render impossil)le the view of certain
critics {Keiiu and others), that the cure was the etfect of natural
causes: expectation acting through the inmgination on the nervous
system, and so producing the physical results. But even so, and
Avhilc these writers reiterate certain old cavils' i)roiiounded by
Stran.s.s, and l)y him often derived from the ancient armoury of our
own Deists (such as WooMon), they admit being so iniju-essed with
the • simple.' • natural." and • life-like " cast of the nan-ative. that they
' We cuiuiot f;ill till* trivial olijcctinii?; ui'iidl uthcr Iliaii -c-ivils.'
WAS THE MAIDEN UEAIJA' DEAD?
633
contciul I'or its histoi'ic trutli. But the ii'i-cat leader of iieiiat ivism, CHAP.
Sfrauss, has shown that {Ui.y natural e.\.[)hinati()n ol" the event is XXVI
opjjosed to tlie wliole teuour of the narrative, indeed of the (Josi)el- ^— -y— ^
history; so that the alternatixc is its siuii)le aeee[)tanee or its I'ejee-
tion. SfrtiKSfi boldly deeides for the latter, but in so doin<j; is met
])y the obvious objcetiou, that his denial does not rest on any historical
foundation. \Ve can understand, how a le<i'end could g'ather ai'ouud
historical facts and eud)ellish them, but not how a narrative so en
tirely without precedent in the Old Testament, anil so opposed, not
oidy to tlu' common Messianic ex})ectation, but to .Jewish thouo-|it,
could have been invented to glorify a Jewish Messiah.'
As regards the restoration to life of Jairus' daughter, there is a
like dilference in the negative school (between Kcint and Strauss).
One party insists that the maiden only seemed, but was not really
dead, a view open also to this objection, that it is nuinifestly impos-
sible by such devices to account tor the raising of the young nmn at
Xain, or tliat of Lazarus. On the other hand, Str<ii(ss treats the
whole as a myth. It is well, that in this case, he should have con-
descended to argument in supp(n't of his view, api>ealing to the
expectancy created by like miracles of Elijah and Elisha, and to the
general belief at that time, that the Messiah would raise the dead.
F(tr, the admitted dilferi'nces l)etween the recorded circumstances of
the miracles of Elijah and Elisha and those of Christ are so great,
that another negative critic (Keiiii) finds i)roof of imitation in their
contrasts! '' IJut tlie anneal to .Jewish belief at that time tells, if -•■Jesuv.
Nazar. ii. 2,
possible, even nun'e sti'ongly against the hypothesis in cjuestion (of i'- *''•''
Keiin and St)-(niH.s). It is, to say the least, doubtful whether .Jewish
theology generally ascribed to the Messiah the raising of the dead.-
There are isolated statements to that ett'ect, but the majority of
ojiinions is, that God would Himself raise the dead. I>ut even those
])assages in which this is attril)uted to the Messiah tell against the
assertions of /V^rr/7/.s.s'. For, the resurrection to which they refer is
that of (ill the dead (whether at the end of the i)resent age, or of the
world), and not of single individuals. To the lattei- there is not the
' According- to EiisehiKx (Hist. l<]ccl.
vii. IS) there was a statue in Paneas in
comniemoration of tliis event, whicli was
said to liave l)een erected l>y tliis woman
to Clirist.
- The passai^e wliicJi Sfiyn/ss (Hiotes
from Bert/iol(ff {Chv\iito\. .Fud. p. 171)). is
from a later Midrasli, tlnit on Proverbs.
No one would think of deriviuK purely
Jewish doctrine either from the Sohar or
IVoiii W. Es<lras, wliicii is of post-Ciu'is-
tian date, and sd'onuiy tini;-ed with
Christian elements. Otlier passages,,
iiowcxcr. nugiit l)c (prnted in favour of
this view (comp. Wchcr. Altsynagog.
Theol. pp. 351, :io2), and on tlie other
side, Handninjer. Real-Encykl. (II. Abth.
• Belebunn' dci' Todten '). The matter
will be discussed in the sequel.
634 FROM JOROAX TO THE MOI'XT OF TRAX,<FIGUHATIOX.
IJooK laiiitt'St allusion in Jewish wiitin.u's. and it may be salbly asserted that
II' siu'h a dogma would liave been I'oreiun. <'veii ineongruous. to Jewish
^— "^^^ - iheology.
The ini])leasant task of stating and refuting these objeetions
seemed necessary, if only to show that, as of old so now, this history
eanuot be citlier explained or accounted for. It must be acceptc.'d
or rejected, accordingly as we think of Christ. Admittedly, it formed
l)art of the original tradition and belief of the Church. And it is
recorded with such details of names, circumstances, time and place,
as almost to coui't inquiiw. and to render fraud well-nigh impossible.
A]u\ it is so recorded by all the three Evangelists, with such varia-
tions, or rather, additions, of details as only to confirm the credibil-
ity of the nari'atoi'S. by showing their indei)endence of each otlier.
Lastly, it tits into the Avhole histoi-y of the Clirist. and into this
si)ecial period of it: and it sets l)efore us the Christ and His l)earing
in a manner, which we instinctively feel to be accordant with Avhat
we know and expect. Assuredly, it imi)lies determined rcjecti(ni of
the claims of tlie Clirist. and that on grounds, not of history. l)ut
ol" ])reconceived ojjinions hostile to the (lospel. not to see and adore
in it the full numifestation of the Divine Saviour of the world. • Wlio
hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light
«'2Tim. i. through the (i!osi)el." ■' And with this belief our highest thoughts of
the potential for humanity, and our dearest hopes for ourselves and
those we love, are inseparably connected.
SECOND VISIT TO NAZARETH. 535
CHAPTER XXVII.
SECOND VISIT TO NAZARETH — THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE,
(St. Matt. xiii. 54-58; x. 1, 5-42; xi. I; St. Mivrk vi. 1-13; St. Luke ix. l-(j.)
It almost seems, as if the departure of Jesus from Capernaum marked CHAP,
a crisis in the history of that town. From heneefortli it ceases to be XXVII
the centi-e of His activity, and is only occasionally, and in passing, ^— ^,^— ^
visited. Indeed, the concentration and <j,-rowing i)ower of Pharisaic
o])position, and the proximity of Herod"s residence at TilK'rias ' would
have rendered a permanent stay there im})ossil)le at this stage in our
Lord's history. Henceforth, His Life is, indeed, not inirely missionary,
but He has no certain dwelling-i^lace: in the siil)lime i)athos of His
own language, ' He liath not where to lay His Head."
The notice in St. Mark's Gospel,'' that His discijjles followed »st. Mark
vi. 1
Him, seems to connect the arrival of Jesus m • His own country "
(at Xazareth) with the departure from the house of Jairus. into
which He had allowed only three of His Apostles to accomi)any Him.
The circumstances of the present visit, as well as the tone of His
couutrymen at this time, are entirely ditfercnt from what is recorded
of His Ibrmer sojourn at Nazareth.''-' The tenacious narrowness, and 'st. Luke
the prejiulices, so characteristic ot such a town, with its cliques and
petty family-pride, all the moi'e self-asserting that tlie gradation Avould
1)0 almost imperceptible to an outsi<ler. are, of course, the same as on
the former visit of Jesus. Nazareth would have ceased to be Nazareth,
had its people felt or spoken otherwise than nine or ten months
before. That His fame had so grown in the interval, wmdd cmly
stimulate the conceit of the village-town to try, as it were, to con-
struct the great Propliet out of its own building materials, with this
additional gratitication that He was thoroughly their own. and that
they possessed even lietter materials in their Nazareth. All this is so
quite according to life, that the substantial repetition of the former
' Altlioiio-li ill Bpr. R. 23 tlip ori,<;"iii of {fibto-if) of tlie laml. othcns paraplirasiiij*;
that name is ri,<>;htly traced to the the name 'l)ecaiuse the view. was yood '
Emiieror Tiberius, it is cliaracteristic that (Me^'. (i a). Ralibiiiioinireiuiity declared
tlie Tahnud tries otiu'rwise to derive the it one of the cities fortified since the time
name of wliat afterwards was tiie sacred of Josliua, so as to yive it tlu> i)rivilef>es
capital of I'alestiiiian liabbinism, some attachinn' to such.
explaining that it Uiy in the navel ■• C()mi)are Ciiapters X. and XI.
636 FROM JORDAN TO TllH MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK scene ill tlie Synagogue, so Itir Ironi snri)rising us, seems only
HI natural. AVhat surprises us is, what He marvelled at: the unbelief
^— "^c^^' of Na/areth, which lay at tlic foundation ofits estimate and treatment
of Jesus.
Upon their own showing their unbelief was most unwarrant-
able. If ever men had the means of testing the claims of Jesus,
the Nazarenes possessed them. True, they were ignorant of the
miraculous event of His Incarnation; and we can now i)erceive at
least one of the reasons for the mystery, whicli was allowed to
euwraj) it, as well as the higher jnirpose in Divine Providence of His
being born, not in Nazareth, but in Bethlehem of Judtca, and of the
interval of time between that Birth and the return of His parents
fi'om Egypt to Nazareth. Apart from i)i'oi)hecy, it was needful for
Nazareth that Christ should have l)een Ixn'u in Bethlehem, otherwise
the ' mystery of His Incarnation ' must have become known. And yet
it could not have been nuide known, alike lor the sake of those most
nearly concerned, and for that of those who, at that period of His
History, could not have understood it; to whom, indeed, it would
have l)een an absolute hiiulrance to l)elief in Him. And He could
not liave returned to Ik'thlehem, where He was born, to l)e brought
up there, without calling attention to the miracle of His Bii'tli.
If, therefore, for reasons easily comprehended, the mystei-y of His
Incarnation was not to be divulged, it was needful that the Incarnate
ofNazareth should be born at Bethlehem, and the Infant of Beth-
leliem be brought up at Nazareth.
By thus withdrawing Him successively from one and the other
place, there was really none on earth who knew of His miraculous
Birth, except the Virgin-Mother, Joseph, f]lizabeth, and jjroljably
Zacharias. The vision and guidance vouchsafed to the shepherds
on that December night did not really disclose the mystery of His
Incarnation. Remembering their religious notions, it would not leave
on them quite the same impression as on us. It might mean much,
or it might mean little, in the present: time would tell. In those
lands the sand buries qiuekly and buries deep — preserving, indeed,
but also hiding what it covers. And the sands of thirty years had
buried the tale which the shepherds had brought; the wise men
from the East had returned another way; the excitement which
their arrival in Jerusalem and its object had caused, was long for-
gotten. Messianic expectations and movements were of constant
recurrence: the religious atmosphere seemed charged with such
elements; and tlie ])olitical changes and events of tlie day were too
WHAT THEY KNEW OF JESUS IN NAZARETH?
63t
engrossing to allow of niucli attention to an isolated rei)ort, which,
after all, might mean little, and which certainly was of the long past.
To keep uj) attention, there mnst be communication; and that was
precisely wiiat was wanting in this instance. The reign of Herod
was ttirnished by many suspicions and murders such as those of
Bethlehem. Then intervened the death of Herod, — while the carry-
ing of Jesus into Egypt and His non-return to Bethlehem formed a
com})lete break in the continuity of His History. Between obscure
Bethlehem in the far south, and obscure Nazareth in the far north,
there Avas no communication such as between towns in our own land,
and they who had sought the Child's life, as well as they who might
have worshipped Him, must have been dead. The aged parents of
the Baptist cannot have survived the thirty years which lay between
the Birth of Christ and the commencement of His Ministry. We
have already seen reason for supposing that Joseph had died before.
None, therefore, knew all except the Virgin-Mother; and she would
hide it the deeper in her heart, the more years passed, and she
increasingly felt, as they passed, that, both in His early obscurity and
in His later manifestation, she could not penetrate into the real
meaning of that mystery, with wiiich she was so closely connected.
She could not understand it; how dared she speak of it ? She could
not understand; nay, we can almost perceive, how she might even
misunderstand — not the fact, but the meaning and the purport of
what had passed.
But in Nazareth they knew nothing of all this; and of Him only
as that Infant Whom His parents, Joseph the carpenter and Mary,
had brought with them months after they had first left Nazareth.
Jewish law and custom made it possible, that they might have been
married long before. And now they only knew of this humble
family, that they lived in retirement, and that sons and daughters
had grown around their humble board. Of Jesus, indeed, they
must have heard that He was not like others around — so (piite
ditfcrent in all ways, as He grew in wisdom and stature, and in
favour with God and man. Then came that strange tarrying behind
on His first visit to Jerusalem, when His parents had to return to
seek, and at last found Hini in the Temple. This, also, was only
strange, though perhaps not strange in a child such as Jesus; and of
His own explanation of it, so full of deepest meaning, they might
not have heard. If we may draw probable, though not certain,
inferences, after that only these three outw^ard circumstances in the
history of the family might have been generally noticed: that Jesus
followed the occupation of His adoptive father: * that Joseph had
CHAP.
XXVH
■ St. Mark
rl. 3
638
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
died; and that the luutlier and 'brethren' of Jesu.s bad left Naza-
reth/ while His 'sisters' apparently continued there, being prol)a))ly
uuirried to Nazarenes. "
When Jl'sus had first left Nazareth to seek Baptism at the hands
of John) it could scarcely have attracted much attention. Not only
did ' the whole world ' go after the Baptist, but, considering what
was known of Jesus, His absence from, not His presence at the banks
of Jordan, would have surprised the Nazarenes. Then came vague
reports of His early doings, and, what probably His countrymen
Avould much more appreciate, the accounts Avhich the Galileans
brouglit back from the Feast of what Jesus had done at Jerusalem.
His fame had preceded Him on that memorable Sabbath, when all
Nazareth had thronged the Synagogue, curious to hear what the
Child of Nazareth would have to say, and still more eager to see
what He could do. Of the charm of His words there could l)e no
question, lioth what He said and how He said it, was quite other
than what they had ever listened to. The difference was not in
degree, but in kind: He spoke to them of the Kingdom; yet not as
for Israel's glory, but for unspeakable comfort in the soul's deepest
need. It was truly wonderful, and that not abstractly, but as on
the part of 'Joseph's Son.' That was all they perceived. Of that
which they had most come to see there was, and could be, no mani-
festation, so long as they measured the Prophet by His outward
antecedents, forgetful that it was inward kinship of faith, which con-
nected Him that brought the blessing with those who received it.
But this seeming assunq^tion of superiority on the i)art of
Joseph's Son was quite too much for the better classes of Nazareth.
It was intolerable, that He should not only claim equality with an
Elijah or an Elisha, but place them, the l)urghers of Nazareth, as it
were, outside the pale of Israel, below a heathen man or woman. And
so, if He had not, without the show of it,])roved the authority and power
He possessed, they would have cast Him headlong over the ledge of
the hill of their insulted town. And now He had come back to
them, after nine or ten months, in totally different circumstances.
No one could any longer question His claims, whether for good or
for evil. As on the Sabbath He stood up once more in that Syna-
gogue to teach, they Avere astonished. The rumour must have spread
that, notwithstanding all. His own kin — probably His ' sisters." whom
^ Tliey seem ^o liavo settled in Caper- in Xazarelli would have been ditlicult.
naum, haviiiii; followed .Jesud to that The death of Jo-sepli is implied in liis
place on His first removal to it. We can not bein.i;- mentioned in the later history
readily understand, that their Continuance of ,Iesus.
vi. 2
THE UNDELIEK OF THE NAZARENES. 63'J
He might have been suppuried by many to have come to visit — did CHAP.
not own and lionour Him as a Prophet. Or else, had fhey of His XXVn
own house purposely spread it, so as not to be involved in His Fate? ^— ^r^^^
But the astonishment with which they heard Him on that Sabbath
was that of unbelief. The cause was so apparently inadequate to the
effect! They knew His supposed parentage and His brothers; His
sisters were still with them; and for these many years had they known
Him as the carpenter, the son of the carpenter. Whence, then, had
' this One, ' ' these things, ' ' and what the wisdom which " was * given
to this One ' — and these mi<rlity works done l)v His Hands?' '' "St Mark
It was, indeed, more than a difficulty— an impossibility — to
account for it on their principles. There could be no delusion, no
collusion, no deception. In our modern cant-phraseology, tlieirs
might have been designated Agnosticism and philosophic doubt.
But philosophic it certainly was not, any more than much that now
passes, because it bears that name; at least, if, according to modern
negative criticism, the inexplicable is also the unthinkable. Nor was
it really doubt or Agnosticism, any more than much that now covers
itself with that garb. It was, what Christ designated it — unbelief,
since the questions would have been easily answered — indeed, never
have arisen — had they believed that He was the Christ. And the
same alternative still holds true. If ' this One ' is what negative
criticism declares Him, which is all that it can know of Him by the
outside: the Son of Mary, the Carpenter and Son of the carpenter
of Nazareth, Whose family occupied the humblest position among
Galileans — then whence this wisdom which, say of it what you will,
underlies all modern thinking, and these mighty works, which have
moulded all modern history? Whence — if He be only what you can
see by the outside, and yet His be such wisdom, and such mighty deeds
have been wrought by His Hands? Is He only what you say and see,
seeing that such results are noways explicable on such principles; or
is He not much more than this — even the Christ of God?
' And He marvelled because of their unbelief ' In view of their
own reasoning it was most unreasonable. And equally unreasonable
is modern unbelief. For, the more strongly negative criticism asserts
its position as to the Person of Jesus, the more unaccountable are His
Teaching and the results of His Work.
In such circumstances as at Nazareth, nothing could be done by
a Christ, in contradistinction to a miracle-monger. It would have
been impossible to have finally given up His own town of Nazareth
without one further appeal and one further opportunity of repentance.
640
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
' III
» St. Matt
ix. 36-38
'■ St. Luke
X. 2
'• Com p.
St. Matt.
26 with
St. Luke
xii. 1, 2
•^ St. Matt.
X. o to the
end
As He had begun, so He closed this part of His Galilean Ministry,
by preaching: in His own Synagogue of Nazareth. Save in the case
of a few who were receptive, on whom He laid His Hands for healing,
His visit passed away without such ' mighty works ' as the Nazarenes
had heard of. He will not return again to Nazareth. Henceforth
He will make commencement of sending forth His disciples, partly
to disarm prejudices of a personal character, partly to spread the Gos-
pel-tidings farther and wider than he alone could have carried them.
For His Heart compassionated the many who were ignorant and out
of the way. And ttie harvest was near, and the harvesting was great,
and it was His Harvest, into which He would send forth labourers.
For, although, in all likelihood, the words, from which quotation
has just been made, '^ were spoken at a later time, " they are so entirely
in the spirit of the present Mission of the Twelve, that they, or words
to a similar effect, may also have been uttered on the present occasion.
Of such seeming repetitions, when the circumstances were analogous,
although sometimes with ditlcrent application of the same many-
sided words, there are not a few instances, of wliich one will presently
come under notice. " Truly those to whom the Twelve were sent forth
were ' troubled ' ^ as well as ' scattered, ' like sheep that have not a
Shepherd, and it was to deliver them from the ' distress ' caused by
' grievous wolves, ' and to gather into His fold those that had been
scattered abroad, that Jesus sent forth the Twelve with the special
commission to which attention will now be directed. Viewing it in
its fullest form,*^ it is to be noted: —
First: That this Discourse of Christ consists of five parts: vv. 5
to 15; vv. 16 to 23; vv. 24 to 33; vv. 34 to 39; vv. 40 to the end.
Secondly: That many passages in it occur in different connections
in the other two Synoptic Gospels, specially in St. Mark xiii. and in
St. Luke xii. and xxi. From this it may be inferred, either that Jesus
spake the same or similar words on more than one occasion (when the
circumstances were analogous), or else that St. Matthew grouped
together into one Discourse, as being internally connected, sayings that
may have been spoken on different occasions. Or else — and this seems
to us the most likely — both these inferences may in part be correct.
