' I give theft Booh
for the founding of a College in ihte .Colony'"

•YALE-wapfEiasjnnf-

Gift of
Yale Divinity School
19*/

JESUS THE MESSIAH
Vol, II.

THE

LIFE AND TIMES

OF

JESUS THE MESSIAH

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."

''Ev ecvrw KaroiKsi itav to nXr/poopa rf/S QeortjToS aoa/iariKa>?

IN TWO VOLUMES
Volume II.

NEW AMERICAN EDITION

NEW YORK
E. R. HERRICK & COMPANY
70 Fifth Avenue

THE GUARANTEE PRESS
I a 3 EAST THIRTEENTH STREET-
NEW YORK

CONTENTS

THE SECOND VOLUME,

BOOK III. — continued.
THE ASCENT :
FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF
TRANSFIGURATION.

CHAPTER XXXI.
PAGE
The Cavils of the Pharisees concerning Purification, and the teaching of the .
. Lord concerning Purity — The Traditions concerning ' Hand-washing ' and
'Vows' .... . . ... 3
CHAPTER XXXII.
The Great Crisis in Popular Feeling — The Last Discourses in the Synagogue
of Capernaum — Christ the Bread of Life — ' Will ye also go away ? ' . . 25
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician Woman . . ... .37
CHAPTER XXXIV.
A Group of Miracles among a Semi-Heathen Population . . 44
CHAPTER XXXV.
The Two Sabbath Controversies — The Plucking of the Ears of Corn by the
Disciples, and the Healing of the Man with the Withered Hand . . 51

VI CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
CHAPTER XXXVI. PAGE
The Feeding of the Four Thousand — To Dalmanutha — ' The Sign from
Heaven' — Journey to Csesarea Philippi — What is the Leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees ?  63

CHAPTER XXXVII.
The Great Confession — The Great Commission — The Great Instruction — The
Great Temptation — The Great Decision . . .72

BOOK IV.

THE DESCENT:

FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF HUMILIATION AND DEATH.

CHAPTER I.
The Transfiguration . .91
CHAPTER II.
On the Morrow of the Transfiguration ... , . 102
CHAPTER III.
The Last Events in Galilee— The Tribute-Money, the Dispute by the Way, the
Forbidding of him who could not follow with the Disciples, and the
Consequent Teaching of Christ . . . .lift
CHAPTER IV.
The Journey to Jerusalem — Chronological Arrangement of the Last Part of
the Gospel Narratives — First Incidents by the Way ... . 126
CHAPTER V.
Further Incidents of the Journey to Jerusalem— The Mission and Return of the
Seventy — The Home at Bethany — Martha and Mary .... 135*

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. Vil
CHAPTER VI. PAGE
At the Feast of Tabernacles— First Discourse in the Temple . . .148
CHAPTER VII.
' In the Last, the Great Day of the Feast ' . . . . 156
CHAPTER VIII.
Teaching in the Temple on the Octave of the Feast of Tabernacles . . . 164
CHAPTER IX.
The Healing of the Man born Blind  .177
CHAPTER X.
The ' Good Shephera ' and His ' One Flock '—Last Discourse at the Feast of
Tabernacles  188
CHAPTER XI.
The First Persean Discourses — To the Pharisees concerning the Two King
doms — Their Contest — What qualifies a Disciple for that of God, and
how Israel was becoming Subject to that of Evil  195'
CHAPTER XII.
The Morning Meal in the Pharisee's House — Meals and Feasts among the
Jews — ChrisCs Last Peraean Warning to Pharisaism  204
CHAPTER XHI.
To the Disciples — Two Events and their Morals  214
CHAPTER XIV.
At the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple .  226
CHAPTER XV.
The Second Series of Parables — The Two Parables of him who is Neighbour
to us: The First, concerning the Love that, Unasked, gives in our Need;
The Second, concerning the Love which is elicited by our asking in our
Need . . . ... .... 233

Till CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
CHAPTER XVI. PAGE
The Three Parables of Warning: To the Individual, to the Nation, and to the
Theocracy — The Foolish Rich Man — The Barren Fig-Tree — The Great
Supper  ... 243
CHAPTER XVII.
The Three Parables of the Gospel: Of the Recovery of the Lost— Of the
Lost Sheep, the Lost Drachm, the Lost Son . . . 253
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Unjust Steward — Dives and Lazarus — Jewish Agricultural Notes — Prices
of Produce — Writing and Legal Documents — Purple and Fine Linen —
Jewish Notions of Hades . . . . 264
CHAPTER XIX.
The Three Last Parables of the Peraean Series : The Unrighteous Judge —
The Self-Righteous Pharisee and the Publican — The Unmerciful Servant . 284
CHAPTER XX.
Christ's Discourses in Perasa — Close of the Peraean Ministry .... 298
CHAPTER XXI.
The Death and the Raising of Lazarus — The question of Miracles and of this
Miracle of Miracles — Views of Negative Criticism on this History — Jewish
Burying-Rites and Sepulchres ... . 308
CHAPTER XXII.
On the Journey to Jerusalem — Departure from Ephraim by way of Samaria
and Galilee — Healing of Ten Lepers — Prophetic Discourse of the Coming
Kingdom — On Divorce: Jewish Views of it — The Blessing to little
Children . . ... 327
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Last Incidents in Persea — The Young Ruler who went away Sorrowful
— To Leave All for Christ — Prophecy of His Passion — The Request of
Salome, and of James and John . .... 338

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. IX
CHAPTER XXIV.

PAGE

In Jericho and at Bethany — Jericho — A Guest with Zacchaeus— The Healing
of Blind Bartimaeus — The Plot at Jerusalem — At Bethany and in the
House of Simon the Leper . .  349

BOOK V.
THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

CHAPTER I.
The First Day in Passion- Week — Palm Sunday — The Royal Entry into Jeru
salem . . . 363
CHAPTER II.
The Second Day in Passion-Week — The Barren Fig-Tree — The Cleansing of
the Temple — The Hosanna of the Children .... 374
CHAPTER III.
The Third Day in Passion Week— The Events of that Day— The Question of
Christ's Authority — The Question of Tribute to Cassar — The Widow's
Farthing — The Greeks who Sought to See Jesus — Summary and Retro
spect of the Public Ministry of Christ .... . . 380
CHAPTER IV.
The Third Day in Passion Week — The Last Controversies and Discourses —
The Sadducees and the Resurrection — The Scribe and the Great Com
mandment — Question to the Pharisees about David's Son and Lord
—Final Warning to the People: The Eight ' Woes '—Farewell . 396
CHAPTER V.
The Third Day in Passion Week — The Last Series of Parables: To the
Pharisees and to the People — On the Way to Jerusalem : The Parable
of the Labourers in the Vineyard — In the Temple: The Parable of the
'No' and 'Yes' of the Two Sons — The Parable of the Evil Husbandmen
Evilly Destroyed — The Parable of the Marriage of the King's Son and of
the Wedding Garment . ... 415
CHAPTER VI.
The Evening of the Third Day in Passion-Week — On the Mount of Olives:
Discourse to the Disciples concerning the Last Things . 431

x CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
CHAPTER VII. PAGE
Evening of the Third Day in Passion- Week — On the Mount of Olives — Last
Parables: To the Disciples concerning the Last Things — The Parable of
the Ten Virgins — The Parable of the Talents — Supplementary Parable of
the Minas and the King's Reckoning with His Servants and His Rebellious
Citizens . . . . 453
CHAPTER VIII.
The Fourth Day in Passion-Week — Jesus in His Last Sabbatic Rest before
His Agony, and the Sanhedrists in their Unrest — The Betrayal — Judas:
His Character, Apostasy, and End . . . . 468
CHAPTER IX.
The Fifth Day in Passion-Week — 'Make Ready the Passover!' . . . 479*
CHAPTER X.
The Paschal Supper — The Institution of the Lord's Supper . . . 490
CHAPTER XL
The Last Discourse of Christ — The Prayer of Consecration , 513
CHAPTER XII.
Gethsemane .... .... 533
CHAPTER XIII.
Thursday Night — Before Annas and Caiaphas — Peter and Jesus . . . 546
CHAPTER XIV.
The Morning of Good Friday . . . .... 565
CHAPTER XV.
' Crucified, Dead, and Buried ' .  582
CHAPTER XVI.
On the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead  621
CHAPTER XVII,
' On the Third Day He rose again from the Dead ; He ascended into Heaven ' 630

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. XI

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX I.
PAGE.
Pseudepigraphic Writings . . . 655
APPENDIX II.
Philo of Alexandria and Rabbinic Theology . 659
APPENDIX III.
Rabbinic Views as to the Lawfulness of Images, Pictorial Representations on
Coins, &c. ... . 665
APPENDIX IV.
An Abstract of Jewish History from the Reign of Alexander the Great to the
Accession of Herod . . . 66T
APPENDIX V.
Rabbinic Theology and Literature . . 683
APPENDIX VI.
List of the Maccabees, of the Family of Herod, of the High-Priests, the Roman
Procurators of Judaea, and Roman Governors of Syria . .701
APPENDIX VII.
On the Date of, the Nativity of Our Lord . 704
APPENDIX VIH.
Rabbinical Traditions about Elijah, the Forerunner of the Messiah . . 706-
APPENDIX IX.
List of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied in Ancient Rabbinic
Writings ... .... 710'
APPENDIX X.
On the Supposed Temple-Synagogue  . 742:

;xii CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
APPENDIX XL PAGE
¦On the Prophecy, Is. xl. 3  744
APPENDIX XII.
'On the Baptism of Proselytes  745
APPENDIX Xin.
Jewish Angelology and Demonology — The Fall of the Angels . . 748
APPENDIX XIV.
The Law in Messianic Times . . • 764
APPENDIX XV.
'The Location of Sychar, and the Date of Our Lord's Visit to Samaria 767
APPENDIX XVI.
Ou the Jewish Views about 'Demons' and the 'Demonised,' together with
some Notes on the Intercourse between Jews and Jewish Christians in the
First Centuries . . ... .770
APPENDIX XVII.
The Ordinances and Law of the Sabbath as laid down in the Mishnah and the
Jerusalem Talmud ... .... 777
APPENDIX XVIII.
Haggadah about Simeon Chepha (Legend of Simon Peter) . . . 788
APPENDIX XIX.
On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the New Testament . 791
INDEX I. of Subjects  . .797
INDEX II. of Passages from the Four Gospels referred to in these
Volumes .... . . . . 813

Boofe hi.

THE ASCENT:
FKOM THE KIVEK JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF
TRANSFIGURATION— continued.

BETHSAIDA.

CHAPTER XXXI.

THE CAVILS OF THE PHARISEES CONCERNING PURIFICATION, AND THE
TEACHING OF THE LORD CONCERNING PURITY — THE TRADITIONS CON
CERNING ' HAND- WASHING ' AND 'VOWS.'
(St. Matt. xv. 1-20 ; St. Mark vii. 1-23.)
As we follow the narrative, confirmatory evidence of what had pre
ceded springs up at almost every step. It is quite in accordance
with the abrupt departure of Jesus from Capernaum, and its motives,
that when, so far from finding rest and privacy at Bethsaida (east of
the Jordan), a greater multitude than ever had there gathered around
Him, which would fain have proclaimed Him King, He resolved
on immediate return to the western shore, with the view of seek
ing a quieter retreat, even though it were in ' the coasts of Tyre
and Sidon."* According to St. Mark," the Master had directed the
disciples to make for the other Bethsaida, or ' Fisherton, ' on the
western shore of the Lake." Remembering how common the corre
sponding name is in our own country,1 and that fishing was the main
industry along the shores of the Lake, we need not wonder at the
existence of more than one Beth-Saida, or ' Fisherton. ' 2 Nor yet
does it seem strange, that the site should be lost of what, probably,
except for the fishing, was quite an unimportant place. By the testi
mony both of Josephus and the Rabbis, the shores of Gennesaret
were thickly studded with little towns, villages, and hamlets, which
have all perished without leaving a trace, while even of the largest
the ruins are few and inconsiderable. We would, however, hazard a
geographical conjecture. From the fact that St. Mark" names
Bethsaida, and St. John e Capernaum, as the original destination
of the boat, we would infer that Bethsaida was the fishing quarter

CHAP. XXXI

»St. Matt.
xv. 21
b St. Mark
vi. 45
' St. John
xii. 21

» St. Mark
vi. 45
' St. John
vi. 17

1 I have myself counted twelve differ
ent places in England bearing names
which might be freely rendered by ' Beth
saida,' not to speak of the many suburbs
and quarters which bear a like designa
tion, and, of course, my list is anything

but complete.
2 In Jer. Megill. (p. 70 a, line 15 from
bottom) we read of a nrnh,lt, but the
locality scarcely agrees with our Beth-
Saida.

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK in

• St. John 1.
44; xii. 21
* St. Mark
i. 29

« St. John
vi. 59

d St. John
vi. 22-24

of, or rather close to, Capernaum, even as we so often find in our
own country a ' Fisherton ' adjacent to larger towns. With this.
would agree the circumstance, that no traces of an ancient harbour
have been discovered at Tell Hum, the site of Capernaum.1 Further,
it would explain, how Peter and Andrew, who, according to St. John/
were of Bethsaida, are described by St. Mark* as having their home
in Capernaum. It also deserves notice, that, as regards the house
of St. Peter, St. Mark, who was so intimately connected with him,
names Capernaum, while St. John, who was his fellow-townsman,
names Bethsaida, and that the reverse difference obtains between
the two Evangelists in regard to the direction of the ship. This
also suggests, that in a sense — as regarded the fishermen — the names
were interchangeable, or rather, that Bethsaida was the ' Fisherton '
of Capernaum.2 A superficial reader might object that, in the circumstances,.
we would scarcely have expected Christ and His disciples to have
returned at once to the immediate neighbourhood of Capernaum, if
not to that city itself. But a fuller knowledge of the circumstances
will not only, as so often, convert the supposed difficulty into most
important confirmatory evidence, but supply some deeply interesting
details. The apparently trivial notice, that (at least) the concluding
part of the Discourses, immediately on the return to Capernaum,
was spoken by Christ ' in Synagogue, ' ° 3 enables us not only to localise
this address, but to fix the exact succession of events. If this
Discourse was spoken 'in Synagogue,' it must have been (as will be
shown) on the Jewish Sabbath. Reckoning backwards, we arrive at
the conclusion, that Jesus with His disciples left Capernaum for Beth
saida- Julias on a Thursday; that the miraculous feeding of the mul
titude took place on Thursday evening; the passage of the disciples
to the other side, and the walking of Christ on the sea, as well as
the failure of Peter's faith, in the night of Thursday to Friday; the
passage of the people to Capernaum in search of Jesus," with all that
followed, on the Friday; and, lastly, the final Discourses of Christ
on the Saturday in Capernaum and in the Synagogue.
Two inferences will appear from this chronological arrangement.
First, when our Lord had retraced His steps from the eastern shore
in search of rest and retirement, it was so close on the Jewish Sabbath
(Friday), that He was almost obliged to return to Capernaum to
' Comp. Baedeker (Socin) Palast. page which had been the scene of so many of
27„°- „ . , n His mighty works (St. Matt. xi. 21; St.
2 May this connection of Capernaum Luke x. 13) ?
and Beth-Saida account for the men- a There is no article in the original
tion of the latter as one of the places

FROM GENNESARET TO CAPERNAUM. 5
spend the holy day there, before undertaking the further journey to chap.
'the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.' And on the Sabbath no actual XXXI
danger, either from Herod Antipas or the Pharisees, need have been  .  •
apprehended. Thus (as before indicated), the sudden return to
Capernaum, so far from constituting a difficulty, serves as confirma
tion of the previous narrative. Again, we cannot but perceive a
peculiar correspondence of dates. Mark here: The miraculous
breaking of bread at Bethsaida on a Thursday evening, and the
breaking of Bread at the Last Supper on a Thursday evening; the
attempt to proclaim Him King, and the betrayal; Peter's bold as
sertion, and the failure of his faith, each in the night from Thursday
to Friday; and, lastly, Christ's walking on the angry, storm-tossed
waves, and commanding them, and bringing the boat that bore His
disciples safe to land, and His victory and triumph over Death and
him that had the power of Death.
These, surely, are more than coincidences; and in this respect
also may this history be regarded as symbolic. As we read it, Christ
directed the disciples to steer for Bethsaida, the ' Fisherton ' of Caper
naum, But, apart from the latter suggestion, we gather from the
expressions used," that the boat which bore the disciples had drifted »st. Mark
out of its course — probably owing to the wind — and touched land,
not where they had intended, but at Gennesaret, where they moored
it. There can be no question, that by this term is meant ' the plain
of Gennesaret,' the richness and beauty of which Josephus* and "JewishWar iii 10
the Rabbis c describe in such glowing language. To this day it bears 7, 8 
marks of having been the most favoured spot in this favoured region. °^^'ia-
Travelling northwards from Tiberias along the Lake, we follow, for Ber- E- 98
about five or six miles, a narrow ledge of land shut in by mountains,
when we reach the home of the Magdalene, the ancient Magdala
(the modern Mejdel). Right over against us, on the other side, is
Eersa (Gerasa), the scene of the great miracle. On leaving Magdala
the mountains recede, and form an amphitheatric plain, more than a
mile wide, and four or five miles long. This is ' the land of Gennesaret '
(el Ghuweir). We pass across the ' Valley of Doves, ' which intersects
it about one mile to the north of Magdala, and pursue our journey
over the well-watered plain, till, after somewhat more than an hour,
we reach its northern boundary, a little beyond Khun Minyeh. The
latter has, in accordance with tradition, been regarded by some as
representing Bethsaida,1 but seems both too far from the Lake, and
too much south of Capernaum, to answer the requirements.
1 Baedeker (Socin) has grouped together the reasons against identifying Khan
Minyeh with Capernaum itself.

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. Matt.
Xiv. 34-36;
St. Mark vi
53-56

" St. John
vi. 22-25

a St. John
vl. 4

No sooner had the well-known boat, which bore Jesus and His
disciples, been run up the gravel-beach in the early morning of that
Friday, than His Presence must have become known throughout the
district, all the more that the boatmen would soon spread the story
of the miraculous occurrences of the preceding evening and night.
With Eastern rapidity the tidings would pass along, and from all the
country around the sick were brought on their pallets, if they might
but touch the border of His garment. Nor could such touch, even
though the outcome of an imperfect faith, be in vain — for He, Whose
garment they sought leave to touch, was the God-Man, the Conqueror
of Death, the Source and Spring of all Life. And so it was where
He landed, and all the way up to Bethsaida and Capernaum."1
In what followed, we can still trace the succession of events,
though there are considerable difficulties as to their precise order.
Thus we are expressly told,"" that those from ' the other side ' came
to Capernaum ' on ' the day following ' the miraculous feeding, and
that one of the subsequent Discourses, of which the outline is preserved,
was delivered ' in Synagogue. ' ° As this could only have been done
either on a Sabbath or Feast-Day (in this instance, the Passover d),
it follows, that in any case a day must have intervened between their
arrival at Capernaum and the Discourse in Synagogue. Again, it is
almost impossible to believe that it could have been on the Passover-
day (15th Nisan).2 For we cannot imagine, that any large number
would have left their homes and festive preparations on the Eve of
the Pascha (14th Nisan), not to speak of the circumstance that in
Galilee, differently from Judasa, all labour, including, of course, that
of a journey across the Lake, was intermitted on the Eve of the
Passover." Similarly, it is almost impossible to believe, that so many
festive pilgrims would have been assembled till late in the evening
preceding the 14th Nisan so far from Jerusalem as Bethsaida-Julias,
since it would have been impossible after that to reach the city and
Temple in time for the feast. It, therefore, only remains to regard
the Synagogue-service at which Christ preached as that of an
ordinary Sabbath, and the arrival of the multitude as having taken
place on the Friday in the forenoon.
Again, from the place which the narrative occupies in the Gospels
of St. Matthew and St. Mark, as well as from certain internal

1 Mr. Brown McClellan (N.T. vol. i.
p. 570) holds, that both the Passover and
Pentecost had intervened — I know not
on what grounds. At the same time the
language in St. Mark vi. 56, might imply

more than one occasion on which the
same thing happened.
2 This is propounded in Wieseler,Chro-
nolog. Synopse, pp. 276, 290, as a possi
ble view.

THE 'REPROOF' AND THE DISCOURSE. 7
evidence, it seems difficult to doubt, that the reproof of the Pharisees CHAP.
and Scribes on the subject of 'the unwashed hands,'" was not XXXI
administered immediately after the miraculous feeding and the ^— ~v- — ¦
night of miracles. We cannot, however, feel equally sure, which of ^^"i^s"'
the two preceded the other: the Discourse in Capernaum, b or the Markvii. 1
Reproof of the Pharisees. ° Several reasons have determined us to Ti. 59 ° "
regard the Reproof as having preceded the Discourse. Without xv'i'&c*4'
entering on a detailed discussion, the simple reading of the two
sections will lead to the instinctive conclusion, that such a Discourse
could not have been followed by such cavil and such Reproof, while
it seems in the right order of things, that the Reproof which led
to the ' offence ' of the Pharisees, and apparently the withdrawal of
some in the outer circle of discipleship-, a should have been followed ^'12^14''
by the positive teaching of the Discourse, which in turn resulted
in the going back of many who had been in the inner circle of
disciples. e ;st-John
In these circumstances, we venture to suggest the following as the
succession of events. Early on the Friday morning the boat which
bore Jesus and His disciples grated on the sandy beach of the plain
of Gennesaret. As the tidings spread of His arrival and of the miracles
which had so lately been witnessed, the people from the neighbouring
villages and towns flocked around Him, and brought their sick for
the healing touch. So the greater part of the forenoon passed.
Meantime, while they moved, as the concourse of the people by the
way would allow, the first tidings of all this must have reached the
neighbouring Capernaum. This brought immediately on the scene
those Pharisees and Scribes ' who had come from Jerusalem ' on
purpose to watch, and, if possible, to compass the destruction of
Jesus. As we conceive it, they met the Lord and His disciples on
their way to Capernaum. Possibly they overtook them, as they rested
by the way, and the disciples, or some of them, were partaking of some
food — perhaps, some of the consecrated Bread of the previous
evening. The Reproof of Christ would be administered there; then
the Lord would, not only for their teaching, but for the purposes
immediately to be indicated, turn to the multitude;' next would
follow the remark of the disciples and the reply of the Lord, spoken,
probably, when they were again on the way; B and, lastly, the final
explanation of Christ, after they had entered the house at Capernaum.11
In all probability a part of what is recorded in St. John vi. 24, &c.
occurred also about the same time; the rest on the Sabbath which
followed.

'St.

. Matt.

XV.

10;'

St.

Mark

vii.

14,15

cSt

. Matt.

XV.

12-14

1' St

,. Matt.

XV.

15-20;

St.

Mark

vii.

17-23

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK m

» St. John
ix. 16, 24

Although the cavil of the Jerusalem Scribes may have- been
occasioned by seeing some of the disciples eating without first having
washed their hands, we cannot banish the impression that it reflected
on the miraculously provided meal of the previous evening, when
thousands had sat down to food without the previous observance of
the Rabbinic ordinance. Neither in that case, nor in the present, had
the Master interposed. He was, therefore, guilty of participation in
their offence. So this was all which these Pharisees and Scribes could
see in the miracle of Christ's feeding the Multitude — that it had not
been done according to Law! Most strange as it may seem, yet in
the past history of the Church, and, perhaps, sometimes also in the
present, this has been the only thing which some men have seen
in the miraculous working of the Christ! Perhaps we should not
wonder that the miracle itself made no deeper impression, since even
the disciples ' understood not ' (by reasoning) ' about the loaves '
— however they may have accounted for it in a manner which might
seem to them reasonable. But, in another aspect, the objection of the
Scribes was not a mere cavil. In truth, it represented one of the
great charges which the Pharisees brought against Jesus, and which
determined them to seek His destruction.
It has already been shown, that they accounted for the miracles
of Christ as wrought by the power of Satan, whose special representa
tive — almost incarnation — they declared Jesus to be. This would
not only turn the evidential force of these signs into an argument
against Christ, but vindicate the resistance of the Pharisees to His
claims. The ' second charge against Jesus was, that He was ' not of
God; 'that He was 'a sinner.'" If this could be established, it
would, of course, prove that He was not the Messiah, but a deceiver
who misled the people, and whom it was the duty of the Sanhedrin
to unmask and arrest. The way in which they attempted to estab
lish this, perhaps persuaded themselves that it was so, was by proving
that He sanctioned in others, and Himself committed, breaches of
the traditional law; which, according to their fundamental princi
ples, involved heavier guilt than sins against the revealed Law of
Moses. The third and last charge against Jesus, which finally
decided the action of the Council, could only be fully made at the
close of His career. It might be formulated so as to meet the views
of either the Pharisees or Sadducees. To the former- it might be
presented as a blasphemous claim to equality with God — the Very
Son of the Living God. To the Sadducees it would appear as a
movement on the part of a most dangerous enthusiast— if honest and

THE LAW CONCERNING 'THE WASHING OF HANDS.' <
self-deceived, all the more dangerous; one of those pseudo-Messiahs CHAP.
who led away the ignorant, superstitious, and excitable people; and XXXI
which, if unchecked, would result in persecutions and terrible ven- v— ~v —
geance by the Romans, and in loss of the last remnants of their
national independence. To each of these three charges, of which we
are now watching the opening or development, there was (from the
then standpoint) only one answer: Faith in His Person. And in
our time, also, this is the final answer to all difficulties and objections.
To this faith Jesus was now leading His disciples, till, fully realised
in the great confession of Peter, it became, and has ever since
proved, the Rock on which that Church is built, against which the
very gates of Hades cannot prevail.
It was in support of the second of these charges, that the Scribes
now blamed the Master for allowing His disciples to eat without
having previously washed, or, as St. Mark — indicating, as we shall
see, in the word the origin of the custom — expresses it with graphic
accuracy: 'with common hands.'1 Once more we have to mark,
how minutely conversant the Gospel narratives are with Jewish Law
and practice. This will best appear from a brief account of this
' tradition of the elders, ' 2 the more needful that important differences
prevail even among learned Jewish authorities, due probably to the
circumstance that the brief Mishnic Tractate devoted to the subject 3
has no Gemara attached to it, and also largely treats of other
matters. At the outset we have this confirmation of the Gospel
language, that this practice is expressly admitted to have been, not a
Law of Moses, but ' a tradition of the elders. ' * Still, and perhaps
on this very account, it was so strictly enjoined, that to neglect it
was like being guilty of gross carnal defilement. Its .omission
would lead to temporal destruction," or, at least, to poverty.b Bread °Sot- 4*
The word quite corresponds to the this instance inferior to Pocock. Buxtorf
Jewish term. Notwithstanding the ob- (Synag. pp. 179-184) gives chiefly illus-
jection of the learned Bishop Haneberg trative Jewish legends; Otho (Lex. Rabb.
(Relig. Alterth. p. 475, note 288) I be- pp. 335, 336) extracts from his prede-
lieve it corresponds to the Rabbinic Tin cessors, to little advantage. The Rab-
^.-.-/tti, '-,•» j- ¦ 4.-U binic notes of Liahtfoot, Wiinsche, Scliott-
or >Oln (Hebr. W) prof anus, in the sense ^ and WeM&n J^no cIear a'ccount;
of ' common,' ' not hallowed.' and the Biblical Dictionaries are either
2 The fullest account of it within reach silent, or (as Herzog's) very meagre.
of ordinary readers is in the Notes Other accounts are, unfortunately, very
to Pocock's Porta Mosis (pp. 350-402) inaccurate.
though it is confused, not quite accurate, 3 Tadayim, in four chapters, which,
and based chiefly on later Jewish author- however, touches on other subjects also,
ities. Spencer (de Leg. Hebr. pp. 1175- notably on the canonicity of certain parts
1179) only adds references to similar of the O.T.
Gentile rites. Goodwin, even under the 4 We refer here generally to Chull.
revision of Hottinger (pp. 182-188), is in 105 a, b, 106 b.

62 6

10 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK eaten with unwashen hands was as if it had been filth." Indeed, a
in Rabbi who had held this command in contempt was actually buried
.  ^^ in excommunication." Thus, from their point of view, the charge of
¦ sot. 4 a the Scribes against the disciples, so far from being exaggerated, is
Ber. 19'a' ' most moderately worded by the Evangelists. In fact, although at
one time it had only been one of the marks of a Pharisee, yet at a
later period to wash before eating was regarded as affording the ready
« caraii. _ loe means of recognising a Jew.01
b'. 20, ed. ' It is somewhat more difficult to account for the origin of the
si T* ' p' ordinance. So far as indicated, it seems to have been first enjoined
in order to ensure that sacred offerings should not be eaten in defile
ment. When once it became an ordinance of the elders, this was, of
achuii. course, regarded as sufficient ground for obedience.11 Presently,
106 o. Scriptural support was sought for it. Some based it on the original
• chuii. ordinance of purification in Lev. xv. 11;° while others saw in the
'Lev. xi. 44 words' 'Sanctify yourselves,' the command to wash before meat; in
the command, ' Be ye holy, ' that of washing after meat; while the
final clause, 'for I am the Lord your God,' was regarded as enjoining
s Ber. 53 6, ' the grace at meat. ' g For, soon it was not merely a washing before,
but also after meals. The former alone was, however, regarded as
' a commandment ' (Mitsvah), the other only as ' a duty' (Chobhah),
which some, indeed, explained on sanitary grounds, as there might
»Erub. ii6: be left about the hands what might prove injurious to the eyes."2
Chull. 105 b i . , , , • . , . , i • • ,
Accordingly, soldiers might, in the urgency of campaigning, neglect
the washing before, but they ought to be careful about that after meat.
By-and-by, the more rigorous actually washed between the courses,
'Chun. although this was declared to be purely voluntary.1 This washing
before meals is regarded by some as referred to in Talmudic writings
by the expression ' the first waters ' (Mayimrishonim), while what is
called ' the second' (sheniyim), or 'the other,' 'later,' or 'after-
waters ' (Mayim acharonim), is supposed to represent the washing
after meals. •
But there is another and more important aspect of the expression,
which leads us to describe the rite itself. The distinctive designa
tion for it is Netilath Yadayim,3 literally, the lifting of the hands;
STO* while for the washing before meat the term Meshi or Mesha*
a undo) is also used, which literally means 'to rub.' Both these terms
1 Many illustrative stories are given of specially mentioned.
its importance, on the one hand and of s n-,^: sometimes though rarely,
the danger of neglecting it on the other. n,n, nm but not njprn ^Mch refe?.s
With these legends it is not necessary to t0 ordinary waahing. Occasionally it is
CTSf T pag6f , c ,. « <, ,, , ¦ simply designated by the term Netilah.
2 The danger from ' Salt of Sodom 'is

THE RUBRIC: IMMERSION, AFFUSION. 11
point to the manner of the rite. The first question here was, whether chap.
' second tithe,' prepared first-fruits (Terumah), or even common food XXXI
(Chulliri), or else, ' holy,' i.e. sacrificial food, was to be partaken of. In v— • -v — '
the latter case a complete immersion of the hands ( ' baptism, ' Tebh-
ilath Yadayim), and not merely a Netilath, or 'uplifting,' was
prescribed." The latter was really an affusion. As the purifications. »chag. u.
were so frequent, and care had to be taken that the water had not
been used for other purposes, or something fallen into it that might
discolour or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the
purpose. These might be of any material, although stone is specially
mentioned.1 It was the practice to draw water out of these with
what was called a natla, antila, or antelaya,h very often of glass, which * ivrytov
must hold (at least) a quarter of a log" — a measure equal to one °chuii.
and a half 'egg-shells.' For, no less quantity than this might be b. m'b, ana
used for affusion. The water was poured on both hands, which must
be free of anything covering them, such as gravel, mortar, &c. The
hands were lifted up, so as to make the water run to the wrist, in
order to ensure that the whole hand was washed, and that the water
polluted by the hand did not again run down the fingers. Similarly,
each hand was rubbed with the other (the fist), provided the hand
that rubbed had been affused: otherwise, the rubbing might be done
against the head, or even against a wall. But there was one point on
which special stress was laid. In the ' first affusion, ' which was all
that originally was required when the hands were Levitically
4 defiled,' the water had to run down to the wrist2 (p.p , or pTEO ~P)
lappereq, or ad happereq). If the water remained short of the wrist
(chuts lappereq), the hands were not clean/ Accordingly, the words 'comp.
of St. Mark e can only mean that the Pharisees eat not ' except they chuii. 106
wash their hands to the wrist. ' 3 "gat Mark
Allusion has already been made to what are called ' the first ' and ™- 3
'the second,' or 'other' 'waters.' But, in their original meaning,
these terms referred to something else than washing before and after
meals. The hands were deemed capable of contracting Levitical
defilement, which, in certain cases, might even render the whole
1 This and what follows illustrates is not in accordance with Jewish Law.;
St. John ii. 6. while that ' up to the elbow ' is not only
2 The language of the Mishnah shows contrary to Jewish Law, but apparently
that the word plD, which bears as vague based on a wrong rendering of the word
andwidemeaningas7rr>x/^J?, which seems 'pis. This is fully shown by Wetstein
a literal translation of it, can only apply (N.T. i. p. 585), but his own explanation,
to the wrist. that -rivy/xtf refers to the measure or
2 The rendering 'wash diligently,' weight of the water for washing, is
gives no meaning; that 'with the fist' inadmissible.

12

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» Shabb.
14 a

<¦ Numb.
35, 36

body 'unclean.' If the hands were 'defiled,' two affusions were
required: the first, or ' first waters ' (mayim rishonim) to remove
the defilement, and the ' second, ' or ' after waters ' (mayim sheni-
yim or acharonim) to wash away the waters that had contracted the
defilement of the hands. Accordingly, on the affusion of the first
waters the hands were elevated, and the water made to run down at
the wrist, while at the second waters the hands were depressed,
so that the water might run off by the finger points and tips. By-
and-by, it became the practice to have two affusions, whenever
Terumah (prepared first-fruits) was to be eaten, and at last even
when ordinary food (Chullin) was partaken of. The modern Jews
have three affusions, and accompany the rite with a special bene
diction. This idea of the 'defilement of the hands' received a very
curious application. According to one of the eighteen decrees, which,
as we shall presently show, date before the time of Christ, the Roll
of the Pentateuch .in the Temple defiled all kinds of meat that
touched it. The alleged reason for this decree was, that the priests
were wont to keep the Terumah (preserved first-fruits) close to the
Roll of the Law, on which account the latter was injured by mice.
The Rabbinic ordinance was intended to avert this danger."1 To
increase this precaution, it Avas next laid down as a principle, that all
that renders the Terumah unfit, also defiles the hands." Hence, the
Holy Scriptures defiled not only the food but the hands that touched
them, and this not merely in the Temple, but anywhere, while it was
also explained that the Holy Scriptures included the whole of the
inspired writings — the Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa. This gave
rise to interesting discussions, whether the Song of Solomon, Eccle
siastes, or Esther were to be regarded as ' defiling the hands,' that
is, as part of the Canon. The ultimate decision was in favour of these
books: 'all the holy writings defile the hands; the Song of Songs
and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. ' ° Nay, so far were sequences carried,
that even a small portion of the Scriptures was declared to defile
the hands if it contained eighty-five letters, because the smallest
' section ' (Parashah) in the Law a consisted of exactly that number.
Even the Phylacteries, because they contained portions of the sacred
text, the very leather straps by which they were bound to the head
and arm — nay, the blank margins around the text of the Scriptures,

1 In Yad. iv. 6, the Pharisees in dis
pute with the Sadducees indicate what
seems to me a far more likely reason, in

the desire to protect the Scriptures from
profane use.

SPECIAL POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE ORDINANCE. 13
or at the beginning and end of sections, were declared to defile the CHAP.
hands. al - xxxi
From this exposition it will be understood what importance the — ~v — '
Scribes attached to the rite which the disciples had neglected. Yet * ^ad- m-
at a later period Pharisaism, with characteristic ingenuity, found a
way of evading even this obligation, by laying down what we would
call the Popish (or semi-Popish) principle of 'intention.' It was
ruled, that if anyone had performed the rite of handwashing in the
morning, ' with intention ' that it should apply to the meals of the
whole day, this was (with certain precautions) valid." But at the bchuii.
time of which we write the original ordinance was quite new. This
touches one of the most important, but also most intricate questions
in the history of Jewish dogmas. Jewish tradition traced, indeed,
the command of washing the hands before eating — at least of sacri
ficial offerings — to Solomon,0 in acknowledgment of which 'the voice °shabb.
from heaven ' (Bath-Qol) had been heard to utter Prov. xxiii. 15,
and xxvii. 11. But the earliest trace of this custom occurs in a por
tion of the Sibylline Books, which dates from about 160 B.C./ where ^or. sib.
we find an allusion to the practice of continually washing the hands,
.in connection with prayer and thanksgiving.2 It was reserved for
Hillel and Shammai, the two great rival teachers and heroes of
Jewish traditionalism, immediately before Christ, to fix the Rabbinic
ordinance about the washing of hands (Netilath Yadayim), as pre
viously, described. This was one of the few points on which they
were agreed,8 and hence emphatically 'a tradition of the Elders,' «shabb.
since these two teachers bear, in Rabbinic writings, each the desig- the 'middle
nation of ' the Elder. ' f Then followed a period of developing tra- i^m f
ditionalism, and hatred of all that was Gentile. The tradition of
the Elders was not yet so established as to command absolute and
universal obedience, while the disputes of Hillel and Shammai, who
seemed almost on principle to have taken divergent views on every
question, must have disturbed the minds of many. We have an
account of a stormy meeting between the two Schools, attended even
with bloodshed. The story is so confusedly, and so differently told in
1 By a curious inversion the law ulti- came defiled if they touched a copy of the
mately came to be, that the Scriptures sacred rule3, must have involved constant
everywhere defiled the hands, except difficulties.
those of the Priests in the Temple (Kel. 2 We must bear in mind, that it was
xv. 6). This on the ground that, taught the work of an Egyptian Jew, and I
by former enactments, they had learned cannot help feeling that the language
to keep the Terumah far away from the bears some likeness to what afterwards
sacred rolls, but really, as I believe, be- was one of the distinctive practices of
cause the law, that the Priests' hands be- the Essenes.

14

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

• Jer.
Shabb. 3 c

<> Jer.
Shabb. 3 d
' Shabb.
13 &; 14 6
' Shabb. 14
b, towards
end

t Ab. Z. 35 a

the Jerusalem" and in the Babylon Talmud," that it is difficult to form
a clear view of what really occurred. Thus much, however, appears
— that the Shammaites had a majority of votes, and that ' eighteen
decrees ' (d'"0"i ^",) were passed in which the two Schools agreed, while
on other eighteen questions (perhaps a round number) the Sham
maites carried their views by a majority, and yet other eighteen re
mained undecided. Each of the Schools spoke of that day according
to its party-results. The Shammaites (such as Rabbi Eliezer) ex
tolled it as that on which the measure of the Law had been filled up
to the full," while the Hillelites (like Rabbi Joshua) deplored, that
on that day water had been poured into a vessel full of oil, by which
some of the more precious fluid had been spilt. In general, the
tendency of these eighteen decrees was of the most violently anti-
Gentile, intolerant, and exclusive character. Yet such value was
attached to them, that, while any other decree of the sages might be
altered by a more grave, learned, and authoritative assembly, these
eighteen decrees might not under any circumstances, be modi
fied.4 But, besides these eighteen decrees, the two Schools on that day e
agreed in solemnly re-enacting ' the decrees about the Book (the copy
of the Law), and the hands '(D*TrT) iscn ryrpu). The Babylon Talmud f.
notes that the latter decree, though first made by Hillel and Shammai,
' the Elders, ' was not universally carried out until re-enacted by their
colleges. It is important to notice, that this ' Decree ' dates from the
time just before, and was finally carried into force in the very days
of Christ. This fully accounts for the zeal which the Scribes dis
played — and explains ' the extreme minuteness of details ' with
which St. Mark 'calls attention' to this Pharisaic practice.1 For,
it was an express Rabbinic principle6 that, if an ordinance had
been only recently re-enacted (nsnn HTT3), it might not be called in
question or ' invalidated ' (m 'ppspEtt yx).' Thus it will be seen, that
the language employed by the Evangelist affords most valuable in
direct confirmation of the trustworthiness of his Gospel, as not only
showing intimate familiarity with the minutice of Jewish 'tradition,'

1 In the ' Speaker's Commentary'
(ad loc.) this 'extreme minuteness of
details ' is, it seems to me not correctly,
accounted for on the ground of ' special
reference to the Judaisers who at a very
early period formed an influential party
at Rome.'
2 This is the more striking as the same
expression is used in reference to the
opposition or rather the ' invalidating ' by
R. Eliezer ben Chanokh of the ordin
ance of hand-washing, for which he was

excommunicated (CI' n"l~!33 pSpEE?,
Eduy. v. 6). The term rSpC, which origin
ally means to stop up by pouring or
putting in something, is used for con
temning or bringing into contempt, in
validating, or shaking a decree, with the
same signification as ?T.?T . This is proved
from the use of the latter in Ab. Z. 35 a,
line 9 from bottom, and 36 a, line 12 from
top.

REASONS FOR CHRIST'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ORDINANCE. 15
but giving prominence to what was then a present controversy — and chap.
all this the more, that it needs intimate knowledge of that Law even XXXll
fully to understand the language of the Evangelist. v— — y- — -
After this full exposition, it can only be necessary to refer in
briefest manner to those other observances which orthodox Judaism
had ' received to hold. ' They connect themselves with those eighteen
decrees, intended to separate the Jew from all contact with Gentiles.
Any contact with a heathen, even the touch of his dress, might
involve such defilement, that on coming from the market the orthodox
Jew would have to immerse. Only tiose who know the complicated
arrangements about the defilements of vessels that were in any part,
however small, hollow, as these are described in the Mishnah (Tractate
Kelim), can form an adequate idea of the painful minuteness with
which every little detail is treated. Earthen vessels that had con
tracted impurity were to be broken; those of wood, horn, glass, or
brass immersed; while, if vessels were bought of Gentiles, they were
(as the case might be) to be immersed, put into boiling water, purged
with fire, or at least polished." »Ab.zar.v.
Let us now try to realise the attitude of Christ in regard to
these ordinances about purification, and seek to understand the
reason of His bearing. That, in replying to the charge of the Scribes
against His disciples, He neither vindicated their conduct, nor apolo
gised for their breach of the Rabbinic ordinances, implied at least
an attitude of indifference towards traditionalism. This is the more
noticeable, since, as we know, the ordinances of the Scribes were
declared more precious,"1 and of more binding importance than bjer.chag.
those of Holy Scripture itself." But, even so, the question might CJer Ber
arise, why Christ should have provoked such hostility by placing li'^Erub
Himself in marked antagonism to what, after all, was indifferent 21 b
in itself. The answer to this inquiry will require a disclosure of
that aspect of Rabbinism which, from its painfulness, has hitherto
been avoided. Yet it is necessary not only in itself, but as showing
the infinite distance between Christ and the teaching of the Syna
gogue. It has already been told, how Rabbinism, in the madness
of its self-exaltation, represented God as busying Himself by day
with the study of the Scriptures, and by night with that of the
Mishnah ; " and how, in the heavenlv Sanhedrin, over which the " Targum
' ' " . (ed. Ven.)
Almighty presided, the Rabbis sat in the order of their greatness, oncant. v.
and the Halakhah was discussed, arid decisions taken in accordance Ab. z. s»'
1 In this passage there is a regular to be loved fpD'On "pTi ~PN). The
discussion, whether that which is opinion is in favour of the oral fjfflX
written (the Pentateuch), or that which ~EDffi).
is oral (tradition is more precious and

16

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

"Baba
Mez. 86 a

° Comp.
Chag. 5 b

* Ber. 3 a

fBer. la;
Ab. Z.ib

with it." Terrible as this sounds, it is not nearly all. Anthropo
morphism of the coarsest kind is carried beyond the verge of pro
fanity, when God is represented as spending the last three hours of
every day in playing with Leviathan," and it is discussed, how,
since the destruction of Jerusalem, God no longer laughs, but weeps,
and that, in a secret place of His own, according to Jer. xiii. 11.°
Nay, Jer. xxv. 30 is profanely misinterpreted as implying that, in
His grief over the destruction of the Temple, the Almighty roars like
a lion in each of the three watches of the night.4 The two tears
which He drops into the sea are the cause of earthquakes; although
other, though not less coarsely realistic, explanations are offered of
this phenomenon. *
Sentiments like these, which occur in different Rabbinic writings,
cannot be explained away by any ingenuity of allegorical interpre
tation. There are others, equally painful, as regards the anger of
the Almighty, which, as kindling specially in the morning, when the
sun-worshippers offer their prayers, renders it even dangerous for an
individual Israelite to say certain prayers on the morning of New
Year's Day, on which the throne is set for judgment/ Such realistic
anthropomorphism, combined with the extravagant ideas of the
eternal and heavenly reality of Rabbinism and Rabbinic ordinances,
help us to understand, how the Almighty was actually represented as
saying prayers. This is proved from Is. lvi. 7. Sublime though
the language of these prayers is, we cannot but notice that the all-
covering mercy, for which He is represented as pleading, is extended
only to Israel.5 It is even more terrible to read of God wearing the
Tallith,'' or that He puts on the Phylacteries, which is deduced from
Is. Ixii. 8. That this also is connected with the vain-glorious boast
ing of Israel, appears from the passages supposed to be enclosed in
these Phylacteries. We know that in the ordinary Phylacteries
these are: Exod. xiii. 1-10; 10-16; Deut. vi. 4-10; xi. 13-22.
In the Divine Plrylacteries they were: 1 Chron. xvii. 21; Deut. iv.
• Bar. 6a 7-8; xxxiii. 29; iv. 34; xxvi. 19.' Only one other point must be
mentioned as connected with Purifications. To these also the
Almighty is supposed to submit. Thus He was purified by Aaron,
when He had contracted defilement by descending into Egypt.k This
is deduced from Lev. xvi. 16. Similarly, He immersed in a bath of
fire,m after the defilement of the burial of Moses.
These painful details, most reluctantly given, are certainly not
intended to raise or strengthen ignorant prejudices against Israel, to
whom ' blindness in part ' has truly happened; far less to encourage

t Ber. 7 a
' Shem. B.
42, comp.
BoshhaSh. 17 6

k Shem. B.
15, ed.
Warsh.
p. 22 a, line
13 from top
m Is. lxvi.
15 ; comp.
Numb.
xxxi. 23

THE PARALLEL INSTANCE OF 'VOWS.' 17
the wicked spirit of contempt and persecution which is characteristic, CHAP.
not of believing, but of negative theology. But they will explain, XXXI
how Jesus could not have assumed merely an attitude of indifference ¦ — -, 
towards traditionalism. For, even if such sentiments were repre
sented as a later development, they are the outcome of a direction,
of which that of Jesus was the very opposite, and to which it was
antagonistic. But, if Jesus was not sent of God — not the Messiah —
whence this wonderful contrast of highest spirituality -in what He
taught of God as our Father, and of His Kingdom as that over the
hearts of all men? The attitude of antagonism to traditionalism was
never more pronounced than in what He said in reply to the charge
of neglect of the ordinance about ' the washing of hands. ' Here it
must be remembered, that it was an admitted Rabbinic principle
that, while the ordinances of Scripture required no confirmation,
those of the Scribes needed such," and that no Halakhah (traditional "Jer.Taan.
v 66 a, about
law) might contradict Scripture. When Christ, therefore, next pro- themiddie
ceeded to show, that in a very important point — nay, in ' many such
like things' — the Halakhah was utterly incompatible with Scripture,
that, indeed, they made ' void the Word of God ' by their traditions
which they had received" He dealt the heaviest blow to tradition- 'St. Matt.
' xv. 3, 6;
alism. Rabbinism stood self-condemned; on its own showing, it was st. Mark
' vii. 9. 13
to be rejected as incompatible with the Word of God.
It is not so easy to understand, why the Lord should, out of ' many
such things,' have selected in illustration the Rabbinic ordinance
concerning vows, as in certain circumstances, contravening the fifth
commandment. Of course, the ' Ten Words ' were the Holy of Holies
of the Law; nor was there any obligation more rigidly observed —
indeed, carried in practice almost to the verge of absurdity * — than
that of honour to parents. In both respects, then, this was a specially
vulnerable point, and it might well be argued that, if in this Law
Rabbinic ordinances came into conflict with the demands of God's
Word, the essential contrariety between them must, indeed, be great.
Still, we feel as if this were not all. Was there any special instance
in view, in which the Rabbinic law about votive offerings had led to
such abuse? Or was it only, that at this festive season the Galilean
pilgrims would carry with them to Jerusalem their votive offerings?
Or, could the Rabbinic ordinances about ' the sanctification of the
hands ' ( Yadayim) have recalled to the Lord another Rabbinic appli-
1 It was, however, admitted that the 2 See the remarks on this point in
Halakhah sometimes went beyond the vol. i. pp. 567, 576, 577.
Pentateuch (Sot. 16 a).

18

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

' Ber. E. 81

cation of the word ' hand' (yad) in connection with votive offerings?
It is at least sufficiently curious to find mention here, and it will
 ¦> — " afford the opportunity of briefly explaining, what to a candid reader
may seem almost inexplicable in the Jewish legal practice to which
Christ refers.
At the outset it must be admitted, that Rabbinism did not en
courage the practice of promiscuous vowing. As we view it, it
belongs, at best, to a lower and legal standpoint. In this respect
Rabbi Akiba put it concisely, in one of his truest sayings: 'Tows
Ab. m. is are a hedge to abstinence. ' " On the other hand, if regarded as a kind
of return for benefits received, or as a promise attaching to our prayers,
a vow — unless it form part of our absolute and entire self-surrender
— partakes either of work-righteousness, or appears almost a kind of
religious gambling. And so the Jewish proverb has it: 'In the
hour of need a vow; in time of ease excess.'" Towards such work-
righteousness and religious gambling the Eastern, and especially the
Rabbinic Jew, would be particularly inclined. But even the Rabbis
saw that its encouragement would lead to the profanation of what
was holy; to rash, idle, and wrong vows; and to the worst and most
demoralising kind of perjury, as inconvenient consequences made
themselves felt. Of many sayings, condemnatory of the practice, one
will suffice to mark the general feeling: ' He who makes a vow, even
if he keep it, deserves the name of wicked. ' ° Nevertheless, the
practice must have attained terrible proportions, whether as regards
the number of vows, the lightness with which they were made, or the
kind of things which became their object. The larger part of the
Mishnic Tractate on ' Vows ' (Nedarim, in eleven chapters) describes
what expressions were to be regarded as equivalent to vows, and what
would either legally invalidate and annul a vow, or leave it binding.
And here we learn, that those who were of full age, and not in a
position of dependence (such as wives) would make almost any kind
of vows, such as that they would not lie down to sleep, not speak to
their wives or children, not have intercourse with their brethren, and
even things more wrong or foolish— all of which were solemnly treated
as binding on the conscience. Similarly, it was not necessary to use
the express words of vowing. Not only the word ' Qorban' [Korban] 
'given to God ' — but any similar expression, such as Qonalch, or Qonam1
(the latter also a Phoenician expression, and probably an equivalentfor
Qeyam, ' let it be established ') would suffice; the mention of anything

0 Nedar.
9a; 22 a

1 According to Nedar. 10 a, the Rabbis
invented this word instead of ' Qoj-ban to

the Lord ' (Lev. i. 2), in order that the
Name of God might not be idly taken.

THE RABBINIC ORDINANCES CONCERNING VOWS. 19
laid upon the altar (though not of the altar itself), such as the wood, chap.
or the fire, would constitute a vow," nay, the repetition of the form XXXI
which generally followed on the votive Qonam or Qorban had binding ^ — ^, 
force, even though not preceded by these terms. Thus, if a man » Nedar. i.
said: 'That I eat or taste of such a thing,' it constituted a vow,
which bound him not to eat or taste it, because the common formula
was: ' Qorban (or Qonam) that I eat or drink, or do such a thing,'
and the omission of the votive word did not invalidate a vow, if it
were otherwise regularly expressed." "jer.
It is in explaining this strange provision, intended both to uphold uneao'ironi
the solemnity of vows, and to discourage the rash use of words, that °p
the Talmud ° makes use of the word ' hand ' in a connection which • u. »,
we have supposed might, by association of ideas, have suggested to
Christ the contrast between what the Bible and what the Rabbis
regarded as ' sanctified hands, ' and hence between the commands of
God and the traditions of the Elders. For the Talmud explains
that, when a man simply says: 'That (or if) I eat or taste such a
thing,' it is imputed as a vow, and he may not eat or taste of it, ' be
cause the hand is on the Qorban ' d — the mere touch of Qorban had t DBtt a,
sanctified it, and put it beyond his reach, just as if it had been laid ^p'
on the altar itself. Here, then, was a contrast. According to the f.eda£;.m *
Rabbis, the touch of ' a common ' hand defiled God's good gift of
meat, while the touch of ' a sanctified ' hand in rash or wicked words
might render it impossible to give anything to a parent, and so
involve the grossest breach of the Fifth Commandment ! Such,
according to Rabbinic Law, was the ' common ' and such the ' sanctify
ing ' touch of the hands — and did such traditionalism not truly
' make void the Word of God ' ?
A few further particulars may serve to set this in clearer light.
It must not be thought that the pronunciation of the votive word
' Qorban,' although meaning ' a gift,' or 'given to God,' necessarily
dedicated a thing to the Temple. The meaning might simply be,
and generally was, that it was to be regarded like Qorban — that is,
that in regard to the person or persons named, the thing termed was
to be considered as if it were Qorban, laid on the altar, and put
entirely out of their reach. For, although included under the one
name, there were really two kinds of vows: those of consecration to
God, and those of personal obligation ' — and the latter were the most
frequent. To continue. The legal distinction between a vow, an oath, and
1 See Maimonides, Yad haChas., Hilkh. Nedar. i. 1, 2.

20

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

a Tos.
Arach. iv.

rnn"i!

'they open
a door.1

f Nedar. ix.
passim

e Chag. i.

'the ban,' are clearly marked both in reason and in Jewish Law.
The oath was an absolute, the vow a conditional undertaking — their
difference being marked even by this, that the language of a vow ran
thus: 'That' or 'if 'I or another do such a thing,' 'if I eat;'"
while that of the oath was a simple affirmation or negation," ' I
shall not eat.' c On the other hand, the ' ban ' might refer to one of
three things: those dedicated for the use of the priesthood, those
dedicated to God, or else to a sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrin.d
In any case it was not lawful to ' ban ' the whole of one's property,
nor even one class of one's property (such as all one's sheep), nor
yet what could not, in the fullest sense, be called one's property, such
as a child, a Hebrew slave, or a purchased field, which had to be
restored in the Year of Jubilee; while an inherited field, if banned,
would go in perpetuity for the use of the priesthood. Similarly, the
Law limited vows. Those intended to incite to an act (as on the part
of one who sold a thing), or by way of exaggeration, or in cases of
mistake, and, lastly, vows which circumstances rendered impossible,
were declared null. To these four classes the Mishnah added those
made to escape murder, robbery, and the exactions of the publican.
If a vow was regarded as rash or wrong, attempts were made6
to open a door for repentance.' Absolutions from a vow might be
obtained before a ' sage,' or, in his absence, before three laymen,1
when all obligations became null and void. At the same time the
Mishnah 6 admits, that this power of absolving from vows was a
tradition hanging, as it were, in the air,2 since it received little (or,
as Maimonides puts it, no) support from Scripture. *
There can be no doubt, that the words of Christ referred to such
vows of personal obligation. By these a, person might bind himself
in regard to men or things, or else put that which was another's out
of his own reach, or that which was his own out of the reach of
another, and this as completely as if the thing or things had been
Qorban, a gift given to God. Thus, by simply saying, ' Qonam, ' or
' Qorban, that by which I might be profited by thee, ' a person bound
himself never to touch, taste, or have anything that belonged to the
person so addressed. Similarly, by saying ' Qorban, that by which

1 Maimonides u. s. Hilk. Shebh. v. 1.
2 This is altogether a very curious
Mishnah. It adds to the remark quoted
in the text this other significant admis
sion, that the laws about the Sabbath,
festive offerings, and the malversation of
things devoted to God ' are like moun

tains hanging by one hair,' since Scrip
ture is scant on these subjects, while the
traditfonal Laws are many.
3 On the subject of Vows see also ' The
Temple and its Services,' pp. 322-326.
The student should consult Siphre, Par.
Mattoth, pp. 55 b to >8 b.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT.

21

CHAP. XXXI

1 Nedar.
.i. 2

*TD3b
isxi rax

thou mightest be profited by me, ' he would prevent the person so
addressed from ever deriving any benefit from that which belonged
to him. And so stringent was the ordinance that (almost in the
words of Christ) it is expressly stated that such a vow was binding,
even if what was vowed involved a breach of the Law." It cannot be
denied that such vows, in regard to parents, would be binding, and
that they were actually made.1 Indeed, the question is discussed
in the Mishnah in so many words, whether ' honour of father and
mother ' b constituted a ground for invalidating a vow, and decided
in the negative against a solitary dissenting voice." And if doubt
should still exist, a case is related in the Mishnah,1 in which a father "Nedar. v.
was thus shut out by the vow of his son from anything by which
he might be profited by him (~xin U?rn -rjj vix rrnf )\ Thus the
charge brought by Christ is in fullest accordance with the facts of
the case. More than this, the manner in which it is put by St. Mark
shows the most intimate knowledge of Jewish customs and law.
For, the seemingly inappropriate addition to our Lord's mention of
the Fifth Commandment of the words: 'He that revileth father or
mother, he shall (let him) surely die,'6 is not only explained but °ex. xxi. 17
vindicated by the common usage of the Rabbis, '" to mention along
with a command the penalty attaching to its breach, so as to indicate
the importance which Scripture attached to it. On the other hand,
the words of St. Mark: 'Qorban (that is to say, gift [viz., to God])
that by which thou mightest be profited by me, ' are a most exact
transcription into Greek of the common formula of vowing, as given
in the Mishnah and Talmud ("? n;r£ ~pxz; lg-\$).1
But Christ did not merely show the hypocrisy of the system of
traditionalism in conjoining in the name of religion the greatest
outward punctiliousness with the grossest breach of real duty.
Never, alas! was that aspect of prophecy, which in the present saw
the future, more clearly vindicated than as the words of Isaiah to
Israel now appeared in their final fulfilment: ' This people honoureth

1 I can only express surprise, that
Wiinsche should throw doubt upon it.
It is fully admitted by Levy, Targ.
Worterb. sub pip.
3 In this case the son, desirous that
his father should share in the festivities
at his marriage, proposed to give to a
friend the court in which the banquet
was to be held and the banquet itself,
but only for the purpose that his father
might eat and drink with him. The
proposal was refused as involving sin,
and the point afterwards discussed and

confirmed — implying, that in no circum
stances could a parent partake of any
thing belonging to his son, if he had pro
nounced such a vow, the only relaxation
being that in case of actual starvation
(' if he have not what to eat')the son might
make a present to a third person, when
the father might in turn receive of it.
3 Comp. Wiinsche, ad loc.
4 Other translations have been pro
posed, but the above is taken from Nedar.
viii. 7, with the change only of Qonam
into Qorban.

22

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

¦ St. Matt.
XV. 10;
St. Mark
vii. 14

Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit, in vain
do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men. ' 1 But in thus setting forth for the first time the real character
of traditionalism, and setting Himself in open opposition to its fun
damental principles, the Christ enunciated also for the first time the
fundamental principle of His own interpretation of the Law. That Law
was not a system of exterhalism, in which outward things affected
the inner man. It was moral and addressed itself to man as a
moral being — to his heart and conscience. As the spring of all
moral action was within, so the mode of affecting it would be inward.
Not from without inwards, but from within outwards: such was the
principle of the new Kingdom, as setting forth the Law in its ful
ness and fulfilling it. ' There is nothing from without the ' man,
that, entering into him, can defile him; but the things which pro
ceed out of the man, those are they that defile the 2 man. ' 3 Not
only negatively, but positively, was this the fundamental principle of
Christian practice in direct contrast to that of Pharisaic Judaism.
It is in this essential contrariety of principle, rather than in any
details, that the unspeakable difference between Christ and all con
temporary teachers appears. Nor is even this all. For, the principle
laid down by Christ concerning that which entereth from without
and that which cometh from within, covers, in its full application,
not only the principle of Christian liberty in regard to the Mosaic
Law, but touches far deeper and permanent questions, affecting not
only the Jew, but all men and to all times.
As we read it, the discussion, to which such full reference has
been made, had taken place between the Scribes and the Lord, while
the multitude perhaps stood aside. But when enunciating the grand
principle of what constituted real defilement, ' He called to Him the
multitude. ' " It was probably while pursuing their way to Caper
naum, when this conversation had taken place, that His disciples after
wards reported, that the Pharisees had been offended by that saying
of His to the multitude. Even this implies the weakness of the
disciples: that they were not only influenced by the good or evil
opinion of these religious leaders of the people, but in some measure
sympathised with their views. All this is quite natural, and as
bringing before us real, not imaginary persons, so far evidential of
the narrative. The answer which the Lord gave the disciples bore a

1 The quotation is a ' Targum,' which
in the last clause follows almost entirely
the LXX,

2 Mark the definite article.
3 The words in St. Mark vii. 16 are of
very doubtful authenticity.

FROM WITHIN OUTWARDS, NOT FROM WITHOUT INWARDS.

23

twofold aspect: that of solemn warning concerning the inevitable
fate of every plant which God had not planted, and that of warning
concerning the character and issue of Pharisaic teaching, as being
the leadership of the blind by the blind, 1 which must end in ruin to
both. But even so the words of Christ are represented in the Gospel as
sounding strange and difficult to the disciples — so truthful and natural
is the narrative. But they were earnest, genuine men; and when
they reached the home in Capernaum, Peter, as the most courageous
of them, broke the reserve — half of fear and half of reverence — which,
despite their necessary familiarity, seems to have subsisted between
the Master and His disciples. And the existence of such reverential
reserve in such circumstances appears, the more it is considered, yet
another evidence of Christ's Divine Character, just as the implied
allusion to it in the narrative is another undesigned proof of its
truthfulness. And so Peter- would seek for himself and his fellow-
disciples an explanation of what still seemed to him only parabolic
in the Master's teachings. He received it in the fullest manner.
There was, indeed, one part even in the teaching of the Lord, which
accorded with the higher views of the Rabbis. Those sins which
Christ set before them as sins of the outward and inward man,2 and
of what connects the two : our relation to others, were the outcome
of evil thoughts.' And this, at least, the Rabbis also taught; ex
plaining, with much detail, how the heart was alike the source of
strength and of weakness, of good and of evil thoughts, loved and
hated, envied, lusted and deceived, proving each statement from
Scripture.'" But never before could they have realised, that anything
entering from without could not defile a man. Least of all could
they perceive the final inference which St. Mark long afterwards
derived from this teaching of the Lord: ' This He said, making all
meats clean." 3

CHAP. XXXI

1 Both these sayings seem to have
been proverbial at the time, although I
am not able to quote any passage in
Jewish writings in which they occur in
exactly the same form.
2 In St. Mark vii. 21 these outcomings
of ' evil thoughts ' are arranged in three
groups of four, characterised as in the
text; while in St. Matt. xv. 19 the order
of the ten commandments seems fol
lowed. The account of St. Mark is the
fuller. In both accounts the expression
'blasphemy' (jiXaacpTfiiia) — rendered in
tho Revised Version by • railing ' — seems

a Midr. on
Eccles. 1. 16

» St. Mark
vii. 19, last
clause

to refer to calumnious and evil speak
ing about our fellow-men.
3 I have accepted this rendering of the
words, first propounded by St. Chrysos-
tom, and now adopted in the Revised Ver
sion, although not without much mis
giving. For there is strong objection to
it from the Jewish usus and views. The
statement in Ber. 61 a, last line, 'The
oesophagus which causeth to enter and
which casteth out all manner of meat.
(»Xtt h^» TO N*STO1 D^Dtt tiEY)
seems to imply that the words of Christ
were a proverbial expression. The Tal-

24

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK IH

Yet another time had Peter to learn that lesson, when his resist
ance to the teaching of the vision of the sheet let down from heaven
was silenced by this: 'What God hath cleansed, make not thou
common.'" Not only the spirit of legalism, but the very terms
' common ' (in reference to the unwashen hands) and ' making clean '
are the same. Nor can we wonder at this, if the vision of Peter
was real, and not, as negative criticism would have it, invented so as
to make an imaginary Peter — Apostle of the Jews — speak and act
like Paul. On that hypothesis, the correspondence of thought and
expression would seem, indeed, inexplicable; on the former, the Peter,
who has had that vision, is telling through St. Mark the teaching
that underlay it all, and, as he looked back upon it, drawing from it
the inference which he understood not at the time : ' This He said,
making all meats clean. '
A most difficult lesson this for a Jew, and for one like Peter, nay,
for us all, to learn. And still a third time had Peter to learn it,
when, in his fear of the Judaisers from Jerusalem, he made that
common which God had made clean, had care of the unwashen hands,
but forgot that the Lord had made clean all meats. Terrible, in
deed, must have been that contention which followed between Paul
and Peter. Eighteen centuries have passed, and that fatal strife is
still the ground of theological contention against the truth. l Eighteen
centuries, and within the Church also the strife still continues.
Brethren sharply contend and are separated, because they will insist
on that as of necessity which should be treated as of indifference:
because of the not eating with unwashen hands, forgetful that He
has made all meats clean to him who is inwardly and spiritually
cleansed.

mudic idea is based on the curious physio
logical notion (Midr. on Eccles. vii. 19),
that the food passed from tne oesophagus
first into the larger intestine (Hemses,
DDWn, perhaps=omo!S!«?2), where the
food was supposed to be crushed as in a
mill (Vayyik R. 4, 18 ; Midr. on Eccl.
xii. 3), and thence only, through various
organs, into the stomach proper. (As re
gards the process in animals, see Lewy-
sohn, Zool. d. Talm. pp. 37-40). (The
passage from Ber. 61 a has been so
rendered by Wiinsche, in his note on St.
Matt. xv. 17, as to be in parts well nigh
unintelligible.) It may interest students

that the strange word acpsdpwv, render
ed both in the A.V. and the R.V. by
'draught,' seems to correspond to the
Rabbinic Aphidra (SOT3N), which
Levy renders by ' the floor of a stable
formed by the excrements of the animals
which are soaked and stamped into a
hard mass.'
1 It is, of course, well known that the
reasoning of the Tubingen school and of
kindred negative theology is based on a
supposed contrariety between the Petrine
and Pauline direction, and that this
again is chiefly based on the occurrence
in Antioch recorded in Gal. ii. 11 &c.

THE GREAT CRISIS IN POPULAR FEELING. 25

CHAPTER XXXII.
THE GREAT CRISIS IN POPULAR FEELING  THE LAST DISCOURSES IN THE
SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM — CHRIST THE BREAD OF LIFE — 'WILL
YE ALSO GO AWAY?' (St. John vi. 22-71.)1
The narrative now returns to those who, on the previous evening, chap.
had, after the miraculous meal, been 'sent away' to their homes. XXXII
We remember, that this had been after an abortive attempt on their - — -y— ~
part to take Jesus by force and make Him their Messiah-King. We
can understand that the effectual resistance of Jesus to their purpose*
not only weakened, but in great measure neutralised, the effect
of the miracle which they had witnessed. In fact, we look upon
this check as the first turning of the tide of popular enthusiasm.
Let us bear in mind what ideas and expectations of an altogether
external character those men connected with the Messiah of their
dreams. At last, by some miracle more notable even than the giving
of the Manna in the wilderness, enthusiasm has been raised to the
highest pitch, and thousands were determined to give up their
pilgrimage to the Passover, and then a.nd there proclaim the Galilean
Teacher Israel's King. If He were the Messiah, such was His right
ful title. Why then did He so strenuously and effectually resist it?
In ignorance of His real views concerning the Kingship, they would
naturally conclude that it must have been from fear, from misgiving,
from want of belief in Himself. At any rate, He could not be the
Messiah, Who would not be Israel's King. Enthusiasm of this kind,
once repressed, could never be kindled again. Henceforth there was
continuous misunderstanding, doubt, and defection among former
adherents, growing into opposition and hatred unto death. Even
to those who took not this position, Jesus, His Words and Works,
were henceforth a constant mystery.2 And so it came, that the morn-
1 It is specially requested, that this of the fate of Elijah on the morning
chapter be read along with the text of after the miracle on Mount Carmel. But '
Scripture. how different the bearing of Christ from
2 We are here involuntarily reminded that of the great prophet !

26

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK HI

>> St. John
vi. 53-58

« vl. 25-65
« w. 25-36
'w. 41-52

ing after the miraculous mea.l found the vast majority of those who
had been fed, either in their homes or on their pilgrim-way to the
Passover at Jerusalem. Only comparatively few came back to seek
Him, where they had eaten bread at His Hand. And even to them,
as the after-conversation shows, Jesus was a mystery. They could
not disbelieve, and yet they could not believe; and they sought both
' a sign ' to guide, aud an explanation to give them its understand
ing. Yet out of them was there such selection of grace, that all
that the Father had given would reach Him, and that they who,
by a personal act of believing choice and by determination of con
viction, would come, should in no wise be rejected of Him.
It is this view of the mental and moral state of those who, on
the morning after the meal, came to seek Jesus, which alone explains
the question and answers of the interview at Capernaum. As we
read it: 'the clay following the multitude which stood on the other
[the eastern] side of the sea ' ' saw that Jesus was not there, neither
His disciples. ' " But of two facts they were cognizant. They knew
"that, on the evening before, only one boat had come over, bringing
Jesus and His disciples; and that Jesus had not returned in it with
His disciples, for they had seen them depart, while Jesus remained to
dismiss the people. In these circumstances they probably imagined,
that Christ had returned on foot by land, being, of course, ignorant
of the miracle of that night. But the wind which had been contrary
to the disciples, had also driven over to the eastern shore a number
of fishing-boats from Tiberias (and this is one of the undesigned
confirmations of the narrative). These they now hired, and came
to Capernaum, making inquiry for Jesus. Whether on that Friday
afternoon they went to meet Him on His way from Gennesaret
(which the wording of St. John vi. 25 makes likely), or awaited His
arrival at Capernaum, is of little importance. Similarly, it is diffi
cult to determine whether the conversation and outlined address
of Christ took place on one or partly on several occasions: on the
Friday afternoon or Sabbath morning, or only on the Sabbath. All
that we know for certain is, that the last part (at any rate") was
spoken 'in Synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.'" It has been
well observed, that 'there are evident breaks after verse 40 and
verse 51.' l Probably the succession of events may have been, that
part of what is here recorded by St. John a had taken place when
those from across the Lake had first met Jesus; e part on the way
to, and entering, the Synagogue; r and part as what He spoke in His
1 Westcott. ad. loc.

> vv. 61-65

POPULAR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE MIRACLE OF FEEDING. 21
Discourse," and then after the defection of some of His former dis- CHAP.
ciples." But we can only suggest such an arrangement, since it XXXll
would have been quite consistent with Jewish practice, that the ' — -v-— ^
greater part should have taken place in the Synagogue itself, the " VT- 62~58
Jewish questions and objections representing either an irregular
running commentary on His Words, or expressions during breaks in,
or at the conclusion of, His teaching.
This, however, is a primary requirement, that,, what Christ is
reported to have spoken, should appear suited to His hearers: such as
would appeal to what they knew, such also as they could understand.
This must be kept in view, even while admitting that the Evangelist
wrote his Gospel in the light of much later and fuller knowledge,
and for the instruction of the Christian Church, and that there may
be breaks and omissions in the reported, as compared with the original
Discourse, which, if supplied, would make its understanding much
easier to a Jew. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind all the
circumstances of the case. The Discourse in question was delivered
in the city, which had been the scene of so many of Christ's great
miracles, and the centre of His teaching, and in the Synagogue, built
by the good Centurion, and of which Jairus was the chief ruler.
Here we have the outward and inward conditions for even the most
advanced teaching of Christ. Again, it was delivered under twofold
moral conditions, to which we may expect the Discourse of Christ to
be adapted. For, first, it was after that miraculous feeding which
had raised the popular enthusiasm to the highest pitch, and also
after that chilling disappointment of their Judaistic hopes in Christ's
utmost resistance to His Messianic proclamation. They now came
' seeking for Jesus, ' in every sense of the , word. They knew not
what to make of those, to them, contradictory and irreconcilable
facts; they came, because they did eat of the loaves, without
seeing in them ' signs. ' ° And therefore they came for such a ' sign '
as they could perceive, and for such teaching in interpretation of it
as they could understand. They were outwardly — by what had
happened — prepared for the very highest teaching, to which the
preceding events had led up, and therefore they must receive such,
if any. But they were not inwardly prepared for it, and therefore
they could not understand it. Secondly, and in connection with
it, we must remember that two high points had been reached — by
the people, that Jesus was the Messiah-King; by the ship's company,
that He was the Son of God. However imperfectly these truths may
have been apprehended, yet the teaching of Christ, if it was to be pro-

28

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

• St. John
vi. 25-29

* Shabb.
30 b ; Jer.
Sheqal.vi. 2
' Kethub,
1114

gressive, must start from them and then point onwards and upwards.
In this expectation we shall not be disappointed. And if, by the side
of all this, we shall find allusions to peculiarly Jewish thoughts and
views, these will not only confirm the Evangelic narrative, but furnish
additional evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
1. The question " : ' Rabbi, when earnest Thou hither? ' with which
they from the eastern shore greeted Jesus, seems to imply that they were
perplexed about, and that some perhaps had heard a vague rumour of
the miracle of His return to the western shore. It was the beginning
of that unhealthy craving for the miraculous which the Lord had so
sharply to reprove. In His own words: they sought Him not because
they ' saw signs, ' but because they ' ate of the loaves, ' and, in their
coarse love for the miraculous, ' were filled. ' 1 What brought them,
was not that they had discerned either the higher meaning of that
miracle, or the Son of God, but those carnal Judaistic expectancies
which had led them to proclaim Him King. What they waited for,
was a Kingdom of God — not in righteousness, joy, and peace in the
Holy Ghost, but in meat and drink — a kingdom with miraculous
wilderness-banquets to Israel, and coarse miraculous triumphs over
the Gentiles. Not to speak of the fabulous Messianic banquet which
a sensuous realism expected, or of the achievements for which it
looked, every figure in which prophets had clothed the brightness of
those days was first literalised, and then exaggerated, till the most
glorious poetic descriptions became the most repulsively incongruous
caricatures of spiritual Messianic expectancy. The fruit-trees were
every day, or at least every week or two, to yield their riches, the
fields their harvests; D the grain was to stand like palm trees, and to
be reaped and winnowed without labour." Similar blessings were to
visit the vine; ordinary trees would bear like fruit trees, and every
produce, of every clime, would be found in Palestine in such abundance
and luxuriance as only the wildest imagination could conceive.
Such were the carnal thoughts about the Messiah and His Kingdom
of those who sought Jesus because they ' ate of the loaves, and were
filled.' What a contrast between them and the Christ, as He pointed
them from the search for such meat to ' work for the meat which Ho
would give them,' not as a merely Jewish Messiah, but as 'the Son
of Man.' And yet, in uttering this strange truth, Jesus could appeal
to something they knew when He added, ' for Him the Father hath
sealed, even God.' The words, which seem almost inexplicable in

1 Canon Westcott notes the intended
realism in the choice of words : ' Liter

ally, " were satisfied with food as animals
with fodder." ' — exoprda-Or/rg.

IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM. 29
this connection, become clear when we remember that this was a chap.
well-known Jewish expression. According to the Rabbis, ' the seal xxxii
of God was Truth (AeMeTH),' the three letters of which this word ' 
is composed in Hebrew (n»N) being, as was significantly pointed
out, respectively the first, the middle, and the last letters of the
alphabet." Thus the words of Christ would convey to His hearers »jer. sanh.
that for the real meat, which would endure to eternal life — for the b. si
better Messianic banquet — they must come to Him, because God had
impressed upon Him His own seal of truth, and so authenticated His
Teaching and Mission.
In passing, we mark this as a Jewish allusion, which only a Jewish
writer (not an Ephesian Gospel) would have recorded. But it is by
no means the only one. It almost seems like a sudden gleam of
light — as if they were putting their hand to this Divine Seal, when
they now ask Him what they must do, in order to work the Works of
God? Yet strangely refracted seems this ray of light, when they
connect the Works of God with their own doing. And Christ directed
them, as before, only more clearly, to Himself. To work the Works of
God they must not do, but believe in Him Whom God had sent.
Their twofold error consisted in imagining, that they could work
the Works of God, and this by some doing of their own. On the
other hand, Christ would have taught them that these Works of God
were independent of man, and that they would be achieved through
man's faith in the Mission of the Christ.
2. As it impresses itself on our minds, what now follows " took \st. John
place at a somewhat different time — perhaps on the way to the
Synagogue. It is a remarkable circumstance, that among the ruins
of the Synagogue of Capernaum the lintel has been discovered, and
that it bears the device of a pot of manna, ornamented with a flowing
pattern of vine leaves and clusters of grapes. ' Here then were the
outward emblems, which would connect themselves with the Lord's
teaching on that day. The miraculous feeding of the multitude in
the ' desert place ' the evening before, and the Messianic thoughts
which clustered around it, would naturally suggest to their minds
remembrance of the manna. That manna, which was Angels' food,
distilled (as they imagined) from the upper light, ' the dew from
above ' ° — miraculous food, of all manner of taste, and suited to ever.y « Yoma 75 &
age, according to the wish or condition of him who ate it," but bitter- ^shem. r.
ness to Gentile palates — they expected the Messiah to bring again
from heaven. For, all that the first deliverer Moses had done, the
1 Comp. 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 256, 257.

30

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» Midr. on
Eccles. i. 9

' Targ.
Pseudo-Jon, on
Deut.
xxxiv. 8;
Taan. 9 a

° Prov. ix. 5

a Shem. R.
25
e Comp.
• Chag. 14 a

second — Messiah — would also do." And here, over their Synagogue,
was the pot of manna — symbol of what God had done, earnest of what
the Messiah would do: that pot of manna, which was now among
the things hidden, but which Elijah, when he came, would restore
again! Here, then, was a real sign. In their view the events of yester
day must lead up to some such sign, if they had any real meaning.
They had been told to believe on Him, as the One authenticated
by God with the seal of Truth, and Who would give them meat to
eternal life. By what sign would Christ corroborate His assertion,
that they might see and believe? What work would He do to
vindicate His claim? Their fathers had eaten manna in the wilder
ness. To understand the reasoning of the Jews, implied but not fully
expressed, as also the answer of Jesus, it is necessary to bear in mind
(what forms another evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth
Gospel), that it was the oft and most anciently expressed opinion
that, although God had given them this bread out of heaven, yet it
was given through the merits of Moses, and ceased with his death."
This the Jews had probably in view, when they asked: 'What
workest Thou?'; and this was the meaning of Christ's emphatic
assertion, that it was not Moses who gave Israel that bread. And
then by what, with all reverence, may still be designated a peculiarly
Jewish turn of reasoning — such as only those familiar with Jewish
literature can fully appreciate (and which none but a Jewish reporter
would have inserted in his Gospel) — the Saviour makes quite different,
yet to them familiar, application of the manna. Moses had not given
it — his merits had not procured it — but His Father gave them the
true bread out of heaven. ' For, ' as He explained, ' the bread of God
is that 1 which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the
world.' Again, this very Rabbinic tradition, which described in such
glowing language the wonders of that manna, also further explained
its other and real meaning to be, that if Wisdom said, ' Eat of my
bread and drink of my wine,'" it indicated that the manna and
the miraculous water-supply were the sequence of Israel's receiving
the Law and the Commandments d— for the real bread from heaven
was the Law. e 2

1 Not as in the A.V. of ver. 33 : ' He
Which cometh down from heaven.' The
alteration is most important in the argu
ment as addressed to the Jews : the one
they could understand and would admit,
not so the other.

2 In the Midrash on Eccl. ii. 24; iii.
12; viii. 15, we are told, that when in
Ecclesiastes we read of eating and drink
ing, it always refers to the Law and good
works.

THE BREAD FROM HEAVEN. 31
It was an appeal which the Jews understood, and to which they CHAP.
could not but respond. Yet the mood was brief. As Jesus, in XXXll
answer to the appeal that He would evermore give them this bread, '  -¦- — '
once more directed them to Himself — from works of men to the
Works of God and to faith — the passing gleam of spiritual hope had
already died out, for they had seen Him and • yet did not believe. '
With these words of mingled sadness and judgment, Jesus turned
away from His questioners. The solemn sayings which now followed " *?t37^n
could not have been spoken to, and they would not have been under
stood by, the multitude. And accordingly we find that, when the
conversation of the Jews is once more introduced," it takes up the "ver. a
thread where it had been broken off, when Jesus spake of Himself as
the Bread Which had come down from heaven. Had they heard
what, in our view, Jesus spake only to His disciples, their objections
would have been to more than merely the incongruity of Christ's
claim to have come down from heaven.1
3. Regarding these words of Christ, then, as addressed to the dis
ciples, there is really nothing in them beyond their standpoint, though
they open views of the far horizon. They had the experience of the
raising of the young man atNain, and there, at Capernaum, of Jairus'
daughter. Besides, believing that Jesus ivas the Messiah, it might
perhaps not be quite strange nor new to them as Jews — although
not commonly received — that He would at the end of the world raise
the pious dead.2 Indeed, one of the names given to the Messiah —
that of Yinnon, according to Ps. lxxii. 1 7 " — has by some been de- c sanh. 98 &
rived from this very expectancy.11 Again, He had said, that it was dMidrast,on Ps xciii
not any Law, but His Person, that was the bread which came down i; pikede
from heaven, and gave life, not to Jews only, but unto the world — ed. Lemb. '
and they had seen Him and believed not. But none the less would
the loving purpose of God be accomplished in the totality of His true
people, and its joyous reality be experienced by every individual
among them: 'All that [the total number, nav 6'] which the Father
giveth Me shall come unto Me [shall reach Me 3] , and him that
cometh unto Me [the coming one to Me] I will not cast out out
side. ' What follows is merely the carrying out in all directions, and
to its fullest consequences, of this twofold fundamental principle.
The totality of the God-given would really reach. Him, despite all
1 After having arrived at this conclu- In general, see vol. i. p. 633, where the
sion, I find that Canon Westcott has ex- question of Jewish belief on that subject
pressed the same views, and I rejoice in is discussed.
being fortified by so great an authority. 3 So Canon Westcott; and also Godet
2 But not here and there one dead, ad loc.

p. 39 6

32

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. John
vi. 40

>> St. John
vi. 41-51

hindrances, for the object of His Coming was to do the Will of His
Father; and those who came would not be cast outside, for the Will
of Him that had sent Him, and which He had come to do, was that
of ' the all which He has given ' Him, He ' should not lose anything
out of this, but raise it up in the last day. ' Again, the totality — the
all — would reach Him, since it was the Will of Him that sent Him
'that everyone (noes) who intently looketh1 at the Son, and believeth
on Him, should have eternal life;' and the coming ones would not
be cast outside, since this was His undertaking and promise as the
Christ in regard to each : ' And raise him up will I at the last
day.'" Although these wonderful statements reached in their full mean
ing far beyond the present horizon of His disciples, and even to the
utmost bounds of later revelation and Christian knowledge, there is
nothing in them which could have seemed absolutely strange or un
intelligible to those who heard them. Given belief in the Messiah-
ship of Jesus and His Mission by the Father; given experience of
what He had done, and perhaps, to a certain extent, Jewish ex
pectancy of what the Messiah would do in the last day; and all this
directed or corrected by the knowledge concerning His work which
His teaching had imparted, and the words were intelligible and most
suitable, even though they would not convey to them all that they
mean to us. If so seemingly incongruous an illustration might be
used, they looked through a telescope that was not yet drawn out,
and saw the same objects, through quite diminutively and far other
wise than we, as gradually the hand of Time has drawn out fully that
through which both they and we, who believe, intently gaze on the
Son. 4. What now follows " is again spoken to 'the Jews,' and may
have occurred just as they were entering the Synagogue. To those
spiritually unenlightened, the point of difficulty seemed, how Christ
could claim to be the Bread come down from heaven. Making the
largest allowance, His known parentage and early history 2 forbade
anything like a literal interpretation of His Words. But this in
ability to understand, ever brings out the highest teaching of Christ.
We note the analogous fact, and even the analogous teaching, in the

1 Mark the special meaning of Becop&v
as previously explained.
2 This is noL narrated in the Fourth
Gospel. But allusions like this cover
the whole early history of Jesus, and
prove that omissions of the most im

portant facts in the history of Jesus are
neither due to ignorance of them on the
part of the writer of the Fourth Gospel,
nor to the desire to express by silence
his dissent from the accounts of the Syn-
optists.

CHRIST'S APPEAL TO THE SCRIPTURES. 33
case of Nicodemus."1 Only, his was the misunderstanding of igno- CHAP.
ranee, theirs of wilful resistance to His Manifestation; and so the XXXII
tone towards them was other than to the Rabbi. - — ¦<- — ¦
Yet we also mark, that what Jesus now spake to ' the Jews ' was *st- j0lin
1 iii. 3 &c.
the same in substance, though different in application, from t\ hat
He had just uttered to the disciples. This, not merely in regard to
the Messianic prediction of the Resurrection, but even in what He
pronounced as the judgment on their murmuring. The words : ' No
man can come to Me, except the Father Which hath sent Me draw
him,' present only the converse aspect of those to the disciples: ' All
that which the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me, and him that
cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out.' For, far from being
a judgment on, it would have been an excuse of, Jewish unbelief,
and, indeed, entirely discordant with all Christ's teaching, if the in
ability to come were regarded as other than personal and moral,
springing from man's ignorance and opposition to spiritual things.
No man can come to the Christ — such is the condition of the human
mind and heart, that coming to Christ as a disciple is, not an out
ward, but an inward, not a physical, but a moral impossibility —
except the Father ' draw him. ' And this, again, not in the sense of
any constraint, but in that of the personal, moral, loving influence and
revelation, to which Christ afterwards refers when He saith : ' And I,
if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself. ' " b st. j0nn
Nor did Jesus, even while uttering these high, entirely un-Jewish
truths, forget that He was speaking them to Jews. The appeal to
their own Prophets was the more telling, that Jewish tradition also
applied these two prophecies (Is. liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 34) to the teach
ing by God in the Messianic Age.02 But the explanation of the =is. uv. 13
manner, and issue of God's teaching was new: ' Everyone that hath 95 on den.
heard from the Father, and learned, cometh unto Me.' And this, not Jerem. '
by some external or realistic contact with God, such as they regarded xaikut vol.
that of Moses in the past, or expected for themselves in the latter
days; only ' He Which is from God, He hath seen the Father.' But
even this might sound general and without exclusive reference to
Christ. So, also, might this statement seem : ' He that believeth 3
hath eternal life. ' Not so the final application, in which the subject was
carried to its ultimate bearing, and all that might have seemed general
or mysterious plainly set forth. The Personality of Christ was the
1 Canon Westcott has called attention times, see the Appendix on Messianic
to this. passages.
2 For other Rabbinic applications of 3 The words ' on Me ' are spurious.
these verses to the Messiah and His

ii. p. 66 d

34 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK Bread of Life: ' I am the Bread of Life.' " The Manna had not been
III bread of life, for those who ate it had died, their carcasses had fallen in
- — -y — ' the wilderness. Not so in regard to this, the true Bread from heaven.
»ver.48 To share in that Food was to have everlasting life, a life which the sin
and death of unbelief and judgment would not cut short, as it had that
of them who had eaten the Manna and died in the wilderness. It was
another and a better Bread which came from heaven in Christ, and
another, better, and deathless life which was connected with it: ' the
Bread that I will give is My Flesh,1 for the life of the world.'
5. These words, so deeply significant to us, as pointing out the
true meaning of all His teaching, must, indeed, have sounded most
mysterious. Yet the fact that they strove about their meaning shows,
that they must have had some glimmer of apprehension that they bore
on His self-surrender, or, as they might view it, His martyrdom. This
bw. 63-58 last point is set forth in the concluding Discourse," which we know
to have been delivered in the Synagogue, whether before, during, or
after, His regular Sabbath address. It was not a mere martyrdom
for the life of the world, in which all who benefited by it would share —
but personal fellowship with Him. Eating the Flesh and drinking the
Blood of the Son of Man, such was the necessary condition of securing
eternal life. It is impossible to mistake the primary reference of
these words to our personal application of His Death and Passion to
the deepest need and hunger of our souls; most difficult, also, to
resist the feeling that, secondarily,2 they referred to that Holy Feast
which shows forth that Death and Passion, and is to all time its re
membrance, symbol, seal, and fellowship. In this, also, has the hand
of History drawn out the telescope; and as we gaze through it, every
sentence and word sheds light upon the Cross and light from the
Cross, carrying to us this twofold meaning: His Death, and its
Celebration in the great Christian Sacrament.
6. But to them that heard it, hay even to many of His disciples,
this was an hard saying. Who could bear it? For it was a thorough
disenchantment of all their Judaic illusions, an entire upturning of
all their Messianic thoughts, and that, not merely to those whose
views were grossly carnal, but even to many who had hitherto been
drawn closer to Him. The ' meat ' and ' drink ' from heaven which
had the Divine seal of ' truth ' were, according to Christ's teaching,
not ' the Law, ' nor yet Israel's privileges, but fellowship with the

1 The words in the A.V., which I will can only be secondary. Mark here spe-
give,' are spurious. cially, that in the latter we have 'the
2 Canon Westcott (ad loc.) clearly shows, Body, ' not ' the Flesh ' of the Lord.
that the reference to the Holy Supper

•> ver. 55
1 ver. 56

REVULSION OF POPULAR FEELING. 35
Person of Jesus in that state of humbleness ('the Son of Joseph,'"), CHAP.
nay, of martydom, which His words seemed to indicate, ' My Flesh XXXII
is the true1 meat, and My Blood is the true drink; '" and what even  ^— ^
this fellowship secured, consisted only in abiding in Him and He in * ver. 42
them;" or, as they would understand it, in inner communion with
Him. and in sharing His condition and views. Truly, this was a
totally different Messiah and Messianic Kingdom from what they
either conceived or wished.
Though they spake it not, this was the rock of offence over which
they stumbled and fell. And Jesus read their thoughts. How unfit
were they to receive all that was yet to happen in connection with the
Christ — how unprepared for it! If they stumbled at this, what when
they came to contemplate2 the far more mysterious and un-Jewish
facts of the Messiah's Crucifixion and Ascension ! a Truly, not a ver. 62
outward following, but only inward and spiritual life-quickening
could be of profit — even in the case of those who heard the very-
Words of Christ, which were spirit and life. Thus it again appeared,
and most fully, that, morally speaking, it was absolutely impossible
to come to Him, even if His Words were heard, except under the
gracious influence from above.0 «ver. 65;
And so this was the great crisis in the History of the Christ. 37, 44 '
We have traced the gradual growth and development of the popular
movement, till the murder of the Baptist stirred popular feeling to
its inmost depth. With his death it seemed as if the Messianic hope,
awakened by his preaching and testimony to Christ, were fading from
view. It was a terrible disappointment, not easily borne. Now must
it be decided, whether Jesus was really the Messiah. His Works,
notwithstanding what the Pharisees said, seemed to prove it. Then
let it appear; let it come, stroke upon stroke — each louder and more
effective than the other — till the land rang with the shout of victory
and the world itself re-echoed it. And so it seemed. That miracu
lous feeding — that wilderness-cry of Hosanna to the Galilean King-
Messiah from thousands of Galilean voices — what were they but its
beginning? All the greater was the disappointment: first, in the re
pression of the movement — so to speak, the retreat of the Messiah,
His voluntary abdication, rather, His defeat; then, next day, the incon-
gruousness of a King, Whose few unlearned followers, in their igno
rance and un-Jewish neglect of most sacred ordinances, outraged
1 Comp. here the remarks on ver. 27, 2 Mark here also the special meaning
about Truth as the seal with which God of Beoopijre.
sealed the Christ.

36

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

¦ St. Matt.
xv. 12

* St. John
vi. 66

• vv. 68, 69

every Jewish feeling, and whose conduct was even vindicated by
their Master in a general attack on all traditionalism, that basis of
Judaism — as it might be represented, to the contempt of religion and
even of common truthfulness in the denunciation of solemn vows!
This was not the Messiah Whom the many — nay, Whom almost any
— would own."
Here, then, we are at the parting of the two ways; and, just
because it was the hour of decision, did Christ so clearly set forth
the highest truths concerning Himself, in opposition to the views
which the multitude entertained about the Messiah. The result was
yet another and a sorer defection. ' Upon this many of His disciples
went back, and walked no more with Him. ' " Nay, the searching
trial reached even unto the hearts of the Twelve. Would they also
go away? It was an anticipation of Gethsemane — its first expe
rience. But one thing kept them true. It was the experience of
the past. This was the basis of their present faith and allegiance.
They could not go back to their old past; they must cleave to Him.
So Peter spake it .in name of them all: 'Lord, to whom shall we go?
Words of Eternal Life hast Thou ! ' Nay, and more than this, as the
result of what they had learned: 'And we have believed and know
that Thou art the Holy One of God. ' ° 1 It is thus, also, that many of
us, whose thoughts may have been sorely tossed, and whose founda
tions terribly assailed, may have found our first resting-place in the
assured, unassailable spiritual experience of the past. Whither can
we go for Words of Eternal Life, if not to Christ? If He fails us,
then all hope of the Eternal is gone. But He has the Words of
Eternal life — and we believed when they first came to us; nay, we
know that He is the Holy One of God. And this conveys all that
faith needs for further learning. The rest will He show, when He is
transfigured in our sight.
But of these Twelve Christ knew one to be ' a devil ' — like that
Angel, fallen from highest height to lowest depth.2 The apostasy
of Judas had already commenced in his heart. And, the greater the
popular expectancy and disappointment had been, the greater the
reaction and the enmity that followed. The hour of decision was
past, and the hand on the dial pointed to the hour of His Death.

1 This is the reading of all the best
MSS., and not as in the A. V. ' that
Christ, the Son of the Living God.' For
the history of the variations by which
this change was brought about, see
Westcott, ad loc.

2 The right reading of ver. 71 is:
' Judas the son of Simon Iscariot,' that
is, 'a man of Kerioth.' Kerioth was
in Judfea (Josh. xv. 25), and Judas, it
will, be remembered, the only Judasan
disciple of Jesus.

IN THE BORDERS OF TYRE AND SIDON. 37

CHAPTER XXXIII.
JESUS AND THE SYRO-PHCENICIAN- WOMAN.
(St. Matt. xv. 21-28; St. Mark vii. 24-30.)
The purpose of Christ to withdraw His disciples from the excitement chap.
of Galilee, and from what might follow the execution of the Baptist, XXXIH
had been interrupted by the events at Bethsaida-Julias, but it was v— ¦ — , — "
not changed. On the contrary, it must have been intensified. That
wild, popular outburst, which had almost forced upon Him a Jewish
Messiah-Kingship; the discussion with the Jerusalem Scribes about
the washing of hands on the following day; the Discourses of the
Sabbath, and the spreading disaffection, defection, and opposition
which were its consequences — all pointed more than ever to the
necessity of a break in the publicity of His Work, and to withdrawal
from that part of Galilee. The nearness of the Sabbath, and the cir
cumstance that the Capernaum-boat lay moored on the shore of Beth
saida, had obliged Him, when withdrawing from that neighbourhood,
to return to Capernaum. And there the Sabbath had to be spent —
in what manner we know. But as soon as its sacred rest was past,
the journey was resumed. For the reasons already explained, it ex
tended much further than any other, and into regions which, we may
venture to suggest, would not have been traversed but for the pecu
liar circumstances of the moment.
A comparatively short journey would bring Jesus and His com
panions from Capernaum 'into the parts,' or, as St. Mark more spe
cifically calls them, 'the borders of Tyre and Sidon.' At that time
this district extended, north of Galilee," from the Mediterranean to •¦*«. war
m. 3. 1
the Jordan. But the event about to be related occurred, as all cir
cumstances show, not within the territory of Tyre and Sidon, but on
its borders, and within the limits of the Land of Israel. If any
doubt could attach to the objects which determined Christ's journey
to those parts, it would be removed by the circumstance that St.
Matthew" tells us, He 'withdrew'1 thither, while St. Mark notes ^st.Matt.
1 So correctly rendered.

38

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. Matt.
xv. 23
i> St. Mark
vii. 24, 25

that He 'entered into an house, and would have no man know it.'
That house in which Jesus sought shelter and privacy would, of
course, be a Jewish home; and, that it was within the borders of
Israel, is further evidenced by the notice of St. Matthew, that ' the
Canaanitish woman ' who sought His help ' came out from those bor
ders ' — that is, from out the Tyro-Sidonian district — into that Galilean
border where Jesus was.
The whole circumstances seem to point to more than a night's
rest in that distant home. Possibly, the two first Passover-days may
have been spent here. If the Saviour had left Capernaum on the
Sabbath evening, or the Sunday morning, He may have reached, that
home on the borders before the Paschal Eve, and the Monday and
Tuesday1 may have been the festive Paschal days, on which sacred
rest was enjoined. This would also give an adequate motive for such
a sojourn in that house, as seems required by the narrative of St.
Mark. According to that Evangelist, ' Jesus would have no man
know ' His Presence in that place, ' but He could not be hid. ' Mani
festly, this could not apply to the rest of one night in a house. Ac
cording to the same Evangelist, the fame of His Presence spread into
the neighbouring district of Tyre and Sidon, and reached the mother
of the demonised child, upon which she went from her home into
Galilee to apply for help to Jesus. All this implies a stay of two or
three days. And with this also agrees the after-complaint of the
disciples: ' Send her away, for she crieth after us.' " As the Saviour
apparently received the woman in the house," it seems that she must
have followed some of the disciples, entreating their help or inter
cession in a manner that attracted the attention which, according to
the will of Jesus, they would fain have avoided, before, in her despair,
she ventured into the Presence of Christ within the house.
All this resolves into a higher harmony those small seeming dis
crepancies, which negative criticism had tried to magnify into con
tradictions. It also adds graphic details to the story. She who now
sought His help was, as St. Matthew calls her, from the Jewish
standpoint, ' a Canaanitish " woman, ' by which term a Jew would desig
nate a native of Phoenicia, or, as St. Mark calls her, a Syro-Phcenicia.n
(to distinguish her country from Lybo-Phcenicia), and ' a Greek ' —
that is, a heathen. But, we can understand how she who, as Bengel
says, made the misery of her little child her own, would, on hearing
of the Christ and His mighty deed, seek His help with the most

1 Or, the Passover-eve may have been Monday evening.

FIRST REFUSAL TO THE SYRO-PIKENICIAN WOMAN.

39

vii. 25

intense earnestness, and that, in so doing, she would approach Him CHAP.
with lowliest reverence, falling at His Feet." But what in the cir- XXXIH
cumstances seems so peculiar, and, in our view, furnishes the expla- '  <~ — •
nation of the Lord's bearing towards this woman, is her mode of lHt-„Mark
addressing Him: ' 0 Lord, Thou Son of David! ' This was the most
distinctively Jewish appellation of the Messiah; and yet it is
emphatically stated of her, that she was a heathen. Tradition has
preserved a few reported sayings of Christ, of which that about to
be quoted seems, at least, quite Christ-like. It is reported that,
' having seen a man working on the Sabbath, He said : " O man, if
indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed ; but if thou
knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the Law." ' L
The same principle applied to the address of this woman — only that,
in what followed, Christ imparted to her the knowledge needful to
make her blessed.
Spoken by a heathen, these words were an appeal, not to the
Messiah of Israel, but to an Israelitish Messiah — for David had
never reigned over her or her people. The title might be most
rightfully used, if the promises to David were fully and spiritually
apprehended — not otherwise. If used without that knowledge, it
was an address by a stranger to a Jewish Messiah, Whose works were
only miracles, and not also and primarily signs. Now this was
exactly the error of the Jews which Jesus had encountered and
combated, alike when He resisted the attempt to make Him King,
in His reply to the Jerusalem Scribes, and in His Discourses at
Capernaum. To have granted her the help she so entreated, would
have been, as it were, to reverse the whole of His Teaching, and to
make His works of healing merely works of power. For, it will not
be contended that this heathen woman had full spiritual knowledge
of the world-wide bearing of the Davidic promises, or of the world-
embracing designation of the Messiah as the Son of David. In her
mouth, then, it meant something to which Christ could not have
yielded. And yet He could not refuse her petition. And so He
first taught her, in such manner as she could understand — that which
she needed to know, before she could approach Him in such manner —
the relation of the heathen to the Jewish world, and of both to the
Messiah, and then He gave her what she asked.
It is this, we feel convinced, which explains all. It could not have
been, that from His human standpoint He first kept silence, His
deep tenderness and sympathy forbidding Him to speak, while the
1 Comp. Canon Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Appendix C.

40 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK normal limitation of His Mission forbade Him to act as she sought.1
m Such limitation could not have existed in His mind; nor can we
suppose such an utter separation of His Human from His Divine
consciousness in His Messianic acting. And we recoil from the
opposite explanation, which supposes Christ to have either tried the
faith of the woman, or else spoken with a view to drawing it out.
We shrink from the idea of anything like an after-thought, even for
a good purpose, on the part of the Divine Saviour. All such after
thoughts are, to our thinking, incompatible with His Divine. Purity
and absolute rectitude. God docs not make us good by a device —
and that is a. very wrong view of trials, or of delayed answers to
prayer, which men sometimes take. Nor can we imagine, that the
Lord would have made such cruel trial of the poor agonised woman,
or played on her feelings, when the issue would have been so unspeak
ably terrible, if in her weakness she had failed. There is nothing
analogous in the case of this poor heathen coming to petition, and
being tried by being told that she could not be heard, because she
belonged to the dogs, not the children, and the trial of Abraham,
who was a hero of faith, and had long walked with God. In any
case, on any of the views just combated, the Words of Jesus would
bear a needless and inconceivable harshness, which grates on all our
feelings concerning Him. The Lord does not afflict willingly, nor
try needlessly, nor disguise His loving thoughts and purposes, in
order to bring about some effect in us. He needs not such means;
and, with reverence be it said, wc cannot believe that He ever uses
them. But, viewed as the teaching of Christ to this heathen con
cerning Israel's Messiah, all becomes clear, even in the very brief
reports of the Evangelists, of which that by St. Matthew reads
like that of one present, that of St. Mark rather like that of one
who relates what he has heard from another (St. Peter). She had
spoken, but Jesus had answered her not a word. When the disciples
— in some measure, probably, still sharing the views of this heathen,
that he was the Jewish Messiah — without, indeed, interceding for
her, asked that she might be sent away, because she was troublesome
to them, He replied, that His Mission was only to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel. This was absolutely true, as regarded His Work
1 This view is advocated by Dean greatness: First, in his calm limitation
Plumptre with remarkable beauty, ten- to His special mission, and then in His
derness, and reverence. It is also that of equally calm overstepping of it, when a
Meyer and of Ewald. The latter re- higher ground for so doing appeared.
marks, that our Lord showed twofold

15

THE ENLIGHTENED PLEA OF THE WOMAN. 41
while upon earth; and true, in every sense, as we keep in view the chap.
world-wide bearing of the Davidic reign and promises, and the xxxni
real relation between Israel and the world. Thus baffled, as it might -- — ¦> 
seem, she cried no longer ' Son of David,' but, ' Lord, help me.' It
was then that the special teaching came in the manner she could
understand.^ If it were as ' the Son of David ' that He was entreated
— if the heathen woman as such applied to the Jewish Messiah as
such, what, in the Jewish view, were the heathens but ' dogs, ' and
what would be fellowship with them, but to cast to the dogs — house
dogs,1 it may be — what should have been the children's bread?
And, certainly, no expression more common in the mouth of the
Jews, than that which designated the heathens as dogs."2 Most harsh * Midr. on
D ° Ps. IV. 8;
as it was, as the outcome of national pride and Jewish self-asser- Mes- 7 b
tion, yet in a sense it was true, that those within were the children,
and those ' luithout ' ' dogs. ' " Only, who were they within and who i> Rev.
they without? What made 'a child,' whose was the bread — and
what characterised ' the dog,' that was ' without ' ?
Two lessons did she learn with Jhat instinct-like rapidity which
Christ's personal Presence — and it alone — seemed ever and again to
call forth, just as the fire which fell from heaven consumed the sacrifice
of Elijah. 'Yea, Lord,' it is as Thou sayest: heathenism stands
related to Judaism as the house-dogs to the children, and it were
not meet to rob the children of their bread in order to give it to
dogs. But Thine own words show, that such would not now be
the case. If they are house-dogs, then they are the Master's, and
under His table, and when He breaks the bread to the children, in
the breaking of it the crumbs must fall all around. As St. Matthew
puts it: ' The dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their Master's
table;' as St. Mark puts it: 'The dogs under the table eat of the
children's crumbs.' Both versions present different aspects of the
same truth. Heathenism may be like the dogs, when compared with
the children's place and privileges; but He is their Master still,
and they under His table; and when He breaks the bread there is
enough and to spare for them — even under the table they eat of the
children's crumbs.
But in so saying she was no longer 'under the table,' but had
sat down at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was par
taker of the children's bread. He was no longer to her the Jewish
Messiah, but truly 'the Son of David.' She now understood what
1 The term means 'little dogs,' or 2 Many passages might be quoted either
' house-dogs.' similar, or based on this view of Gentiles.

42

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. Matt.
xv. 28

she prayed, and she was a daughter of Abraham. And what had
taught her all this was faith in His Person and Work, as not only
just enough for the Jews, but enough and to spare for all — children
at the table and dogs under it; that in and with Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and David, all nations were blessed in Israel's King and
Messiah. And so it was, that the Lord said it: '0 woman, great is
thy faith: be it done unto thee even as thou wilt.' Or, as St. Mark
puts it, not quoting the very sound of the Lord's words, but their
impression upon Peter: 'For this saying go thy way; the devil is
gone out of thy daughter. ' 1 ' And her daughter was healed from
that hour.'" ' And she went away unto her house, and found her
daughter prostrate [indeed] upon the bed, and [but] the demon gone
out.' To us there is in this history even more than the solemn interest
of Christ's compassion and mighty Messianic working, or the lessons
of His teaching. We view it in connection with the scenes of the
previous few days, and see how thoroughly it accords with them in
spirit, thus recognising the deep internal unity of Christ's Words
and Works, where least, perhaps, we might have looked for such
harmony. And again we view it in its deeper bearing upon, and
lessons to, all times. To how many, not only of all nations and con
ditions, but in all states of heart and mind, nay, in the very lowest
depths of conscious guilt and alienation from God, must this
have brought unspeakable comfort, the comfort of truth, and the
comfort of His Teaching. Be it so, an outcast, ' dog; ' not at the
table, but under the table. Still we are at His Feet; it is our
Master's Table; He is our Master; and, as He breaks the children's
bread, it is of necessity that ' the children's crumbs ' fall to us —
enough, quite enough, and to spare. Never can we be outside His
reach, nor of that of His gracious care, and of sufficient provision
to eternal life.
Yet this lesson also must we learn, that as ' heathens ' we may
not call on Him as ' David's Son,' till we know why we so call Him.
If there can be no despair, no being cast out by Him, no absolute
distance that hopelessly separates from His Person and Provision,
there must be no presumption, no forgetfulness of the right relation, no
expectancy of magic-miracles, no viewing of Christ as a Jewish Messiah.

1 Canon Cook (Speaker's Coram . on St.
Mark vii. 26) regards this ' as one of the
very few instances in which our Lord's
words really differ in the two accounts.'

With all deference. I venture to think it
is not so, but that St. Mark gives what
St. Peter had received as the impression
of Christ's; words on his mind.

LESSONS OF THIS MIRACLE. 43
We must learn it, and painfully, first by His silence, then by this, CHAP.
that He is only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, what we xxxni
are and where we are — that we may be prepared for the grace of God v— -v— '
and the gift of grace. All men — Jews and Gentiles, ' children ' and
' dogs ' — are as before Christ and God equally undeserving and equally
sinners, but those who have fallen deep can only learn that they are
sinners by learning that they are great sinners, and will only taste of
the children's bread when they have felt, ' Yea, Lord,' ' for even the
dogs ' ' under the table eat of the children's crumbs,' ' which fall from
their Master's table. '

44 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

CHAPTER XXXIV.
A GROUP OF MIRACLES AMONG A SEMI-HEATHEN POPULATION.
(St. Matt. xv. 29-31; St. Mark vii. 31-37; St. Mark viii. 22-26; St. Matt. xi. 27-31.)
B00K If even the brief stay of Jesus in that friendly Jewish home by the
III borders of Tyre could not remain unknown, the fame of the healing
— ¦>,  ¦ of the Syro-Phcenician maiden would soon have rendered impossible
that privacy and retirement, which had been the chief object of His
leaving Capernaum. Accordingly, when the two Paschal days were
ended, He resumed His journey, extending it far beyond any pre
viously undertaken, perhaps beyond what had been originally in
tended. The borders of Palestine proper, though not of what the
Rabbis reckoned as belonging to it,1 were passed. Making a long
circuit through the territory of Sidon,2 He descended — probably
through one of the passes of the Hermon range — into the country of
the Tetrarch Philip. Thence He continued ' through the midst of
the borders of Decapolis, ' till He once more reached the eastern, or
south-eastern, shore of the Lake of Galilee. It will be remembered
that the Decapolis, or confederacy of ' the Ten Cities, ' 3 was wedged
in between the Tetrarchies of Philip and Antipas. It embraced ten
cities, although that was not always their number, and their names
are variously enumerated. Of these cities Hippos, on the south
eastern shore of the Lake, was the most northern, and Philadelphia,
the ancient Rabbath-Ammon, the most southern. Scythopolis, the
ancient Beth-Shean, with its district, was the only one of them on
the western bank of the Jordan. This extensive ' Ten Cities '
district was essentially heathen territory. Their ancient monuments
show, in which of them Zeus, Astarte, and Athene, or else Artemis,
1 For the Rabbinic views of the boun- Saviour's route, but (with Ewald and
daries of Palestine see ' Sketches of Lange) the territory of Sidon.
Jewish Social Life,' ch. ii. 3 The fullest notice of the ' Ten Cities '
2 The correct reading of St. Mark vii. is that of Caspar/', Chronolog. Geogr.
31, is ' through Sidon.' By the latter I Einl. pp. 83-91, with which compare
do not understand the town of that name, Menke's Bibel- Atlas, Map V.
which would have been quite outside the

HEALING OF THE DEAF AND DUMB.

45

Hercules, Dionysos, Demeter, or other Grecian divinities, were wor- CHAP.
shipped.1 Their political constitution was that of the free Greek XXXIV
cities. They Avere subject only to the Governor of Syria, and formed v — t  '
part of Ccele-Syria, in contradistinction to Syro-Phcenicia. Their pri
vileges dated from the time of Pompey, from which also they after
wards reckoned their era.
It is important to keep in view that, although Jesus was now
within the territory of ancient Israel, the district and all the
surroundings were essentially heathen, although in closest proximity
to, and intermingling with, that which was purely Jewish. St. Mat
thew" gives only a general description of Christ's activity there, "St. Matt.
concluding with a notice of the impression produced on those who
witnessed His mighty deeds, as leading them to glorify ' the God of
Israel. ' This, of course, confirms the impression that the scene is
laid among a population chiefly heathen, and agrees with the more
minute notice of the locality in the Gospel of St. Mark. One special
instance of miraculous healing is recorded in the latter, not only from
its intrinsic interest, but perhaps, also, as in some respects typical.
1. Among those brought to Him was one deaf, whose speech had,
probably in consequence of this, been so affected as practically to
deprive him of its power.2 This circumstance, and that he is not
spoken of as so afflicted from his birth, leads us to infer that the
affection was — as not unfrequently — the result of disease, and not
congenital. Remembering, that alike the subject of the miracle
and they who brought him were heathens, but in constant and close
contact with Jews, what follows is vividly true to life. The entreaty
to ' lay His Hand upon him ' was heathen, and yet semi-Jewish also.
Quite peculiar it is, when the Lord took him aside from the multitude;
and again that, in healing him, ' He spat, ' applying it directly to the
diseased organ. We read of the direct application of saliva only here
and in the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida." 3 We are disposed b st. Mark
to regard this as peculiar to the healing of Gentiles. Peculiar, also, T'
is the term expressive of burden on the mind, when, ' looking up to
heaven, He sighed.'4 Peculiar, also, is the 'thrusting'5 of His
Fingers into the man's ears, and the touch of his tongue. Only
1 Comp. Schilrer, pp. 382, 383. 3 In St. John ix. 6 it is really applica-
° juoyiXdXoi or jxoyyiXaXoi does tion of clay.
not mean one absolutely dumb. It is liter- 4 areva'^oo occurs only here in the
ally: dffflculter loquens. The Rabbinic Gospels. Otherwise it occurs in Rom.
designation of such a person would have viii. 23; 2 Cor. v. 2, 4; Hebr. xiii. 17;
been Cheresh (Ter. i. 2) although differ- James v. 9 ; the substantive in Acts vii.
ent opinions obtain as to whether the 34; Rom, viii. 26.
term includes impediment of speech 5 So literally.
(comp. Meg. ii. 4; Gitt. 71 a).

46

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. Mark
vii. 31-37

b Shabb.
108 6;
Pliny, H. N.
xxviii. 7;
Suet.Veap. 7

the upward look to Heaven and the command 'Ephphatha' — 'be
opened ' — seem the same as in His every day wonders of healing. But
we mark that all here seems much more elaborate than in Israel. The
reason of this must, of course, be sought in the moral condition
of the person healed. Certain characteristics about the action of the
Lord may, perhaps, help us to understand it better. There is an accu
mulation of means, yet each and all inadequate to effect the purpose,
but all connected with His Person. This elaborate use of such means
would banish the idea of magic; it would arouse the attention, and
fix it upon Christ, as using these means, which were all connected with
His own person ; while, lastly, the sighing, and the word of absolute
command, would all have here their special significance.
Let us try to realize the scene. They have heard of Him as the
wonder-worker, these heathens in the land so near to, and yet so
far from, Israel; and they have brought to Him 'the lame, blind,
dumb, maimed,1 and many others,' and laid them at His Feet. Oh,
what wonder ! All disease vanishes in presence of Heaven's Own Life
Incarnate. Tongues long weighted are loosed, limbs maimed or bent
by disease ' are restored to health, the lame are stretched straight;
the film of disease and the paralysis of nerve-impotence pass from
eyes long insensible to the light. It is a new era — Israel conquers
the heathen world, not by force, but by love; not by outward means,
but by the manifestation of life-power from above. Truly, this is
the Messianic conquest and reign: ' and they glorified the God of
Israel. '
From amongst this mass of misery we single out and follow one,"
whom the Saviour takes aside, that it may not merely be the breath
of heaven's spring passing over them all, that wooeth him to new
life, but that He may touch and handle him, and so give health to
soul and body. The man is to be alone with Christ and the disciples.
It is not magic; means are used, and such as might not seem wholly
strange to the man. And quite a number of means! He thrust His
Fingers into his deaf ears, as if to make a way for the sound: He
spat on his tongue, using a means of healing accepted in popular
opinion of Jew and Gentile;"2 He touched his tongue. Each act
seemed a fresh incitement to his faith— and all connected itself with

1 KvXXoS means here incurvatus,
and not as in ix. 43 inutilatus.
2 Wiinsche (ad. loc.) is guilty of se
rious misapprehension when he says that
the Talmud condemns to eternal punish
ment those who employ this mode of
healing. This statement is incorrect.

What it condemns is the whispering of
magical formulas over a wound (Sanh.
90 a), when it was the custom of some
magicians to spit before (Sanh. 101 a), of
others after pronouncing the formula
(Jer. Sanh. 28 b). There is no analogy
whatever between this and what our

'HE HATH DONE ALL THINGS WELL.' 47
the Person of Christ. As yet there was not breath of life in it all. CHAP.
But when the man's eyes followed those of the Saviour to heaven, he xxxiv
would understand whence He expected, whence came to Him the power *-—~^< — -*
— Who had sent Him, and Whose He was. And as he followed the move
ment of Christ's lips, as he groaned under the felt burden He had come
to remove, the sufferer would look up expectant. Once more the
Saviour's lips parted to speak the word of command: 'Be opened'" — *iu«9i=
and straightway the gladsome sound would pass into 'his hearing,' l ni*--*>
and the bond that seemed to have held his tongue was loosed. He
was in a new world, into which He had put him that had spoken
that one Word; He, Who had been burdened under the load which He
had lifted up to His Father; to Whom all the means that had been
used had pointed, and with Whose Person they had been connected.
It was in vain to enjoin silence. Wider and wider spread the
unbidden fame, till it was caught up in this one hymn of praise,
which has remained to all time the jubilee of our experience of Christ
as the Divine Healer: 'He hath done all things well — He maketh
even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak. ' This Jewish word,
Ephphatha, spoken to the Gentile Church by Him, Who, looking up
to heaven, sighed under the burden, even while He uplifted it, has
opened the hearing and loosed the bond of speech. Most significantly
was it spoken in the language of the Jews; and this also does it
teach, that Jesus must always have spoken the Jews' language. For,
if ever, to a Grecian in Grecian territory would He have spoken in
Greek, not in the Jews' language, if the former and not the latter
had been that of which He made use in His Words and Working.
2. Another miracle is recorded by St. Mark," as wrought by »st. Mark
' ° viii. 22-26
Jesus in these parts, and, as we infer, on a heathen.2 All the circum
stances are kindred to those just related. It was in Bethsaida-Julias,
Lord did, and the use of saliva for cures not among its inhabitants ten Batlanin
is universally recognised by the Rabbis, (persons who devoted themselves to the
1 So literally, or rather ' hearings ' — in worship and affairs of the Synagogue)
the plural. was to be regarded as a village. The
2 Most commentators regard this as Bethsaida of ver. 22 must refer to the
the eastern Bethsaida, or Bethsaida- district, in one of the hamlets of which
Julias. The objection (in the Speaker's the blind man met Jesus. It does not
Commentary) that the text speaks of appear, that Jesus ever again wrought
' a village ' (vv. 23, 26) is obviated by the miracles, either in Capernaum or the
circumstance that similarly we read im- western Bethsaida, if, indeed, He ever
mediately afterwards (ver. 27) about the returned to that district. Lastly, the
'villages of CaesareaPhilippi.' Indeed, a scene of that miracle must have been
knowledge of Jewish law enables us to the eastern Bethsaida (Julias), since
see-here a fresh proof of the genuineness immediately afterwards the continuance
of the Evangelic narrative. For, accord- of His journey to Csesarea Philippi is
ing to Meg. 3 b the villages about a town related without any notice of crossing
were reckoned as belonging to it, while, the Lake.
on the other hand, a town which had

48

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

¦ Jer.
Shabb. xiv.
4; BabaB.
126 6

•b Jer. Sot.
16 d, about
the middle

0 Comp.
St. Mark
viii. 24
4 ver. 26

» St. Matt.
ix. 27-31

that one blind was brought unto Him, with the entreaty that He
would touch him, — just as in the case of the deaf and dumb. Here,
also, the Saviour took him aside — ' led him out of the village ' — and
' spat on his eyes, and put His Hands upon him. We mark not only
the similarity of the means employed, but the same, and even greater
elaborateness in the use of them, since a twofold touch is recorded
before the man saw clearly.' On any theory— even that which
would regard the Gospel-narratives as spurious — this trait must have
been intended to mark a special purpose, since this is the only
instance in which a miraculous cure was performed gradually, and not
at once and completely. So far as we can judge, the object was, by
a gradual process of healing, to disabuse the man of any idea of
magical cure, while at the same time the process of healing again
markedly centered in the Person of Jesus. With this also agrees (as
in the case of the deaf and dumb) the use of spittle in the healing.
We may here recall, that the use of saliva was a well-known Jewish
remedy for affections of the eyes." It was thus that the celebrated
Rabbi Meir relieved one of his fair hearers, when her husband, in his
anger at her long detention by the Rabbi's sermons, had ordered her
to spit in the preacher's face. Pretending to suffer from his eyes,
the Rabbi contrived that the woman publicly spat in his eyes, thus
enabling her to obey her husband's command." The anecdote at
least proves, that the application of saliva was popularly regarded as
a remedy for affections of the eyes.
Thus in this instance also, as in that of the deaf and dumb, there
was the use of means, Jewish means, means manifestly insufficient
(since their first application was only partially successful), and a
multiplication of means — yet all centering in, and proceeding from,
His Person. As further analogies between the two, we mark that
the blindness does not seem to have been congenital, c but the con
sequence of disease, and that silence was enjoined after the healing. "
Lastly, the confusedness of his sight, when first restored to him,
surely conveyed, not only to him but to us all, both a spiritual lesson
and a spiritual warning.
3. Yet a third miracle of healing requires to be here considered,
although related by St. Matthew in quite another connection."' But
we have learned enough of the structure of the First Gospel to
know, that its arrangement is determined by the plan of the writer
rather than by the chronological succession of events.2 The manner

1 The better reading of the words is
given in the Revised Version.
2 Thus, the healing recorded imme

diately after this history, in St. Matt. ix.
32-35, belongs evidently to a later
period. Comp. St. Luke xi. 14.

HEALING OF THE TWO BLIND MEN. 49
in which the Lord healed the two blind men, the injunction of CHAP.
silence, and the notice that none the less they spread His fame in xxxiv
all that land,1 seem to imply that He was not on the ordinary scene "— >  '
of His labours in Galilee. Nor can we fail to mark an internal
analogy between this and the other two miracles enacted amidst a
chiefly Grecian population. And, strange though it may sound, the
cry with which the two blind men who sought His help followed Him,
' Son of David, have mercy on us,' comes, as might be expected, more
frequently from Gentile than from Jewish lips. It was, of course,
pre-eminently the Jewish designation of the Messiah, the basis of all
Jewish thought of Him. But, perhaps on that very ground, it would
express in Israel rather the homage of popular conviction, than, as in
this case, the cry for help in bodily disease. Besides, Jesus had not
as yet been hailed as the Messiah, except by His most intimate dis
ciples; and, even by them, chiefly in the joy of their highest spiritual
attainments. He was the Rabbi, Teacher, Wonder-worker, Son of
Man. even Son of God; but the idea of the Davidic Kingdom as
implying spiritual and Divine, not outwardly royal rule, lay as yet
on the utmost edge of the horizon, covered by the golden mist of
the Sun of Righteousness in His rising. On the other hand, we can
understand, how to Gentiles, who resided in Palestine, the Messiah of
Israel would chiefly stand out as 'the Son of David.' It was the
most ready, and, at the same time, the most universal, form in which
the great Jewish hope could be viewed by them. It presented to
their minds the most marked contrast to Israel's present fallen state,
and it recalled the Golden Age of Israel's past, and that, as only the
symbol of a far wider and more glorious reign, the fulfilment of what
to David had only been promises.2
Peculiar to this history is the testing question of Christ, whether
they really believed what their petition implied, that He was able to
restore their sight; and, again, His s£ern, almost passionate, insist
ence 3 on their silence as to the mode of their cure. Only on one
other occasion do we read of the same insistence. It is, when the
leper had expressed the same absolute faith in Christ's ability to
1 I admit that especially the latter blind men near Jericho (St. Matt. xx.
argument is inconclusive, but I appeal 30, 31; St. Mark x. 47, 48; St. Luke
to the general context and the setting of xviii, 38, 39), and piroclaimed as such
this history. It is impossible to regard by the people in St. Matt. xii. 23 ; xxi.
St. Matt. ix. as a chronological record of 9, 15.
events. :! eitfipif/do/uai — the word occurs in
2 He is addressed as 'Son of David,' that sense only here and in St. Marki. 43;
in thi3 passage, by the Syro-Phcenician otherwise also in St. Mark xiv. 5, and
woman (St. Matt. xv. 22), and by the in St. John xi. 33, 38.

.50

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. Mark
i. 40, 41

>> St. Mark
1. 45

heal if He willed it, and Jesus had, as in the case of those two blind
men, conferred the benefit by the touch of His Hand." In both these
cases, it is remarkable that, along with strongest faith of those who
came to Him, there was rather an implied than an expressed petition
on their part. The leper who knelt before Him only said: ' Lord, if
Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean;' and the two blind men:
' Have mercy on us, Thou Son of David.' Thus it is the highest
and most realising faith, which is most absolute in its trust and most
reticent as regards the details of its request.
But as regards the two blind men (and the healed leper also), it
is almost impossible not to connect Christ's peculiar insistence on
their silence with their advanced faith. They had owned Jesus as
'the Son of David,' and that, not in the Judaic sense (as by the
Syro-Phcenician woman1), but as able to do all things, even to open
by His touch the eyes of the blind. And it had been done to them,
as it always is — according to their faith. But a profession of faith
so wide-reaching as theirs, and sealed by the attainment of what it
sought, yet scarcely dared to ask, must not be publicly proclaimed.
It would, and in point of fact did, bring to Him crowds which, unable
spiritually to understand the meaning of such a confession, would
only embarrass and hinder, and whose presence and homage would
have to be avoided as much, if not more, than that of open enemies."
For ^confession of the mouth must ever be the outcome of heart-
belief, and the acclamations of an excited Jewish crowd were as in
congruous to the real Character of the Christ, and as obstructive to
the progress of His Kingdom, as is the outward homage of a world
which has not heart-belief in His Power, nor heart-experience of His
ability and willingness to cleanse the leper and to open the eyes of
the blind. Yet the leprosy of Israel and the blindness of the Gentile
world are equally removed by the touch of His Hand at the cry of
faith. The question has been needlessly discussed, 2 whether they were
to praise or blame, who, despite the Saviour's words, spread His fame.
We scarcely know what, or how much, they disobeyed. They could
not but speak of His Person; and theirs was, perhaps, not yet that
higher silence which is content simply to sit at His Feet.

1 It should be borne in mind, that the
country, surroundings, &c, place these
men in a totally different category from
the Syro-Phoenician woman.

2 Roman Catholic writers mostly
praise, while Protestants blame, their
conduct.

CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF THESE EVENTS. 51

CHAPTER XXXT.
THE TWO SABBATH-CONTROVERSIES — THE PLUCKING OF THE EARS OF CORN
BY THE DISCIPLES, AND THE HEALING OF THE MAN WITH THE WITH
ERED HAND.
(St. Matt. xii. 1-21; St. Mark ii. 23— iii. 6; St. Luke vi. 1-11.)
In grouping together the three miracles of healing described in the CHAP.
last chapter, we do not wish to convey that it is certain they had taken XXXV
place in precisely that order. Nor do we feel sure, that they preceded ^— ^r —
what is about to be related. In the absence of exact data, the suc
cession of events and their location must be matter of combination.
From their position in the Evangelic narratives, and the manner in
which all concerned speak and act, we inferred, that they took place
at that particular period and east of the Jordan, in tne Decapolis or
else in the territory of Philip. They differ from the events about to
be related by the absence of the Jerusalem Scribes, who hung on the
footsteps of Jesus. While the Saviour tarried on the borders of Tyre,
and thence passed through the territory of Sidon into the Decapolis
and to the southern and eastern shores of the Lake of Galilee, they
were in Jerusalem at the Passover. But after the two festive days,
which would require their attendance in the Temple, they seem to
have returned to their hateful task. It would not be difficult for
them to discover the scene of such mighty works as His. Accord
ingly, we now find them once more confronting Christ. And the
events about to be related are chronologically distinguished from
those that had preceded, by this presence and opposition of the
Pharisaic party. The contest now becomes more decided and sharp,
and we are rapidly nearing the period when He, Who had hitherto
been chiefly preaching the Kingdom, and healing body and soul, will,
through the hostility of the leaders of Israel, enter on the second, or
prevailingly negative stage of His' Work, in which, according to the
prophetic description, 'they compassed' Him ' about like bees,' but
' are quenched as the Are of thorns. '
Where fundamental principles were so directly contrary, the oc-

52 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK casion for conflict could not be long wanting. Indeed, all that Jesus
Hi taught must have seemed to these Pharisees strangely un-Jewish in
v-^~y-~—- ' .cast and direction, even if not in form and words. But chiefly would
this be the case in regard to that on which, of all else, the Pharisees.
laid most stress, the observance of the Sabbath. On no other sub
ject is Rabbinic teaching more painfully minute and more manifestly
incongruous to its professed object. For, if we rightly apprehend
what underlay the complicated and intolerably burdensome laws and
rules of Pharisaic Sabbath-observance, it was to secure, negatively,
absolute rest from all labour, and, positively, to make the Sabbath a
delight. The Mishnah includes Sabbath-desecration among those
¦ sanh. most heinous crimes for which a man was to be stoned." This, then,
vii. 4 was their first care : by a series of complicated ordinances to make a
breach of the Sabbath-rest impossible. How far this was carried, we
shall presently see. The next object was, in a similarly external
manner, to make the Sabbath a delight. A special Sabbath dress,
the best that could be procured; the choicest food, even though a
man had to work for it all the week, or public charity were to supply
¦> Peah it " — such were some of the means by which the day was to be hon
oured and men to find pleasure therein. The strangest stories are
told, how, by the purchase of the most expensive dishes, the pious
poor had gained unspeakable merit, and obtained, even on earth,
Heaven's manifest reward. And yet, by the side of these and similar
strange and sad misdirections of piety, we come also upon that which
is touching, beautiful, and even spiritual. On the Sabbath there
«mprov.x. must be no mourning, for to the Sabbath applies this saying:0 'The
blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and He addeth no sorrow with
it.' Quite alone was the Sabbath among the measures of time.
Every other day had been paired with its fellow: not so the Sabbath.
And so any festival, even the Day of Atonement, might be transferred
to another day: not so the observance of the Sabbath. Xay, when
the Sabbath complained before God, that of all days it alone stood soli
tary, God had wedded it to Israel ; and this holy union God had bidden
* ex. xx. s His people ' remember, ' a when it stood before the Mount. Even the
»comp. tortures of Gehenna wore intermitted on that holy, happy day/
on arai.ii. 3 The terribly exaggerated views on the Sabbath entertained by
the Rabbis, and the endless burdensome rules with which they
encumbered everything connected with its sanctity, are fully set
forth in another place.' The Jewish Law. as there summarised,
sufficiently explains the controversies in which the Pharisaic party
1 See Appendix XVII: The Ordinances and Law of the Sabbath.

THE 'SECOND-FIRST' SABBATH. 53
now engaged with Jesus. Of these the first was when, going through CHAP.
the cornfields on the Sabbath, His disciples began to pluck and eat XXXV
the ears of corn. Not, indeed, that this was the first Sabbath-con
troversy forced upon Christ." But it was the first time that Jesus
allowed, and afterwards Himself did, in presence of the Pharisees,
what was contrary to Jewish notions, and that, in express and un
mistakable terms, He vindicated His position in regard to the Sabbath.
This also indicates that we have now reached a further stage in the
history of our Lord's teaching.
This, however, is not the only reason for placing this event so
late in the personal history of Christ. St. Matthew inserts it at a
different period from the other two Synoptists; and although St.
Mark and St. Luke introduce it amidst the same surroundings, the
connection, in which it is told in all the three Gospels, shows that it
is placed out of the historical order, with the view of grouping
together what would exhibit Christ's relation to the Pharisees and
their teaching. Accordingly, this first Sabbath-controversy is im
mediately followed by that connected with the healing of the man
with the withered hand. -From St. Matthew and St. Mark it might,
indeed, appear as if this had occurred on the same day as the plucking
of the ears of corn, but St. Luke corrects any possible misunder
standing, by telling us that it happened ' on another Sabbath ' —
perhaps that following the walk through the cornfields.
Dismissing the idea of inferring the precise time of these two
events from their place in the Evangelic record, we have not much
difficulty in finding the needful historical data for our present inquiry.
The first and most obvious is, that the harvest was still standing —
whether that of barley or of wheat. The former began immediately
after, the Passover, the latter after the Feast of Pentecost; the pre
sentation of the wave-omer of barley making the beginning of the
one, that of the two wave-loaves that of the other. ' Here another
historical notice comes to our aid. St. Luke describes the Sabbath
of this occurrence as ' the second-first ' — an expression so peculiar
that it cannot be regarded as an interpolation,2 but as designedly
chosen by the Evangelist to indicate something well understood in
Palestine at the time. Bearing in mind the limited number of
Sabbaths between the commencement of the barley and the end of
the wheat-harvest, our inquiry is here much narrowed. In Rabbi
nic writings the term ' second-first ' is not applied to any Sabbath.
1 Comp. 'The Temple and its Services,' * The great majority of critics are
pp. 222, 226, 230, 231. agreed as to its authenticity.

54

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK HI

a St. John v.

» St. John
11. 13

» St. John
iii. 22;
v. 1-3

But we know that the fifty days between the Feast of Passover and
that of Pentecost were counted from the presentation of the wave-
omer on the Second Paschal Day, at the first, second, third day, &c,
after the ' Omer. ' Thus the ' second-first ' Sabbath might be either
' the first Sabbath after the second day, ' which was that of the pre
sentation of the Omer, or else the second Sabbath after this first day
of reckoning, or 'Sephirah,' as it was called (-)Ki>n DTCD). To us the
first of these dates seems most in accord with the manner in which St.
Luke would describe to Gentile readers the Sabbath which was ' the
first after the second,' or, Sephirah-day.1
Assuming, then, that it was probably the first — possibly, the
second — Sabbath after the 'reckoning,' or second Paschal Day, on
which the disciples plucked the ears of corn, we have still to ascer
tain whether it was in the first or second Passover of Christ's Ministry.2
The reasons against placing it between the first Passover and Pente
cost are of the strongest character. Not to speak of the circumstance
that such advanced teaching on the part of Christ, and such advanced
knowledge on the part of His disciples, indicate a later period, our Lord
did not call His twelve Apostles till long" after the Feast of Pente
cost, viz. after His return from the so-called ' Unknown Feast, ' "
which, as shown in another place,8 must have been either that of
' Wood-Gathering,' in the end of the summer, or else New Year's Day,
in the beginning of autumn. Thus, as by ' the disciples ' we must
in this connection understand, in the first place, 'the Apostles,' the
event could not have occurred between the first Passover and Pente
cost of the Lord's Ministry.
The same result is reached by another process of reasoning.
After the first Passover " our Lord, with such of His disciples as had
then gathered to Him, tarried for some time — no doubt for several
weeks — in Judaea. L The wheat was ripe for harvesting, when He

1 The view which I have adopted is
that of Scaliger and Lightfoot; the alter
native one mentioned, that of Delitzsc'i.
In regard to the many other explanations
proposed, I would lay down this canon:
No explanation can be satisfactory which
rests not on some ascertained fact in
Jewish life, but where the fact is merely
' supposed ' for the sake of the explanation
which it would afford. Thus, there is not
the slightest support in fact for the idea,
that the first Sabbath of the second month
was so called ( Wetstein, Speaker's Com
mentary), or the first Sabbath in the
second year of a septennial cycle, or the

Sabbath of the Nisan (the sacred) year,
in contradistinction to the Tishri or
secular year, which began in autumn.
Of these and similar interpretations it is
enough to say, that the underlying fact
is ' supposed ' for the sake of a 'supposed '
explanation ; in other words, they embody
an hypothesis based on an hypothesis.
2 There were only three Paschal feasts
during the public ministry of Christ.
Any other computation rests on the idea
that the UnknownFeast was the Passover,
or even the Feast of Esther.
3 Comp. Appendix XV.

AFTER THE SECOND PASSOVER IN CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 55
passed through Samaria." And, on His return to Galilee, His dis- chap.
ciples seem to have gone back to their homes and occupations, since xxxv
it was some time afterwards when even His most intimate disciples —
Peter, Andrew, James, and John — were called a second time." Chro
nologically, therefore, there is no room for this event between the
first Passover and Pentecost. L Lastly, we have here to bear in mind,
that, on His first appearance in Galilee, the Pharisees had not yet
taken up this position of determined hostility to Him. On the other
hand, all agrees with the circumstance, that the active hostility of
the Pharisees and Christ's separation from the ordinances of the
Synagogue commenced with His visit 10 Jerusalem in the early-
autumn of that year." If, therefore, we have to place the plucking of °st. jonnv.
the ears of corn after the Feast recorded in St. John v. , as can scarcely
be doubted, it must have taken place, not between the first, but between
the Second Passover and Pentecost of Christ's Public Ministry.
Another point deserves notice. The different ' setting ' (chrono
logically speaking) in which the three Gospels present the event
about to be related, illustrates that the object of the Evangelists
was to present the events in the History of the Christ in their
succession, not of time, but of bearing upon final results. This,
because they do not attempt a Biography of Jesus, which, from their
point of view, would have been almost blasphemy, but a History of
the Kingdom which He brought; and because they write it, so to
speak, not by adjectives (expressive of qualities), nor adverbially,2 but
by substantives. Lastly, it will be noted that the three Evangelists
relate the event about to be considered (as so many others), not,
indeed, with variations,3 but with differences of detail, showing the
independence of their narratives, which, as we shall see, really sup
plement each other.
We are now in a position to examine the narrative itself. It was
on the Sabbath after the Second Paschal Day that Christ and His
disciples passed * — probably by a field-path — through cornfields, when
1 Few would be disposed to place St. who attribute the plucking of the ears to
Matt. xii. before St. Matt. iv. hunger. Canon Cook (Speaker's Com-
2 Adverbs answer to the questions, mentary, New Testament i.p. 216) has to
How, When, Why, Where. my mind, conclusively shown the untena-
3 Meyer insists that the 68bv,Ttoi£iv or bleness of Meyer's contention. He com-
more correctly, 65o7r<K«JV (St.Mark ii.23) pares the expression of St. Mark to the
should be translated literally, that the Latin ' iter facere.' I would suggest the
disciples began to make a way by pluck- French ' chemin faisanV Godet points
ing the ears of corn. Accordingly, he out the absurdity of plucking up' ears in
maintains, that there is an essential differ- order to make away through the corn.
ence between the account of St. Mark i In St. Mark also the better reading
and those of the two other Evangelists, is SiaxopevecrBm.

56.

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. Mat
thew
' St. Mark
« St. Luke
4 Deut
xxiii. 25
' Shabb.
70 a
< Mace. 21 b

e Jer.
Shabb.p. 10 o,
lines 28 to
26 from
bottom

>' Shabb.
142 b, line 6
from bottom

> Shabb.
146 o

His disciples, being hungry," as they went," plucked ears of corn
and ate them, having rubbed off the husks in their hands." On any
ordinary day this would have been lawful, d but on the Sabbath it
involved, according to Rabbinic statutes, at least two sins. For,
according to the Talmud, what was really one labour, would, if made
up of several acts, each of them forbidden, amount to several acts of
labour, each involving sin, punishment, and a sin-offering.01 This
so-called ' division ' of labour applied only to infringement of the
Sabbath-rest — not of that of feast-days/ Now in this case there
were at least two such acts involved: that of plucking the ears of
corn, ranged under the sin of reaping, and that of rubbing them,
which might be ranged under sifting in a sieve, threshing, sifting
out fruit, grinding, or fanning. The following Talmudic passage
bears on this: ' In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it
is considered as sifting; if she rubs the heads of wheat, it is
regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is
sifting out fruit; if she bruises the ears, it is grinding; if she
throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing. ' e One instance will
suffice to show the externalism of all these ordinances. If a man
wished to move a sheaf on his field, which of course implied labour,
he had only to lay upon it a spoon that was in his common use, when,
in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on
which it lay!" And yet it was forbidden to stop with a little wax
the hole in a cask by which the fluid was running out,1 or to wipe a
wound !
Holding views like these, the Pharisees, who witnessed the
conduct of the disciples, would naturally harshly condemn, what they
must have regarded as gross desecration of the Sabbath. Yet it was
clearly not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law. Not
only to show them their error, but to lay down principles which
would for ever apply to this difficult question, was the object of
Christ's reply. Unlike the others of the Ten Commandments, the
Sabbath Law has in it two elements; the moral and the ceremonial:
the eternal, and that which is subject to time and place; the inward
and spiritual, and the outward (the one as the mode of realizing the
other). In their distinction and separation lies the difficulty of the
subject, In its spiritual and eternal element, the Sabbath Law
embodied the two thoughts of rest for worship, and worship which

1 Thus (Shabb. 74 b, lines 12, 11 from
bottom), if a person were to pull out a
feather from the wing of a bird, cut off

the top, and then pluck off the fluffbelow
it would involve three labours and three
sin-offerings.