For,
Thirdly: It is evident, that the Discourse reported by St. Matthew
goes far beyond that Mission of the Twelve, beyond even that of
the Early Church, indeed, sketches the history of the Church's Mission
in a hostile world, up ' to the end. ' At the same time it is equally
' So in St. Mutt. ix. 36.
DISCOURSE OF CHRIST ON THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. 641
evident, that the predictions, warnings, and promises applicable to a CHAP,
later period in the Church's history, hold equally true in principle in XXVii
ret'erence to the first Mission of the Twelve; and, conversely, that ^-^"^
what specially applied to it, also holds true in principle of the whole
subsequent history of the Church in its relation to a hostile world.
Thus, what was specially si)okcn at this time to the Twelve, has ever
since, and rightly, been applied to the Church: while that in it,
which specially refers to the Church oi'the future, would in principle
apply also to the Twelve.
Fourthly: This distinction of primary and secondary application
in the diftcrent parts of the Discourse, and their union in the general
principles underlying them, has to be kept in view, if we are to under-
stand this Discourse of Christ. Hence, also, the present and the
future seem in it so often to run into each other. The horizon is
gradually enlarging throughout the Discourse, but there is no change
in the standpoint originally occupied; and so the present merges
into the future, and the future mingles with the present. And this,
indeed, is also the characteristic of much of Old Testament prophecy,
and which made the prophet ever a preacher of the present, even
while he was a foreteller of the future.
Lastly: It is evidential of its authenticity, and deserves special
notice, that this Discourse, while so un-Jewish in spirit, is more than
any other, even more than that on the Mount, Jewish in its forms of
thought and modes of expression.
With the help of these principles, it will be more easy to mark
the general outline of this Discourse. Its first parf* applies entirely "St. Matt.
to this first Mission of the Twelve, although the closing words point
forward to ' the judgment." " Accordingly it has its parallels, althougii ' ver. 15
in briefer form, in the other two Gospels. "= est. Mark
1. The Twelve were to go forth two and two," furnished with stLukeix,
authority' — or, as St. Luke more fully expresses it, with 'power an(
authority ' — alike over all demons and to heal all manner of disenscs. vi
It is of secondary inq)ortance, whether this was conveyed to them l^y
word only, or with some sacramental sign, such as breathing on them
or the laying on of hands. The special connnission, for which they
received such power, was to ])roclaini the near advent of the King-
dom, and, in manifestation as well as in evidence of it, to heal the sick,
cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons.'^ They were to speak good
' So also in St. Matthew aiul in St. - Dean Plinnptre remarks: -The
Mark. But this ' authority ' sprang from words ("raise the dead ") are omitted by
the power which he gave them. the best JISS.'
1-
■^ St. Mark
642 FKO.M .lOIJDAN TO THE MOUiNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK and to do good in the highest sense, and that in a manner which all
III would feel good: freely, even as they had received it. Again, they
^ — ^' — ^ wei'o not to make any special provision ' for their journey, beyond the
absolute iuimctliate present.- They were but labourers, yet as such
they had claim to support. Their p]mi)loyer would ])rovide, and the
='C.)mi). for field in which thev worked might well be expected to sui^nly it."^
Ihis IcattLl- "...
aspect In accordance with this, singleness of purrxjse and an entire self-
1 Tim. V. 18 . ) o 11
denial, which should lead them not to make provision ' for the flesh. '
r)ut ns la1)onrors to be content with daily food, were the further injunc-
tions laid on them. Before entering into a city, they were to make
inquiry, literally to ' search out,' who in it was ' worthy,' and of them
to ask hospitality; not seeking during their stay a change for the
gratification of vanity or for self-indulgence. If the report on which
they had made choice of a host proved true, then the ' Peace with
thee!' with which they had entered their temporary home, would
become a reality. Christ woukl make it such. As He had given
them 'power and authority,' so He would 'honour' the draft on
Him, in acknowledgment of hospitable reception, which the Apostles'
' Peace with thee ! ' implied.
But even if the house should prove uuAvorthy, the Lord would
none the less own the words of His messengers and make them real;
only, in such case the peace would return to them wiio had spoken
it. Yet another case was possible. The house to which their
■ inquiries had led them, or the city into which they had entered, might
refuse to receive them, because they came as Christ's ambassadors-
Greater, indeed, Avould be their guilt than that of the cities of the
plain, since these had not known the character of the heavenly guests
to whom they refused reception; and more terrible would be their
future punishment. So Christ would vindicate their authority as
well as His own, and show the reality of their commission: on the
one hand, by making their Word of Peace a reality to those who had
proved ' worthy; ' and, on the other, by punishment if their message
' TT1??ss (Alatth. Evang. p. 262) has of the staff to hold valuables, or, in the
the curious idea that the prohibitions case of the poor, water (Kel. xvii. 16).
about money, <fec., refer to their not ■■* According to Jewish Law, 'thela-
maklug gain on their journey. bourers ' (the Z'-r*;;, at least), would be
* - Sandals, but not shoes. As regards
the marked difference about ' the staff,' secured their food. Not so always, how-
Ehrnrd (Evang. Gesch, p. 459) points ever, slaves (Gitt. 12 a). In general, the
out tlio airre(>ment of Ihoiu/hl in all the Rabbinic Law of slavery is exceeding
Gospels. Nothing was to betaken— harsii— far more so than that of the Pen-
thev were to go as thev stood, without tateuch (comp. an abstract of the Laws
preparation or provision. Sometimes of Slavery in Fr^s.W, .Mos.-Rabb. Civil-
there was a secret receptacle at the top Recht, vol. ii. pp. :;93-406).
JEWISH FORM OF THE DISCOURSE.
643
was rcfuscil. Lastly, in their present Mission they were not to touch
either Gentile or Samaritan territory. The direction — so different
in spirit from what Jesus Himself had previously said and done,
and from their own later commission — was, of course, only ' for the
present necessity. ' ' For the present they were neither prepared nor
fitted to go beyond the circuit indicated. It would have been a fatal
anticipation of their inner and outer history to have attempted this,
and it would have defeated the object of our Lord of disarming pre-
judices when making a final a])peal to the Jews of Galilee.
Even these considerations lead us to expect a strictly Jewish cast
in this Discourse to the Disciples. The command to abstain from
any religious fellowship with Gentiles and Samaritans was in tempo-
rary accommodation to the prejudices of His disciples and of the Jews.
And the distinction between ' the way of the Gentiles ' and ' any city
of the Samaritans ' is the more significant, when we bear in mind
that even the dust of a heathen road was regarded as defiling," while
the houses, springs, roads, and certain food of the Samaritans Avere
declared clean." At the same time, religiously and as regarded fellow-
ship, the Samaritans were placed on the same footing with Gentiles."
Xor would the injunction, to impart their message freely, sound
strange in Jewish ears. It was, in fact, what the Rabbis themselves
most earnestly enjoined in regard to the teaching of the Law and
traditions, however different their practice may have been.** Indeed,
the very argument, that they were to impart freely, because they had
received freely, is employed by the Rabbis, and derived from the lan-
guage and example of Moses in Dent, iv, 5.''^ Again, the directions
about not taking staff", shoes, nor money-purse, exactly correspond
to the Rabbinic injunction not to enter the Temple-in-ecincts with
staff', shoes ^ (mark, not sandals), and a money-girdle. '^^ The syml)olic
reasons underlying this command would, in both cases, be probably
the same: to avoid even the appearance of being engaged on other
business, when the whole being should be absorbed in the service of
the Lord. At any rate, it would convey to the disciples the idea,
that they were to consider themselves as if entering the Temple-
CHAP.
XXVII
'^ Sanh.
15 h: Ned.
53 6
•> Jer.
Atihod. Z
iid
' Jer. Sheq.
1. ."), p. 46 l>
'J Ab. i. 13
cAb. iv. 5:
Bekll0r.29n
' The direction is recorded by St.
Matthew only. But St. Matt, xxviii. 11)
would, if it were necessary, sufficiently
prove that this is not a Juilaistic limita-
tion.
- At the same time the statement in
Bekhor. 29 a, that 'if needful money
w^as to be paid for the acquisition of
learniua;.' according to Prov. xxiii. 23
('by the truth'), implies that the rule
cannot always have been strictly ob-
served.
■^ The Manal P^^^^) or shoe, in con-
tradistinction to the Sandal (T''T..;C), as
in .Ter. Shabb. 8 a.
* The PtDidah (nn:iS), or Aphumlah
(-•i:i^N). Comp. for ex. Jer. Shabb. 12 c.
()44
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
i Jer. Peah
16 a
f According
to Gfcn.
xiii. 3
? Arach.
16 b, lines
12 and 11
from
bottom
h St. Matt.
X. 1-15
i St. Matt.
X. 16-23
t vv. 16-18
precincts, thus carryiug out the })riiiciplo of Christ's first thou.u-ht in
the Tcin})le: ' Wist yc not tliat I must be about My Father's business? ' *
Nor could they bo in doubt wliat severity of final punishment a doom
heavier than that of Sodom and Gomorrah would imply, since, ac-
cording- to early tradition, their inhabitants were to have no part in the
world to come.'' And most imjjressive to a Jewish mind would be the
symbolic injunction, to shake oft' the dust of their feet for a testimony
■against such a house or city. The expression, no doubt, indicated
that the ban of the Lord was resting on it, and the .'*yml)olic act
would, as it were, be the solemn pronouncing that ' nouglit of the
cursed thing ' clave to them." ^ In this sense, anything that clave
to a person was metaphorically called 'the dust,' as for example,
' the dust of an evil tongue,' '^ ' the dust of usury,' as, on the other
hand, to 'dust to idolatry ' meant to cleave to it." Even the injunc-
tion not to change the dwelling, where one had been received, was
in accordance with Jewish views, the example of Abraham being
quoted, who *" ' returned to the place where his tent had been at the
lieginning. ' ^ ~
These remarks show how closely the. Lord followed, in this first
part of His charge to the disciples," Jewish forms of thinking and
modes of expression. It is not otherwise in the second, ' although
the dift'erence is hero very marked. We have no longer merely the
original commission, as it is given in almost the same terms by
St. Mark and St. Luke. But the horizon is' now enlarged, and
St. Matthew reports that which the other Evangelists record at a
later stage of the Lord's Ministry. Whether or not when the Lord
charged His disciples on their first mission, He was led gradually to
enlarge the scope of His teaching so as to adapt it to all times, need
not be discussed. For St. Matthew himself could not have intended
to confine the words of Christ to this first journey of the Apostles,
since they contain references to division in families, persecutions,
and conflict Avith the civil power," such as belong to a much later
period in the history of the Church; and, besides, contain also that
prediction which could not have applied to this first Mission of the
Apostles, ' Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the
Son of Man be come.' "'
^ The explanations of this expression
generally offered need not here be re-
peated.
'^ So common, indeed, was this view as
to have become i)roverV)ial. Thus, it was
saidconcernintr learned descendants of a
learned man, that ' the Torali returned
into its Akhsauijd (f^cevia),' or hospice
(Balm Mez. 85 (t, bis, in the curious story
about the successful attempts made to
convert to study the dissolute son of a
great Rabbi).
'SHEEP IN THE MIDST OF AVOLVES.' g45
Without here anticipating the full inquiry into the promise of CHAP.
His immediate Coming, it is impoi'tant to avoid, even at this stage, XXVH
any possible misunderstanding on the point. The expectation of the ^— ^r— ^
Coming of 'the Son of Man' was grounded on a prophecy of Daniel," "Dan. vu.
13
in which that Advent, or rather manifestation, was associated with
judgment. The same is the case in this Ciiarge of our Lord. The
disciples in their work are described ' as sheep in tlie midst of
wolves,' a phrase which the Midrash '' api)lies to the position of >> on Esther
Israel amidst a hostile world, adding: IIow great is that Shepherd, warsh.^.!
Who delivers them, and vanquishes the wolves! Similarly, the
admonition to ' be wise as serpents and harmless as doves ' is repro-
duced in the Midrash,'" where Israel is described as harmless as the ' on cant.
' • ii. 14
dove towards God, and wise as serpents towards the hostile Gentile
nations. Such and even greater would be the enmity which the
disciples, as the true Israel, Avould have to encounter from Israel
after the flesh. They would be handed over to the various Sanhedrin,^
and visited with such punishments as these tribunals had power to
inflict." More than this, they would be brought before governors and ^ st. Matt,
kings — primarily, the Roman governors and the Herodian princes.*'
And so determined would be this persecution, as to break the ties of
the closest kinship, and to bring on them the hatred of all men.*^ fw. 21, 22
The only, but the all-sufficient-, support in those terrible circum-
stances was the assurance of such help from above, that, although
unlearned and humble, they need have no care, nor make preparation
in their defence, which would be given them from above. And with
this they had the promise, that he who endured to the end would
be saA'ed, and the prudential direction, so far as possible, to avoid
persecution by timely withdrawal, which could be the more readily
achieved, since they would not have completed their circuit of the
cities of Israel before the 'Son of Man be come.'
It is of the greatest importance to keep in view that, at whatever
period of Christ's Ministry this prediction and promise Avere spoken,
and whether only once or oftener, they refer exclusively to a Jeicish
state of things. The persecutions are exclusively Jewish. This ap-
pears from verse 18, Avhere the ansAver of the disciples is promised
to be 'for a testimony against them,' who had deliA'cred them up,
that is, here evidently the Jews, as also against 'the Gentiles.' And
the Evangelistic circuit of the disciples in their preaching was to be
primm^ily Jewish] and not only so, but in the time Avhen there Avere
' The question of the constitution and jurisdiction of tlie various Sanhedrin will be
discussed in another place.
646
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» St. Jolrn
xi. 48
i> St. Luke
xxi. 29-31
« St. Matt.
xxl. 33-46,
and the
parallels
Still 'cities of Israel/ that is, previous to the final destruction of the
Jewish commonwealth. The reference, then, is to that period of
Jewish persecution and of Apostolic preaching in the cities of Israel,
which is bounded by the destruction of Jerusalem. Accordingly,
the 'coming of the Son of Man,' and the ' end' here spoken of, must
also have the same application. It was, as we have seen, according
to Dan. vii. 13, a coming in judgment. To the Jewish persecuting
authorities, who had rejected the Christ, in order, as they imagined,
to save their City and Temple from the Romans, ^^ and to whom Christ
had testified that He would come again, this judgment on their city
and state, this destruction of their polity, ivas ' the Coming of the
Son of Man ' in judgment, and the only coming which the Jews, as
a state, could expect, the only one meet for them, even as, to them
who look for Him, He will appear a second time, without sin unto
salvation.
That this is the only natural meaning attaching to this prediction,
especially when compared with the parallel utterances recorded in
St. Mark xiii. 9-13, appears to us indul)itable. It is another question
how, or how far, those to whom these words were in the first place
addressed would understand their full bearing, at least at that time.
Even supposing, that the disciples who first heard did not distinguish
between the Coming to Israel in judgment, and that to the world in
mingled judgment and mercy, as it was afterwards conveyed to them
in the Parable of the Forthshooting of the Fig-tree, "^ yet the early
Christians must soon have become aware of it. For, the distinction
is sharply marked. As regards its manner, the ' second ' Coming of
Christ may be said to correspond to the state of those to whom He
Cometh. To the Jews His first Coming was visible^ an(l as claiming
to be their King. They had asked for a sign; and no sign was given
them at the time. They rejected Him, and placed the Jewish polity
and nation in rebellion against 'the King.' To the Jews, who so
rejected the first visible appearance of Christ as their King, the
second appearance would be invisible but real; the sign which they
had asked would be given them, but as a sign of judgment, and His
Coming would be in judgment. Thus would His authority be vindi-
cated, and He appear, not, indeed, visibly but really, as what He
had claimed to be. That this was to be the manner and object of
His Coming to ' Israel, was clearly set forth to the disciples in the
Parable of the Unthankful Husbandmen. "= The coming of the Lord
of the vineyard would be the destruction of the wicked husbandmen.
And to render misunderstanding impossible, the explanation is
THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN. 647
immediately added, that tlie Kingdom of God Avas to be taken from chap.
them, and given to those who wonld bring forth the fruits thereof. XXVii
Assured!}', this could not, even in the view of the disciples, which ' r —
may have been formed on the Jewish model, have applied to the
Coming of Christ at the end of the present .Eon dispensation.
We bear in mind that this second, outwardly invisible but very
real. Coming of tlie Son of Man to the Jews, as a state, could only be
in judgment on their polity, in that ' Sign ' which was once refused,
but which, when it a])peared, would only too clearly vindicate His
claims and authority. Thus vieAved,the passages, in which that second
Coming is referred to, will yield their natural meaning. Neither the
mission of the disciples, nor their journeying through the cities of
Israel, was finished, before the Son of Man came. Nay, there were
those standing there who would not taste death, till they had seen in
the destruction of the city and state the vindication of the Kingship of
Jesus, which Israel had disowned." And even in those last Discourses «st. Matt.
xvi. 28, and
in which the horizon gradually enlarges, and this Coming m judgment paraueis
to Israel merges in the greater iudgment on an unbelieving world," "st. Matt.
. ... "^ xxlv. and
this earlier Coming to the Jewish nation is clearly- marked. The parallels
three Evangelists equally record it. that ' this generation ' should not
pass awav. till all things were fulfilled.'' To take the lowest view, it 'St. jiatt.
; ' . , ' xxiv. ;i4:St.
IS scarcelv conceivable that these savings would have been allo^j^ed to Mark sin.
". ; 30, St. Luke
Stand m all tlie three Gospels, if the disciples and the early Church had xxi. 32
understood the Coming of the Son of Man in any other sense than as
to the Jews in the destruction of their polity. And it is most
significant, that the final utterances of the Lord as to His Coming
were elicited by questions arising from the predicted destruction
of the Temple. This the early disciples associated with the final
Coming of Christ. To explain more fully the distinction between
thein Avould have been impossible, in consistency with the Lord's
general purpose about the doctrine of His Coming. Yet the Parables
which in the Gospels (especially in that by St. Matthew) follow on xsv".'i-3o'
these predictions,"* and the teaching about the final Advent of 'the cfn,y^'-^^^
Son of Man,' point clearly to a difference and an interval between the f"",'\-,^'^''
one and the other. i)assiju
..... *^ jjos, xii.
The disciples must have the more readily applied this prediction 12 "
of His Coming to Palestine, since ' the woes ' connected with it so 'Ex. u. 15
closely corresponded to those expected by the Jews before the Advent xix. 12;'
of Messiah.'' Even the direction to fiee from persecution is repeated Bemu'ib. r.
by the Rabbis in similar circumstances and established by the w'arsii. p.
example of Jacob,' of Moses, ^ and of David.'' Tanch.
648
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
' St. Matt.
£. 24-34
<> Jer. Ber.
13 6
« Abod. Z.
18 b, and
often
In the next section of this Discourse of our Lord, as reported by
St. Matthew,"* tlie horizon is enlarged. The statements arc still
primarily applicable to the early disciples, and their preaching among
the Jews and in I'alestine. But their ultimate bearing is already
wider, and includes predictions and principles true to all time. In
view of the treatment which their Master received, the disciples
must expect misrepresentation and evil-speaking. Nor could it seem
strange to them, since even the common Rabbinic proverb had it: '
' It is enough for a servant to be as his lord ' ("iDis Nn^r -3^"' "l"'"}). As
we hear it from the lips of Christ, we remember that this saying
afterwards comforted those, who mourned the downfall of wealthy and
liberal homes in Israel, by thoughts of the greater calamity which had
overthrown Jerusalem and the Temple. And very significant is its
application by Christ: 'If they have called the Master of the house
Beelzebul,'Miow much more them of His household.' This charge,
brought of course by the Pharisaic party of Jerusalem, had a double
significance. AVe believe, that the expression ' Master of the house '
looked Inick to the claims which Jesus had made on His first purifi-
cation of the Temple. We almost seem to hear the coarse Rabbinic
witticism in its play on the word Beelzebul. For, Zebhul, (^"i-')
means in Rabbinic language, not any ordinary dwelling, but specifi-
cally the Temple,^'' and Beel-Zebul would be the Master of the
Temple.' On the other hand, Zibbul Cl-i) means* sacrificing to
idols; "and hence Beel-zebid would, in that sense, be equivalent to
' lord ' or ' chief of idolatrous sacrificing ' ^ — the worst and chiefest
of demons, who presided over, and incited to, idolatry. ' The Lord
of the Temple' (which truly was His Church) was to them 'the
chief of idolatrous worship,' the Representative of God that of the
worst of demons: Beelzebul was Beelzibbul! "^ What then might 'His
Household ' expect at their hands?