THE LAW OF SABBATH-REST. 57
pointed to rest. The keeping of the seventh day, and the Jewish chap.
mode of its observance, were the temporal and outward form in XXXV
which these eternal principles were presented. .Even Rabbinism, in v— * -> 
some measure, perceived this. It was a principle, that danger to life
superseded the Sabbath Law,1 and indeed all other obligations.2
Among the curious Scriptural and other arguments by which this
principle was supported, that which probably would most appeal to
common sense was derived from Lev. xviii. 5. It was argued, that
a man was to keep the commandments that he might live — certainly
not, that by so doing he might die." In other words, the outward »jer.
mode of observation was subordinate to the object of the observance. 4, pp. iid!'
15 a
Yet this other and kindred principle did Rabbinism lay down, that
every positive commandment superseded the Sabbath-rest. This
was the ultimate vindication of work in the Temple, although cer
tainly not its explanation. Lastly, we should in this connection,
include this important canon, laid down by the Rabbis: 'a single
Rabbinic prohibition is not to be heeded, where a graver matter is in
question.'" "jer.
All these points must be kept in view for the proper under- xvi. 1 '
standing of the words of Christ to the Scribes. For, while going far
beyond the times and notions of His questioners, His reasoning must
have been within their comprehension. Hence the first argument of
our Lord, as recorded by all the Synoptists, was taken from Biblical
History. When, on his flight from Saul, David had, 'when an
hungered,' eaten of the shewbread, and given it to his followers,8
although, by the letter of the Levitical Law," it was only to be 'eaten °Lev. xxiv.
by the priests, Jewish tradition vindicated his conduct on the plea
that ' danger to life superseded the Sabbath-Law, and hence, all laws
connected with it,4 while, to show David's zeal for the Sabbath-Law,
the legend was added, that he had reproved the priests of Nob, who
had been baking the shewbread on the Sabbath/ To the first ayaikutii. par 130
argument of Christ, St. Matthew adds this as His second, that the P. is a '
priests, in their services in the Temple, necessarily broke the Sabbath-
1 But only where the life of an joined with his father in the priesthood.
Israelite, not of a heathen or Samaritan, Comp. the 'Bible-History,' vol. iv. p.
was in danger (Yoma 84 b). 111.
2 Maimonides, Hilkh. Shabb. ii. 1 * The question discussed in the Talmud
(Yad haCh. vol. i. part iii. p. 141 a): is, whether, supposing an ordinary Israel-
' The Sabbath is set aside on account of ite discharged priestly functions on the
danger' to life, as" all other ordinances Sabbath in the temple, it would involve
("53 ")X2?3 n"i5D~)-' two sins: unlawful service and Sabbath
's According to 1 Sam. xxii. 9 Ahimelech desecration; or only one sin, unlawful
(or Ahijah, 1 Sam. xiv. 3) was the high service.
Priest. We infer, that Abiathar was con-

58

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK HI

a Jer.
Shafcb. ii. 5,
p. 5 a

* Mechilt.
on Ex.
xxxi. 13,
ed. Weiss,
p. 109 b

Law without thereby incurring guilt. It is curious, that the Talmud
discusses this very point, and that, by way of illustration, it intro
duces an argument from Lev. xxii. 10: 'There shall no stranger
eat of things consecrated. ' This, of course, embodies the principle
underlying the prohibition of the shewbread to all who were not
priests." Without entering further on it, the discussion at least
shows, that the Rabbis were by no means clear on the rationale of
Sabbath-work in the Temple.
In truth, the reason why David was blameless in eating the shew
bread was the same as that which made the Sabbath-labour of the
priests lawful. The Sabbath-Law was not one merely of rest, but of
rest for worship. The Service of the Lord was the object in view.
The priests worked on the Sabbath, because this service was the
object of the Sabbath; and David was allowed to eat of the shew
bread, not because there was danger to life from starvation, but
because he pleaded that he was on the service of the Lord and needed
this provision. The disciples, when following the Lord, were simi
larly on the service of the Lord; ministering to Him was more than
ministering in the Temple, for He was greater than the Temple. If
the Pharisees had believed this, they would not have questioned
their conduct, nor in so doing have themselves infringed that higher
Law which enjoined mercy, not sacrifice.
To this St. Mark adds as corollary: 'The Sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath.' It is remarkable, that a similar
argument is used by the Rabbis. When insisting that the Sabbath '
Law should be set aside to avoid danger to life, it is urged: 'the
Sabbath is handed over to you; not, ye are handed over to the
Sabbath. ' " Lastly, the three Evangelists record this as the final out
come of His teaching on this subject, that ' the Son of Man is Lord
of the Sabbath also.' The Service of God, and the Service of the
Temple, by universal consent superseded the Sabbath-Law. But
Christ was greater than the Temple, and His Service more truly that
of God, and higher than that of the outward Temple — and the
Sabbath was intended for man, to serve God: therefore Christ and
His Service were superior to the Sabbath-Law. Thus much would
be intelligible to these Pharisees, although they would not receive it,
because they believed not on Him as the Sent of God.1
But to us the words mean more than this. They preach not only

1 We may here again state, that Cod.
D has this after St. Luke vi. 4: 'The
same day, having beholden a man work

ing on the Sabbath,He said to Him : "Man,
if thou knowest what thou dost, blessed
are thou: but if thou knowest not, thou

THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND. 59
that the Service of Christ is that of God, but that, even more than chap.
in the Temple, all of work or of liberty is lawful which this service xxxv
requires. We are free while we are doing anything for Christ; God ^—^1  '
loves mercy, and demands not sacrifice; His sacrifice is the service of
Christ, in heart, and life, and work. We are not free to do anything
we please; but we are free to do anything needful or helpful, while
we are doing any service to Christ. He is the Lord of the Sabbath,
Whom we serve in and through the Sabbath. And even this is
significant, that, when designating Himself Lord of the Sabbath, it is
as 'the Son of Man.' It shows, that the narrow Judaistic form
regarding the day and the manner of observance is enlarged into the
wider Law, which applies to all humanity. Under the New Testament
the Sabbath has, as the Church, become Catholic, and its Lord is
Christ as the Son of Man, to Whom the body Catholic offers the
acceptable service of heart and life.
The question as between Christ and the Pharisees was not, how
ever, to end here. ' On another Sabbath ' — probably that following
— He was in their Synagogue. Whether or not the Pharisees had
brought ' the man with the withered hand ' on purpose, or placed him
in a conspicuous position, or otherwise raised the question, certain it
is that their secret object was to commit Christ to some word or deed,
which would lay Him open to the capital charge of breaking the
Sabbath-law. It does not appear, whether the man with the withered
hand Was consciously or unconsciously their tool. But in this they
judged rightly: that Christ would not witness disease without
removing it — or, as we might express it, that disease could not
continue in the Presence of Him, Who was the Life. He read their
inward thoughts of evil, and yet he proceeded to do the good which
He purposed. So God, in His majestic greatness, carries out the
purpose which He has fixed — which we call the law of nature — who
ever and whatever stand in the way; and so God, in His sovereign
goodness, adapts it to the good of His creatures, notwithstanding
their evil thoughts.
So much unclearness prevails as to the Jewish views -about heal
ing on the Sabbath, that some connected information on the subject
seems needful. We have already seen, that in their view only actual
danger to life warranted a breach of the Sabbath-Law. But this
art accursed and a transgressor of the as Canon Westcott rightly infers, ' the
Law " ' {Nicholson, Gospel according to saying [probably] rests on some real
the Hebrews, p. 151). It need scarcely incident ' (Introd. to the Study of the
be said, that the words, as placed in St. Gospels, p. 454, note.
Luke, are a spurious addition, although

60

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

• Debar. B.
10
*> Yoma
viii. 6
c Yoma 84 a
a Shabb.
xiv. 3

f Comp.
Shabb. 14 d

t St. Mark
iii. 4
& St. Matt.
xil. 12

opened a large field for discussion. Thus, according to some, disease
of the ear," according to some throat-disease," while, according to
others, such a disease as angina," involved danger, and superseded
the Sabbath-Law. All applications to the outside of the body were
forbidden on the Sabbath. As regarded internal remedies, such
substances as were used in health, but had also a remedial effect,
might be taken, d although here also there was a way of evading
the Law.1 A person suffering from toothache might not gargle
his mouth with vinegar, but he might use an ordinary toothbrush
and dip it in vinegar." The Gemara here adds, that gargling was
lawful, if the substance was afterwards swallowed. It further ex
plains, that affections extending from the lips, or else from the
throat, inwards, may be attended to, being regarded as dangerous.
Quite a number of these are enumerated, showing, that either the
Rabbis were very lax in applying their canon about mortal dis
eases, or else that they reckoned in their number not a few which
we would not regard as such/ External lesions also might be at
tended to, if they involved danger to life/ Similarly, medical aid
might be called in, if a person had swallowed a piece of glass; a
splinter might be removed from the eye, and even a thorn from the
body.' But although the man with the withered hand could not be
classed with those dangerously ill, it could not have been difficult to
silence the Rabbis on their own admissions. Clearly, their principle
implied, that it was lawful on the Sabbath to do that which would
save life or prevent death. To have taught otherwise, would virtually
have involved murder. But if so, did it not also, in strictly logical
sequence, imply this far wider principle, that it must be lawful to
do good on the Sabbath? For, evidently, the omission of such good
would have involved the doing of evil. Could this be the proper
observance of God's holy day? There was no answer to such an
argument; St. Mark expressly records that they dared not attempt a
reply. g On the other hand, St. Matthew, while alluding to this
terribly telling challenge," records yet another and a personal
argument. It seems that Christ publicly appealed to them: If any

1 Thus, when a Rabbi was consulted,
whether a man might on the Sabbath
take a certain drink which had a purga
tive effect, he answered: ' If for pleasure
it is lawful; if for healing forbidden'
(Jer. Shabb. 14 c).
2 Thus one of the Rabbis regarded
fcetor of the breath as possibly dangerous

(u. s. 14 d).
3 Displacement of the frontal bone,
disease of the nerves leading from the
ear to the upper jaw, an eye starting
from its socket, severe inflammations,
and swelling wounds, are specially men
tioned.

'IS IT LAWFUL TO HEAL ON THE SABBATH DAY?' 61
poor man among them, who had one sheep, were in danger of losing chap.
it through having fallen into a pit, would he not lift it out? To be XXXV
sure, the Rabbinic Law ordered that food and drink should be lowered ' — -<—
to it, or else that some means should be furnished by which it might
either be kept up in the-pit, or enabled to come out of it." But even »shabb.
the Talmud discusses cases in which it was lawful to lift an animal 128 ''
out of a pit on a Sabbath/ There could be no doubt, at any rate, tshabb.
that even if the Law was, at the time of Christ, as stringent as in the the middle
Talmud, a man would have found some device, by which to recover
the solitary sheep which constituted his possession. And was not
the life of a human being to be more accounted of ? Surely, then,
on the Sabbath-day it was lawful to do good? Yes — to do good, and
to neglect it, would have been to do evil. Nay, according to their
own admission, should not a man, on the Sabbath, save life? or
should he, by omitting it, kill?
We can now imagine the scene in that Synagogue. The place is
crowded. Christ probably occupies a prominent position as leading
the prayers or teaching : a position whence He can see, and be seen
by all. Here, eagerly bending forward, are the dark faces of the
Pharisees, expressive of curiosity, malice, cunning. They are looking
round at a man whose right hand is withered," perhaps putting him „gt. Luke
forward, drawing attention to him, loudly whispering, ' Is it lawful
to heal on the Sabbath-day? ' The Lord takes up the challenge.
He bids the man stand forth — right in the midst of them, where they
might all see and hear. By one of those telling appeals, which go
straight to the conscience, He puts the analogous case of a poor man
who was in danger of losing his only sheep on the Sabbath: would'
he not rescue it; and was not a man better than a sheep? Nay, did
they not themselves enjoin a breach of the Sabbath-Law to save
human life? Then, must He not do so; might He not do good'
rather than evil?
They were speechless. But a strange mixture of feeling was in
the Saviour's heart — strange to us, though it is but what Holy
Scripture always tells us of the manner in which God views sin and
the sinner, using terms, which, in their combination, seem grandly
incompatible: ' And when He had looked round about on them with
anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart. It was but
for a moment, and then, with life-giving power, He bade the man
stretch forth his hand. Withered it was no longer, when the Word
had been spoken, and a new sap, a fresh life had streamed into it, as,
following the Saviour's Eye and Word, he slowly stretched it forth.

vi. 6

62

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK HI

• St. Luke
vi. 11

And as He stretched it forth, his hand was restored.1 The Saviour
had broken their Sabbath-Law, and yet He had not broken it, for
neither by remedy, nor touch, nor outward application had He healed
him. He had broken the Sabbath-rest, as God breaks it, when He
sends, or sustains, or restores life, or does good: all unseen and
unheard, without touch or outward application, by the Word of His
Power, by the Presence of His Life.
But who after this will say, that it was Paul who first introduced
into the Church either the idea that the Sabbath-Law in its Jewish
form was no longer binding, or this, that the narrow forms of Judaism
were burst by the new wine of that Kingdom, which is that of the
Son of Man?
They had all seen it, this miracle of almost new creation. As He
did it, He had been filled with sadness : as they saw it, ' they were
filled with madness. ' " So their hearts were hardened. They could
not gainsay; but they went forth and took counsel with the Herodians
against Him, how they might destroy Him. Presumably, then, He
was within, or quite close by, the dominions of Herod, east of the
Jordan. And the Lord withdrew once more, as it seems to us, into
Gentile territory, probably that of the Decapolis. For, as He went
about healing all, that needed it, in that great multitude that followed
His steps, yet enjoining silence on them, this prophecy of Isaiah
blazed into fulfilment: ' Behold My Servant, Whom I have chosen,
My Beloved, in Whom My soul is well-pleased: I will put My Spirit
upon Him, and He shall declare judgment to the Gentiles. He shall
not strive nor cry aloud, neither shall any hear His Voice in the
. streets. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He
not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory. And in His
Name shall the Gentiles trust.'
And in His Name shall the Gentiles trust. Far out into the
silence of those solitary upland hills of the Gentile world did the call,
unheard and unheeded in Israel, travel. He had other sheep which
were not of that fold. And down those hills, from the far-off lands,
does the sound of the bells, as it comes nearer and nearer, tell that
those other sheep, which are not of this fold, are gathering at His call
to the Good Shepherd; and through these centuries, still louder and
more manifold becomes this sound of nearing bells, till they shall all
be gathered into one: one flock, one fold, one Shepherd.

1 The tense indicates, that it was re
stored as he stretched it out. And this
is spiritually significant. According to
St. Jerome (Comm. in Matt. xii. 13), in
the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebion-

ites this man was described as a mason,
and that he had besought Jesus to restore
him, so that he might not have to beg
for his bread.

THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND. g3

CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND — TO DALMANUTHA  'THE SIGN
FROM HEAVEN '  JOURNEY TO CiESAREA PHILIPPI  WHAT IS THE
LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES?
(St. Matt. xv. 32— xvi. 12; St. Mark viii. 1-21.)
They might well gather to Jesus in their thousands, with their wants CHAP.
of body and soul, these sheep wandering without a shepherd; for His XXXVi
Ministry in that district, as formerly in Galilee, was about to draw v— ~ "v~ —
to a close. And here it is remarkable, that each time His prolonged
stay and Ministry in a district were brought to a close with some
supper, so to speak, some festive entertainment on his part. The
Galilean Ministry had closed with the feeding of the five thousand,
the guests being mostly from Capernaum and the towns around, as
far as Bethsaida (Julias), many in the number probably on their way
to the Paschal feast at Jerusalem.1 But now at the second provision
for the four thousand, with which His Decapolis Ministry closed, the
guests were not strictly Jews, but semi-Gentile inhabitants of that
district and its neighbourhood. Lastly, his Judsean Ministry closed
with the Last Supper. At the first ' Supper, ' the Jewish guests
would fain have proclaimed Him Messiah- King; at the second, as
' the Son of Man, ' He gave food to those Gentile multitudes which
having been with Him those days, and consumed all their victuals
during their stay with him, He could not send away fasting, lest they
should faint by the way. And on the last occasion, as the true Priest
and Sacrifice, He fed His own with the true Paschal Feast, ere
He sent them forth alone into the wilderness. Thus these three
' Suppers ' seem connected, each leading up, as it were, to the other.
There can, at any rate, be little doubt that this second feeding
of the multitude took place in the Gentile Decapolis, and that those
who sat down to the meal were chiefly the inhabitants of that dis
trict/ If it be lawful, departing from strict history, to study the
1 Comp. ch. xxix. of this Book. Comp. Bp. Ellicotfs Histor. Lect. pp.
2 This appears from the whole context. 220, 221, and notes.

64 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK symbolism of this event, as compared with the previous feeding of
in the five thousand who were Jews, somewhat singular differences will
'  y — present themselves to the mind. On the former occasion there were
five thousand fed with five loaves, when twelve baskets of fragments
were left. On the second occasion, four thousand were fed from
seven loaves, and seven baskets of fragments collected. It is at least
curious, that the number five in the provision for the Jews is that of
the Pentateuch, just as the number twelve corresponds to that of the
tribes and of the Apostles. On the other hand, in the feeding of the
Gentiles we mark the number four, which is the signature of the
world, and seven, which is that of the Sanctuary. We would not by
any means press it, as if these were, in the telling of the narrative,
designed coincidences; but, just because they are undesigned, we
value them, feeling that there is more of undesigned symbolism in
all God's manifestations — in nature, in history, and in grace — than
meets the eye of those who observe the merely phenomenal. Nay,
does it not almost seem, as if all things were cast in the mould
of heavenly realities, and all earth's ' shewbread ' .Bread of His
Presence ' ?
On all general points the narratives of the two-fold miraculous
feeding run so parallel, that it is not necessary again to consider this
event in detail. But the attendant circumstances are so different,
that only the most reckless negative criticism could insist, that one
and the same event had been presented by the Evangelists as two
separate occasions.1 The broad lines of difference as to the number
of persons, the provision, and the quantity of fragments left, cannot
be overlooked. Besides, on the former occasion the repast was pro
vided in the evening for those who had gone after Christ, and listened
to Him all day, but who, in their eager haste, had come without
victuals, when He would not dismiss them faint and hungry, because
they had been so busy for the Bread of Life that they had forgotten
that of earth. But on this second occasion, of the feeding of the
Gentiles, the multitude had been three days with Him, and what
sustenance they had brought must have failed, when, in His com
passion, the Saviour would not send them to their homes fasting,
lest they should faint by the way. This could not have befallen those
Gentiles, who had come to the Christ for food to their souls. And,
it must be kept in view, that Christ dismissed them, not, as before,
because they would have made Him their King, but because Him-
1 For a summary of the great differ- Bp. Ellicott, u. s. pp. 221, 222. The state-
ences between the two miracles, comp. ments of Meyer ad loc. are unsatisfactory.

DIFFERENCES OF FIRST AND SECOND MIRACULOUS FEEDING. 65
self was about to depart from the place; and that, sending them CHAP.
to their homes, He could not send them to faint by the way. Yet XXXVI
another marked difference lies even in the designation of ' the '  r— '
baskets ' in which the fragments left were gathered. At the first
feeding, there were, as the Greek word shows, the small wicker-
baskets which each of the Twelve would carry in his hand. At the
second feeding they were the large baskets, in which provisions,
chiefly bread, were stored or carried for longer voyages.1 For, on the
first occasion, when they passed into Israelitish territory — and, as
they might think, left their home for a very brief time — there was
not the same need to make provision for storing necessaries as on
the second, when they were on a lengthened journey, and passing
through, or tarrying in Gentile territory.
But the most noteworthy difference seems to us this — that on
the first occasion, they who were fed were Jews — on the second,
Gentiles. There is an exquisite little trait in the narrative which
affords striking, though utterly undesigned, evidence of it. In refer
ring to the blessing which Jesus spake over the first meal, it was
noted,2 that, in strict accordance with Jewish custom, He only
rendered thanks once, over the bread. But no such custom would
rule His conduct when dispensing the food to the Gentiles; and,
indeed, His speaking the blessing only over the bread, while He was
silent when distributing the fishes, would probably have given rise
to misunderstanding. Accordingly, we find it expressly stated that
He not only gave thanks over the bread, but also spake the blessing
over the fishes." Nor should we, when marking such undesigned
evidences, omit to notice, that on the first occasion, which was imme
diately before the Passover, the guests were, as three of the Evan
gelists expressly state, ranged on ' the grass, ' " while, on the present

viii. 6, 7

' " while, on the present * st. Matt.
occasion, which must have been several weeks later, when in the st- Mark
East the grass would be burnt up, we are told by the two Evangelists Jolin Tl- 10
that they sat on ' the ground.' 3 Even the difficulty, raised by some,
as to the strange repetition of the disciples' reply, the outcome, in
part, of non-expectancy, and, hence, non-belief, and yet in part
also of such doubt as tends towards faith: ' Whence should we have,
1 The KO<pivoi (St. Matt. xiv. 20) was makes it more marked is, that the dis-
the small handbasket (see ch. xxix), while tinction of the two words is kept up in
the o-itvpli (the term used at the feed- the reference to the two miracles (St.
ing of the four thousand) is the large pro- Matt. xvi. 9, 10).
vision-basket or hamper, such as that in 2 See ch. xxix.
which St. Paul was let down over the 3 Literally, ' upon the earth.'
wall at Damascus (Acts ix. 25). What

66 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK in a solitary place,' so many loaves as to fill so great a multitude?'
ill seems to us only confirmatory of the narrative, so psychologically
^— - y— — ' true is it. There is no need for the ingenious apology,2 that, in the
remembrance and tradition of the first and second feeding, the simi
larity of the two events had led to greater similarity in their narra
tion than the actual circumstances would perhaps have warranted.
Interesting thoughts are here suggested by the remark,3 that it is
not easy to transport ourselves into the position and feelings of those
who had witnessed such a miracle as that of the first feeding of the
multitude. 'We think of the Power as inherent, and, therefore,
permanent. To them it might seem intermittent — a gift that came
and went. ' And this might seem borne out by the fact that, ever
since, their wants had been supplied in the ordinary way, and that,
even on the first occasion, they had been directed to gather up the
fragments of the heaven-supplied meal.
But more than this requires to be said. First, we must here
once more remind ourselves, that the former provision was for Jews,
and the disciples might, from their standpoint, well doubt, or at least
not assume, that the same miracle would supply the need of the
Gentiles, and the same board be surrounded by Jew and Gentile.
But, further, the repetition of the same question by the disciples
really indicated only a sense of their own inability, and not a doubt
of the Saviour's power of supply, since on this occasion it was not,
as on the former, accompanied by a request on their part, to send
the multitude away. Thus the very repetition of the question might
be a humble reference to the past, of which they dared not, in the
circumstances, ask the repetition.
Yet, even if it were otherwise, the strange forgetfulness of Christ's
late miracle on the part of the disciples, and their strange repetition
of the self-same question which had once — and, as it might seem to
us, for ever — been answered by wondrous deed, need not surprise
us. To them the miraculous on the part of Christ must ever have
been the new, or else it would have ceased to be the miraculous.
Nor did they ever fully realise it, till after His Resurrection they
understood, and worshipped Him as God Incarnate. And it is only
realising faith of this, which it was intended gradually to evolve
during Christ's Ministry on earth, that enables us to apprehend the
Divine Help as, so to speak, incarnate and ever actually present in
Christ. And yet even thus, how often we do, who have so believed
1 The word epy/iia means a specially lonely place. 2 Of Bleek.
3 By Dean Plumptre, ad loc.

DALMANUTHA.

67

in Him, forget the Divine provision which has come to us so lately, chap.
and repeat, though perhaps not with the same doubt, yet with the XXXVI
same want of certainty, the questions with which we had at first met '  > 
the Saviour's challenge of our faith. And even at the last it is
met, as by the prophet, in sight of the apparently impossible, by:
'Lord, Thou knowest.'" More frequently, alas ! is it met by non- »Ezek.
belief, misbelief, disbelief, or doubt, engendered by misunderstanding XXXTi1, 3
or forgetfulness of that which past experience, as well as the know
ledge of Him, should long ago have indelibly written on our minds.
On the occasion referred to in the preceding narrative, those who
had lately taken counsel together agains't Jesus — the Pharisees and
the Herodians, or, to put it otherwise, the Pharisees and Sadducees
— were not present. For, those who, politically speaking, were
' Herodians, ' might also, though perhaps not religiously speaking, yet
from the Jewish standpoint of St. Matthew, be designated as, or else
include, Sadducees.1 But they were soon to reappear on the scene,
as Jesus came close to the Jewish territory of Herod. We suppose
the feeding of the multitude to have taken place in the Decapolis,
and probably on, or close to, the Eastern shore of the Lake of
Galilee. As Jesus sent away the multitude whom He had fed, He
took ship with His disciples, and ' came into the borders of Maga
dan,'"2©^ as St. Mark puts it, 'the parts of Dalmanutha.' 'The "st. Matt.
borders of Magadan ' must evidently refer to the same district as
' the parts of Dalmanutha.' The one may mark the extreme point of
the district southwards, the other northwards — or else, the points
west 3 and east — in the locality where He and His disciples landed.
This is, of course, only a suggestion, since neither ' Magadan, ' nor
' Dalmanutha, ' has been indentified. This only we infer, that the place
was close to, yet not within the boundary of, strictly Jewish territory;
since on His arrival there the Pharisees are said to ' come forth ' c — a ^Jt. Mark
word ' which implies, that they resided elsewhere, ' 4 though, of course,
in the neighbourhood. Accordingly, we would seek Magadan south
of the Lake of Tiberias, and near to the borders of Galilee, but within
the Decapolis. Several sites bear at present somewhat similar names.
In regard to the strange and un-Jewish name of Dalmanutha, such
utterly unlikely conjectures have been made, that one based on ety-
1 Compare, however, vol. i. pp. 238, 3 It has been ingeniously suggested,
240, and Book V. ch. iii. Where the poli- that Magadan might represent a Megiddo,
tical element was dominant, the religious being a form intermediate between the
distinction might not be so clearly Hebrew Megiddon and the Asyrian
marked. Magadu.
2 It need scarcely be said that the best * Canon Cook in the 'Speaker's Corn-
reading is Magadan, not Magdala. mentary,' ad loc.

68 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK mology may be hazarded. If we take from Dalmanutha the Aramaic
ill termination -utha, and regard the initial de a.s a prefix, we have the
"¦—" -v— ' word Laman, Limin, or Liminah (p?, ytyy, n;*S? =\i}xr]v), which,
in Rabbinic Hebrew, means a bay, or port, and Dalmanutha might
have been the place of a small bay. Possibly, it was the name given to
the bay close to the ancient Tarichcea, the modern Keralc, so terribly
famous for a sea-fight, or rather a horrible butchery of poor fugitives,
when Tarichasa was taken by the Romans in the great Jewish war.
Close by, the Lake forms a bay (Laman), and if, as a modern writer
asserts,1 the fortress of Tarichasa was surrounded by a ditch fed by
the Jordan and the Lake, so' that the fortress could be converted into
an island, we see additional reason for the designation of Lamanuiha.1
It was from the Jewish territory of Galilee, close by, that the
Pharisees now came ' with the Sadducees ' tempting Him with
questions, and desiring that His claims should be put to the ulti
mate arbitrament of ' a sign from heaven. ' We can quite understand
such a challenge on the part of Sadducees, who would disbelieve
the heavenly Mission of Christ, or, indeed, to use a modern term,
any supra-naturalistic connection between' heaven and earth. But,
in the mouth of the Pharisees also, it had a special meaning.
Certain supposed miracles had been either witnessed by, or testified
to them, as done by Christ. As they now represented it — since Christ
laid claims which, in their view, were inconsistent with the doctrine
received in Israel, preached a Kingdom quite other than that of
Jewish expectancy — was at issue with all Jewish customs — more than
this, was a breaker of the Law, in its most important commandments,
as they understood them — it followed that, according to Deut. xiii.,
He was a false prophet, who was not to be listened to. Then, also,
must the miracles which He did have been wrought by the power of
Beelzebul, ' the lord of idolatrous worship, ' the very prince of devils.
But had there been real signs, and might it not all have been an
illusion? Let Him show them 'a sign,'3 and let that sign come
direct from heaven!
Two striking instances from Rabbinic literature will show, that
this demand of the Pharisees was in accordance with their notions
and practice. We read that, when a certain Rabbi was asked by his
disciples about the time of Messiah's Coming, he replied: 'I am
1 Sepp, ap. Bottger, Topogr. Lex. zu by analogous instances, be n*X (Oth), and
Fl. Josephus, p. 240. not p»C \Siman), as Wiinsche suggests,
2 Bearing in mind that Tarichsea was even though the word is formed from the
the chief depot for salting the fish for Greek ai^neiov. But the Rabbinic Siman
export, the disciples may have had some seems to me to have a different shade of
connections with the place. meaning.
3 The word here used would, to judge

THE SIGN FROM HEAVEN. 69
afraid that you will also ask me for a sign. ' When they promised CHAP.
they would not do so, he told them that the gate of Rome would fall XXXVI
and be rebuilt, and fall again, when there would not be time to "— ~ v~ —
restore it, ere the Son of David came. On this they pressed him,
despite his remonstrance, for ' a sign, ' when this was given them —
that the waters which issued from the cave of Pamias were turned
into blood/1 Again, as regards 'a sign from heaven,' it is said that Jf^i,^
Rabbi Eliezer, when his teaching was challenged, successively ap
pealed to certain ' signs. ' First, a locust-tree moved at his bidding
one hundred, or, according to some, four hundred cubits. Next, the
channels of water were made to flow backwards; then the walls of
the Academy leaned forward, and were only arrested at the bidding
of another Rabbi. Lastly, Eliezer exclaimed : ' If the Law is as I
teach, let it be proved from heaven! ' when a voice fell from the sky
(the Bath Qol): 'What have ye to do with Rabbi Eliezer, for the
Halakhah is as he teaches? ' " 'Met.b59 b,
It was, therefore, no strange thing, when the Pharisees asked of i0p6&Jrom
Jesus ' a sign from heaven, ' to attest His claims and teaching. The
answer which He gave was among the most solemn which the leaders
of Israel could have heard, and He spake it in deep sorrow of spirit."
They had asked Him virtually for some sign of His Messiahship;
some striking vindication from heaven of His claims. It would be
given them only too soon. We have already seen,2 that there was a
Coming of Christ in His Kingdom — a vindication of His kingly claim
before His apostate rebellious subjects, when they who would not have
Him to reign over them, but betrayed and crucified Him, would have
their commonwealth and city, their polity and Temple, destroyed. By
the lurid light of the flames of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary were the
words on the cross to be read again. God would vindicate His claims
by laying low the pride of their rebellion. The burning of Jerusalem
was God's answer to the Jews' cry, 'Away with Him — we have no king
but Csesar;' the thousands of crosses on which the Romans hanged
their captives, the terrible counterpart of the Cross on Golgotha.
It was to this, that Jesus referred in His reply to the Pharisees
and ' Sadducean ' Herodians. How strange! Men could discern by the
appearance of the sky whether the day would be fair or stormy/
1 However, this (and, for that matter, St. Matt. xvi. 2, beginning ' When it is
the next Haggadah also) may have been evening,' to the end of ver. 3, most
intended to be taken in an allegoric or critics are agreed that it should be re-
parabolic sense, though there is no hint tained. But the words in italics in vv. 2
given to that effect, and 3 should be left out, so as to mark
2 See ch. xxvii. vol. i. p. 647. exclamations.
3 Although some of the best MSS. omit

° St. Mark
viii. 12

10

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. Mark
viii. 12
b St. Luke
xix. 41-14

« St. John
vii.

And yet, when all the signs of the gathering storm, that would de
stroy their city and people, were clearly visible, they, the leaders of
the people, failed to perceive them! Israel asked for ' a sign ' ! No
sign should be given the doomed land and city other than that which
had been given to Nineveh: ' the sign of Jonah.' 1 The only sign to
Nineveh was Jonah's solemn warning of near judgment, and his call
to repentance — and the only sign now, or rather 'unto this genera
tion no sign,"' was the warning cry of judgment and the loving call
to repentance/ It was but a natural, almost necessary, sequence, that ' He left
them and departed. ' Once more the ship, which bore Him and His
disciples, spread its sails towards the coast of Bethsaida-Julias. He
was on His way to the utmost limit of the land, to Cassarea Philrppi,
in pursuit of His purpose to delay the final conflict. For the great
crisis must begin, as it would end, in Jerusalem, and at the Feast;
•it would begin at the Feast of Tabernacles," and it would end at the
following Passover. But by the way, the disciples themselves showed
how little even they, who had so long and closely followed Christ, under
stood His teaching, and how prone to misapprehension their spiritual
dulness rendered them. Yet it was not so gross and altogether incom
prehensible, as the common reading of what happened would imply.
When the Lord touched the other shore, His mind and heart
were still full of the scene from which He had lately passed. For
truly, on this demand for a sign did the future of Israel seem to
hang. Perhaps it is not presumptuous to suppose, that the journey
across the Lake had been made in silence on His part, so deeply
were mind and heart engrossed with the fate of His own royal city.
And now, when they landed, they carried ashore the empty provision-
baskets; for, as, with his usual attention to details, St. Mark notes,
they had only brought one loaf of bread with them. In fact, in
the excitement and hurry ' they forgot to take bread ' with them.
Whether or not something connected with this arrested the attention
of Christ, He at last broke the silence, speaking that which was so
much on His mind. He warned them, as greatly they needed it, of the
leaven with which Pharisees and Sadducees had, each in their own
manner, leavened, and so corrupted,2 the holy bread of Scripture-
truth. The disciples, aware that in their hurry and excitement they

1 So according to the best reading.
2 The figurative meaning of leaven, as
that which morally corrupts, was familiar
lo the Jews. Thus the word "|1XU?
(Seor) is used in the sense of 'moral

leaven ' hindering the good in Ber. 17 a,
while the verb yttn (chamets) ' to be
come leavened,' is used to indicate moral
deterioration in Rosh haSh. 3 6, 4 a.

BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES. ?1
had forgotten bread, misunderstood these words of Christ — although CHAP.
not in the utterly unaccountable manner which commentators gene- XXXVI
rally suppose: as implying 'a caution against procuring bread  r- —
from His enemies.' It is well-nigh impossible, that the disciples
could have understood the warning of Christ as meaning any such
thing — even irrespective of the consideration, that a prohibition to
buy bread from either the Pharisees or Sadducees would have
involved an impossibility. The misunderstanding of the disciples
was, if unwarrantable, at least rational. They thought the words of
Christ implied, that in His view thej- had not forgotten to bring
bread, but purposely omitted to do so, in order, like the Pharisees
and Sadducees, to ' seek of Him a sign ' of His Divine Messiahship —
nay, to oblige Him to show such — that of miraculous provision in
their want. The mere suspicion showed what was in their minds,
and pointed to their danger. This explains how, in His reply, Jesus
reproved them, not for utter want of discernment, but only for ' little
faith.' It was their lack of faith — the very leaven of the Pharisees
and Sadducees — which had suggested such a thought. Again, if the
experience of the past — their own twice-repeated question, and the
practical answer which it had received in the miraculous provision of
not only enough, but to spare — had taught them anything, it should
have been to believe, that the needful provision of their wants by
Christ was not ' a sign,' such as the Pharisees had asked, but what
faith might ever expect from Christ, when following after, or waiting
upon, Him. Then understood they truly, that it was not of the
leaven of bread that He had bidden them beware — that His myste
rious words bore no reference to bread, nor to their supposed omission
to bring it for the purpose of eliciting a sign from Him, but pointed
to the far more real danger of ' the teaching of the Pharisees and
Sadducees,' which had underlain the demand for a sign from heaven.
Here, as always, Christ rather suggests than gives the interpreta
tion of His meaning. And this is the law of His teaching. Our
modern Pharisees and Sadducees, also, too often ask of him a sign
from heaven in evidence of His claims. And we also too often mis
understand His warning to us concerning their leaven. Seeing the
scanty store in our basket, our little faith is busy with thoughts
about possible signs in multiplying the one loaf which we have, for
getful that, where Christ is, faith may ever expect all that is needful,
and that our care should only be in regard to the teaching which
might leaven and corrupt that on which our souls are fed.

72 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

CHAPTER XXXVII.
THE GREAT CONFESSION — THE GREAT COMMISSION — THE GREAT INSTRUC
TION  THE GREAT TEMPTATION  THE GREAT DECISION.
(St. Matt. xvi. 13-28 ; St. Mark viii. 27— ix. 1 ; St. Luke ix. 18-27.)
BOOK If we are right in identifying the little bay — Dalmanutha — with the
Hi neighbourhood of Tarichaaa, yet another link of strange coincidence
¦— "v— -' connects the prophetic warning spoken there with its fulfilment.
From Dalmanutha our Lord passed across the Lake to Ca^sarea
Philippi. From Cassarea Philippi did Vespasian pass through Tibe
rias to Tarichasa, when the town and people were destroyed, and the
blood of the fugitives reddened the Lake, and their bodies choked
its waters. Even amidst the horrors of the last Jewish war, few
spectacles could have been so sickening as that of the wild stand at
Tarichaea, ending with the butchery of 6,500 on land and sea, and
lastly, the vile treachery by which they, to whom mercy had been
promised, were lured into the circus at Tiberias, when the weak and
old, to the number of about 1,200, were slaughtered, and the rest
^jos. jew. — upwards of 30,400 — sold into slavery.*1 Well might He, Who
foresaw and foretold that terrible end, standing on that spot, deeply
sigh in spirit as He spake to them who asked ' a sign, ' and yet saw
not what even ordinary discernment might have perceived of the red
and lowering sky overhead.
From Dalmanutha, across the Lake, then by the plain where so
lately the five thousand had been fed, and near to Bethsaida, would
the road of Christ and His disciples lead to the capital of the Te
trarch Philip, the ancient Paneas, or, as it was then called, Cassarea
Philippi, the modern Banias. Two days' journey would accomplish
the whole distance. There would be no need of taking the route
now usually followed, by Safed. Straight northwards from the Lake
of Galilee, a distance of about ten miles, leads the road to the
1 If it were for no other reason than Galileans, Josephus, tells this story, he
the mode in which the ex-general of the would deserve our execration.

War iii. 10

TO C/ESAREA PHILIPPI. J3
uppermost Jordan-Lake, that now called Huleh, the ancient Merom.1 CHAP.
As we ascend from the shores of Gennesaret, we have a receding XXXVn
view of the whole Lake and the Jordan-valley beyond. Before us v— ^r — -
rise hills; over them, to the west, are the heights of Safed; beyond
them swells the undulating plain between the two ranges of Anti-
Libanus; far off is Hermon, with its twin snow-clad heads ('the
Hermons'), " and, in the dim far background, majestic Lebanon. It 'Pb-xiii. 6
is scarcely likely, that Jesus and His disciples skirted the almost
impenetrable marsh and jungle by Lake Merom. It was there, that
Joshua had fought the last and decisive battle against Jabin and his
confederates,by which Northern Palestine was gained to Israel." We "Josh.xL
turn north of the Lake, and west to Kedes, the Kedesh Naphtali of
the Bible, the home of Barak. We have now passed from the lime
stone of Central Palestine into the dark basalt formation. How
splendidly that ancient Priest-City of Refuge lay! In the rich
heritage of Naphtali," Kedesh was one of the fairest spots. As we "Deut.XXXlll. 2A
climb the steep hill above the marshes of Merom, we have before us-
one of the richest plains of about two thousand acres. We next
pass through olive-groves and up a gentle slope. On a knoll before
us, at the foot of which gushes a copious spring, lies the ancient
Kedesh. The scenery is very similar, as we travel on towards Cassarea
Phifippi. About an hour and a half farther, we strike the ancient
Roman road. We are now amidst vines and mulberry-trees. Passing
through a narrow rich valley, we ascend through a rocky wilderness
of hills, where the woodbine luxuriantly trails around the plane-
trees. On the height there is a glorious view back to Lake Merom
and the Jordan-valley; forward, to the snowy peaks of Hermon; east,
to height on height, and west, to peaks now only crowned with
ruins. We still continued along the height, then descended a steep
slope, leaving, on our left, the ancient Abel Beth Maachah," the a2sam.xx.
modern Abil. Another hour, and we are in a plain where all the
springs of the Jordan unite. The view from here is splendid, and
the soil most rich, the wheat crops being quite ripe in the beginning
of May. Half an hour more, and we cross a bridge over the bright
blue waters of the Jordan, or rather of the Hasbany, which, under a
very wilderness of oleanders, honeysuckle, clematis, and wild rose,rush
among huge boulders, between walls of basalt. We leave aside, at
1 For the geographical details I must have not deemed it necessary to make
refer to the words of Stanley and Tris- special quotation of my authority in each
tram, and to Bddeker'a Palastina. I case.

14

14: FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK a distance of about half an hour to the east, the ancient Dan (the
in modern Tell-Kady), even more glorious in its beauty and richness than
*— v — • what we have passed. Dan lies on a hill above the plain. On the west
ern side of it, under overhanging thickets of oleander and other trees,
and amidst masses of basalt boulders, rise what are called ' the lower
springs ' of Jordan, issuing as a stream from a basin sixty paces wide,
and from a smaller source close by. The ' lower springs ' supply the
largest proportion of what forms the Jordan. And from Dan olive-
groves and oak-glades slope up to Banias, or Cassarea Philippi.
The situation of the ancient Csesarea Philippi (1,147 feet above
the sea) is, indeed, magnificent. Nestling amid three valle3rs on a
terrace in the angle of Hermon, it is almost shut out from view by
cliffs and woods. ' Everywhere there is a wild medley of cascades,
mulberry trees, fig-trees, dashing torrents, festoons of vines, bubbling
fountains, reeds, and ruins, and the mingled music of birds and
waters. ' x The vegetation and fertility all around are extraordinary.
The modern village of Banias is within the walls of the old fortifica
tions, and the ruins show that it must anciently have extended
far southwards. But the most remarkable points remain to be
described. The western side of a steep mountain, crowned by the
ruins of an ancient castle, forms an abrupt rock-wall. Here, from
out an immense cavern, bursts a river. These are ' the upper
sources' of the Jordan. This cave, an ancient heathen sanctuary of
Pan, gave its earliest name of Paneas to the town. Here Herod,
when receiving the tetrarchy from Augustus, built a temple in his
honour. On the rocky wall close by, votive niches may still be traced,
one of them bearing the Greek inscription, ' Priest of Pan. ' When
Herod's son, Philip, received the tetrarchy, he enlarged and greatly
beautified the ancient Paneas, and called it in honour of the Emperor,
Cassarea Philippi. The castle-mount (about 1, 000 feet above Paneas),
takes nearly an hour to ascend, and is separated by a deep valley
from the flank of Mount Hermon. The castle itself (about two
miles from Banias) is one of the best preserved ruins, its immense
bevelled structure resembling the ancient forts of Jerusalem, and
showing its age. It followed the irregularities of the mountain, and
was about 1,000 feet long by 200 wide. The eastern and higher
part formed, as in Machasrus, a citadel within the castle. In some
parts the rock rises higher than the walls. The views, sheer down
the precipitous sides of the mountain, into the valleys and far away,
are magnificent. 1 Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 586.

REVIEW OF WHAT LED UP TO PETER'S CONFESSION. 75
It seems worth while, even at such length, to describe the scenery chap.
along this journey, and the look and situation of Caesarea, when we xxxvn
recall the importance of the events enacted there, or in the imme- v— ~r~ — '
diate neighbourhood. It was into this chiefly Gentile district, that the
Lord now withdrew with His disciples after that last and decisive ques
tion of the Pharisees. It was here that, as His question, like Moses'
rod, struck their hearts, there leaped from the lips of Peter the living,
life-spreading waters of his confession. It may have been, that this
rock-wall below the castle, from under which sprang Jordan, or
the rock on which the castle stood, supplied the material suggestion ¦
for Christ's words: ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build
My Church.' : In Cassarea, or its immediate neighbourhood,2 did the
Lord spend, with His disciples, six days after this confession; and
here, close by, on one of the heights of snowy Hermon, was the
scene of the Transfiguration, the light of which shone for ever into
the hearts of the disciples on their dark and tangled path;1 nay, «2Pet. 1. 19
far beyond that — beyond life and death — beyond the grave and the
judgment, to the perfect brightness of the Resurrection-day.
As we think of it, there seems nothing strange in it, but all most
wise and most gracious, that such events should have taken place
far away from Galilee and Israel, in the lonely grandeur of the
shadows of Hermon, and even amongst a chiefly Gentile population.
Not in Judasa, nor even in Galilee — but- far away from the Temple,
the Synagogue, the Priests, Pharisees and Scribes, was the first con
fession of the Church made, and on this confession its first founda
tions laid. Even this spoke of near judgment and doom to what
had once been God's chosen congregation. And all that happened,
though Divinely shaped as regards the end, followed in a natural
and orderly succession of events. Let us briefly recall the circum
stances, which in the previous chapters have been described in detail.
It had been needful to leave Capernaum. The Galilean Ministry
of the Christ was ended, and, alike the active persecutions of the
Pharisees from Jerusalem, the inquiries of Herod, whose hands,
stained with the blood of the Baptist, were tremblingly searching
for his greater Successor, and the growing indecision and unfitness
of the people — as well as the state of the disciples — pointed to the
need for leaving Galilee. Then followed ' the Last Supper ' to Israel
on the eastern shore of Lake Gennesaret, when they would have
1 So Dean Stanley, with his usual infer, that the words of Peter's confes-
charm of language, though topographi- sion were spoken in Caesarea itself. The
cally not quite correctly (Sinai and Pales- place might have been in view or in the
tine, p. 395). memory.
2 Nothing in the above obliges us to

76 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK made Him a King. He must now withdraw quite away, out of the
ni boundaries of Israel. Then came that miraculous night-journey, the
^ — y— ^ brief Sabbath-stay at Capernaum by the way, the journey through
Tyrian and Sidonian territory, and round to the Decapolis, the teach
ing and healing there, the gathering of the multitude to Him, to
gether with that ' Supper, ' which closed His Ministry there — and,
finally, the withdrawal to Tarichaea, where His Apostles, as fishermen
of the Lake, may have had business-connections, since the place was
the great central depot for selling and preparing the fish for export.
In that distant and obscure corner, on the boundary-line between
Jew and Gentile, had that greatest crisis in the history of the world
occurred, which sealed the doom of Israel, and in their place substi
tuted the Gentiles as citizens of the Kingdom. And, in this respect
also, it is most significant, that the confession of the Church likewise
took place in territory chiefly inhabited by Gentiles, and the Trans
figuration on Mount Hermon. That crisis had been the public chal
lenge of the Pharisees and Sadducees, that Jesus should legitimate
His claims to the Messiahship by a sign from heaven. It is not too
much to assert, that neither His questioners, nor even His disciples,
understood the answer of Jesus, nor yet perceived the meaning of His
'sign.' To the Pharisees Jesus would seem to have been defeated,
and to stand self-convicted of having made Divine claims which, when
challenged, He could not substantiate. He had hitherto elected(as
they, who understood not His teaching, would judge) to prove Himself
the Messiah by the miracles which He had wrought — and now, when
met on His own ground, He had publicly declined, or at least evaded,
the challenge. He had conspicuously — almost self-confessedly —
failed! At least, so it would appear to those who could not under
stand His reply and ' sigh. ' We note that a similar final challenge
was addressed to Jesus by the High-Priest, when he adjured Him
to say, whether He was what He claimed. His answer then was an
assertion — not a proof; and, unsupported as it seemed, His questioners
would only regard it as blasphemy.
But what of the disciples, who (as we have seen) would probably
understand 'the sign 'of Christ little better than the Pharisees?
That what might seem Christ's failure, in not daring to meet the
challenge of His questioners, must have left some impression on
them, is not only natural, but appears even from Christ's warning of
the leaven — that is, of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Indeed, that this unmet challenge and virtual defeat of Jesus did
make lasting and deepest impression in His disfavour, is evident

JUDAS. 77
from the later challenge of His own relatives to go and meet the CHAP.
Pharisees at headquarters in Judaea, and to show openly, if He XXXVII
could, by His works, that He was the Messiah." All the more '  ¦ 
remarkable appears Christ's dealing with His disciples, His demand * ?.'• J°hn
on, and training 'of their faith. It must be remembered, that His
last ' hard ' sayings at Capernaum had led to the defection of many,
who till then had been His disciples." Undoubtedly this had already *st. John
tried their faith, as appears from the question of Christ: 'Will ye comp" '
also go away? ° It was this wise and gracious dealing with them — xv. i2a
this putting the one disappointment of doubt, engendered by what ^1stj7Jolin
they could not understand, against their whole past experience in
following Him, which enabled them to overcome. And it is this
which also enables us to answer the doubt, perhaps engendered by
inability to understand seemingly unintelligible, hard sayings of
Christ, such as that to the disciples about giving them His Flesh to
eat, or about His being the Living Bread from heaven. And, this
alternative being put to them: would they, could they, after their
experience of Him, go away from Him, they overcame, as we over
come, through what almost sounds like a cry of despair, yet is a shout
of victory: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of
eternal life.'
And all that followed only renewed and deepened the trial of
faith, which had commenced at Capernaum. We shall, perhaps, best
understand it when following the progress of this trial in him who,
at last, made shipwreck of his faith: Judas Iscariot. Without
attempting to gaze into the mysterious abyss of the Satanic element
in his apostasy, we may trace his course in its psychological develop
ment. We must not regard Judas as a monster, but as one with
passions like ourselves. True, there was one terrible master-passion
in his soul — covetousness; but that was only the downward, lower
aspect of what seems, and to many really is, that which leads to the
higher and better — ambition. It had been thoughts of Israel's King
which had first set his imagination on fire, and brought him to follow
the Messiah. Gradually, increasingly, came the disenchantment.
It was quite another Kingdom, that of Christ; quite another King
ship than what had set Judas aglow. This feeling was deepened as
events proceeded. His confidence must have been terribly shaken
when the Baptist was beheaded. What a contrast to the time when
his voice had bent the thousands of Israel, as trees in the wind! So
this had been nothing— and the Baptist must be written off, not as
for, but as really against, Christ. Then came the next disappoint-

78

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

» St. Luke
ix. 18

ment, when Jesus would not be made King. Why not — if He were
King? And so on, step by step, till the final depth was reached,
when Jesus would not, or could not — which was it? — meet the
public challenge of the Pharisees. We take it, that it was then that
the leaven pervaded and leavened Judas in heart and soul.
We repeat it, that what so, and permanently, penetrated Judas,
could not (as Christ's warning shows) have left the others wholly
unaffected. The very presence of Judas with them must have had its
influence. And how did Christ deal with it? There was, first, the
silent sail across the Lake, and then the warning which put them on
their guard, lest the little leaven should corrupt the bread of the
Sanctuary, on which they had learned to live. The littleness of their
faith must be corrected; it must grow and become strong. And so
we can understand what follows. It was after solitary prayer — no
doubt for them" — that, with reference to the challenge of the
Pharisees, ' the leaven ' that threatened them, He now gathered up
all their experience of the past by putting to them the question, what
men, the people who had watched His Works and heard His Words,
regarded Him as being. Even on them some conviction had been
wrought by their observance of Him. It marked Him out (as the
disciples said) as different from all around, nay, from all ordinary
men: like the Baptist, or Elijah, or as if He were one of the old
prophets alive again. But, if even the multitude had gathered such
knowledge of Him, what was their experience, who had always been
with Him? Answered he, who most truly represented the Church,
because he combined with the most advanced experience of the three
most intimate disciples the utmost boldness of confession: 'Thou art
the Christ! '
And so in part was this 'leaven' of the Pharisees purged! Yet
not wholly. For then it was, that Christ spake to them of His
sufferings and death, and that the resistance of Peter showed how
deeply that leaven had penetrated. And then followed the grand
contrast presented by Christ, between minding the things of men and
those of God, with the warning which it implied, and the monition as
to the necessity of bearing the cross of contempt, and the absolute
call to do so, as addressed to those who would be His disciples.
Here, then, the contest about ' the sign, ' or rather the challenge
about the Messiahship, was carried from the mental into the moral
sphere, and so decided. Six days more of quiet waiting and growth
of faith, and it was met, rewarded, crowned, and perfected by the
sight on the Mount of Transfiguration; yet, even so, perceived only
as through the heaviness of sleep.

'WHOM DO MEN SAY THAT I AM?' 79
Thus far for the general arrangement of these events. We shall CHAP.
now be prepared better to understand the details. It was certainly xxxvn
not for personal reasons, but to call attention to the impression made ' 
even on the popular mind, to correct its defects, and to raise the
minds of the Apostles to far higher thoughts, that He asked them
about the opinions of men concerning Himself. Their difference
proved not only their incompetence to form a right view, but also
how many-sided Christ's teaching must have been. We are probably
correct in supposing, that popular opinion did not point to Christ as
literally the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets
who had long been dead. For, although the literal reappearance of
Elijah, and probably also of Jeremiah,1 was expected, the Pharisees
did not teach, nor the Jews believe in, a transmigration of souls.
Besides, no one looked for the return of any of the other old prophets,
nor could any one have seriously imagined, that Jesus was, literally,
John the Baptist, since all knew them to have been contemporaries.2
Rather would it mean, that some saw in Him the continuation of
the work of John, as heralding and preparing the way of the Messiah,
or, if they did not believe in John, of that of Elijah; while to others He
seemed a second Jeremiah, denouncing woe on Israel,3 and calling to
tardy repentance; or else one of those old prophets, who had spoken
either of the near judgment or of the coming glory. But, however
men differed on these points, in this all agreed, that they regarded Him
not as an ordinary man or teacher, but His Mission as straight from
heaven; and, alas, in this also, that they did not view Him as the
Messiah. Thus far, then, there was already retrogression in popular
opinion, and thus far had the Pharisees already succeeded.
There is a significant emphasis in the words, with which Jesus
1 I confess, however, to strong doubts mention of the reappearance of Jeremiah,
on this point. Legends of the hiding of along with Elijah, to restore the ark, &c,
the tabernacle, ark, and altar of incense i3 in Josippon ben Gorion (lib. i. c. 21),
on Mount Nebo by Jeremiah, were, in- but here also only in the Cod. Munster.,
deed, combined with an expectation that not in that used by Breithaupt. The
these precious possessions would be re- age of the work of Josippon is in dis-
stored in Messianic times (2 Mace. ii. 1-7), pute ; probably we may date it from the
but it is expressly added in ver. 8, that tenth century of our era. The only other
'the Lord' Himself, and not the prophet, testimony about the reappearance of
would show their place of concealment. Jeremiah is in 4 Esd. (2 Esd.) ii. 18.
Dean Plumptre's statement, that the But the book is post-Christian, and, in
Pharisees taught, and the Jews believed that section especially, evidently borrows
in, the doctrine of the transmigration of from the Christian Scriptures.
souls must have arisen from the misap- * On the vague fears of Herod, see
prehension of what Josephus said, to vol. i. p. 675.
which reference has already been made 3 A vision of Jeremiah in a dream was
in the chapter on' The Pharisees, Sad- supposed to betoken chastisements (Ber.
ducees, and Essenes.' The first distinct 57 e, line 7 from top).

8(1

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

i> St. Matt.
xvi. 16

' Bom. x. 10

11 Comp.
Rom. i. 4

' St. Matt.
xiv. 33

turned from the opinion of ' the multitudes ' to elicit the faith of the
disciples: 'But you, whom do you say that I am?' It is the more
marked, as the former question was equally emphasised by the use of
the article (in the original) : ' Who do the men say that lam?'" In
that moment it leaped, by the power of God, to the lips of Peter:
'Thou art the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the Living God.'"
St. Chrysostom has beautifully designated Peter as ' the mouth of
the Apostles ' — and we recall, in this connection, the words of St. Paul
as casting light on the representative character of Peter's confession
as that of the Church, and hence on the meaning of Christ's reply,
and its equally representative application: ' With the mouth con
fession is made unto salvation.'" The words of the confession are
given somewhat differently by the three Evangelists. From our
standpoint, the briefest form (that of St. Mark): 'Thou art the
Christ,' means quite as much as the fullest (that of St. Matthew):
' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. ' We can thus
understand, how the latter might be truthfully adopted, and, indeed,
would be the most truthful, accurate, and suitable in a Gospel
primarily written for the Jews. And here we notice, that the most
exact form of the words seems that in the Gospel of St. Luke: 'The
Christ of God. '
In saying this, so far from weakening, we strengthen the import
of this glorious confession. For first, we must keep in view, that the
confession: 'Thou art the Messiah ' is also that: 'Thou art the Son
of the Living God. ' If, according to the Gospels, we believe that
Jesus was the true Messiah, promised to the fathers — ' the Messiah
of God ' — we cannot but believe that He is ' the Son of the Living
God. ' Scripture and reason equally point to this conclusion from the
premisses. But, further, we must view such a confession, even
though made in the power of God, in its historical connection. The
words must have been such as Peter could have uttered, and the
disciples acquiesced in, at the time. Moreover, they should mark a
distinct connection with, and yet progress upon, the past. All these
conditions are fulfilled by the view here taken. The full knowledge,
in the sense of really understanding, that He was the Son of the Living
God, came to the disciples only after the Resurrection/ Previously to
the confession of Peter, the ship's company, that had witnessed His
walking on the water, had owned: 'Of a truth Thou art the Son of
God,' ° but not in the sense in which a well-informed, believing Jew
would hail Him as the Messiah, and 'the Son of the. Living God,'
designating both His Office and His Nature— and these two in their

'THOU ART PETER.' gj
combination. Again, Peter himself had made a confession of Christ, CHAP.
when, after his discourse at Capernaum, so many of His disciples had XXXVII
forsaken Him. It had been : ' We have believed, and know that Thou  '
art the Holy One of God.' a 1 The mere mention of these words .swohn
shows both their internal connection with those of his last and v1'69
crowning confession: ' Thou art the Christ of God,' and the immense
progress made.
The more closely we view it, the loftier appears the height of this
confession. We think of it as an advance on Peter's past ; we think
of it in its remembered contrast to the late challenge of the Pharisees,
and as so soon following on the felt danger of their leaven. And
we think of it. also, in its almost immeasurable distance from the
appreciative opinion of the better disposed among the people. In
the words of this confession Peter has consciously reached the firm
ground of Messianic acknowledgment. All else is implied in this,
and would follow from it. It is the first real confession of the
Church. We can understand, how it followed after solitary prayer
by Christ ° — we can scarcely doubt, for that very revelation by the b st. Luke
Father, which He afterwards joyously recognised in the words of
Peter. The reply of the Saviour is only recorded by St. Matthew. Its
omission by St. Mark might be explained on the ground that St.
Peter himself had furnished the information. But its absence there
and in the Gospel of St. Luke '' proves (as Beza remarks), that it
could never have been intended as the foundation of so important a
doctrine as that of the permanent supremacy of St. Peter. But
even if it were such, it would not follow that this supremacy de
volved on the successors of St. Peter, nor yet that the Pope of Rome
is the successor of St. Peter; nor is there even solid evidence that
St. Peter ever was Bishop of Rome. The dogmatic inferences from
a certain interpretation of the words of Christ to Peter being there
fore utterly untenable, we can, with less fear of bias, examine their
meaning. The whole form here is Hebraistic. The ' blessed art
thou ' is Jewish in spirit and form; the address, 'Simon bar Jona,'
proves that the Lord spake in Aramaic. Indeed, a Jewish Messiah
responding, in the hour of his Messianic acknowledgment, in Greek
to His Jewish confessor, seems utterly incongruous. Lastly, the
expression ' flesh and blood, ' as contrasted with God, occurs not only
in that Apocryphon of strictly Jewish authorship, the Wisdom of the
1 This is the correct reading. Petrine tendency in this, since it is equally
2 There could have been no anti- omitted in the Petrine Gospel of St. Mark.

82

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

a Ecclus,
xlv. 18;
xvii. 31
^ 1 Cor. xv.
50; Gal. i.
16; Eph. vi.
12

• St. John
i, 42

¦' Pesiq.ta,
ed. Buber,
p. 158 a, line
8 from
bottom

Son of Sirach," and in the letters of St. Paul," but in almost innumer
able passages in Jewish writings, as denoting man in opposition to
God; while the revelation of such a truth by ' the Father Which is in
Heaven, ' represents not only both Old and New Testament teaching,
but is clothed in language familiar to Jewish ears (n?Eij>3# !C"'3X).
Not less Jewish in form are the succeeding words of Christ,
' Thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) will I build
my Church. ' We notice in the original the change from the mas
culine gender, 'Peter' (Petros,), to the feminine, 'Petra' ('Rock'),
which seems the more significant, that Petros is used in Greek for
' stone, ' and also sometimes for ' rock, ' while Petra always means a
' rock. ' The change of gender must therefore have a definite object
which will presently be more fully explained. Meantime we recall
that, when Peter first came to Christ, the Lord had said unto him:
' Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, Peter
| Petros, a Stone, or else a Rock] ' " — the Aramaic word Kepha
(N?'?, or ns*3) meaning, like Peter, both 'stone' and 'rock." But
both the Greek Petros and Petra have (as already stated) passed
into Rabbinic language. Thus, the name Peter, or rather Petros,
is Jewish, and occurs, for example, as that of the father of a certain
Rabbi (Jose" bar Petros)/ When the Lord, therefore, prophetically
gave the name Cephas, it may have been that by that term He
gave only a prophetic interpretation to what had been his previous
name Peter (Dlti"£)- This seems the more likely, since, as we have
previously seen, it was the practice in Galilee to have two names,1
especially when the strictly Jewish name, such as Simon, had no
equivalent among the Gentiles.2 Again, the Greek word Petra —
Rock — ('on this Petra [Rock] will I build my Church') was used in
the same sense in Rabbinic language. It occurs twice in a passage,
which so fully illustrates the Jewish use, not only of the word, but of
the whole figure, that it deserves a place here. According to Jewish
ideas, the world would not have been created, unless it had rested,
as it were, on some solid foundation of piety and acceptance of God's
Law — in other words, it required a moral, before it could receive a
physical foundation. Rabbinism here contrasts the Gentile world
with Israel. It is, so runs the comment, as if a king were going to
build a city. One and another site is tried for a foundation, but in
digging they always come upon water. At last they come upon a Bock

1 See the remarks on Matthew-Levi in
vol. i. ch. xvii. p. 514 of this Book.
2 Thus, for example, Andrew was both

'Avdpeai and Vs'VIjN (Anderai) =
'manly,' 'brave.' A family Anderai is
mentioned Jer. Kethub. 33 a.

'UPON THIS ROCK WILL I BUILD MY CHURCH.' 83
(Petra, ntje). So, when God was about to build his world, He could CHAP.
not rear it on the generation of Enos nor on that of the fiood, who xxxvn
brought destruction on the world; but ' when He beheld that — -r —
Abraham would arise in the future, He said: Behold I have found a
Rock (Petra, joas) to build on it, and to found the world, ' whence
also Abraham is called a Rock (Tsur, ttj) as it is said: " 'Look unto *is. 11. 1
the Rock whence ye are hewn.'"1 The parallel between Abraham »Yaikuton
and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstand- xxm. 9,
ing of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented I°iast6
the Apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents first 3 lines
Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who
had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss." 2 To !>EruS-1,90a;
0 J Bfer. E. 48
complete this sketch — in the curious Jewish legend about the Apostle
Peter, which is outlined in an Appendix to this volume,3 Peter is
always designated as Simon Kepha (spelt XDHp), there being, how
ever, some reminiscence of the meaning attached to his name in the
statement made, that, after his death, they built a church and
tower, and called it Peter (-)B'C) ' which is the name for stone, because
he sat there upon a stone till his death1 (pxn 5J> affl DET2?)-*
But to return. Believing, that Jesus spoke to Peter in the
Aramic, we can now understand how the words Petros and Petra
would be purposely used by Christ to mark the difference, which
their choice would suggest. Perhaps it might be expressed in this
somewhat clumsy paraphrase : ' Thou art Peter (Petros) — a Stone or
Rock — and upon this Petra — the Rock, the Petrine — will I found
My Church.' If, therefore, we would not entirely limit the reference
to the words of Peter's confession, we would certainly apply them to
that which was the Petrine in Peter: the heaven-given faith which
manifested itself in his confession/ And we can further understand
how, just as Christ's contemporaries may have regarded the world as
reared on the rock of faithful Abraham, so Christ promised, that He
would build His Church on the Petrine in Peter — on his faith and
1 The same occurs in Shem. R. 15, only wrote Romans ii. 25, 26, last clauses ?
that there it is not only Abraham but 3 See Appendix XVIII.
' the fathers ' who are ' the Rocks ' (the * The reader will have no difficulty in
word used there is not Petra but Tsur) recognizing a reference to the See of
on whom the world is founded. Rome, perhaps ' the Chair of St. Peter,'
2 There was a strange idea about mixed up with the meaning of the name
Jewish children who had died uncircum- of Peter.
cised and the sinners in Israel exchang- 5 The other views of the words are
ing their position in regard to circum- (a) that Christ pointed to Himself as the
cision. Could this, only spiritually Rock, (6) or to Peter as a person, (c) or
understood and applied, have been to Peter's confession.
present to the mind of St. Paul when he

84

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK III

* Ecclus.
xxiv. 2
b Comp.
Acts vii. 38,
and even
St. Matt.
xviii. 17

0 Acts xv. 7
a Acts x. 48

confession. Nor would the term ' Church ' sound strange in Jewish
ears. The same Greek word (eKKXr/aia), as the equivalent of the
Hebrew Qahal, ' convocation, ' ' the called, ' ' occurs in the LXX. ren
dering of the Old Testament, and in ' the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach ' "
and was apparently in familiar use at the time." In Hebrew use it
referred to Israel, not in their national but in their religious unity.
As here employed, it would convey the prophecy, that His disciples
would in the future be joined together in a religious unity; that this
religious unity or ' Church' would be a building of which Christ was
the Builder; that it would be founded on 'the Petrine ' of heaven-
taught faith and confession; and that this religious unity, this
Church, was not only intended for a time, like a school of thought,
but would last beyond death and the disembodied state: that, alike
as regarded Christ and His Church — 'the gates of Hades 2 shall not
prevail against it."
Viewing ' the Church ' as a building founded upon ' the Petrine, s
it was not to vary, but to carry on the same metaphor, when Christ
promised to give to hiin who had spoken as representative of the
Apostles — ' the stewards of the mysteries of God ' — ' the keys of the
Kingdom of Heaven.' For, as the religious unity of His disciples, or
the Church, represented ' the royal rule of heaven, ' so, figuratively,
entrance into the gates of this building, submission to the rule of God
— to that Kingdom of which Christ was the King. And we remember
how, in a special sense, this promise was fulfilled to Peter. Even as
he had been the first to utter the confession of the Church, so was he
also privileged to be the first to open its hitherto closed gates to the
Gentiles, when God made choice of him, that, through his mouth,
the Gentiles should first hear the words of the Gospel," and at his
bidding first be baptized/
If hitherto it has appeared that what Christ said ta Peter, though
infinitely transcending Jewish ideas, was yet, in its expression and
even cast of thought, such as to be quite intelligible to Jewish
minds, nay, so familiar to them, that, as by well-marked steps, they
might ascend to the higher Sanctuary, the difficult words with which
our Lord closed must be read in the same light. For, assuredly,

1 The other word is Edah. Comp.
Bible Hist. vol. ii. p. 177, note.
2 It is important to notice that the
word is Hades, and not Gehenna.
Dean Plumptre calls attention to the
wonderful character of such a- prophecy
at a time when all around seemed to fore

shadow only failure.
3 Those who apply the words 'upon
this Rock, &c.,' to Peter or to Christ
must feel, that they introduce an abrupt
and inelegant transition from one figure
to another.

'BINDING' AND 'LOOSING.' 85
in interpreting such a saying of Christ to Peter, our first inquiry CHAP.
must be, what it would convey to the person to whom the promise XXXVII
was addressed. And here we recall, that no other terms were in more "-— ~">  '
constant use in Rabbinic Canon-Law than those of ' binding ' and
'loosing.' The words are the literal translation of the Hebrew
equivalents Asar ("©$), which means 'to bind,' in the sense of
prohibiting, and Hittir (v-??, from ~Vl) which means 'to loose,' in
the sense of permitting. For the latter the term Shera or Sheri
(^~]V, or *"!f ) is also used. But this expression is, both in Tar-
gumic and Talmudic diction, not merely the equivalent of per
mitting, but passes into that of remitting or pardoning. On the
other hand, ' binding and loosing ' referred simply to things or acts,
prohibiting or else permitting them, declaring them lawful or unlaw
ful. This was one of the powers claimed by the Rabbis. As regards
their laws (not decisions as to things or acts), it was a principle, that
while in Scripture there were some that bound and some that loosed,
all the laws of the Rabbis were in reference to 'binding.'" If this g^j^61'
then represented the legislative, another pretension of the Rabbis, J^'slnh
that of declaring ' free ' or else ' liable, ' i. e. , guilty (Patur or Chayyabh ), 30a
expressed their claim to the judicial power. By the first of these they
' bound ' or ' loosed ' acts or things; by the second they ' remitted '
or ' retained, ' declared a person free from, or liable to punishment.
to compensation, or to sacrifice. These two powers — the legislative
and judicial — which belonged to the Rabbinic office, Christ now
transferred, and that not in their pretension, but in their reality, to
His Apostles: the first here- to Peter as their Representative, the
second after His Resurrection to the Church." b st. John
On the second of these powers we need not at present dwell.
That of 'binding ' and ' loosing ' included all the legislative functions
for the new Church. And it was a reality. In the view of the
Rabbis heaven was like earth, and questions were discussed and
settled by a heavenly Sanhedrin. Now, in regard to some of their
earthly decrees, they were wont to say that ' the Sanhedrin above '
confirmed what ' the Sanhedrin beneath ' had done. But the wTords of
Christ, as they avoided the foolish conceit of His contemporaries, left
it not doubtful, but conveyed the assurance that, under the guidance
of the Holy Ghost, whatsoever they bound or loosed on earth would be
bound or loosed in heaven.
But all this that had passed between them could not be matter
of common talk — least of all, at that crisis in His History, and in
that locality. Accordingly, all the three Evangelists record — each

XX.