But they were not to fear such misrepresentations. In due time
1 So Ber. 58 b; Siphra on Lev. xxv.
2.3 ; Ber. R. 49 ; Shem. R. 42 ; Midr. on
P8. xxvii. 4.
'2 This is undoubtedly tlje correct
reading?, and not Beelzebub. Any re-
ference to the Baalzebub, or ' fly-god ' of
2 Kings i. 2, seems, rationally, out of the
question.
^ Zebhul ('I'lD*) is also the name of the
fourth of the seven heavens in which
Jewish mysticism located the heavenly
Jerusalem with its Temple, at whose
altar Michael ministered (Chag. 12 f>).
'• The primary meaning is : manuring
(land) with dung.
•'' It could not possibly mean, as has
been sujjposed, 'lord of dung,' because
dung is ■'5* tuid not TiZ*-
''' This alone explains the meaning of
Beelzebul. Neither Beelzebul) nor Baal-
zebul were nameft given by the Jews to
any demon, but Beelzebul, the ' lord of
sacriticiiig to idols,' would certaiidy be
the desii/nation of what they regarded
as the chief of the demons.
(;()D'S WATCHFUL PROVIDENCE (JVEIi III.S OWN. (549
the Ijord would make niaiiilcst both His and their li'iie eharacter." ' CHAP.
Nor were they to be deterred from aiiuotiueing in the clearest and XXVH
most public manner, in broad daylight, and from the flat roots of ^— ^.
houses, that which had been first told them in the darkness, as "St.Matt.
_ ' X. 26
Jewish teachers communicated the deepest ami highest doctrines in
secret to their disciples, or as the preacher would whisper his dis-
course into the ear of the interpreter. The deepest truths concerning
His Person, and the announcement of His Kingdom and Work, were
to bo fully revealed, and loudly proclaimed. But, i'rom a much higher
point of view, liow ditferent was the teaching of Christ from that of
the Rabbis! The latter laid it down as a principle, which they tried
to prove from Scripture, ** that, in order to save one's life, it was "Lev.xvni.
not only lawful, but even dut}- — if necessary, to conunit any kind
of sin, except idolatry, incest, or murder." Nay, even idolatry was ■ sanh. 74 a
allowed, if only it were done in secret, so as not to profane the Name Yomeima
of the Lord — than which death was infinitely preferable.'' Christ, on
the other hand, not only ignored this vicious Jewish distinction of
public and private as regarded morality, but bade His followers set
aside all regard for personal safety, even in reference to the duty of
preaching the Gospel. There was a higher fear than of men: that of
God — and it should drive out the fear of those who could only kill the
body. Besides, why fear? God's Providence extended even over
the meanest of His creatures. Two sparrows cost only an assarion
("iD'X), about the third of a penny.* Yet even one of them would
not perish without the knowledge of God. No illustration was more
familiar to the Jewish mind than that of His watchful care even
over the sparrows. The beautiful allusion in Amos iii. 5 was
somewhat realistically carried out in a legend which occurs in more
than one Rabbinic passage. We are told that, after that great
miracle-worker of Jewish legend, R. Simeon ben Jochai, had been
for thirteen years in hiding from his persecutors in a cave, where he
was miraculously fed, he observed that, when the bird-catcher laid
his snare, the bird escaped, or was caught, according as a voice from
heaven proclaimed, ' Mercy,' or else, ' Destruction.' Arguing, that if
even a sparrow could not be caught without heaven's bidding, how
1 Mark the same meaning of the e.v- ^The Isar ^^Z^it. ), or afisarion, is ex-
pression in St. Luke viii. 17 ; .xii. 2. , ^,,,^ repoate.llv staled in Kal.I.inic
. T confess mysef unable o under- '^^^^^^^ ^o be the twentv-tnurlh part of
stanc the beanng of the special pleaibng ^^;,^.^^ ^,,,,^ ,^^,„^.p „^, ^, i,air,,..nnv far-
of ^^uuscke agamst this_ niference from ^ ,,,,j ^^^^^,,j ^,^^. j,,;,.,^ ^_,f .^ _
Sanh. 74 a. His reasoning is certainly ^^^^^^^ nerzfdd, Handelsgeschichle, pp.
incorrect. 180-182.
t)oO
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFKU'KATION.
!■ Chull. 7 6;
comp. also
.the even
more real-
istic ex-
pression,
Shabb. 107 b
"Pesiqta
18 a
a St Matt.
X. U
much more sale wa.s the lite ol' a • sou of man" (n "I" r^:), he
came forth.''
Nor couhl even the additional j^romise of Christ: ' But of you
even the hairs of the head are all numbered,"' surprise His disciples.
But it would convey to them the gladsome assurance that, in doing
His Work, they were ])erforming the Will of God, and were specially
in His keeping. And it would carry home to them — with the comfort
of a very ditfereut application, while engaged in doing the Work and
Will of God — what Rabbinisin expressed in a realistic manner by
the common sayings, that whither a man was to go, thither his
feet would carry him; and, that a man could not injure his linger
on earth, unless it had been so decreed of him in heaven.'' And in
later Rabbinic writings "we read, in almost the words of Christ:
'Do I not number all the hairs of eveiy creature'?' And yet an
even higher outlook was opened to the disciples. All preaching was
confessing, and all confessing a preaching of Christ; and our con-
fession or denial would, almost by a law of nature, meet with similar
confession or denial on the part of Christ before His Father in
heaven.^ This, also, was an application of that fundamental prin-
ciple, that 'nothing is covered that shall not be revealed,' which,
indeed, extendeth to the inmost secrets of heart and life.
What follows in our Lord's Discourse" still further widens the
horizon. It describes the condition and laws of His Kingdom, until
the final revelation of that which is now covered and hidden. So
long as His claims were set before a hostile world they could only
provoke war.^ On the other hand, so long as such decision was
necessary, in the choice of either those nearest and dearest, of ease,
nay, of life itself, or else of Christ, there could be no compromise.
Not that, as is sometimes erroneously supposed, a very great degree
of love to the dearest on earth amounts to loving them more than
Christ. No degree of proper affection can ever make affection
wrongful, even as no diminution of it could make wrongful affection
right. The love ^\ hich Christ condemneth differs not in degree, but
in kind, from rightful affection. \t is one which takes the place of
love to Christ — not which is placed by the side of that of Christ.
For, rightly viewed, the two occupy different provinces. Wherever
and whenever the two affections come into comparison, they also
^ This is the literal rendering!:.
2 This ajiijears more cleai-ly when we
translate literally (ver. 32): -Who shall
confess in Me' — and again: 'in him will
I also confess.'
" The original is very peculiar: ' Think
not that I came to cast peace on the
earth,' as a sower casts the seed into
the groimd.
THE TAKING UP OF THE CROSS.
651
come into collision. And so the (juestions of* not being worthy of
Him (and who can be positively worthyy), and of the trne linding or
losing of our life, have their bearing on our daily life and profession.*
But even in this respect the disciples must, to some extent, have
been prepared to receive the teaching of Christ. It was generally
expected, that a time of great tribulation would precede the Advent
of the Messiah. Again, it was a Rabbiuic axiom, that the cause of
the Teacher, to whom a man owed eternal life, was to be taken in
hand before that of his father, to whom he owed only the life of this
world."'' Even the statement about taking up the cross in following
Christ, although prophetic, could not sound quite strange. Cruci-
fixion was, indeed, not a Jewish punishment, but the Jews must have
become sadly familiar with it. The Targum '' speaks of it as one of
the four modes of execution which Naomi described to Ruth as those
in custom in Palestine, the other three being — stoning, burning, and
beheading. Indeed, the expression ' bearing the cross,' as indicative
of sorrow and suffering, is so common, Ihat we read, Abraham
carried the wood for the sacrifice of Isaac, ' like one who bears his
cross on his shoulder. ' ''
Nor could the disciples be in doubt as to the meaning of the last
part of Christ's address.'^ They were old Jewish forms of thought,
only filled with the new wine of the Gospel. The Rabbis taught,
only in extravagant terms, the merit attaching to the reception and
entertainment of sages." The very expression ' in tiie name of a
prophet, or a righteous man, is strictly Jewish (crb), and means for
the sake of, or Avith intention, in regard to. It appears to us, that
Christ introduced His own distinctive teaching by the admitted
Jewish principle, that hospitable reception for the sake of, or with
the intention of doing it to, a prophet or a righteous man, would
procure a share in the prophefs or righteous man's reward. Thus,
tradition had it, that the Obadiah of King Ahab's court ^ had become
the prophet of that name, because he had provided for the hundred
prophets.*^ And we are repeatedly assured, that to receive a sage, or
even an elder, was like receiving the Shekhinah itself. But the
concluding promise of Christ, concerning the reward of even 'a cup
of cold water ' to ' one of these little ones ' ' in the name of a disciple,'
CHAP.
XXVH
» B. Mets,
33 o
^ On Ruth
i. 17
<= Ber. R. 56,
on Gen.
xxii. 6
"i St. Matt.
X. 40-42
<■ Com p. tor
example
the long
discussion
in Ber. 63 6
<■ 1 Kings
xviii. i
e Sanh. 39 b
1 The meaning of the expression,
losing and finding one's life, appears
more markedly by attending to the
tenses in the text: 'He that found his
life shall lose it, and he that lost his life
for My sake shall find it.'
- Es])ecially if he taught him the
highest of all lore, the Talmud, or ex-
plained the reason or the meaning of
what it contained.
652 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK goes far hovoiid the rartliestconceptions of His contemporaries. Yet,
ni even so, the expression would, so far as its form is concerned, perhaps
^^ — - — bear a iiiUer meaning to them than to us. These ' little ones ' (C*-^P)
were ' the children,' who Avere still learning the elements of knowledge,
and who would by-and-by grow into * disciples.' For, as the Midrash
has it: 'Where there are no little ones, there are no disciples; and
where no disciples, no sages: where no sages, there no elders; where
• Accordinf; uo cldcrs, tlicrc no prophets; and where no prophets, there'' does
ifi ' God not cause His Shekhinah to rest.' "
onGerf'*'' ^^ '^ have bccu so particular in marking the Jewish parallelisms
^^''- ^ in this Discourse, first, because it seemed important to show, that the
words of the Lord were not beyond the comprehension of the
disciples. Starting from forms of thought and expressions with
which they were familiar. He carried them far beyond Jewish ideas
and hopes. 15ut, secondly, it is just in this similarity of form, which
proves that it was of the time and to the time, as well as to us and
to all times, that we best' see, how far the teaching of Christ tran-
scended all contemporary conception.
But the reality, the genuineness, the depth and fervour of self-
surrender, which Christ expects, is met by equal fulness of acknow-
ledgment on His part, alike in heaven and on earth. In fact, there
is absolute identification with His ambassadors on the part of Christ.
As He is the Ambassador of the Father, so are they His, and as
such also the ambassadors of the Father. To receive them was, there-
fore, not only to receive Christ, but the Father, Who would own the
■ humblest, even the meanest service of love to one of the learners,
'the little ones.' All the more painful is the contrast of Jewish
pride and self-righteousness, which attributes supreme merit to
ministering, not as to God, but as to man; not for God's sake, but
for that of the man; a pride which could give utterance to such
a saying, ' All the prophets have announced salvation only to the
like of those who give their daughters in marriage to sages, or cause
them to make gain, or give of their goods to them. But what the
esanh. 99a bliss of the sagcs themselves is, no mortal eye has seen.'"
It was not with such sayings that Christ sent forth His disciples;
nor in such spirit, that the world has been subdued to Him. The
relinquishing of all that is nearest and dearest, cross-bearing, loss of
life itself — such were the terms ofHisdiscipleship. Yet acknowledg-
ment there would surely be, first, in the felt and assured sense of
His Presence; then, in the reward of a propliet, a righteous man, or,
'A err OF COLD WATER' T(J 'A LITTLE ONE.' (553
it might be. a disciple. But ail was to ])eiii Him, and lor Him, even CHAP.
the gift of ' a cup of cold Avater ' to • a little one.' Nay, neiiiier tlie XXVII
'little ones,' the learners, nor the cup of cold water given them, ^— v-^— ^
would be overlooked or forgotton.
But over all did the ' Meek and Lowlj- One ' cast the loftiness of
His Humility.
654
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TR.yS^SFIGURAT10N.
CHAPTER XXYIII.
BOOK
HI
" St. Matt.
xi. 1
') St. Mark
vi. 12, ly ;
St. Luke ix.
6
<: St. Matt.
xiv. 12, 13;
St. Mark
vi. 30
THE STORY OF JOHN THE BxVPTIST, FROM HIS LAST TESTIMONY TO JESUS
TO HIS BEHEADING IN PRISON.
(1. St. John iii. 25-30. 2. St. Matt. ix. 14-17; St. Mark ii. 18-22 ; St. Luke v. 33-39.
3. St. Matt. xi. 2-U; St. Luke vii. 18-35. 4. St. Matt. xiv. 1-12; St. Mark vi.
14-29 ; St. LulvB ix. 7-9.)
While the Apostles went forth by two and two on their first Mission, ^
Jesus Himself taught and preached in the towns around Capernaum.^
This period of undisturbed activity seems, however, to have been of
])rief duration.^ That it was eminently successful, we infer not only
from direct notices,'' but also from the circumstance that, for the first
time, the attention of Herod Antipas was now called to the Person of
Jesus. We suppose that, during the nine or ten months of Christ's
Galilean Ministry, the Tetrarcli had resided in his Perasan dominions
(east of the Jordan), either at JiQias or at Machi^rus, in which latter
fortress the Baptist was beheaded. We infer, that the labours of the
Apostles had also extended thus far, since they attracted the notice of
Herod. In the popular excitement caused by the execution of the
Baptist, the miracidous activity of the messengers of the Christ,
Whom John had announced, would naturally attract wider interest,
while Antipas would, under the influence of fear and superstition, give
greater heed to them. We can scarcely be mistaken in supposing,
that this accounts for the abrupt termination of the labours of the
Apostles, and their return to Jesus. At any rate, the arrival of the
disciples of John, with tidings of their master's death, and the return
of the Apostles, seem to have been contemporaneous.'' Finally, we
conjecture, that it was among the motives which influenced the re-
moval of Christ and His Apostles from Capernaum. Temporarily to
withdraw Himself and His disciples from Herod, to give them a
1 This is the only occasion on which
thev are desii^natecl as Apostles in the
Gospel by St. Mark.
■^ Their mission seems to have been
short, probably not more than two weeks
or so. But it seems impossible, in con-
sistency with the facts, to confine it to
two clays, as Bishop EUicott projioses
(Hist. Lect. p. 193).
JOHN AND THE HAPTISM OF CHRIST'S DrSCIPLES. 655
season of rest and Airtlici' i)i'epara(ion alter the exciteiiiciit ol' the last CHAP,
few weeks, and to avoid being involved in the popular movements xxvni
consequent on the murder of the Baptist — such we may venture to ^— ^r '
indicate as among the reasons of the departure of Jesus and His
disciples, tirst into the donunions of the Tetrarch Philip, on the
eastern side of the Lake, ^ and after that 'into the borders of Tyre •■■st. .Toim
and Sidon.' " Thus the fate of the Baptist was, as might have been ,, ^^^ j^^^.^
expected, decisive in its influence on the History of tlu; Christ and of ^"- -*
His Kingdom. But Ave have yet to trace the incitlents in the life of
John, so far as recorded in the Gospels, from the time of His last con-
tact with Jesus to his execution.
1. It was" in the late spring, or rather early summer of the year 'St. John
' . . . . lii- '^2 to
2i of our era, that John was baptizing in ^Enon, near to Salim. iv. 3
In the neighl)ourhood, Jesus and His disciples were similarly engaged.^
The Presence and activity of Jesus in Jerusalem at the Passover '' had ■' st. joim
. 1 , T-,, . . , . . . li. 13 to in.
determined the Pharisaic party to take active measures against Him 21
and His Forerunner. John. As to the first outcome of this plan we
notice the discussions on the question of 'purification,' and the
attempt to separate between Christ and the Baptist by exciting the
jealousy of the latter." But the result was far diflcrent. His dis- -^st. John
ciples might have been influenced, but John himself was too true a
man, and too deeply convinced of the reality of Christ's Mission, to
yield even for a moment to such temptation. Nothing more noble
can be conceived than the self-abnegation of the Baptist in circum-
stances which would not only have turned aside an impostor or an
enthusiast, but must have severely tried the constancy of the truest
man. At the end of a most trying career of constant self-denial its
scanty fruits seemed, as it were, snatched from Him, and the multi-
tude, which he had hitherto swayed, turned after Another, to Whom
himself had first given testimony, but Who eve'r since had apparently
neglected him. And now he had seemingly appropriated the one
distinctive badge of his preaching! Not to rebel, nor to murmur, but
even to rejoice in this as the right and proper thing, for which he had
longed as the end of his own work — this implies a purity, simplicity,
and grandeur of purpose, and a strength of convicticm unsurpassed
among men. The moral height of this testimony of John, and the
evidential force of the introduction of this narrative — utterly unac-
countable, nay, unintelligible on the hypothesis that it is not true —
seem to us among the strongest evidences in favour of the Gospel-
history.
1 Comp. chapter vii. of tliis Book. For some ]ioints formerly referred to have
the sake of clearness and comiection, had to be here repeated.
^ St. John
iii. 16 to -il
(55(5 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OK TUAX.SFIGL'KATIOX.
BOOK It was not the greatness of the Christ, to liis own seeming loss,
III wliieh couhl cloud the noonday of tlie Baptist's convictions. In
^- — ^^ — ' sinii)Ie Judivan illustration, he was only 'the friend of the Bride-
groom ' (the ' Shoshebheyna '), with all that popular association or
higher Jewish allegory connected with that relationship.^ He claimed
not the bride. His was another joy — that of hearing the Voice of
her rightful Bridegroom, Whose 'groomsman ' he was. In the sound
of that Voice lay the fulfilment of his office. And St. John, looking
back upon the relation between the Baptist and Jesus — on the re-
ception of the testimony of the former and the unique position of ' the
Bridegroom ' — points out the lessons of the answer of the Baptist to
his disciples (St. John iii. 31 to 36 ^) as formerly those of the conversa-
tion with Nicodemus.'*
This hour of the seeming abasement of the Baptist was, in truth,
that of the highest exaltation, as marking the fulfilment of his office,
and, therefore, of his joy. Hours of cloud and darkness were to
follow.
2. The scene has clianged, and the Baptist has become the
prisoner of Herod Antipas. The dominions of the latter embraced,
in the north: Galilee, ivest of the Jordan and of the Lake of Galilee;
and in the south : Peraea, east of the Jordan. To realise events we
must bear in mind that, crossing the Lake eastwards, we should pass
from the possessions of Herod to those of the Tetrarch Philip, or
else come upon the territory of the ' Ten Cities, ' or Decapolis, a kind
of confederation of townships, with constitution and liberties, such as
those of the Grecian cities.^ By a narrow strip northwards, Persea
just slipped in between the Decapolis and Samaria. It is impossible
with certainty to localise the .Enon, near Salim, where John baptized.
Ancient tradition placed the latter a few miles south of Scythopolis
or Bethshean, on the borders of Galilee, or rather, the Decapolis, and
Samaria. But as the eastern part of Samaria towards the Jordan was
very narrow, one may well believe that the place was close to, perhaps
actually in, the north-eastern angle of the province of Judasa, where
it borders on Samaria. We are now on the western bank of Jordan.
The other, or eastern, bank of the river would be that narrow nortliern
strip of Perasa which formed part of the territory of Antipas. Thus
a few miles, or the mere crossing of the river, would have brought
' Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Social are no longer the words of Clirist but
Life.' pp. 152, 1.53. those of St. John.
'^ These verses coiitiiin the reflections ^ Comp. Casiiari, Chronolog. Geogr.
of the Evangelist, not the words of the Einl. pp. 83-91.
Baptist, jnst as previously vv. l(i to 21
TIIK IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN.
657
tho Ba[)tist into Pcrcea. Tliei-c cnu l)c no (loiiht hut that tlic IJaptist CHAP.
must eitlier have crosscMl into, or else that J^^non, near .Salini, was .XWlli
actually within the dominions oi" llerod/ It was on that occasion " ^,' — ^
that Herod seized on his person," and that Jesus, Who was still «st. John
within Judasau territory, withdrew from the intrigues of the Pharisees "*" ^^
and the proximity of Herod, through Samaria, into Galilee." tst. John
For, although Galilee belonged to Herod Antipas, it was suffi-
ciently far from the present residence of the Tetrarch in Peraea.
Tiberias, his Galilean residence, with its splendid royal palace, had
only been built a year or two before;^ and it is impossible to sup-
pose, that Herod would not have sooner heard of the fame of Jesus,'' ' st. Matt.
: ' xiv. 1
if his court had been in Tiberias, in the immediate neighbourhood
of Capernaum. We are, therefore, shut up to the conclusion, that,
during the nine or ten months of Christ's Ministry in Galilee, the
Tetrarch resided inPergea. Here he had two palaces, one at Julias,
or Livias, the other at Macha3rus. The latter will be immediately
described as the place of the Baptist's imprisonment and martyrdom.
The Julias, or Livias, of Persea must be distinguished from another
city of that name (also called Bethsaida) in the North (east of the
Jordan), and within the dominions of the Tetrarch Philip. The
Julias of Pera3a represented the ancient Beth Haram in the tribe of
Gad,'^ a name for "which Josephus gives "^ BetharamjjJdha, and the a Numb.
Rabbis Beth Bamthah. " It still survives in the modern Beit-hardn. josh!xiii!27
But of the fortress and palace which Herod had built, and named ^^'^^^ ^^"'•
after the Empress, 'all that remains' are ' a few^ traces of walls and fjerus.
loundations.
Supposing Antipas to have been at the Persean Julias, he would
have been in the closest proximity to the scene of the Baptist's last
recorde<l lal^ours at ^Enon. We can now understand, not only how
John was imprisoned by Antipas, but also the threefold motives
which influenced it. According to Josephus,'' the Tetrarch "was ^Ant. xviu.
afraid that his absolute influence over the people, who seemed dis-
posed to carry out whatever he advised, might lead to a rebellion.
This circumstance is also indicated in the remark of St. Matthew," I'St. Matt.
that Herod was afraid to put the Baptist to death on account of the
people's opinion of him. On the other hand, the Evangelic state-
ment,' that Herod had imprisoned John on account of his declarinsi" tst. Matt.
xiv. S, 4:
' ^non may even have been in Penva j). (i:55. note 1. 17^ ig
itself — in that case, on the eastern bank ■' Comp. the references in Bbtt>iei\
of the .Jordan. Lex. zu Jos. p. 58.
'■^ Conip. tSchurer, Nentest. Zeitgesch. * See tlie description of the site iu
p. 233. As to the name Tiberias, comp. Tristi-(nn, Land of Moab, p. 348.
658
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
' Sot. 22 6
1' St. John
iv. 1, 2
•^St. Lube
xiii. 31-;33
■' .\nt. xviii.
r>. 2
liis marriage with Herodias unlawrul, i.s in no way inconsistent with
the reason assigned by Josephus. Xot only might both motives have
inllucnced Ilerod, l)ut there is an obvious connection between them.
For, John's open declaration of the unlawfulness of Herod's marriage,
as unlike incestuous and adulterous, might, in view of the influence
which the Baptist exercised, have easily led to a rebellion. In our
view, the sacred text gives indication of yet a third cause which
led to John's imprisonment, and which indeed, may have given final
weight to the other two grounds of enmity against him. It has been
suggested, that Herod must have been attached to the Sadducees,
if to any religious party, because such a man would not have connected
himself with the Pharisees. The reasoning is singularly inconclu-
sive. On political grounds, a Herod would scarcely have lent his
weight to the Sadducean or aristocratic priest-party in Jerusalem;
while, religiously, only too many instances are on record of what the
Talmud itself calls ' painted ones, who are like the Pharisees, and
who act like Zimri, but expect the reward of Phinehas. ' '' Besides,
the Pharisees may have used Antipas as their tool, and worked upon
his wretched superstition to effect their own purposes. And this
is what we suppose to have been the case. The reference to the
Pharisaic spying and to their comparisons between the influence of
Jesus and John,'' which led to the withdrawal of Christ into
Galilee, seems to imply that the Pharisees had something to do with
the imprisonment of John. Their connection with Herod appears
even more clearly in the attempt to induce Christ's departure from
Galilee, on pretext of Herod's machinations. It will be remembered
that the Lord unmasked their hypocrisy by bidding them go back to
Herod, showing that He fully knew that real danger threatened Him,
not from the Tetrarch, but from the leaders of the party in Jerusalem."
Our inference therefore is, that Pharisaic intrigue had a very large
share in giving effect to Herod's fear of the Baptist and of his reproofs.
3. We suppose, then, that Herod Antipas was at Julias, in
the immediate neigh])ourliood of ^Enon, at the time of John's
imprisonment. But, according to Josephus, whose testimony there
is no reason to question, the Baptist was committed to the strong
fortress of Macha)rus.'^' If Julias lay where the Wady of the
Heshban debouches into the Jordan, east of that river, and a little
north of the Dead Sea, Machajrus is straight south of it, about
^ A little before that it seems to have
belonged to Aretas. We know not, how
it aijain passed into the hands of Antipas,
if, indeed, it ever was fully ceded by liini
to the Arabs. Com]). Schiirer, u. s. p.
239, and Wiefider, Chron. Syn. p. 24-1,
Beitr. pp. 5, &c., whose positions are,
however, not always quite reliable.
MACH^EUS.
659
two and a half hours north-west of the ancient Kiriathaim (the CIIAP.
mudern KureiyCit), the site of Clicdorlaonier's victory." Machserus XXViii
(the modern Jrkhaur) marked the extreme point south, as Pelhi that ' — ^r — ^
north, in Peraea. As the boundary fortress in the south-east (towards "Gen.xiv.s
Arabia), its safety was of the greatest importance, and everything
was done to make a place, exceedingly strong by nature, impregnable.
It had been built by Alexander Jannseus, but destroyed by Gabinius
in the wars of Pompey." It was not only restored, but greatly t-jc^vish
War 18 5
enlarged, by Herod tlie Great, who surrounded.it witli the best de-
fences known at that time. In fact, Herod the Great built a town
along the shoulder of the hill, and surrounded it by walls, fortified
by towers. From this town a farther height had to be climbed, on
which the castle stood, surrounded by walls, and flanked by towers
one hundred and sixty cubits high. Within the inclosure of the
castle Herod had built a magnificent palace. A large number of
cisterns, storehouses, and arsenals, containing every weapon of attack
or defence, had been provided to enable the garrison to stand a prolonged
siege. Josephus describes even its natural position as unassailable.
The highest point of the fort was on the west, where it looked sheer
down into a valley. North and south the fort was equally cut ofl'by
valleys, which could not be filled up for siege purposes. On the east
there was, indeed, a valley one hundred cubits deep, but it terminated
in a mountain opposite to ]!ilacha3rus. This was evidently the weak
point of the situation.^
A late and very trustAvortny traveller'^ has pronounced the descrip-
tion of Josephus'' as sufficiently accurate, although exaggerated, and '^warvii.6.
as probably not derived from personal observation. He has also fur-
nished such pictorial details, that we can transport ourselves to that
focky keep of the Baptist, perhaps the more vividly that, as we
wander over the vast field of stones, upturned foundations, and
broken walls around, we seem to view the scene in the lurid sunset
of judgment. ' A rugged line of upturned squared stones ' shows
the old Roman paved road to Macha?rus. Ruins covering quite a
square mile, on a group of undulating hills, mark the site of the
ancient town of Macha^rus, Although surrounded by a wall and
towers, its position is supposed not to have been strategically de-
fensible. Only a mass of ruins here, with traces of a temple to
^ Here Bassus made his attack in the tiiia. p. 103: and, for the vai'ious i)as-
last .Jewish war (Jb.s. War vii. 6. 1-4). saijes in Josephns referring to Maelufrus,
- Canon Tristram, Land of Moab. pp. Bbttger, u. s. pp. 165-l(i7.
255-265; conip. Baedeker {Socin) Paliis-
(5(30 FROM JORDAN TO TIIK MOT'NT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK the Syrian Suii-Ciod, broken cisternt^, and dosolateness all around.
Ill Crossinii' a narrow dee}) valley, about a mile wide, we clind) uj) to
^- — -r — ' the ancient fortress on a conical hill. Altogether it covered a ridge
of more than a mile. The key of the position was a citadel to the
extreme east of the fortress. It occupied the summit of tlie cone,
was isolated, and almost imi)regnal:)le, but very small. We shall
return to examine it. Meanwhile, descending a steep slope about
150 yards towards the west, we reach the oblong flat i)lateau that
formed the fortress, containing Herod's magnificent palace. Here,
carefully collected, are piled up the stones of which the citadel was
built. These immense heaps look like a terrible monument of
judgment.
We pass on among the ruins. No traces of the royal palace are
left, save foundations and enormous stones upturned. Quite at the
end of this long fortress in the west, and looking southwards, is a
square fort. We return, through what we regard as the ruins of the
magnificent castle-palace of Herod, to the highest and strongest part
of the defences — the eastern keep or the citadel, on the steep slope
150 yards n\). The foundations of the walls all around, to the height
of a yard or two above the ground, are still standing. As we clamber
over them to examine the interior, we notice how small this keep
is: exactly 100 yards in diameter. There are scarcely any remains
of it left. A well of great depth, and a deep cemented cistern with
the vaulting of the roof still complete, and — of most terrible in-
terest to us — two dungeons, one of them deep down, its sides
scarcely broken in, ' with small holes still visible in the masonry
where staples of wood and iron had once been fixed ' ! As we look
down into its hot darkness, we shudder in realising that this terrible
keep had for nigh ten months been the prison of that son of the free
'wilderness,' the bold herald of the coming Kingdom, the humble,
earnest, self-denying John the Baptist. Is this the man whose
testimony about the Christ may be treated as a falsehood?
We withdraw our gaze from trying to pierce this gloom and to call
up in it the figure of the camel-hair-clad and leather-girt preacher,
and look over the ruins at the scene around. We are standing on a
height not less than 3,800 feet above the Dead Sea. In a straight
line it seems not more than fonr or five miles; and the road down to
it leads, as it were, by a series of ledges and steps. We can see the
whole extent of this Sea of Judgment, and its western shores from
north to south. We can almost imagine the Baptist, as he stands
surveying this nol)le prospect. Far to the south stretches the rugged
WHERE WAS THE CHRIST? WA8 HH THE CHRIST? GGl
wildonioss of JiuUua, houiidod 1)y the liills of Hebron. Here nestles CHAP.
Bctlileliem, there is Jerusalem. Or, turning- another way, and look- XXVIII
ing into the deep eleft of the Jordan valley: this oasis of beauty is ' — -^
Jericho; beyond it, like a silver thread, Jordan Avinds through a
burnt, desolate-looking country, till it is lost to view in the haze
which lies upon the edge of the Horizon. As the eye of the Baptist
travelled over it, he could follow all the scenes of His life and lal)ours,
from the home of his childhood in the hill-country of Juda3a, to those
many years of solitude and communing with God in the wilderness,
and then to the first place of his preaching and Baptism, and onwards
to that where he had last spoken of the Christ, just before his (nvn
captivity. And now the deep dungeon in the citadel on the one
side, and, on the other, down that slope, the luxurious palace of
Herod and his adulterous, murderous wife, while the shouts of wild
revelry and drunken merriment rise around! Was this the King-
dom he had come to announce as near at hand; for which he had
longed, prayed, toiled, suffered, utterly denied himself and all that
made life pleasant, and tlie rosy morning of which he had hailed with
hymns of praise? Where was the Christ? Was He the Christ?
What Avas He doing? Was he eating and drinking all this while
with publicans and sinners, when he, the Baptist, was suffering for
Him? Was He in His Person and Work so quite different from
himself? and why was He so? And did the hot haze and mist
gather also over this silver thread in the deep cleft of Israel's barren
burnt-up desolateness?
4. In these circumstances we scarcely wonder at the feelings of
John's disciples, as months of this weary captivity passed. Uncertain
what to expect, they seem to have oscillated between Machserus and
Capernaum. Any hope in their Master's vindication and deliver-
ance lay in the possibilities involved in the announcement he had
made of Jesus as the Christ. And it was to Him that their Master's
finger had pointed them. Indeed, some of Jesus' earliest and most
intimate disciples had come from their ranks; and, as themselves
had remarked, the multitude had turned to Jesus even before the
Baptist's imprisonment.'' And yet, could He be the Christ? How «st. John
many things about Him that were strange and seemed inexplicable!
In their view, there must have been a terrible contrast between him
who lay in the dungeon of Machterus, and Him Who sat down to eat
and drink at a feast of the publicans.
His reception of publicans and sinners they could understand;
their own Master had not rejected them. But why eat and drink
GG2
FROM JOKDAX TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" St. Matt,
ix. 14-17
and
parallels
>■ B. Mez. 85
a, ■-' towards
the end
"•Taan. 12 a;
St. Luke
xviii. 12
with tliein? Wliy feasting, and this in a time wlicn fasting and
prayer wonld have seemed specially appropriate? And, indeed, was
not fasting always appropriate? And yet this new Messiah had not
taught his discii)les either to fast or what to pray! The Pharisees,
in their anxiety to separate between Jesus and Ilis Forerunner, must
have told thcni all this again and again, and pointed to the contrast.
At any rate, it was at the instigation of the Pharisees, and in
comi)any with them,^ that the disciples of John propounded to Jesus
this question about fasting and prayer, immediately after the feast in
the house of the converted Levi-Matthew.^ We must 1)ear in mind
that fasting and prayer, or else fasting and alms, or all the three,
were always combined. Fasting represented the negative, prayer
and alms the positive element, in the forgiveness of sins. Fasting,
as self-punishment and mortification, would avert the anger of God
and calamities. Most extraordinary instances of the purposes in
view in fasting, and of the results obtained are told in Jewish
legend, which (as will be remembered) went so far as to relate how
a Jewish saint was therel)y rendered proof against the fire of Ge-
lienna, of which a realistic demonstration was given when his body
was rendered proof against ordinary fire."
Even apart from such extravagances, Rabbinism gave an alto-
gether external aspect to fasting. In this it only developed to its
utmost consequences a theology against which the Prophets of old
had already protested. Perhaps, however, the Jews are not solitary
in their misconception and perversion of fasting. In their view, it
was the readiest means of turning aside any threatening calamity,
such as drought, pestilence, or national danger. This, ex opere
operato: because fasting was self-punishment and mortification, not
because a fast meant mourning (for sin, not for its punishment), and
hence indicated humiliation, acknowledgment of sin, and repent-
ance. The second and fifth days of the week (Monday and Tuesday) ^
were those appointed for public fasts, because Moses was supposed
to have gone up the Mount for the second Tal)les of the Law on a
Thursday, and to have returned on a ]\[onday. The self-introspec-
tion of Pharisaism led many to fast on these two days all the year
round,' just as in Temple-times not a few would offer daily trcspass-
ofl'erina: for sins of which thev were ia-norant. Then there were
' Tims viewerl there is no contradiction,
not even real variation, between St. Matt.
ix. 14, St. Mark ii. 18, and St. Luke v. 3.3.
■■* Altoirether. Baba Mez. S 1 n to 8.5 a
contains a mixture of the strangest,
grossest, and profanest absurdities.
^ Thus a three days' fast would be on
the second, fifth, and again on the sec-
ond day of the week.
THE LA.<T TH.^TIMOXY OF THE liAl'TIST. CG3
such painful minutuu of cxtci-nalisin, as tlio.se which ruled how, on a CHAP.
less strict fast, a person might wash and anoint; while, on the strict- XXVHI
est fast, it was prohibited even to salute one another.^ ^ '■ ■<■ — '
It nuiy Avell have been, that it was on one of these weekly fasts "Taani.
that the feast of Levi-]\Iatthew had taken place, and that this ex-
plains the expression: 'And John's disciples and the Pharisees were
fasting."^ This would give point to their complaint, ' Thy discii)les "st. Mark
fast not.' Looking back upon the standpoint from which they
viewed fasting, it is easy to perceive wh}^ Jesus could not have sanc-
tioned, not even tolerated, the practice among His disciples, as little
as St. Paul could tolerate among Judaising Christians the, in itself
indifferent, practice of circumcision. But it was not so easy to ex-
plain this at the time to the disciples of John. For, to understand
it, implied already entire transformation from the old to the new
spirit. Still more difficult must it have been to do it in such manner,
as at the same time to lay down principles that would rule all similar
questions to all ages. But our Lord did both, and even thus proved
His Divine Mission.
. The last recorded testimony of the Baptist had pointed to Christ
as the 'Bridegroom.'" As explained in a previous chai)ter, John ■^f^^g*^^'^
applied this in a manner which appealed to popular custom. As he
had pointed out, the Presence of Jesus marked the marriage-week.
By universal consent and according to Rabbinic law, this was to be
a time of unmixed festivity. ^ Even on the Day of Atonement a a Ber. 6 &
lu'ide was allowed to relax one of the ordinances of that strictest
fast." During the marriage-week all mourning was to be suspended '^Yomayiu.
— even the obligation of the prescribed daily prayers ceased. It was
regarded as a religious duty to gladden the bride and bridegroom.
Was it not, then, inconsistent on the part of John's disciples to ex-
pect ' the sons of the bride-chamber ' to fast, so long as the Bride-
groom was with them?
This appeal of Christ is still further illustrated l)y the Talmudic
ordinance'' which absolved 'the friends of the bridegroom,' and all fjer.suuk.
" .53 «, near
'the sons of the bride-chamber,' even from the duty of dwelling in the middle
booths (at the Feast of Tabernacles). The expression, 'sons of the
bride-chamber' (-:*-*::), which means all invited guests, has the
more significance, when we remember that the Covenant-union be-
tween God and Israel was not only compared to a marriage, but the
1 Comp. 'The Temple, its Ministry and Services,' pp. 29«-298.
2 Tliis is the real import of the origiual.
664
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
Jnr. Megill.
72 d 1
Tal)oriuu'lo and 'i'miplc (l('siiJi,-iiatod a.s 'the l)i'i(lal chanilx'r.s.' "^ And,
as the institution of 'Iricnids of the bridegroom' prevailed in Judaea,
but not in GaHloe, tliis niai'ked distinction of tlie 'friends of the
l)ridegrooni,' ^ in tlie mouth of the Juda3an John, and 'sons of the
bride-chamber' in that of the Galilean Jesus, is itself evidential of
liistoric accuracy, as well as of the Judasan authorship of the Fourth
Gospel.