86 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.
BOOK with distinctive emphasis * — that the open confession of his Messiah-
in ship, which was virtually its proclamation, was not to be made public.
v-^-v — ' Among the people it could only have led to results the opposite
of those to be desired. How unprepared even that Apostle was,
who had made proclamation of the Messiah, for what his confession
implied, and how ignorant of the real meaning of Israel's Messiah,
appeared only too soon. For, His proclamation as the Christ imposed
on the Lord, so to speak, the necessity of setting forth the mode of His
contest and victory — the Cross and the Crown. Such teaching was
the needed sequence of Peter's confession — needed, not only for the
correction of misunderstanding, but for direction. And yet signifi
cantly it is only said, that ' He began ' to teach them these things — no
doubt, as regarded the manner, as well as the time of this teaching.
The Evangelists, indeed, write it down in plain language, as fully
taught them by later experience, that He was to be rejected by the
rulers of Israel, slain, and to rise again the third day. And there can
be as little doubt, that Christ's language (as afterwards they looked
back upon it) must have clearly implied all this, as that at the
time they did not fully understand it.2 He was so constantly in the
habit of using symbolic language, and had only lately reproved them
for taking that about ' the leaven ' in a literal, which He had meant
in a figurative sense, that it was but natural, they should have
regarded in the same light announcements which, in their strict
literality, would seem to them well nigh incredible. They could well
understand His rejection by the Scribes — a sort of figurative death,
or violent suppression of His claims and doctrines, and then, after
briefest period, their resurrection, as it were — but not these terrible
details in their full literality.
But, even so, there was enough of terrible realism in the words
of Jesus to alarm Peter. His very affection, intensely human, to the
Human Personality of his Master would lead him astray. That
He, Whom he verily believed to be the Messiah, Whom he loved
with all the intenseness of such an intense nature — that He should
pass through such an ordeal — No! Never! He put it in the very
strongest language, although the Evangelist gives only a literal
translation of the Rabbinic expression 3 — God forbid it, ' God be
1 The word used by St. Matthew (Sis- have been in such doubt about His
oreiXaro) means 'charged; ' that by St. Death and Resurrection.
Mark (i7teri/.i?fasr) implies rebuke; 3 It is very remarkable that the ex-
while theexpression employed by St. Luke pression z'Aecbs aoi, literally ' have mercy
(ETCinjur/crai avroii -rrapr/yyeiXs) on thee,' is the exact transcript of the
conveys both rebuke aud command. Rabbinic Chas lecha ("'¦> DPI). See
2 Otherwise they could not afterwards Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb. vol. ii, p. 85.

'THOU ART A STUMBLING-BLOCK UNTO ME.' 87
merciful to Thee:'1 no, such never could, nor should be to the CHAP.
Christ ! It was an appeal to the Human in Christ, j ust as Satan had, in xxxvn
the great Temptation after the forty days' fast, appealed to the purely '  r— "
Human in Jesus. Temptations these, with which we cannot reason,
but which we must put behind us as behind, or else they will be a
stumbling-block before us; temptations, which come to us often
through the love and care of others, Satan transforming himself
into an Angel of light; temptations, all the more dangerous, that
they appeal to the purely human, not the sinful, element in us, but
which arise from the circumstance, that they who so become our
stumbling-block, so long as they are before us, are prompted by an
affection which has regard to the purely human, and, in its one
sided human intenseness, minds the things of man, and not those of
God. Yet Peter's words were to be made useful, by affording to the
Master the opportunity of correcting what was amiss in the hearts of
all His disciples, and teaching them such general principles about
His Kingdom, and about that implied in true discipleship, as
would, if received in the heart, enable them in due time victoriously
to bear those trials connected with that rejection and Death of the
Christ, which at the time they could not understand. Not a Mes
sianic Kingdom, with glory to its heralds and chieftains — but self-
denial, and the voluntary bearing of that cross on which the powers
of this world would nail the followers of Christ. They knew the
torture which their masters — the power of the world — the Romans,
were wont to inflict: such must they, and similar must we all, be
prepared to bear,2 and, in so doing, begin by denying self. In such
a contest, to lose life would be to gain it, to gain would be to lose
life. And, if the issue lay between these two, who could hesitate
what to choose, even if it were ours to gain or lose a whole world ?
For behind it all there was a reality — a Messianic triumph and
Kingdom — not, indeed, such as they imagined, but far higher, holier:
the Coming of the Son of Man in the glory of His Father, and with
His Angels, and then eternal gain or loss, according to our deeds." "st- Ma"-
0 ; ° XVI. 24-27
But why speak of the future and distant? 'A sign ' — a terrible
sign of it ' from heaven, ' a vindication of Christ's ' rejected ' claims,
The commoner expression is Chas ve which a man might expect from the hos-
Shalom, 'mercy and peace,' viz. be to tile power (the Romans) was the literal
thee, and the meaning is, God forbid, or cross; in ours, it is suffering not less
God avert, a thing or its continuance. acute, the greatest which the present
1 So the Greek literally. hostile power can inflict: really, though
2 In those days the extreme suffering perhaps not literally, a cross.

88

FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION.

BOOK ni

• St. Matt.
xvi. 28

a vindication of the Christ, Whom they had slain, invoking His
Blood on their City and Nation, a vindication, such as alone these
men could understand, of the reality of His Resurrection and Ascen
sion, was in the near future. The flames of the City and Temple
would be the light in that nation's darkness, by which to read the
inscription on the Cross. All this not afar off. Some of those who
stood there would not ' taste death, ' 1 till in those judgments they
would see that the Son of Man had come in His Kingdom."
Then — only then — at the burning of the City! Why not now,
visibly, and immediately on their terrible sin? Because God shows
not ' signs from heaven ' such as man seeks; because His long-
suffering waiteth long; because, all unnoticed, the finger moves on
the dial-plate of time till the hour strikes; because there is Divine
grandeur and majesty in the slow, unheard, certain night-march of
events under His direction. God is content to wait, because He
reigneth; man must be content to wait, because he believeth.

1 This is an exact translation of the
phrase nrTO Dl>t3, which is of such very
frequent occurrence in Rabbinic writings.

See our remarks on St. John viii. 52 in
Book IV. ch. viii.

Book IV.

THE DESCENT:
FEOM THE MOUNT OF TKANSFIGURATION INTO
THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION AND DEATH

' But God forbede but men shulde leve
Wei mor thing then men han seen with eye
Men shall not wenen euery thing a lye
But yf him-selfe yt seeth or elles dooth
For god wot thing is neuer the lasse sooth
Thogh euery wight ne may it nat y-see.'
Chaucek: Prologue to the Legend of Good Women.

THE HIGH-POINT IN THE GOSPEL-HISTORY. 91

CHAPTER I.
THE TRANSFIGURATION.
(St Matt. xvii. 1-8 ; St. Mark ix. 2-8 ; St. Luke ix. 28-36.)
The great confession of Peter, as the representative Apostle, had laid
the foundations of the Church as such. In contradistinction to the
varying opinions of even those best disposed towards Christ, it openly
declared that Jesus was the Very Christ of God, the fulfilment of
all Old Testament prophecy, the heir of Old Testament promise, the
realisation of the Old Testament hope for Israel, and, in Israel, for
all mankind. Without this confession, Christians might have been
a Jewish sect, a religious party, or a school of thought, and Jesus a
Teacher, Rabbi, Reformer, or Leader of men. But the confession
which marked Jesus as the Christ, also constituted His followers the
Church. It separated them, as it separated Him, from all around;
it gathered them into one, even Christ; and it marked out the
foundation on which the building made without hands was to rise.
Never was illustrative answer so exact as this: 'On this Rock'
— bold, outstanding, well-defined, immovable — ' will I build My
Church.' Without doubt this confession also marked the high-point of the
Apostles' faith. Never afterwards, till His Resurrection, did it reach
so high. Nay, what followed seems rather a retrogression from it:
beginning with their unwillingness to receive the announcement of
His decease, and ending with their unreadiness to share His suffer
ings or to believe in His Resurrection. And if we realise the cir
cumstances, we shall understand at least, their initial difficulties.
Their highest faith had been followed by the most crushing dis
appointment; the confession that He was the Christ, by the an
nouncement of His approaching Sufferings and Death at Jerusalem.
The proclamation that He was the Divine Messiah had not been
met by promises of the near glory of the Messianic Kingdom, but
by announcements of certain, public rejection and seeming terrible

92 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK defeat. Such possibilities had never seriously entered into their
IV thoughts of the Messiah; and the declaration of the very worst, and
v— "y-"— ' that in the near future, made at such a moment, must have been a
staggering blow to all their hopes. It was as if they had reached
the topmost height, only to be cast thence into -the lowest depth.
On the other hand, it was necessary that at this stage in the
History of the Christ, and immediately after His proclamation, the
sufferings and the rejection of the Messiah should be prominently
brought forward. It was needful for the Apostles, as the remon
strance of Peter showed; and, with reverence be it added, it was
needful for the Lord Himself, as even His words to Peter seem to
imply: ' Get thee behind Me; thou art a stumbling-block unto me.'
For — as we have said — was not the remonstrance of the disciple in
measure a re-enactment of the great initial Temptation by Satan
after the forty days' fast in the wilderness? And, in view of all this,
and of what immediately afterwards followed, we venture to say, it
was fitting that an interval of ' six ' days should intervene, or, as St.
Luke puts it, including the day of Peter's confession and the night of
Christ's Transfiguration, ' about eight days.' The Chronicle of these
days is significantly left blank in the Gospels, but we cannot doubt,
that it was filled up with thoughts and teaching concerning that
Decease, leading up to the revelation on the Mount of Transfiguration.
There are other blanks in the narrative besides that just referred
to. We shall try to fill them up, as best we can. Perhaps it was the
Sabbath when Peter's great confession was made; and the ' six days '
of St. Matthew and St. Mark become the ' about eight days ' of St.
Luke, when we reckon from that Sabbath to the close of another, and
suppose that at even the Saviour ascended the Mount of Transfigu
ration with the three Apostles : Peter, James, and John. There can
scarcely be a reasonable doubt that Christ and His disciples had not
left the neighborhood of Cassarea, 1 and hence, that ' the mountain '
must have been one of the slopes of gigantic, snowy Hermon. In
that quiet semi-Gentile retreat of Csesarea Philippi could He best
teach them, and they best learn, without interruption or temptation
from Pharisees and Scribes, that terrible mystery of His Suffering.
And on that gigantic mountain barrier which divided Jewish and
1 According to an old tradition, Christ by St. Mark as after the Transfiguration
had left Casarea Philippi, and the scene (ix. 30) ; (3) Mount Tabor was at that
of the Transfiguration was Mount Tabor, time crowned by a fortified city, which
But (1) there is no notice of His de- would render it unsuitable for the scene
parture, such as is generally made by St. of the Transfiguration.
Mark; (2) on the contrary, it is mentioned

THE ASCENT OF MOUNT HERMON. 93
Gentile lands, and while surveying, as Moses of old, the land to be
occupied in all its extent,, amidst the solemn solitude and majestic
grandeur of Hermon, did it seem most fitting that, both by antici
patory fact and declamatory word, the Divine attestation should be
given to the proclamation that He was the Messiah, and to this also,
that, in a world that is in the power of sin and Satan, God's Elect
must suffer, in order' that, by ransoming, He may conquer it to God.
But what a background, here, for the Transfiguration; what surround
ings for the Vision, what echoes for the Voice from heaven!
It was evening,1 and, as we have suggested, the evening after the
Sabbath, when the Master and those three of His disciples, who
were most closely linked to Him in heart and thought, climbed the
path that led up to one of the heights of Hermon. In all the most
solemn transactions of earth's history, there has been this selection
and separation of the few to witness God's great doings. Alone with
his son, as the destined sacrifice, did Abraham climb Moriah; alone
did Moses behold, amid the awful loneliness of the wilderness, the
burning bush, and alone on Sinai's height did he commune with God;
alone was Elijah at Horeb, and with no other companion to view it
than Elisha did he ascend into heaven. But Jesus, the Saviour of
His people, could not be quite alone, save in those innermost transac
tions of His soul : in the great contest of His first Temptation, and
in the solitary communings of His heart with God. These are
mysteries which the outspread wings of Angels, as reverently they
hide their faces, conceal from earth's, and even heaven's, vision. But
otherwise, in the most solemn turning-points of this history, Jesus
could not be alone, and yet was alone with those three chosen ones,
most receptive of Him, and most representative of the Church. It
was so in the house of Jairus, on the Mount of Transfiguration, and
in the Garden of Gethsemane.
As St. Luke alone informs us, it was ' to pray ' that Jesus took
them apart up into that mountain. 'To pray,' no doubt in connec
tion with 'those sayings;' since their reception required quite as
much the direct teaching of the Heavenly Father, as had the previous
confession of Peter, of which it was, indeed, the complement, the
other aspect, the twin height. And the Transfiguration, with its
attendant glorified Ministry and Voice from heaven, was God's answer
to that prayer.
What has already been stated, has convinced us that it could not
have been to one of the highest peaks of Hermon, as most modern
1 This is implied not only in the disciples being heavy with sleep, but in the
morning scene (St. Luke ix. 37) which followed.

94 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK writers suppose, that Jesus led His companions. There are three
IV such peaks: those north and south, of about equal height (9,400 feet
v— "~v — ' above the sea, and nearly 11,000 above the Jordan valley), are only
500 paces distant from each other, while the third, to the west (about
100 feet lower), is separated from the others by a narrow valley.
Now, to climb the top of Hermon is, even from the nearest point, an
Alpine ascent, trying and fatiguing, which would occupy a whole
day (six hours in the ascent and four in the descent), and require
provisions of food and water; while, from the keenness of the air, it
would be impossible to spend the night on the top.1 To all this
there is no allusion in the text, nor slightest hint of either difficulties
or preparations, such as otherwise would have been required. Indeed,
a contrary impression is left on the mind.
' Up into an high mountain apart, ' ' to pray. ' The Sabbath-sun
had set, and a delicious cool hung in the summer air, as Jesus and
the three commenced their ascent. From all parts of the land, far as
Jerusalem or Tyre, the one great object in view must always have been
snow-clad Hermon. And now it stood out before them — as, to the
memory of the traveller in the West, Monte Rosa or Mont Blanc 2 —
in all the wondrous glory of a sunset: first rose-coloured, then
deepening red, next ' the death-like pallor, and the darkness relieved
by the snow, in quick succession. ' 3 From high up there, as one
describes it,4 'a deep ruby flush came over all the scene, and warm
purple shadows crept slowly on. The sea of Galilee was lit up with
a delicate greenish-yellow hue, between its dim walls of hill. " The
flush died out in a few minutes, and a pale, steel-coloured shade
succeeded. ... A long pyramidal shadow slid down to the eastern
foot of Hermon, and crept across the great plain; Damascus was
swallowed up by it; and finally the pointed end of the shadow stood
out distinctly against the sky — a dusky cone of dull colour against
the flush of the afterglow It was the shadow of the mountain itself,
stretching away for seventy miles across the plain — the most mar
vellous shadow perhaps to be seen anywhere. The sun underwent
strange changes of shape in the thick vapours — now almost square,
now like a domed Temple — until at length it slid into the sea, and
went out like a blue spark. ' And overhead shone out in the blue
1 Canon Tristvam writes: 'We were 2 One of its names, Shenir (Deut. iii.
before long painfully affected by the 9 ; Cant. iv. 8 ; Ezek. xxvii. 5) means Mont
rarity of the atmosphere.' In general, Blanc. In Rabbinic writings it is desig-
our description is derived from Canon nated as the 'snow-mountain.'
Iristram (' Land of Israel '), Captain s Tristram, u. s., p. 607.
Conder ('Tent-Work in Palestine), and i Conder, u. s., vol. i. p. 264.
Badeker-Socin's Palastina, p. 354.

SUNSET ON MOUNT HERMON. 95
summer-sky, one by one, the stars in Eastern brilliancy. We know
not the exact direction which the climbers took, nor how far their
journey went. But there is only one road that leads, from Caesarea
Philippi to Hermon, and we cannot be mistaken in following it. First,
among vine-clad hills stocked with mulberry, apricot and fig-trees;
then, through corn-fields where the pear tree supplants the fig; next,
through oak coppice, and up rocky ravines to where the soil is dotted
with dwarf shrubs. And if we pursue the ascent, it still becomes
steeper, till the first ridge of snow is crossed, after which turfy banks,
gravelly slopes, and broad snow-patches alternate. The top of
Hermon in summer — and it can only be ascended in summer or autumn
— is free from snow, but broad patches run down the sides expanding
as they descend. To the very summit it is well earthed; to 500
feet below it, studded with countless plants, higher up with dwarf
clumps.1 As they ascend in the cool of that Sabbath evening, the keen
mountain air must have breathed strength into the climbers, and
the scent of snow — for which the parched tongue would long in
summer's heat" — have refreshed them. We know not what part *Prov.xxv.
r 13
may have been open to them of the glorious panorama from Hermon,
embracing as it does a great part of Syria from the sea to Damascus,
from the Lebanon and the gorge of the Litany to the mountains of
Moab; or down the Jordan valley to the Dead Sea; or over Galilee,
Samaria, and on to Jerusalem and beyond it. But such darkness as
that of a summer's night would creep on. And now the moon shone
out in dazzling splendour, cast long shadows over the mountain, and
lit up the broad patches of snow, reflecting their brilliancy on the
objects around.
On that mountain-top ' He prayed. ' Although the text does not
expressly state it, we can scarcely doubt, that He prayed with them,
and still less, that He prayed for them, as did the Prophet for his
servant, when the city was surrounded by Syrian horsemen: that
his eyes might be opened to behold heaven's host — the far 'more
that are with us than they that are with them.'" And, with deep b2 Kings
reverence be it said, for Himself also did Jesus pray. For, as the pale
moonlight shone on the fields of snow in the deep passes of Hermon,
so did the light of the coming night shine on the cold glitter of Death
in the near future. He needed prayer, that in it His Soul might
lie calm and still— perfect, in the unruffled quiet of His Self-
1 Our description is based on the graphic account of the ascent by Canon Tris
tram (u. s. pp. 609-613).

96

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• St. Matt.
xxvi. 43 ;
St. Mark
xiv. 40

"St. Mat
thew

a St. Mark
' St. Luke

surrender, the absolute rest of His Faith, and the victory of His
Sacrificial Obedience. And He needed prayer also, as the introduc
tion to, and preparation for, His Transfiguration. Truly, He stood
on Hermon. It was the highest ascent, the widest prospect into
the past, present, and future, in His Earthly Life. Yet was it but
Hermon at night. And this is the human, or rather the Theanthropic
view of this prayer, and of its consequence.
As we understand it, the prayer with them had ceased, or it had
merged into silent prayer of each, or Jesus now prayed alone and
apart, when what gives this scene such a truly human and truthful
aspect ensued. It was but natural for these men of simple habits, at
night, and after the long ascent, and in the strong mountain-air, to
be heavy with sleep. And we also know it as a psychological fact,
that, in quick reaction after the overpowering influence of the strongest
emotions, drowsiness would creep over their limbs and senses. ' They
were heavy — weighted — with sleep,' as afterwards at Gethsemane
their eyes were weighted. " x Yet they struggled with it, and it is
quite consistent with experience, that they should continue in that
state of semi-stupor, during what passed between Moses and Elijah
and Christ, and also be 'fully awake,'2 'to see His Glory, and the
two men who stood with Him. ' In any case this descriptive trait, so
far from being (as negative critics would have it), a 'later embellish
ment,' could only have formed part of a primitive account, since it is
impossible to conceive any rational motive for its later addition/
What they saw was their Master, while praying, 'transformed.' i
The ' form of God ' shone through the ' form of a servant ; ' ' the
appearance of His Face became other, 'b 5 it ' did shine as the sun. ' ° 6
Nay, the whole Figure seemed bathed in light, the very garments
whiter far than the snow on which the moon shone7 — 'so as no fuller
on earth can white them, ' d ' glittering, ' e ' white as the light. ' And
Lightfoot on

1 The word is the same. It also occurs
in a figurative sense in 2 Cor. i. 8; v. 4;
1 Tim. v. 16.
2 Meyer strongly advocates the render
ing: 'but having kept awake.' See,
however, Godet's remarks ad loc.
3 Meyer is in error in supposing that
the tradition, on which St. Luke's account
is founded, amplifies the narratives of St.
Matthew and St. Mark. With Canon Cook
I incline to the view of Besch, that, judg
ing from the style, &c, St. Luke derived
this notice from the same source as the
materials for the large portion from ch.
ix. 51 to xviii. 17.
4 On the peculiar meaning of the word

/uopcpr/ comp. Bishop
Philip, pp. 127-133.
5 This expression of St. Luke, so far
from indicating embellishment of the
other accounts, marks, if anything, rather
retrogression. 6 It is scarcely a Rabbinic parallel —
hardly an illustration — that in Rabbinic
writings also Moses' face before his death
is said to have shone as the sun. for the
comparison is a Biblical one. Such lan
guage would, of course, be familiar to St.
Matthew. 1 The words ' as snow,' iu St. Mark
ix. 3, are, however, spurious — an early
gloss.

THE TRANSFIGURATION. 97
more than this they saw and heard. They saw ' with Him two CHAP.
men, ' " whom, in their heightened sensitiveness to spiritual phe- I
nomena, they could have no difficulty in recognising, by such of ^ — -<- —
their conversation as they heard, as Moses and Elijah.1 The column aSt- Luke
was now complete: the base in the Law; the shaft in that Prophetism
of which Elijah was the great Representative — in his first Mission,
as fulfilling the primary object of the Prophets: to call Israel back
to God; and, in his second Mission, this other aspect of the Prophets'
work, to prepare the way for the Kingdom of God; and the apex in
Christ Himself — a unity completely fitting together in all its parts.
And they heard also, that they spake of ' His Exodus — outgoing —
which He was about to fulfil at Jerusalem. ' b Although the term b st. Luke
1 Exodus, ' ' outgoing, ' occurs otherwise for ' death, ' 2 we must bear in
mind its meaning as contrasted with that in which the same Evangelic
writer designates the Birth of Christ, as His ' incoming. ' ° In truth, ° e;<ro««.
it implies not only His Decease, but its manner, and even His Resur
rection and Ascension. In that sense we can understand the better,
as on the lips of Moses and Elijah, this about His fulfilling that
Exodus: accomplishing it in all its fulness, and so completing Law
and Prophecy, type and prediction.
And still that night of glory had not ended. A strange pecu
liarity has been noticed about Hermon in 'the extreme rapidity
of the formation of cloud on the summit. In a few minutes a thick
cap forms over the top of the mountain, and as quickly disperses
and entirely disappears. ' 3 It almost seems as if this, like the
natural position of Hermon itself, was, if not to be connected with,
yet, so to speak, to form the background to what was to be enacted.
Suddenly a cloud passed over the clear brow of the mountain — not
an ordinary, but 'a luminous cloud,' a cloud uplit, filled with
light. As it laid itself between Jesus and the two Old Testament
Representatives, it parted, and presently enwrapped them. Most
significant is it, suggestive of the Presence of God, revealing, yet
concealing — a cloud, yet luminous. And this cloud overshadowed
the disciples: the shadow of its light fell upon them. A nameless
terror seized them. Fain would they have held what seemed for
ever to escape their grasp. Such vision had never before been
vouchsafed to mortal man as had fallen on their sight; they had
already heard Heaven's converse; they had tasted Angels' Food, the
Bread of His Presence. Could the vision not be perpetuated — at
1 Godet points out the emphatic mean- 2 In some of the Apocrypha and
ing of oiTivei in St. Luke ix. 30=quippe Josephus, as well as in 2 Pet. i. 15.
qui: they were none other than. 3 Conder, u. s. vol. i. p. 265.

,g THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATKJN.
BOOK least prolonged? In the confusion of their terror they knew not
iv how otherwise to word it, than by an expression of ecstatic longing
— y- — ¦ for the continuance of what they had, of their earnest readiness
to do their little best, if they could but secure it — make booths for
the heavenfy Visitants : — and themselves wait in humble service
and reverent attention on what their dull heaviness had prevented
their enjoying and profiting by, to the full. They knew and felt it:
'Lord' — 'Rabbi' — 'Master' — 'it is good for us to be here' — and
they longed to have it; yet how to secure it, their terror could not
suggest, save in the language of ignorance and semi-conscious con
fusion. ' They wist not what they said. ' In presence of the lumi
nous cloud that enwrapt those glorified Saints, they spake from out
that darkness which compassed them about.
And now the light-cloud was spreading; presently its fringe fell
upon them.2 Heaven's awe was upon them: for the touch of the
heavenly strains, almost to breaking, the bond betwixt body and soul.
'And a Voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is My Beloved3
Son: hear Him.' It had needed only One other Testimony to seal
it all; One other Voice, to give both meaning and music to what had
been the subject of Moses' and Elijah's speaking. That Voice had
now come — not in testimony to any fact, but to a Person — that of
Jesus as His ' Beloved Son, ' 4 and in gracious direction to them.
They heard it, falling on their faces in awestruck worship.
How long the silence had lasted, and the last rays of the
cloud had passed, we know not. Presently, it was a gentle touch that
roused them. It was the Hand of Jesus, as with words of comfort
He reassured them: 'Arise, and be not afraid.' And as, startled,5
they looked round about them, they saw no man save Jesus only.
The Heavenly Visitants had gone, the last glow of the light-cloud had
faded away, the echoes of Heaven's Voice had died out. It was
night, and they were on the Mount with Jesus, and with Jesus only.
Is it truth or falsehood; was it reality or vision — or part of both,
this Transfiguration-scene on Hermon? One thing, at least, must be
1 Wiinsche (ad Ioc.) quotes as it seems not agree with Godet, that the question
to me, very inaptly, the Rabbinic realistic depends on whether we adopt in St.
idea of the fulfilment of Is. iv. 5, 6, that Luke ix. 34 the reading of the T.R.
God would make for each of the righteous EKeivovi, or that of the Alex. a-drovS.
seven booths, varying according to their 3 The more correct reading in St.
merits (Baba B. 75 a), or else one booth Luke seems to be 'Elect Son.'
for each (Bemid. R. 21, ed. Warsh. p. 85a). * St. Matthew adds, ' in Whom I am
Surely, there can be no similarity between well pleased.' The reason of this fuller
this and the words of Peter. account is not difficult to understand.
2 A comparison of the narratives leaves 5 St. Mark indicates this by the words :
on us the impression that the disciples ' And suddenly, when they looked round
also were touched by the cloud. lean- about'

MOSES AND ELIJAH WITH CHRIST.
evident: if it be a true narrative, it cannot possibly describe a merely
subjective vision without objective reality. But, in that case, it
would be not only difficult, but impossible, to separate one part of the
narrative — the appearance of Moses and Elijah — from the other, the
Transfiguration of the Lord, and to assign to the latter objective
reality,1 while regarding the former as merely a vision. But is the
account true? It certainly represents primitive tradition, since it is
not only told by all the three Evangelists, but referred to in 2 Peter i.
16-18,2 and evidently implied in the words of St. John, both in his
Gospel," and in the opening of his First Epistle. Few, if any, would *st. jomn.
be so bold as to assert that the whole of this history had been
invented by the three Apostles, who professed to have been its
witnesses. Nor can any adequate motive be imagined for its inven
tion. It could not have been intended to prepare the Jews for the
Crucifixion of the Messiah, since it was to be kept a secret till after
His Resurrection; and, after the event, it could not have been
necessary for the assurance of those who believed in the Resurrection,
while to others it would carry no weight. Again, the special traits
of this history are inconsistent with the theory of its invention. In
a legend, the witnesses of such an event would not have been repre
sented as scarcely awake, and not knowing what they said. Mani
festly, the object would have been to convey the opposite impression.
Lastly, it cannot be too often repeated, that, in view of the manifold
witness of the Evangelists, amply confirmed in all essentials by the
Epistles — preached, lived, and bloodsealed by the primitive Church,
and handed down as primitive tradition — the most untenable theory
seems that which imputes intentional fraud to their narratives, or, to
put it otherwise, non-belief on the part of the narrators of what they
related. But can we suppose, if not fraud, yet mistake on the part of
these witnesses, so that an event, otherwise naturally explicable, may,
through their ignorance or imaginativeness, have assumed the pro
portions of this narrative? The investigation will be the more easy,
that, as regards all the main features of the narrative, the three
Evangelists are entirely agreed. Instead of examining in detail the
various rationalistic attempts made to explain this history on natural
grounds, it seems sufficient for refutation to ask the intelligent reader
1 This part of the argument is well disembodied spirits have no kind of cor-
worked out by Meyer, but his arguments poreity, or that they cannot assume a
for regarding the appearance of Moses visible appearance ?
and Elijah as merely a vision, because 2 Even if that Epistle were not St.
the former at least had no resurrection- Peter's, it would still represent the most
body, are very weak. ' Are we sure, that ancient tradition.

100 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK to attempt imagining any natural event, which by any possibility
IV could have been mistaken for what the eyewitnesses related, and the
*- — r~ — ' Evangelists recorded.
There still remains the mythical theory of explanation, which, if
it could be supported, would be the "most attractive among those of
a negative character. But we cannot imagine a legend without some
historical motive or basis for its origination. The legend must be in
character — that is, congruous to the ideas and expectancies enter
tained. Such a history as that of the Transfiguration could not have
been a pure invention; but if such or similar expectancies had
existed about the Messiah, then such a legend might, without in
tentional fraud, have, by gradual accretion, gathered around the
Person of Him Who was regarded as the Christ. And this is the
rationale of the so-called mythical theory. But all such ideas vanish
at the touch of history. There was absolutely no Jewish expectancy
that could have bodied itself forth in a narrative like that of the
Transfiguration. To begin with the accessories — the idea, that the
coming of Moses was to be connected with that of the Messiah, rests
not only on an exaggeration, but on a dubious and difficult passage
¦ on Ex. in the Jerusalem Targum/1 It is quite true, that the face of Moses
shone when he came down from the Mount; but, if this is to be
regarded as the basis of the Transfiguration of Jesus, the presence of
Elijah would not be in point. On the other hand — to pass over other
inconsistencies — anything more un-Jewish could scarcely be imagined
than a Messiah crucified, or that Moses and Elijah should appear to
converse with Him on such a Death! If it be suggested, that the
1 Moses and the Messiah are placed But all seems not only plain but accord-
side by side, the one as coming from the ant with other Rabbinic teaching (see
desert, the other from Rome. ' This one vol. i. p. 176), if we regard the passage
shall lead at the head of a cloud, and as only indicating a parallelism between
that one shall lead at the head of a cloud, the first and the second Deliverer and the
the Memra of Jehovah leading between deliverances wrought by them. Again,
them twain, and they going ' — as I would although the parallel is often drawn in
render it — ' as one' (Ve-innunmehalkhin Rabbinic writings between Moses and
kachada), or, as some render it, ' they Elijah, I know only one passage, and that
shall walk together.' The question here a dubious one, in which they are con-
arises, whether this is to be understood joined in the days of the Messiah. It
as merely figurative language, or to be occurs in Deb. R. 3 (seven lines before
taken literally. If literally, does the the close of it), and is to this effect, that,
Targum refer to a kind of heavenly vision, because Moses had in this world given
or to something that was actually to his life for Israel, therefore in the Mori
take place, a kind of realism of what to come, when God would send Elijah
Philo had anticipated (see vol. i. p. 82) ? the prophet, they two should come,
It may have been in this sense that Fr. keachath, either 'together' or ' as one,'
Tayler renders the words by ' in culmine the proof passage being Nah. i. 3, 'the
nubis equitabit.' But on careful con- whirlwind ' there referring to Moses, and
sideration the many and obvious incon- ' the storm ' to Elijah. Surely, no one
gruities involved in it seem to render a would found on such a basis a Jewish
literal interpretationwellnighimpossible. mythical origin of the Transfiguration.

Xll.

MEANING OF THE TRANSFIGURATION. 101
purpose was to represent the Law and the Prophets as bearing
testimony to the Dying of the Messiah, we fully admit it. Certainly,
this is the New Testament and the true idea concerning the Christ;
but equally certainly, it was not and is not, that of the Jews con
cerning the Messiah.1
If it is impossible to regard this narrative as a fraud; hopeless, to
attempt explaining it as a natural event; and utterly unaccountable,
when viewed in connection with contemporary thought or expectancy
— in short, if all negative theories fail, let us see whether, and how,
on the supposition of its reality, it will fit into the general narrative.
To begin with: if our previous investigations have rightly led us up
to this result, that Jesus was the Very Christ of God, then this event
can scarcely be described as miraculous — at least in such a history.
If we would not expect it, it is certainly that which might have been
expected. For, first, it was (and at that particular period) a neces
sary stage in the Lord's History, viewed in the light in which the
Gospels present Him. Secondly, it was needful for His own strength
ening, even as the Ministry of the Angels after the Temptation.
Thirdly, it was ' good ' for these three disciples to be there : not only
for future witness, but for present help, and also with special reference
to Peter's remonstrance against Christ's death-message. Lastly, the
Voice from heaven, in hearing of His disciples, was of the deepest
importance. Coming after the announcement of His Death and
Passion, it sealed that testimony, and, in view of it, proclaimed
Him as the Prophet to Whom Moses had bidden Israel hearken," "Deut.
while it repeated the heavenly utterance concerning Him made at His
Baptism/. b.?t Matt.
~ ill. 17
But, for us all, the interest of this history lies not only in the
past; it is in the present also, and in the future. To all ages it is
like the vision of the bush burning, in which was the Presence of
God. And it points us forward to that transformation, of which
that of Christ was the pledge, when ' this corruptible shall put on
incorruption. ' As of old the beacon-fires, lighted from hill to hill,
announced to them far away from Jerusalem the advent of solemn
feast, so does the glory kindled on the Mount of Transfiguration shine
through the darkness of the world, and tell of the Resurrection-Day.
On Hermon the Lord and His disciples had reached the highest
point in this history. Henceforth it is a descent into the Valley of
Humiliation and Death!
' Godet has also aptly pointed out, with the mythical theory. It could only
that the injunction of silence on the dis- point to a real event, not to a myth.
ciples as to this event is incompatible

102 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER II.
ON THE MORROW OF THE TRANSFIGURATION.
(St. Matt. xvii. 9-21; St. Mark ix. 9-29: St. Luke ix. 37-43.)
BOOK It was the early dawn of another summer's day when the Master and
iv His disciples turned their steps once more towards the plain. They
-"">" — had seen His Glory; they had had the most solemn witness which,
as Jews, they could have; and they had gained a new knowledge of
the Old Testament. It all bore reference to the Christ, and it spake
of His Decease. Perhaps on that morning better than in the pre
vious night did they realise the vision, and feel its calm happiness.
It wus to their souls like the morning-air which they breathed on that
mountain. It would be only natural, that their thoughts should also wander
to the companions and fellow-disciples whom, on the previous evening,
they had left in the valley beneath. How much they had to tell them,
and how glad they would be of the tidings they would hear ! That
one night had for ever answered so many questions about that most
hard of all His sayings: concerning His Rejection and violent Death
at Jerusalem; it had shed heavenly light into that terrible gloom!
They — at least these three — had formerly simply submitted to the
saying of Christ because it was His, without understanding it; but
now they had learned to see it in quite another light. How they
must have longed to impart it to those whose difficulties were at
least as great, perhaps greater, who perhaps had not yet recovered
from the rude shock which their Messianic thoughts and hopes had so
lately received. We think here especially of those, whom, so far as
individuality of thinking is concerned, we may designate as the
representative three, and the counterpart of the three chosen Apostles:
Philip, who ever sought firm standing-ground for faith; Thomas, who
wanted evidence for believing; and Judas, whose burning Jewish zeal
for a Jewish Messiah had already begun to consume his own soul, as
the wind had driven back upon himself the flame that had been
kindled. Every question of a Philip, every doubt of a Thomas, every

THE DESCENT FROM THE MOUNT. 103
despairing wild outburst of a Judas, would be met by what they had CHAP.
now to tell. II
But it was not to be so. Evidently, it was not an event to lie ' — ~y~ —
made generally known, either to the people or even to the great
body of the disciples. They could not , have understood its real
meaning; they would have misunderstood, and in their ignorance
misapplied to carnal Jewish purposes, its heavenly lessons. But
even the rest of the Apostles must not know of it: that they were
not qualified to witness it, proved that they were not prepared to
hear of it. We cannot for a moment imagine, that there was favour
itism in the selection of certain Apostles to share in what the others
might not witness. It was not because these were better loved, but
because they were better prepared : — more fully receptive, more read
ily acquiescing, more entirely self-surrendering. Too often we com
mit in our estimate the error of thinking of them exclusively as
Apostles, not as disciples; as our teachers, not as His learners, with
all the failings of men, the prejudices of Jews, and the unbelief nat
ural to us all, but assuming in each individual special forms, and ap
pearing as characteristic weaknesses.
And so it was that, when the silence of that morning-descent was
broken, the Master laid on them the command to tell no man of this
-vision, till after the Son of Man were risen from the dead. This
mysterious injunction of silence affords another presumptive evidence
against the invention, or the rationalistic explanations, or the myth
ical origin of this narrative. It also teaches two further lessons.
The silence thus enjoined was the first step into the Valley of Humil
iation. It was also a test, whether they had understood the spiritual
teaching of the vision. And their strict obedience, not questioning
even the grounds of the injunction, proved that they had learned it.
So entire, indeed, was their submission, that they dared not even ask
the Master about a new and seemingly greater mystery than they had
yet heard: the meaning of the Son of Man rising from the Dead." "St. Mark
Did it refer to the general Resurrection; was the Messiah to be the
first to rise from the dead, and to waken the other sleepers — or was
it only a figurative expression for His triumph and vindication?
Evidently, they knew as yet nothing of Christ's Personal Resurrec
tion, as separate from that of others, and on the third day after His
Death. And yet it was no near! So ignorant were they, and so un
prepared! And they dared not ask the Master of it. This much
1 While writing this, we fully remem- ' whom Jesus loved ' specially, even in
ber about the title of St. John as he that inner and closer circle.

ix. 10

104

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Mark
ix. 10

<¦ St. Matt.
xi. 14

they had already learned : not to question the mysteries of the future,
but simply to receive them. But in their inmost hearts they kept
that saying — as the Virgin-Mother had kept many a like saying —
carrying it about ' with them ' as a precious living germ that would
presently spring up and bear fruit, or as that which would kindle into
light and chase all darkness. But among themselves, then and many
times afterwards, in secret converse, they questioned what the rising
again from the dead should mean/
There was another question, and it they might ask of Jesus, since
it concerned not the mysteries of the future, but the lessons of the
past. Thinking of that vision, of the appearance of Elijah and of
his speaking of the Death of the Messiah, why did the Scribes say
that Elijah should first come — and, as was the universal teaching, for
the purpose of restoring all things? If, as they had seen, Elijah had
come — but only for a brief season, not to abide, along with Moses, as
they had fondly wished when they proposed to rear them booths; if
he had come not to the people but to Christ, in view of only them
three — and they were not even to tell of it; and, if it had been,
not to prepare for a spiritual restoration, but to speak of what
implied the opposite: the Rejection and violent Death of the Mes
siah — then, were the Scribes right in their teaching, and what was
its real meaning? The question afforded the opportunity of pre
senting to the disciples not only a solution of their difficulties, but
another insight into the necessity of His Rejection and Death.
They had failed to distinguish between the coming of Elijah and its
alternative sequence. Truly ' Elias cometh first ' — and Elijah had
' come already ' in the person of John the Baptist. The Divinely
intended object of Elijah's coming was to 'restore all things.' This,
of course, implied a moral element in the submission of the people to
God, and their willingness to receive his message. Otherwise there
was this Divine alternative in the prophecy of Malachi: ' Lest I come
to smite the land with the ban ' (C'herem). Elijah had come; if the
people had received his message, there would have been the promised
restoration of all things. As the Lord had said on a previous occa
sion" : 'If ye are willing to receive him,1 this is Elijah, which is to
come.' Similarly, if Israel had received the Christ, He would have
gathered them as a hen her chickens for protection; He would not
only have been, but have visibly appeared as, their King. But Israel
did not know their Elijah, and did unto him whatsoever they listed;
and so, in logical sequence, would the Son of Man also suffer of
1 The meaning remains substantially the same whether we insert ' him' or 'it.'

THE FAILURE TO HEAL THE LUNATICK.

105

CHAP. II

¦In St. Mat
thew and
St. Mark

them. And thus has the other part of Malachi's prophecy been ful
filled: and the land of Israel been smitten with the ban.1
Amidst such conversation the descent from the mountain was
accomplished. Presently they found themselves in view of a scene,
which only too clearly showed that unfitness of the disciples for the
heavenly vision of the preceding night, to which reference has been
made. For, amidst the divergence of details between the narratives
of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and, so far as it goes, that of St. Luke,
the one point in which they almost literally and emphatically accord
is, when the Lord speaks of them, in language of bitter disappoint
ment and sorrow, as a generation with whose want of faith, notwith
standing all that they had seen and learned, He had still to bear,
expressly attributing a their failure in restoring the lunatick, to their
'unbelief.'2 It was, indeed, a terrible contrast between the scene below and
that vision of Moses and Elijah, when they had spoken of the Exodus
of the Christ, and the Divine Voice had attested the Christ from out
the luminous cloud. A concourse of excited people — among them
once more ' Scribes, ' who had tracked the Lord and come upon His
weakest disciples in the hour of their greatest weakness — is gathered
about a man who had in vain brought his lunatick son for healing.
He is eagerly questioned by the multitude, and moodily answers; or,
as it might almost seem from St. Matthew," he is leaving the crowd t ver. 14
and those from whom he had vainly sought help. This was the hour
of triumph for these Scribes. The Master had refused the challenge
in Dalmanutha, and the disciples, accepting it, had signally failed.
There they were, 'questioning with them' noisily, discussing this
and all similar phenomena, but chiefly the power, authority, and
reality of the Master. It reminds us of Israel's temptation in the
wilderness, and we should scarcely wonder, if they had even ques
tioned the return of Jesus, as they of old did that of Moses.
At that very moment, Jesus appeared with the three. We can
not wonder that, ' when they saw Him, they were greatly amazed, 3
and running to Him saluted Him.' ° He came — as always, and to us »st. Mart
also — unexpectedly, most opportunely, and for the real decision of the

1 The question, whether there is to be
a literal reappearance of Elijah before
the Second Advent of Christ does not
seem to be answered in the present pas
sage. Perhaps it is purposely left unan
swered. 2 The reading ' little faith ' instead of
'unbelief,' though highly attested, seems

only an early correction. On internal
grounds it is more likely, that the expres
sion ' little faith ' is a correction by a later
apologete, than 'unbelief.' Thelatteralso
corresponds to ' faithless generation.'
3 There is no hint in the text, that their
amazement was due to the shining of
His Face.

thew

106 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK question in hand. There was immediate calm, preceding victory.
IV Before the Master's inquiry about the cause of this violent discussion
^ — -s- — ' could be answered, the man who had been its occasion came for-
stMat- ward. With lowliest gesture (' kneeling to Him'") he addressed
Jesus. At last he had found Him, Whom he had come to seek ;
and, if possibility of help there were, oh ! let it be granted. De
scribing the symptoms of his son's distemper, which were those of
epilepsy and mania — although both the father and Jesus rightly
attributed the disease to demoniac influence — he told, how he had
come in search of the Master, but only found the nine disciples, and
how they had presumptuously attempted, and signally failed in the
attempted cure.
Why had they failed? For the same reason, that they had not
been taken into the Mount of Transfiguration — because they were
'faithless,' because of their 'unbelief.' They had that outward
faith of the ' probatum est' ('it is proved'); they believed because,
and what, they had seen ; and they were drawn closer to Christ —
at least almost all of them, though in varying measure — as to Him
Who, and Who alone, spake ' the words of eternal life, ' which, with
wondrous power, had swayed their souls, or laid them to heaven's
rest. But that deeper, truer faith, which consisted in the spiritual
view of that which was the unseen in Christ, and that higher power,
which flows from such apprehension, they had not. In such faith as
they had, they spake, repeated forms of exorcism, tried to imitate
their Master. But they signally failed, as did those seven Jewish
Priest-sons at Ephesus. And it was intended that they shomld fail,
that so to them and to us the higher meaning of faith as contrasted
with power, the inward as contrasted with the merely outward qual
ification, might appear. In that hour of crisis, in the presence of
questioning Scribes and a wondering populace, and in the absence of
the Christ, only one power could prevail, that of spiritual faith; and
' that kind ' could ' not come out but by prayer.' 2
It is this lesson, viewed also in organic connection with all that
had happened since the great temptation at Dalmanutha, which fur
nishes the explanation of the whole history. For one moment we
have a glimpse into the Saviour's soul: the poignant sorrow of His
disappointment at the unbelief of the ' faithless and perverse genera-
1 In St. Mark ix. 16 the better reading like a later gloss. It is not unlikely that
is, 'He asked them,' and not, as in the St. Matt. xvii. 21 is merely a spurious
T.R., 'the Scribes.' insertion from St. Mark. However, see
2 The addition of the word ' fasting ' Meyer on this point.
in St. Mark is probably spurious. It reads

'ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE TO HIM THAT BELIEVETH.' 10*;
tion,'1 with which He had so long borne; the infinite patience and chap.
condescension, the Divine ' need be ' of His having thus to bear even II
with His own, together with the deep humiliation and keen pang ^*~y —
which it involved; and the almost home-longing, as one has called
it,2 of- His soul. These are mysteries to adore. The next moment
Jesus turns Him to the father. At His command the lunatick is
brought to Him. In the Presence of Jesus, and in view of the
coming contest between Light and Darkness, one of those paroxysms
of demoniac operation ensues, such as we have witnessed on all
similar occasions. This was allowed to pass in view of all. But both
this, and the question as to the length of time the lunatick had been
afflicted, together with the answer, and the description of the dangers
involved, which it elicited, were evidently intended to point the
lesson of the need of a higher faith. To the father, however, who
knew not the mode of treatment by the Heavenly Physician, they
seemed like the questions of an earthly healer who must consider the
symptoms before he could attempt to cure. ' If Thou canst do any
thing, have compassion on us, and help us. '
It was but natural — and yet it was the turning-point in this
whole history, alike as regarded the healing of the lunatick, the
better leading of his father, the teaching of the disciples, and that of
the multitude and the Scribes. There is all the calm majesty of
Divine self-consciousness, yet without trace of self-assertion, when
Jesus, utterly ignoring the ' if Thou canst, ' turns to the man and tells
him that, while with the Divine Helper there is the possibility of
all help, it is conditioned by a possibility in ourselves, by man's re-
ceptiveness, by his faith. Not, if the Christ can do anything or even
everything, but, ' If thou canst believe,3 all things are possible to him
that believeth. ' 4 The question is not, it can never be, as the man had
put it; it must not even be answered, but ignored. It must ever be,
1 The expression ' generation ' although of course, one of the outward grounds on
embracing in its reproof all the people, which the criticism of the text must pro-
is specially addressed to the disciples. ceed, I confess to the feeling that, as age
2 Godet. andpurityarenotidentical,theinterpreter
3 The weight of the evidence from the must weigh all such evidence in the light
MSS. accepted by most modern critics of the internal grounds for or against its
(though not by that very judicious com- reception. Besides, in this instance, it
mentator, Canon Cook) is in favour of the seems to me that there is some difficulty
reading and rendering: 'If Thou canst! about the to if Ttiarevo-ai is struck out,
all things are possible,' &c. But it seems and which is not so easily cleared up as
to me, that this mode of reply on the part Meyer suggests.
of Christ is not only without any other * ' Omnipotentise Divinse se fides homi-
parallel in the Gospels, but too artificial, nis. quasi organon, accommodat ad re-
too Western, if I may use the expres- cipiendum, vel etiam ad agendum.' —
sion. While the age of a MS. or MSS. is, Bengel.

108 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK not what He can, but what we can. When the infinite fulness is
IV poured forth, as it ever is in Christ, it is not the oil that is stayed,
but the vessels which fail. He giveth richly, inexhaustibly, but
not mechanically; there is only one condition, the moral one of the
presence of absolute faith — our receptiveness. And so these words
have to all time remained the teaching to every individual striver
in the battle of the higher life, and to the Church as a whole — the
' in hoc signo vinces1 a over the Cross, the victory that overcometh the
world, even our faith.
It was a lesson, of which the reality was attested by the hold
which it took on the man's whole nature. While by one great out
going of hie soul he overleapt all, to lay hold on the one fact set before
him, he felt all the more the dark chasm of unbelief behind him, but
he also cluug to that Christ, Whose teaching of faith had shown him,
together with the possibility, the source of faith. Thus through the
felt unbelief of faith he attained true faith by laying hold on the Divine
Saviour, when he cried out and said:2 'Lord, I believe; help Thou
mine unbelief. ' 3 These words have remained historic, marking all
true faith, which, even as faith, is conscious of, nay implies, unbelief,
but brings it to Christ for help. The most bold leap of faith and the
timid resting at His Feet, the first beginning and the last ending of
faith, have alike this as their watchword.
Such cry could not be, and never is, unheard. It was real de
moniac influence which, continuing with this man from childhood
onwards, had well-nigh crushed all moral individuality in him. In
his many lucid intervals these many years, since he had grown from
a child into a youth, he had never sought to shake off the yoke and
regain his moral individuality, nor would he even uow hate come, if
his father had not brought him. If any, this narrative shows the
view which the Gospels and Jesus took of what are described as the
'demonised.' It was a reality, and not accommodation to Jewish
views, when, as He saw ' the.multitude running together, He rebuked
the unclean spirit, saying to him: Dumb and deaf spirit, I command
thee, come out of him, and no more come into him. '
Another and a more violent paroxysm, so that the bystanders
almost thought him dead. But the unclean spirit had come out of
1 ' In this sign shalt thou conquer ' — the are apparently a spurious addition.
inscription on the supposed vision of the 3 The interpretation of Meyer: 'Do
Cross by the Emperor Constantine before not withhold thy help, notwithstanding
his great victory and conversion to Chris- my unbelief ' seems as jejune as that of
tianity. others: ' Help me in my unbelief.'
2 The words with ' tears,' in the T.R.

'LORD, I BELIEVE; HELP THOU MINE' UNBELIEF.' 109
him. And with strong gentle Hand the Saviour lifted him, and with
loving gesture delivered him to his father.
All things had been possible to faith; not to that external belief
of the disciples, which failed to reach ' that kind,' x and ever fails to
reach such kind, but to true spiritual faith in Him. And so it is to
each of us individually, and to the Church, to all time. ' That kind, '
— whether it be ol sin, of lust, of the v\ orld, or of science falsely so
called, of temptation, or of materialism — cometh not out by any of
our ready-made formulas or dead dogmas. Not so are the flesh and
the Devil vanquished; not so is the world overcome. It cometh out
by nothing but by prayer: 'Lord, I believe; help Thou mine un
belief. ' Then, although our faith were only what in popular lan
guage was described as the smallest — ' like a grain of mustard-seed '
— and the result to be achieved the greatest, most difficult, seem
ingly transcending human ability to compass it — what in popular
language was designated as ' removing mountains ' 2 — ' nothing shall
be impossible ' unto us. And these eighteen centuries of suffering
in Christ, and deliverance through Christ, and work for Christ, have
proved it. For all things are ours, if Christ is ours.
1 But it is rather too wide an applica- bial among the Rabbis. Thus, a great
tion, when Euthymius Zygabenus (one Rabbi might be designated as one who
of the great Byzantine theologians of the 'uprooted mountains' (Ber., last page,
twelfth century), and others after him, line 5 from top ; and Horay, 14 a), or as
note 'the kind of all demons.' one who pulverised them (Sanh. 24 a).
2 The Rabbinic use of the expression, The expression is also used to indicate
'grain of mustard seed, 'has already been apparently impossible things, such as
noted. The expression ' tearing up ' or those which a heathen government may
'removing ' ' mountains ' was also prover- order a man to do (Baba B. 3 6).

110

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER III.

BOOK IV

• St. Mark

THE LAST EVENTS IN GALILEE-
WAY, THE FORBIDDING OF HIM WHO COULD NOT FOLLOW WITH THE
DISCIPLES, AND THE CONSEQUENT TEACHING OF CHRIST.
(St. Matt. xvii. 22— xviii. 22; St. Mark ix. 30-50; St. Luke ix. 43-50.)
Now that the Lord's retreat in the utmost borders of the land,
at Caesarea Philippi, was known to the Scribes, and that He was
again surrounded and followed by the multitude, there could be no
further object in His retirement. Indeed, the time was coming that
He should meet that for which He had been, and was still, preparing
the minds of His disciples — His Decease at Jerusalem. Accordingly,
we find Him once more with His disciples in Galilee — not to abide
there,1 nor to traverse it as formerly for Missionary purposes, but
preparatory to His journey to the Feast of Tabernacles. The few-
events of this brief stay, and the teaching connected with it, may
be summed up as follows.
1. Prominently, perhaps, as the summary of all, we have now
the clear and emphatic repetition of the prediction of His Death and
Resurrection. While He would keep His present stay in Galilee as
private as possible," He would fain so emphasize this teaching to His
disciples, that it should sink down into their ears and memories.
For it was, indeed, the most needful for them in view of the imme
diate future. Yet the announcement only filled their loving hearts
with exceeding sorrow; they comprehended it not; nay, they were —
perhaps not unnaturally — afraid to ask Him about it. We remember,
that even the three who had been with Jesus on the Mount, under
stood not what the rising from the dead should mean, and that, by
direction of the Master, they kept the whole Vision from their
fellow-disciples; and, thinking of it all, we scarcely wonder that,
from their standpoint, it was hid from them, so that they might not
perceive it.
1 The expression in St. Matthew abode, but a temporary stay — a going to
(xvii. 22) does not imply permanent and fro.

THE TRIBUTE-MONEY. m
2. It is to the depression caused by His insistence on this ter- chap.
rible future, to the constant apprehension of near danger, and the in
consequent desire not to ' offend, ' and so provoke those at whose v— - y^^
hands, Christ had told them, He was to suffer, that we trace the
incident about the tribute-money. We can scarcely believe, that
Peter would have answered as he did, without previous permission
of his Master, had it not been for such thoughts and fears. It was
another mode of saying, ' That be far from Thee ' — or, rather, trying
to keep it as far as he could from Christ. Indeed, we can scarcely
repress the feeling, that there was a certain amount of secretiveness
on the part of Peter, as if he had apprehended that Jesus would not
have wished him to act as he did, and would fain have kept the
whole transaction from the knowledge of his Master.
It is well known that, on the ground of the injunction in Exod.
xxx. 13 &c, every male in Israel, from twenty years upwards, was
expected annually to contribute to the Temple-Treasury the sum of
one half-shekel1 of the Sanctuary," that is, one common shekel, or two »comp.
Attic drachms,2 equivalent to about Is. 2d. or Is. Bd. of our money. 4; 2cnron!
Whether or not the original Biblical ordinance had been intended to Nen.'x.'32
institute a regular annual contribution, the Jews of the Dispersion would
probably regard it in the light of a patriotic as well as religious act.
To the particulars previously given on this subject a few others
may be added. The family of the Chief of the Sanhedrin (Gamaliel)
seems to have enjoyed the curious distinction of bringing their con
tributions to the Temple-Treasury, not like others, but to have thrown
them down before him who opened the Temple-Chest,3 when they
were immediately placed in the box from which, without delay,
sacrifices were provided." Again, the commentators explain a cer- usheq. 111.3
tain passage in the Mishnah ° and the Talmud a as implying that, = sheq. m. 1
although the Jews in Palestine had to pay the tribute-money before " Yoma 64 a
the Passover, those from neighbouring lands might bring it before
the Feast of Weeks, and those from such remote countries as Baby
lonia and Media as late as the Feast of Tabernacles.4 Lastly, although
1 According to Neh. x. 32, immedi- the pieces of silver in the Temple (St.
ately after the return from Babylon the Matt, xxvii. 5)?
contribution was a third of a shekel — 4 Dean Plumptre is mistaken in com-
probably on account of the poverty of paring, as regarded the Sadducees, the
the people. Temple-rate with the Church-rate ques-
2 But only one Alexandrian (comp. tion. There is no analogy between them,
LXX. Gen. xxiii. 15; Josh. vii. 21). nor did the Sadducees ever question its
3 Could there have been an intended, propriety. The Dean is also in error in
or — what would be still more striking — supposing, that the Palestinians were
an unintended, but very real irony in wont to bring it at one of the other
this, when Judas afterwards cast down feasts.

112

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

1 Sheqal.
n. 5
' Yoma 55 b

a Jos. Wai
vii. 6. 6

the Mishnah lays it down, that the goods of those might be distrained,
who had not paid the Temple-tribute by the 25th Adar, it is scarcely
credible that this obtained at the time of Christ, 1 at any rate in
Galilee. Indeed, this seems implied in the statement of the Mishnah "
and the Talmud," that one of the ' thirteen trumpets ' in the Temple,
into which contributions were cast, was destined for the shekels of
the current, and another for those- of the preceding, year. Finally,
these Temple-contributions were in the first place devoted to the
purchase of all public sacrifices, that is, those which were offered in
the name of the whole congregation of Israel, such as the morning
and evening sacrifices. It will be remembered, that this was one of
the points in fierce dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and
that the former perpetuated their triumph by marking its anniver
sary as a festive day in their calendar. It seems a terrible irony of
judgment" when Vespasian ordered, after the destruction of the
Temple, that this tribute should henceforth be paid for the rebuilding
of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus/
It will be remembered that, shortly before the previous Passover,
Jesus with His disciples had left Capernaum,2 that they returned to
the latter city only for the Sabbath, and that, as we have suggested,
they passed the first Paschal days on the borders of Tyre. We have,
indeed, no means of knowing where the Master had tarried during
the ten days between the 15th and the 25th Adar, supposing the
Mishnic arrangements to have been in force in Capernaum. He was
certainly not at Capernaum, and it must also have been known, that
He had not gone up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Accordingly,
when it was told in Capernaum, that the Rabbi of Nazareth had once
more come to what seems to have been His Galilean home, it was
only natural, that they who collected the Temple-tribute3 should
have applied for its payment. It is quite possible, that their appli
cation may have been, if not prompted, yet quickened, by the wish
to involve Him in a breach of so well-known an obligation, or else
by a hostile curiosity. Would He, Who took so strangely different
views of Jewish observances, and Who made such extraordinary
claims, own the duty of paying the Temple-tribute? Had it been

1 The penalty of distraint had only
been enacted less than a century before
(about 78), during the reign of Queen
Salome- Alexandra, who was entirely in
the hands of the Pharisees.
2 See Book III. ch. xxxi.
3 If it were not for the authority of
Wieseler,v/ho supports it, the suggestion
would scarcely deserve serious notice,

that the reference here is not to the
Temple-tribute, but to the Roman poll-
tax o ceusus. Irrespective of the ques
tion whether a census was then levied in
Galilee, the latter is designated both in
St. Matt. xvii. 25, and in xxii. 17, as well
as in St. Mark xii. 14, as Kf/vaoi, while
here the well-known expression did-
rachma is used.

'THEN ARE THE CHILDREN FREE.' 113
owing to His absence, or from principle, that He had not paid it last CHAP.
Passover-season? The question which they put to Peter implies, at Hi
least, their doubt. — -y- — -
We have already seen what motives prompted the hasty reply of
Peter. He might, indeed, also otherwise, in his rashness, have given
an affirmative answer to the inquiry, without first consulting the
Master. For there seems little doubt, that Jesus had on former
occasions complied with the Jewish custom. But matters were now
wholly changed. Since the first Passover, which had marked His
first public appearance in the Temple at Jerusalem, He had stated —
and quite lately in most explicit terms — that He was the Christ, the
Son of God. To have now paid the Temple-tribute, without explana
tion, might have involved a very serious misapprehension. In view of
all this, the history before us seems alike simple and natural. There
is no pretext for the artificial construction put upon it by commentators,
any more than for the suggestion, that such was the poverty of the
Master and His disciples, that the small sum requisite for the Temple-
tribute had to be miraculously supplied.
We picture it to ourselves on this wise. Those who received the
Tribute-money had come to Peter, and perhaps met him in the
court or corridor, and asked him: 'Your Teacher (Rabbi), does He
not pay the didrachma?' While Peter hastily responded in the
affirmative, and then entered into the house to procure the coin, or
else to report what had passed, Jesus, Who had been in another part
of the house, but was cognisant of all, 'anticipated him." Address
ing him in kindly language as ' Simon,' He pointed out the real state
of matters by an illustration which must, of course, not be too literally
pressed, and of which the meaning was: Whom does a King in
tend to tax for the maintenance of his palace and officers? Surely
not his own family, but others. The inference from this, as regarded
the Temple-tribute, was obvious. As in all similar Jewish parabolic
teaching, it was only indicated in general principle: ' Then are the
children free. ' But even so, be it as Peter had wished, although not
from the same motive. Let no needless offence be given; for,
assuredly, they would not have understood the principle on which
Christ would have refused the Tribute money,2 and all misunder-
1 The Revised Version renders it by : ' In Succ. 30 a, we read a parable of a
'spake first' But the word (upocpBdvoo) king who paid toll, and being asked the
does not bear this meaning in any of reason, replied that travellers were to
the fifteen passages in the LXX., where learn by his example not to seek to
it corresponds to the Hebrew Qiddem, withdraw themselves from paying all
and means ' to anticipate 'or 'to pre- dues.
vent ' in the archaic sense of that word.

114

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

* Shatjl).
119 a, lines
20 Sc. from
top

standing on the part of Peter was now impossible. Yet Christ would
still further vindicate His royal title. He will pay for Peter also, and
pay, as heaven's King, with a Stater, or four-drachm piece, miraculously
provided. Thus viewed, there is, we submit, a moral purpose and spiritual
instruction in the provision of the Stater out of the fish's mouth.
The rationalistic explanation of it need not be seriously considered;
for any mythical interpretation there is not the shadow of support
in Biblical precedent or Jewish expectancy. But the narrative in
its literality has a true and high meaning. And if we wished to
mark the difference between its sober simplicity and the extravagances
of legend, we would remind ourselves, not only of the well-known
story of the Ring of Polycrates, but of two somewhat kindred Jewish
Haggadahs. They are both intended to glorify the Jewish mode of Sab
bath observance. One of them bears that one Joseph, known as ' the
honourer ' of the Sabbath, had a wealthy heathen neighbour, to whom
the Chaldseans had prophesied that all his riches would come to
Joseph. To render this impossible" the wealthy man converted all
his property into one magnificent gem, which he carefully concealed
within his head-gear. Then he took ship, so as for ever to avoid the
dangerous vicinity of the Jew. But the wind blew his head-gear into
the sea, and the gem was swallowed by a fish. And lo! it was the
holy season, and they brought to the market a splendid fish. Who
would purchase it but Joseph, for none as he would prepare to honour
the day by the best which he could provide. But when they opened
the fish, the gem was found in it — the moral being: ' Hethatborroweth
for the Sabbath, the Sabbath will repay him.' "
The other legend is similar. It was in Rome (in the Christian
world) that a poor tailor went to market to buy a fish for a festive
meal.1 Only one was on sale, and for it there was keen competition
between the servant of a Prince and the Jew, the latter at last
buying it for not less than twelve dinars. At the banquet, the
Prince inquired of his servants why no fish had been provided.
When he ascertained the cause, he sent for the Jew with the threat
ening inquiry, how a poor tailor could afford to pay twelve dinars for
a fish? 'My Lord,' replied the Jew, 'there is a day on which all
our sins are remitted us, and should we not honour it? ' The answer
satisfied the Prince. But God rewarded the Jew, for, when the fish

1 In the Midrash : ' On the eve of the
great fast ' (the Day of Atonement). But
from the connection it is evidently in

tended to apply to the distinction to be
put on the Sabbath-meal.

THE DISPUTE BY THE WAY. 115
was opened, a precious gem was found in it, which he sold, and ever CHAP.
afterwards lived ofthe proceeds/ in
The reader can scarcely fail to mark the absolute difference be- ^- — * —
tween even the most beautiful Jewish legends and any trait in the *B?F-B\"
61 J on Gen. 11. 3
Evangelic history.
3. The event next recorded in the Gospels took place partly on
the way from the Mount of Transfiguration to Capernaum, and partly
in Capernaum itself, immediately after the scene connected with the
Tribute-money. It is recorded by the three Evangelists, and it led
to explanations and admonitions, which are told by St. Mark and St.
Luke, but chiefly by St. Matthew. This circumstance seems to indi
cate, that the latter was the chief actor in that which occasioned this
special teaching and warning of Christ, and that it must have sunk
very deeply into his heart.
As we look at it, in the light of the then mental and spiritual
state of the Apostles, not in that in which, perhaps naturally, we
regard them, what happened seems not difficult to understand. As
St. Mark puts it," by the way they had disputed among themselves 'St. Mark
which of them would be the greatest — as St. Matthew explains," in „s't. Matt.
the Messianic Kingdom of Heaven. They might now the more con- XTlil- 1
fidently expect its near Advent from the mysterious announcement
of the Resurrection on the third day/ which they would probably ast. Matt.
connect with the commencement of the last Judgment, following upon st. Mark
the violent Death of the Messiah. Of a dispute, serious and even
violent, among the disciples, we have evidence in the exhortation of
the Master, as reported by St. Mark/ in the direction ofthe Lord how «st. Mark
. . ix. 42-50
to deal with an offending brother, and in the answering inquiry of
Peter/ Nor can we be at a loss to perceive its occasion. The dis- fst. Matt.
. . xviii. 15, 21
tine tion just bestowed on the three, m being taken up the Mount, may
have roused feelings of jealousy in the others, perhaps of self-exaltation
in the three. Alike the spirit which John displayed in his harsh pro
hibition of the man that did not follow with the disciples/ and the est. Mark
self-righteous bargaining of Peter about forgiving the supposed or
real offences of a brother," give evidence of anything but the frame of " st. Matt.
... . . xviii. 21
mind which we would have expected after the Vision on the Mount.
In truth, most incongruous as it may appear to us, looking back
on it in the light of the Resurrection-day, nay, almost incredible —
evidently, the Apostles were still greatly under the influence of the
old spirit. It was the common Jewish view, that there would be
distinctions of rank in the Kingdom of Heaven. It can scarcely be
neccessary to prove this by Rabbinic quotations, since the whole

lib'

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

n Taan,
ill.. 8;
comp.especiallyJer. Taan.
67 a
>> Baba B.
75 a

d St. Matt.
xx. 20

system of Rabbinism and Pharisaism, with its separation from the
vulgar and ignorant, rests upon it. But even within the charmed
circle of Rabbinism, there would be distinctions, due to learning,
merit, and even to favouritism. In this world there were His special
favourites, who could command anything at His hand, to use the
Rabbinic illustration, like a spoilt child from its father/1 And in
the Messianic age God would assign booths to each according to his
rank." On the other hand, many passages could be quoted bearing
on the duty of humility and self-abasement. But the stress laid on
the merit attaching to this shows too clearly, that it was the pride that
apes humility. One instance/ previously referred to, will suffice by
way of illustration. When the child ofthe great Rabbi Jochanan
ben Zakkai was dangerously ill, he was restored through the prayer
of one Chanina ben Dosa. On this the father of the child remarked
to his wife: ' If the son of Zakkai had all day long put his head be
tween his knees, no heed would have been given to him. ' ' How is
that?' asked his wife; ' is Chanina greater than thou?' 'No, was
the reply, ' he is like a servant before the King, while I am like
a prince before the King' (he is always there, and has thus opportu
nities which I, as a lord, do not enjoy).
How deep-rooted were such thoughts and feelings, appears not
only from the dispute of the disciples by the way, but from the
request proffered by the mother of Zebedee's children and her sons
at a later period, in terrible contrast to the near Passion of our
Lord/ It does, indeed come upon us as a most painful surprise,
and as sadly incongruous, this constant self-obtrusion, self-asser
tion, and low, carnal self-seeking; this Judaistic trifling in face
ofthe utter self-abnegation and self-sacrifice of the Son of Man.
Surely, the contrast between Christ and His disciples seems at times
almost as great as between Him and the other Jews. If we would
measure His Stature, or comprehend the infinite distance between
His aims and teaching and those of His contemporaries, let it be by
comparison with even the best of His disciples. It must have been
part of His humiliation and self-exinanition to bear with them.
And is it not, in a sense, still so as regards us all?
We have already seen, that there was quite sufficient occasion
and material for such a dispute on the way from the Mount of Trans
figuration to Capernaum. We suppose Peter to have been only at

1 The almost blasphemous story of how
Choni orOnias, 'the circle-drawer.' drew
a circle around him, and refused to leave
it till God had sent rain — and succes

sively objected to too little and too much,
stands by no means alone. Jer. Taan. 67 a
gives some very painful details about this
power of even altering the decrees of God.