But let it not be thought that it was to be a time of unbroken joy
to the disciples of Jesus. Nay, the ideas of the disciples of John
concerning the Messianic Kingdom, as one of resistless outward vic-
tory and assertion of power, were altogether wrong. The Bride-
groom would be violently taken from them, and then would be the
time for mourning and fasting. Not that this necessarily implies
literal fasting, any more than it excludes it, provided the great prin-
ciples, more fully indicated immediately afterwards, are kept in view.
Painfully minute, Judaistic self-introspection is contrary to the spirit
of the joyous liberty of the children of God. It is only a sense of
sin, and the felt absence of the Christ, which should lead to mourn-
ing and fasting, though not in order thereby to avert either the anger
of God or outward calamity. Besides the evidential force of this
highly spiritual, and thoroughly un-Jewish view of fasting, we notice
some other points in confirmation of this, and of the Gospel-history
generally. On the hypothesis of a Jewish invention of the Gospel-
history, or of its Jewish embellishment, the introduction of this
narrative would be incomprehensible. Again, on the theory of a
fundamental difference in the Apostolic teaching, St. Matthew and
St. Mark representing the original Judaic, St. Luke the freer Pauline
development, the existence of this narrative in the first two Gospels
would seem unaccountable. Or, to take another view — on tlie
hypothesis of the much later and noh-Judsean (Ephesian) authorship
of the Fourth Gospel, the minute archaeological touches, and the
general fitting of the words of the Baptist " into the present narra-
tive would be inexplicable. Lastly, as against all deniers and
detractors of the Divine Mission of Jesus, this early anticipation of
His violent removal by death,' and of the consequent mourning of the
Church, proves that it came not to Him from without, as by the ac-
cident of events, but that from the beginning He anticipated the
end, and pursued it of set, steadfast purpose.
' ' All the hrifle-chambers were only
within the portions of Benjamin ' (the
Tahcniiicle and the Temple). Hence
Benjamin was callcil 'tlie host of the
Lord.'
' Strangely, the two designations are
treated as identical in most Commen-
taries.
THE NEW WINE IN THE OLD BOTTLES. (365
Yet anotlior point in evidence comes to u.s from the eternal and CIIAP.
un-Jewish principles implied in the tAvo illustrations, of Avliidi XXMil
Christ here made use." In truth, the LonTs teaching is now carried ^^^^^
down to its ultimate princiijles. The slight variations which here °st Matt.
. IX. 16, 17
occur in the Gospel of St. Luke, as, indeed, such exist in so many of
the narratives of the same events by different Evangelists, should
not be 'explained away.' For, the sound critic should never devise
an explanation for the sake of a supposed difficulty, but truthfully
study the text — as an interpreter, not an apologist. Such varia-
tions of detail present no difficulty. As against a merely mechanical,
unspiritual accord, they afford evidence of truthful, independent
witness, and irrefragable proof that, contrary to modern negative
criticism, the three narratives are not merely different recensions of
one and the same original document.
In general, the two illustrations employed — that of the piece of
undressed cloth (or, according to St. Luke, a piece torn from a new
garment) sewed upon the rent of an old garment, and that of the new
wine put into the old wine-skins — must not be too closely pressed in
regard to their language. ^ They seem chiefly to imply this : You ask,
why do we fast often, but Thy disciples fast not? You are mistaken
in supposing that the old garment can be retained, and merely its
rents made good by patching it with a piece of new cloth. Not to
speak of the incongruity, the effect would only be to make the rent
ultimately worse. The old garment will not bear mending with the
' undressed cloth.' Christ's was not merely a reformation: all things
must become new. Or, again, take the other view of it — as the old
garment cannot be patched from the new, so, on the other hand, can
the new wine of the Kingdom not be confined in the old forms. It
would burst those wine-skins. The spirit must, indeed, have its
corresponding form of expression; but that form must be adapted,
and correspond to it. Not the old with a little of the new to hold it
together where it is rent; but the new, and that not in the old wine-
skins, but in a form corresponding to the substance. Such are the
two final principles ^— the one primarily addressed to the Pharisees,
the other to the disciples of John, by which the illustrative teaching
concerning the marriage-feast, Avith its bridal garment and wine of
banquet, is carried far beyond the original question of the disciples
of John, and receives an a))plication to all time.
1 Godet has shown objections a.£>:ainst of the writer, or may be (thou,<j;h very
all previous interiiretations. But his own doubtfully) an interpolation. There is
view seems to me equally untenable. a curious parallel to the verse in Ab.
2 St. Luke V. 39 seems either a gloss iv. 20.
666
FIJOM .lOlJDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRAN.'^Fira'RATIOX.
b St. Mark
vi. 20
5. We are in spirit bj- the mount of (Jod, and about to witness
the breaking of a terrible storm.'' It is one tliat uproots the great
trees and rends tlie rocks; and we shall watch it solemnly, earnestly,
as with bared head — or, like Elijah, Avith face A\Tapt in mantle.
AVeeks had passed, and the disciples of John had come liack and
showed their Master of all these things. He still lay in the dun-
geon of Mach^erus; his circumstances unchanged — perhaps, more
hopeless than before. For, Herod was in that spiritually most des-
perate state: he had heard the Baptist, and was much perplexed.
And still he heard — but only heard — him gladly. ** ^ It was a case by
no means singular, and of which Felix, often sending for St. Paul, at
whose preaching of righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to
come, he had trembled, offers only one of many parallels. That, when
hearing him, Herod was 'much perplexed,' we can understand, since
he ' feared him, knowing that he was a righteous man and holy, " and
thus fearing 'heard him.' But that being 'much perplexed,' he still
'heard him gladly,' constituted the hopelessness of his case. But
was the Baptist right? Did it constitute part of his Divine calling
to have not only denounced, but apparently directly confronted
Herod on his adulterous marriage? Had he not attempted to lift
himself the axe which seemed to have slipt from the grasp of Him,
of Whom the Baptist had hoped and said that He would lay it to
the root of the tree?
Such thoughts may have been with him, as he passed from his
dungeon to the audience of Herod, and from such bootless interviews
back to his deep keep. Strange as it may seem, it was, perhaps,
better for the Baptist when he was alone. Much as his disciples
honoured and loved him, and truly zealous and jealous for him as they
were, it was best when they were absent. There are times when
affection only pains, In' forcing on our notice inability to understand,
and adding to our sorrow that of feeling our inmost being a stranger
to those nearest, and who love us must. Then, indeed, is a man
alone. It was so with the Baptist. The state of mind and expe-
rience of his disciples has already appeared, even in the slight
notices concerning them. Indeed, had they fully understood him,
and not ended where he began — which, truly, is the characteristic of
all sects, in their crystallisation, or. rather, ossification of truth — they
would not have remained his disciples; and this consciousness must
also have brought exquisite pain. Their very affection for him, and
^ This is l)Otli tlie correct reading aiul rendering.
THE DAY OF DARKNESS AND TEUKIIJLE C^IESTIOMNG. 667
their zeal for his ci-cdit (as shown in the almost coarse language of CHAP.
their iiuiuiry: '.John the Baptist hatli sent us unto Thee, saying, XXVHI
Art Thou lie that eonieth, or look we for another ?'), as well as their ^— -v— -^
tenacity of unprogressiveness — were all, so to speak, marks of his
failure. And, if he had failed with them, had he succeeded in any-
thing?
And yet fui'tlier and more terrible questions rose in that dark
dungeon. Like serpents that crept out of its walls, they would un-
coil and raise their heads with horrible hissing. "What if, after all,
there had been some terrible mistake on his part? At any rate the
logic of events was against him. He was now the fast prisoner
of that Herod, to whom he had spoken with authority; in the power
of that bold adulteress, Herodias. If he were Elijah, the great Tish-
bite had never been in the hands of Ahab and Jezebel. And the
Messiah, Whose Elijah he was, moved not; could not, or would not,
move, but feasted with publicans and sinners! Was it all a reality?
or — oh, thought too hoi'rible for utterance — could it have been a
dream, bright but fleeting, uncaused by any reality, only the reflec-
tion of his own imagination? It must have been a terrible hour,
and the poAver of darkness. At the end of one's life, and that of
such self-denial and suffering, and with a conscience so alive to God,
which had — when a youth — driven him burning with holy zeal into
the wilderness, to have such a question meeting him as: Art Thou
He, or do we wail for another? Am I right, or in error and leading
others into error? must have been truly awful. Not Paul, when
forsaken of all he lay in the diingeon, the aged prisoner of Christ;
not Huss, when alone at Constance he encountered the whole Catholic
Council and the flames; only He, the God-Man, over Whose soul
crept the death-coldness of great agony when, one l)y one, all light
of God and man seemed to fade out, and only that one remained
burning — His own faith in the Father, could have experienced
bitterness like this. Let no one dare to say that tlie faith of John
failed, at least till the dark waters have rolled up to his own soul.
For mostly all and each of us must pass through some like ex-
perience; and only our own hearts and God know, how death-bitter
are the doubts, whether of head or of heart, when question after ques-
tion raises, as with devilish hissing, its head, and earth and heaven
seem alike silent to us.
But here we must for a moment pause to ask ourselves this,
which touches the question of all questions: Surely, such a umn
as this Baptist, so thoroughly disillusioned in that hour, could not
668 FI'iOM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFKR'RATION.
BOOK have been an imi)ustor, and his testimony to Chi-ist a falsehood?
in Nor yet coukl the reeord, which gives us this insight into the weak-
^— "^Y^^-^ ncss of tlie strong man and the doubts of the great Testimony-
bearer, be a cunningly-invented fable. We cannot imagine the
record of such a failure, if the narrative were an invention. And if
this record be true, it is not only of present failure, but also of the
previous testimony of John. To us, at least, the evidential force of
this narrative seems irresistible. The testimony of the Baptist to
Jesus offers the same kind of evidence as does that of the human soul
to God: in both cases the one points to the other, and cannot be
understood without it.
In that terrible conflict John overcame, as we all must overcome.
His very despair opened the door of hope. The helpless doubt, which
none could solve but One, he brought to Him around Whom it had
gathered. . Even in this there is evidence for Christ, as the unalter-
ably True One. AVhen John asked the question: Do we wait for
another? light was already struggling through darkness. It was
incipient victory even in defeat. When he sent his disciples with
this question straight to Christ, he had already conquered; for such
a question addressed to a possibly false Messiah has no meaning.
And so must it ever be with us. Doubt is the offspring of our
disease, diseased as is its paternity. And 3"ct it cannot be cast aside.
It may be the outcome of the worst, or the problems of the best
souls. The twilight may fade into outer night, or it may usher in
the day. The answer lies in this: whether doubt will lead us to
Christ, or from Christ.
Thus viewed, the question: ^ Art Thou the Coming One, or do
we wait for another? ' indicated faith both in the great promise and
in Him to Whom it was addressed. The designation ' The Coming
One ' {habba), though a most truthful expression of Jewish expect-
ancy, was not one ordinarily used of the Messiah. But it was in-
variably used in reference to the Messianic age, as the Athicl labho,
or coming future (literally, the prepared for to come), and the Olam
habba, the coming world or ^Eon.^ But then it implied the setting
right of all things by the Messiah, the assumption and vindication
of His Power. In the mouth of John it might therefore mean chiefly
this: Art Thou He that is to establish the Messianic Kingdom in its
outward power, or have we to wait for another? In that case, the
manner in which the Lord answered it would be all the more sig-
' Tlie distinction between the two expressions will be further explained in the
sequel.
vii. 21
b St. Matt,
xi. 5
CHRIST'S ANSWER AND TESTIMONY TO TUK IJAl'TIST. 669
uificaiit. The messengers caiiie ju.<t as Pie was engaged in healing CH\P
body and soul.^' Without interrupting His work, or otherwise xxviii
noticing their inquir}', He bade them tell John for answer what — -,- — '
they had seen and heard, and that 'the poor,'' are evangelised.' To »st.Luke
this, as the inmost characteristic of the Messianic Kingdom, He only
added, not by way of reproof nor even of warning, but as a fresh
'Beatitude:' 'Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be scandalised in
Me.' To faith, but only to faith, this was the most satisfactory and
complete answer to John's inquiry. And such a sight of Christ's
distinctive Work and Word, with believing submission to the humble-
ness of the Gospel, is the only true answer to our questions, whether
of head or heart.
But a harder saying than this did the Lord speak amidst the
forthpouring of His testimony to John, when his messengers had left.
It pointed the hearers beyond their present horizon. Several facts
here stand out prominently. First, He to Whom John had formerly
borne testimony, now bore testimony to him; and that, not in the
hour when John had testified for Him, but when his testimony had
wavered and almost failed. This is the opposite of what one would
have expected, if the narrative had been a fiction, while it is exactly
what we might expect if the narrative be true. Next, we mark that
the testimony of Christ is as from a higher standpoint. And it is a
full vindication as well as unstinted praise, spoken, not as in his
hearing, but after his messengers — who had met a seemingly cold
reception — had left. The people WTre not coarsely to misunderstand
the deep soul-agony, which had issued in John's inquiry. It was not
the outcome of a fickleness which, like the reed shaken by every
wind, was moved by popular opinion. Nor was it the result of fear
of bodily consequences, such as one that pampered the flesh might
entertain. Let them look back to the time when, in thousands, they
had gone into the wilderness to hear his preaching. What had
attracted them thither? Surely it was, that he was the opposite of
one swayed by popular opinion, ' a reed shaken by the wind. ' And
when they had come to him, what had they witnessed?- Surely, his
dress and food betokened the opposite of pampering or care of the body,
such as they saw in the courtiers of a Herod. But what they did
expect, that they really did see: a prophet, and much more than a
1 Negative criticism charges St. Luke query was: would they go out 'to gaze
with having inserted this trait, forgetting ((f a reed, and 'to see' one in soft
tliat it is referred to by St. Matthew. cUithing.
■^ The two terms are different. The
670
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
" St. Luke
vii. 29, 30
!• St. Matt.
xi. l'2-ll
<^ St. Matt.
xi. 14^19
'I Sanh. 99 a;
Ber. 34 /; ;
Shabb. 63 a
mere iirophetjtiie very Herald of God and Preparer of Messiah's Way. '
And yet — and this truly was a hard saying and utterly un-Judaic —
it was neither self-denial nor position, no, not even that of the New
Testament Elijah, which constituted real greatness, as Jesus viewed it,
just as nearest relationship constituted not true kinship to Him. To
those who sought the honour which is not of man's bestowing, but of
God, to be a little one in the Kingdom of God was greater greatness
than even the Baptist's.
But, even so, let there be no mistake. As afterwards St. Paul
argued with the Jews, that their boast in the Law only increased
their guilt as breakers of the Law, so here our Lord. The popular
concourse to, and esteem of, the Baptist,''^ did not imply that spiri-
tual reception which was due to his Mission.'' It only brought out,
in more marked contrast, the wide inward difference between the ex-
pectancy of the people as a whole, and the spiritual reality presented
to them in the Forerunner of the Messiah and in the Messiah Him-
self." Let them not be deceived by the crowds that had submitted
to the Baptism of John. From the time that John began to preach
the Kingdom, hindrances of every kind had been raised. To over-
come them and enter the Kingdom, it required, as it were, violence
like that to enter a city which was surrounded by a hostile army.'^
Even by Jewish admission,* the Law ' and all the prophets prophesied
only of the days of Messiah.'* John, then, was the last link; and,
if they would but have received it, he would have been to them the
Elijah, the Restorer of all things. Selah — ' he that hath ears, let him
hear. '
Nay, but it was not so. The children of that generation expected
quite another Elijah and quite another Christ, and disbelieved and
complained, because the real Elijah and Christ did not meet their
foolish thoughts. They were like children in a market-place, Avho
expected their fellows to adapt themselves to the tunes they played.
It was as if they said: We have expected great Messianic glory and
national exaltation, and ye have not responded ( ' we have piped ^
unto you, and ye have not danced ') ; we have looked for deliverance
from our national sufferings, and they stirred not your sympathies
1 The reader will mark the difference
between the quotation as made by all the
three Evangelists, and our present He-
brew text and the LXX., and possibly
draw his own inferences.
^ This is a sort of parenthetic note l)y
St. Luke.
3 The common interpretations of this
verse have seemed to me singularly un-
satisfactory.
■* Comp. the Appendix on the Jewish
Interpretation of Prophecy.
5 The i)ipe was used both in feasts
and at mourning. So the Messianic hope
had lioth its joyous and its sorrowful
aspect.
LIGHT IN DARKNESS. (}7i
iior I )roii,ii"lit your lielp (• we liave mourned to you, and ye have not chap.
lamented'). But you thought of the Messianic time as childi( ii. xxviii
and of us, as if Ave were 3'our fellows, and shared your thouii'lits and "— ^r^ — -"
purposes! And so Avhen John came with his stern asceticism, you
felt he was not one of you. He was in one direction outside your
boundary-line, and I. as the Friend of sinners, in the other direction.
The axe which he wiehled you would have laid to the tree of the
Gentile world, not to that of Israel and of sin; the welcome and
fellowship which I extended, you would have had to ' the wise ' and
'the righteous,' not to sinners. Such was Israel as a whole. And
yet there was an election according to grace: the violent, who had
to fight their way through all this, and who took the Kingdom by
violence — <ind so Heaven's Wisdom (in opposition to the children's
folly) is vindicated^ b}' all her children.- If anything were needed
to show the internal harmony between the Synoptists and the Fourth
Gospel, it would be this final appeal, which recalls those other words:
' He came unto His own (things or property), and his own (people,
they who were His OAvn) received Him not. But as many as received
Him, to them gave He power (right, . authority) to become children
of God, which were born (begotten,) not . . . of the will of man, but
of God.'" "^V^C*^''
1. 11-13
6. The scene once more changes, and we are again at Macha^rus.'^
Weeks have passed since the return of John's messengers. We can-
not doubt that the sunlight of faith has again fallen into the dark
dungeon, nor yet that tlie peace of restful conviction has filled the
martyr of Christ. He must have known that his end was at hand,
and been ready to be oflcred up. Those not nnfrcquent conversations,
in which the weak, superstitious, wicked tyrant was • perplexed ' and
yet ' heard him gladly,' could no longer have inspired even passing
hopes of freedom. Nor would he any longer expect from the Messiah .
assertions of power on his behalf He now understood tliat for
Avhich He had come; ' he knew tlic better liberty, triumj)!!, and
victory which He brcught. And what mattered it; His life-work
had been done, and there was nothing further that fell to him or
that he could do, and the weary servant of the Lord must have
longed for his rest.
It was early spring, shortly before the Passover, tlie anniversary
of the death of Herod the Great and of the accession of (his son)
' Litprally. justified. The expression •'' As, according to Jbw/)/^^<.s, John was
is a Hebiaisni. executed at Mach;prus. the scene must
- I cannot accept the reading ' works ' have been there, and not eitlier at Til)erias
ia St. Mark. or at Julias.
672 FROM JORDAN TO Till] .MOTTNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK TIcrod Aiili])as to llic Tetrarcliy.' A fit time this fora Belshazzar-feast,
ni when such an one as Herod would gather to a pi'rand 1); nqiiet ' his
^— ^^v — ' lords/ and the military authorities, and the ehief men of Galilee.
It is evening, and the castle-palace is lu-illiantly lit uj). The noise
of music and the shouts of revelry come across the slope into the
citadel, and fall into the deep dungeon where waits the prisoner of
Christ. And now the meri-iuient in the great l)anqueting-hall has
reached its utmost height. The king has nothing further to oiler
his satiated guests, no fresh excitement. So let it be the sensuous
stimulus of dubious dances, and, to complete it, let the dancer be
the fair young daughter of the king's wife, the very descendant of
the Asmongean priest-princes! To viler depth of coarse familiarity
even a Herod could not have descended.
She has come, and she has danced, this princely maiden, out of
whom all maidenhood antl all princeliness have been brazed by a
degenerate mother, wretched offspring of the once noble Maccabees.
And she has done her best in that wretched exhibition, and pleased
Herod and them that sat at meat with him. And now, amidst the
general plaudits, she shall have her reward — and the king swears it
to her Avith loud voice, that all around hear it — even to the half of
his kingdom. The maiden steals out of the l)anquet-hall to ask her
mother what it shall be. Can there be doubt or hesitation in the
mind of Herodias? If there was one object she had at heart, which
these ten months she had in vain sought to attain: it was the death
of John the Baptist. She remembered it all only too well — her stormy,
reckless past. The daughter of Aristobulus, the ill-fated son of the ill-
fated Asmona^an princess Mariamme (I.), she had been married to her
half-uncle, Herod Philip, -the son of Herod the Great and of Mariamme
' The expression yevsaia leaves it calls him Herod and not Piiili)), a certain
doiiljtfiil, wiiether it was the birthday of class of critics have imijuted error to the
* Herod or the aiuiiversary of his acces- Evangelists {ScJiii.rer, u. s., p. 2.'J7). But
sion. Wi'^seJer maintains that the Ralj- it '"^quires to be kept in view, tiiat in
binic equivalent {Ginusej/n, or Giniset/a) that case the Evangelists would be guilty
means the day of accession. 3fe>/er the no: of one but of two gross historical
birthday. In truth it is used for both. errors. They would (1) have confounded
But in Abod. Z. 10 a (about the middle) this Herod with his half-brother Phili)).
the Fom (r«/i;/.s-eyA< is expre.ssly and elabo- the Tetrarch, and (2) made him the
rately shown to be the day of accession. husband of Herodias, instead of being
Otherwise also the balance of evidence her son-in-law. Philip tlie Tetrarch hav-
is in favour of this view. The event ing married Salome. Two such errors
described in the text certainly took place are altogether iiiconceivaV)le in so well-
?_yefo/-p the Passover,and this was the time known a hLstorj', with which the Evan-
of Herod's death and of the acces.sion of gelists otherwise sliow such familiarity.
Antipas. It is not likely, that the Hero- On the other hand, there are internal
dians would have celebrated their birth- reasons for believing that this Ilei'od had
days. a second name. Among the eight sons
■^ From the circumstance that Jo.s-^^v/i«s' of Herod the Great there are three who
THE END OF HEROD ANTH'AS. 073
(I!,), the (lauuiiU'T of the Iliii-li-Pricst (Boethos). At one time it chap.
seemed as if llerod Philip would have l)ecii sole heir of liis father's XXVHI
dominions. But the old tyrant had changed his testament, and ^— v'-^-'
Philip was left Avith great wealth, bnt as a private person living in
Jerusalem. This little suited the woman's ambition. It was when
his half-brother, Herod Anti))as, eame on a visit to him at Jernsalem,
that an intrigue began between the Tetrarch and his brother's wife.
It was agreed that, after the return of Antipas from his impending
journey to Pome, he would repudiate his Avife, the daughter of
Aretas, king of Arabia, and wed Herodias. But Aretus' daughter
lieard of the plot, and having o])tained her husbamfs consent to go
to ^Iachan"us, she lied thence to her father. This, of course, led to
enmity l)etween Antipas and Aretas. Nevertheless, the adulterous
marriage with Herodias followed. In a few sentences the story may
be carried to its termination. Tlie woman proved the curse and ruin
of Antipas. First came the murder of the Baptist, which sent a
thrill of horror through the people, and to which all the later
misfortunes of Herod were attributed. Then followed a war with
Aretas, in which the Tetrarch was worsted. And, last of all, his
wife's and)ition led him to Rome to solicit the title of King, lately
given to Agrippa, the 1)rotlier of Herodias. Antipas not only failed,
but was deprived of his dominions, and banished to Lyons in Gaul.
The pride of the woman in refusing favours from the p]niperor, and
her faithfulness to her husband in his fallen fortunes, are the only
redeeming points in her history.'' As for Salome, she was first ^•^j-i-V'/'.,.
married to her uncle, Pliilii) the Tetrarch. Legend has it, that her warii.y. o
death was retributive, 1)eing in consequence of a fall on the ice.
Such was the woman who had these many months sought with the
vengefulncss and determination of a Jezebel, to rid herself of the
hated person, Avho alone had dared publicly denounce lier sin, and
whose words held her weak husband in awe. The opportunity had now
bear his name (Herod). Of only one, named Philip, we answer (1) that he had
Herod Antii)as, we know tiie second two sons of the name Antipas. or Anti-
name (Antii)as). But. as for example in pater, (2) that tliey were tlie sons of
thecaseoftheBonapartefaiiilly.it is most different motliers. and (3) tliut the full
uidikely that the other two should have name of the one was Herod I'hilip (tirst
liorue tlie name of Herod without any husl)and of Herodias), and of the other
distinctive second name. Hence we simply Philip the Tetrarch (hiisl)aiid of
conclude, that the name Philip, which Salome, and son-in-law of Herodias and
occurs in the Gospels (in St. Luke iii. 1!) of Herod Philip her tirst husband). Thus
it is spurious), was the second name of for distinction's sake the one niiniit have
him whom Joseplnis siini)ly names as been iienerally called simply Herod, the
Herod. If it be oljjecteck that in such other Philip,
case Herod would have had two sous
XIV. 8
674 FROM JOKDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
IJooK coiiic lor ()l)taiiiiiii;' IVoiii the v;icill;itiii,u- inoiiarcli what licr ciitroaties
HI could never liavc secured. As the Gospel puts it," 'instigated' by
^— ^i — hei- mother, the damsel hesitated not. We can readih- till in the
SLMiitt. outlined i)icture ol' what followed. It only needed the mother's
whisi)ered sug\ii;estion, and still Hushed from her dance, Salome re-
entered the banqueting-hall. 'With haste,' as if no time were to be
lost, she went up to the king: ' I would that thou forthwith give me
in a charger, the head of John the Baptist! ' Silence must have fallen
on the assembh'. Even into their hearts such a demand from the lips
of little more than a child must have struck horror. They all knew
John to be a righteous and holy man. Wicked as they were, in their
superstition, if not religiousness, few, if any of them, would have will-
ingly lent himself to such work. And they all knew, also, why Salome,
or rather Herodias, had made this demand. "What Avould Herod do?
' The king was exceeding sorry.' For months he had striven against
this. His conscience, fear of the people, inward horror at the deed,
all would have kei)t him from it. But he had sworn to the maiden,
who now stood before him, claiming that the pledge l)e redeemed,
and' every eye in the assembly was now fixed upon him. Unfaithful to
his God, to his conscience, to truth and righteousness; not ashamed
of any crime or sin, he would yet be faithful to his half-drunken oath,
and appear honorable and true before such companions!
It has been but the contest of a moment. 'Straightway' the
king gives the order to one of the l)ody -guard.' The maiden hath
withdrawn to await the result with her mother. The guardsman has
left the ban(pieting-hall. Out into the cold sjiring night, up that
slope, and into the deep dungeon. As its door opens, the noise of
the revelry comes with the light of the torch which the man bears.
No time for preparation is given, nor needed. A few minutes more,
and the gory head of the Baptist is brought to the nmiden in a
charger, and slie gives the ghastly dish to her mother.
It is all over! As the pale morning light streams into the keep,
the faithful disciples, who had been told' of it, come rcA^erently to
l)ear the headless body to the burying. Tliey go forth for ever from
that accursed place, which is so soon to become a mass of shapeless
ruins. They go to tell it to Jesus, and henceforth to remain with
Him. We can imagine what welcome awaited them. But the people
' A (TTtEKovXaroofj, speculator, ono occurs in RabbiuicHebrew as ^'e/^/^r/^y^/z/or
of a Ijody-suard whicb had come into uso. . -«,Vj"-^prc\ or Isphaqlator (-Vj"-'r?CN)
who attended the Cgesars. executed tlieir v ^ i. . y v ti. . /;
behests and often their sudden sentences »»'! is applied to one who carries out the
of death (from speculor). Tlie same word ^onteuce of execution (Shabb. 108 a).
HEROD AND THE CHKLST. §75
over artci-wanls cursed tlie tyrant, and looked i'or tlio.se judiiinent.s of CHAP.
God to follow, AvhicliAvere so soon to descend on him. And he himself XXVHI
was ever afterwards restless, wretched, and full of apprehensions. ^— -r™*-'
He could scarcely believe that the Baptist was really dead, and when
the fame of Jesus reached him, and those around su<i-gested that this
was Elijah, a prophet, or as one of them, Herod's mind, amidst its
strange perplexities, still reverted to the man whom he had murdered.
It was a new anxiety, perhaps, even so, a new hope; and as formerly
he had often and gladly heard the Baptist, so now he would fain
have seen Jesus.'' He would see Him; but not now. In that dark "St. Luke
niglit of l)etrayal, he, who at the bidding of the child of an adulteress,
had murdered the Forerunner, might, with the approbation of a
Pilate, have rescued Him whose faithful witness John had been.
But night was to merge into yet darker night. For it was the time
and the power of the Evil One. And yet: Jehovah reigneth.'
y
676
FROM J UK DAN TU THE MOUNT OF TUANSFIGUltATlON,
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE MIRACULOUS FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND.
BOOK
III
^ Jos. War
iii. 3. 5
t- Jos. Ant.
xviil. 2. 1
f St. John
xii. 21 :
coin p. 1. 44;
St. Mark
vi. 45
(St. Matt. xiv. 13-21; St. Mark vi. 30-44; St. Luke ix. 10-17; St. Johu vi. 1-14.)
In tlie circumstances described in tlie previous chapter, Jesus resolved
at once to leave Capernaum; and this probably alike for the sake of
His disciples, who needed rest; for that of the people, who might
have attempted a rising after the murder of the Bai)tist; and tem-
porarily to withdraw Himself and His followers from the power of
Herod. For this purpose He chose the place outside the dominions
of Antipas, nearest to Capernaum. This was Beth-Saida (' the house
of Ashing,' ' Fisher-towft,' ^ as we might call it), on the eastern border
of Galilee," just within the territory of the Tetrarch Philip. Origi-
nally a small village, Philip had converted it into a town, and
namc(l it Julias, after Caesar's daughter. It lay on the eastern bank
of Jordan, just before that stream enters the Lake of Galilee.*"
It must, however, not be confounded with the other ' Fisher-town, '
or Bethsaida, on the western shore of the Lake.^ which the Fourth
Gospel, evidencing by this local knowledge its Judaean, or rather
Galilean, authorship, distinguishes from the eastern as Bethsaida
of Galilee. "^^
Other minute points of deep interest in the same direction will
present themselves in the course of this narrative. Meantime we
note, that this is the only history, previous to Christ's last visit to
Jerusalem, Avhich is recorded by all the four Evangelists; the only
' The common reading, ' House of
fishes,^ is certainly inaccurate. Its Ara-
maic equivalent would be probably
N~*'^ .T.3. Tseida means literally
hunting as well as fishing, having .special
reference to catching in a snare or net.
Possibly, bat not so likely, it may have
been N'^^a '2 {Tsnijijadfi), house of a
snarer-huntsnian, here li.-;her. It will Ije
noticed, that we retain the textus recep-
tiis of St. Luke ix. 10.
■-' I do nof quite understand the rea-
soninir of Captain Conder on this point
(Handl*. of the Bible, pp. 321, itc), but
I cannot agree with his conclusions.
•' On the whole question comp. the
Encyclopfcdias, Caspari u. s. pp. 81, 83;
Bnt'deker (Soctn). p. 267; Tristram,
Laud of Israel, p. 443 »tc.
THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND. O77
scries of events also in tin' whole course of that Galilean Ministry, CHAP.
whicli commenced alter Ills return Irom the ' Unknown Feast,'" whicii XXIX
is rct'erred to in the Fourth Gospel; ' and that it contains two distinct ^ — ^.^ — -^
notices as to time, which enable us to lit it exactly into the frame- ' st.ji.iinv.
work of this history. For, the statement of the Fourth Gospel,'' that 'st. joim
the ' Passover was nigh, ' ^ is confirmed by the independent notice of
St. Mark, "^ that those whom the Lord miraculously led were ranged ^ st. Mark
* on the green grass.' In that climate there would have been no
'■ green grass ' soon after the Passover. We must look upon the coin-
cidence of these two notices as one of the undesigned contirmations of
this narrative.
For, miraculous it certainly is, and the attempts rationalistically
to explain it, to sublimate it into a parable, to give it the spiritual-
istic meaning of spiritual feeding, or to account for its mythical
origin by the precedent of the descent of the manna, or of the
miracle of Elisha,^ are even more palpable failures than those made to
account for the miracle at Cana. The only alternative is to accept —
or entirely to reject it. In view of the exceptional record of this
history in all the four Gospels, no unbiassed historical student would
treat it as a simple invention, for which there was no ground in
reality. Nor can its origin be accounted for by previous Jewish ex-
pectancy, or Old Testament precedent. The only rational mode of ex-
plaining it is on the supposition of its truth. This miracle, and what
follows, mark the climax in our Lord's doing, as the healing of the
Syro-Phoenician maiden the utmost sweep of His activity, and the
Transfiguration the highest point in regard to the miraculous about
His Person. The only reason which can be assigned for the miracle
of His feeding the five thousand was that of all His working: Man's
need, and, in view of it, the stirring of the Pity and Power that were
in Him. But even so, we cannot fail to mark the contrast between
King Herod, and the banquet that ended with the murder of the
Baptist, and King Jesus, and the banquet that ended with His lonely
prayer on the mountain-side, the calming of the storm on the Lake,
and the deliverance from death of His disciples.
' Professor )f>.sVro// notes, that tbeac- ^ Even those who hold such views as-
eouiit of St. .John could neither have sert them in this instance hesitatingly. It
been derived from those of the Synoptists, seems almost impossible to conceive, that
nor from any common original, from a narrative recorded in all the four Gos-
whicii their narratives are by some sup- pels should not have an historical basis,
posed to have been derived. and the appeal to the precedent of Elisha
- Tliere is no valid reason for douljtina; is the more inapt, that in conunon Jewish
the a;(Muuneness of these words, or giv- thinking he was woM'egarded as specially
ing them another meaning tlian in the the type of the Messiah,
text. Comp. Weatcott, ad. loc.
61S
FROM .J()IM)AN TO THE MOUNT OF TRAN.^FKJrHATlON.
HOOK
III
» St. Mark
vl. 33
b St. Mark
V. 1-16
Only a IV'W lioiirs' sail IVoiii Capeniai!:' , and even a shortor dis-
taii('('l)y land (round the head of the Lake) hiy tlie distriet of Beth-
saida-J alias. It was natural that Christ, wishing to avoid pu))lic
attention, should have s^-one ' by ship,' anil equally so that the many
' seeing them departing, and knowing ' — viz., what direction the boat
was taking, should have followed on foot, and been joined by others
from the neighbouring villages,^ as those from Capernaum passed
through them, perhaps, also, as they recognised on the Lake the now
welldvuown sail, - speeding towards the other shore. It is an incidental
but interesting contirmation of the narrative, that the same notice
about this journey occurs, evidently undesignedly, in St. John vi, 22.
Yet another we find in the fact, that some of those who 'ran there
on i'oot ' had reached the place before Jesus and His xVpostles.'' Only
some, as we judge. The largest proportion arrived later, and soon
swelled to the immense number of 'about 5,000 men,' 'besides
women and children.' The circumstance that the Passover was nigh
at hand, so that many must have been starting on their journey to
Jerusalem, round the Lake and through Pera?a, partly accounts for
the concourse of such multitudes. And this, perhaps in conjunction
with the efliect on the people of John's murder, may also explain
their ready and eager gathering to Christ, thus affording yet another
confirmation of the narrative.
It was a well-know^n spot where Jesus and His Apostles touched
the shore. Not many miles south of it was the Gerasa or Gergesa,
where the great miracle of healing the demonised had been wrought."
Just beyond Gerasa the mountains and hills recede, and the plain
along the shore enlarges, till it attains wide proportions on the
northern bank of the Lake. The few ruins wdiich mark the site of
Bethsaida-Julias — most of the basalt-stones having been removed
for building purposes— lie on the edge of a hill, three or four miles
north of the Lake. The ford, l)y which those who came from Caper-
naum crossed the Jordan, was, no doubt, that still used, aljout two
miles from wdierc the river enters the Lake. About a mile further,
on that wide expanse of grass, would be the scene of the great
miracle. In short, the locality thoroughly accords Avith the require-
ments of the Gospel-narrative.
As w^e picture it to ourselves, our Lord with His disciples, and
' This seems the fan* meaninj? of St.
Mark vi. 31-33, conip. with St. Matt. xiv.
18.
'^ St. Marl: vi. 32 lias it 'l.y (or rather
in) tlic fillip.' witli the definite article.
Probably it was the same boat tliat was
always at His disjiosal, perhaps belon.ij;-
inij to the sons of Jonas or to the sons of
Zebedee.
THE PASSOVKi; WAS XKill.'
679
pcrluips followed by those wiio liinl oiitniu tlic rest, first retired to
the top of a lieight, and there rested in teacliing eonverse with
them.'' Treseutly, as lie saw the great multitudes gathering, lie
was 'moved with eompassion towards them."'" There eould be no
question of retirement or rest in view of this. Surely, it was the
opportunity which God had given — a call which came to Him from
His Father. Every such opportunity was unspeakably precious to
Him, Who longed to gather the lost under His wings. It might be,
that even now they would learn what belonged to their peace. Oh,
that they would learn it! At least, He must work while it was called
to-day, ere the night of judgment came; work with tliat unending
patience and intense compassion which made Ilim weep, when He
could no longer work. It was this depth of longing and intensencss
of pity which now ended the Saviour's rest, and brought Him down
from the hill to meet the gathering multitude in the ' desert ' i)lain
beneath.
And what a sight to meet His gaze— these thousands of strong
men, besides women and children; and what thoughts of the past,
the present, and the future, would be called up by the scene! ' The
Passover was nigh,''' with its remembrances of the Paschal night,
the Paschal Lamb, the Paschal Supper, the Paschal deliverance —
and most of them were Passover-pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem.
These Passover-pilgrims and God's guests, now streaming out into
this desert after Him; with a murdered John just buried, and
no earthly teacher, guide, or help left! Truly they were 'as sheep
having no shepherd.'^ The very surroundings seemed to give to the
thought the vividness of a picture: this wandering, straying multi-
tude, the desert sweep of country, the very want of provisions. A
Passover, indeed, but of which He would be the Paschal Lamb, t'.e
Bread which He gave, the Supper, and around which He would gather
those scattered, shepherdless sheep into one flock of many ' com-
panies,' to whicli His Apostles would bring the bread He had blessed
and broken, to tlieir sufficient and more than sufficient nourishment;
from which, indeed, they would carry the remnant-baskets full, alter
the flock had been fed, to the jioor in the outlying places of fiir-otf
heathendom. And so thoughts of the past, the present, and the
future must have mingled — thoughts of the Passover in the piist, of
the Last, the Holy Sui)per in the future, and of the deeper inward
CHAP.
XXIX
» St. John
vi. S
!■ St. Matt,
xiv. li
■ St. John
'• St. Mark
vi. 31
' Canon Wesfcotf supposes that ' a day
of teac'hinc; and healing must be interca-
lated before the miracle of feedini?,' but
I cannot see any reason for this. All the
events tit well into one dav.
G80
I'RO.M JORDAN TO TUE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
a St. Mark
vi. 34
'■ St. Luke
is. 11
^ St. .John
vi. 6
'1 Comp.
St. .John
xiv. 8. 9
iiicaniii^' and ])rariiig' of ))otli the one and the other; thoug'hts also
of tliis lh)ek, and of that other flock which was yet to gather, and of
the far-oii" places, and of the Apostles and their service, and of the
provision which they were to carry from His Hands — a provision
never exhausted by present need, and which always leaves enough to
carry thence and far away.