'HE THAT IS NOT AGAINST US, IS FOR US.' 117
the first with the others. To judge by the later question, how often CHAP.
he was to forgive the brother who had sinned against him, he may ni
have been so deeply hurt, that he left the other disciples, and hastened v — -y-— -'
on with the Master, Who would, at any rate, sojourn in his house.
For, neither he nor Christ seem to have been present when John and
the others forbade the man, who would not follow with them, to cast
out demons in Christ's name. Again, the other disciples only came
into Capernaum, and entered the house, just as Peter had gone for
the Stater, with which to pay the Temple-tribute for the Master and
himself. And, if speculation be permissible, we would suggest that
the brother, whose offences Peter found it so difficult to forgive, may
have been none other than Judas. In such a dispute by the way,
he, with his Judaistic views, would be specially interested; perhaps
he may have been its chief instigator; certainly, he, whose natural
character, amidst its sharp contrasts to that of Peter, presented
so many points of resemblance to it, would, on many grounds, be
specially jealous of, and antagonistic to him.
Quite natural in view of this dispute by the way is another inci
dent of the journey, which is afterwards related/ As we judge, John J^gp"*
seems to have been the principal actor in it; perhaps, in the absence ?*¦ ^9uke
of Peter, he claimed the leadership. They had met one who was
casting out demons in the Name of Christ — whether successfully or
not, we need scarcely inquire. So widely had faith in the power
of Jesus extended; so real was the belief in the subjection of the
demons to Him; so reverent was the acknowledgment of Him. A
man, who, thus forsaking the methods of Jewish exorcists, owned
Jesus in the face of the Jewish world, could not be far from the
Kingdom of Heaven; at any rate, he could not quickly speak evil of
Him. John had, in name of the disciples, forbidden him, because
he had not cast in his lot wholly with them. It was quite in the
spirit of their ideas about the Messianic Kingdom, and of their
dispute, which of His close followers would be greatest there. And
yet, they might deceive themselves as to the motives of their conduct.
If it were not almost impertinence to use such terms, we would have
said that there was infinite wisdom and kindness in the answer which
the Saviour gave, when referred to on the subject. To forbid a man,
in such circumstances, would be either prompted by the spirit of the
dispute by the way — or else must be grounded on evidence that the
motive was, or the effect would untimately be (as in the case of the sons
of Sceva) to lead men ' to speak evil ' of Christ, or to hinder the work
of His disciples. Assuredly, such could not have been the case with

118

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

¦ St. Luke
ix. 50

' St. Matt.
xii. 30

« St. Mark
ix. 33

a man, who invoked His Name, and perhaps experienced its efficacy.
More than this — and here is an eternal principle: ' He that is not
against us is for us; ' he that opposeth not the disciples, really is for
them — a saying still more clear, when we adopt the better reading in
St. Luke/ ' He that is not against you is for you. "
There was reproof in this, as well as instruction, deeply consistent
with that other, though seemingly different, saying:" ' He that is not
with Me is against Me. ' The distinction between them is twofold.
In the one case it is ' not against,' in the other it is ' not with;' but
chiefly it lies in this : in the one case it is not against the disciples
in their work, while in the other it is — not with Christ. A man who
did what he could with such knowledge of Christ as he possessed,
even although he did not absolutely follow with them, was ' not
against ' them. Such an one should be regarded as thus far with
them ; at least be let alone, left to Him Who knew all things. Such
a man would not lightly speak evil of Christ — and that was all the
disciples should care for, unless, indeed, they sought their own.
Quite other was it as regarded the relation of a person to the Christ
Himself. There neutrality was impossible — and that which was not
with Christ, by this very fact was against Him. The lesson is ofthe
most deep-reaching character, and the distinction, alas! still over
looked — perhaps, because ours is too often the spirit of those who
journeyed to Capernaum. Not, that it is unimportant to follow with
the disciples, but that it is not ours to forbid any work done, however
imperfectly, in His Name, and that only one question is really vital
— whether or not a man is decidedly with Christ.
Such were the incidents by the way. And now, while withholding
from Christ their dispute, and, indeed, anything that might seem
personal in the question, the disciples, on entering the house where
He was in Capernaum, addressed to Him this inquiry (which should
be inserted from the opening words of St. Matthew's narrative):
'Who, then, is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?' It was a
general question — but Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts; °
He knew about what they had disputed by the way,d and now asked
them concerning it. The account of St. Mark is most graphic. We
almost see the scene. Conscience-stricken ' they held their peace. ' As
we read the further words:" 'And He sat down,' it seems as if the

1 Readers of ordinary sobriety of
judgment will form their opinions of the
value of modern negative criticism, when
we tell them that it has discovered in
this man who did not follow with the

disciples an allusion to ' Pauline Christi
anity,' of which St. Mark took a more
charitable view than St. Matthew! By
such treatment it would not be difficult
to make anything of the facta of history.

WHO IS GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM? 119
Master had at first gone to welcome the disciples on their arrival, CHAP.
and they, ' full of their dispute, ' had, without delay, addressed their in
inquiry to him in the court or antechamber, where they met v— ~"y- — ¦
Him, when, reading their thoughts, He had first put the searching
counter-question, what had been the subject of their dispute. Then,
leading the way into the house, ' He sat down,' not only to answer
their inquiry, which was not a real inquiry, but to teach them what
so much they needed to learn. He called a little child — perhaps
Peter's little son — and put him in the midst of them. Not to strive
who was to be greatest, but to be utterly without self-consciousness,
like a child — thus, to become turned and entirely changed in mind:
'converted,' was the condition for entering into the Kingdom of
Heaven. Then, as to the question of greatness there, it was really
one of greatness of service — and that was greatest service which
implied most self-denial. Suiting the action to the 'teaching, the
Blessed Saviour took the happy child in His Arms. Not, to teach,
to preach, to work miracles, nor to do great' things, but to do the
humblest service for Christ's sake — lovingly, earnestly, wholly, self-
forgetfully, simply for Christ, was to receive Christ — nay, to receive
the Father. And the smallest service, as it might seem — even the
giving a cup of cold-water in such spirit, would not lose its reward.
Blessed teaching this to the disciples and to us; blessed lesson,
which, these many centuries of scorching heat, has been of unspeak
able refreshing, alike to the giver and the receiver of the cup of water
in the Name of Christ, in the love of Christ, and for the sake of
Christ.1 These words about receiving Christ, and ' receiving in the Name
of Christ, ' had stirred the memory and conscience of John, and made
him half wonder, half fear, whether what they had done by the way,
in forbidding the man to do what he could in the name of Christ,
had been right. And so he told it, and received the further and
higher teaching on the subject. And, more than this, St. Mark and,
more fully, St. Matthew, record some further instruction in con
nection with it, to which St. Luke refers, in a slightly different form,
at a somewhat later period/ But it seems so congruous to the °st. Lute
1 . e xvii. 1-7
present occasion, that we conclude it was then spoken, although,
like other sayings," it may have been afterwards repeated under b comp. tor
... « .-. ... example
similar circumstances. Certainly, no more effective continuation, st.Markix.
' '60 with
1 Verbal parallels could easily be lies in its being so utterly un-Jewish. ^ Matt' v'
quoted, and naturally so, since Jesus 3 Or else St. Luke may have gathered
spoke as a Jew to Jews — but no real into connected discourses what may have
parallel. Indeed, the point of the story been spoken at different times.

120

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

» Kethub.
69 b, line 18
from bottom
0 Moed K.
10 b, first
line a Kldd. 29 b,
linee 10 and
9 from
bottom
e Vayyikra
R. 26

' St. Matt.
xviii. 8-9 ;
St. Mark,
ix. 43-48

and application to Jewish minds, of the teaching of our Lord could
be conceived than that which follows. For, the love of Christ goes
deeper than the condescension of receiving a child, utterly un-Phari-
saic and un-Rabbinic as this is/ To have regard to the weaknesses
of such a child — to its mental and moral ignorance and folly, to adapt
ourselves to it, to restrain our fuller knowledge and forego our felt
liberty, so as not ' to offend ' — not to give occasion for stumbling to
' one of these little ones, ' that so through our knowledge the weak
brother for whom Christ died should not perish: this is a lesson
which reaches even deeper than the question, what is the condition of
entrance into the Kingdom, or what service constitutes real greatness
in it. A man may enter into the Kingdom and do service — yet, if in
so doing he disregard the law of love to the little ones, far better
his work should be abruptly cut short; better, one of those large
millstones, turned by an ass, were hung about his neck and he cast
into the sea! We pause to note, once more, the Judaic, and,
therefore, evidential, setting of the Evangelic narrative. The Talmud
also speaks of two kinds of millstones — the one turned by hand
(XTi n"rn)," referred to in St. Luke xvii. 35; the other turned by an
ass (javXos ovikos), just as the Talmud also speaks of ' the ass ofthe
millstone ' (NTvm 'i)on).c Similarly, the figure about a millstone
hung round the neck occurs also in the Talmud — although there as
figurative of almost insuperable difficulties/ Again, the expression,
'it were better for him,' is a well-known Rabbinic expression
(Mutabh hay ah lo).e Lastly, according to St. Jerome, the punish
ment which seems alluded to in the words of Christ, and which we
know to have been inflicted by Augustus, was actually practised by
the Romans in Galilee on some ofthe leaders of the insurrection under
Judas of Galilee.
And yet greater guilt would only too surely be incurred ! Woe
unto the world! ' Occasions of stumbling and offence will surely
come, but woe to the man through whom such havoc was wrought.
What then is the alternative? If it be a question as between
offence and some part of ourselves, a limb or member, however use
ful — the hand, the foot, the eye — then let it rather be severed from
the body, however painful, or however seemingly great the loss. It
cannot be so great as that of the whole being in the eternal fire of Ge
henna, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.1 Be

1 St. Mark ix. 44, the last clause of ver.
45, and ver. 46, seem to be spurious. But
ver. 48 (except the words tov itvpoi, for

which read simply : 'into Gehenna') as
well as the expression ' fire that never
shall be quenched,' and in St. Matthew,

'EVERY ONE SHALL BE SALTED FOR THE FIRE.'

121

» St. Mark
ix. 49, 60

No one is fit " Th„63e
words are

it hand, foot, or eye — practice, pursuit, or research — which consciously CHAP.
leads us to occasions of stumbling, it must be resolutely put aside in HI
view of the incomparably greater loss of eternal remorse and anguish. ^-^> —
Here St. Mark abruptly breaks off with a saying in which, the
Saviour makes general application, although the narrative is further
continued by St. Matthew. The words reported by St. Mark are so
remarkable, so brief, we had almost said truncated, as to require
special consideration." It seems to us that, turning from this thought
that even members which are intended for useful service may, in
certain circumstances, have to be cut off to avoid the greatest loss, the
Lord gave to His disciples this as the final summary and explanation
of all: ' For every one shall be salted for the fire ' 1 — or, as a very early
gloss, which has strangely crept into the text,2 paraphrased and ex
plained it, ' Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. ' b
for the sacrificial fire, no one can himself be, nor offer anything as a spurious
sacrifice, unless it have been first, according .to the Levitical Law,
covered with salt, symbolic ofthe incorruptible. 'Salt is good; but
if the salt, ' with which the spiritual sacrifice is to be salted for the fire,
' have lost its savour, wherewith will ye season it? ' Hence, ' have salt
in yourselves, ' but do not let that salt be corrupted by making it an
occasion of offence to others, or among yourselves, as in the dispute
by the way, or in the disposition of mind that led to it, or in for
bidding others to work who follow not with you, but ' be at peace
among yourselves.'
To this explanation of the words of Christ it may, perhaps, be
added that, from their form, they must have conveyed a special mean
ing to the disciples. It is a well-known law, that every sacrifice
burned on the Altar must be salted with salt/ Indeed, according to
the Talmud, hot only every such offering, but even the wood with
which the sacrificial fire was kindled, was sprinkled with salt/ Salt
symbolised to the Jews of that time the incorruptible and the higher.
Thus, the soul was compared to the salt, and it was said concerning
the dead: 'Shake off the salt, and throw the flesh to the dogs.'"
The Bible was compared to salt; so was acuteness of intellect/
Lastly, the question: ' If the salt have lost its savour, wherewith
will ye season it?' seems to have been proverbial, and occurs in

a Menach.
20 6

« Nidd. 31 a
I Kidd. 29 b

'everlasting fire,' are on all hands ad
mitted to be genuine. The question of
' eternal punishment, 'from the standpoint
of Jewish theology, will be treated in a
later part.
1 The rendering 'Salted for the fire,'
viz., as a sacrifice, has been adopted by

other critics.
2 We can readily understand how that
clause, which was one of the most ancient
explanations.perhaps a marginal glos3 on
the text 'Everyone shall be salted for the
fire,' crept into the text when its meaning
was no longer understood.

122

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

a Bekhor.
8 *, lines 14
and 13 from
bottom

b Chag. 12
6 ; Pirke de
B. Eliez. 4

• St. Matt.
xviii. 11

exactly the same words in the Talmud, apparently to denote a thing
that is impossible/1
Most thoroughly anti-Pharisaic and anti-Rabbinic as all this
was, what St. Matthew further reports leads still farther in the same
direction. We seem to see Jesus still holding this child, and, with
evident reference to the Jewish contempt for that which is small,
point to him and apply, in quite other manner than they had ever
heard, the Rabbinic teaching about the Angels. In the Jewish view,2
only the chiefest of the Angels were before the Face of God within
the curtained Veil, or Pargod, while the others, ranged in different
classes, stood outside and awaited his behest." The distinction which
the former enjoyed was always to behold His Face, and to hear and
know directly the Divine counsels and commands. This distinction
was, therefore, one of knowledge; Christ taught that it was one of love.
Not the more exalted in knowledge, and merit, or worth, but the
simpler, the more unconscious of self, the more receptive and cling
ing — the nearer to God. Look up from earth to heaven; those
representative, it may be, guardian, Angels nearest to God, are not
those of deepest knowledge of God's counsel and commands, but
those of simple, humble grace and faith — and so learn, not only not
to despise one of these little ones, but who is truly greatest in the
Kingdom of Heaven!
Viewed in this light, there is nothing incongruous in the transi
tion: 'For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.'"
This, His greatest condescension when He became the Babe of Beth
lehem, is also His greatest exaltation. He Who is nearest the
Father, and, in the most special and unique sense, always beholds
His Face, is He that became a Child, and, as the Son of Man,
stoops lowest, to save that which was lost. The words are, indeed,
regarded as spurious by most critics, because certain leading manu
scripts omit them, and they are supposed to have been imported
from St. Luke xix. 10. But such a transference from a context
wholly unconnected with this section 3 seems unaccountable, while,
on the other hand, the verse in question forms, not only an apt, but
almost necessary, transition to the Parable of the Lost Sheep. It
seems, therefore, difficult to eliminate it without also striking out

1 n? TP» "Xtt3 "ID *3 Nrr>»— ' the
salt, when it becomes ill-savouring, with
what shall it be seasoned ? ' The passage
occurs in a very curious Haggadah, and
the objection that salt would not become
ill-savouring, would not apply to the
proverb in the form given it by" Christ.

2 See the Appendix on 'Angelology and
Demonology.' 3 Except that the history of Zacchajus,
in which the words occur, is really an ap
plication to real life of the Parable of the
Lost Sheep.

ON FORGIVENESS TO A 'BROTHER.' 123
that Parable; and yet it fits most beautifully into the whole context, chap.
Suffice it for the present to note this. The Parable itself is more in
fully repeated in another connection/ in which it will be more con- ^ — -y —
venient to consider it. a st. Luke
XV. 3-7
Yet a further depth of Christian love remained to be shown,
which, all self-forgetful, sought not its own, but the things of others.
This also bore on the circumstances of the time, and the dispute
between the disciples, but went far beyond it, and set forth eternal
principles. Hitherto it had been a question of not seeking self, nor
minding great things, but Christ-like and God-like, to condescend
to the little ones. What if actual wrong had been done, and just
offence given by a ' brother ' ? " In such case, also, the principle of b st. Matt.
the Kingdom — which, negatively, is that of self-forgetfulness, posi- XV11 '
tively, that of service of love — would first seek the good of the
offending brother. We mark, here, the contrast to Rabbinism, which
directs that the first overtures must be made by the offender, not
the offended; c and even prescribes this to be clone in the presence of °yoma
numerous witnesses, and, if needful, repeated three times/ As re- iTjm,
gards the duty of showing to a brother his fault, and the delicate 8' a
tenderness of doing this in private, so as not to put him to shame,
Rabbinism speaks the same as the Master of Nazareth/ In fact, «shabb.
according to Jewish criminal law, punishment could not be inflicted Tamid 28 a;
unless the offender (even the woman suspected of adultery) had pre
viously been warned before witnesses. Yet, in practice, matters were
very different: and neither could those be found who would take
reproof, nor yet such as were worthy to administer it/ t Arakn.
Quite other was it in the Kingdom of Christ, where the theory
was left undefined, but the practice clearly marked. Here, by loving
dealing, to convince of his wrong, him who had done it, was not
humiliation nor loss of dignity or of right, but real gain: the gain
of our brother to us, and eventually to Christ Himself. But even if
this should fail, the offended must not desist from his service of love,
but conjoin in it others with himself so as to give weight and authority
to his remonstrances, as not being the outcome of personal feeling or
prejudice — perhaps, also, to be witnesses before the Divine tribunal.
If this failed, a final appeal should be made on the part ofthe Church
as a whole, which, of course, could only be done through her repre
sentatives and rulers, to whom Divine authority had been committed.
And if that were rejected, the offer of love would, as always in the
Gospel, pass into danger of judgment. Not, indeed, that such was
to be executed by man, but that such an offender, after the first and

u. s.

124

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

¦ Titus
iii. 10

b St. Matt.
xviii. 19

• St. Matt.
xviii. 19, 20

a St. Matt.
xviii. 21

second admonition, was to be rejected/ He was to be treated as
was the custom in regard to a heathen or a publican — not perse
cuted, despised, or avoided, but not received in Church-fellowship
(a heathen), nor admitted to close familiar intercourse (a publican).
And this, as we understand it, marks out the mode of what is called
Church discipline in general, and specifically as regards wrongs done
to a brother. Discipline so exercised (which may God restore to us)
has the highest Divine sanction, and the most earnest reality attaches
to it. For, in virtue of the authority which Christ has committed to
the Church in the persons of her rulers and representatives,1 what they
bound or loosed — declared obligatory or non-obligatory — was ratified
in heaven. Nor was this to be wondered at. The incarnation of
Christ was the link which bound earth to heaven: through it what
ever was agreed upon in the fellowship of Christ, as that which was to
be asked, would be done for them of his Father Which was in heaven."
Thus, the power of the Church reached up to heaven through the
power of prayer in His Name Who made God our Father. And
so, beyond the exercise of discipline and authority, there was the
omnipotence of prayer — ' if two of you shall agree ... as touching
anything ... it shall be done for them ' — and, with it, also the
infinite possibility of a higher service of love. For, in the smallest
gathering in the Name of Christ, His Presence would be,2 and with it
the certainty of nearness to, and acceptance with, God.c
It is bitterly disappointing that, after such teaching, even a Peter
could — either immediately afterwards, or perhaps after he had had
time to think it over, and apply it — come to the Master with the
question, how often he was to forgive an offending brother, imagining
that he had more than satisfied the new requirements, if he extended
it to seven times/ Such traits show better than elaborate discussions
the need of the mission and the renewing of the .Holy Ghost. And
yet there is something touching in the simplicity and honesty with
which Peter goes to the Master with such a misapprehension of His

1 It is both curious and interesting to
find that the question, whether the
Priests exercised their functions as ' the
sent of God ' or ' the sent of the congre
gation' — that is, held their commission
directly from God, or only as being the
representatives of the people, is discussed
already in the Talmud (Yoma 18 b &c. ;
Nedar. 35 6). The Talmud replies that,
as it is impossible to delegate what one
does not possess, and since the laity might
neither offer sacrifices nor do any like
service, the Priests could not possibly

have been the delegates of the Church,
but must be those of God. (See the
essay by Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. fur
Luther. Theol. for 1854, pp. 446-449.)
2 The Mishnah (Ab. iii. 2), and the
Talmud (Ber. 6 a), infer from Mai. iii.
16, that, when two are together and
occupy themselves with the Law, the
Shekhinah is between them. Similarly,
it is argued from Lament, iii. 28, and
Exod. xx. 21, that if even one alone is
engaged in such pursuits, God is with
him and will bless him.

FORGIVENESS, NOT QUANTITATIVE BUT QUALITATIVE. 125
teaching, as if he had fully entered into its spirit. Surely, the new CHAP.
wine was bursting the old bottles. It was a principle of Rabbinism in
that, even if the wrongdoer had made full restoration, he would not '  ~> 
obtain forgiveness till he. had asked it of him whom he had wronged,
but that it was cruelty in such circumstances to refuse pardon." The »BabhaK.
Jerusalem Talmud" adds the beautiful remark: 'Let this be a token „Jer
in thine hand — each time that thou showest mercy, God will show f jfbha K-
mercy on thee; and if thou showest not mercy, neither will God show
mercy on thee. ' And yet it was a settled rule, that forgiveness should
not be extended more than three times/ Even so, the practice was ° Yoma 86 *
terribly different. The Talmud relates, without blame, the conduct of
a Rabbi, who would not forgive a very small slight of his dignity,
though asked by the offender for thirteen successive years, and that
on the Day of Atonement — the reason being, that the offended Rabbi
had learned by a dream that his offending brother would attain the
highest dignity, whereupon he feigned himself irreconcilable, to force
the other to migrate from Palestine to Babylon, where, unenvied by
him, he might occupy the chief place ! d " Yoma 87
And so it must have seemed to Peter, in his ignorance, quite a
stretch of charity to extend forgiveness to seven, instead of three
offences. It did not occur to him, that the very act of numbering
offences marked an externalism which had never entered into, nor
comprehended the spirit of Christ. Until seven times? Nay, until
seventy times seven!1 The evident purport of these words was to
efface all such landmarks. Peter had yet to learn, what we, alas ! too
often forget: that as Christ's forgiveness, so that of the Christian,
must not be computed by numbers. It is qualitative, not quantitative :
Christ forgives sin, not sins — and he who has experienced it, follows
in His footsteps/
1 It makes no difference in the ar- 2 The Parable, with which the account
gument, whether we translate seventy in St. Matthew closes, will be. explained by
times seven, or else seventy times and and by in the Second Series of Parables.
seven.

126

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER IV.

BOOK IV

» St. John
vii. to x.
b x. 22-42
c St. Matt.
XX. 17 &c. ;
St. Mark x.
32 &C. ; St.
Luke xvii.
11 &c.

'St. Luke
iv. 1 ; v. 16 ;
vii. 24
e St. Luke
viii. 29

THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM — CHRONOLOGICAL . ARRANGEMENT OF THE
LAST PART OF THE GOSPEL-NARRATIVES — FIRST INCIDENTS BY THE
WAY.
(St. John vii. 1-16; St. Luke ix. 1-56; 57-62; St. Matthew viii. 19-22.)
The part in the Evangelic History which we have now reached
has this peculiarity and difficulty, that the events are now recorded by
only one of the Evangelists. The section in St. Luke's Gospel from
chapter ix. 51 to chapter xviii. 14 stands absolutely alone. From
the circumstance that St. Luke omits throughout his narrative all
notation of time or place, the difficulty of arranging here the chrono
logical succession of events is so great, that we can only suggest
what seems most probable, without feeling certain of the details.
Happily, the period embraced is a short one, while at the same time
the narrative of St. Luke remarkably fits into that of St. John. St.
John mentions three appearances of Christ in Jerusalem at that
period: at the Feast of Tabernacles/ at that of the Dedication," and
His final entry, which is referred to by all the other Evangelists."
But, while the narrative of St. John confines itself exclusively to
what happened in Jerusalem or its immediate neighborhood, it also
either mentions or gives sufficient indication that on two out of these
three occasions Jesus left Jerusalem for the country east of the
Jordan (St. John x. 19-21; St. John x. 39-43, where the words in
ver. 39, ' they sought again to take Him,' point to a previous similar
attempt and flight). Besides these, St. John also records a journey
to Bethany — though not to Jerusalem — for the raising of Lazarus,"
and after that a council against Christ in Jerusalem, in consequence
of which He withdrew out of Judsean territory into a district near
' the wilderness ' c — as we infer, that in the north, where John had
been baptizing and Christ been tempted, and whither He had after
wards withdrawn.' We regard this ' wilderness ' as on the western
bank of the Jordan, and extending northward towards the eastern
shore ofthe Lake of Galilee.*
If St. John relates three appearances of Jesus at this time in

THE PER^EAN MINISTRY. 127
Jerusalem, St. Luke records three journeys to Jerusalem/ the last chap.
of which agrees, in regard to its starting point, with the notices of IV
the other Evangelists," always supposing that we have correctly in- — -v — '
dicated the locality of ' the wilderness ' whither, according to St. »st. Luke
. . . . ix. 81; xiii.
John xi. 54, Christ retired previous to His last journey to Jerusalem. 22; xvm. 31
In this respect, although it is impossible with our present information xfx'.' if a"'
to localise ' the City of Ephraim, ' " the statement that it was ' near the |t1Mark
wilderness,' affords us sufficient general notice of its situation. For, "Comp. the
' sugges-
the New Testament speaks of only two ' wildernesses,' that of Judaea tionsm Neubauer,
in the far South, and that in the far North of Persea, or perhaps in «eog. de
' jii Talm.p. 15*
the Decapolis, to which St. Luke refers as the scene of the Baptist's
labours, where Jesus was tempted, and whither He afterwards with
drew. We can, therefore, have little doubt that St. John refers a to am st.
this district. And this entirely accords with the notices by the other
Evangelists of Christ's last journey to Jerusalem, as through the
borders of Galilee and Samaria, and then across the Jordan, and by
Bethany to Jerusalem.
It follows (as previously stated) that St. Luke's account of the
three journeys to Jerusalem fits into the narrative of Christ's three
appearances in Jerusalem as described by St. John. And the unique
section in St. Luke ° supplies the record of tuhat took place before, < st. Luke
during, and after those journeys, of ivhich the upshot is told by St. if' XY1
John. This much seems certain; the exact chronological succession
must be, in part, matter of suggestion. But we have now some
insight into the plan of St. Luke's Gospel, as compared with that
ofthe others. We see that St. Luke forms a kind of transition, is a
sort of connecting link between the other two Synoptists f and St. fst. Mat-
John. This is admitted even by negative critics.6 The Gospel by St. st.6Mark
Matthew has for its main object the Discourses or teaching of the « see «owro,
J ~ Lea Evan-
Lord, around which the History groups itself. It is intended as giies, p. 266
a demonstration, primarily addressed to the Jews, and in a form
peculiarly suited to them, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the
Living God. The Gospel by St. Mark is a rapid survey of the
History of the Christ as such, ft deals mainly with the Galilean
Ministry. The Gospel by St. John, which gives the highest, the
reflective, view of the Eternal Son as the Word, deals almost exclusively
loith the Jerusalem Ministry.1 And the Gospel by St. Luke comple
ments the narratives in the other two Gospels (St. Matthew and St.
Mark), and it supplements them by tracing, what is not done otherwise:
1 This seems unaccountable on the modern negative theory of its being an
Ephesian Gospel.

128

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• St. Luke
ix. 31

b St. John
vi. 4

the Ministry in Peraia. Thus, it also forms a transition to the Fourth
Gospel of the Judasan Ministry. If we may venture a step further:
The Gospel by St. Mark gives the general view of the Christ ; that by
St. Matthew the Jewish, that by St. Luke the Gentile, and that by St.
John the Church's view. Imagination might, indeed, go still further,
and see the impress of the number five — that of the Pentateuch and
the Book of Psalms — in the First Gospel; the numeral four (that of
the world) in the Second Gospel (4x4=16 chapters); that of three in
the Third (8x3=24 chapters); and that of seven, the sacred Church
number, in the Fourth Gospel (7x3=21 chapters). And perhaps
We might even succeed in arranging the Gospels into corresponding
sections. But.this would lead, not only beyond our present task, but
from solid history and exegesis into the regions of speculation.
The subject, then, primarily before us, is the journeying of Jesus
to Jerusalem. In that wider view which St. Luke takes of this
whole history, he presents what really were three separate journeys
as one — that towards the great end. In its conscious aim and object,
all — from the moment of His Anally quitting Galilee to His final
Entry into Jerusalem — formed, in the highest sense, only one journey.
And this St. Luke designates in a peculiar manner. Just as a he had
spoken, not of Christ's Death but of His 'Exodus,' or outgoing, which
included His Resurrection and Ascension, so he now tells us that,
'when the days of His uptaking' — including and pointing to His
Ascension2 — 'were being fulfilled, He also3 steadfastly set4 His Face
to go to Jerusalem. '
St. John, indeed, goes farther back, and speaks of the circum
stances which preceded His journey to Jerusalem. There is an
interval, or, as we might term it, a blank, of more than half a year
between the last narrative in the Fourth Gospel and this. For, the
events chronicled in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel took place
immediately before the Passover," which was on the fifteenth day
of the first ecclesiastical month (Nisan), while the Feast of Taber-

1 Of course, putting aside the question
of the arrangement into chapters, the
reader might profitably make the exper
iment of arranging the Gospels into
parts and sections, nor could he have a
better guide to help his own investiga
tions than Canon Westcott's Introduction
to the Study of the Gospels.
2 The substantive avdXi/rpii occurs
only in this place, but the cognate verb
repeatedly, as referring to the Ascension.
The curious interpretation of Wieseler

would not even call for notice, it it had
not the authority of his name.
3 The word Kai, omitted in transla
tions, seems to denote Christ's full deter
mination by the side of the fulfilment of
the time. It could scarcely be argued
that it stands merely for the Hebrew
copulative "i.
4 The term is used in the LXX as
denoting firmly setting. In connection
with Ttpoo-wxov it occurs twelve times.

VI. • St. John
vii.

'THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES WAS AT HAND.' 129
nacles a began on the same day of the seventh ecclesiastical month CHAP.
(Tishri). But, except in regard to the commencement of Christ's IV
Ministry, that sixth chapter is the only one in the Gospel of St. -^^r — '
John which refers to the Galilean Ministry of Christ. We would " ?}¦ John
suggest, that what it records is partly intended 1 to exhibit, by the
side of Christ's fully developed teaching, the fully developed enmity
of the Jerusalem Scribes, which led even to the defection of many
former disciples. Thus, chapter vi. would be a connecting-link (both
as regards the teaching of Christ and the opposition to Him) between
chapter v., which tells of His visit at the 'Unknown Feast,' and
chapter vii. , which records that at the Feast of Tabernacles. The six
or seven months between the Feast of Passover " and that of Taber- » st. John
nacles," and all that passed within them, are covered by this brief
remark: ' After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would
not walk in Judsea, because the Jews [the leaders of the people 2]
sought to kill Him.'
But now the Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. The pilgrims
would probably arrive in Jerusalem before the opening day of the
Festival. For, besides the needful preparations — which would require
time, especially on this Feast, when booths had to be constructed in
which to live during the festive week — it was' (as we remember) the
common practice to offer such sacrifices as might have previously
become due at any of the great Feasts to which the people might go
up.3 Remembering that five months had elapsed since the last
great Feast (that of Weeks), many such sacrifices must have been due.
Accordingly, the ordinary festive companies of pilgrims, which would
travel slowly, must have started from Galilee some time before the
beginning of the Feast. These circumstances fully explain the details
of the narrative. They also afford another most painful illustration
of the loneliness of Christ in His Work. His disciples had failed to
understand, they misapprehended His teaching. In the near pros
pect of His Death they either displayed gross ignorance, or else dis
puted about their future rank. And His own ' brethren ' did not
believe in Him. The whole course of late events, especially the
unmet challenge ofthe Scribes for ' a sign from heaven,' had deeply
1 Other and deeper reasons will also festive lectures commenced in the Acad-
suggest themselves, and have been hinted emies thirty days before each of the
at when treating of this event. great Feasts. Those who attended them
2 The term ' Jews ' is generally used by were called Beney Rigla, in distinction
St. John in that sense. ' to the Beney Khallah, who attended the
3 According to Babha K. 113 a, regular regular Sabbath lectures.

130

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK shaken them. What was the purpose of 'works,' if done in the
iv privacy of the circle of Christ's Apostles, in a house, a remote
— ->  district, or even before an ignorant multitude? If, claiming to be
the Messiah, He wished to be openly1 known as such, He must use
other means. If He really did these things, let Him manifest
Himself before the world — in Jerusalem, the capital of their world,
and before those who could test the reality of His Works. Let Him
come forward, at one of Israel's great Feasts, in the Temple, and
especially at this Feast which pointed to the Messianic ingathering
of all nations. Let Him now go up with them in the festive company
into Judaea, that so His disciples — not the Galileans only, but all —
might have the opportunity of ' gazing ' 2 on His Works.3
As the challenge was not new/ so, from the worldly point of view,
it can scarcely be called unreasonable. It is, in fact, the same in
principle as that to which the world would now submit the claims of
Christianity to men's acceptance. It has only this one fault, that
it ignores the world's enmity to the Christ. Discipleship is not the
result of any outward manifestation by ' evidences ' or demonstration.
It requires the conversion of a child-like spirit. To manifest Him
self ! This truly would He do, though not in their way. For this
' the season ' 5 had not yet come, though it would soon arrive. Their
' season ' — that for such Messianic manifestations as they contem
plated — was ' always ready. ' And this naturally, for ' the world '
could not 'hate ' them; they and their demonstrations were quite in
accordance with the world and its views. But towards Him the
world cherished personal hatred, because of their contrariety of prin
ciple, because Christ was manifested, not to restore an earthly king
dom to Israel,, but to bring the Heavenly Kingdom upon earth — ' to
destroy the works of the Devil. ' Hence, He must provoke the enmity
of that world which lay in the Wicked One. Another manifestation
than that which they sought would He make, when His ' season was
fulfilled;' soon, beginning at this very Feast, continued at the next,
and completed at the last Passover; such manifestation of Himself
as the Christ, as could alone be made in view of the essential enmity
ofthe world.
And so He let them go up in the festive company, while Himself
tarried. When the noise and publicity (which He wished to avoid)
1 The same term >TK"nS (Parhesya) is peculiarly Hebraistic.
occurs in Rabbinic language. 4 See especially the cognate occurrence
2 The verb is the significant one, and expressions at the marriage feast in
Oeoopsoo. Cana.
3 Godet remarks, that the style of ver. 4 5 KaipoS.

REFUSAL OF THE SAMARITANS TO RECEIVE CHRIST. 131
were no longer to be apprehended, He also went up, but privately,1 CHAP.
not publicly, as they had suggested. Here St. Luke's account begins. IV
It almost reads like a commentary on what the Lord had just said ' — ¦>  '
to His brethren, about the enmity of the world, and His mode of
manifestation — who would not, and who would receive Him, and why.
' 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 . . . which were born ... of God. '
The first purpose of Christ seems to have been to take the more
direct road to Jerusalem, through Samaria, and not to follow that
of the festive pilgrim-bands, which travelled to Jerusalem through
Peraea, in order to avoid the band of their hated rivals. But His
intention was soon frustrated. In the very first Samaritan village to
which the Christ had sent beforehand to prepare for Himself and His
company,2 His messengers were told that the Rabbi could not be
received; that neither hospitality nor friendly treatment could be
extended to One Who was going up to the Feast at Jerusalem. The
messengers who brought back this strangely un-Oriental answer met
the Master and His followers on the road. It was not only an out
rage on common manners, but an act of open hostility to Israel,
as well as to Christ, and the ' Sons of Thunder, ' whose feelings for
their Master were, perhaps, the more deeply stirred as opposition to
Him grew more fierce, proposed to vindicate the cause, alike of Israel
and its Messiah-King, by the open and Divine judgment of fire called
down from heaven to destroy that village. Did they in this con
nection think of the vision of Elijah, ministering to Christ on the
Mount of Transfiguration — and was this their application of it?
Truly, they knew not of what Spirit they were to be the children and
messengers. He Who had come, not to destroy, but to save, turned
and rebuked them, and passed from Samaritan into Jewish territory
to pursue His journey.3 Perhaps, indeed, He had only passed into
Samaria to teach His disciples this needful lesson. The view of
this event just presented seems confirmed by the circumstance, that
1 Godet infers from the word 'secretly,' Feast: comp. St. John vii. 11, 14.
that the journey of St. Luke ix. 51 could 2 It does not necessarily follow, that
not have been that referred to by St. the company at starting was a large one.
John. But the qualified expression, 'as But they would have no host nor quarters
it were in secret,' conveys to my mind ready to receive them in Samaria. Hence
only a contrast to the public pilgrim- the despatch of messengers.
bands; in which it was the custom to travel 3 At the same time, according to the
to the Feasts — a publicity, which His best MSS. the words (in St. Luke ix. 54):
' brethren ' specially desired at this time. ' Even as Elias did,' and those (in verses
Besides, the 'in secret' of St. John 55 and 56) from 'and said. . .' to 'save
might refer not so much to the journey them,' are interpolated. They are 'a
as to the appearance of Christ at the gloss,' though a correct one.

132

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK TV

» St. Matt.
viii. 18

» St. Matt.
viii. 19-22

° St. Luke
XI. 27

St. Matthew lays the scene immediately following ' on the other side ' —
that is, in the Decapolis."
It was a journey of deepest interest and importance. For, it was
decisive not only as regarded the Master, but those who followed Him.
Henceforth it must not be, as in former times, but wholly and ex
clusively, as into suffering and death. It is thus that we view the
next three incidents of the way. Two of them find, also, a place in
the Gospel by St. Matthew," although in a different connection, in
accordance with the plan of that Gospel, which groups together the
Teaching of Christ, with but secondary attention to chronological
succession. It seems that, as, after the rebuff of these Samaritans, they ' were
going ' towards another, and a Jewish village, ' one ' ¦ of the com
pany, and, as we learn from St. Matthew, ' a Scribe,' in the generous
enthusiasm of the moment — perhaps, stimulated by the wrong of the
Samaritans, perhaps, touched by the love which would rebuke the
zeal of the disciples, but had no word of blame for the unkindness of
others — broke into a spontaneous declaration of readiness to follow
Him absolutely and everywhere. Like the benediction of the woman
who heard Him/ it was one of these outbursts of an enthusiasm
which His Presence awakened in every susceptible heart. But there
was one eventuality which that Scribe, and all of like enthusiasm,
reckoned not with — the utter homelessness ofthe Christ in this world
— and this, not from accidental circumstances, but because He was
' the Son of Man.'2 And there is here also material for still deeper
thought in the fact that this man was ' a Scribe, ' and yet had not
gone up to the Feast, but tarried near Christ — was ' one ' of those
that followed Him now, and was capable of such feelings ! 3 How
many whom we regard as Scribes, may be in analogous relation to
the Christ, and yet how much of fair promise has failed to ripen
into reality in view of the homelessness of Christ and Christianity
in this world — the strangership of suffering which it involves to

1 The word rzS, here designates a
certain one — one, viz., of the company.
The arrangement of the words un
doubtedly is, 'one of the company said
unto Him by the way,' and not as either
in the A. V. or R. V. Comp. Canon Cook,
ad loe. in the ' Speaker's Commentary.'
2 We mark, that the designation 'Son of
Man ' is here for the first time applied to
Christ by St. Matthew. May this history
have been inserted in the First Gospel in
that particular connection for the purpose
of pointing out this contrast in the treat

ment of the Son of Man by the sons of
men — as if to say: Learn the meaning of
the representative title: Son of Man.in a
world of men who would not receive Him?
It is the more marked, that it immediately
precedes the first application on the part
of men of the title ' Son of God' to Christ
in this Gospel (St. Matt. vii. 29).
3 It is scarcely necessary to discuss the
suggestion, that the first two referred to
in the narrative were either Bartholomew
and Philip, or else Judas Iscariot and
Thomas.

THE DISCIPLE WHO WOULD FIRST BURY HIS FATHER. 133
those who would follow, not somewhere, but absolutely, and every- CHAP.
where? rv
The intenseness of the self-denial involved in following Christ, *•— — v— — '
and its contrariety to all that was commonly received among men,
was, purposely, immediately further brought out. This Scribe had
proffered to follow Jesus. Another of his disciples He asked to
follow Him, and that in circumstances of peculiar trial and diffi
culty." The expression ' to follow ' a Teacher would, in those days, «st. Luke
be universally understood as implying discipleship. Again, no other
duty would be regarded as more sacred than that they, on whom the
obligation naturally devolved, should bury the dead. To this every
thing must give way — even prayer, and the study of the Law/ i>Ber. m.
Lastly, we feel morally certain, that, when Christ called this disciple anaotiier

-to follow Him, He was fully aware that at that very moment his but es-
father lay dead. Thus, He called him not only to homelessness — for Megm.^t
this he might have been prepared — but to set aside what alike
natural feeling and the Jewish Law seemed to impose on him as the
most sacred duty. In the seemingly strange reply, which Christ
made to the request to be allowed first to bury his father, we pass
over the consideration that, according to Jewish law, the burial and
mourning for a dead father, and the subsequent purifications, would
have occupied many days, so that it might have been difficult,
perhaps impossible, to overtake Christ. We would rather abide by
the simple words of Christ. They teach us this very solemn and
searching lesson, that there are higher duties than either those of
the Jewish Law, or even of natural reverence, and a higher call than
that of man. No doubt Christ had here in view the near call to the
Seventy — of whom this disciple was to be one — to ' go and preach
the Kingdom of God. ' When the direct call of Christ to any work
comes — that is, if we are sure of it from His own words, and not (as,
alas! too often we do) only infer it by our own reasoning on His
words — then every other call must give way. For, duties can never
be in conflict — and this duty about the living and life must take
precedence of that about death and the dead. Nor must we hesi
tate, because we know not in what form this work for Christ may
come. There are critical moments in our inner history, when to post
pone the immediate call, is really to reject it; when to go and bury the
dead — even though it were a dead father — were to die ourselves !
Yet another hindrance to following Christ was to be faced.
Another in the company that followed Christ would go with Him,
but he asked permission first to go and bid farewell to those whom

134 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK he had left in his homo. It almost seems as if this request had
iv been one of those ' tempting ' questions, addressed to Christ. But,
w ""V"—^ even if otherwise, the farewell proposed was not like that of Elisha,
nor like the supper of Levi-Matthew. It was rather like the year
which Jephtha's daughter would have with her companions, ere ful
filling the vow. It shows, that to follow Christ was regarded as a
duty, and to leave those in the earthly home as a trial; and it
betokens, not merely a divided heart, but one not fit for the Kingdom
of God. For, how can he draw a straight furrow in which to cast
the seed, who, as he puts his hand to the plough, looks around or
behind him?
Thus, these are the three vital conditions of following Christ:
absolute self-denial and homelessness in the world; immediate and
entire self-surrender to Christ and His Work, and a heart and affec
tions simple, undivided, and set on Christ and His Work, to which
there is no other trial of parting like that which would involve
parting from Him, no other or higher joy than that of following
Him. In such spirit let them now go after Christ in His last
journey — and to such work as He will appoint them!

THE MISSION OF THE SEVENTY. 135

CHAPTER V.
FURTHER INCIDENTS OF THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM — THE MISSION
AND RETURN OF THE SEVENTY — THE HOME AT BETHANY — MARTHA
AND MARY.
(St. Luke x. 1-16; Matt. ix. 36-38; xi. 20-24; St. Luke x. 17-24; St. Matt. xi.
25-30 ; xiii. 16 ; St. Luke x. 25 ; 38-42.
Although, for the reasons explained in the previous chapter, the
exact succession of events cannot be absolutely determined, it seems
most likely, that it was on His progress southwards at this time that
Jesus ' designated ' 1 those ' seventy ' 2 ' others, ' who were to herald
His arrival in every town and village. Even the circumstance, that
the instructions to them are so similar to, and yet distinct from, those
formerly given to the Twelve, seems to point to them as those from
whom the Seventy are to be distinguished as ' other. ' We judge,
that they were sent foi'th at this time, first, from the Gospel of St.
Luke, where this whole section appears as a distinct and separate
record, presumably, chronologically arranged ; secondly, from the
fitness of such a mission at that particular period, when Jesus made
His last .Missionary progress towards Jerusalem; and, thirdly, from
the unlikelihood, if not impossibility, of taking such a public step
after the persecution which broke out after His appearance at Jeru
salem on the Feast of Tabernacles. At any rate, it could not have
taken place later-than in the period between the Feast of Taberna
cles and that of the Dedication of the Temple, since, after that, Jesus
1 walked no more openly among the Jews.' " *st- Jonn
With all their similarity, there are notable differences between
the Mission of the Twelve and this of ' the other Seventy. ' Let it be
noted, that the former is recorded by the three Evangelists, so that
there could have been no confusion on the part of St. Luke." But "st. Matt.
1 X. 5&C;
the mission of the Twelve was on their appointment to the Aposto- stMarkvi.
late; it was evangelistic and missionary; and it was in confirmation st.Lukeix.
and manifestation of the ' power and authority ' given to them. We
1 Perhaps this may be a fuller English 5 The reading: ' Seventy-two ' seems a
equivalent than ' appoint' correction, made for obvious reasons.

136

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

" Num. xi.
10

regard it, therefore, as symbolical of the Apostolate just instituted,
with its work and authority. On the other hand, no power or au
thority was formally conferred on the Seventy, their mission being
only temporary, and, indeed, for one definite purpose; its primary
object was to prepare for the coming of the Master in the places to
which they were sent ; and their selection was from the wider circle
of disciples, the number being now Seventy instead of Twelve. Even
these two numbers, as well as the difference in the functions of the
two classes of messengers, seem to indicate that the Twelve symbol
ised the princes of the tribes of Israel, while the Seventy were the
symbolical representatives of these tribes, like the seventy elders ap
pointed to assist Moses.01 This symbolical meaning of the number
Seventy continued among the Jews. We can trace it in the LXX.
(supposed) translators of the Bible into Greek, and in the seventy
members of the Sanhedrin, or supreme court. 2
There was something very significant in this appearance of
Christ's messengers, by two and two, in every place He was about to
visit. As John the Baptist had, at the first, heralded the Coming of
Christ, so now two heralds appeared to solemnly announce His Ad
vent at the close of His Ministry; as John had sought, as the repre
sentative of the Old Testament Church, to prepare His Way, so they,
as the representatives of the New Testament Church. In both cases
the preparation sought was a moral one. It was the national sum
mons to open the gates to the rightful King, and accept His rule.
Only, the need was now the greater for the failure of John's mission,
through the misunderstanding and disbelief of the nation/ This
conjunction with John the Baptist and the failure of his mission, as
regarded national results, accounts for the insertion in St. Matthew's
Gospel of part of the address delivered on the Mission of the Seventy,
immediately after the record of Christ's rebuke of the national rejec
tion ofthe Baptist.0 For St. Matthew, who (as well as St. Mark)
st-luke"1! records not tlie Mission of the Seventy— simply because (as before
12-is explained) the whole section, of which it forms part, is peculiar to
St. Luke's Gospel— reports ' the Discourses ' connected with it in
other, and to them congruous, connections.
We mark, that, what may be termed ' the Preface ' to the Mission
of the Seventy, is given by St. Matthew (in a somewhat fuller form)

t St. Matt.
xl. 7-19

«St. Matt
xi. 20-24:

1 111 Bemidb. R. 15, ed.Warsh. p. 64 b,
the mode of electing these Seventy is thus
described. Moses chose six from every
tribe, and then put into an uru seventy-
two lots, of which seventy had the word

Zaqen (Elder) inscribed on them, while
two were blanks. The latter are sup
posed to have been drawn by Eldad and
Medad. - Comp. Sanh. i. 6.

DIRECTIONS TO THE SEVENTY. 137
as that to the appointment and mission ofthe Twelve Apostles;" and
it may have been, that kindred words had preceded both. Partially,
indeed, the expressions reported in St. Luke x. 2 had been em
ployed long before/ Those 'multitudes' throughout Israel — nay,
those also which 'are not of that flock' — appeared to His view like ust. John
sheep without a true shepherd's care, ' distressed and prostrate,' x and
their mute misery and only partly conscious longing appealed, and
not in vain, to His Divine compassion. This constituted the ultimate
ground of the Mission of the Apostles, and now of that of the Seventy,
into a harvest that was truly great. Compared with the extent of
the field, and the urgency of the work, how few were the labourers!
Yet, as the field was God's, so also could He alone 'thrust forth
labourers ' willing and able to do His work, while it must be ours to
pray that He would be pleased to do so.
On these introductory words," which ever since have formed 'the °st. Luke
bidding prayer ' of the Church in her work for Christ, followed the
commission and special directions to the thirty-five pairs of disciples
who went on this embassy. In almost every particular they are the
same as those formerly given to the Twelve.2 We mark, however,
that both the introductory and the concluding words addressed to the
Apostles are wanting in what was said to the Seventy. It was not
necessary to warn them against going to the Samaritans, since the
direction of the Seventy was to those cities of Persea and Judaea, on
the road to Jerusalem, through which Christ was about to pass. Nor
were they armed with precisely the same supernatural powers as the
Twelve/ Naturally, the personal directions as to their conduct were "st- Matt-
in both cases substantially the same. We mark only three pecu- g°mp-' St. 1 .iii k' '
liarities in those addressed to the Seventy. The direction to ' salute x- 9
no man by the way ' was suitable to a temporary and rapid mission,
which might have been sadly interrupted by making or renewing
acquaintances. Both the Mishnah6 and the Talmud' lay it down, 'Ber. 30 6
that prayer was not to be interrupted to salute even a king, nay, ' u' 3' 32 b
to uncoil a serpent that had wound round the foot/ On the other
hand, the Rabbis discussed the question, whether the reading of the
Shema and of the portion of the Psalms called the Hallel might be
interrupted at the close of a paragraph, from respect for a person, or
interrupted in the middle, from motives of fear/ All agreed, that sBer. in
immediately before prayer no one should be saluted, to prevent
1 The first word means literally ' torn.' 2 See Book III. ch. xxvii.
The second occurs sixty-two times in the. * But it might be interrupted for a
LXX. as equivalent for the Hebrew scorpion, Ber. 33 a. Comp. page 141,
(Hiphil) Hishlikh, projicio, abjicio. note 1.

138

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

•Ber. 14 a;
32 b

>> St. Luke
A. 6
« St. Matt.
x. 13

a St. Luke
a. 7, 8

« St. Matt.
xi. 16-42

' St. Luke
X. 13-16

i St. Matt.
xi. 20-24

distraction, and it was advised rather to summarise or to cut short
than to break into prayer, though the latter might be admissible
in case of absolute necessity." None of these provisions, however,
seems to have been in the mind of Christ. If any parallel is to be
sought, it would be found in the similar direction of Elisha to
Gehazi, when sent to lay the prophet's staff on the dead child of the
Shunammite. The other two peculiarities in the address to the Seventy seem
verbal rather than real. The expression," 'if the Son of Peace be
there, ' is a Hebraism, equivalent to ' if the house be worthy, ' ° and
refers to the character of the head of the house and the tone of the
household.1 Lastly, the direction to eat and drink such things as
were set before them a is only a further explanation of the command
to abide in the house which had received them, without seeking for
better entertainment/ On the other hand, the whole most important
close of the address to the Twelve — which, indeed, forms by far the
largest part of it e — is wanting in the commission to the Seventy,
thus clearly marking its merely temporary character.
In St. Luke's Gospel, the address to the Seventy is followed by a
denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida/ This is evidently in its
right place there, after the Ministry of Christ in Galilee had been
completed and finally rejected. In St. Matthew's Gospel, it stands
(for a reason already indicated) immediately after the Lord's rebuke
of the popular rejection of the Baptist's message.6 The 'woe' pro
nounced on those cities, in which ' most of His mighty works were
done,' is in proportion to the greatness of their privileges. The
denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida is the more remarkable,
that Chorazin is not otherwise mentioned in the Gospels, nor yet
any miracles recorded as having taken place in (the western) Beth
saida. From this two inferences seem inevitable. First, this history
must be real. If the whole were legendary, Jesus would not be
represented as selecting the names of places, which the writer had
not connected with the legend. Again, apparently no record has
been preserved in the Gospels of most of Christ's miracles — only
those being narrated, which were necessary in order to present Jesus

1 Comp: Job xxi. 9, both in the original
and the Targum.
2 Canon Cook (ad loc.) regards this as
evidence that the Seventy were also sent
to the Samaritans ; and as implying per
mission to eat of their food, whicli the
Jews held to be forbidden. To me it
conveys the opposite, since so fundamen

tal an alteration would not have been
introduced in such an indirect manner.
Besides, the direction is not to eat their
food, but any kind of food. Lastly, if
Christ had Mitroduced so vital a change,
the later difficulty of St. Peter, and the
'vision on the subject, would not be
intelligible.

THE RETURN OF THE SEVENTY. 139
as the Christ, in accordance with the respective plans on which each CHAP.
of the Gospels was constructed/ V
As already stated, the denunciations were in proportion to the ' — ~-r — •
privileges, and hence to the guilt, of the unbelieving 'cities. Chorazin " s*- John
and Bethsaida are compared with Tyre and Sidon, which under simi
lar admonitions would have repented,1 while Capernaum, which, as
for so long the home of Jesus,- had truly ' been exalted to heaven, 2
is compared with Sodom. And such guilt involved greater punish
ment. The very site of Bethsaida and Chorazin cannot be fixed
with certainty. The former probably represents the ' Fisherton ' of
Capernaum,3 the latter seems to have almost disappeared from the
shore of the Lake. St. Jerome places it two miles from Capernaum.
If so, it may be represented by the modern Kerazeh, somewhat to
the north-west of Capernaum. The site would correspond with the
name. For Eerdzeh is at present ' a spring with an insignificant
ruin above it, ' 4 and the name Chorazin may well be derived from
Keroz ('*"?) a water-jar — Cherozin, or 'Chorazin,' the water-jars.
If so, we can readily understand that the ' Fisherton ' on the south
side of Capernaum, and the well-known springs, ' Chorazin, ' on the
other side of it, may have been the frequent scene of Christ's mira
cles. This explains also, in part, why the miracles there wrought
had not been told as well as those done in Capernaum itself. In the
Talmud a Chorazin, or rather Chorzim, is mentioned as celebrated for
its wheat." But as for Capernaum itself — standing on that vast field fMenach.
of ruins and upturned stones which marks the site of the modern iVe"io«°™p!
Tell Hum, we feel that no description of it could be more pictorially
true than that in which Christ prophetically likened the city in its
downfall to the desolateness of death and ' Hades. '
Whether or not the Seventy actually returned to Jesus before the
Feast of Tabernacles,5 it is convenient to consider in this connection
the result of their Mission. It had filled them with the 'joy ' of as
surance; nay, the result had exceeded their expectations, just as their
faith had gone beyond the mere letter unto the spirit of His Words.
As they reported it to Him, even the demons had been subject to
them through His Name. In this they had exceeded the letter of
1 Fasting 'in sackcloth and ashes' no meaning. We have, therefore, adopted
was the practice in public humiliations the reading of A (ford, Meyer, &c, which
(Taan. ii. 1). only differs in tense from the A.V.
2 The R.V., following what are re- 3 See Book III. ch. xxxi.
garded as some of the best MSS., renders 4 Canon Tristram.
it interrogatively : ' Shalt thou be ex- 6 Godet infers this from the use of the
alted,' &c? But such a question is not word 'returned,' St. Luke x. 17.
only without precedent, but really yields

220

140

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. John
xii. 31

b Rev. xii.
7-12

Christ's commission; but as they made experiment of it, their faith
had grown, and they had applied His command to ' heal the sick ' to
the worst of all sufferers, those grievously vexed by demons. And,
as always, their faith was not disappointed. Nor could it be other
wise. The great contest had been long decided; it only remained
for the faith of the Church to gather the fruits of that victory. The
Prince of Light and Life had vanquished the Prince of Darkness and
Death. The Prince of this Avorld must be cast out. " In spirit, Christ
gazed on 'Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.' As one has aptly
paraphrased it: ' ' While you cast out his subjects, I saw the prince
himself fall.' It has been asked, whether the words of Christ re
ferred to any particular event, such as His Victory in the Temptation.2
But any such limitation would imply grievous misunderstanding of
the whole. So to speak, the fall of Satan is to the bottomless pit;
ever going on to the final triumph of Christ. As the Lord beholds him,
he is fallen from heaven — from the seat of power and of worship; for,
his mastery is broken by the Stronger than he. And he is fallen like
lightning, in its rapidity, dazzling splendour, and destructiveness/
Yet as we perceive it, it is only demons cast out in His Name. For
still is this fight and sight continued, and to all ages of the present
dispensation. Each time the faith of the Church casts out demons —
whether as formerly, or as they presently vex men, whether in the
lighter combat about possession of the body, or in the sorer fight
about possession of the soul — as Christ beholds it, it is ever Satan
fallen. For, he sees of the travail of His soul, and is satisfied. And
so also is there joy in heaven over every sinner that repenteth.
The authority and power over 'the demons,' attained by faith,
was not to pass away with the occasion that had called it forth. The
Seventy were the representatives of the Church in her work of pre
paring for the Advent of Christ. As already indicated, the sight of
Satan fallen from heaven is the continuous history of the Church.
What the faith of the Seventy had attained was now to be made
permanent to the Church, whose representatives they were. For, the
words in which Christ now gave authority and power to tread on 3
serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy, and
the promise that nothing should hurt them, could not have been
addressed to the Seventy for a Mission which had now come to an

1 Godet, ad loc.
2 So far from seeing here, with Wiinsche
(ad loc), Jewish notions about Satan, I
hold that in the Satanology of the New
Testament, perhaps more than anywhere

else, do we mark not only difference, but
contrast, to Jewish views.
3 The word over (• on,' A.V.) must be
connected with 'power.'

THE THANKSGIVING OF CHRIST. 141
end, except in so far as they represented the Church Universal. It
is almost needless to add, that those ' serpents and scorpions' are
not to be literally but symbolically understood/1 Yet it is not this
power or authority which is to be the main joy either of the Church
or the individual, but 2 the fact that our names are written in heaven.3
And so Christ brings us back to His great teaching about the need
of becoming children, and wherein lies the secret of true greatness in
the Kingdom.
It is beautifully in the spirit of all this, when we read that the
joy of the disciples was met by that of the Master, and that His
teaching presently merged into a prayer of thanksgiving. Through
out the occurrences since the Transfiguration, we have noticed an
increasing antithesis to the teaching of the Rabbis. But it almost
reached its climax in the thanksgiving, that the Father in heaven
had hid these things from the wise and the understanding, and
revealed them unto babes. As we view it in the light of those times,
we know that ' the wise' and understanding ' — the Rabbi and the
Scribe — could not, from their standpoint, have perceived them; nay,
that it is matter of never-ending thanks that, not what they, but
what ' the babes,' understood, was — as alone it could be — the subject
of the Heavenly Father's revelation. We even tremble to think how
it would have fared with ' the babes, ' if ' the wise and understand
ing' had had part with them in the knowledge revealed. And so it
must ever be, not only the Law of the Kingdom and the fundamental
principle of Divine Revelation, but matter for thanksgiving, that, not
as 'wise and understanding,.' but only as 'babes' — as 'converted,'
' like children ' — we can share in that knowledge which maketh wise
unto salvation. And this truly is the Gospel, and the Father's good
pleasure/ The words/ with which Christ turned from this Address to the "st. Luke

Seventy and thanksgiving to God, seem almost like the Father's
answer to the prayer of the Son. They refer to, and explain, the
authority which Jesus had bestowed on His Church: 'All things
were delivered5 to Me of My Father;' and they afford the highest
1 I presume, that in the same sym- 3 The figure is one current in Scripture
bolical sense must be understood the (comp. Exod. xxxii. 32: Is. iv. 3; Dan.
Haggadah about a great Rabbinic Saint, xii. 1). But the Rabbis took it in a
whom a serpent bit without harming grossly literal manner, and spoke of three
him, and then immediately died. The books opened every New Year's Day —
Rabbi brought it to his disciples with the those of the pious, the wicked, and the
words: It is not the serpent that killeth, intermediate (Rosh haSh. 16 b).
but sin (Ber. 33 a). * This is a common Jewish formula:
2 The word ' rather ' in the A. V. is "p;B? ]1S"I-
spurious. 5 The tense should here be marked.

x. 22

142

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• St. Matt.
xi. 28-30
» St. Luke
X. 23, 24
c Comp.
St. Matt.
xiii. 16

rationale for the fact, that these things had been hid from the wise
and revealed unto babes. For, as no man, only the Father, could have
full knowledge of the Son, and, conversely, no man, only the Son,
had true knowledge of the Father, it followed, that this knowledge
came to us, not of Wisdom or learning, but only through the Revela
tion of Christ: ' No one knoweth Who the Son is, save the Father;
and Who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
willeth to reveal Him.'
St. Matthew, who also records this — although in a different
connection, immediately ofter the denunciation of the unbelief of
Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum — concludes this section by
words which have ever since been the grand text of those who,
following in the wake of the Seventy, have been ambassadors for
Christ." On the other hand, St. Luke concludes this part of his
narrative by adducing words equally congruous to the occasion,"
which, indeed, are not new in the mouth of the Lord/ From their
suitableness to what had preceded, we can have little doubt that
both that which St. Matthew, and that which St. Luke, reports was
spoken on this occasion. Because knowledge of the Father came
only through the Son, and because these things were hidden from the
wise and revealed to ' babes, ' did the gracious Lord open His Arms so
wide, and bid all1 that laboured and were heavy laden come to Him.
These were the sheep, distressed and prostrate, whom to gather, that
He might give them rest, He had sent forth the Seventy on a work,
for which He had prayed the Father to thrust forth labourers, - and
which He has since entrusted to the faith and service of love of the
Church. And the true wisdom, which qualified for the Kingdom,
was to take up His yoke, which would be found easy, and a lightsome
4 Actsxv. 10 burden, not like that unbearable yoke of Rabbinic conditions; d and
the true understanding to be sought, was by learning of Him. In
that wisdom of entering the Kingdom by taking up its yoke, and in
that knowledge which came by learning of Him, Christ was Himself
alike the true lesson and the best Teacher for those ' babes. ' For He
is meek and lowly in heart. He had done what He taught, and He
taught what He had done; and so, by coming unto Him, would true
rest be found for the soul.
These words, as recorded by St. Matthew — the Evangelist of the
Jews — must have sunk the deeper into the hearts of Christ's Jewish

1 Melanchthon writes: 'In this "All"
thou art to include thyself, and not to
think that thou dost not belong thereto ;

thou art not to search for another register
of God.'

THE EASY YOKE OF CHRIST. 143
hearers, that they came in their own old familiar form of.speech, yet chap.
with such contrast of spirit. One of the most common figurative V
expressions of the time was that of ' the yoke ' (~rj), to indicate "— -^ 
submission to an occupation or obligation. Thus, we read not only ofthe
' yoke of the Law, ' but of that of ' earthly governments, ' and ordinary
'civil obligations."1 Very instructive for the understanding of the »A.bhoth.
figure is this paraphrase of Cant. i. 10: ' How beautiful is their neck
for bearing the yoke of Thy statutes; and it shall be upon them like
the yoke on the neck of the ox that plougheth in the field, and pro-
videth food for himself and his master. ' " 1 This yoke might be ' cast » Targum,
off, ' as the ten tribes had cast off that ' of God, ' and thus brought on
themselves their exile." On the other hand, to ' take upon oneself the -shemoth
yoke ' (Ti2 ">:p) meant to submit to it of free choice and deliberate
resolution. Thus, in the allegorism ofthe Midrash, in the inscription,
Prov. xxx. 1, concerning ' Agur, the son of Jakeh ' — which is viewed
as a symbolical designation of Solomon — the word ' Massa, ' rendered
in the Authorized Version ' prophecy,' is thus explained in reference
to Solomon: 'Massa, because he lifted on himself (Nasa) the yoke
of the Holy One, blessed be He.'d And of Isaiah it was said, that aMidr.
he had been privileged to prophesy of so many blessings, ' because Tobh.'ed.
he had taken upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven with 20 a
joy.'c2 And, as previously stated, it was set forth that in the "Yaikutn.
' Shema,' or Creed — which was repeated every day — the words, Deut. fiws.Tines
vi. 4-9, were recited before those in xi. 13-21, so as first generally bottom
to ' take upon ourselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and
only afterwards that of the commandments."3 And this yoke all fBer. 11.2
Israel had taken upon itself, thereby gaining the merit ever afterwards
imputed to them.
Yet, practically, ' the yoke of the Kingdom ' was none other than
that 'of the Law' and 'of the commandments;' one of laborious
performances and of impossible self-righteousness. It was ' unbear
able,' not 'the easy' and lightsome yoke of Christ, in which the
Kingdom of God was of faith, not of works. And, as if themselves
to bear witness to this, we have this saying of theirs, terribly signi
ficant in this connection: 'Not like those formerly (the first), who
made for themselves the yoke of the Law easy and light; but like
those after them (those afterwards), who made the yoke of the Law
1 Similarly we read of ' the yoke of in the great Academy of Jerusalem by
repentance (Moed K. 16 b), of that 'of Elijah the prophet to a question pro-
man,' or rather 'of flesh and blood' pounded to him by a student.
(Ab. de R. Nath. 20), &c. s Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Social
2 This is mentioned as an answer given Life,' p. 270.

144

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

« St. Luke
x. 25 &e.

upon thein heavy ! ' a And, indeed, this voluntary making of the yoke
as heavy as possible, the taking on themselves as many obligations as
' — ~ r — ' possible, was the ideal of Rabbinic piety. There was, therefore, pecu-
¦ sanh.94 6, iiar teaching and comfort in the words of Christ; and well might He
middle ° °
»st. Luke add, as St. Luke reports," that blessed were they who saw and heard
these things.' For, that Messianic Kingdom, which had been the
object of rapt vision and earnest longing to prophets and kings of
old had now become reality/
Abounding as this history is in contrasts, it seems not unlikely,
that the scene next recorded by St. Luke ° stands in its right place.
Such an inquiry on the part of a 'certain lawyer,' as to what he
should do to inherit eternal life, together with Christ's Parabolic
teaching about the Good Samaritan, is evidently congruous to the
previous teaching of Christ about entering into the Kingdom of
Heaven. Possibly, this Scribe may have understood the words of the
Master about these things being hid from the wise, and the need of
taking up the yoke of the Kingdom, as enforcing the views of those
Rabbinic teachers, who laid more stress upon good works than upon
study. Perhaps himself belonged to that minority, although his
question was intended to tempt — to try whether the Master would
stand the Rabbinic test, alike morally and dialectically. And, without
at present entering on the Parable which gives Christ's final answer
(and which will best be considered together with the others belonging
to that period), it will be seen how peculiarly suited it was to the
state of mind just supposed.
From this interruption, which, but for the teaching of Christ
connected with it, would have formed a terrible discord in the
heavenly harmony of this journey, we turn to a far other scene. It
follows in the course of St. Luke's narrative, and we have no reason
to consider it out of its proper place. If so, it must mark the close
of Christ's journey to the Feast of Tabernacles, since the home of
Martha and Mary, to which it introduces us, was in Bethany, close
to Jerusalem, almost one of its suburbs. Other indications, con
firmatory of this note of time, are not wanting. Thus, the history

1 In a rapt description of the Messianic
glory (Pesiqta, ed. Buber. 149 a, eud) we
read that Israel shall exult in His light,
saying: 'Blessed the hour in which the
Messsiah has been created; blessed the
womb that bare Him; blessed the eye
that sees Him; blessed the eye that- is
deemed worthy to behold Him, for the
opening of his lips is blessing and peace.

&c.' It is a strange coiocidence, to say
the least, that this passage occurs in a
' Lecture ' on the portion of the prophets
(Is. lxi. 10), which at present is read in
the Synagogues on a Sabbath close to
the Feast of Tabernacles.
2 The same words were spoken on a
previous occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 16),
after the Parable of the Sower.