There is, at least in our view, no doubt that thoughts of the
Passover and of the Holy Supper, of their commingling and mystic
meaning, were present to the Saviour, and that it is in this light the
miraculous feeding of the multitude must be considered, if we are in
any measure to understand it. Meantime the Saviour was moving
among them — 'beginning to teach them many things,"' and ' healing
them that had need of healing. ' " Yet, as He so moved and thought
of it all, from the first, ' He Himself knew what He was about to do.^
And now the sun had passed its meridian, and the shadows fell
longer on the surging crowd. Full of the thoughts of the great
Supper, which was symbolically to link the Passover of the past with
that of the future, and its Sacramental continuation to all time, He
turned to Philip with this question: 'Whence are we to Iniy bread,
that these may eat? ' It was to 'try him,' and show how he would
view and meet what, alike spiritually and temporally, has so often
been the great problem. Perhaps there was something in Philip
which made it speciall}' desirable, that the question should be
i:)ut to him.'" xlt any rate, the answer of Philip showed that there had
been a 'need be' for it. This — 'two hundred denarii (between six
and seven pounds) worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every
one may take a little,' is the course realism, not of unbelief, but of an
absence of faith which, entirely ignoring any higher possibility, has
not even its hope left in a ' Thou knowest, Lord.'
But there is evidence, also, that the question of Christ worked
deeper thinking and higher good. As we understand it, Philip told
it to Andrew, and they to the others. While Jesus taught and
heale(}., they must have spoken together of this strange question of
the Master. They knew Him sufficiently to judge, that it implied
some purpose on His part. Did He intend to provide for all that
multitude? They counted them roughly — going along the edge and
through the crowd — and reckoned them by thousands, besides women
and children. They thought of all the means for feeding such a
multitude. How much had they of their own? As we judge by
combining the various statements, there was a lad there who car-
ried the scant, humble provisions of the party — perhai)s a fisher-lad
THE FIVE BARLEY-LOAVKS AND TWO SMALL FISHES. 681
brought lor tlie purpose IVoiii the liont/' It would take quite w'liat CHAP.
Philip ha<l reckoned — about two liuudred denarii — if the Master XXL\
meant them to go and bu}' victuals for all that multitude. Probably ' — ^.^--
the conmion stock — at anv rate as computed by Judas, who carried \(-[omv- st.
^ *' ' John VI. 9
the bag — did not contain that amount. In any case, the ri<>:ht and I'l'VH^^-
" ' j\ltllt. XIV.
the wise thing was to dismiss the multitude, that they might <i"o into XV-"^}- ■ „
'^ _ ' J o ._ Mark VI. 38;
the toAvns and villages and buy for themselves victuals, and find ?^- '^^^^
lodgment. For already the bright spring-day was declining, and
what was called ' the first evening ' had set in.^ For the Jews reckoned
two evenings, although it is not easy to determine tlie exact hour
when each began and ended. But, in general, the first evening may
be said to have Ijcgun when the sun declined, and it was probably
reckoned as lasting to about the ninth hour, or three o'clock of the
afternoon.'' Then began the period known as ' between the even- " comp. /os.
ings,' which would be longer or shorter according to the season of 6.2'
the year, and' which terminated with ' the second evening ' — the time
from when the first star appeared to that when the third star Avas
visible." With the night began the reckoning of the following day. «orach-
° ° ■ o e? J Chajim 261
It was the ' first evening ' when the disciples, whose anxiety
must have been growing with the progress of time, asked the Lord
to dismiss the people. But it was as they had thought. He would
have them give the people to eat! Were they, then, to go and buy
two hundred denarii Avorth of loaves? No — they were not to buy,
but to give of their oavu store! How many loaves had they! Let
them go and see.'' And Avhen Andrew went to see what store the "".st-Mark
'^ VI. 38
nsher-lad carried for them, he brought back tlie tidings, ' He hath
five barley loaves and two small fishes,' to which he added, half in
disbelief, half in faith's rising expectancy of impossible possibility:
'But Avhat are they among so many?'"- It is to the fourth Evan- ^st. joim
gelist alone that we owe the record of this remark, which we instinc-
tively feel gives to the whole the touch of truth and life. It is to
him also that we owe other two minute traits of deepest interest,
and of far greater importance than at first sight appears.
When we read that these five were barley-lonYes, we learn that,
no doubt from voluntary choice, the fare of the Lord and of His
followers Avas the poorest. Indeed, barley-bread Avas, almost pro-
verbially, the meanest. Hence, as the Mishnah puts it, Avhile all
other meat-offerings Avere of wlieat, that brought by the woman
accused of adultery Avas to l^e of barlej', because (so R. Gamaliel
puts it), ' as her deed is that of animals, so her offering is also of the
' The expreijsiou in St. Maiiv vi. 35 is literally, 'a late hour,' copa ttoXA)}.
(j82 FROM JORDAN TO THE .MOlXT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK ibod of animals. '^' Tlu' other iniiiuto trait in St. Jolm's Gospel
III consists in the use of a peeuliar word for 'tish' {ofdpiov), ' opsarion,'
^- — ^.' — ' which properly means what was eaten along with the bread, and
^sotah. ii. 1 specially refers to the smali, and generally dried or pickled fish eaten
with bread, like our 'sardines,' or the '■ caviar ' of Russia, the pickled
herrings of Holland and Germany, or a peculiar kind of small dried
fish, eaten with the l)ones, in the North of Scotland. Now just as
any one wlio would name that fish as eaten with bread, would display
such minute knowh^dge of the habits of the North-east of Scotland
as only personal residence could give, so in regard to the use of
this term, which, be it marked, is 'peculiar to tlie Fourth Gospel.,
Dr. Westcott suggests, that ' it may have l)een a familiar Galilean
word,' and his conjecture is correct, lor Op/isowi/i ("I'^'^r^), de-
rived from the same Greek word (oi/wv), of which that used by
St. John is the diminutive, means a ' savoury dish,' while Aphyan
(^N*CN) or Aphits (y^sr), i'S the term for a kind of small fish, such
as sardines. The importance of tracing accurate local knowledge in
the Fourth Gospel warrants our pursuing the sul)ject further. The
Talmud declares that of all kinds of meat, fish only becomes more
bBabha. B. savoury l)y salting,'' and names certain kinds, specially designated as
e^,._ ' small fishes,' " which might be eaten without being cooked. Small
c*:i:r fishes were recommended for health;'' and a kind of pickle or savoury
Bczaiea ^^.^^ also umde of them. Now the Lake of Galilee was particularly
i^aTthe"' I'i^'l^ i'^ these fishes, and we know that both the salting and pickling of
them was a special industry among its fishermen. For this purpose
a small kind of them Avere specially selected, which bear the name
Terlth (n^-^.r)-' Now the diminutive used by St. John {oi/:apiov),
of which our Authorized Version no doubt gives the meaning fairly- l)y
rendering it 'small fishes,' refers, no doubt, to those small fishes (pro-
bably a kind of sardine) of which millions were caught in the Lake,
and which, dried and salted, would form the most common ' savoury '
with bread for the fisher-population along the shores.
If the Fourth Gospel in the use of this diminutive displays such
special Lake-knowledge as evidences its Galilean origin, another
touching trait connected with its use may here be mentioned. It
has already been said that the term is used only by St. John, as if
to mark the Lake of Galilee origin of the Fourth Gospel. But only
once again does the expression occur in the Fourth Gospel. On that
1 Comp. Herzfdd, Handelsgescli. ]>p. Leirt/so/ni, Zool. d. Talm. pp. 255, 256,
305, 30fi. Ill my view he has e.stal)li.sh('d and Lerij, Neuhebr. Worterb. ii. 192 a.
the meaning of this name as against
near tlie
middle
THE I'UO VISION MULTIPLIED. . 683
morn i 111!:, \vlicii the Itisen One inauirested Iliinself ])\ llic Lake of ciiAP.
Galik'u to tliciii who had all the night toiled in vain, He had pro- XXIX
vided for tlioni miraculously the meal, when on the ' fire of charcoal ' ^— ^r— ^
they saw the well-remembered ' little fish ' (the opsarion), and, as
He bade them bring of the ' little fish ' (the opsaria) which they
had miraculously caught, Peter drew to shore the net full, not of
opsaria, -but 'of great fishes' [ixOvoov /.isj/dXcji^). And yet it was
not of those ' great 'fishes ' that He gave them, but ' He took
the bread and gave them, and the opsarion likewise.'" Thus, in ^st. joim
. . . . '" . . . xxi. 9, 10, 13
infinite humility, the meal at which the Risen baviour sat down
with His disciples was still of ' bread and small fishes ' — even though
He gave them the draught of large fishes; and so at that last
meal He recalled that first miraculous feeding by the Lake of
Galilee. And this also is one of those undesigned, too often un-
observed traits in the narrative, which yet carry almost irresistible
evidence.
There is one proof at least of the implicit faith or rather trust of
the disciples in their Master. They had given Him account of their
own scanty provision, and yet, as He bade them make the people sit
down to the meal, they hesitated not to obey. We can picture it to
ourselves, what is so exquisitely sketched: the expanse of ' grass, ' '' ''St. Ma-t.
'green,' and fresh," 'much grass;'* then the people in their 'com- est. Mark
panics"" of fifties and hundreds, reclining,'' and looking in their ^V'
^ ? i-^) f3 ^ '1 St. John
regular divisions, and with their bright many-coloured dresses, like ^i. lo
' garden-beds ' '^ ^ on the turf. But on One Figure must every eye sriirrk"
vi. 39
have been bent. Around Him stood His Apostles, They had laid
before Him the scant provision made for their own wants, and which Lukeix.u
was now to feed this great multitude. As was ^^^ont at meals, on the vtV^^*"^
part of the head of the household, Jesus took the bread, 'blessed"' ''Ber. 46 a
or, as St. John puts it, ' gave thanks, ' ^ and ' brake ' it. The expression
recalls that connected with the Holy Eucharist, and leaves little
doubt on the mind that, in the Discourse delivered in the Synagogue
of Capernaum,' there is also reference to the Lord's Supper. As of ''St. John
comparatively secondary importance, yet helping us better to realise
the scene, we recall the Jewish ordinance, that the Head of the
House was only to speak the blessing if he himself shared in the
meal, yet if they who sat down to it were not merely guests, but his
1 The literal reiiderinii- of Ttpacricx is used by the Synopti^ts; but in St. Matt,
'garden-bed.' InSt.Mark vi. 40. Tr/jfro-iai xv. ,36, and in St. Mark viii. (i, the term
Ttpamai. 'garden-beds, garden-beds.' is also that of Mrn?/-.sv7/r///.'/. \wt blessing
In the A. V. -in ranks.' {EvxapicrzEoo, not avXoy £&■>).
2 The expression is diilerent from that
684
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
» Rosh
haSli. -29 /;
■■ Jer. Sot.
p. 21 6
d Ber. 44 a
<■ Com p.
Sotah. li. 1
children, or liis household, then niiii-ht he speak it, even if he himself
did not partake of the bread wliich he had broken,"'
Wc can scarcely be mistaken as to the words which Jesus spake
when MIe gave thanks.' The Jewish Law" allows the grace at meat
to be said, not only in Hebrew, but in any language, the Jerusalem
Talmud aptly remarking, that it was proper a })erson should under-
stand to Whom he was giving thanks (-|-::"^ *::?). " Siuiilarly, we
have very distinct information as regards a case like the present.
We gather, that the use of ' savoury ' with bread was specially common
around the Lake of Galilee, and the Mishnah lays down the principle,
that if bread and ' savoury ' were eaten, it Avould depend which of the
two was the main article of diet, to determine whether thanks-
giving ' should be said for one or the other. In any case, only
one benediction was to be used.'^ In this case, of course, it
would be spoken over the bread, the ' savoury ' being merely an
addition. There can ])e little doubt, therefore, that the words which
Jesus spake, whether in Aramaean, Greek, or Hebrew, were those so
well known: 'Blessed art Thou, Jehovah our God, King of the
Avorld, Who causes to come forth (N'Vi'snj bread from the earth.'
Assuredly it was this threefold thought: the upward thought
(sursum corda), the recognition of the creative act as regards every
piece of bread we eat, and the thanksgiving, which was realised
anew in all its fulness, when, as He distributed to the disciples, the
provision miraculously multiplied in His Hands. And still they
bore it from His Hands from company to company, laying l)efore
each a store. When they were all filled, He that had provided the
meal bade them gather up the fragments before each company. So
doing, each of the twelve had his basket filled. Here also we have
another life-touch. Those ' baskets ' {Kocftivoi), known in Jewish
writings by a similar name {Kephiphah), made of wicker or
willows^ (."I'^IV'? ~v"?r), were in common use, but considered of the
poorest kind.'' There is a sublimeness of contrast that passes
llescription l^etween this feast to the five thousand, besides women
and children, and the poor's provision of barley l)read and the two
small fishes; and, again, between the quantity left and the coarse
wicker baskets in which it was stored. Nor do we forget to draw
mentally the parallel between this Messianic feast and that bancpiet
of 'the latter days ' which Rabbinism pictured so realistically. But
as the wondering multitude watched, as the disciples gathered from
' Not an Ei;Ti)tiaii Ijaskot. as even Jo.<:t
translates in his edition of (he Mishnah.
The word is derived from
wicker or willow).
(Metser),
•THIS IS TRULY THE COMING ONE.' .^86
company to company the fragments into tlieir baskets, the murmur CHAP,
ran through the ranks: ' Tliis is truly the Proi)het, ''the Coming XXIX
One '" {habba, X2n) into the world.' And so the Baptist's last inquiry, ^— "y- — '
' Art Thou the Coming One? " was fully and publicly answered, and
that by the Jews themselves.
* See the meauiug of that expression in the previous chapter.
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER XXX.
THE NIGHT OF MIRACLES ON THE LAKE OF GENNESARET.
(St. Matt. xiv. 22-36; St. Mark vi. 45-56; St. John vi. 15-21.)
BOOK The last question of the Baptist, spoken in public, had been: 'Art
III Thou the Coming One, or look we for another?' It had, in part,
— ^Y— ^ been answered, as the murmur had passed through the ranks: 'This
One is truly the Prophet, the Coming One ! ' So, then, they had no
longer to wait, nor to look for another ! And this ' Prophet ' was
Israel's long expected Messiah, What this would imply to the
people, in the intensity and longing of the great hope which, for
centuries, nay, far beyond the time of Ezra, had swayed their hearts,
it is impossible fully to conceive. Here, then, was the Great
Reality at last before them. He, on Whose teaching they had hung
entranced, was 'the Prophet,' nay, more, 'the Coming One:' He
Who was coming all those many centuries, and yet had not come
till now. Then, also, was He more than a Prophet — a King: Israel's
King, the King of the world. An irresistible impulse seized the
people. They would proclaim Him King, then and there; and as
they knew, probably from previous utterances, perhaps when similar
movements had to be checked, that He would resist, they would
constrain Him to declare Himself, or at least to be proclaimed by
them. Can we wonder at this; or that thoughts of a Messianic
worldly kingdom should have filled, moved, and influenced to
discipleship a Judas; or tliat, with such a .representative of their
own thoughts among the disciples, the rising waves of popular
excitement should have swollen into the mighty billows?
' Jesus therefore, perceiving that they were about to come, and to
take Him by force, that they might make Him King,^ withdrew
again into the mountain, Himself alone,' or, as it might be rendered,
> Note here the want of the article: it is in marked incoiisiritency with the
tva noiijaoocriv avtov /JacriAea. We theory of its late Ephesiaii authorship,
owe this notice to the Fourth Gospel, and
LONELY I'HAYHK BEFORE THE NIGHT OF MHiACLES. 687
though iiut quite in the iiiodcni usafjo of the expression, 'became CHAP.
an auchorite agaiu . . . lliuiscll' alouc." '^ This is another of those XXX
sublime contrasts, which render it well-nigh inconceivable to regard ^— -y-'-^
thi3 history otherwise than as true and Divine. Yet another is the 'St.john
. . . yi. 15
manner in which He stilled the multitude, and the purpose for
which He became the lonely Anchorite on the mountain-top. He
withdrew to pray; and He stilled the people, and sent them, no
doubt solemnised, to their homes, by telling them that He withdrew to
pray. And He did pray till far on, ' when the (second) evening had
come,' " and the first stars shone out in the deep blue sky over the ^f^*-^^"-
Lake of Galilee, with the far lights twinkling and trembling on the
other side. And yet another sublime contrast — as He constrained
the disciples to enter the ship, and that ship, which bore those who
had been sharers in the miracle, could not make way against storm
and waves, and was at last driven out of its course. And yet another
contrast — as He walked on the storm-tossed waves and subdued
them. And yet another, and another — for is not all this history one
sublime contrast to the seen and the thought of by men, but withal
most true and Divine in the sublimeness of these contrasts?
For whom and for what He prayed, alone on that mountain, we
dare not, even in deepest reverence, inquire. Yet we think, in connec-
tion with it, of the Passover, the Manna, the Wilderness, the Lost '
Sheep, the Holy Supper, the Bread which is His Flesh, and the rem-
nant in the Baskets to be carried to those afar off, and then also ,
of the attempt to make Him a King, in all its spiritual unreality,
ending in His View with the betrayal, the denial, and the cry : ' We
have no King but Caesar. ' And as He prayed, the faithful stars in
the heavens shone out. But there on the Lake, Avhcre the bark
which bore His disciples made for the other shore, ' a great wind '
' contrary to them ' was rising. And still He was ' alone on the land, '
but looking out into the evening after them, as the ship was ' in the
midst of the sea,' and they toiling and ' distressed in rowing.'
Thus far, to the utmost verge of their need, but not fiirther.
The Lake is altogether about forty furlongs or stadia (about six
miles) wide, and they had as yet reached little more than half the
distance (twenty-five or thirty furlongs). Already it was ' the fourth
watch of the night. " There was some diti'ereuce of opinion among
the Jews, whether the night should be divided into three, or (as
among the Romans) into four watches. The latter (which would
count the night at twelve instead of nine hours) was adopted by
nmny."" In any case it would be Avhat might be termed the morning- Ber.sh
688 FROM JORDAN TO THE M(JUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK watch/ when the well-known Form seemed to be passing them,
ni 'walking upon the sea.' There can, at least, be no question that
^— "v^*^ such Avas the impression, not only of one or another, but that all saw
Him. Nor yet can there be here question of any natural explanation.
Once more the truth of the event must be either absolutely admitted,
or absolutely rejected.^ The difficulties of the latter hypothesis, which
truly cuts the knot, would be very formidable. Not only would the
origination of this narrative, as given by two of the Synoptists and by
St. John, be utterly unaccountable — neither meeting Jewish expec-
tancy, nor yet supposed Old Testament precedent — but, if legend
it be, it seems purposeless and irrational. Moreover, there is this
noticeable about it, as about so many of the records of the miraculous
in the New Testament, that the writers by no means disguise from
themselves or their readers the obvious difficulties involved. In the
present instance they tell us, that they regarded His Form moving
on the water as ' a spirit,' and cried out for fear; and again, that the
impression produced by the whole scene, even on them that had
witnessed the miracle of the previous evening, was one of over-
whelming astonishment. This walking on the water, then, was even
to them within the domain of the truly miraculous, and it affected
their minds equally, perhaps even more than ours, from the fact that
in their view so much, which to us seems miraculous, lay within the
sphere of what might be expected in the course of such a history.