AT BETHANY, IN THE HOME OF MARTHA AND MARY. 145
which follows that of the home of Bethany, when one of His disciples CHAP.
asks Him to teach them to pray, as the Baptist had similarly taught V
his followers, seems to indicate, that they were then on the scene — -r~ — '
of John's former labours — north-east of Bethany; and, hence, that
it occurred on Christ's return from Jerusalem. Again, from the
narrative of Christ's reception in the house of Martha, we gather
that Jesus had arrived in Bethany with His disciples, but that
He alone was the guest of the two sisters." We infer that Christ «st. Luke
x 38
had dismissed His disciples to go into the neighbouring City for the
Feast, while Himself tarried in Bethany. Lastly, with all this agrees
the notice in St. John vii. 14, that it was not at the beginning, but
' about the midst of the feast, ' that ' Jesus went up into the Temple. '
Although travelling on the two first festive days was not actually
unlawful, yet we can scarcely conceive that Jesus would have done
so — especially on the Feast of Tabernacles; and the inference is
obvious, that Jesus had tarried in the immediate neighbourhood, as
we know He did at Bethany in the house of Martha and Mary.1
Other things, also, do so explain themselves — notably, the absence
of the brother of Martha and Mary, who probably spent the festive
days in the City itself. It was the beginning of the Feast of Taber
nacles, and the scene recorded by St. Luke " would take place in the » x. 38-42
open leafy booth which served as the sitting apartment during the
festive week. For, according to law, it was duty during the festive
week to eat, sleep, pray, study — in short, to live — in these booths,
which were to be constructed of the boughs of living trees.2 And,
although this was not absolutely obligatory on women,0 yet, the rule cSukk. ii.s
which bade all make ' the booth the principal, and the house only the
secondary dwelling, ' a would induce them to make this leafy tent at «u.».9
least the sitting apartment alike for men and women. And, indeed,
those autumn days were just the season when it would be joy to sit in
these delightful cool retreats— the memorials of Israel's pilgrim-days !
They were high enough, and yet not too high; chiefly open in front;
close enough to be shady, and yet not so close as to exclude sunlight
and air. Such would be the apartment in which what is recorded
passed; and, if we add that this booth stood probably in the court,
we can picture to ourselves Martha moving forwards and backwards
on her busy errands, and seeing, as she passed again and again, Mary
still sitting a rapt listener, not heeding what passed around; and,
1 No one who impartially reads St. John was in Bethany.
xi. can doubt, that the persons there in- 2 Comp. ' The Temple and its Ser-
troduced are the Martha and Mary of vices,' p. 237, &c.
this history, nor hence that their home

14,6 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK lastly, how the elder sister could, as the language of verse 40 implies,
IV enter so suddenly the Master's Presence, bringing her complaint.
*- — ~y~ — ' To understand this history, we must dismiss from our minds
preconceived, though, perhaps, attractive thoughts. There is no
evidence that the household of Bethany had previously belonged to
the circle of Christ's professed disciples. It was, as the whole history
shows, a wealthy home. It consisted of two sisters — the elder, Martha
(a not uncommon Jewish name,1 being the feminine of Mar,2 and
equivalent to our word 'mistress'); the younger, Mary; and their
brother Lazarus, or, Laazar? Although we know not how it came,
yet, evidently, the house was Martha's, and into it she received Jesus
on His arrival in Bethany. It would have been no uncommon occur
rence in Israel for a pious, wealthy lady to receive a great Rabbi
into her house. But the present was not an ordinary case. Martha
must have heard of Him, even if she had not seen" Him. But,
¦ comp. sc indeed, the whole narrative implies/ that Jesus had come to Bethany
Luke x. 38 . . ...
with the view of accepting the hospitality of Martha, which prob
ably had been proffered when some of those ' Seventy, ' sojourning
in the worthiest house at Bethany, had announced the near arrival
of the Master. Still, her bearing affords only indication of being
drawn towards Christ — at most, of a sincere desire to learn the good
news, not of actual discipleship.
And so Jesus came — and, with Him and in Him, Heaven's own
Light and Peace. He was to lodge in one of the booths, the sisters
in the house, and the great booth in the middle of the courtyard
would be the common living apartment of all. It could not have
been long after His arrival — it must have been almost immediately,
that the sisters felt they had received more than an Angel unawares.
How best to do Him honour, was equally the thought of both. To
Martha it seemed, as if she could not do enough in showing Him all
hospitality. And, indeed, this festive season was a busy lime for the
mistress of a wealthy household, especially in the near neighbourhood
of Jerusalem, whence her brother might, after the first two festive
days, bring with him, any time that week, honoured guests from the
City. To these cares was now added that of doing sufficient honour
to such a Guest— for she, also, deeply felt His greatness. And so she
hurried to and fro through the courtyard, literally, ' distracted 4 about
much serving.'
1 See Levy, Neuhebr.Worterb. ad voc. occurs frequently in Talmudic writings as
° Martha occurs, however, also as a an abbreviated form of Elazar or Eleazar

male name (in the Aramaic). ,-^'-,1^
1 The name Laazar P?i>^), or Lazar,

VEpiEmtaxo.

'MARY HATH CHOSEN THAT GOOD PART.' 147
Her younger sister, also, would do Him all highest honour; but, CHAP.
not as Martha. Her homage consisted in forgetting all else but V
Him, Who spake as none had ever done. As truest courtesy or v— ¦ ~y — -
affection consists, nor in its demonstrations, but in being so absorbed
in the object of it as to forget its demonstration, so with Mary in
the Presence of Christ. And then a new Light, another Day had
risen upon her; a fresh life had sprung up within her soul: ' She sat
at the Lord's Feet,1 and heard his Word.' We dare not inquire, and
yet we well know, of what it would be. And so, time after time —
perhaps, hour after hour — as Martha passed on her busy way, she still
sat listening and living. At last, the sister who, in her impatience,
could not think that a woman could, in such manner, fulfil her duty,
or show forth her religious profiting, broke in with what sounds like
a querulous complaint: ' Lord, dost Thou not care that my sister did
leave me to serve alone? ' Mary had served with her, but she had
now left her to do the work alone. Would the Master bid her
resume her- neglected work? But, with tone of gentle reproof and
admonition, the affectionateness of which appeared even in the
repetition of her name, Martha, Martha — as, similarly, on a later
occasion, Simon, Simon — did He teach her in words which, however
simple in their primary meaning, are so full, that they have ever
since borne the most many-sided application: 'Thou art careful and
anxious about many things; but one thing is needful;2 and Mary
hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. '
It was, as we imagine, perhaps the first day of, or else the pre
paration for, the Feast. More than that one day did Jesus tarry in
the home of Bethany. Whether Lazarus came then to see Him — and,
still more, what both Martha and Mary learned, either then, or after
wards, we reverently forbear to search into. Suffice it, that though
the natural disposition of the sisters remained what it had been, yet
henceforth, ' Jesus loved Martha and her sister. '
1 This, instead of ' Jesus,' is the read- gin) : ' but few things are needful, or one'
ing more generally received as correct. — meaning, not much preparation, iu-
2 Few would be disposed to adopt the deed, only one dish is necessary.
proposed alternative reading (R.V., mar-

148

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER VI.
AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES — FIRST DISCOURSE IN THE TEMPLE.
(St. John vii. 11-36.)
BOOK It was Choi ha Moed — as the non-sacred part of the festive week, the
iv half-holy days were called.1 Jerusalem, the City of Solemnities, the
— -y^"^ City of Palaces, the City of beauty and glory, wore quite another than
its usual aspect; other, even, than when its streets were thronged by
festive pilgrims during the Passover-week, or at Pentecost. For this
was pre-eminently the Feast for foreign pilgrims, coming from the
farthest distance, whose Temple-contributions were then received and
counted.2 Despite the strange costumes of Media, Arabia, Persia, or
India, and even further; or the Western speech and bearing of the
pilgrims from Italy, Spain, the modern Crimea, and the banks of the
Danube, if not from yet more strange and barbarous lands, it would
not be difficult to recognise the lineaments ofthe Jew, nor to perceive
that to change one's clime was not to change one's mind. As the
Jerusalemite would look with proud self-consciousness, not unmingled
with kindly patronage, on the swarthy strangers, yet fellow-country
men, or the eager-eyed Galilean curiously stare after them, the pilgrims
would, in turn, gaze with mingled awe and wonderment on the novel
scene. Here was the realisation of their fondest dreams ever since
childhood, the home and spring of their holiest thoughts and best
hopes — that which gave inward victory to the vanquished, and con
verted persecution into anticipated triumph.
They could come at this season of the year — not during the
winter for the Passover, nor yet quite so readily in summer's heat
for Pentecost. But now, in the delicious cool of early autumn, when
all harvest-operations, the gathering in of luscious fruit and the
vintage v/ere past, and the first streaks of gold were tinting the
foliage, strangers from afar off, and countrymen from Judaea, Persea,
and Galilee, would mingle in the streets of Jerusalem, under the
1 Also Cholo shel Moed and Moed Qaton. 2 See ch. iii. of this Book.

IN JERUSALEM AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 149
ever-present shadow of that glorious Sanctuary of marble, cedarwood, CHAP.
and gold, up there on high Moriah, symbol of the infinitely more VI
glorious overshadowing Presence of Him, Who was the Holy One in  <—^
the midst of Israel. How all day long, even till the stars lit up the
deep blue canopy over head, the smoke of the burning, smouldering
sacrifices rose in slowly-widening column, and hung between the
Mount of Olives and Zion; how the chant of Levites, and the
solemn responses of the Hallel were borne on the breeze, or the
clear blast of the Priests' silver trumpets seemed to waken the
echoes far away ! And then, at night, how all these vast Temple-
buildings stood out, illuminated by the great Candelabras that
burned in the Court of the Women, and by the glare of torches,
when strange sound of mystic hymns and dances came floating over
the intervening darkness! Truly, well might Israel designate the
Feast of Tabernacles as 'the Feast' (haChag), and the Jewish his
torian describe it as ' the holiest and greatest. ' a ' a Jos. Ant.
° viii. 4. 1
Early on the 14th Tishri (corresponding to our September or
early October), all the festive pilgrims had arrived. Then it was,
indeed, a scene of bustle and activity. Hospitality had to be sought
and found; guests to be welcomed and entertained; all things
required for the feast to be got ready. Above all, booths must be
erected everywhere — in court and on housetop, in street and square,
for the. lodgment and entertainment of that vast multitude; leafy
dwellings everywhere, to remind of the wilderness-journey, and now
ofthe goodly land. Only that fierce castle, Antonia, which frowned j
above the Temple, was undecked by the festive spring into which
the land had burst. To the Jew it must have been a hateful sight,
that castle, which guarded and dominated his own City and Temple
— hateful sight and sounds, that Roman garrison, with its foreign,
heathen, ribald speech and manners. Yet, for all this, Israel could
not read on the lowering sky the signs of the times, nor yet knew
the day of their merciful visitation. And this, although of all
festivals, that of Tabernacles should have most clearly pointed them
to the future.
Indeed, the whole symbolism of the Feast, beginning with the
completed harvest, for which it was a thanksgiving, pointed to the
future. The Rabbis themselves admitted this. The strange number
of sacrificial bullocks — seventy in all — they regarded as referring to
'the seventy nations ' of heathendom." The ceremony of the out- Isb^'Pesiqta.ed.
1 For a full description of the Feast of Tabernacles in the days of Christ, I must ^M*f ^gj a .
refer to ' The Temple and its Services.' Shabb. 88 b

150 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK pouring of water, which was considered of such vital importance as
IV to give to the whole festival the name of 'House of Outpouring, ,a
— v~ — was symbolical of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit/ As the brief
* sutk. v. 1 night of the great Temple-illumination closed, there was solemn
v. lf'p.&so' testimony made before Jehovah against heathenism. It must have
been a stirring scene, when from out of the mass of Levites, with their
musical instruments, who crowded the fifteen steps that led from
the Court of Israel to that of the Women, stepped two priests with
their silver trumpets. As the first cockcrowing intimated the dawn
of morn, they blew a threefold blast; another on the tenth step,
and yet another threefold blast as they entered the Court of the
Women. And still sounding their trumpets, they marched through
the Court of the Women to the Beautiful Gate. Here, turning
round and facing westwards to the Holy Place, they repeated: ' Our
fathers, who were in this place, they turned their backs on the
Sanctuary of Jehovah, and their faces eastward, for they worshipped
eastward, the sun; but we, our eyes are towards Jehovah.' 'We
°sukk. v. 4 are Jehovah's — our eyes are towards Jehovah.' 0l Nay, the whole of
this night- and morning-scene was symbolical: the Temple-illumi
nation, of the light which was to shine from out the Temple into the
dark night of heathendom; then, at the first dawn of morn the
blast of the priests' silver trumpets, of the army of God, as it ad
vanced, with festive trumpet-sound and call, to awaken the sleepers,
marching on to quite the utmost bounds of the Sanctuary, to the
Beautiful Gate, which opened upon the Court of the Gentiles — and,
then again, facing round to utter solemn protest against heathenism,
and make solemn confession of Jehovah!
But Jesus did not appear in the Temple during the first two
festive days. The pilgrims from all parts of the country — perhaps,
they from abroad also — had expected Him there, for everyone would
now speak of Him — 'not openly,' in Jerusalem, for they were afraid
of their rulers. It was hardly safe to speak of Him without reserve.
But they sought Him, and inquired after Him — and they did speak
of Him, though there was only a murmuring — a low,- confused dis
cussion of the pro and con, in this great controversy among the
' multitudes, ' 2 or festive bands from various parts. Some said: He
is a good man, while others declared that He only led astray the
common, ignorant populace. And now, all at once, in Choi ha
1 This second form is according to R. place in St. John, and once in St. Mark
Jehudah's tradition. (vi. 33), but sixteen times in St. Luke, and
2 In the plural it occurs only in this still more frequently in St. Matthew.

23
1> Acts v. 12

'HOW DOES THIS ONE KNOW LETTERS?' . 151
Moed,1 Jesus Himself appeared in the Temple, and taught. We chap
know that, on a later occasion/ He walked and taught in 'Solo- vi
mon's Porch, ' and, from the circumstance that the early disciples • — -y— ¦>
made this their common meeting-place," we may draw the infer- «st. John
ence that it was here the people now found Him. Although neither
Josephus nor the Mishnah mention this ' Porch ' by name,2 we have
every reason for believing that it was the eastern colonnade, which
abutted against the Mount of Olives and faced ' the Beautiful Gate, '
that formed the principal entrance into the ' Court of the Women, '
and so into the Sanctuary. For, all along the inside of the great
wall which formed the Temple-enclosure ran a double colonnade —
each column a monolith of white marble, 25 cubits high, covered
with cedar-beams. That on the south side (leading from the western
entrance to Solomon's Porch), known as the ' Royal Porch, ' was a
threefold colonnade, consisting of four rows of columns, each
21 cubits high, and surmounted by Corinthian capitals. We infer
that the eastern was ' Solomon's Porch,' from the circumstance that
it was the only relic left of Solomon's Temple." These colonnades, °Ji». Ant
. ' ' XV. 11. 5;
which, from their ample space, formed alike places for quiet walk and xx. 9. i
for larger gatherings, had benches in them — and, from the liberty of
speaking and teaching in Israel, Jesus might here address the people
in the very face of His enemies.
We know not what was the subject of Christ's teaching on this
occasion. But the effect on the people was one of general astonish
ment. They knew what common unlettered Galilean tradesmen
were — but this, whence came it?d 'How does this one know liter a- dst. joim
' vii. 15
ture (letters, learning)/ never having learned ? ' To the Jews there 8C0mp.
was only one kind of learning — that of Theology; and only one road A40tsxXTI-
to it — the Schools, of the Rabbis. Their major was true, but their
minor false — and Jesus hastened to correct it. He had, indeed,
' learned, ' but in a School quite other than those which alone they
recognised. Yet, on their own showing, it claimed the most absolute
submission. Among the Jews a Rabbi's teaching derived authority
from the fact of its accordance with tradition — that it accurately
represented what had been received from a previous great teacher,
and so on upwards to Moses, and to God Himself. On this ground
Christ claimed the highest authority. His doctrine was not His own
invention — it was the teaching of Him that sent Him. The doctrine
1 See above, p. 148. its Johannine authorship, just as the
2 This, as showing such local know- mention of that Porch in the Book of
ledge on the part of the Fourth Gospel, Acts points to a Jerusalem source of in-
must be taken as additional evidence of formation.

152

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. John
vii. 16-17

>> St. John
vi. 68, 69

• St. John
vii. 18

was God-received, and Christ was sent direct from God to bring it.
He was God's messenger of it to them." Of this twofold claim there
was also twofold evidence. Did He assert that what He taught was
God-received? Let trial be made of it. Everyone who in his soul
felt drawn towards God; each one who really 'willethtodo His Will,'
would know 'concerning this teaching, whether it is of God,' or
whether it was of man.1 It was this felt, though unrealised influence
which had drawn all men after Him, so that they hung on His lips.
It was this which, in the hour of greatest temptation and mental
difficulty, had led Peter, in name of the others, to end the sore inner
contest by laying hold on this fact: 'To whom shall we go? Thou
hast the words of eternal life — and we have believed and know, that
Thou art the Holy One of God.'" Marking, as we pass, that this
inward connection between that teaching and learning and the present
occasion, may be the deeper reason why, in the Gospel by St. John,
the one narrative is immediately followed by the other, we pause to
say, how real it hath proved in all ages and to all stages of Christian
learning — that the heart makes the truly God-taught ('pectus facit
Theologum1), and that inward, true aspiration after the Divine
prepares the eye to behold the Divine Reality in the Christ. But, if
it be so is there not evidence here, that He is the God-sent —
that He is a real, true Ambassador of God? If Jesus' teaching
meets and satisfies our moral nature, if it leads up to God, is He not
the Christ?
And this brings us to the second claim which Christ made, that
of being sent by God. There is yet another logical link in His
reasoning. He had said: 'He shall know of the teaching, whether
it be of God, or whether I speak from Myself. ' From Myself ? Why,
there is this other test of it: ' Who speaketh from himself, seeketh
his own glory — there can be no doubt or question of this, but do I
seek My own glory? — ' But He Who seeketh the glory of Him Who
sent Him, He is true [a faithful messenger], and unrighteousness is
not in Him.' ° Thus did Christ appeal and prove it: My doctrine is
of God, and I am sent of God !
Sent of God, no unrighteousness in Him! And yet at that very
moment there hung over Him the charge of defiance of the Law of
Moses, nay, of that of God, in an open breach of the Sabbath-com
mandment — there, in that very City, the last time He had been in
Jerusalem; for which, as well as for His Divine claims, the Jews were
1 The passage quoted by Canon Westcott. from Ab. ii. 4 does not seem to be
parallel.

CHRIST'S DEFENCE OF HIS CLAIMS.

153

even then seeking 'to kill Him.'a And this forms the transition to
what may be called the second part of Christ's address. If, in the
first part, the Jewish form of ratiocination was already apparent, it
seems almost impossible for any one acquainted with those forms to
understand how it can be overlooked in what follows. ' It is exactly
the mode in which a Jew would argue with Jews, only the substance
of the reasoning is to all times and people. Christ is defending
Himself against a charge which naturally came up, when He claimed
that His Teaching was of God and Himself God's real and faithful
Messenger. In His reply the two threads of the former argument
are taken up. Doing is the condition of knowledge — and a messenger
had been sent from God! Admittedly, Moses was such, and yet
every one of them was breaking the Law which he had given them;
for, were they not seeking to kill Him without right or justice?
This, put in the form of a double question," represents a peculiarly
Jewish mode of argumentation, behind which lay the terrible truth,
that those, whose hearts were so little longing to do the Will of God,
not only must remain ignorant of His Teaching as that of God, but
had also rejected that of Moses.
A general disclaimer, a cry ' Thou hast a demon ' (art possessed),
'who seeks to kill Thee?' here broke in upon the Speaker. But
He would not be interrupted, and continued: 'One work I did, and
all you wonder on account of it ' 2 — referring to His healing on the
Sabbath, and their utter inability to understand His conduct. Well,
then, Moses was a messenger of God, and I am sent of God. Moses
gave the law of circumcision — not, indeed, that it was of his
authority, but had long before been God-given — and, to observe this
law, no one hesitated to break the Sabbath,3 since, according to
Rabbinic principle, a positive ordinance superseded a negative. And
yet, when Christ, as sent from God, made a man every whit whole on
the Sabbath ('made a whole man sound') they were angry with
Him ! c Every argument which might have been urged in favour of
the postponement of Christ's healing to a week-day, would equally
apply to that of circumcision; while every reason that could be

1 St. John
vii. 19, 20

1 I regard this as almost overwhelm
ing evidence against the theory of an
Ephesian authority of the Fourth Gospel.
Even the double question in ver. 19 is
here significant.
2 The words 'on account of it,' rendered
in the A.V. 'therefore,' and placed in ver.
22 (St. John vii.), really form the close
of ver. 21. At any rate, they cannot be

taken in the sense of 'therefore.'
3 This was a well-recognized Rabbinic
principle. Comp. for example Shabb.
132 a, where the argument runs that, if
circumcision, which applies to one of the
248 members, of which, according to the
Rabbis, the human body consists, super
seded the Sabbath, how much more the
preservation of the whole body.

154

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• St. John
vii. 25-27

b Comp.
also Sanh.
97 a; Midr.
on Cant.
ii. 10

urged in favour of Sabbath-circumcision, would tell an hundredfold
in favour of the act of Christ. Oh, then, let them not judge after the
mere outward appearance, but 'judge the right judgment.' And,
indeed, had it not been to convince them of the externalism of their
views, that Jesus had on that Sabbath opened the great controversy
between the letter that killeth and the spirit that maketh alive, when He
directed the impotent man to carry home the bed on which he had lain?
If any doubt could obtain, how truly Jesus had gauged the exist
ing state of things, when He contrasted heart-willingness to do the
Will of God, as the necessary preparation for the reception of His
God-sent Teaching, with their murderous designs, springing from blind
literalism and ignorance of the spirit of their Law, the reported re
marks of some Jerusalemites in the crowd would suffice to convince
us/ The fact that He, Whom they sought to kill, was suffered to
speak openly, seemed to them incomprehensible. Could it be that
the authorities were shaken in their former idea about Him, and
now regarded Him as the Messiah? But it could not be.1 It was a
settled popular belief, and, in a sense, not quite unfounded, that the
appearance of the Messiah would be sudden and unexpected. He
might be there, and not be known; or He might come, and be again
hidden for a time."2 As they put it, when Messiah came, no one
would know whence He was; but they all knew ' whence this One '
was. And with this rough and ready argument of a coarse realism,
they, like so many among us, settled off-hand and once for all the
great question. But Jesus could not, even for the sake of His poor
weak disciples, let it rest there. 'Therefore' He lifted up His voice,3
that it reached the dispersing, receding multitude. Yes, they thought
they knew both Him and whence He came. It would have been so
had He come from Himself. But He had been sent, and He that
sent Him ' was real; ' 4 it was a real Mission, and Him, who had
thus sent the Christ, they knew not. And so, with a reaffirmation of

1 In the original: ' Can it be?'
2 See Book II. ch. v., and Appendix
IX. 3 'Cried.'
4 The word dXifiivoS has not an exact
English equivalent, scarcely a German
one (wahrhaftig ?). It is a favourite word
of St. John's, who uses it eight times in
his Gospel, or, if the Revised reading viii.
16 be adopted, nine times (i. 9 ; iv. 23,
37; vi. 32; vii. 28; viii. 16 ?; xv. 1; xvii.
3 ; xix. 35) ; and four times in his 'First
Epistle (ii. 8, and three times in ch. v. 20).
Its Johanniue meaning is perhaps best

seen when in juxtaposition with dXijBr/S
(for example, 1 John ii. 8). But in the
Book of Revelation, where it occurs ten
times (iii. 7, 14 ; vi. 10 ; xv. 3 ; xvi. 7 ; xix.
2, 9, 11; xxi. 5; xxii. 6), it has another
meaning, and can scarcely be distin
guished from our English 'true.' It is
used, in the same sense as in St. John's
Gospel and Epistle, in St. Luke xvi. 11, in
1 Thess. i. 9; and three times in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (viii. 2 ; ix. 24; x.
22). We may, therefore, regard it as a
word to which- a Grecian, not a Judasan
meaning attaches. In our view it refers

•YE SHALL SEEK ME, AND NOT FIND ME.' J55
His twofold claim, His Discourse closed/ But they had understood CHAP.
His allusions, and in their anger would fain have laid hands on Him, VI
but His hour had not come. Yet others were deeply stirred to faith. v— -n 
As they parted they spoke of it among themselves, and the sum of ^J*-,^01111
it all was: 'The Christ, when He cometh, will He do more miracles
(signs) than this One did? '
So ended the first teaching of that day in the Temple. And as
the people dispersed, the leaders of the Pharisees — who, no doubt
aware of the presence of Christ in the Temple, yet unwilling to be in
the number of His hearers, had watched the effect of His Teaching
— overheard the low, furtive, half-outspoken remarks ( ' the murmu. -
ing ') of the people about Him. Presently they conferred with the
heads of the priesthood and the chief Temple-officials.' Although
there was neither meeting, nor decree of the Sanhedrin about it, nor,
indeed, could be,2 orders were given to the Temple-guard on the first
possible occasion to seize Him. Jesus was aware of it, and as, either
on this or another day, He was moving in the Temple, watched by
the spies of the rulers and followed by a mingled crowd of disciples
and enemies, deep sadness in view of the end filled His heart. ' Jesus
therefore said ' — no doubt to His disciples, though in the hearing of
all — ' yet a little while am I with you, then I go away 3 to Him that
sent Me. Ye shall seek Me, and not find Me; and where I am,
thither ye cannot come.'" Mournful words, these, which were only »w. 33, 34
too soon to become true. But those who heard them naturally failed
to comprehend their meaning. Was He about to leave Palestine, and
go to the Diaspora of the Greeks, among the dispersed who lived in
heathen lands, to teach the Greeks? Or what could be His meaning?
But we, who hear it across these centuries, feel as if their question,
like the suggestion of the High-Priest at a later period, nay, like so
many suggestions of men, had been, all unconsciously, prophetic of
the future.
to the true as the real, and the real as Priesthood, see ' The Temple and its Ser-
that which has become outwardly true, vices,' ch. iv., especially pp. 75-77.
I do not quite understand — and, so far as 2 Only those unacquainted with the
I understand it, I do not agree with, the judicial procedure of the Sanhedrin could
view of Cremer (Bibl. Theol. Lex., Engl, imagine that there had been a regular
ed. p. 85), that ' dXrfiivoZ'vs related to meeting and decree of that tribunal.
dXrfirji as form to contents or sub- That would have required a formal accu-
stance.' The distinction between the sation, witnesses, examination, &c.
Judaean and the Grecian meaning is not 3 Canon Westcott marks, that the word
only borne out by the Book of Revelation here used (vitdyao) indicates a personal
(which uses it in the Judaean sense), but by act, while another word (7iopEvo/uai)
Ecclus. xiii. 2. 11. In the LXX. it stands marks a purpose or mission, and yet a
for not fewer than twelve Hebrew words, third word (ditipxojjLai) expresses simple
1 On the heads and chief officials of the separation.

156

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• Comp.
Yoma 3 a,
and often

CHAPTER VII.
< IN. THE LAST, THE GREAT DAY OF THE FEAST.'
(St. John vii. 37— viii. 11.)
It was ' the last, the great day of the Feast, ' and Jesus was once
more in the Temple. We can scarcely doubt that it was the con
cluding day of the Feast, and not, as most modern writers suppose,
its Octave, which, in Rabbinic language, was regarded as ' a festival
by itself. ' " 1 But such solemn interest attaches to the Feast, and this
occurrence on its last day, that we must try to realise the scene. We
have here the only Old Testament type yet unfulfilled; the only
Jewish festival which has no counterpart in the cycle of the Christian
year,2 just because it points forward to that great, yet unfulfilled hope
ofthe Church: the ingathering of Earth's nations to the Christ.
The celebration of the Feast corresponded to its great meaning.
Not only did all the priestly families minister during that week, but
it has been calculated that not fewer than 446 Priests, with, of course, a
corresponding number of Levites, were required for its sacrificial
worship. In general, the services were the same every day, except
that the number of bullocks offered decreased daily from thirteen on
the first, to seven on the seventh day. Only during the first two,
and on the last festive day (as also on the Octave of the Feast), was
strict Sabbatic rest enjoined. On the intervening half-holidays (Choi
haMoed), although no new labour was to be undertaken, unless in the
public service, the ordinary and necessary avocations of the home
and of life were carried on, and especially all done that was required

1 Hence the benediction said at the
beginning of every Feast is not only said
on the first of that of Tabernacles, but
also on the octave of it (Sukk. 48 a).
The sacrifices for that occasion were quite
different from those for 'Tabernacles;'
the 'booths' were removed; and the pe
culiar rites of the Feast of Tabernacles
no longer observed. This is distinctly

stated in Sukk. iv. 1, and the diverging
opinion of R. Jehudah on this and another
point is formally rejected in Tos. Sukk.
iii. 16. For the six points of difference
between the Feast of Tabernacles and its
Octave, see note at the end of ch. viii.
2 Bishop Haneberg speaks of the anni
versaries of the Martyrs as part-fulfilment
of the typical meaning of that Feast.

IN THE LAST DAY OF THE FEAST. 157.
for the festive season. But ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' chap.
was marked by special observances. vn
Let us suppose ourselves in the number of worshippers, who on "— -v-— '
' the last, the Great Day of the Feast, ' are leaving their ' booths ' at
daybreak to take part in the service. The pilgrims are all in festive
array. In his right hand each carries what is called the Lulabh,1
which, although properly meaning ' a branch,' or ' palm-branch,7 con
sisted of a myrtle and willow-branch tied together with a palm-branch
between them. This was supposed to be in fulfilment of the com
mand, Lev. xxiii. 40. ' The fruit (A.V. ' boughs ') of the goodly
trees, ' mentioned in the same verse of Scripture, was supposed to be
the Ethrog, the so-called Paradise-apple (according to Ber. R. 15, the
fruit of the forbidden tree), a species of citron." This Ethrog each «Targ. on-
worshipper carries in his left hand. It is scarcely necessary to add, pseudo-
that this interpretation of Lev. xxiii. 40 was given by the Rabbis;" jerus.non
perhaps more interesting to know, that this was one of the points in 4oT>os.XAn't.
controversy between the Pharisees and Sadducees. ^ 'E"
Thus armed with Lulabh in their right, and Ethrog in their left |?;dt0^ar^s
hands, the festive multitude would divide into three bands. Some Warsn- p-
' 47 a
would remain in the Temple to attend the preparation of the Morn
ing Sacrifice. Another band would go in procession ' below Jerusalem' c ° sukk. iv. s
to a place called Moza, the ' Kolonia ' ofthe Jerusalem Talmud/ which d Jer. sukk.
r ' ' iv. 3, p.
some have sought to identify with the Bmmaus of the Resurrection- 64 i
Evening.2 At Moza they cut down willow-branches, with which,
amidst the blasts of the Priests' trumpets, they adorned the altar,
forming a leafy canopy about it. Yet a third company were taking
part in a still more interesting service. To the sound of music a
procession started from the Temple. It followed a Priest who bore a
golden pitcher, capable of holding three log.3 Onwards it passed,
probably, through Ophel, which recent investigations have shown to
have been covered with buildings to the very verge of Siloam, down
the edge of the Tyropceon Valley, where it merges into that of the
Kedron. To this day terraces mark where the gardens, watered by
the living spring, extended from the King's Gardens by the spring
Rogel down to the entrance into the Tyropceon. Here was the so-
called ' Fountain-Gate, ' and still within the City- wall ' the Pool of
Siloam, ' the overflow of which fed a lower pool. As already stated
it was at the merging of the Tyropceon into the Kedron Valley, in
1 Also Lulabha and Luleybha. p. 636, note 3.
2 For a full discussion of this point, see 3 Rather more than two pints.

I b

158

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• Comp.
Neh. iii. 15

» 2 Chron.
xxxii. 30 ; >
2 Kings xx.
20' St. John
ix. 7
* 1 Kings i.
33,38

e 1 Kings
1. 9

f ver. 41

bTos.Sukk. Iii. 8

the south-eastern angle of Jerusalem. The Pool of Siloam was fed
by the living spring farther up in the narrowest part of the Kedron
Valley, which presently bears the name of ' the Virgin's Fountain, '
but represents the ancient En-Rogel and Gihon. Indeed, the very
canal which led from the one to the other, with the inscription ofthe
workmen upon it, has lately been excavated.1 Though chiefly of
historical interest, a sentence may be added. The Pool of Siloam is
the same as 'the King's Pool' of Neh. ii. 14." It was made by King
Hezckiah, in order both to divert from a besieging army the spring
of Gihon, which could not be brought within the City-wall, and yet
to bring its waters within the City/ This explains the origin of
the name Siloam, ' sent ' — a conduit c — or ' Siloah, ' as Josephus calls
it. Lastly, we remember that it was down in the valley at Gihon (or
En-Rogel), that Solomon was proclaimed,4 while the opposite faction
held revel, and would have made Adonijah king, on the cliff Zoheleth
(the modern Zahioeileh) right over against it, not a hundred yards
distant/ where they must, of course, have distinctly heard the sound
of the trumpets and the shouts of the people as Solomon was pro
claimed king/
But to return. When the Temple-procession had reached the
Pool of Siloam, the Priest filled his golden pitcher from its waters.2
Then they went back to the Temple, so timing it, that they should
arrive just as they were laying the pieces ofthe sacrifice on the great
Altar of Burnt-offering/ towards the close of the ordinary Morning-
Sacrifice service. A threefold blast ofthe Priests' trumpets welcomed
the arrival of the Priest, as he entered through the ' Water-gate, ' 3
which obtained its name from this ceremony, and passed straight
into the Court ofthe Priests. Here he was joined by another Priest,
who carried the wine for the drink-offering. The two Priests ascended
' the rise ' of the altar, and turned to the left. There were two
silver funnels here, with narrow openings, leading down to the base
of the altar. Into that at the east, which was somewhat wider, the
wine was poured, and, at the same time, the water into the western
and narrower opening, the people shouting to the Priest to raise his
hand, so as to make sure that he poured the water into the funnel.
For, although it was held, that the water-pouring was an ordi-

1 Curiously, in that passage the spring
of the river is designated by the word
Moza. 2 Except on a Sabbath, and on the first
day of the Feast. On these occasions it

had been provided the day before.
3 One of the gates that opened from
' the terrace ' on the south side of the
Temple.

'THE POURING OF WATER,' FOLLOWED BY THE GREAT HALLEL. 159
nance instituted by Moses,. ' a Halakhah of Moses from Sinai,' * this CHAP.
was another of the points disputed by the Sadducees.1 And, indeed, Vii
to give practical effect to their views, the High-Priest Alexander ^ — ^< 
Jannseus had on one occasion poured the water on the ground, when ?Jer. sukk.
1 ° iv. 6 ; Sukk.
he was nearly murdered, and in the riot, that ensued, six thousand ** a
persons were killed in the Temple/ tsukk. iv.
. 9.
Immediately after ' the pouring of water, ' the great ' Hallel, ' con- jk Ant.
sisting of Psalms cxiii. to cxviii. (inclusive), was chanted antiphon-
ally, or rather, with responses, to the accompaniment of the flute.
As the Levites intoned the first line of each Psalm, the people
repeated it; while to each of the other lines they responded by
Hallelu Yah (' Praise ye the Lord '). But in Psalm cxviii. the people
not only repeated the first line, ' 0 give thanks to the Lord,' but also
these, ' 0 then, work now salvation, Jehovah, ' ° '0 Lord, send now « ps. cxviii.
prosperity; ' d and again, at the close of the Psalm, '0 give thanks av6r. 25
to the Lord.' As they repeated these lines, they shook towards the
altar the Lulabh which they held in their hands — as if with this
token of the past to express the reality and cause of their praise, and
to remind God of His promises. It is this moment which should be
chiefly kept in view.
The festive morning-service was followed by the offering of the
special sacrifices for the day, with their drink-offerings, and by the
Psalm for the day, which, on ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast, '
was Psalm Ixxxii. from verse 5. e 2 The Psalm was, of course, chanted,

as always, to instrumental accompaniment, and at the end of each of *?s, Yad
its three sections the Priests blew a threefold blast, while the people man. '
Temld.
bowed down in worship. In further symbolism of this Feast, as umos. x. 11
pointing to the ingathering of the heathen nations, the public services 204 i)
closed with a procession round the Altar by the Priests, who chanted
' 0 then, work now salvation, Jehovah ! O Jehovah, send now pros
perity. ' ' But on ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast, ' this proces- » ps. cxviii.
sion of Priests made the circuit of the altar, not only once, but seven
times, as if they were again compassing, but now with prayer, the
Gentile Jericho which barred their possession of the promised land.
Hence the seventh or last day of the Feast was also called that of
'the Great Hosannah.' As the people left the Temple, they saluted
the altar with words of thanks/ and on the last day of the Feast ssukk.iv.s
1 On the other hand, R. Akiba main- days of the Feast, and a detailed descrip-
tained, that the ' water-pouring ' was tion of the Feast itself, see ' The Temple
prescribed in the written Law. and its Services,' ch. xiv.
2 For the Psalms chanted on the other

and 6

160 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK they shook off the leaves on the willow-branehes round the altar,
IV and beat their palm-branches to pieces. " On the same afternoon the
^—  ' 'booths' were dismantled, and the Feast ended/
u^s.1 We can have little difficulty in determining at what part of the
services of ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast, ' Jesus stood and
cried, 'If any one thirst, let Him come unto Me and drink!' It
must have been with special reference to the ceremony of the out
pouring of the water, which, as we have seen, was considered the
central part of the service.1 Moreover, all would understand that
His words must refer to the Holy Spirit, since the rite was univer
sally regarded as symbolical of His outpouring. The forthpouring
of the water was immediately followed by the chanting of the
Hallel. But after that there must have been a short pause to
prepare for the festive sacrifices (the Musaph). It was then,
immediately after the symbolic rite of water-pouring, immediately
after the people had responded by repeating those lines from Psalm
cxviii. — given thanks, and prayed that Jehovah would send salvation
and prosperity, and had shaken their Lulabh towards the altar, thus
praising ' with heart, - and mouth, and hands, ' and then silence had
fallen upon them — that there rose, so loud as to be heard throughout
the Temple, the Voice of Jesus. He interrupted not the services,
for they had for the moment ceased: He interpreted, and He fulfilled
them. Whether we realise it in connection with the deeply-stirring rites
iust concluded, and the song of praise that had scarcely died out of
the air; or think of it as a vast step in advance in the history of
Christ's Manifestation, the scene is equally wondrous. But yester
day they had been divided about Him, and the authorities had given
directions to take Him; to-day He is not only in the Temple, but,
at the close of the most solemn rites of the Feast, asserting, within
the hearing of all, His claim to be regarded as the fulfilment of all,
and the true Messiah ! And yet there is neither harshness of com
mand nor violence of threat in His proclamation. It is the King,
meek, gentle, and loving; the Messiah, Who will not break the
bruised reed, Who will not lift up His Voice in tone of anger, but
speak in accents of loving, condescending compassion, Who now
bids, whosoever thirsteth, come unto Him and drink. And so the
words have to all time remained the call of Christ to all that thirst,
1 I must respectfully differ from Canon ' water-pouring ' had taken place on the
Westcott (ad loc.) when he regards it as day when our Lord so pointed to the ful-
a doubtful question whether or not the fitment of its symbolical meaning.

THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THEM THAT BELIEVE. 161
whence- or what-soever their need and longing of soul may be. But, CHAP.
as we listen to these words as originally spoken, we feel how they VII
mark that Christ's hour was indeed coming: the preparation past; ' — -y-— '
the manifestation in the present, unmistakable, urgent, and loving;
and the final conflict at hand.
Of those who had heard Him, none but must have understood
that, if the invitation were indeed real, and Christ the fulfilment of
all, then the promise also had its deepest meaning, that he who
believed on Him would not only receive the promised fulness of the
Spirit, but give it forth to the fertilising of the barren waste around.
It was, truly, the fulfilment of the Scripture-promise, not of one
but of all: that in Messianic times the Nabhi, ' prophet,' literally the
weller forth, viz., of the Divine, should not be one or another select
individual, but that He would pour out on all His handmaidens and
servants of His Holy Spirit, and thus the moral wilderness of this
world be changed into a fruitful garden. Indeed, this is expressly
stated in the Targum which thus paraphrases Is. xliv. 3 : ' Behold,
as the waters are poured on arid ground and spread over the dry
soil, so will I give the Spirit of My Holiness on thy sons, and My
blessing on thy children's children.' What was new to them was,
that all this was treasured up in the Christ, that out of His fulness
men might receive, and grace for grace. And yet even this was not
quite new. For, was it not the fulfilment of that old prophetic cry:
'The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon Me: therefore has He
Messiahed (anointed) Me to preach good tidings unto the poor ' ?
So then, it was nothing new, only the happy fulfilment of the old,
when He thus ' spake of the Holy Spirit, which they who believed
on Him should receive,' not then, but upon His Messianic exaltation.
And so we scarcely wonder that many, on hearing Him, said,
though not with that heart-conviction which would have led to
self-surrender, that He was the Prophet promised of old, even the
Christ, while others, by their side, regarding Him as a Galilean, the
Son of Joseph, raised the ignorant objection that He could not be the
Messiah, since the latter must be of the seed of David and come
from Bethlehem. Nay, such was the anger of some against what
they regarded a dangerous seducer of the poor people, that they
would fain have laid violent hands on Him. But amidst all this,
the strongest testimony to His Person and Mission remains to be
told. It came, as so often, from a quarter whence it could least have
been expected. Those Temple-officers, whom the authorities had
commissioned to watch an opportunity for seizing Jesus, came back

162

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

a St. John
vii. 17

« Baba B.
8f>
* Pes. 49 d
• Kethub.
1116

without having done their behest, and that, when, manifestly, the
scene in the Temple might have offered the desired ground for His
imprisonment. To the question of the Pharisees, they could only
give this reply, which has ever since remained unquestionable fact of
history, admitted alike by friend and foe: ' Never man so spake as
this man. ' 1 For, as all spiritual longing and all upward tending, not
only of men but even of systems, consciously or unconsciously tends
towards Christ/ sa can we measure and judge all systems by this,
which no sober student of history will gainsay, that no man or system
ever so spake.
It was not this which the Pharisees now gainsaid, but rather the
obvious, and, we may add, logical, inference from it. The scene
which followed is so thoroughly Jewish, that it alone would suffice to
prove the Jewish, and hence Johannine, authorship of the Fourth
Gospel. The harsh sneer: 'Are ye also led astray?' is succeeded
by pointing to the authority of the learned and great, who with one
accord were rejecting Jesus. ' But this people ' — the country-people
(Am ha-arez), the ignorant, unlettered rabble — 'are cursed.' Suffi
cient has been shown in previous parts of this book to explain alike
the Pharisaic claim of authority and their almost unutterable contempt
of the unlettered. So far did the latter go, that it would refuse, not
only all family connection and friendly intercourse," but even the
bread of charity, to the unlettered;" nay, that, in theory at least,
it would have regarded their murder as no sin,d and even cut them
off from the hope of the Resurrection." 2 But is it not true, that, even
in our days, this double sneer, rather than argument, of the Phari
sees is the main reason ofthe disbelief of so many: Which of the
learned believe on Him? but the ignorant multitude are led by
superstition to ruin.
There was one standing among the Temple-authorities, whom an
uneasy conscience would not allow to remain quite silent. It was
the Sanhedrist Nicodemus, still a night-disciple, even in brightest
noon-tide. He could not hold his peace, and yet he dared not speak
for Christ. So he made compromise of both by taking the part of,
and speaking as, a righteous, rigid Sanhedrist. ' Does our Law judge
(pronounce sentence upon) a man, except it first hear from himself
and know what he doeth? ' From the Rabbinic point of view, no
sounder judicial saying could have been uttered. Yet such common-

1 Whether or not the last three words
are spurious is, so far as the sense of the
words is concerned, matter of compara

tive indifference.
2 For further details the reader is re
ferred to Wagenseil's Sota, pp. 516-519.

THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.

163

places impose not on any one, nor even serve any good purpose.
It helped not the cause of Jesus, and it disguised not the advocacy
of Nicodemus. We know what was thought of Galilee in the
Rabbinic world. ' Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see, for
out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. '
And so ended this incident, which, to all concerned, might have
been so fruitful of good. Once more Nicodemus was left alone, as
every one who has dared and yet not dared for Christ is after all such
bootless compromises: alone — with sore heart, stricken conscience,
and a great longing. 1

CHAP. VII

1 The reader will observe, that the
narrative ofthe woman taken in adultery,
as also the previous verse (St. John vii.
53-viii. 11) have been left out in this
History — although with great reluctance.
By this it is not intended to characterise •
that section as Apocryphal, nor indeed to
pronounce any opinion as to the reality
of some such occurrence. For, it contains
much which we instinctively feel to be
like the Master, both in what Christ is
represented as 3aying and as doing. All
that we reluctantly feel bound to main
tain is, that the narrative in its present
form did not exist in the Gospel of St,
John, and, indeed, could not have
existed. For a summary of the external
evidence against the Johannine author
ship of the passage, I would refer to
Canon Westcott' s Note, ad loc, in the
' Speaker's Commentary.' But there is
also internal evidence, and, to my mind
at least, most cogent, against its authen
ticity — at any rate, in its present form.
From first to last it is utterly un-Jewish.
Accordingly, unbiassed critics who are
conversant either with Jewish legal pro
cedure, or with the habits and views of
the people at the time, would feel
obliged to reject it, even if the external
evidence had been as strong in its favour
as it is for its rejection. Archdeacon
Farrar has, indeed, devoted to the illus
tration of this narrative some of his most
pictorial pages. But, with all his ability
and eloquence, his references to Jewish
law and observances are not such as to
satisfy the requirements of criticism. To
this general objection to their correctness
I must add a protest against the views
which he presents of the moral state of

Jewish society at the time. On the
other hand, from whatever point we
view this narrative — the accusers, the
witnesses, the public examination, the
bringing of the woman to Jesus, or the
punishment claimed — it presents insuper
able difficulties. That a woman taken in
the act of adultery should have been
brought, before Jesus (and apparently
without the witnesses to her crime) ; that
such an utterly un-Jewish, as well as il
legal, procedure should have been that
of the ' Scribes and Pharisees ' ; that such
a breach of law, and of what Judaism
would regard as decency, should have
been perpetrated to ' tempt ' Him ; or that
the Scribes should have been so ignorant
as to substitute stoning for strangulation,
as the punishment of adultery; lastly,
that this scene should have been enacted
in the Temple, presents a veritable
climax of impossibilities. I can only
express surprise that Archdeacon Farrar
should have suggested that the ' Feast
of Tabernacles had grown into a kind
of vintage-festival, which would often
degenerate into acts of licence and im
morality, ' or that the lives of the religious
leaders of Israel ' were often stained '
with such sins. The first statement is
quite ungrounded; and as for the second,
I do not recall a single instance in which
a charge of adultery is brought against
a Rabbi of that period. The quotations
in Sepp's Leben Jesu (vol. v. p. 183),
which Archdeacon Farrar adduces, are
not to cases in point, however much,
from the Christian point of view, we
may reprobate the conduct of the Rabbis
there mentioned.

164

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER VIII.

BOOK IV

• St. John
vlil. 20

' ver. 13

TEACHING IN THE TEMPLE ON THE OCTAVE OF THE FEAST OF
TABERNACLES.
(St. John viii. 12-59.)
The startling teaching on ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast ' was
not the only one delivered at that season. The impression left on the
mind is, that after silencing, as they thought, Nicodemus, the leaders
of the Pharisees had dispersed.1 The addresses of Jesus which fol
lowed must, therefore, have been delivered, either later on that day,
or, what on every account seems more likely, chiefly, or all, on the
next day,2 which was the Octave of the Feast, when the Temple would
be once more thronged by worshippers.
On this occasion we find Christ, first in ' The Treasury, ' a and
then D in some unnamed part of the sacred building, in all probabil
ity one of the 'Porches.' Greater freedom could be here enjoyed,
since these ' Porches, ' which enclosed the Court of the Gentiles, did
not form part of the Sanctuary in the stricter sense. Discussions
might take place, in which not, as in ' the Treasury,' only ' the Phari
sees, ' c but the people generally, might propound questions, answer,
or assent. Again, as regards the requirements of the present narra
tive, since the Porches opened upon the Court, the Jews might there
pick up stones to cast at Him (which would have been impossible in
any part of the Sanctuary itself), while lastly, Jesus might easily
pass out of the Temple in the crowd that moved through the Porches
to the outer gates/

1 This, although St. John vii. 53 must
be rejected as spurious. But the whole
context seems to imply,- that for the pre
sent the auditory of Jesus had dispersed.
2 It is, however, not unlikely that the
first address (vv. 12-19) may have been
delivered on the afternoon of the ' Last
Day of the Feast,' when the cessation of
preparations for the Temple-illumination
may have given the outward occasion
for the words: 'I am the light of the

World.' The itdXiv of vv. 12 and 21
seems in each case to indicate a fresh
period of time. Besides, we can scarcely
suppose that all from vii. 37 to viii. 59
had taken place the same day. For this
and other arguments on the point, see
Liicke, vol. ii. pp. 279-281.
3 The last clauses of ver. 59, 'going
through the midst of them went His way,
and so passed by,' must be omitted as
spurious.

THE DISCOURSE IN THE COURT OF THE WOMEN. 165
But the narrative first transports us into ' the Treasury, ' where chap.
' the Pharisees' — or leaders — would alone venture to speak. It ought vin
to be specially marked, that if they laid not hands on Jesus when He  > 
dared to teach in this sacred locality, and that such unwelcome doc
trine, His immunity must be ascribed to the higher appointment of
God: ' because His hour had not yet come.' a An archceological ques- "ver. 20
tion may here be raised as to the exact localisation of ' the Trea sury, '
whether it was the colonnade around ' the Court of the Women,' in
which the receptacles for charitable contributions — the so-called
Shopharoth, or 'trumpets' — were placed, "vor one of the two ' cham- \sheqai.
bers ' in which, respectively, secret gifts 1 and votive offerings 2 were
deposited/3 The former seems the most likely. In any case, it °sheqai.
would be within ' the Court of the Women, ' the common meeting-
place of the worshippers, and, as we may say, the most generally
attended part ofthe Sanctuary/ Here, in the hearing of the leaders
of the people, took place the first Dialogue between Christ and the
Pharisees. It opened with what probably was an allusion alike to one ofthe
great ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles, to its symbolic mean
ing, and' to an express Messianic expectation of the Rabbis. As the
Mishnah states: On the first,4 or, as the Talmud would have it,0 dsukk. v. 2
on every night 5 of the festive week, ' the Court of the Women ' \lf.' !£££;
was brilliantly illuminated, and the night spent in the demonstra
tions already described. This was called ' the joy of the feast.' This
'festive joy,' of which the origin is obscure, was no doubt connected
with the hope of earth's great harvest-joy in the conversion of the
heathen world, and so pointed to ' the days of the Messiah. ' In
connection with this we mark, that the term ' light ' was specially
1 The so-called 'chamber of the Women and the inner court.' It was in
silent' (Chashaim), Sheqal. v. 6. the south-eastern angle of the Court of
2 The ' chamber of the vessels ' (Ke- the Priests — and hence at a considerable
lim). It was probably over, or in this distance from the Court of the Women.
chamber that Agrippi hung up the golden But, not to speak of the circumstance
memorial-chain of his captivity (Jos. that the Sanhedrin no longer met in that
Antiq. xix. 6. 1). Chamber — even if it had been nearer,
3 Comp. generally ' The Temple and Christ's teaching in the Treasury could
its Services,' pp. 26, 27. not (at any period) 'have been within
* The ' Court of the Women ' (yvvai- earshot of the Sanhedrin,' since it would
Koovii, Jos. Jew. War v. 5. 3 ; comp. also not sit on that day.
v. 5. 2), so called, because women could 5 Although Rabbi Joshua tells (in the
not penetrate further. It was the real Talmud) that during all the nights of
Court of the Sanctuary. Here Jeremiah thefestive week they 'did not taste sleep,'
also taught (xix. 14; xxvi. 2). But it this seems scarcely credible, and the
is not correct to state (Westcott), that statement of the Mishnah is the more ra
the Council Chamber of the Sanhedrin tional. Maimonides, however, adopts the
(Gaziili) was 'between the Court of the view ofthe Talmud (Hilch. Lul. viii. 12).

63 a

166

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

11 Bemidb,
B. 15, ed.
Warsh.
p. 62 a, b
t> St. Luke
ii. 32

<¦ Bemidb.
E. 15
e Yalk. on
Is. Ix.
f On Lam. i.
16, ed.
Warsh. p.
64 a, b

s In Dan. ii.
22

1 St. Luke
ii. 32

applied to the Messiah. In a very interesting passage of the
Midrash ¦ we are told, that, while commonly windows were made wide
within and narrow without, it was the opposite in the Temple of
Solomon, because the light issuing from the Sanctuary was to lighten
that which was without. This reminds us of the language of devout
old Simeon in regard to the Messiah," as ' a light to lighten the
Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel.' The Midrash further
explains, that, if the light in the Sanctuary was to be always burning
before Jehovah, the reason was, not that He needed such light, but
that He honoured Israel with this as a symbolic command. In
Messianic times God would, in fulfilment of the prophetic meaning
of this rite, ' kindle for them the Great Light, ' and the nations of
the world would point to them, who had lit the light for Him Who
lightened the whole world. But even this is not all. The Rabbis
speak of the original light in which God had wrapped Himself as in
a garment/ and which could not shine by day, because it would have
dimmed the light of the sun. From this light that of the sun, moon,
and stars had been kindled/ It was now reserved under the throne
of God for the Messiah/ in Whose days it would shine forth once
more. Lastly, we ought to refer to a passage in another Midrash/
where, after a remarkable discussion on such names of the Messiah
as 'the Lord our Righteousness,' 'the Branch,' 'the Comforter,'
' Shiloh,' ' Compassion,' His Birth is connected with the destruction,
and His return with the restoration of the Temple.1 But in that
very passage the Messiah is also specially designated as the
' Enlightener,' the words:" 'the light dwelleth with Him,' being
applied to Him.
What has just been stated shows, that the Messianic hope of the
aged Simeon " most truly expressed the Messianic thoughts of the
time. It also proves, that the Pharisees could not have mistaken
the Messianic meaning in the words of Jesus, in their reference to
the past festivity: ' I am the Light ofthe world.' This circumstance
is itself evidential as regards this Discourse of Christ, the truth of
this narrative, and even the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
But, indeed, the whole Address, the argumentation with the Phari
sees which follows, as well as the subsequent Discourse to, and
argumentation with, the Jews, are peculiarly Jewish in their form of
reasoning. Substantially, these Discourses are a continuation of
those previously delivered at this Feast. But they carry, the argu-
1 The passage is one of the most remarkable, as regards the Messianic views of
the Rabbis. See Appendix IX.

THE NEED OF SPIRITUAL REGENERATION. 167
ment one important step both backwards and forwards. The situa- chap.
tion had now become quite clear, and neither party cared to conceal Viii
it. What Jesus had gradually communicated to the disciples, who '  < — '
were so unwilling to receive it, had now become an acknowledged
fact. It was no longer a secret that the leaders of Israel and Jeru
salem were compassing the .Death of Jesus. This underlies all His
Words. And He sought to turn them from their purpose, not by ap
pealing to their pity nor to any lower motive, but by claiming as His
right that, for which they would condemn Him. He ivas the Sent of
God, the Messiah; although, to know Him and His Mission, it needed
moral kinship with Him that .had sent Him. But this led to the very
root of the matter. It needed moral kinship with God: did Israel,
as such, possess it? They did not; nay, no man possessed it, till
given him of God. This was not exactly new in these Discourses of
Christ, but it was now far more clearly stated and developed, and in
that sense new.
We also are too apt to overlook this teaching of Christ — perhaps
have overlooked it. It is concerning the corruption of our whole
nature by sin, and hence the need of God-teaching, if we are to
receive the Christ, or understand His doctrine. That which is born
ofthe flesh is flesh; that which is born ofthe Spirit is Spirit; where
fore, ' marvel not that I said, Ye must be born again. ' That had been
Christ's initial teaching to Nicodemus, and it became, with growing
emphasis, His final teaching to the teachers of Israel. It is not St.
Paul who first sets forth the doctrine of our entire moral ruin: he had
learned it from the Christ. It forms the very basis of Christianity;
it is the ultimate reason of the need of a Redeemer, and the rationale
of the work which Christ came to do. The Priesthood and the
Sacrificial Work of Christ, as well as the higher aspect of His
Prophetic Office, and the true meaning of His Kingship, as not of
this world, are based upon it. Very markedly, it constitutes the
starting-point in the fundamental divergence between the leaders of
the Synagogue and Christ — we might say, to all time between Chris
tians and non-Christians. The teachers of Israel knew not, nor
believed in the total corruption of man — Jew as well as Gentile —
and, therefore, felt not the need of a Saviour. They could not
understand it, how ' Except a man ' — at least a Jew — were ' born
again,' and, 'from above,' he could not enter, nor even see, the
Kingdom of God. They understood not their own Bible: the story
ofthe Fall — not Moses and the Prophets; and how could they under
stand Christ? they believed not them, and how could they believe

168

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

¦ St. John
viii. 12

Him? And yet, from this point of view, but only from this, does all
seem clear : the Incarnation, the History of the Temptation and Vic
tory in the Wilderness, and even the Cross. Only he who has, in some
measure, himself felt the agony of the first garden, can understand
that of the second garden. Had they understood, by that personal
experience which we must all have of it, the Proto-Evangel of the
great contest, and of the great conquest by suffering, they would
have followed its lines to their final goal in the Christ as the fulfil
ment of all. And so, here also, were the words of Christ true, that
it needed heavenly teaching, and kinship to the Divine, to understand
His doctrine.
This underlies, and is the main object of these Discourses of
Christ. As a corollary He would teach, that Satan was not a merely
malicious, impish being, working outward destruction, but that there
was a moral power of evil which held us all — not the Gentile world
only, but even the most favoured, learned, and exalted among the
Jews. Of this power Satan was the concentration and impersona
tion; the prince of the power of 'darkness.' This opens up the rea
soning of Christ, alike as expressed and implied. He presented Him
self to them as the Messiah, and hence as the Light of the World.
It resulted, that only in following Him would a man ' not walk in the
darkness,'1 but have the light — and that, be it marked, not the
light of knowledge, but of life." On the other hand, it also followed,
that all, who were not within this light, were in darkness and in
death. It was an appeal to the moral in His hearers. The Pharisees
sought to turn it aside by an appeal to the external and visible.
They asked for some witness, or palpable evidence, of what they called
His testimony about Himself/ well knowing that such could only be
through some external, visible, miraculous manifestation, just as they
had formerly asked for a sign from heaven. The Bible, and espe
cially the Evangelic history, is full of what men ordinarily, and often
thoughtlessly, call the miraculous. But, in this case, the miraculous
would have become the magical, which it never is. If Christ
had yielded to their appeal, and transferred the question from the
moral to the coarsely external sphere, He would have ceased to be
the Messiah of the Incarnation, Temptation, and Cross, the Messiah-
Saviour. It would have been to un-Messiah the Messiah of the
Gospel, for it was only, in another form, a repetition of the Tempta
tion. A miracle or sign would at that moment have been a moral
1 Mark here the definite article.

CHRIST'S TESTIMONY ABOUT HIMSELF. 169
anachronism — as much as any miracle would be in our days,' when chap.
the Christ makes His appeal to the moral, and is met by a demand VIH
for the external and material evidence of His Witness. ¦ — -n 
The interruption of the Pharisees " was thoroughly Jewish, and » st. John
so was their objection. It had to be met, and that in the Jewish
form2 in which it had been raised, while the Christ must at the same
time continue His former teaching to them concerning God and
their own distance from Him. Their objection had proceeded on
this fundamental judicial principle — 'A person is not accredited
about himself.' b Harsh and unjust as this principle sometimes was,3 'Kethub.
it evidently applied only in judicial cases, and hence implied that
these Pharisees sat in judgment on Him as one suspected, and
charged with guilt. The reply of Jesus was plain. Even if His
testimony about Himself were unsupported, it would still be true,
and He was competent to bear it, for He knew, as a matter of fact,
whence He came and whither He went — His own part in this
Mission, and its goal, as well as God's — whereas they knew4 not
either/ But, more than this: their demand for a witness had pro- °st. John
ceeded on the assumption of their being the judges, and He the
panel — a relation which only arose from their judging after the flesh.
Spiritual judgment upon that which was within belonged only to
Him, that searcheth all secrets. Christ, while on earth, judged no
man; and, even if He did so, it must be remembered that He did it
not alone, but with, and as the Representative of, the Father. Hence,
such judgment would be true/ But, as for their main charge, was it dw. 15, 16
either true, or good in law? In accordance with the Law of God,
there were two witnesses to the fact of His Mission: His own, and
the frequently-shown attestation of His Father. And, if it were ob
jected that a man could not bear witness in his own cause, the same
Rabbinic canon laid it down, that this only applied if his testimony
stood alone. But if it were corroborated (even in a matter of
greatest delicacy)/ although by only one male or female slave — who
ordinarily were unfit for testimony — it would be credited.
1 It i3 substantially the same evi- Gospel.
dence which is demanded by the nega- 3 Thus the testimony of u, man, that
tive physicists of our days. Nor can during the heathen occupancy of Jeru-
I imagine a more thorough misunder- salem his wife had never left him, was
standing of the character aud teaching of not allowed, and the husband forbidden
Christianity than, for example, the pro- his wife (Kethub. ii. 9).
posal to test the efficacy of prayer, by * Not, as in theA.V, 'tell.'
asking for the recovery of those in a 5 Kethub. ii 9. Such solitary testi-
hospital ward ! This would represent mony only when favourable, not when
heathenism, not Christianity. adverse. On the law of testimony gene-
2 We mark here again the evidence rally, comp. Saalschiitz, Mos. Recht, pp.
of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth 60 1. 605.

no

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

¦ St. John
viii. 19

' St. John
viii. 22

The reasoning of Christ, without for a moment quitting the higher
ground of His teaching, was quite unanswerable from the Jewish stand
point. The Pharisees felt it, and, though well knowing to Whom
He referred, tried to evade it by the sneer — where (not Who) His
Father was? This gave occasion for Christ to return to the main
subject of His Address, that the reason of their ignorance of Him
was, that they knew not the Father, and, in turn, that only acknow
ledgment of Him would bring true knowledge of the Father/
Such words would only ripen in the hearts of such men the murder
ous resolve against Jesus. Yet, not till His, not their, hour had come!
Presently, we find Him again, now in one of the Porches — probably
that of Solomon — teaching, this time, 'the Jews.' We imagine they
were chiefly, if not all, Judaeans — perhaps Jerusalemites, aware of
the murderous intent of their leaders — not His own Galileans, whom
He addressed. It was in continuation of what had gone before —
alike of what He had said to them and of what they felt towards
Him. The words are intensely sad — Christ's farewell to His rebel
lious people, His tear-words over lost Israel; abrupt also, as if they
were torn sentences, or, else, headings for special discourses: 'I go My
way ' — 'Ye shall seek Me, and in your sin1 shall ye die' — 'Whither
I go, ye cannot come!' And is it not all most true? These many
centuries has Israel sought its Christ, and perished in its great sin
of rejecting Him; and whither Christ and His kingdom tended, the
Synagogue and Judaism never came. They thought that He spoke
of His dying, and not, as He did, of that which came after it.
But, how could His dying establish such separation between them?
This was the next question which rose in their minds/ Would there
be anything so peculiar about His dying, or, did His expression about
going indicate a purpose of taking away His Own life? 2
It was this misunderstanding which Jesus briefly but emphati
cally corrected by telling them, that the ground of their separation
was the difference of their nature: they were from beneath, He from
above; they of this world, He not of this world. Hence they could

1 Not 'sins,' as in the A.V.
2 Generally this is understood as
referring to the supposed Jewish belief,
that suicides occupied the lowest place
in Gehenna. But a glance at the context
must convince that the Jews could not
have understood Christ us meaning, that
He would be separated from them by
being sent to the lowest Gehenna.
Besides, this supposed punishment of
suicides is only derived from a rhetorical
passage in Josephus (Jew. War iii. 8.

5), but unsupported by any Rabbinic
statements. The Rabbinic definition—
or rather limitation — of what constitutes
suicide is remarkable. Thus, neither
Saul, nor Ahitophel. nor Zimri. are re
garded as suicides, because they did it
to avoid falling into the hands of their
enemies. For premeditated, real suicide
the punishment is left with God. Some-
difference is to be made in the burial of
such, yet not such as to put the survivors
to shame.

'WHO ART THOU?' 171
not come where He would be, since they must die in their sin, as CHAP.
He had told them — ' if ye believe not that I am.' " viii
The words were intentionally mysteriously spoken, as to a Jewish  r— ^
audience. Believe not that Thou art! But 'Who art Thou?' '".23,24
Whether or not the words were spoken in scorn, their question con
demned themselves. In His broken sentence, Jesus had tried them
— to see how they would complete it. Then it was so ! All this time
they had not yet learned Who He was; had not even a conviction
on that point, either for or against Him, but were ready to be
swayed by their leaders! 'Who I am?' — am I not telling you it
even from the beginning; has My testimony by word or deed ever
swerved on this point? I am what all along, from the beginning, I
tell you.1 Then, putting aside this interruption, He resumed His
argument/ Many other things had He to say and to judge concern- "vv. 25, 2s
ing them, besides the bitter truth of their perishing if they believed
not that it was He — but He that had sent LTim was true, and He
must ever speak into the world the message which He had received.
When Christ referred to it as that which ' He heard from Him, "He ' ver. .26
evidently wished thereby to emphasise the fact of His Mission from
God, as constituting His cla'im on their obedience of faith. But it
was this very point which, even at that moment, they were not
understanding/ And they would only learn it, not by His Words, aver. 27
but by the event, when they had ' lifted Him up, ' as they thought, to
the Cross, but really on the way to His Glory/8 Then would they e ver. 28
' It would be impossible here to enter Crucifixion, and that they who heard it
into a critical analysis or vindication of rather imagined it to refer to His Exal'ta-
the rendering of this much controverted tion. There is a curiously illustrative
passage, adopted in the text. -The passage here (in Pesiqta R. 10), when a
method followed has been to retranslate king, having given orders that the head
literally into Hebrew : of his son should be ' lifted up '(.HN 1 N27
Drbtf TPQn KE? Kin nrnntt 1WI), that it should be hanged up (V?n
This mizht be rendered either ' To beo-in 12?N"1 nS)' is exnorted by tne tutor to sPare
wRh-H /that I als tell vou ' or 'frSm what was his ' moneginos'(only begotten).
witn— He mat l also tell you, or irom 0n the king's replying that he was bound
the beginning He that I also tell you.' fe h | ^h £, . h
substantially that 01 our A. v N lift. ; th f
? ™ tTD ^lf° L nfm . -T exalting, as well as o executing. But,
out (St John xn 32) the term 'lifting besides^ne verb N there is also the
up includes both the death and the b z h „. w^ j ffl ^ .
glory. If we ask ourselves what corre- * ^ \ »-¦¦/'
sponding Hebrew word, including the and in the Syriac is used both for lifting
sensus malus as well as the sensus bonus up and for hanging — specifically for cruci-
would have been used, the verb Nasa fying; and, lastly, the verb Tela (*OP or
(X'Sl) naturally occurs (comp. Gen xl. . , . , . \ T :
19 with ver. 13). For we suppose, that <^> wmch means m the flrst Place t(>' *
the word used by Christ at this early lift up, and secondarily to hang or crucify
part of His Ministry could not have (see Levy, Targum, Wdrterb. ii. p. 539 a
necessarily involved a prediction of His an(j f,y \\ this latter verb was used,

172

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» ver. 28
(comp. ver.
24)

«Ab.Baraithavi. 2, p.
23 b; Erub.
54 a, line 13
from bottom

« Shabb. 67
a ; 128 a

« Baba
Mets. vii. 1

perceive the meaning of the designation He had given of Himself,
and the claim founded on it " : ' Then shall ye perceive that I am. '
Meantime : ' And of Myself do I nothing, but as the 1 Father taught
Me, these things do I speak. And He that sent Me is with Me. He 2
hath not left Me alone, because what pleases Him I do always. '
If the Jews failed to understand the expression ' lifting up, ' which
might mean His Exaltation, though it did mean, in the first place,
His Cross, there was that in His Appeal to His Words and Deeds as
bearing witness to His Mission and to the Divine Help and Presence
in it, which by its sincerity, earnestness, and reality, found its way
to the hearts of many. Instinctively they felt and believed that
His Mission must be Divine. Whether or not this found articulate
expression, Jesus now addressed Himself to those who thus far — at
least for the moment — believed on Him. They were at the crisis of
their spiritual history, and He must press home on them what He
had sought to teach at the first. By nature far from Him, they
were bondsmen. Only if they abode in His Word would they know
the truth, and the truth would make them free. The result of this
knowledge would be moral, and hence that knowledge consisted not
in merely believing on Him, but in making His Word and teaching
their dwelling — abiding in it/ But it was this very moral applica
tion which they resisted. In this also Jesus had used their own
forms of thinking and teaching, only in a much higher sense. For
their own tradition had it, that he only was free who laboured in the
study ofthe Law.0 Yet the liberty of which He spoke came not through
study of the Law, 3 but from abiding in the Word of Jesus. But it was
this very thing which they resisted. And so they ignored the spiritual,
and fell back upon the national, application ol the words of Christ.
As this is once more evidential of the Jewish authorship of this
Gospel, so also the characteristically Jewish boast, that as the children
of Abraham they had never been, and never could be, in real servi
tude. It would take too long to enumerate all the benefits supposed
to be derived from descent from Abraham. Suffice here the almost fun
damental principle : ' All Israel are the children of Kings, ' a and its
application even to common life, that as ' the children of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, not even Solomon's feast could be too good for them. ' e

then the Jewish expression Taluy, which
is still opprobriously given to Jesus, would
after all represent the original designa
tion by which He described His own
death as the ' lifted-up One.'
1 Not 'my,' as in A.V.
2 A new sentence; and 'He,' not 'the

Father,' as in the A.V
3 With reference to Exod. xxxii. 16, a
play being made on the word Charuth
('graven') which is interpreted Cheyruth
('liberty'). The passage quoted by
Wiinsche (Baba Mets. 85 b) is not appli
cable.

'OUR FATHER IS ABRAHAM.'

173

Not so, however, would the Lord allow them to pass it by. He chap.
pointed them to another servitude which they knew not, that of sin, a viii
and, entering at the same time also on their own ideas, He told them  . 
that continuance in this servitude would also lead to national bond- * s.*- Jolm
age and rejection: ' For the servant abideth not in the house for
ever.'1 On the other hand, the Son abode there for ever; whom
He made free by adoption into His family, they would be free in
reality and essentially/2 Then for their very dulness, He would "ver. 35
turn to their favourite conceit of being Abraham's seed. There
was, indeed; an obvious sense in which, by their natural descent,
they were such. But there was a moral descent — and that alone
was of real value. Another, and to them wholly new, and heavenly
teaching this, which our Lord presently applied in a manner they
could neither misunderstand nor gainsay, while He at the same time
connected it with the general drift of His teaching. Abraham's seed?
But they entertained purposes of murder, and that, because the
Word of Christ had not free course, made not way in them. 3 His
Word was what He had seen with (before) the Father,4 ' not heard — for
His presence was there Eternal. Their deeds were what they had
heard from their father 6 — the word ' seen ' in our common text depend
ing on a wrong reading. And thus He showed them — in answer to
their interpellation — that their father could not have been Abraham,
so far as spiritual descent was concerned/ They had now a glimpse «w. 37-40
of His meaning, but only to misapply it, according to their Jewish pre
judice. Their spiritual descent, they urged, must be of God, since
their descent from Abraham was legitimate/ But the Lord dispelled d ver. 41
even this conceit by showing, that if theirs were spiritual descent
from God, then would they not reject His Message, nor seek to kill
Him, but recognise and love'him/ -ver. 42
But whence this misunderstanding of His speech?61 Because '".4347
they are morally incapable of hearing it — and this because of the
sinfulness of their nature: an element which Judaism had never
taken into account. And so, with infinite Wisdom, Christ once mor-e
brought back His Discourse to what He would teach them concern
ing man's need, whether he be Jew or Gentile, of a Saviour and of
renewing by the Holy Ghost. If the Jews were morally unable to
1 Here there should be a full stop, and so far understand and could have sym-
notasin the A.V. pathised, had the truth been in them.
2 ovTooi. Comp. Westcott ad loc. 5 According to the proper reading, the
3 So Canon Westcott aptly renders it. rendering must be 'from your father,
* Not 'My -Father,' as in the A.V. not 'with your father,' as in the A.V.
These little changes are most important, 6 The word here is XaXid.
as we remember that the hearers would

174

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

>> St. Luke
ix. 53.

c from Kuth
or Kutha ;
comp.2 Kings
xvii. 24, 30

a Ber. It. 36,
Bd. Warah.
p. 65 b, line
5 from
bottom ;
YalkutonJob xxi. •
vol. ii. p.
150 ft line 16
from
bottom

hear His Word and cherished murderous designs, it was because,
morally speaking, their descent was of the Devil. Very differently
from Jewish ideas x did He speak concerning the moral evil of Satan,
as both a murderer and a liar — a murderer from the beginning of
the history of our race, and one who ' stood not in the truth, because
truth is not in him. ' Hence ' whenever he speaketh a lie ' — whether
to our first parents, or now concerning the Christ — 'he speaketh
from out his own (things), for he (Satan) is a liar, and the father of
such an one (who telleth or believeth lies).'2 Which of them could
convict Him of sin? If therefore He spake truth,3 and they believed
Him not, it was because they were not of God, but, as He had shown
them, of their father, the Devil.
The argument was unanswerable, and there seemed only one
way to turn it aside — a Jewish Tu quoque, an adaptation of the
'Physician, heal thyself: ' Do we not say rightly, that Thou art a
Samaritan, and hast a demon? ' It is strange that the first clause of
this reproach should have been so misunderstood and yet its direct
explanation lies on the surface. We have only to translate it into
the language which the Jews had used. By no strain of ingenuity
is it possible to account for the designation 'Samaritan,' as given by
the Jews to Jesus, if it is regarded as referring to nationality. Even
at the very Feast they had made it an objection to His Messianic
claims, that He was (as they supposed) a Galilean." Nor had He come
to Jerusalem from Samaria;" nor could He be so called (as Commen
tators suggest) because He was ' a foe ' to Israel, or a ' breaker of the
Law, ' or ' unfit to bear witness ' i — for neither of these circumstances
would have led the Jews to designate Him by the term 'Samaritan.'
' But, in the language which they spoke,.what is rendered into Greek
by 'Samaritan,' would have been either Euthi (\"HD), which, while
literally meaning a Samaritan/ is almost as often used in the sense of
' heretic,' or else Shomroni ('"riOT).. The latter word deserves special
attention/ Literally, it also means, 'Samaritan;' but, the name
Shomron (perhaps from its connection with Samaria), is also some
times used as the equivalent of Ashmedai, the Prince of the demons/ 6
According to the Kabbalists, Shomron was the father of Ashmedai, and
hence the same as Sammael, or Satan. That this was a wide-spread

1 See Book II. ch. \:
2 I cannot here regard Canon Westcotfs
rendering, which is placed in the margin
of the Revised Version, as satisfactory.
3 In the text without the article.
4 The passage quoted by Schottgen
(Yebam. 47 a) is inapplicable, as it

really refers to a non-Israelite. More
apt, but also unsuitable, is Sot. 22 a,
quoted by Wetstein.
5 Comp. Kohut, Jiid. Angelol. p. 95.
6 See the Appendix on Jewish-Angel-
ology and Demonology.

MEANING OF 'THOU ART A SAMARITAN.' 17 5.
Jewish belief, appears from the circumstance that in the Koran chap.
(which, in such matters, would reproduce popular Jewish tradition), viii
Israel is said to have been seduced into idolatry by Shomron," while,  > 
in Jewish tradition, this is attributed to Sammael/ If, therefore, -L'Aicoran
' trad, par le
the term applied by the Jews to Jesus was Shomroni — and not «<*>•**
L Ryer. p. 247
Euthi, ' heretic ' — it would literally mean, ' Child of the Devil. ' l b Pirqe de
This would also explain why Christ only replied to the charge of ed.Tem'bf5
having a demon, since the two charges meant substantially the same: 16 iroVtop
' Thou art a child of the devil and hast a demon. ' In wondrous
patience and mercy He almost passed it by, dwelling rather, for their
teaching, on the fact that, while they dishonoured Him, He honoured
His Father. He heeded not their charges. His concern was the
glory of His Father; the vindication of His own honour would be
brought about by the Father — though, alas! in judgment on those
who were casting such dishonour on the Sent of God. ° Then, as if « st. John
-, ¦ , ¦¦,,-• tt Tlli- 60
lingering m deep compassion on the terrible issue, He once more
pressed home the great subject of His Discourse, that only ' if a man
keep ' — both have regard to, and observe — His ' Word, ' ' he shall
not gaze at death [intently behold it] 2 unto eternity' — for ever shall
he not come within close and terrible gaze of what is really death, of
what became such to Adam in the hour of his Fall.
It was, as repeatedly observed, this death as the consequence of
the Fall, of which the Jews knew nothing. And so they once more
misunderstood it as of physical death,3 and, since Abraham and the
prophets had died, regarded Christ as setting up a claim higher thaji
theirs/ The Discourse had contained all that He had wished to a ".52,5s
bring before them, and their objections were degenerating into
wrangling. It was time to break it off by a general application.
The question, He added, was not of what He said, but of what God
said of Him — that God, Whom they claimed as theirs, and yet knew
not, but Whom He knew, and Whose Word He ' kept. ' * But, as for
1 I need scarcely point out how strongly 'Elijah did not taste the taste of death'
evidential this is of the Jewish author- (Ber. R. 21). And, tropically, in such a
ship of the Fourth Gospel. passage as this : ' If any one would taste a
2 The word is that peculiar and remark- taste (here : have a foretaste) of death,, let
able one, Qedopeoo, to gaze earnestly and him keep his shoes on while he goes to
intently, to which I have already called sleep ' (Yom. 78 b). It is also used of sleep,
attention (see vol. i. p. 692). as: 'All the days of the joy of the house
3 He spoke of ' seeing,' they of ' tasting' of drawing [Feast of Tabernacles] we did
death(vv. 51, 52). The word Di>t3 'taste,' not taste the taste of sleep' (Succ. 53 a).
is used in precisely the same manner by It is needless to add other quotations.
the Rabbis. Thus, in the Jer. Targum on 4 On the expression 'keep' (Trjpeiv)
Deut. xxxii. 1. In Ber. R. 9, we are told, His work,' Bengel beautifully observes:
that it was originally destined that the doctrinam Jesu, credendo; promissa,
first man should not taste death. Again, sperando; facienda obediendo.

176

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

a Gen. xv.
17

>> Ber. E.
44, ed.
Warsh. p.
81 b, lines
8, 7, 6 from
bottom

Abraham — he had ' exulted ' in the thought of the coming day of the

Christ, and, seeing its glory, he was glad.

Even Jewish tradition

could scarcely gainsay this, since there were two parties in the Syn
agogue, of which one believed that, when that horror of great dark
ness fell on him, a Abraham had, in vision, been shown not only this,
but the coming world — and not only all events in the present ' age, '
but also those in Messianic times/1 And now, theirs was not mis
understanding, but wilful misinterpretation. He had spoken of
Abraham seeing His day; they took it of His seeing Abraham's day,
and challenged its possibility. Whether or not they intended thus
to elicit an avowal of His claim to eternal duration, and hence to
Divinity, it was not time any longer to forbear the full statement,
and, with Divine emphasis, He spake the words which could not be
mistaken: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was,
I AM.'
It was as if they had only waited for this. Furiously they
rushed from the Porch into the Court of the Gentiles — with symbolic
significance, even in this — to pick up stones, and to cast them at
Him. But, once more, His hour had not yet come, and their fury
proved impotent. Hiding Himself for the moment, as might so
easily be done, in one of the many chambers, passages, or gateways
of the Temple, He presently passed out.
It had been the first plain disclosure and avowal of His Divinity,
and it was ' in the midst of His enemies, ' and when most contempt
was cast upon Him. Presently would that avowal be renewed both
in Word and by Deed; for 'the end' of mercy and judgment had
not yet come, but was drawing terribly nigh.

1 In the Targum Jerusalem on Gen.
xv. also it seems implied that Abra
ham saw in vision all that would befall
his children in the future, and also
Gehenna and its torments. So far as I
can gather, only the latter, not the
former, seeni3 implied in the Targ.
Pseudo- Jouathan .
Note on the differences between the
Feast of Tabernacles and that of its
Octave (see p. 156, note 1). The six
points of difference which mark the
Octave as a separate feast are indicated
by the memorial words and letters
2ij'p "T£. and are as follows: (1) During

the seven days of Tabernacles the Priests
of all the 'courses' officiated, while on
the Octave the sacrificial services were
appointed, as usually, by lot (D"£). (2)
The benediction at the beginning of a
feast was spoken again at the Octave
(p?). (3) The Octave was designated in
prayer, and by special ordinances, as a
separate feast (?;i). (4) Difference in
the sacrifices (pip). (5) Difference in
the Psalms — on the Octave (Soph. xix.
2) probably Ps. xii. (rtf). (6) Accord
ing to 1 Kings viii. 66, difference as to
the blessing (~D"|3).

THE MAN BORN BLIND. iff

CHAPTER IX.
THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND.
(St. John ix.)
After the scene in the Temple described in the last chapter, and CHAP.
Christ's consequent withdrawal from His enemies, we can scarcely IX
suppose any other great event to have taken place on that day within "" — <~~~"
or near the precincts of the Sanctuary. And yet, from the close
connection of the narratives, we are led to infer that no long interval
of time can have elapsed before the healing of the man born blind.1
Probably it happened the day after the events just recorded. We
know that it was a Sabbath/ and this fresh mark of time, as well as ast. John
ix 14
the multiplicity of things done, and the whole style of the narrative,
confirm our belief that it was not on the evening of the day when He
had spoken to them first in.' the Treasury,' and then in the Porch.
On two other points there is strong presumption, though we can
not offer actual proof. Remembering, that the entrance to the Temple
or its Courts was then — as that of churches is on the Continent — the
chosen spot for those who, as objects of pity, solicited charity;" "Actam. 2
remembering, .also, how rapidly the healing of the blind man became
known, and how soon both his parents and the healed man himself
appeared before the Pharisees — presumably, in the Temple; lastly,
how readily the Saviour knew where again to find him," — we can ^stjohn
scarcely doubt that the miracle took place at the entering to the
Temple, or on the Temple-Mount. Secondly, both the Work, and
especially the Words of Christ, seem in such close connection with
what had preceded, that we can scarcely be mistaken in regarding
them as intended to form a continuation of it.
It is not difficult to realise the scene, nor to understand the
remarks of all who had part in it. It was the Sabbath — the day
1 Godet supposes that it had taken place to the 'Feast ofthe Dedication.' But
on the evening of the Octave of the his argument on the subject, from
Feast. On the other hand, Canon West- another rendering of St. John x. 22, has
cott would relegate both ch. ix. and x. failed to convince me.

ix. 35

178

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

b Jer. Peah
viii. 9, p.
215

BOOK after the Octave of the Feast, and Christ with His disciples was
IV passing — presumably when going into the Temple, where this blind
— — y— ~' beggar was wont to sit, probably -soliciting alms, perhaps in some
such terms as these, which were common at the time : ' Gain merit by
me; ' or, ' 0 tenderhearted, by me gain merit, to thine own benefit.'
But on the Sabbath he would, of course, neither ask nor receive alms,
though his presence in the wonted place would secure wider notice
and perhaps lead to many private gifts. Indeed, the blind were
peahviii. regarded as specially entitled to charity;" and the Jerusalem
Talmud " relates some touching instances ofthe delicacy displayed
towards them. As the Master and His disciples passed the blind
beggar, Jesus ' saw ' him, with that look which they who followed
Him knew to be full of meaning. Yet, so thoroughly Judaised
were they by their late contact with the Pharisees, that no thought
of possible mercy came to them, only a truly and characteristically
Jewish question, addressed to Him expressly, and as 'Rabbi:'1
through whose guilt this blindness had befallen him — through his
own, or that of his parents.
For, thoroughly Jewish the question was. Many instances could
be adduced, in which one or another sin is said to have been punished
by some immediate stroke, disease, or even by death; and we con
stantly find Rabbis, when meeting such unfortunate persons, asking
them, how or by what sin this had come to them. But, as this man
was ' blind from his birth, ' the possibility of some actual sin before
birth would suggest itself, at least as a speculative question, since the
' evil impulse ' (Yetser ha.Ra), might even then be called into acti
vity/ At the same time, both the Talmud and the later charge of
the Pharisees, ' In sins wast thou born altogether, ' imply that in
such cases the alternative explanation would be considered, that the
blindness might be caused by the sin of his parents.2 It was a com
mon Jewish view, that the merits or demerits of the parents would
appear in the children. In fact, up to thirteen years of age a child
was considered, as it were, part of his father, and as suffering for his
guilt/ More than that, the thoughts of a mother might affect the
moral state of her unborn offspring, and the terrible apostasy of one
of the greatest Rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the
sinful delight his mother had taken when passing through an idol-
grove/ Lastly, certain special sins in the parents would result in

« Sanh.91 6 ;
Ber. K. 34

a Shabb.
32 ft; 105 b;
Yaikut on
Ruth, vol.
ii. par. 600.
p. 163 c

* Midr. on
Ruth. iii. 13

1 So iii the original.
2 This opinion has, however, nothing
t" do with 'the migration of souls' — a
doctrine which has been generally, but

quite erroneously, supposed that Josephus
imputed to the Pharisees. The misunder
standing of Jew. War. ii. 8. 14, should
be corrected by Antiq. xviii. 1. 3.

20 <

'WHO DID SIN, THIS MAN, OR HIS PARENTS?' 179
specific diseases in their offspring, and one is mentioned " as causing CHAP.
blindness in the children.1 But the impression left on our minds is, IX
that the disciples felt not sure as to either of these solutions of the  r—
difficulty. It seemed a mystery, inexplicable on the supposition of "Nedar.
God's infinite goodness, and to which they sought to apply the
common Jewish solution. Many similar mysteries meet us in the
administration of God's Providence — questions, which seem unanswer
able, but to which we try to give answers, perhaps, not much wiser
than the explanations suggested by disciples.
But why seek to answer them at all, since we possess not all,
perhaps very few of, the data requisite for it? There is one aspect,
however, of adversity, and of a strange dispensation of evil, on which
the light of Christ's Words here, shines with the brightness of a new
morning. There is a physical, natural reason for them. God has
not specially sent them, in the sense of His interference or primary
causation, although He has sent them in the sense of His knowledge,
will, and reign. They have come in the ordinary course of things,
and are traceable to causes which, if we only knew them, would
appear to us the sequence of the laws which God has imposed on
His creation, and which are necessary for its orderly continuance.
And, further, all such evil consequences, from the operation of God's
laws, are in the last instance to be traced back to the curse which
sin has brought upon man and on earth. With these His Laws, and
with their evil sequences to us through the curse of sin, God does
not interfere in the ordinary course of His Providence; although
he would be daring, who would negative the possibility of what may
.seem, though it is not, interference, since the natural causes which
lead to these evil consequences may so easily, naturally, and ration
ally be affected. But there is another and a higher aspect of it, since
Christ has come, and is really the Healer of all disease and evil by
being the Remover of its ultimate moral cause. This is indicated in
His words, when, putting aside the clumsy alternative suggested by
the disciples, He told them that it was so in order ' that the works
of God might be made manifest in him.' They wanted to know the
'why, 'He told them the 'in order to,' ofthe man's calamity; they
wished to understand its reason as regarded its origin, He told them
its reasonableness in regard to the purpose which it, and all similar
suffering, should serve, since Christ has come, the Healer of evil —
1 At the same time those opinions, vidual teacher. The latter are cynically
which are based on higher moral views and coarsely set aside by ' the sages ' in
•of marriage, are only those of an indi- Nedar. 20 b.

180

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• St. John
ix. 4, 6
b Ab. ii. 15

° St. John
viii. 28, 29;
comp. ix. i
" viii. 12;
comp. ix. 5

' St. John
ix. 11

because the Saviour from sin. Thus He transferred the question
from intellectual ground to that of the moral purpose which suffer
ing might serve. And this not in itself, nor by any destiny or
appointment, but because the Coming and Work of the Christ has
made it possible to us all. Sin and its sequences are still the same,
for ' the world is established that it cannot move. ' But over it all
has risen the Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings; and,
if we but open ourselves to His influence, these evils may serve this
purpose, and so have this for their reason, not as, regards their genesis,
but their continuance, 'that the works of God may be made manifest.'
To make this the reality to us, was ' the work of Him ' Who sent,
and for which He sent, the Christ. And rapidly now must He work
it, for perpetual example, during the few hours still left of His brief
working-day/ This figure was not unfamiliar to the Jews," though
it may well be that, by thus emphasising the briefness of the time,
He may also have anticipated any objection to His healing on the
Sabbath. But it is of even more importance to notice, how the two.
leading thoughts of the previous day's Discourse were now again
taken up and set forth in the miracle that followed. These were,
that He did the Work which God had sent Him to do/ and that He
was the Light of the world/ As its Light He could not but shine
so long as He was in it. And this He presently symbolised (and is
not every miracle a symbol?) in the healing ofthe blind.
Once more we notice, how in His Deeds, as in His Words, the
Lord adopted the forms known and used by His contemporaries, while
He filled them with quite other substance. It has already been
stated,1 that saliva was commonly regarded as a remedy for diseases
of the eye, although, of course, not for the removal of blindness.
With this He made clay, which He now used, adding to it the direc
tion to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam, a term which literally
meant ' sent.' 2 A symbolism, this, of Him Who was the Sent of the
Father. For, all is here symbolical: the cure and its means. If
we ask ourselves why means were used in this instance, we can only
suggest, that it was partly for the sake of him who was to be healed,
partly for theirs who afterwards heard of it. For, the blind man seems;
to have been ignorant ofthe character of his Healer/ and it needed
the use of some means to make him, so to speak, receptive. On the
other hand, not only the use of means, but their inadequacy to the
object, must have impressed all. Symbolical, also, were these means.

1 See Book III. ch. xxxiv. p. 48.
2 The etymological correctness of the
rendering Siloam by Sent ' is no longer

called in question. As to the
Siloam, see ch. vii. of this Book.

spring

'IT IS HE— 'NO, BUT HE IS LIKE HIM.' 181
Sight was restored by clay, made out of the ground with the spittle CHAP.
of Him, Whose breath had at the first- breathed life into clay; and IX
this was then washed away in the Pool of Siloam, from whose waters '  r  '
had been drawn on the Feast of Tabernacles that which symbolised
the forthpouring of. the new life by the Spirit. Lastly, if it be
asked why such miracle should have been wrought on one who had
not previous faith, who does not even seem to have known about the '
Christ, we can only repeat, that the man himself was intended to
be a symbol, ' that the works of God should be made manifest in
him. '
And so, what the Pharisees had sought in vain, was freely vouch
safed when there was need for it. With inimitable simplicity, itself
evidence that no legend is told, the man's obedience and healing are
recorded. We judge, that his first impulse when healed must have
been to seek for Jesus, naturally, where he had first met Him. On
his way, probably past his own house to tell his parents, and again
on the spot where he had so long sat begging, all who had known him
must have noticed the great change that had passed over him. So
marvellous, indeed, did it appear, that, while part ofthe crowd that
gathered would, of course, acknowledge his identity, others would
say: ' Xo, but he is like him;' in their suspiciousness looking for
some imposture. For there can be little doubt, that on his way he
must have learned more about Jesus than merely His Name," and in »ver. 11
turn have communicated to his informants the story of his healing.
Similarly, the formal question now put to him by the Jews was as
much, if not more, a preparatory inquisition than the outcome of a
wish to learn the circumstances of his healing. And so we notice in
his answer the cautious desire not to say anything that could in
criminate his Benefactor. He tells the facts truthfully, plainly; he
accentuates by what means he had 'recovered,'1 not received, sight;
but otherwise gives no clue by which either to discover or to incrim
inate Jesus/ * ver. 12
Presently they bring him to the Pharisees, not to take notice of
his healing, but to found on it a charge against Christ. Such must
have been their motive, since it was universally known that the lead
ers ofthe people had, of course informally, agreed to take the strictest
measures, not only against the Christ, but against any one who pro
fessed to be His disciple/ The ground on which the present charge « ver. 22
against Jesus would rest was plain: the healing involved a manifold
breach of the Sabbath-Law. The first of these was that He had
1 This is the proper rendering. The organs of sight existed, but could not be used.

182

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• Shabb.
xxiv. 3
b Jerus.
Shabb. 14 d

" Jer.
Shabb.
u. 3.

4 St. John
ix. 15

e vv. 17 and
following

made clay.-'1 Next, it would be a question whether any remedy might
be applied on the holy day. Such could only be done in diseases
of the internal organs (from the throat downwards), except when
danger to life or the loss of an organ was involved/ It was, indeed,
declared lawful to apply, for example, wine to the outside of the eye
lid, on the ground that this might be treated as washing; but it was
sinful to apply it to the inside of the eye. And as regards saliva, its
application to the eye is expressly forbidden, on the ground that it
was evidently intended as a remedy.0
There was, therefore, abundant legal ground for a criminal charge.
And, although on the Sabbath the Sanhedrin would, not hold any
formal meeting, and, even had there been such, the testimony of one
man would not have sufficed, yet ' the Pharisees ' set the inquiry regu
larly on foot. First, as if not satisfied with the report of those who
had brought the man, they made him repeat it/ The simplicity of
the man's language left no room for evasion or subterfuge. Rabbin
ism was on its great trial. The wondrous fact could neither be denied
nor explained, and the only ground for resisting the legitimate in
ference as to the character of Him Who had done it, was its incon
sistence with their traditional law. The alternative was: whether
their traditional law of Sabbath-observance, or else He Who had done
such miracles, was Divine? Was Christ not of God, because He did
not keep the Sabbath in their way? But, then; could an open
transgressor of God's Law do such miracles? In this dilemma they
turned to the simple man before them. 'Seeing that He opened'
his eyes, what did he say of Him? what was the impression left on
his mind, who had the best opportunity for judging? e
There is something very peculiar, and, in one sense, most in
structive, as to the general opinion entertained even by the best-
disposed, who had not yet been taught the higher truth, in his reply,
so simple and solemn, so comprehensive in its sequences, and yet so
utterly inadequate by itself : ' He is a Prophet. ' One possibility-
still remained. After all, the man might not have been really blind;
and they might, by cross-examining the parents, elicit that about his
original condition which would explain the pretended cure. But on
this most important point, the parents, with all their fear of the
anger of the Pharisees, remained unshaken. He had been born
blind; but as to the manner of his cure, they declined to offer any
opinion. Thus, as so often, the machinations of the enemies of
Christ led to results the opposite of those wished for. For, the evi
dential value of their attestation of their son's blindness was mani-

CAST OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUE.

183

festly proportional to their fear of committing themselves to any
testimony for Christ, well knowing what it would entail.
For to persons so wretchedly poor as to allow their son to live by
begging,1 the consequence of being ' un-Synagogued,' or put outside
the congregation 2 — which was to be the punishment of any who con
fessed Jesus as the Messiah — would have been dreadful. Talmudic
writings speak of two, or rather, we should say, of three, kinds of
'excommunication,' of which the two first were chiefly disciplinary,
while the third was the real ' casting out, ' ' un-Synagoguing, ' ' cutting
off from the congregation. ' 3 The general designation * for ' excom
munication ' was Shammatta, although, according to its literal mean
ing, the term would only apply to the severest form of it/ The
first and lightest degree was the so-called Neziphah or Neziphutha;
properly, ' a rebuke, ' an inveighing. Ordinarily, its duration ex
tended over seven days; but, if pronounced by the Nasi, or Head of
the Sanhedrin, it lasted for thirty days. In later times, however, it
only rested for one day on the guilty person." Perhaps St. Paul
referred to this ' rebuke ' in the expression which he used about an
.offending Elder." He certainly adopted the practice in Palestine,"
when he would not have an Elder ' rebuked ' although he went far
beyond it when he would have such ' entreated. ' In Palestine it was
ordered, that an offending Rabbi should be scourged instead of being
excommunicated/ Yet another direction of St. Paul's is evidently
derived from these arrangements of the Synagogue, although applied
in a far different spirit. When the Apostle wrote : ' An heretic after
the first and second admonition reject; : there must have been in his
mind the second degree of Jewish excommunication, the so-called
Niddui (from the verb to thrust, thrust out, cast out). This lasted
for thirty days at the least, although among the Babylonians only for
seven days." At the end of that term there was ' a second admoni
tion,' which lasted other thirty days. If still unrepentant, the third,
or real excommunication, was pronounced, which was called the
Che rem, or ban, and of which the duration was indefinite. Any

CHAP. IX

1 It would lead too far to set these
forth in detail. But the shrinking from
receiving alms was in proportion to the
duty of giving them. Only extreme
necessity would warrant begging, and to
solicit charity needlessly, or to simu
late any disease for the purpose, would,
deservedly, bring the reality in punish
ment on the guilty.
2 aTtoavvdyoayoi yivecrQai. So
also St. John xii. 42"; xvi. 2.
3 In Jer. Moed K. 81 d, line 20 from
top: ?-r>T2 '?-:« Kin

« Moed K.
16 a and b

c Moed K.
17 a Nedar.
7 !>_; Pes.
52 a

<> Moed K.
16 a

" Both Buxtorf and Levy have made
this abundantly clear, but Jewish authori
ties are not wanting which regard this
as the worst kind of ban.
5 Levy derives it from 1)32?, to destroy,
to root out. The Rabbinic derivations
in Moed K. 17 a, are only a play upon the
word. 6 But there certainly were notable
exceptions to this rule, even in Palestine.
Among the Babylonian Jews it did not
obtain at all.

184

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» Moed K.
16a; Shebh.
36a ; Baba
Mez. 59 b
» Shebh. 36.
a; Sanh. 107
printed
intheChes-ronoth
ha-Shas,p. 25 b

e Comp.
1 Cor. v. 11

s Jer. Moed
S. 81 d,
about the
middle

three persons, or even one duly authorised, could pronounce the lowest
sentence. The greater excommunication (Niddui) — which, happily,
could only be pronounced in an assembly of ten — must have been
terrible, being accompanied by curses,"1 and, at a later period, some
times proclaimed with the blast of the horn." If the person so visited
occupied an honourable position, it was the custom to intimate his
sentence in a euphemistic manner, such as: 'It seems to me that thy
companions are separating themselves from thee. ' He who was so, or
similarly addressed, would only too well understand its meaning.
Henceforth he would sit on the ground, and bear himself like one in
deep mourning. He would allow his beard and hair to grow wild
and shaggy; he would not bathe, nor anoint himself; he would not
be admitted into an assembly of ten men, neither to public prayer,
nor to the Academy; though he might either teach, or be taught by,
single individuals. Nay, as if he were a leper, people would keep at
a distance of four cubits from him. If he died, stones were cast on
his coffin, nor was he allowed the honour of the ordinary funeral, nor
were they to mourn for him. Still more terrible was the final excom
munication, or Cherem, when a ban of indefinite duration was laid
on a man. Henceforth he was like one dead. He was not allowed
to study with others, no intercourse was to be held with him, he was
not even to be shown the road. He might, indeed, buy the necessaries
of life, but it was forbidden to eat or drink with such an one."
We can understand, how everyone would dread such an anathema.
But when we remember, what it would involve to persons in the rank
of life, and so miserably poor as the parents of that blind man, we
no longer wonder at their evasion of the question put by the
Sanhedrin. And if we ask ourselves, on what ground so terrible a
punishment could be inflicted to all time and in every place — for the
ban once pronounced applied everywhere — simply for the confession
of Jesus as the Christ, the answer is not difficult. The Rabbinists
enumerate twenty-four grounds for excommunication, of which more
than one might serve the purpose of the Pharisees. But in general,
to resist the authority of the Scribes, or any of their decree's, or to
lead others either away from 'the commandments,' or to what was
regarded as profanation of the Divine Name, was sufficient to incur
the ban, while it must be borne in mind that excommunication by
the President ofthe Sanhedrin extended to all places and persons/

1 Buxtorf here reminds us of 1 Cor.
v. 5.
2 There our Lord is said to have been

anathematised to the sound of 400 trum
pets. The passage does not appear in the
expurgated editions of the Talmud.

THE HEALED MAN BEFORE THE PHARISEES. 185
As nothing could be elicited from his parents, the man who had CHAP.
been blind Avas once more summoned before the Pharisees. It was IX
no longer to inquire into the reality of his alleged blindness, nor v— v — '
to ask about the cure, but simply to demand of him recantation,
though this was put in the most specious manner. Thou hast been
healed: own that it was only by God's Hand miraculously stretched
forth,1 and that 'this man' had nothing to do with it, save that the
coincidence may have been allowed to try the faith of Israel. It
could not have been Jesus Who had done it, for they knew Him to
be ' a sinner. ' Of the two alternatives they had chosen that of the
absolute Tightness of their own Sabbath-traditions as against the
evidence of His Miracles. Virtually, then, this was the condemnation
of Christ and the apotheosis of traditionalism. And yet, false as their
conclusion was, there was this truth in their premisses, that they
judged of miracles by the moral evidence in regard to Him, Who was
represented as working them.
But he who had been healed of his blindness was not to be so
betrayed into a denunciation of his great Physician. The simpli
city and earnestness of his convictions enabled him to gain even a
logical victory. It was his turn now to bring back the question to
the issue which they had originally raised; and we admire it all
the more, as we remember the consequences to this poor man of
thus daring the Pharisees. As against their opinion about Jesus, as
to the correctness of which neither he nor others could have direct
knowledge,2 there was the unquestionable fact of his healing of which
he had personal knowledge. The renewed inquiry now by the Phari
sees, as to the manner in which Jesus had healed him, " might have had Jxstj6Jolin
for its object to betray the man into a positive confession, or to elicit
something demoniacal in the mode of the cure. The blind man had
now fully the advantage. He had already told them ; why the renewed
inquiry? As he put it half ironically: Was it because they felt the
wrongness of their own position, and that they should become His
disciples? It stung them to the quick; they lost all self-possession,
and with this their moral defeat became complete. ' Thou art the
disciple of that man, but we (according to the favourite phrase) are
the disciples of Moses.' Ofthe Divine Mission of Moses they knew,
but ofthe Mission of Jesus they knew nothing." The unlettered » ver. 29
1 The common view (Meyer, Walkins, it implies ' that the cure was due directly
Westcott) is, that the expression, 'Give to God.'
glory to God' was merely a formula of 2 In the original: 'If He is a sinner, I
solemn adjuration, like Josh. vii. 19. know not, One thing I know, that, be-
But even so, as Canon Westcott remarks, ing blind, now I see.'

186

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

•Ber. 6b;
Taan. iii. 8 ;
Sukk. 14 a;
Yoma 29 a

by the
beiii£

» St. John
ix. 35

man had now the full advantage in the controversy. ' In this, in
deed,' there was ' the marvellous,' that the leaders of Israel should
confess themselves ignorant of the authority of One, Who had power
to open the eyes of the blind — a marvel which had never before been
witnessed. If He had that power, whence had He obtained it, and
ivhyt It could only have been from God. They said, He was ' a
sinner ' — and yet there was no principle more frequently repeated
Rabbis," than that answers to prayer depended on a man
devout ' and doing the Will of God. There could therefore
by only one inference: If Jesus had not Divine Authority, He could
not have had Divine Power.
The argument was unanswerable, and in its unanswerableness
shows us, not indeed the purpose, but the evidential force of Christ's
Miracles. In one sense they had no purpose, or rather were purpose to
themselves, being the forthbursting of His Power and the manifesta
tion of His Being and Mission, of which latter, as applied to things
physical, they were part. But the truthful reasoning of that un
tutored man, which confounded the acuteness ofthe sages, shows the
effect of these manifestations on all whose hearts were open to the
truth. The Pharisees had nothing to answer, and, as not unfre-
quently in analogous cases, could only, in their fury, cast him out
with bitter reproaches. Would he teach them — he, whose very
disease showed him to have been a child conceived and born in
sin, and who, ever since his birth, had been among ignorant, Law-
neglecting ' sinners ' ?
But there was Another, Who watched and knew him: He Whom,
so far as he knew, he had dared to confess, and for Whom he was
content to suffer. Let him now have the reward of his faith, even
its completion; and so shall it become manifest to all time, how, as
we follow and cherish the better light, it riseth upon us in all its
brightness, and that faithfulness in little bringeth the greater steward
ship. Tenderly did Jesus seek him out, wherever it may have been: b
and, as He found him, this one question did He ask, whether the
conviction of his experience was not growing into the higher faith of
the yet unseen: 'Dost thou believe on the Son of God?' ' He had
had personal experience of Him — was not that such as to lead up to
faith? And is it not always so, that the higher faith is

the higher

1 With all respect for such authority
as that of Professors Westcott and Sort
('The N.T.' p. 212), I cannot accept the
proposed reading' Sou of Man, instead
of 'Son of God.' Admittedly, the evi

dence for the two readings is evenly
balanced, and the internal evidence
seems to be strongly in favour of the
reading ' Son of God.'

THE HEALED MAN IN PRESENCE OF THE CHRIST. 187
based on the conviction of personal experience— that we believe on chap.
Him as the Son of God, because we have experience of Him as the IX
God-sent, Who has Divine Power, and has opened the eyes of the ' — ^  '
blind-born— and Who has done to us what had never been clone by
any other in the world? Thus is faith always the child of expe
rience, and yet its father also; faith not without experience, and yet
beyond experience; faith not superseded by experience, but made
reasonable by it.
To such a soul it needed only the directing Word of Christ. ' And
Who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him?'a It seems as if istjonn
the question of Jesus had kindled in him the conviction of what
was the right answer. We almost see how, like a well of living
water, the words sprang gladsome from his inmost heart, and how he
looked up expectant on Jesus. To such readiness of faith there could
be only one answer. In language more plain than He had ever
before used, Jesus answered, and with immediate confession of im
plicit faith the man lowly worshipped.1 And so it was, that the first
time he saw hisDeliverer, it was to worship Him. It was the highest
stage yet attained. What contrast this faith and worship of the
poor unlettered man, once blind, now in every sense seeing, to the
blindness of judgment which had fallen on those who were the
leaders of Israel!" The cause alike of the one and the other was "ver. 39
the Person of the Christ. For our relationship to Him determines
sight or blindness, as we either receive the evidence of what He is
from what He indubitably does, or reject it, because we hold by our
own false conceptions of God, and of what His Will to us is. And so
is Christ also for 'judgment.'
There were those who still followed Him — not convinced by, nor
as yet decided against Him — Pharisees, who well understood the
application of His Words. Formally, it had been a contest between
traditionalism and the Work of Christ. They also were traditionalists
— were they also blind? But, nay, they had misunderstood Him by
leaving out the moral element, thus showing themselves blind
indeed. It was not the calamity of blindness; but it was a blindness
in which they were guilty, and for which they were responsible/ « ver. 41
which indeed was the result of their deliberate choice: therefore
their sin — not their blindness only — remained!
1 TtpoasKvvrjaev. The word is never 38; xii. 20; and twenty-three times in
used by St. John of mere respect for the Book of Revelation, but always in
man, but always implies Divine worship. the sense of worship.
In the Gospel it occurs ch. iv. 20-24; ix.

188

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER X.

BOOK IV

« St. John
X. 6

THE ' GOOD SHEPHERD ' AND HIS ' ONE FLOCK — LAST DISCOURSE AT THE
FEAST OF TABERNACLES.
(St. John x. 1-21.)
The closing words which Jesus had spoken to those Pharisees who
followed Him breathe the sadness of expected near judgment, rather
than the hopefulness of expostulation. And the Discourse which fol
lowed, ere He once more left Jerusalem, is of the same character. It
seems, as if Jesus could not part from the City in holy anger, but
ever, and only, with tears. All the topics of the former Discourses
are now resumed and applied. They are not in any way softened or
modified, but uttered in accents of loving sadness rather than of
reproving monition. This connection with the past proves, that the
Discourse was spoken immediately after, and in connection with, the
events recorded in the previous chapters. At the same time, the
tone adopted by Christ prepares us for His Persean Ministry, which
may be described as that of the last and fullest outgoing of His most
intense pity. This, in contrast to what was exhibited by the rulers
of Israel, and which would so soon bring terrible judgment on them.
For, if such things were done in ' the green tree ' of Israel's Messiah-
King, what would the end be in the dry wood of Israel's common
wealth and institutions?
It was in accordance with the character of the Discourse presently
under consideration, that Jesus spake it, not, indeed, in Parables in
the strict sense (for none such are recorded in the Fourth Gospel),
but in an allegory1 in the Parabolic form/ hiding the higher truths
from those who, having eyes, had not seen, but revealing them to
such whose eyes had been opened. If the scenes of the last few
days had made anything plain, it was the utter unfitness of the
teachers of Israel for their professed work of feeding the flock of God.
The Rabbinists also called their spiritual leaders 'feeders,' Parnasin

1 The word is not parable, but ffa-poz/u'a-,
proverb or allegory. On the essential

characteristics of the Parables, see Book
III, ch, xxiii.

1-5

THE SHEPHERDS AND THE DOOR INTO THE SHEEPFOLD. 189
(¦pors) — a term by which the Targum renders some of the references
to ' the Shepherds ' in Ezek. xxxiv. and Zech xi. * The term com
prised the two ideas of ' leading ' and ' feeding, ' which are separately
insisted on in the Lord's allegory. As we think of it, no better
illustration, nor more apt, could be found for those to whom ' the
flock of God ' was entrusted. It needed not therefore that a sheep-
fold should have been in view/ to explain the form of Christ's ad
dress. " It only required to recall the Old Testament language » st. John
about the shepherding of God, and that of evil shepherds, to make
the application to what had so lately happened. They were, surely,
not shepherds, who had cast out the healed blind man, or who so
judged of the Christ, and would cast out all His disciples. They
had entered into God's Sheepfold, but not by the door by which the
owner, God, had brought His flock into the fold. To it the entrance
had been His free love, His gracious provision, His thoughts of par
doning, His purpose of saving mercy. That was God's Old Testa
ment-door into His Sheepfold. Not by that door, as had so lately
fully appeared, had Israel's rulers come in. They had climbed up to
their place in the fold some other way — with the same right, or by
the same wrong, as a thief or a robber. They had wrongfully taken
what did not belong to them — cunningly and undetected, like a thief;
they had allotted it to themselves, and usurped it by violence, like a
robber. What more accurate description could be given ofthe means
by which the Pharisees and Sadducees had attained the rule over
God's flock, and claimed it for themselves? And what was true of
them holds equally so of all, who, like them, enter by ' some other way. '
How different He, Who comes in and leads us through God's door
of covenant-mercy and Gospel-promise — the door by which God had
brought, and ever brings, His flock into His fold! This was the true
Shepherd. The allegory must, of course, not be too closely pressed;
but, as we remember how in the East the flocks are at night driven
into a large fold, and charge of them is given to an under shepherd,
we can understand how, when the shepherd comes in the morning,
' the doorkeeper ' 3 or ' guardian ' opens to him. In interpreting the
allegory, stress must be laid not so much on any single phrase, be it
the ' porter, ' the ' door, ' or the ' opening, ' as on their combination.
If the shepherd comes to the door, the porter hastens to open it to
him from within, that he may obtain access to the flock; and when a
1 The figure of a shepherd is familiar deacon Watkins, ad loc.
in Rabbinic as in Biblical literature. 3 This is the proper reading : he who
Comp. Bemidb. R. 23 ; Yaikut i. p. 68 a. locked the door from within and guarded
- This is the view advocated by Arch- it.

190

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

a St. John
x. 4, 6

BOOK true spiritual Shepherd comes to the true spiritual door, it is opened
IV to him by the guardian from within, that is, he finds ready and im-
- — y—— ' mediate access. Equally pictorial is the progress of the allegory.
Having thus gained access to His flock, it has not been to steal or
rob, but the Shepherd knows and calls them, each by his name, and
leads them out. We mark that in the expression: ' when He has
put forth all His own,' 1 — the word is a strong one. For they have
to go each singly, and perhaps they are not willing to go out each by
himself, or even to leave that fold, and so he ' puts ' or thrusts them
forth, and He does so to ' all His own.' Then the Eastern shepherd
places himself at the head of his flock, and goes before them, guiding
them, making sure of their following simply by his voice, which they
know. So would His flock follow Christ, for they know His Voice,
and in vain would strangers seek to lead them away, as the Phari
sees had tried. It was not the known Voice of their own Shepherd,
and they would only flee from it. "
We can scarcely wonder, that they who heard it did not under
stand the allegory, for they were not of His flock and knew not His
Voice. But His own knew it then, and would know it for ever.
b. ver. 7 ' Therefore, ' b both for the sake of the one and the other, He con
tinued, now dividing for greater clearness the two leading ideas of
His allegory, and applying each separately for better comfort.
These two ideas were: entrance by the door, and the characteristics
of the good Shepherd — thus affording a twofold test by which to re
cognise the true, and distinguish it from the false.
= Tr. 7-9 I. Tlie door — Christ Avas the Door." The entrance into God's
fold and to God's flock was only through that, of Avhich Christ was
the reality. And it had ever been so. All the Old Testament insti
tutions, prophecies, and promises, so far as they referred to access
into God's fold, meant Christ. And all those who went before Him,2
pretending to be the door — whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or Na
tionalists — were only thieves and robbers: that was not the door into
the Kingdom of God. And the sheep, God's flock, did not hear them;
for, although they might pretend to lead the flock, the voice was
that of strangers. The transition now to another application of the
allegorical idea of the ' door ' was natural and almost necessary,
though it appears somewhat abrupt. Even in this it is peculiarly
Jewish. We must understand this transition as follows: I am the
Door; those who professed otherwise to gain access to the fold have
climbed in some other way. But if I am the only, I am also truly
1 This is the literal rendering.
2 The words ' who went before Me ' are questioned by many.

A NEW TESTAMENT VERSION OF PSALM XXIII. 191
the Door. And, dropping the figure, if any man enters by Me, he CHAP.
shall be saved, securely go out and in (where the language is not to X
be closely pressed), in the sense of having liberty and finding pasture. '  , 
II. This forms also the transition to the second leading idea of the
allegory: the True and Good Shepherd. Here we mark a fourfold
progression of thought, which reminds us of the poetry of the Book
of Psalms. There the thought expressed in one line or one couplet
is carried forward and developed in the next, forming what are called
the Psalms of Ascent ('of Degrees '). And in the Discourse of Christ
also the final thought of each couplet of verses is carried forward,
or rather leads upward in the next. Thus we have here a Psalm of
Degrees concerning the Good Shepherd and His Flock, and, at the
same time, a New Testament version of Psalm xxiii. Accordingly its
analysis might be formulated as follows: —
1. Christ, the Good Shepherd, in contrast to others ivho falsely
claimed to be the shepherds.* Their object had been self, and they »ver. 10..
had pursued it even at the cost of the sheep, of their life and safety.
He ' came ' 1 for them, to give, not to take, ' that they may have life
and have abundance. ' 2
'Life,' — nay, that they may have it, I' lay down'3 Mine: so
does it appear that ' I am the Good * Shepherd. ' 5
2. The Good Shepherd Who layeth down His life for His Sheep!
What a contrast to a mere hireling, whose are not the sheep, and
who fleeth at sight of the wolf (danger), ' and the wolf seizeth them,
and scattereth (viz. , the flock) : (he fleeth) because he is . a hireling,
and careth not for the sheep. ' The simile of the wolf must not be
too closely pressed, but taken in a general sense, to point the contrast
to Him ' Who layeth down His Life for His sheep.' 6
Truly He is — is seen to be — 'the fair Shepherder, ' 7 Whose are
the sheep, and as such, ' I know Mine, and Mine know Me, even as-
the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father. And / lay down
My Life for the sheep. '
' Not as' in the A.V., ' am come.' view depends on a misunderstanding of
' As Canon Westcott remarks, ' this a sentence quoted from Bab. Mez. 93 b.
points to something more than life.' As the context there shows, if a shepherd
3 This is the proper rendering. leaves his flock, and in his absence the
4 Literally 'fair.' As Canon Westcott, wolf comes, the shepherd is responsible, ,
with his usual happiness, expresses it: but only because he ought not to have
' not only good inwardly (dyaiidi) but left the flock, and his presence might
good as perceived (KaXdS). ' have prevented the accident. In case of
¦¦ This would be all the more striking attack by force superieure he is not re-
that, according to Rabbinic law, a shep- sponsible for his flock.
herd was not called upon to expose his 6 See an important note at the end of
own life for the safety of his flock, nor this chapter.
responsible in such a case. The opposite ' See Note 4.

192

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

* St. John x.
17, 18

3. For the sheep that are Mine, whom / know, and for whom I
lay down My Life! But those sheep, they are not only ' of this
fold,' not all of the Jewish 'fold,' but also scattered sheep of the
Gentiles. They have all the characteristics of the flock: they are
His; and they hear His Voice; but as yet they are outside the fold.
Them also the Good Shepherd 'must lead,' and, in evidence that they
are His, as He calls them and goes before them, they shall hear His
Voice, and so, 0 most glorious consummation, ' they shall become one
flock 1 and one Shepherd. '
And thus is the great goal of the Old Testament reached, and ' the
good tidings of great joy ' which issue from Israel ' are unto all
people. ' The Kingdom of David, which is the Kingdom of God, is
set up upon earth, and opened to all believers. We cannot help
noticing — though it almost seems to detract from it — how different
from the Jewish ideas of it is this Kingdom with its Shepherd-King,
Who knows and Who lays down His Life for the sheep, and Who
leads the Gentiles not to subjection nor to inferiority, but to equality
of faith and privileges, taking the Jews out of their special fold and
leading up the Gentiles, and so making of both ' one flock. ' Whence
did Jesus of Nazareth obtain these thoughts and views, towering so
far aloft of all around?
But, on the other hand, they are utterly un-Gentile also — if by
the term ' Gentile ' we mean the ' Gentile Churches, ' in antagonism
to the Jewish Christians, as a certain school of critics would repre
sent them, which traces the origin of this Gospel to this separation.
A Gospel written in that spirit would never have spoken on this wise
of the mutual relation of Jews and Gentiles towards Christ and in
the Church. The sublime words of Jesus are only compatible with
one supposition: that He was indeed the Christ of God. Nay,
although men have studied or cavilled at these words for eighteen
and a half centuries, they have not yet reached unto this: ' They
shall become one flock, one Shepherd.'
4. In the final Step of ' Ascent ' " the leading thoughts of the
whole Discourse are taken up and carried to the last and highest
thought. The Good Shepherd that brings together the One Flock!
Yes— by laying down His Life, but also by taking it up again.
Both are necessary for the work of the Good Shepherd — nay, the
life is laid down in the surrender of sacrifice, in order that it may be
taken up again, and much more fully, in the Resurrection-Power.
And, therefore, His Father loveth Him as the Messiah-Shepherd,
1 Not 'fold, '.as ill the A.V.

EARLY RABBINIC REFERENCE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

193

Who so fully does the work committed to Him, and so entirely sur
renders Himself to it.
His Death, His Resurrection — let no one imagine that it comes
from without! It is His own act. He has ' power ' in regard to both,
and both are His own, voluntary, Sovereign, and Divine acts.
And this, all this, in order to be the Shepherd-Saviour— to die,
and rise for His Sheep, and thus to gather them all, Jews and
Gentiles, into one flock, and to be their Shepherd. This, neither
more nor less, was the Mission which God had given Him; this,
'the commandment' which He had received of His Father — that
whicJi God had given Him to do."
It was a noble close of the series of those Discourses in the
Temple, which had it for their object to show, that He was truly
sent of God.
And, in a measure, they attained that object. To some, indeed, it
all seemed unintelligible, incoherent, madness; and they fell back
on the favourite explanation of all this strange drama — He hath a
demon! But others there were — let us hope, many, not yet His
disciples — to whose hearts these words went straight. And how could
they resist the impression? ' These utterances are not of a demon
ised ' — and, then, it came back to them: 'Can a demon open the
eyes of the blind? '
And so, once again, the Light of His Words and His Person
fell upon His Works, and, as ever, revealed their character, and made
them clear.

CHAP. x

1 St. John
A. 18

Note. — It seems right here, in a kind of ' Postscript-Note,' to call attention to
what could not have been inserted in the text without breaking up its unity, and yet
seems too important to be relegated to an ordinary foot-note. In Yoma 66 b, lines
18 to 24 from top, we have a series of questions addressed to Rabbi Eliezer ben
Hyrcanos, designed — as it seems to me — to test his views about Jesus and his rela
tion to the new doctrine. Rabbi Eliezer, one of the greatest Rabbis, was the
brother-in-law of Gamaliel II., the son of that Gamaliel at whose, feet Paul sat.
He may, therefore, have been acquainted with the Apostle. And we have indubita
ble evidence that he had intercourse witli Jewish Christians, and took pleasure in
their teaching; and, further, that he was accused of favouring Christianity. Under
these circumstances, the series of covered, enigmatic questions, reported as ad
dressed to him, gains a new interest. I can only repeat, that I regard them as
referring to the Person and the Words of Christ. One of these questions is to this
effect: ' Is it [right, proper, duty] for the Shepherd to save a lamb from the lion ? *
To this the Rabbi gives (as always in this series of questions) an evasive answer, as
follows: ' You have only asked me about the lamb.' On this the following question
is next put, I presume by way of forcing an express reply : ' Is it [right, proper,
duty] to save the Shepherd from the lion ? ' and to this the Rabbi once more

194 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK evasively replies: 'You have only asked me about the Shepherd.' Thus, as the
IX words of Christ to which covert reference is made have only meaning when the two
. _._ _. . ideas of the Sheep and the Shepherd are combined, the Rabbi, by dividing them,
cleverly evaded giving an answer to his questioners. But these inferences come to
us, all of deepest importance: 1. I regard the questions above quoted as containing
a distinct reference to the words of Christ in St. John x. 11. Indeed, the whole
string of questions, of which the above form part, refers to Christ and His Words.
2. It casts a peculiar light, not only upon the personal history of this great Rabbi,
the brother-in-law of the Patriarch Gamaliel II., but a side-light also, on the history
of Nicodemus. Of course, such evasive answers are utterly unworthy of a disciple
of Christ, and quite incompatible with the boldness of confession which must char
acterise them. But the question arises — now often seriously discussed by Jewish
writers: how far many Rabbis and laymen may have gone in their belief of Christ,
and yet — at least in too many instances — fallen short of discipleship ; and, lastly, as
to the relation between the early Church and the Jews, on which not a few things of
¦deep interest have to be said, though it may not be on the present occasion. 3.
Critically also, the quotation is of the deepest importance. For, does it not furnish
a reference — and that on the lips of Jews — to the Fourth Gospel, and that from the
close of the first century? There is here something which the opponents of its gen
uineness and authenticity will have to meet and answer.
Another series of similar allegorical questions in connection with R. Joshua b.
Chananyah is recorded in Bekhor. 8 a and b, but answered by the Rabbi in an anti-
Christiau sense. See Mandelstamm, Talmud. Stud. i. But Mandelstamm goes too
far in his view of the purely allegorical meaning, especially of the introductory
part.

THE SIX MONTHS' MINISTRY IN PERSEA. 195

CHAPTER XI.
THE FIRST PER^BAN DISCOURSES — TO THE PHARISEES CONCERNING THE
TWO KINGDOMS — THEIR CONTEST — WHAT QUALIFIES A DISCIPLE FOR
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND HOW ISRAEL WAS BECOMING SUBJECT TO
THAT OF EVIL. (St. Matt. xii. 22-45 ; St. Luke xi. 14-36.)
It was well that Jesus should, for the present, have parted from chap.
Jerusalem with words like these. They would cling about His XI
hearers like the odour of incense that had ascended. Even ' the - — -v— ^
schism ' that had come among them " concerning His Person made it «st. Joimx.
19
possible not only to continue His Teaching, but to return to the City
once more ere His final entrance. For, His Peraean Ministry, which
extended from after the Feast of Tabernacles to the week preceding
the last Passover, was, so to speak, cut in half by the brief visit of
Jesus to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication." Thus, each part "st.jonnx. 22-39
ofthe Peraean Ministry would last about three months; the first, from
about the end of September to the month of December;0 the second, °28a.i>.
from that period to the beginning of April. a Of these six months we i29a.d.
have (with the solitary exception of St. Matthew xii. 22-45 ),' no
other account than that furnished by St. Luke," - although, as usually, ¦ st. Luke
the Jerusalem and Judaean incidents of it arc described by St. John.' xv'h. 11
After that we have the account of His journey to the last Passover, ^m-^1-11
recorded, with more or less detail, in the three Synoptic Gospels. *j- 1^i
It will be noticed that this section is peculiarly lacking in inci
dent. It consists almost exclusively of Discourses and Parables, with
but few narrative portions interspersed. And this, not only because
the season of the .year must have made itinerancy difficult, and thus
have hindered the introduction to new scenes and of new persons, but
chiefly from the character of His Ministry in Peraea. We remember
that, similarly, the beginning of Christ's Galilean Ministry had been
1 The reasons for his insertion of this z On the characteristics of this Section,
part must be sought in the character of Canon Cook has some very interesting
tbia Discourse and in the context in St. remarks in the Speaker's Commentary,
Matthew's Gospel. N.T. vol. i. p. 379.

196

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

0 Yoma 76 a,
lines 11-16
from top
b According
to Vs.
cxxxvi. 24, -
25' Ber. K. 20,
ed. Warsh.
p. 39 *, last
line¦> Ber. K. 97
' Gen.
xlviii. 16
f Ps. cxlv.
16

s St. Luke
xi. 1

chiefly marked by Discourses and Parables. Besides, after what had
passed, and must now have been so well known, illustrative Deeds
could scarcely have been so requisite in Peraea. In fact, His Peraean
was, substantially, a resumption of His early Galilean Ministry, only
modified and influenced by the much fuller knowledge of the people
concerning Christ, and the greatly developed enmity of their leaders.
This accounts for the recurrence, although in fuller, or else in
modified, form, of many things recorded in the earlier part of. this
History. Thus, to begin with, we can understand how He would, at
this initial stage of His Peraean, as in that of His Galilean Ministry,
repeat, when asked for instruction concerning prayer, those sacred
words ever since known as the Lord's Prayer. The variations are so
slight as to be easily accounted for by the individuality of the reporter. 1
They afford, however, the occasion for remarking on the two prin
cipal differences. In St. Luke the prayer is for the forgiveness of
' sins,' while St. Matthew uses the Hebraic term ' debts,' which has
passed even into the Jewish Liturgy, denoting our guilt as indebted
ness (irrVDin "itta? :o pirm). Again, the 'day by day' of St. Luke,
which further explains the petition for ' daily bread, ' common both to
St. Matthew and St. Luke, may be illustrated by the beautiful Rab
binic teaching, that the Manna fell only for each day, in order that
thought of their daily dependence might call forth constant faith in
our ' Father Which is in heaven." 2 Another Rabbinic saying places n
our nourishment on the same level with our redemption, as regards
the thanks due to God and the fact that both are day by day.'' Yet
a third Rabbinic saying " notes the peculiar manner in which both
nourishment and redemption are always mentioned in Scripture (by
reduplicated expressions), and how, while redemption took place by
an Angel,6 nourishment is attributed directly to God.r
But to return. From the introductory expression: 'When (or
whenever) ye pray, say ' — we venture to infer, that this prayer was
intended, not only as the model, but as furnishing the words for the-
future use of the Church. Yet another suggestion may be made.
The request, ' Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his dis
ciples,' g seems to indicate what was 'the certaiu place,' which, now
consecrated by our Lord's prayer, became the school for ours. It

1 The concluding Doxology should be
omitted from St. Matthew's report of the
prayer. As regards the different readings
which have been adopted into the
Revised Version, the reader is advised,
before accepting the proposed altera

tions, to consult Canon Cook's judicious
notes (in the Speaker's Commentary ad
loc). 2 The same page of the Talmud con
tains, however, some absurdly profane
legends about the manna.

THE HEALING OF A BLIND AND DUMB DEMONISED. IQf
seems at least likely, that the allusion of the disciples to the CHAP.
Baptist may have been prompted by the circumstance, that the XI
locality was that which had been the scene of John's labours — of  .  '
course, in Peraea. Such a note of place is the more interesting, that
St. Luke so rarely indicates localities. In fact, he leaves us in igno
rance of what was the central place in Christ's Peraean Ministry,
although there must have been such. In the main, the events are,
indeed, most likely narrated in their chronological order. But, as
Discourses, Parables, and incidents are so closely mixed up, it will
be better, in a work like the present, for clearness' and briefness'
sake, to separate and group them, so far as possible. Accordingly,
this chapter will be devoted to the briefest summary of the Lord's Dis
courses in Peraea, previous to His return to Jerusalem for the Feast
of the Dedication of the Temple.
The first of these was on the occasion of His casting out a demon," »st. Luke
0 ' XI. 14
and restoring speech to the demonised; or if, as seems likely, the
cure is the same as that recorded in St. Matt. xii. 22, both sight and
speech, which had probably been paralysed. This is one of the
cases in which it is difficult to determine whether narratives in differ
ent Gospels, with slightly varying details, represent different events
or only differing modes of narration. It needs no argument to prove,
that substantially the same event, such as the healing of a blind or
dumb demonised person, may, and probably would, have taken place
on more than one occasion, and that, when it occurred, it would elicit
substantially the same remarks by the people, and the same charge
against Christ of superior demoniac agency which the Pharisees had
now distinctly formulated." Again, when recording similar events, "see Book
the Evangelists would naturally come to tell them in much the same xxu
manner. Hence, it does not follow that two similar narratives in
different Gospels always represent the same event. But in this in
stance, it seems likely. The earlier place which it occupies in the
Gospel by St. Matthew may be explained by its position in a group
denunciatory ofthe Pharisees; and the notice there of their blasphe
mous charge of His being the instrument of Satan probably indicates
the outcome of their ' council,' how they might destroy Him/ 1 °- st. Matt.
' ° . xii. 14
It is this charge of the Pharisees which forms the mam subject
of Christ's address, His language being now much more explicit than
formerly," even as the opposition of the Pharisees had more fully ast. Mark
t 9 111. __ \ 360
ripened. In regard to the slight difference in the narratives of Book in.
1 It marks the chronological place of follow the popular charge against Jesus,
this miracle that it seems suitably to as expressed in St. John viii. 48 and x. 20.

198

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» See lor ex
ample St.
Luke xi.
22, 22
» St. Matt.
Xii. 25
° vv. 27-30

•> St. Matt.
xii. 25-28
*> Yaikut on
Is. Ix.

St. Matthew and St. Luke, we mark that, as always, the Words of
the Lord are more fully reported by the former, while the latter sup-
lilies some vivid pictorial touches." The following are the leading
features of Christ's reply to the Pharisaic charge: First, It was utterly
unreasonable," and inconsistent with their own premisses," showing
that their ascription of Satanic agency to what Christ did was only
prompted by hostility to His Person. This mode of turning the
argument against the arguer was peculiarly Hebraic, and it does not
imply any assertion on the part of Christ, as to whether or not the
disciples of the Pharisees really cast out demons. Mentally, we must
supply — according to your own professions, your disciples cast out
demons. If so, by whom are they doing it?
But, secondly, beneath this logical argumentation lies deep and
spiritual instruction, closely connected with the late teaching during
the festive days in Jerusalem. It is directed against the flimsy,
superstitious, and unspiritual views entertained by Israel, alike of
the Kingdom of evil and of that of God. For, if we ignore the
moral aspect of Satan and his kingdom, all degenerates into the ab
surdities and superstitions of the Jewish view concerning demons
and Satan, which are fully described in another place.1 On the other
hand, introduce the ideas of moral evil, of the concentration of its
power in a kingdom of which Satan is the representative and ruler,
and of our own inherent sinfulness, which makes us his subjects —
and all becomes clear. Then, truly, can Satan not cast out Satan —
else how could his kingdom stand; then, also, is the casting out of
Satan only by 'God's Spirit,' or ' Finger:' and this is the Kingdom
of God/ Nay, by their own admission, the casting out of Satan
was part ofthe work of Messiah/ 2 Then had the Kingdom of God,
indeed, come to them — for in this was the Kingdom of God; and He
was the God-sent Messiah, come not for the glory of Israel, nor for
anything outward or intellectual, but to engage in mortal conflict
with moral evil, and with Satan as its representative. In that con
test Christ, as the Stronger, bindeth ' the strong one, ' spoils his
house (dividcth his spoilj, and takes from him the armour in which
his strength lay ('he trusted') by taking away the power of sin. f
This is the work of the Messiah — and, therefore also, no one can be
indifferent towards Him, because all, being by nature in a certain
relation towards Satan, must, since the Messiah had commenced His

3 See the Appendix on Angelology
and Demonology.

2 See Book II. ch. v., and the Appendix
to it, where the passage is given in full.

BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 199
Work, occupy a definite relationship towards the Christ Who combats CHAP.
Satan.1" xi
It follows, that the work of the Christ is a moral contest waged ^-""v '
through the Spirit of God, in which, from their position, all must av-30
take a part. But it is conceivable that a man may not only try to be
passively, but even be actively on the enemy's side, and this not by
merely speaking against the Christ, which might be the outcome of
ignorance or unbelief, but by representing that as Satanic which was
the object of His Coming." Such perversion of all that is highest »w. 31, 32
and holiest, such opposition to, and denunciation of, the Holy Spirit
as if He were the manifestation of Satan, represents sin in its abso
lute completeness, and for which there can be no pardon, since the
state of mind of which it is the outcome admits not the possibility
of repentance, because its essence lies in this, to call that Satanic
which is the very object of repentance. It were unduly to press the
Words of Christ, to draw from them such inferences as, whether sins
unforgiven in this world might or might not be forgiven in the next,
since, manifestly, it was not the intention of Christ to teach on this
subject. On the other hand, His Words seem to imply that, at least
as regards this sin, there is no room for forgiveness in the other
world. For, the expression is not ' the age to come ' (x'd~> Tn»), but,
1 the world to come ' (xin D512, or, \n*n xx&y), which, as we know, does
not strictly refer to Messianic times, but to the future and eternal, as
distinguished both from this world (n?n era'), and from 'the days of
the Messiah ' (rrBttn nw)-' "See Book
. . . . . .II. ch. xi.
3. But this recognition of the spiritual, which was the opposite vol. i. p.-267
ofthe sin against the Holy Ghost, was, as Christ had so lately ex
plained in Jerusalem, only to be attained by spiritual kinship with it." ^t. Matt.
The tree must be made good, if the fruit were to be good; tree and
fruit would correspond to each other. How, then, could these Phari
sees ' speak good things, ' since the state of the heart determined
speech and action? Hence, a man would have to give an account
even of every idle word, since, however trifling it might appear to
others or to oneself, it was really the outcome of ' the heart, ' and
showed the inner state. And thus, in reality, would a man's future
in judgment be determined by his words; a conclusion the more
solemn, when we remember its bearing on what His disciples on the
1 The reason of the difference between ship is to the disciples, here to the
this and the somewhat similar passage, Person of the Christ.
St. Luke ix 50, is, that there the relation-

200

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Matt.
xii. 38

* ver. '.

« St. Matt.
xvi. 1-4

a St. Luke
xi. 30

r St. Matt.
xii. 39-42

one side, and the Pharisees on the other, said concerning Christ and
the Spirit of God.
4. Both logically and morally the Words of Christ were un
answerable; and the Pharisees fell ba-ck on the old device of chal
lenging proof of His Divine Mission by some visible sign." But this
was to avoid the appeal to the moral element which the Lord had
made; it was an attempt to shift the argument from the moral to the
physical. It was the moral that was at fault, or rather, wanting in
them; and no amount of physical evidence or demonstration could
have supplied that. All the signs from heaven would not have sup
plied the deep sense of sin and of the need for a mighty spiritual
deliverance," which alone would lead to the reception ofthe Saviour
Christ. Hence, as under previous similar circumstances," He would
offer them only one sign, that of Jonas the prophet. But whereas
on the former occasion Christ chiefly referred to Jonas' preaching (of
repentance), on this He rather pointed to the allegorical history of
Jonas as the Divine attestation of his Mission. As he appeared in
Nineveh, he was himself ' a sign unto the Nmevites; ' d the fact that
he had been three days and nights in the whale's belly, and that
thence he had, so to speak, been sent forth alive to preach in Nineveh,
was evidence to them that he had been sent of God. And so would
it be again. After three days and three nights ' in the heart of the
earth ' — which is a Hebraism for ' in the earth ' 1 — would His Resur
rection Divinely attest to this generation His Mission. The Ninevites
did not question, but received this attestation of Jonas; nay, an
authentic report of the wisdom of Solomon had been sufficient to bring
the Queen of Sheba from so far; in the one case it was, because they
felt their sin; in the other, because she felt need and longing for better
wisdom than she possessed. But these were the very elements want
ing in the men of this generation; and so both Nineveh and the
Queen of Sheba would stand up, not only as mute witnesses against,
but to condemn, them. For, the great Reality of which the preach
ing of Jonas had been only the type, and for which the wisdom of
Solomon had been only the preparation, had been presented to them
in Christ/ 5. And so, having put aside this cavil, Jesus returned to His

' This is simply a Hebraism of which,
as similar instances, may be quoted,
Exod. xv. 8 ('the heart of the sea');
Deut. iv. 11 ('the heart of heaven');
2 Sam. xviii. 14 (' the heart of the

terebinth '). Hence, I cannot agree with
Dean Plumptre, that the expression
' heart of the earth ' bears any reference
to Hades.

ISRAEL THE HOUSE 'EMPTY, SWEPT, AND GARNISHED.' 201
former teaching " concerning the Kingdom of Satan and the power chap.
of evil; only now with application, not, as before, to the individual, XI
but, as prompted by a view ofthe unbelieving resistance of Israel, to  . 
the Jewish commonwealth as a whole. Here, also, it must be re- aw. 43-45
membered, that, as the words used by our Lord were allegorical and
illustrative, they must not be too closely pressed. As compared with
the other nations of tho world, Israel was like a house from which
the demon of idolatry had gone out with all his attendants — really
the ' Beel-Zibbul ' whom they dreaded. And then the house had
been swept of all the foulness' and uncleanness of idolatry, and gar
nished with all manner of Pharisaic adornments. Yet all this while
the house was left really empty; God was not there; the Stronger
One, Who alone could have resisted the Strong One, held not rule
in it. And so the demon returned to it again, to find the house
whence he had come out, swept and garnished indeed — but also
empty and defenceless. The folly of Israel lay in this, that they
thought of only one demon — him of idolatry — Beel-Zibbul, with all
his foulness. That was all very repulsive, and they had carefully
removed it. But they knew that demons were only manifestations
of demoniac power, and that there was a Kingdom of evil. So this
house, swept of the foulness of heathenism and adorned with all the
self-righteousness of Pharisaism, but empty of God, would only be
come a more suitable and more secure habitation of Satan; because,
from its cleanness and beauty, his presence and rule there as an evil
spirit would not be suspected. So, to continue the illustrative
language of Christ, he came back ' with seven other spirits more
wicked than himself — pride, self-righteousness, unbelief, and the
like, the number seven being general — and thus the last state —
Israel without the foulness of gross idolatry and garnished with all
the adornments of Pharisaic devotion to the study and practice of
the Law — was really worse than had been the first with all its open
repulsiveness. 6. Once more was the Discourse interrupted, this time by a truly
Jewish incident. A woman in the crowd burst into exclamations
about the blessedness of the Mother who had borne and nurtured
such a Son/ The phraseology seems to have been not uncommon, »st. Luke
since it is equally applied by the Rabbis to Moses," and even to a ognem. R.
great Rabbi." More striking, perhaps, is another Rabbinic passage *B
(previously quoted), in which Israel is described as breaking forth into
these words on beholding the' Messiah: 'Blessed the hour in which
Messiah was created; blessed the womb whence He issued; blessed

202

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

11 Persiqta,
ed. Bitber,
p. 149 a,
last lines

>> St. Matt.
xii. 46, 47

<• St. Matt.
V. 16; vi.
22, 23

the generation that sees Him; blessed the eye that is worthy to behold
Him.'"1 And yet such praise must have been peculiarly unwelcome to
Christ, as being the exaltation of only His Human Personal excel
lence,- intellectual or moral. It quite looked away from that which
He would present: His Work and Mission as the Saviour. Hence
it was, although from the opposite direction, as great a misunder
standing as the Personal depreciation of the Pharisees. Or, to use
another illustration, this praise of the Christ through His Virgin-
Mother was as unacceptable and unsuitable as the depreciation of the
Christ, which really, though unconsciously, underlay the loving care
of the Virgin-Mother when she would have arrested Him in His
Work,2 and which (perhaps for this very reason) St. Matthew relates
in the same connection." Accordingly, the answer in both cases is
substantially the same: to point away from His merely Human Per
sonality to His Work and Mission — in the one case: 'Whosoever
shall do the Will of My Father Which is in heaven, the same is My
brother, and sister, and mother;' in the other: ' Yea rather, blessed
are they that hear the Word of God and keep it. ' 3
1. And now the Discourse draws to a close" by a fresh applica
tion of what, in some other form or connection, Christ had taught at
the outset of His public Ministry in the . ' Sermon on the Mount. ' "
Rightly to understand its present connection, we must pass over the
various interruptions of Christ's Discourse, and join this as the con
clusion to the previous part, which contained the main subject. This
was, that spiritual knowledge presupposed spiritual kinship.* Here,
as becomes the close of a Discourse, the same truth is practically
applied in a more popular and plain, one might almost say realistic,
manner. As here put, it is, that spiritual receptiveness is ever the
condition of spiritual reception. What was the object of lighting a
lamp? Surely, that it may give light. But if so, no one would
put it into a. vault, nor under the bushel, but on the stand. Should
we then expect that God would light the spiritual lamp, if it
be put in a dark vault? Or, to take an illustration of it from the
eye, which, as regards the body, serves the same purpose as the lamp
in a house. Does it not depend on the state of the eye whether or
not we have the sensation, enjoyment, and benefit of the light?