On the other hand, this miracle stands not isolated, but forms
one of a series of similar manilcstations. It is closely connected
both with what had passed on the previous evening, and what was to
follow; it is told with a minuteness of detail, and with such marked
absence of any attempt at gloss, adornment, apology, or self-glori-
fication, as to give the narrative (considered simply as such) the stamp
of truth; while, lastly, it contains much that lifts the story from the
merely miraculous into the domain of the sublime and deeply spir-
itual. As regards what may be termed its credibility, this at least
' Probably from 3 to about 6 a. m. principles ? Volkmai- (^larcus, p. 372)
2 Even the beautiful allegory into which regards this whole history as an allegory
Keim would resolve it — that the Church of St. Paul's activity among the Gentiles!
in her need knows not, whether her Strange in that case, that it was omitted
Saviour may not come in the last watch in the Gospel by St. Luke. But the
of the night — entirely surrenders the whole of that section of Volkmar's book
whole narrative. And why should three (beginning at p. 327) contains an extra-
Evangelists have invented such a story, ordinary congeries, of baseless hypo-
in order to teach or rather disguise a doc- theses, of which it were difficult to say,
trine, which is otherwise so clearly ex- whether the language is more painfully
pressed throughout the whole New Tes- irreverent or the outcome morq extrava-
tament, as to form one of its primary gant.
HISTORY OR MYTH? 689
may again be stated, that this and similar instances of ' dominion CHAP.
over the creature,' are not beyond the range of what God had XXX
originally assigned to man, when He made him a little lower than ^— ^.^ — '
the angels, and crowned him with glory and honour, made him to
have dominion over the works of His Hands, and all things were
nut under his feet.'' Indeed, this 'dominion over the sea' seems "Ps. vm. 5.
. . . . 6; comp.
to exhibit the Divinely human rather than the humanly Divme Hebr. 11.6-9
aspect of His Person,' if such distinction may be lawfully made.
Of the physical possil)ility of such a miracle — not to speak of the
contradiction in terms which this implies — no expkumtion can be at-
tempted, if it were only on the ground that we are utterly ignorant
of the conditions under which it took place.
This much, however, deserves special notice, tliat there is one
marked point of difl'erence 1)etween the account of this miracle and
what will be ibund a general cliaracteristic in legendary narratives.
In the latter, the miraculous, however extraordinary, is the expected;
it creates no surprise, and it is never mistaken for something that
might have occurred in the ordinary course of events. For, it is char-
acteristic of the mythical that tlie miraculous is not only introduced
in the most realistic manner, but forms the essential element in
the conception of things. This is the very raison d'etre of the myth
or legend, when it attaches itself to the real and historically true.
Now the opposite is the case in the present narrative. Had it l)een
mythical or legendary, we should have expected that the disciples
would have been described as immediately recognising the Master
as He walked on the sea, and worshipping Him. Instead of this,
they ' are troubled ' and ' afraid.' ' They supposed it was an appari-
tion,' ^ (this in accordance with popular Jewish notions), and ' cried
out for fear.' Even afterwards, when they had received Him into
the ship, 'they were sore amazed in themselves,' and 'understood
not,' while those in the ship (in contradistinction to the disciples),
burst forth into an act of worship. This much then is evident, that
the disciples expected not the miraculous; that they were unpre-
pared for it; that they had explained it on what to them seemed natural
grounds; and that, even when convinced of its reality, the impres-
sion of wonder, which it made, was of the deepest. And this also
Ibllows is a corollary, that, when they recorded it, it was not in
' On the other hand, the miraculons - Literally, a phantasnia. This word
feeding of the multitude seems to exiiil)it is only used in this narrative (St. Matt,
rather the humanly-Divine aspect of His xiv. 2() and St. Mark vi. 19).
Person.
690
FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK
III
>> 1 Cor. XV.
12-19
'■ Acts xvii.
31, 32
d 1 Cor. XV.
1-8
2 Pet. iii. i
f St. Matt.
xiv. 22
6 St. John
yi. 22
ignorance that they were writing that which sounded strangest, and
which would aflfect those who should read it with even much greater
wonderment— we had almost written, unbelief — than those who them-
selves had witnessed it.
Nor let it be forgotten, that what has just been remarked about
this narrative holds equally true in i-egard to other miracles recorded
in the New Testament. Thus, even so fundamental an article of the
faith as the resurrection of Christ is described as having come upon
the disci];)les themselves as a gurpi'ise — not only wholly unexpected,
but so incredible, that it required repeated and indisputable evidence
to command their acknowledgment. And nothing can be more plain,
than that St. Paul himself was not only aware of the general resist-
ance which the announcement of such an event would raise,* but that
he felt to the full the difficulties of what he so firmly believed,*" and
made the foundation of all his preaching." Indeed, the elaborate
exposition of the historical grounds, on which he had arrived at the
conviction of reality,'' affords an insight into the mental difficulties
which it must at first have presented to him. And a similar inference
may be drawn from the reference of St. Peter to the difficulties con-
nected with the Biblical predictions about the end of the world."'
It is not necessary to pursue this subject further. Its bearing on
the miracle of Christ's walking on the Sea of Galilee will be suf-
ficiently manifest. Yet other confirmatory evidence may be gathered
from a closer study of the details of the narrative. When Jesus
' constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before
Him unto the other side,' they must have thought, that His pur-
pose was to join them by land, since there was no other boat there,
save that in which they crossed the Lake.^ And possibly such had
been his intention, till He saw their difficulty, if not danger, from
the contrary wind.^ This must have determined Him to come to
their help. And so this miracle also was not a mere display of
power, but, being caused by their need, had a moral object. And
when it is asked, how from the mountain-height by the Lake He could
have seen at night where the ship was labouring so far on the Lake,^
' The authenticity of the Second Epis-
tle of St. Peter is here taken for ,2;ranted,
but the drift of the arj^uinent would be
the same, to whatever authorship it be
ascribed.
^ Weiss (Matthaus-Evang. p. .372) sees
a gross contradiction between what
seems implied as to His original purpose
and His walking on the sea, and hence
rejects the narrative. Such are the as-
sumptions of negative criticism. But it
seems forgotten that, according to St.
Matt. .\iv. 24, the journey seems at first
to have been fairly ])rosperous.
3 M'eiss (u. s.) certainly argues on the
impossibility of His having seen the boat
so far out on the Lake.
THK STURM ON THE LAKE. ^91
it must surely have been Ibrgotten that the seeue is laid (j[uite shortly CHAP.
before the Passover (the 15th of Nisan), when, of coui-sc, the moon XXX
would shine on an unclouded sky, all the more bri.iihtly on a windy ' r"^
spring-night, and light up the waters far across.
We can almost picture to ourselves the weird scene. The Christ
is on that hill-top in solitary converse with His Father — praying after
that nriraculous breaking of bread: fully realising all that it imi)lied
to Him of self-surrender, of suffering, and of giving Himself as the
Food of the World, and all that it implied to us of blessing and
nourishment; praying also — with that scene fresh on His mind, of
their seeking to make Him, even by force, their King — that the car-
nal might become spiritual reality (as in symbol it would be with the
Breaking of Bread). Then, as He rises from His knees, knowing
that, alas, it could not and would not be so to the many. He looks out
over the Lake after that little company, which embodied and repre-
sented all there yet was of His Church, all that would really feed on
the Bread from Heaven, and own Him their true King. Without
presumption, we may venture to say, that there must have })een
indescribable sorrow and longing in His Heart, as His gaze was bent
across the track which the little boat would follow. As we view it,
it seems all symliolical: the night, the moonlight, the little boat, the
contrary wind, and then also the lonely Saviour aftOr i)rayer looking
across to where the boatmen vainly labour to gain the other shore.
As in the clear moonlight just that piece of water stands out, almost
like burnished silver, with all else in shadows around, the sail-less
mast is now rocking to ami fro, without moving forward. They
are in difficulty, in danger: and the Saviour cannot pursue His jour-
ney on foot by land; He must come to their helj), though it be across
the water. It is needful, and therefore it shall be ujuju the water;
and so the storm and unsuccessful toil shall not prevent their reach-
ing the shore, but shall also be to them for teaching conceiming Him
and His great power, and concerning His great deliverance; such
teaching as, in another aspect of it, had been given them in symbol
in the miraculous supply of food, with all that it imj^lied (and not to
them only, l)ut to us also) of precious comfort and assurance, and as
will for ever keep the Church from being overwhelmed by fear in the
stormy night on the Lake of Galilee, when the labour of our oars
cannot make way for us.
And they also who were in the boat must have been agitated l)y
peculiar feelings. Against their will they had been 'constrained"
by the Lord to embark and quit the scene: just as the multi-
592 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK tude, under the intiuence of the great miracle, were surrounding
HI their Master, with violent insistence to proclaim him the Messianic
^--"^Y^"^^ King of Israel. Not only a Judas Iscariot, but all of them, must
have been under the strongest excitement: first of the great miracle,
and then of the popular movement. It was the crisis in the history
of the Messiah and of His Kingdom. Can we wonder, that, when
the Lord in verj^ mercy bade them quit a scene which could only have
misled them, they were reluctant, nay, that it almost needed vio-
lence on His part? And yet — the more we consider it — was it not
most truly needful for them, that they should leave? But, on the
other hand, in this respect also, does there seem a ' need be ' for His
walking upon the sea, that they might learn not only His Almighty
Power, and (symbolically) that He ruled the rising waves; but that,
in their disappointment at His not being a King, they might learn
that He ivas a King — only in a far higher, truer sense than the
excited multitude would have proclaimed Him.
Thus we can imagine the feelings with which they had pushed the
boat from the shore, and then eagerly looked back to descry what
passed there. But soon the slladows of night were enwrai)ping all
objects at a distance, and only the bright moon overhead shone on the
track behind and before. And now the breeze from the other side of
the Lake, of which they may have been unaware when they embarked
on the eastern shore, -had freshened into violent, contrary wind. All
energies must have been engaged to keep the boat's head towards the
shore. ^ Even so it seemed as if they could make no progress, when
all at once, in the track that lay behind them, a Figure appeared.
As it passed onwards over the water, seemingly upborne by the
waves as they rose, not disappearing as they fell, but carried on as
they rolled, the silvery moon laid upon the trembling waters the
shadows of that Form as it moved, long and dark, on their track.
St. John uses an expression,^ which shows us in the pale light, those
1 Accor(liii<i: to St. Matt. xiv. 24, they sense of earnest and attentive consider-
seem only to have encountered the full ation. The use of this word as distin-
force of the wind when they were about jjuished from merely seeitir/. is so im-
the middle of the Lake. We imagine portant for the better iniderstandin.ii: of
that soon after they embarked there may the New Testament, that every reader
have been a fresh breeze from the other should mark it. We accordingly ap-
side of the Lake, which by and by rose peiid a list of the passages in the Gos-
into a violent contrary wind. pels where this word is used: St. Matt.
'^ St. John, in distinction to the Synop- xxvii. .5.5; xxviii. 1; St. Mark iii. 11;
tists, here uses the expression fjeoopfiv v. 15, 38; xii. 41; xv. 40, 47; xvi. 4; St.
(St. John vi. 19), which in the Gospels Luke x. 18; xiv. 29; xxi. 6; xxiii. 35, 48;
has the distiiictive meaning of fixed, xxiv. 37, 39; St. .John ii. 23; iv. 19; vi.
earnest, and intent gaze, mostly out- 2 (Lachin. aw\ Trpr/.).Y}. ^(\. iVl; vii. 3;
ward, but sometimes also inward, in the viii. 51: ix. 8; x. 12; xii. 19. 45; xiv. 17.
CHRIST WALKING ON THE \VATKI{.
693
in ihe boat, intently, fixedly, fearfully, .gazing at the Apparition as It
neared still closer and closer. Wo must renieinhei- their previous
excitement, as also tlie presence, and, no doubt, the superstitious
suggestions of the boatman, when we think how they cried out for
fear, and deemed It an Apparition. And ' lie would have passed by
them,'" as He so often does in our case — bringing them, indeed,
deliverance, pointing and smoothing their way, but not giving them
II is known Presence, if they had not cried out. But their fear,
which made them almost hesitate to receive Him into the boat, '
even though the outcome of error and superstition, brought His
ready sympathy and comfort, in language which has so often, and in
all ages, converted foolish fears of misapprehension into gladsome,
thankful assurance: ' It is I, be not afraid! '
And they were no longer afiaid, though truly His walking upon
the waters might seem more awesome than any 'apparition. ' The
storm in their hearts, like that on the Lake, was commanded by His
Presence. We must still bear in mind their former excitement, now
greatly intensified by what they had just witnessed, in order to
understand the request of Peter: ' Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come
to Thee on the water.' They are the words of a man, whom the
excitement of the moment has carried beyond all reflection. And
yet this combination of doubt (' if it be Thou '), with presumption
('bid me come on the water'), is peculiarly characteristic of Peter.
He is the Apostle of Hope — and hope is a combination of doubt
and presumption, but also their transformation. With reverence be
it said, Christ could not have left the request ungranted, even though
it was the outcome of yet unreconciled and untransformed doubt
and presumption. He would not have done so — or doubt would have
remained doubt untransformed; and He could not have done so,
without also correcting it, or presumption would have remained pre-
sumption untransformed, which is only upward growth, without
deeper rooting in inward spiritual experience. And so He bade him
come upon the water, ^ to transform his doubt, but left him, unas-
sured from without, to his own feelings as he saw the wind,-* to
CHAP.
XXX
" St. Mark
vl. 48
19; xvi. 10, 16, 17, 19; xvii. 24; xx. fi,
12, 14. It will tlms be seen, that the
expression is more freciuently used by
St. John than in the other Gospels, and
it is there also that its distinctive mean-
inoj is of ,2:reatest iTn])ortancp.
' This seems to me implied in the ex-
pression, St. .John vi. 21: 'Then they
were willing to take Him into the ship.'
Some negative critics have gone so far as
to see in this graphic hint a contradiction
to the statements of the Synoptists.
(See Liirk<\ Comment, ii. d. Evang. Joli.
ii. pp. 120-122.)
'^ As to the physical possibility of it,
we have to refer to our former remarks.
3 The word -boisterous' must l)e
struck out as an interpolated gloss.
g94 ^'liOM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK transform his presumption; while by stretching out His Hand to
III save him from sinking, and by the words of correction wliich He
^ y ' spake, He did actually so point to their transformation in that hope,
of which St. Peter is the special representative, and the preacher in
the Church.
And presently, as they two came into the boat, ' the wind ceased,
and immediately the ship was at the land. But ' they that were in
the boat ' — apparently in contradistinction to the disciples,^ though
the latter must have stood around in sympathetic reverence —
'worshipped Him, saying. Of a truth Thou art the Son of God.'
The first full public confession this of the fact, and made not by the
disciples, but by others. With the disciples it would have meant
something far deeper. But as from the lips of these men, it seems
like the echo of what had passed between them on that memorable
passage across the Lake. They also must have mingled in the con-
versation, as the boat had pushed off from the shore on the previous
evening, when they spake of the miracle of the feeding, and then
of the popular attempt to proclaim Him Messianic King, of which
they knew not yet the final issue, since they had been ' constrained
to get into the boat,' while the Master remained behind. They
would speak of all that He was and had done, and how the very
devils had proclaimed Him to be the ' Son of God, 'on that other
shore, close by where the miracle of feeding had taken place.
Perhaps, having been somewhat driven out of thqir course, they
may have passed close to the very spot, and, as they pointed to it
recalled the incident. And this designation of ' Son of God, ' with
the worship which followed, would come much more readily, because
with much more superficial meaning, to the boatmen than to the dis-
ciples. But in them, also, the thought was striking deep root; and
presently, by the Mount of Transfiguration, would it be spoken in
the name of all by Peter, not as demon- nor as man-taught, but as
taught of Christ's Father Who is in Heaven.
Yet another question suggests itself. The events of the night
are not recorded by St. Luke — perhaps because they did not come
within his general view-plan of that Life; perhaps from reverence,
because neither he, nor his teacher St. Paul, were within that inner
1 I cannot see (with Me>/pr) anj^ varia- ^ Weiss (p. 373) assures us that this
tion in the narrative in St. Johii vi. 21. view is 'impossible;' but on no better
The expression, 'they were willinii to irround tluin that no others than ten dis-
take him into the ship,' certainly does ciples are mentioned in St. Matt. xiv. 22,
7iof. imply that, after the incident of as if it had been necessary to mention
Peter's failure, He did not actually enter the embarkation of the boatmen,
the boat.
PETER'S FAITH AND FAILURE. (595
circle, with which the events of that night were connected rather in chap.
the way of reproof than otherwise. At any rate, even negative XXX
criticism cannot legitimately draw any adverse inference from it, in ^- — ^. '
view of its record not only by two of the Synoptists, but in the
Fourth Gospel. St. Mark also does not mention the incident con-
cerning St. Peter; and this we can readily understand from his
connection with that Apostle. Of the two eyewitnesses, St. John
and St. Matthew, the former also is silent on that incident. On any
view of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, it could not have been
from ignorance, either of its occurrence, or else of its record by
St. Matthew. Was it among those 'many other things which Jesus
did,' which were not written by him, since their complete chronicle
would have rendered a Gospel -sketch impossible? Or did it lie
outside that special conception of his Gospel, which, as regards its
details, determined the insertion or else the omission of certain inci-
dents? Or was there some reason for this omission connected with
the special relation of John to Peter? And, lastly, why was St.
Matthew in this instance more detailed than the others, and alone told
it with such circumstantiality? Was it that it had made such deep
impression on his own mind; had he somehow any personal connection
with it; or did he feel, as if this bidding of Peter to come to Christ
out of the ship and on the water had some close inner analogy with
his own call to leave the custom-house and follow Christ? Such,
and other suggestions which may arise can only be put in the form
of questions. Their answer awaits the morning and the othei- shore.
THE END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
EXPLANATORY NOTES.
FOR THE FIRST VOLUME.
Page 7, note 1: i.e. the mind of the one was settled lil^e men, that of the others
unsettled as women.
1 2, note 2 : ' Deity '= ' Shekhinah. '
!t7, note 1: This, of course, is an inference from the whole history and rela-
tion there indicated.
" 98 *: So Mdiinoiiides.
" 312'': Of course, this is tlie expression of a later Rabbi, but it refers to
Pharisaic interpretations.
" 292: for ' temptations' read ' temptation.' The ten temptations of Abraham
are referred to in Ab. P. 3, and enumerated in Ab. de R. N. 33 and
Pirqe de R. El. 26.,
" 358"=: So Lightfoot infers from tlie passage; but as the Rabbi who speaks is
etymologising and almost punning, the inference should perhaps not
be pressed.
" 384, note 1: In Vaj'y. R. 30, the expression refers to the different condition of
Israel after the time described in Hos. iii. 4, or in that of Hezekiah,
or at the deliverance of Mordecai. In Bemid. R. 11, the expression
is connected with the ingathering of proselytes in fulfllment of
Gen. xii. 2.
" 387, lines 17 and 18: On this subject, however, other opinions are also enter-
tained. Comp. Sukk. 5 a.
'• 443, as to priests guilty of open sin, the details— which I refrained from
giving — are mentioned in Duschak Jiul. Kultus, p. 270.
" 444, note 3: This, of course, in regard to an unlearned priest. See discus-
sion in Daschnk, u. s., p. 255.
" 447 ^•. Ber. 6 h. Probably this was to many the only ground for reward, since
the discourse was the Pirqa, or on the Halakhah. lb." Taan. 16 a:
though the remark refers to the leader of the devotions on fast-days,
it is also applied to the preacher by Duschak, p. 285. And in note 1,
remove the marks of quotation, as it is not intended as a literal
translation.
" 495 <=: in Vayy. R. leprosy is brought into connection with calumny.
" 536 B; I refer to the thanksgiving of Nechunyah. See also the prayer put into
the mouth of Moses, Ber. 32 a. And although such prayers as Ber.
16 b, 17 a, are sublime, they are, in my view, not to be compared
with that of Christ in its fulness and breadth.
" 539 <^: Sanh. 100 b is, of course, not verbatim worded. This would be in the
second sentence : ' Possibly on the morrow he will not be, and have
been found caring for a world which is not his.'
" 622, margin, delete the second "' iu TN"'')"'!'
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
AA 000 875 256 o
It
'.