1 For the full quotation, see Book II.
ch. v., and the reference to it in Ap
pendix IX.
2 See Book III. ch. xxii.
3 In view of such teaching, it is indeed

difficult to understand the cnlftcs of the
Virgin — and even much of that tribute
lo the exclusively human in Christ which
is so characteristic of Romanism.
4 See above, page 199 etc.

THE LAMP IN A VAULT. 203
Let us, therefore, take care, lest, by placing, as it were, the lamp in a CHAP.
vault, the light in us be really only darkness. ; On the other hand, if XI
by means of a good eye the light is transmitted through the whole v— ~v — '
system — if it is not turned into darkness, like a lamp that is put into
a vault or under a bushel, instead of being set up to spread light
through the house — then shall we be wholly full of light. And this,
finally, explains the reception or. rejection of Christ : how, in the
words of an Apostle, the same Gospel would be both a savour of life
unto life, and of death unto death.
It was a blessed lesson with which to close His Discourse, and
one full of light, if only they had not put it into the vault of their
darkened hearts. Yet presently would it shine forth again, and give
light to those whose eyes were opened to receive it ; for, according
to the Divine rule and spiritual, order, to him thai hath shall be
given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that he
hath. 1 In some measure like the demon who returned to find his house empty, swept
and garnished.

204

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER XII.

BOOK IV

» St. Matt.
xxiii.

* St. Matt.
xxiii.

0 St. Luke
xi. 37

THE MORNING-MEAL IN THE PHARISEE'S HOUSE — MEALS AND FEASTS
AMONG THE JEWS — CHRIST'S LAST PER^AN WARNING TO PHARISAISM.
(St. Luke xi. 37-54.)
Bitter as was the enmity of the Pharisaic party against Jesus, it
had not yet so far spread, nor become so avowed, as in every place
to supersede the ordinary rules of courtesy. It is thus that we
explain that invitation of a Pharisee to the morning-meal, which fur
nished the occasion for the second recorded Peraean Discourse of
Christ. Alike in substance and tone, it is a continuation of His
former address to the Pharisees. And it is probably here inserted
in order to mark the further development of Christ's anti-Pharisaic
teaching. It is the last address to the Pharisees, recorded in the
Gospel of St. Luke.1 A similar last appeal is recorded in a much
later portion of St. Matthew's Gospel," only that St. Luke reports
that spoken in Peraea, St. Matthew that made in Jerusalem. This may
also partly account for the similarity of language in the two Discourses.
Not only were the circumstances parallel, but the language held at
the end " may naturally have recurred to the writer, when reporting
the last controversial Discourse in Peraea. Thus it may well have
been, that Christ said substantially the same things on both occasions,
and yet that, in the report of them, some of the later modes of ex
pression may have been transferred to the earlier occasion. And
because the later both represents and presents the fullest anti-Phari
saic Discourse of the Saviour, it will be better to postpone our
analysis till we reach that period of His Life.2
Some distinctive points, however, must here be noted. The re
marks already made will explain, how some time may have elapsed
between this and the former Discourse, and that the expression,
' And as He spake ' ° must not be pressed as a mark'of time (referring

1 Even St. Luke xx. 45-47 is not an
exception. Christ, indeed, often after
wards answered their questions, but this
is His last formal address to the Phari-

2 See the remarks on St. Luke xi.
39-52 in our analysis of St. Matt, xxiii.
in chap. iv. of Book V.

THE MORNING-MEAL WITH THE PHARISEE. 205
to the immediately preceding Discourse), but rather be regarded as CHAP.
indicating the circumstances under which a Pharisee had bidden Him XII
to the meal.1 Indeed, we can scarcely imagine that, immediately after "- — ~y~ — '
such a charge by the Pharisees as that Jesus acted as the represen
tative of Beelzebul, and such a reply on the part of Jesus, a Pharisee
would have invited Him to a friendly meal, or that ' Lawyers, ' or, to
use a modern term, ' Canonists, ' would have been present at it. How
different their feelings were after they had heard His denunciations,
appears from the bitterness with which they afterwards sought to
provoke Him into saying what might serve as ground for a criminal
charge." And there is absolutely no evidence that, as commentators >st. Luk»
suggest, the invitation of the Pharisee had been hypocritically given,
for the purpose of getting up an accusation against Christ. More
than this, it seems entirely inconsistent with the unexpressed as
tonishment of the Pharisee, when he saw Jesus sitting down to food
without having first washed hands. Up to that moment, then, it
would seem that he had only regarded Him as a celebrated Rabbi,
though perhaps one who taught strange things.
But what makes it almost certain, that some time must have
elapsed between this and the previous Discourse (or rather that, as
we believe, the two events happened in different places), is, that the
invitation of the Pharisee was to the ' morning-meal. ' 2 We know
that this took place early, immediately after the return from morning-
prayers in the Synagogue.3 It is, therefore, scarcely conceivable, that
all that is recorded in connection with the first Discourse should have
occurred before this first meal. On the other hand, it may well have
been, that what passed at the Pharisee's table may have some con
nection with something that had occurred j ust before in the Synagogue,
for we conjecture that it was the Sabbath-day. We infer this from
the circumstance that the invitation was not to the principal meal,
which on a Sabbath 'the Lawyers' (and, indeed, all householders)
would, at least ordinarily, have in their own homes.* We can picture
to ourselves the scene. The week-day family-meal was simple enough,
whether breakfast or dinner — the latter towards evening, although
sometimes also in the middle of the day, but always before actual
darkness, in order, as it was expressed, that the sight of the dishes
1 The expression ' one of the Law- 3 mra nc, of which the German
yers ' (ver. 45) seems to imply that there Morgenbrot is a literal rendering. To
were several at table. take the first meal later in the day was
2 Not 'to dine' as in the A.V. Al- deemed very unwholesome: 'like throw-
though in later Greek the word a ' picTov ing a stone into a skin.'
was used for prandium, yet its original * On the sacredness of the duty of hos-
meaning as ' breakfast ' seems fixed by pitality, see ' Sketches of Jewish Social
St. Luke xiv. 12, apiarov jf Seiitvov. Life,' pp. 47-49.

206

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

« Yoma 74 b
>> Bezeh 16 a

¦l Ber. 35 a
e Ps. xxiv.

'Ber. 36 a

by daylight might excite the appetite." The Babylonian Jews were
content to make a meal without meat; not so the Palestinians.""
With the latter the favorite food was young meat: goats, lambsr
calves. Beef was not so often used, and still more rarely fowls. Bread
was regarded as the mainstay of life,1 without which no entertain
ment was considered as a meal. Indeed, in a sense it constituted
the meal. For the blessing was spoken over the bread, and this was
supposed to cover all the rest of the food that followed, such as the
meat, fish or vegetables — in short, all that made up the dinner, but
not the dessert. Similarly, the blessing spoken over the wine included
all other kinds of drink." Otherwise it would have been necessary
to pronounce a separate benediction over each different article eaten
or drunk. He who neglected the prescribed benedictions was regarded
as if he had eaten of things dedicated to God,d since it was written:
' The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. ' c 2 Beautiful as this
principle is, it degenerated into tedious questions of casuistry.
Thus, if one kind of food was eaten as an addition to another, it was
settled that the blessing should be spoken only over the principal kind.
Again, there are elaborate disputations as to what should be regarded
as fruit, and have the corresponding blessing, and how, for example,
one blessing should be spoken over the leaves and blossom, and
another over the berries ofthe caper.' Indeed, that bush gave
rise to a serious controversy between the Schools of Hillel and
Shammai. Another series, of elaborate discussions arose, as to what
blessing should be used when a dish consisted of various ingredients,
some the product of the earth, others, like honey, derived from the
animal world. Such and similar disquisitions, giving rise to endless
argument and controversy, busied the minds of the Pharisee's and
Scribes. Let us suppose the guests assembled. To such a morning-meal
they would not be summoned by slaves, nor be received in such
solemn state as at feasts. First, each would observe, as a religious
rite, ' the washing of hands. ' Next, the head of the house would
cut a piece from the whole loaf-— on the Sabbath there were two
loaves — and speak the blessing.3 But this, only if the company re
clined at table, as at dinner. If they sat, as probably always at the
early meal, each would speak the benediction for himself.8 The same

1 As always in the East, there were
many kinds of bakemeat, from the coarse
barley-bread or rice-cake to the finest
pastry. We read even of a kind of
biscuit, imported from India (the Teritha,
Ber. 37 b).
2 So rigid was this, that it was deemed

duty to speak a blessing over a drink of
water, if one was thirsty, Ber. vi. 8.
3 This, also, was matter of contro
versy, but the Rabbis decided that the
blessing must first be spoken, and then
the loaf cut (Ber. 39 b).

AT TABLE. 207
rule applied in regard to the wine. Jewish casuistry had it, that one chap.
blessing sufficed for the wine intended as part ofthe meal. If other xii
wine were brought in during the meal, then each one would have to '  r, 
say the blessing anew over it; if after the meal (as was done on
Sabbaths and feast-days, to prolong the feast by drinking), one ofthe
company spoke the benediction for all.
At the entertainment of this Pharisee, as indeed generally, our
Lord omitted the prescribed ' washing of hands ' before the meal.
But as this rite was in itself indifferent. He must have had some
definite object, which will be explained in the sequel. The external-
ism of all these practices will best appear from the following account
which the Talmud gives of ' a feast. ' a As the guests enter, they sit * Ber- *3 a
down on chairs, and water is brought to them, with which they wash
one hand. After this the cup is taken, when each speaks the blessing
over the wine partaken of before dinner. Presently they all lie
down at table. Water is again brought them, with which they now
wash both hands, preparatory to the meal, when the blessing is
spoken over the bread, and then over the cup, by the chief person at
the feast, or else by one selected by way of distinction. The com
pany responded by Amen, always supposing the benediction to have
been spoken by an Israelite, not a heathen, slave, nor law-breaker.
Nor was it lawful to say it with an unlettered man, although it might
be said with a Cuthaean" (heretic, or else Samaritan), who was learned. »Ber.47fr
After dinner the crumbs, if any, are carefully gathered — hands are
again washed, and he who first had done so leads in the prayer of
thanksgiving. The formula in which he is to call on the rest to join
him, by repeating the prayers after him, is prescribed, and differs
according to the number of those present. The blessing and the
thanksgiving are allowed to be said not only in Hebrew, but in any
other language. " " Ber- 40 h
In regard to the position of the guests, we know that the upper
most seats were occupied by the Rabbis. The Talmud formulates it a " Ber- 46 b
in this manner: That the worthiest lies down first, on his left side,
with his feet stretching back. If there are two ' cushions ' (divans), the
next worthiest reclines above him, at his left hand; if there are three
cushions, the third worthiest lies below him who had lain down first
(at his right), so that the chief person is in the middle (between the
worthiest guest at his left and the less worthy one at his right hand).
The water before eating is first handed to the worthiest, and so in
regard to the washing after meat. But if a very large number are
present, you begin after dinner with the least worthy, till you come
to the last five, when the worthiest in the company washes his hands,

208

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» Ber. vii. 5
t Nidd. ii. 7
« Pes. 108 6

a Men
tioned in
St. Mark

and the other four after him.1 The guests being thus arranged, the
head ofthe house, or the chief person at table, speaks the blessing,2
and then cuts the bread. By some it was not deemed etiquette to
begin eating till after he who had said the prayer had done so, but
this does not seem to have been the rule among the Palestinian Jews.
Then, generally, the bread was dipped into salt, or something salted,
etiquette demanding that where there were two they should wait one
for the other, but not where there Avere three or more.
This is not the place to furnish what may be termed a list of
menus at Jewish tables. In earlier times the meal was, no doubt,
very simple. It became otherwise when intercourse with Rome,
Greece, and the East made the people familiar with foreign luxury,
while commerce supplied its requirements. Indeed, it would scarcely
be possible to enumerate the various articles which seem to have been
imported from different, and even distant, countries.
To begin with : the wine was mixed with water, and, indeed, some
thought that the benediction should not be pronounced till the water
had been added to the wine." According to one statement, two
parts," according to another, three parts, of water were to be added
to the wine." Various vintages are mentioned: among them a red
wine of Saron, and a black wine. Spiced wine was made with honey
and pepper. Another mixture, chiefly used for invalids, consisted of
old wine, water, and balsam; yet another was 'wine of myrrh; ,a we
also read of a wine in which capers had been soaked. To these we
should add wine spiced, either with pepper, or with absinthe; and what
is described as vinegar, a cooling drink made either of grapes that
had not ripened, or of the lees. Besides these, palm-wine was also
in use. Of foreign drinks, we read of wine from Amnion, and from
the province Asia, the latter a kind of ' must ' boiled down. Wine
in ice came from the Lebanon; a certain kind of vinegar from
Idumaea; beer from Media and Babylon; a barley-wine (zythos) from
Egypt. Finally, we ought to mention Palestinian apple-cider," and
the juice of other fruits. If we adopt the rendering of some, even
liqueurs were known and used.
Long as this catalogue is, that of the various articles of food,
whether native or imported, would occupy a much larger space. Suffice
it that, as regarded the various kinds of grain, meat, fish, and fruits,

1 According to Ber. 46 b, the order
in Persia was somewhat different. The
arrangement indicated in the text is of
importance as regards the places taken at
the Last Supper, when there was a dispute
among the disciples about the order in

which they were to sit (comp. pp. 493 —
495). 2 Tradition ascribes this benediction
to Moses on the occasion when manna
first fell.

THE RULES OF ETIQUETTE AT TABLE. 209
either in their natural state or preserved, it embraced almost every- CHAP.
thing known to the ancient world. At feasts there was an intro- XII
ductory course, consisting of appetising salted meat, or of some light ¦ — -v- — ¦
dish. This was followed by the dinner itself, which finished with
dessert (Aphiqomon or terugima) consisting of pickled olives, radishes
and lettuce, and fruits, among which even preserved ginger from
India is mentioned." The most diverse and even strange state- *comP.
b Ber. 40-44,
ments are made as to the healthiness, or the reverse, of certain articles passim.
of diet, especially vegetables. Fish was a favorite dish, and never
wanting at a Sabbath-meal. It was a saying, that both salt and
water should be used at every meal, if health was to be preserved.
Condiments, such as mustard or pepper, were to be sparingly used.
Very different were the meals of the poor. Locusts — fried in flour or
honey, or preserved— required, according to the Talmud, no blessing,
since the animal was really among the curses of the land. Eggs
were a common article of food, and sold in the shops. Then there
was a milk-dish into which people dipped their bread. Others, who
were better off, had a soup made of vegetables, especially onions,
and meat, while the very poor would satisfy the cravings of hunger
with bread and cheese, or bread and fruit, or some vegetables, such as
cucumbers, lentils, beans, peas, or. onions.
At meals the rules of etiquette were strictly observed, especially as
regarded the sages. Indeed, two tractates are added to the Talmud,
of which the one describes the general etiquette, the other that of
' sages, ' and the title of which may be translated by ' The Way of
the World' (Derekh Erets), being a sort of code of good manners.
According to some, it was not good breeding to speak while eating.
The learned and most honored occupied not only the chief places,
but were sometimes distinguished by a double portion. According
to Jewish etiquette, a guest should conform in everything to his
host, even though it were unpleasant. Although hospitality was the
greatest and most prized social virtue, which, to use a Rabbinic ex
pression, might make every home a sanctuary and every table an
altar, an unbidden guest, or a guest who brought another guest, was
proverbially an unwelcome apparition. Sometimes, by way of self-
righteousness, the poor were brought in, and the best part of the
meal ostentatiously given to them. At ordinary entertainments,
people were to help themselves. It was not considered good man
ners to drink as soon as you were asked, but you ought to hold the
cup for a little in your hand. But it would be the height of rudeness,
either to wipe the plates, to scrape together the bread, as though you

210 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK had not had enough to eat, or to drop it, to the inconvenience of
iv your neighbour. If a piece were taken out of a dish, it must of
" — y — • course not be put back; still less must you offer from your cup or
plate to your neighbour. From the almost religious value attaching
to bread, we scarcely wonder that these rules were laid down: not to
steady a cup or plate upon bread, nor to throw away bread, and that
after dinner the bread was to be carefully swept together. Other
wise, it was thought, demons would sit upon it. The ' Way of the
» Derekh World' for Sages," lays down these as the marks of a Rabbi: that he
v. and vii does not eat standing; that he does not lick his fingers; that he sits
down only beside his equals — in fact, many regarded it as wrong to eat
with the unlearned; that he begins cutting the bread where it is best
baked, nor ever breaks off a bit with his hand; and that, when drink
ing, he turns away his face from the company. -Another saying was
that the sage was known by four things: at his cups, in money mat-
"Erub. 65 (< ters, when angry, and in his jokes/ After dinner, the formalities
concerning handwashing and prayer, already described, were gone
through, and then frequently aromatic spices burnt, over which a
special benediction was pronounced. We have only to add, that on
Sabbaths it was deemed a religious duty to have three meals, and to
procure the best that money could- obtain, even though one were to
save and fast for it all the week. Lastly, it was regarded as a special
obligation and honor to entertain sages.
We have no difficulty now in understanding what passed at the
table of the Pharisee. When the water for purification was presented
to Him, Jesus would either refuse it; or if, as seems more likely at a
morning-meal, each guest repaired by himself for the prescribed
purification, He would omit to do so, and sit down to meat without
this formality. " No one, who knows the stress which Pharisaism laid
on this rite would argue that Jesus might have conformed to the
practice.1 Indeed, the controversy was long and bitter between the
Schools of Shammai and Hillel, on such a point as whether the
hands were to be washed before the cup was filled with wine, or after
that, and where the towel was to be deposited. With such things
• Ber. 6i <- the most serious ritual inferences were connected on both sides."
to 52 b . .
A religion which spent its energy on such trivialities must have
lowered the moral tone. All the more that Jesus insisted . so
earnestly, as the substance of His Teaching, on that corruption of
our nature which Judaism ignored, and on that spiritual purification
1 For a full account of the laws con- views entertained of the rite, see Book
cemiug the washing of hands and the III. ch. xxxi.

CHRIST'S DISCOURSE AT THE PHARISEE'S TABLE. 211
which was needful for the reception of His doctrine, would He publicly CHAP.
and openly set aside ordinances of man which diverted thoughts of xii
purity into questions of the most childish character. On the other "— - ~y~-'
hand, we can also understand what bitter thoughts must have filled
the mind of the Pharisee, whose guest Jesus was, when he observed
His neglect of the cherished rite. It was an insult to himself, a
defiance of Jewish Law, a revolt against the most cherished tradi
tions of the Synagogue. Remembering that a Pharisee ought not
to sit down to a meal with such, he might feel that he should not
have asked Jesus to his table. All this, as well as the terrible con
trast between the punctiliousness of Pharisaism in outward purifica
tions, and the inward defilement which it never sought to remove,
must have lain open before Him Who read the inmost secrets of the
heart, and kindled His holy wrath. Probably taking occasion (as
previously suggested) from something that had passed before, He
spoke with the point and emphasis which a last appeal to Pharisaism
demanded. What our Lord said on this occasion will be considered in detail
in another place.1 Suffice it hear to mark, that He first exposed the
mere externalism of the Pharisaic law of purification, to the utter
ignoring of the higher need of inward purity, which lay at the founda
tion of all." If the primary origin of the ordinance was to prevent ¦ at. Luke
the eating of sacred offerings in defilement,'-' were these outward
offerings not a symbol of the inward sacrifice, and was there not an
inward defilement as well as the outward?" To consecrate what we "ver. ±a
had to God in His poor, instead of selfishly enjoying it, would not,
indeed, be a purification of them (for such was not needed), but it • ver. 41
would, in the truest sense, be to eat God's offerings in cleanness/
We mark here a progress and a development, as compared with the <> st. Matt.
former occasion when Jesus had publicly spoken on the same sub
ject/ Formerly,, He had treated the ordinance of the Elders as a
matter not binding; now, He showed how this externalism militated
against thoughts of the internal and spiritual. Formerly, He had
shown how traditionalism came into conflict with the written Law of
God: now, how it superseded the first principles which underlay
that Law. Formerly, He had laid down the principle that defile
ment came not from without inwards, but from within outwards;" «st.Matt.
now, He unfolded this highest principle that higher consecration
imparted purity.
1 In connection with St. Matt, xxiii.
2 On the origin and meaning of the ordinance, see Book III. ch. xxxi.

XV. 10, 11

212

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Luke
xi. 42

• St. Luke
xii. 1

The same principle, indeed, would apply to other things, such as
to the Rabbinic law of tithing. At the same time it may have been,
as already suggested, that something which had previously taken place,
or was the subject of conversation at table, had given occasion for the
further remarks of Christ." Thus, the Pharisee may have wished to
convey his rebuke of Christ by referring to the subject of tithing. And
such covert mode of rebuking was very common among the Jews. It
was regarded as utterly defiling to eat of that which had not been
tithed. Indeed, the three distinctions of a Pharisee were:1 not to
make use nor to partake of anything that had not been tithed; to
observe the laws of purification; and, as a consequence of these two, to
abstain from familiar intercourse with all non-Pharisees. This sepa
ration formed the ground of their claim to distinction/ It will be
noticed that it is exactly to these three things our Lord adverts: so
that these sayings of His are not, as might seem, unconnected, but in
the strictest internal relationship. Our Lord shows how Pharisaism, as
regarded the outer, was connected with the opposite tendency as re
garded the inner man: outward purification with ignorance of the need
of that inward purity, whieh consisted in God-consecration, and with
the neglect of it; strictness of outward tithing with ignorance and
neglect of the principle which underlay it, viz., the acknowledgment
of God's right over mind and heart (judgment and the love of God);
while, lastly, the Pharisaic pretence of separation, and consequent
claim to distinction, issued only in pride and self-assertion. Thus,
tried by its own tests, Pharisaism ' terribly failed. It was hypocrisy,
although that word was not mentioned till afterwards;"3 and that
both negatively and positively: the concealment of what it was, and
the pretension to what it was not. And the Pharisaism which pre
tended to the highest purity, was, really, the greatest impurity — the
defilement of graves, only covered up, hot to be seen of men!
It was at this point that one of ' the Scribes ' at table broke in.
Remembering in what contempt some of the learned hold the igno
rant bigotry of the Pharisees,4 we can understand that he might have
listened with secret enjoyment to denunciations of their ' folly. ' As
the common saying had it, ' the silly pietist, ' ' a woman Pharisee, '
and the (self-inflicted) ' blows of Pharisaism,' were among the plagues

1 On ' the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Essenes,' see Book III. ch. ii. In fact,
the fraternity of ,the Pharisees were
bound by these two vows, that of
tithing, and that in regard to purifica
tions. 2 St. Luke xi. 44. The word ' Scribes

and Pharisees, hypocrites,' are an inter
polation. 3 See previous Note.
4 As to the estimate of the Pharisees.
comp. also ' Sketches of Jewish Social
Life,' p. 237.

THE WOE ON THE PHARISEES AND SCRIBES. 213
of life." And we cannot help feeling, that there is sometimes a touch chap.
of quiet humour in the accounts which the Rabbis give of the en- XII
counters between the Pharisees and their opponents.1 But, as the "— <- —
Scribe rightly remarked, by attacking, not merely their practice, but * Sot- "*• *
their principles, the whole system of traditionalism, which they repre
sented, was condemned/ And so the Lord assuredly meant it. The »st. Luke
'Scribes' were the exponents of the traditional law; those who bound
and loosed in Israel. They did bind on heavy burdens, but they never
loosed one; all those grievous burdens of traditionalism they laid on
the poor people, but not the slightest effort did they make to remove
any of them." Tradition, yes! the very profession of it bore witness ° ver. 46
against them. Tradition, the ordinances that had come down — they
would not reform nor put aside anything, but claim and proclaim all
that had come down from the fathers as a sacred inheritance to which
they clung. So be it! let them be judged by their own words. The
fathers had murdered the prophets, and they built their sepulchres;
that, also, was a tradition — that of guilt which would be avenged.
Tradition, learning, exclusiveness — alas! it was only taking away
from the poor the key of knowledge; and while they themselves
entered not by 'the door' into the Kingdom, they hindered those
who would have gone in. And truly so did they prove that theirs
was the inheritance, the ' tradition, ' of guilt in hindering and
banishing the Divine- teaching of old, and murdering its Divine
messengers.4 dw. 47-52
There was a terrible truth and solemnity in what Jesus spake, and
in the Woe which He denounced on them. The history of the next
few months would bear witness how truly they had taken upon them
this tradition of guilt; and all the after-history of Israel shows how
fully this ' Woe ' has come upon them. But, after such denuncia
tions, the entertainment in the Pharisee's house must have been
broken up. The Christ was too terribly in earnest — too mournfully
so over those whom they hindered from entering the Kingdom, to
bear with the awful guilt of their trivialities. With what feelings
they parted from Him, appears from the sequel.
' And when He was come out from thence, the Scribes and the
Pharisees began to press upon Him vehemently, and to provoke Him
to speak of many things; laying wait for Him, to catch something
out of His Mouth. '?
1 See previous Note.
2 This is both the correct reading and rendering of St. Luke xi. 53, 54, as given
in the Revised Version.

214

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER XIII.

TO THE DISCIPLES — TWO EVENTS AND THEIR MORAL.

(St. Luke xii. 1 — xiii. 17.)

BOOK IV

» St. Luke
xii. 1-12

The record of Christ's last warning to the Pharisees, and of the
feelings of murderous hate which it called forth, is followed by a
summary of Christ's teaching to His disciples. The tone is still
that of warning, but entirely different from that to the Pharisees.
It is a warning of sin that threatened, not of judgment that awaited;
it was for prevention, not in denunciation. That such warnings were
most seasonable, requires scarcely proof. They were prompted by
circumstances around. The same teaching, because prompted by
the same causes, had been mostly delivered, also, on other occasions.
Yet there are notable, though seemingly slight, divergences, ac
counted for by the difference of the writers or of the circumstances,
and which mark the independence of the narratives.
1. The first of these Discourses" naturally connects itself with
what had passed at the Pharisee's table, an account of which must
soon have spread. Although the Lord is reported as having ad
dressed the same language chiefly to the Twelve when sending them
on their first Mission," ] we shall presently mark several characteristic
variations. The address — or so much of it as is reported, probably
only its summary — is introduced by the following notice of the cir
cumstances: 'In the mean time, when the many thousands. of the
people were gathered together, so that they trode upon each other,
He began to say to His disciples: "First [above all, ronro]," beware
of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. " ' There is no need
to point out the connection between this warning and the denun
ciation of Pharisaism and traditionalism at the Pharisee's table.
Although the word ' hypocrisy ' had not been spoken there, it was the

1 With St. Luke xii. 2-9. comp. St.
Matt. x. 26-33; with St. Luke xii. 10,
comp. St. Matt. xii. 31, 32; and with
St. Luke xii. 11. 12, comp. St. Matt. x.

IS -20.
2 I prefer this rendering to that which
connects the word ' first ' as a mark of
time with the previous words.

xii. 2

TO THE DISCIPLES. 215
sum and substance of His contention, that Pharisaism, while pre- chap.
tending to what it was not, concealed what it was. And it was this xin
which, like 'leaven,' pervaded the whole system of Pharisaism. Not '  <— — '
that as individuals they were all hypocrites, but that the system
was hypocrisy. And here it is characteristic of Pharisaism, that
Rabbinic Hebrew has not even a word equivalent to the term
' hypocrisy.' The only expression used refers either to flattery of, or
pretence before men,1 not to that unconscious hypocrisy towards God
which our Lord so truly describes as ' the leaven ' that pervaded, all
the Pharisees said and did. It is against this that He warned His
disciples — and in this, rather than conscious deception, pretence, or
flattery, lies the danger of the Church. Our common term, 'un
reality,' but partially describes it. Its full meaning can only be
gathered from Christ's teaching. But what precise term He may
have used, it is impossible to suggest.2
After all, hypocrisy was only self-deception/ 'But,3 there is ^f>0Luke
nothing covered that shall not be revealed. ' Hence, what they had
said in the darkness would be revealed, and what they had spoken
about in the store-rooms4 would be proclaimed on the housetops.
Nor should fear influence them/ Fear of whom? Man could only
kill the body, but God held body and soul. And, as fear was foolish,
so was it needless in view of that wondrous Providence which watched
over even the meanest of God's creatures/ Rather let them,, in the
impending struggle with the powers of this world, rise to conscious
ness of its full import — how earth's voices would find their echo in
heaven. And then this contest, what was it!- Not only opposition
to Christ, but, in it inmost essence, blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost. Therefore, to succumb in that contest, implied the deepest
spiritual danger/ Nay, but let them not be apprehensive; their
acknowledgment would be not only in the future; even now, in the
hour of their danger, would the Holy Ghost help them, and give
them an answer before their accusers and judges, whoever they might
be — Jews or Gentiles. Thus, if they fell victims, it would be with
the knowledge — not by neglect — of their Father; here, there, every
where — in their own hearts, before the Angels, before men, would He
give testimony for those who were His witnesses."

• W. 11, 12

1 Wiinsche goes too far in saying that in the sense of ' inner chamber ' (St.
•*pn andnCUn are only used in the sense Matt. vi. 6; xxiv. 26). In the LXX. it is
of flattering. See Levy, sub verb. used chiefly in the latter sense ; in the
2 The Peshito paraphrases it ' AP°cr- once in the sense of ' imler cnam-
3 Thus, and not 'for,' as in the A.V. ber' (Tob. vii. 16), and once in that of
4 St. Luke seems to use ran eiov in that ' storeroom ' (Ecclus. xxix. 12).
sense (here and in ver. 24), St. Matthew

216

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Matt.
X. 18-20

• St. Matt.
X. 21-25

a St. Luke
xii. 10,
comp. with
St. Matt.
xii. 3i, 32

• St. Luke
xii. 16-21

' St. Luke
xll. 22-34

8 St. Luke
xii. 32

>¦ St. Matt.
vi. 25-33

Before proceeding, we briefly mark the differences between this
and the previous kindred address of Christ, when sending the
Apostles on their Mission/ There (after certain personal directions),
the Discourse began'' with what it here closes. There it was in the
form of warning prediction, here in that of comforting reassurance;
there it was near the beginning, here near the close, of His Ministry.
Again, as addressed to the Twelve on their Mission, it was followed
by personal directions and consolations," and then, transition was
made to the admonition to dismiss fear, and to speak out publicly
what had been told them privately. On the other hand, when
addressing His Peraean disciples, while the same admonition is given,
and partly on the same grounds, yet, as spoken to disciples rather than
to preachers, the reference to the similarity of their fate with that of
Christ is omitted, while, to show the real character of the struggle, an
admonition is added, which in His Galilean Ministry was given in
another connection/ Lastly, whereas the Twelve were admonished
not to fear, and, therefore, to speak openly what they had learned
privately, the Peraean disciples are forewarned that, although what
they hail spoken together in secret would be dragged into the light of
greatest publicity, yet they were not to be afraid of the possible con
sequences to themselves.
2. The second Discourse recorded in this connection was occa
sioned by a request for judicial interposition on the part of Christ.
This He answered by a Parable, : " which will be explained in con
junction with the other Parables of that period. The outcome of
this Parable, as to the utter uncertainty of this life, and the con
sequent folly of being so careful for this world while neglectful of
God, led Him to make warning application to His Peraean disciples.'
Only here the negative injunction that preceded the Parable, ' beware
of covetousness, ' is, when addressed to ' the disciples, ' carried back to
its positive underlying principle : to dismiss all anxiety, even for the
necessaries of life, learning from the birds and the flowers to have
absolute faith and trust in God, and to labour for only one thing — the
Kingdom of God. But, even in this, they were not to be careful, but
to have absolute faith and trust in their Father, ' Who was well
pleased to give ' them ' the Kingdom. ' g
With but slight variations the Lord had used the same language,
even as the same admonition had been needed, at the beginning of
His Galilean Ministry, in the Sermon on the Mount/ Perhaps
we may here, also, regard the allusion to the springing flowers as
a mark of time. Only, whereas in Galilee this would mark the
1 Concerning the foolish rich man.

THE 'LITTLE FLOCK' IN THE KEEPING OF THE FATHER. 217
beginning of spring, it would, in the more favoured climate of cer- CHAP.
tain parts of Peraea, indicate the beginning of December, about the XIII
time ofthe Feast ofthe Dedication ofthe Temple. More important, v— • -y— -^
perhaps, is it to note, that the expression " rendered in the Autho- » st. Luke
xii 29
rised and Revised Versions, ' neither be ye of doubtful mind, ' really
means, ' neither be ye uplifted,' in the sense of not aiming, or seeking
after great things/ This rendering of the Greek word (fA.erewpi8,eiv) b comp.
is in accordance with its uniform use in theLXX.,1 and in the Apo
crypha; while, on the other hand, it occurs in Josephus and Philo, in
the sense of ' being of a doubtful mind/ But the context here shows,
that the term must refer to the disciples coveting great things, since
only to this the remark could apply, that the Gentile world sought
such things, but that our Father knew what was really needful
for us. Of deepest importance is the final consolation, to dismiss all care
and anxiety, since the Father was pleased to give to this ' little flock '
the Kingdom. The expression ' flood ' carries us back to the lan
guage which Jesus had held ere parting from Jerusalem/ Hence- «st.johnx
forth this designation would mark His people. Even its occurrence
fixes this Discourse as not a repetition of that which St. Matthew
had formerly reported, but as spoken after the Jerusalem visit. It
designates Christ's people in distinction to their ecclesiastical (or
outward) organisation in a ' fold, ' and marks alike their individuality
and their conjunction, their need and dependence, and their relation
to Him as the ' Good Shepherd. ' Small and despised though it be
in the eyes of men, ' the little flock' is unspeakably noble, and rich in
the gift of the Father.
These admonitions, alike as against covetousness, and as to abso
lute trust and a self-surrender to God, which would count all loss for
the Kingdom, are finally set forth, alike in their present application
and their ultimate and permanent principle, in what we regard as the
concluding part of this Discourse/ Its first sentence: ' Sell that ye dst. Luke
have, and give alms,' which is only recorded by St. Luke, indicates
not a general principle, but its application to that particular period,
when the faithful disciple required to follow the Lord, unencumbered
by worldly cares or possessions." The general principle underlying -comp.
it is that expressed by St. Paul,' and finally resolves itself into this: xix. 21
that the Christian should have as not holding, and use what he has gjj^f- YU~
not for self nor sin, but for necessity. This conclusion of Christ's
1 The word occurs in that sense twenty- times in the Apocrypha (twice as a verb
five times in the LXX. of the old Testa- and as an adjective, and three times.as a
ment (four times as a noun, thirteen as noun). This must fix the N.T. usus.
an adjective, eight as a verb), and seven

218

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

" St. Matt.
vi. 19-21

' St. Luke
xii.

« St. Matt.
xxiv. 43, 44

Discourse, also, confirms the inference that it was delivered near the
terrible time of the end. Most seasonable would be here the repeti
tion — though in slightly different language — of an admonition, given
in the beginning of Christ's Galilean Ministry," to provide treasure
in heaven, which could neither fail nor be taken away, for, assuredly,
where the treasure was, there also would the heart be.
3. Closely connected, with, and yet quite distinct from, the pre
vious Discourse is that about the waiting attitude of the disciples
in regard to their Master. Wholly detached from the things of the
world, their hearts set on the Kingdom, only one thing should seem
worthy their whole attention, and engage all their thoughts and
energies: their Master! He was away at some joyous feast, and the
uncertainty of the hour of His return must not lead the servants to
indulge in surfeiting, nor to lie down in idleness, but to be faithful
to their trust, and eagerly expectant of their Master. The Discourse
itself consists of three parts and a practical application.
1. The Disciples as Servants in the absence of their Master: "
their duty and their reward.' This part, containing what would be
so needful to these Perasan disciples, is peculiar to St. Luke. The
Master is supposed to be absent, at a wedding — a figure which must
not be closely pressed, not being one ofthe essentials in the Parable.
At most, it points to a joyous occasion, and its mention may chiefly
indicate that such a feast might be protracted, so that the exact time
ofthe Master's return could not be known to the" servants who waited
at home. In these circumstances, they should hold themselves in
readiness, that, whatever hour it might be, they should be able to
open the door at the first knocking. Such eagerness and devotion of
service would naturally meet its reward, and the Master would, in
turn, consult the comfort of those who had not allowed themselves
their evening-meal, nor lain down, but watched for His return.
Hungry and weary as they were from their zeal for Him, He
would now, in turn, minister to their personal comfort. And this
applied to servants who so watched — it mattered not how long,
whether into the second or the third of the watches into which the
night was divided.1 '
The ' Parable ' now passes into another aspect of the case, which
is again referred to in the last Discourses of Christ/ Conversely —
suppose the other case, of people sleeping: the house might be

1 The first is not mentioned, because
it was so early, nor yet the fourth,
because the feast would scarcely be pro
tracted so long. Anciently, the Hebrews
counted three night-watches; but after

wards, and probably at the time of Christ,
they divided the night into four watches
(see the discussion in Ber. 3 a). The
latter arrangement was probably intro
duced from the Romans.

THE APOSTLES AS 'STEWARDS.' 219
broken into. Of course, if one had known the hour when the thief CHAP.
would come, sleep would not have been indulged in; but it is just this XIH
uncertainty and suddenness — and the Coming of the Christ into His "- — <— - '
Kingdom would be equally sudden — which should keep the people in
the house ever on their watch till Christ came/ »st. Luke
It was at this particular point that a question of Peter interrupted sn' '
the Discourse of Christ. To whom did this ' Parable ' apply about
' the good man ' and ' the servants ' who were to watch: to the Apos
tles, or also to all? From the implied — for it is not an express —
answer of the Lord, we infer, that Peter expected some difference
between the Apostles and the rest of the disciples, whether as re
garded the attitude of the servants that waited, or the reward. From
tne words of Christ the former seems the more likely. We can un
derstand how Peter might entertain the Jewish notion, that the
Apostles would come with the Master from the marriage-supper, rather
than wait for His return, and work while waiting. It is to this that the
reply of Christ refers. If the Apostles or others are rulers, it is as
stewards, and their reward of faithful and wise stewardship will be
advance to higher administration. But as stewards they are servants
— servants of Christ, and ministering servants in regard to the other
and general servants. What becomes them in this twofold capacity
is faithfulness to the absent, yet ever near, Lord, and to their work,
avoiding, on the one hand, the masterfulness of pride and of harshness,
and, on the other, the self-degradation of conformity to evil manners,
either of which would entail sudden and condign punishment in the
sudden and righteous reckoning at His appearing. The 'Para
ble,' therefore, alike as to the waiting and the reckoning, applied to
work for Christ, as well as to personal relationship towards Him.
Thus far this solemn warning would naturally be afterwards re
peated in Christ's Last Discourses in Judaea, as equally needful, in
view of His near departure/ But in this Perasan Discourse, as re- bgt. Luke
ported by St. Luke, there now follows what must be regarded, not, comp.
indeed, as a further answer to Peter's inquiry, but as specifically re- xxivAs-si
ferring to the general question of the relation between special work
and general discipleship which had been raised. For, in one sense,
all disciples are servants, not only to wait, but to work. As regarded
those who, like the professed stewards or labourers, knew their work.
but neither 'made ready,'1 nor did according to His Will, their pun
ishment and loss (where the illustrative figure of ' many ' and ' few
stripes ' must not be too closely pressed) would naturally be greater
1 So literally.

220

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Luke
xii. 47, 48

b St. Luke
xii. 49-53

a St. Matt.
X. 34-36

« St. Luke
xii. 51-53

f ver. 54

e St. Matt.
xvi. 2, 3

b St. Luke
xii. 56

i ver. 57

than that of them who knew not — though this also involves guilt —
that their Lord had any will towards them, that is, any work for
them. This, according to a well-understood principle, universally,
almost instinctively, acted upon among men/
2. In the absence of their master! A period this of work, as
well as of waiting; a period of trial also." Here, also, the two
opening verses, in their evident connection with the subject-matter
under the first head of this Discourse,1 but especially with the closing
sentences about work for the Master, are peculiar to St. Luke's nar
rative, and fit only into it. The Church had a work to do in His
absence — the work for which He had come. He ' came to cast fire on
earth, ' — that fire which was kindled when the Risen Saviour sent the
Holy Ghost, and of which the tongues of fire were the symbol.2 Oh,
how He longed,3 that it were already kindled ! But between Him and
it lay the cold flood of His Passion, the terrible Passion in which He was
to be baptized. Oh, how He felt the burden of that coming Agony!"
That fire must they spread: this was the work in which, as disciples,
each one must take part. Again, in that Baptismal Agony of His they
also must be prepared to share. It was^re: burning up, as well as
purifying and giving light. And here it was in place to repeat to His
Peraean disciples the prediction already addressed to the Twelve when
going on their Mission," as to the certain and necessary trials con
nected with carrying ' the fire ' which Christ had cast on earth, even
to the burning up of the closest bonds of association and kinship/
3. Thus far to the disciples. And now for its application to 'the
multitudes ' ' — although here also He could only repeat what on a
former occasion He had said to the Pharisees/ Let them not think
that all this only concerned the disciples. No; it was a question be
tween Israel and their Messiah, and the struggle would involve the
widest consequences, alike to the people and the Sanctuary. Were
they so blinded as not ' to know how to interpret the time ' ? " Could
they not read its signs — they who had no difficulty in interpreting it
when a cloud rose from the sea, or the sirocco blew from the south?4
Why then — and here St. Luke is again alone in his report' — did
they not, in the circumstances, of themselves judge what was right
and fitting and necessary, in view of the gathering tempest?

1 Comp. before, under 1, p. 218.
3 This clause is most important for the
interpretation of that which precedes it,
showing that it cannot be taken in sensu
malo. It cannot therefore be ' the fire of
judgment ' (Plumptre.)
3 Probably, as Wiinsche suggests, the

*X*or\, or else the 'NIPT of the Rabbis.
4 The observant reader will notice how
characteristic the small differences are.
Thus, the sirocco would not be expected
in Galilee, but in Persea, and in the latter
also the first flowers would appear much
earlier.

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE GALILEANS IN THE TEMPLE. 221
What was it? Even what he had told them before in Galilee," chap.
for the circumstances were the same. What common sense and XIII
common prudence would dictate to every one whom his accuser or ' — ~y —
creditor haled before the magistrate: to come to an agreement with "st- MaM-
° v. 25, 26
him before it was too late, before sentence had been pronounced and
executed/ Although the illustration must not be pressed as to »st.Luke
details, its general meaning would be the more readily understood
that there was a similar Rabbinic proverb," although with very °sanh.95z>.
different practical application. isSamsex-
4. Besides these Discourses, two events are recorded before 3>ripare'ta
Christ's departure to the ' Feast of the Dedication. ' Each of these S^SffoB
led to a brief Discourse, ending in a Parable. f^dlZT"
The first records two circumstances not mentioned by the Jewish sent. et.
• • Prov d
historian Josephus,1 nor in any other historical notice of the time, Tami. p. 3)
either by Rabbinic or other writers. This shows, on the one hand,
how terribly common such events must have been, when they could
be so generally omitted from the long catalogue of Pilate's misdeeds
towards the Jews. On the other hand it also evidences that the
narrative of St. Luke was derived from independent, authentic sources
— in other words, the historical character of his narrative — when he
could refer as well known to facts, which are not mentioned in anv
other record ofthe times; and, lastly, that we are not warranted in
rejecting a notice, simply because we find no other mention of it than
on the pages of the Third Gospel.
It appears that, just then, or quite soon afterwards, some persons
told Christ about a number of His own Galileans, whom Pilate had
ordered to be cut down, as we infer, in the Temple, while engaged in
offering their- sacrifices,11 so that, in the pictorial language ofthe East, d st. Luke
their blood had mingled with that of their sacrifices. Clearly, their nar
ration of this event must be connected with the preceding Discourse
of Jesus. He had asked them, whether they could not discern the
signs ofthe terrible national storm that was nearing. And it was
in reference to this, as we judge, that they repeated this story. To
understand their object, we must attend to the answer of Christ.. It
is intended to refute the idea, that these Galileans had in this been
visited by a special punishment of some special sin against God.
Two questions here arise. Since between Christ's visit to Jerusalem
at the Feast of Tabernacles and that at the Dedication of the Temple
no Festival took place, it is most probable that this event had happened
' This omission goes far to prove the Gesch. ii. pp. 52 &c), that the writings
groundlessness of the charge brought by of Josephus have been largely falsified by
Renan, and lately by Joel (Bl. in d. Relig. Christian copyists.

222

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

' St. Luke
xiii. 4

b Jos. War.
ii. 9. 4

before Christ's visit to Jerusalem. But in that case it seems most
likely — almost certain — that Christ had heard of it before. If so,
or, at any rate, if it was not quite a recent event, why did these
men tell Him of it then and there? Again, it seems strange that,
although the Jews connected special sins with special punishments,
they should have regarded it as the Divine punishment of a special
sin to have been martyred by a Pilate in the Temple, while engaged
in offering sacrifices.
All this becomes quite plain, if we regard these men as trying to
turn the edge of Jesus' warning by a kind of ' Tu quoque ' argu
ment. Very probably these Galileans were thus ruthlessly murdered,
because of their real or suspected connection with the Nationalist
movement, of which Galilee was the focus. It is as if these Jews
had said to Jesus: Yes, signs ofthe times and ofthe coming storm!
These Galileans of yours, your own countrymen, involved in a kind
of Pseudo-Messianic movement, a kind of ' signs of the times '
rising, something like that towards which you want us to look — was
not their death a condign punishment? This latter inference they
did not express in words, but implied in their narration of the fact.
But the Lord read their thoughts and refuted their reasoning. For
this purpose He adduced another instance," when a tower at the
Siloam-Pool had fallen on eighteen persons and killed them, perhaps
in connection with that construction of an aqueduct into Jerusalem
by Pilate, which called forth, on the part of the Jews, the violent op
position, which the Roman so terribly avenged. As good Jews, they
would probably think that the fall of the tower, which had buried
in its ruins these eighteen persons, who were perhaps engaged in the
building of that cursed structure, was a just judgment of God! For
Pilate had used for it the sacred money which had been devoted to
Temple-purposes (the Qorban), "and many there were who perished in
the tumult caused by the Jewish resistance to this act of profana
tion. But Christ argued, that it was as wrong to infer that Divine-
judgment had overtaken His Galilean countrymen, as it would be to
judge that the Tower of Siloam had fallen to punish these Jeru
salemites. Not one party only, nor another; not the supposed Mes
sianic tendency (in the shape of a national rising), nor, on the other
hand, the opposite direction of absolute submission to Roman domi
nation, was in fault. The whole nation was guilty; and the coming
storm, to the signs of which He had pointed, would destroy all
unless there were spiritual repentance on the part of the nation.
And yet wider than this, and applying to all time, is the underlying

SCENE IN A SYNAGOGUE IN PERAEA. 223
principle, that, when a calamity befalls a district or an aggregation of CHAP.
individuals, we ought not to take to ourselves judgment as to its XIII
special causation, but to think spiritually of its general application — ' — -, — -'
not so much seek to trace what is the character of its connection
with a district or individuals, as to learn its lessons and to regard them
as a call addressed to all. And conversely, also, this holds true in
regard to deliverances.
Having thus answered the implied objection, the Lord next
showed, in the Parable of the Fig-tree," the need and urgency of «st. Luke
national repentance. '
The second event recorded by St. Luke in this connection " * st. Luke
recalls the incidents of the early Judaean" and of the Galilean Min- cSt'.John'v
istry/ We observe the same narrow views and externalism as be- 16
fore in regard to the Sabbath on the part of the Jewish authorities, xii.Via
and, on the part of Christ, the same wide principles and spiritual
application. If we were in search of evidence of the Divine Mis
sion of Jesus, we would find it in this contrariety on so funda
mental a point, since no teacher in Israel nor Reformer of that time
— not the most advanced Sadducee — would have defended, far less
originated, the views as to the Sabbath which Christ now propounded/
Again, if we were in quest of evidence of the historical truthfulness
ofthe Gospel-narratives, we would find it in a comparison of the nar
ratives ofthe three Sabbath-controversies: in Jerusalem, in Galilee,
and in Peraea. In all the spirit was the same. And, although the dif
ferences between them may seem slight, they are characteristic, and
mark, as if they pointed to it with the finger, the locality and circum
stances in which each took place. In Jerusalem there is neither
reasoning nor rebuke on the part of the Jews, but absolute perse
cution. There also the Lord enters on the higher exposition of His
action, motives, and Mission/ In Galilee there is questioning, and Lst;»'?inT-
cunning intrigue against Him on the part of the Judasans who
dogged His steps. But while no violence can be attempted against
Him, the people do not venture openly to take His part/ But in fst. Matt.
Peraea we are confronted by the clumsy zeal of a country- Archi-
synagogos (Chief Ruler of a Synagogue), who is very angry, but not
very wise; who admits Christ's healing power, and does not dare to
attack Him directly, but, instead, rebukes, not Christ, not even the
woman who had been healed, but the people who witnessed it, at
the same time telling them to come for healing on other days, not
1 For the exposition of this Parable, 2 On the Sabbath-Law, see Appendix
I refer to that of all the Parables of that XVII.
period.

224

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

> St. Luke
xiii. 15, 16

b St. Matt.
xii. 14

perceiving, in his narrow-minded bigotry, what this admission
implied. This rustic Ruler had not the cunning, nor even the
courage, of the Judaean Pharisees in Galilee, whom the Lord had
formerly convicted and silenced. Enough, to show this obscure
Peraean partisan of Pharisaism and the like of him their utter folly,
and that by their own admissions." And presently, not only were
His adversaries ashamed, while in Galilee they went out and held a
council against Him," but the people were not afraid, as the Galileans
had been in presence of their rulers, and openly rejoiced in the
glorious working of the Christ.
Little more requires to be added about this incident in ' one of
the Synagogues ' of Peraea. Let us only briefly recall the scene.
Among those present in this Synagogue had been a poor woman,
who for eighteen years had been a sufferer, as we learn, through
demoniac agency. It is quite true that most, if not all, such diseases
were connected with moral distemper, since demoniac possession
was not permanent, and resistance might have been made in the
lucid intervals, if there had been moral soundness. But it is un
grounded to distinguish between the ' spirit of infirmity ' as the
moral and psychical, and her being 'bent, ' as indicating the physical
disease, 1 or even to describe the latter as a ' permanent curvature of
the spine.'2 The Greek word here rendered ' infirmity ' has passed
into Rabbinic language (fsteniseyah, rrc^nD'X), and there means,
not any particular disease, but sickliness, sometimes weakliness. In
fact, she was, both physically and morally, not sick, but sickly, and
most truly was hers ' a spirit of infirmity, ' so that ' she was bowed
together, and could in no wise lift herself up. ' For, we mark that
hers was not demoniac possession at all — and yet, though she had not
yielded, she had not effectually resisted, and so she was ' bound ' by
' a spirit of infirmity, ' both in body and soul.
We recognise the same ' spirit of infirmity ' in the circumstances
of her healing. When Christ, seeing her — probably a fit symbol of
the Peraeans in that Synagogue — called her, she came; when He
said unto her, ' Woman, thou hast been loosed 3 from thy sickliness, '
she was unbound, and yet in her weakliness she answered not, nor
straightened herself, till Jesus 'laid His Hands on her,' and so
strengthened her in body and soul, and then she was immediately
' made straight, and glorified God. '

1 This is the view of Godet, who re
gards the ' Thou hast been loosed ' as re
ferring to the psychical ailment.

So Dean Plumptre.
So, andjiot as in the A.V.

20 6

APPLICATION OF THE MIRACLE. 225
As for the Archisynagogos, we have, as already hinted, such char- CHAP.
acteristic portraiture of him that we can almost see him: confused, XIII
irresolute, perplexed, and very angry, bustling forward and scolding '  -.~— '
the people who had done nothing, yet not venturing to silence the
woman, now no longer infirm — far less, to reprove the great Rabbi,
Who had just done such a ' glorious thing, ' but speaking at Him
through those who had been the astounded eye-witnesses. He was
easily and effectually silenced, and all who sympathised with him
put to shame. ' Hypocrites ! ' spake the Lord — on your own admis
sions your practice and your Law condemn your speech. Every one
on the Sabbath looseth his ox or ass, and leads him to the watering.
The Rabbinic law expressly allowed this,1 and even to draw the
water, provided the vessel were not carried to the animal." If, as •Erub.i7&;
you admit, I have the power of ' loosing ' from the bonds of Satan,
and she has been so bound these eighteen years, should she — a
daughter of Abraham — not have that done for her which you do for
your beasts of burden?
The retort was unanswerable and irresistible; it did what was
intended: it covered the adversaries with shame. And the Peraeans
in that Synagogue felt also, at least for the time, the blessed free
dom which had come to that woman. They took up the echoes of
her hymn of praise, and ' rejoiced for all the glorious things that
were done by Him.' And He answered their joy by rightly directing
it — by setting before them ' the Kingdom, ' which He had come both
to preach and to bring, in all its freeness, reality, power, and all-
pervading energy, as exhibited in the two Parables of the ' Mus
tard-seed ' and ' the Leaven, ' spoken before in Galilee. These were
now repeated, as specially suited to the circumstances: first, to the
Miracle they had witnessed; then, to the contention that had
passed; and, lastly, to their own state of feeling. And the practical
application of these Parables must have been obvious to all.
1 It was" not contrary to the Rab- poses. The rule is quite different from
binic law, as Canon Cook (ad loc.) sup- that which applied in St. Matt. xii. 11.

226

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION

CHAPTER XIV.

AT THE FEAST OF THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE.

BOOK IV

b St. John
x. 22

« 1 Mace.
vi. 52-59
d u. s. vv.
66-590 Ant. xii.
7. 7

(St. Luke xiii. 22; St. John x. 22-42.)
About two months had passed since Jesus had left Jerusalem after
the Feast of Tabernacles. Although we must not commit ourselves
to such calculations, we may here mention the computation which
identifies the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles of that year"
with Thursday the 23rd September; the last, ' the Great Day of the
Feast,' with Wednesday the 29th; the Octave of the Feast with the
30th September; and the Sabbath when the man born blind was
healed with the 2nd of October.1 In that case, 'the Feast of
the Dedication of the Temple,' which commenced on the 25th day
of Chislev, and lasted eight days, would have begun on Wednesday
the 1st, and closed on Wednesday the 8th December. But, possibly,
it may have been a week or two later. At that Feast, or about two
months after He had quitted the City, we find Christ once more in
Jerusalem and in the Temple. His journey thither seems indicated
in the Third Gospel (St. Luke xiii. 22), and is at least implied in
the opening words with which St. John prefaces his narrative of what
happened on that occasion/2
As we think of it, there seems special fitness — presently to be
pointed out — in Christ's spending what we regard as the last anni
versary season of His Birth s in the Temple a,t that Feast. It was
not of Biblical origin, but had been instituted by Judas Maccabaeus
in 1 64 b. c. , when the Temple, which had been desecrated by Antiochus
Epiphanes, was once more purified, and re-dedicated to the Service of
Jehovah." Accordingly, it was designated as ' the Dedication of the
Altar."1 Josephus" calls it 'The Lights,' from one of the principal
observances at the Feast, though he speaks in hesitating language of

1 Wieseler, Chronolog. Synopse, pp.482,
483. 2 It must, however, be admitted that
some commentators draw an opposite in
ference from these words.

3 The subject has been more fully
treated in an article in the ' Leisure Hour'
for Dec. 1873 : ' Christmas, a Festival of
Jewish Origin.'

Dan. iii. 2
b Pa. cxiii.
cxviii.

THE FEAST OF THE DEDICATION. 227
the origin of the festival as connected with this observance — prob- CHAP.
ably because, while he knew, he was ashamed to avow, and yet XIV
afraid to deny his belief in the Jewish legend connected with it. The '  >—- '
Jews called it Chanukkah, 'dedication' or 'consecration,' and, in
much the same sense, Enkainia in the Greek of the LXX.,"1 and in »Ezravi.
the New Testament. During the eight days of the Feast the series of xii. 27;
Psalms known as the Hallel " was chanted in the Temple, the people
responding as at the Feast of Tabernacles. ' Other rites resembled
those of the latter Feast. Thus, originally the people appeared with
palm-branches. " This, however, does not seem to have been after- ° 2 Mace.
wards observed, while another rite, not mentioned in the Book of
Maccabees — that of illuminating the Temple and private houses — be
came characteristic of the Feast. Thus, the two festivals, which in
deed are put in juxtaposition in 2 Mace. x. 6, seem to have been both
externally and internally connected. The Feast ofthe ' Dedication,'
or of ' Lights, ' derived from that of Tabernacles its duration of eight
days, the chanting of the Hallel, and the practice of carrying palm-
branches. On the other hand, the rite of the Temple-illumination
may have passed from the Feast of the ' Dedication ' into the observ
ances of that of ' Tabernacles.' Tradition had it, that, when the Tem
ple-Services were restored by Judas Maccabaeus, the oil was found to
have been desecrated. Only one flagon was discovered of that which
was pure, sealed with the very signet of the High-Priest. The sup
ply proved just sufficient to feed for one day the Sacred Candlestick,
but by a miracle the flagon was continually replenished during eight
days, till a fresh supply could be brought from Thekoah. In memory
of this, it was ordered the following year, that the Temple be illumi
nated for eight days on the anniversary of its 'Dedication.'3 The dS£al?t>-
Schools of Hillel and Shammai differed in regard to this, as on most '11 to 8 from
° ' trottom
other observances. The former would have begun the first night
with the smallest number of lights, and increased it every night till on
the eighth it was eight times as large as on the first. The School of
Shammai, on the other hand, would have begun with the largest
number, and diminished, till on the last night it amounted to an
eighth ofthe first. Each party had its own — not very satisfactory —
reasons for its distinctive practice, and its own adherents." But the 'Shabb.
1 21 b, about
' Lights ' in honour of the Feast were lit not. only in the Temple, but the middle
1 Similarly, the cognate words pha. The verb also occurs Heb. ix. 18 ;
iy KaiviaiS and eyKaivicr/uoS as well x. 20.
as the verb (eyKaivtZoo), are frequently '¦ See ch. vii. This was always the
¦used both in the LXX. and the Apocry- case when the Hallel was chanted.

228

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• Moed K.
Hi. 9;
Shabb. 21 b

b Bemidb.
B. 13, ed.
Warsh., p.
49 a. line 15
from top

in every home. One would have sufficed for the whole household
on the first evening, but pious householders lit a light for every in
mate of the home, so that, if ten burned on the first, there would be
eighty on the last night of the Festival. According to the Talmud,
the light might be placed at the entrance to the house or room, or,
according to circumstances, in the window, or even on the table.
According to modern practice the light is placed at the left on enter
ing a room (the Mezuzah is on the right). Certain benedictions are
spoken on lighting these flights, all work is stayed, and the festive
time spent in merriment. The first night is specially kept in mem
ory of Judith, who is supposed then to have slain Holofernes, and
cheese is freely partaken of as the food of which, according to legend, 1
she gave hi-m so largely, to incite him to thirst, and drunkenness. 2
Lastly, during this Festival, all fasting and public mourning were
prohibited, though some minor acts of private mourning were allowed. *
More interesting, perhaps, than this description of the outward
observances is the meaning of this Festival and its connection with
the Feast of Tabernacles, to both of which reference has already been
made. Like the Feast of Tabernacles, it commemorated a Divine
Victory, which again gave to Israel their good land, after they had
once more undergone sorrows like those ofthe wilderness; it was an
other harvest-feast, and pointed forward to yet another ingathering.
As the once extinguished light was relit in the Temple — and, ac
cording to Scriptural imagery, might that not mean the Light of
Israel, the Lamp of David? — it grew day by day in brightness, till it
shone quite out into the heathen darkness, that once had threatened
to quench it. That He Who purified the Temple, was its True Light,
and brought the Great Deliverance, should (as hinted) have spent
the last anniversary season of His Birth at that Feast in the Sanc
tuary, shining into their darkness, seems most fitting, especially as
we remember the Jewish legend, according to which the making of
the Tabernacle had been completed on the 25th Chislev, although it
was not set up till the 1st of Nisan (the Paschal month)/
Thoughts of the meaning of this Feast, and of what was associated
with it, will be helpful as we listen to the words which Jesus spake
to the people in ' Solomon's Porch. ' There is a pictorialness in the

1 In regard to the latter Jewish legend,
the learned reader will find full quota
tions (as, in general, much interesting
information on the ' Feast of the Dedica
tions') in Selden, de Synedriis (ed. Frcf.
1696) p. 1213,and in general from p. 1207
to 1214.

2 The reader will find much that is
curious in these four Midrashim (apud
Jellinek, Beth haMidr. i. pp. 130-146):
the Maaseh Jehudith, 2 Midr. for Cha-
nukkah, and he Megillath Antiochos. See
also the Megillath Taanith (ed. Warsh.
1874), pp. 14 a to 15 b.

A TRIPLET OF GOSPEL PARALLELISMS. 229
description of the circumstances, which marks the eyewitness. It is CHAP.
winter, and Christ is walking in the covered Porch,1 in front of the XIV
' Beautiful Gate, ' which formed the principal entrance into the ' Court v——r- —
of the Women. ' As he walks up and down, the people are literally
barring His Way — ' came round about ' Him. From the whole
circumstances we cannot doubt, that the question which they put:
: How long holdest Thou us in suspense? ' had not in it an element
of truthfulness or genuine inquiry. Their desire, that He should
tell them ' plainly ' if He were the Christ, had no other motive than
that of grounding on it an accusation.2 The more clearly we perceive
this, the more wonderful appears the forbearance of Christ and the
wisdom of His answer. Briefly he puts aside their hypocrisy. What
need is there of fresh speech? He told them before, and they
' believe 3 not. ' From words He appeals to the mute but indis
putable witness of deeds: the works which He wrought in His Father's
Name. Their non-belief in presence of these facts was due to their
not being of His Sheep. As he had said unto them before,4 it was
characteristic of His Sheep (as generally of every flock in regard to
its own shepherd) to hear- — recognise, listen to — His Voice and follow
Him. We mark in the words of Christ, a triplet of double parallel
isms concerning the Sheep and the Shepherd, in ascending climax/ as » st. John
e 11 5 x- 27' 28
follows: — 5
My sheep hear My Voice, And I know them,
And they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life:
And they shall never perish. And no one shall snatch them out of
My Hand.
A similar fourfold parallelism with descending and ascending climax,
but of an antithetic character, has been noticed6 in Christ's former
Discourse in the Temple (St. John x. 13—15) —
The hireling I
Is an hireling, Am the good Shepherd,
Careth not for the sheep. Know the sheep,
Fleeth Lay down My Life.
' The location of this ' Porch ' in the 8 According to the better reading, in
passage under the present mosque M the present tense.
Aksa (proposed by Caspari, Chronol. i This clause in ver. 26 of the A.V.
Geogr. Einleit. p. 256, and adopted by must, if retained, be joined to ver. 27.
Archdeacon Watkins) is contrary to all 5 So, after the precedent of Bengel,
the well-known facts. especially Luthardt and Godet, and after
2 Commentators mostly take quite a them others.
different view, and regard theirs as more 6 By Bengel.
or less honest inquiry.

230 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK Richer or more comforting assurance than that recorded above
IV could not have been given. But something special has here to be
v— -r^-' marked. The two first parallelisms always link the promise of Christ
to the attitude of the sheep; not, perhaps, conditionally, for the
relation is such as not to admit conditionalness, either in the form
of 'because — therefore,' or even of 'if — then,' but as a matter of
sequence and of fact. But in the third parallelism there is no
reference to anything on the part ofthe sheep; it is all promise, and
the second clause only explains and intensifies what is expressed in the
first. If it indicates attack of the fiercest kind and by the strongest
and most cunning of enemies, be they men or devils, it also marks
the watchfulness and absolute superiority of Him Who hath them, as
it were, in His Hand — perhaps a Hebraism for ' power ' — and hence
their absolute safety. And, as if to carry twofold assurance of it, He
reminds His hearers that His Work being ' the Father's Command
ment, ' it is really the Father's Work, given to Christ to do, and no
one could snatch them out of the Father's Hand. It is a poor cavil,
to try to limit these assurances by seeking to grasp and to comprehend
them in the hollow of our human logic. Do they convey what is
commonly called 'the doctrine of perseverance ' ? Nay! but they
teach us, not about our faith but about His faithfulness, and convey
to us assurance concerning Him rather than ourselves; and this is
the only aspect in which ' the doctrine of perseverance ' is either safe,
true, or Scriptural.
But one logical sequence is unavoidable. Rightly understood,
it is not only the last and highest announcement, but it contains
and implies everything else. If the Work of Christ is really that of
the Father, and His Working also that of the Father, then it follows
that He 'and the Father are One' ('one' is in the neuter). This
identity of work (and 'purpose) implies the identity of Nature
(Essence); that of working, the identity of power/ And so, evi
dently, the Jews understood it, when they again took up stones with
the intention of stoning Him — no doubt, because He expressed, in
yet more plain terms, what they regarded as His blasphemy. Once
more the Lord appealed from His Words, which were doubted, to
His Works, which were indubitable. And so He does to all time.
His Divine Mission is evidence of His Divinity. And if His Divine
Mission be doubted, He appeals to the ' many excellent works' (xoik-d
1 St. Augustine marks, that the word do they not equally tell against all
' one ' tells against Arianism, and the heresy ?
plural ' are ' agahist Sabellianism. And

CHRIST'S ANSWER TO JEWISH OBJECTIONS. 231
epya) which He hath 'showed from the Father,' any one of which CHAP.
might, and, in the case of not a few, had, served as evidence of His XIV
Mission. And when the Jews ignored, as so many in our days, this "— -v — '
line of evidence, and insisted that He had been guilty of blasphemy,
since, being a man, He had made Himself God, the Lord replied in a
manner that calls for our special attention. From the peculiarly
Hebraistic mode of designating a quotation from the Psalms" as ts.
' written in the Law,'1 we gather that we have here a literal tran
script ofthe very words of our Lord.2 But what we specially wish,
is, emphatically, to disclaim any interpretation of them, which would
seem to imply that Christ had wished to evade their inference: that
He claimed to be One with the Father — and to convey to them, that
nothing more had been meant than what might lawfully be applied
to an ordinary man. Such certainly is not the case. He had claimed
to be One with the Father in work and working: from which, of
course, the necessary inference was, that He was also One with Him
in Nature and Power. Let us see whether the claim was strange.
In Ps. lxxxii. 6 the titles ' God ' (Elohim ) and ' Sons of the Highest '
(Beney Elyon) had been given to Judges as the Representatives and
Vicegerents of God, wielding His delegated authority, since to them
had come His Word of authorisation. But Here was authority not
transmitted by ' the word, ' but personal and direct consecration, and
personal and direct Mission on the part of God. The comparison
made was not with prophets, because they only told the word and
message from God, but with Judges, who, as such, did the very act of
God. If those who, in so acting, had received an indirect commission,
were ' gods, ' the very representatives of God, 3 could it be blasphemy
when He claimed to be the Son of God, Who had received, not
authority through a word transmitted through long centuries, but
direct personal command to do the Father's Work; had been directly
and personally consecrated to it by the Father, and directly and per
sonally sent by Him, not to say, but to do, the work of the Father?
Was it not rather the true and necessary inference from these pre
misses? 1 In Rabbinic writings the word for on the third day (after the preparation)
Law (Tor ah, or Oreya, or Oreyan) is in the third month (Sivan),' Shabb. 88 a.
very frequently used to denote not only 2 We need scarcely call attention to the
the Law, but the whole Bible. Let one evidence which it affords of the Judaean
example suffice : ' Blessed be the Merci- authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
ful Who has given the threefold Law 3 We would call attention to the words
QJOTIN, Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagio- ' The Scripture cannot be broken ' (ver.
grapha) to a threefold people (priests, 35) as evidential of the views which Jesus
Levites, laity) by the hands of a third took of the authority of the Old Testa-
(Moses,being the third born of his parents) ment, as well as of its inspiration.

232

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. John
x. 37

All would, of course, depend on this, whether Christ really did
the works of the Father/ That was the test; and, as we instinc
tively perceive, both rationally and truly. But if He did the works
of His Father, then let them believe, if not the words yet the works,
and thus would they arrive at the knowledge, ' and understand ' : — dis
tinguishing here the act from the state 2 — that ' in Me is the Father,
and I in the Father.' In other words, recognizing the Work as that
of the Father, they would come to understand that the father worked
in Him, and that the root of His Work was in the Father.
The stones, that had been taken up, were not thrown, for the words
of Christ rendered impossible the charge of explicit blasphemy which
alone would, according to Rabbinic law, have warranted such summary
vengeance. But ' they sought again to sieze Him, ' so as to drag Him
before their tribunal. His time, however, had not yet come, ' and He
went forth out of their hand ' — how, we know not.
Once more the Jordan rolled between Him and His bitter per
secutors. Far north, over against Galilee, in the place of John's
early labours, probably close to where Jesus Himself had been
baptized, was the scene of His last labours. And those, who so well
remembered both the Baptist and the testimony which he had there
borne to the Christ, recalled it all as they listened to His Words and
saw His Works. As they crowded around Him, both the difference
and the accord between John and Jesus carried conviction to their
minds. The Baptist had done ' no sign,' s such as those which Jesus
wrought: but all things which John had spoken of Him, they felt it,
were true. And, undisturbed by the cavils of Pharisees and Scribes,
many of these simple-minded, true-hearted men, far away from Jeru
salem, believed on Him. To adapt a saying of Bengel: they were the
posthumous children of the Baptist. Thus did he, being dead, yet
speak. And so will all that is sown for Christ, though it lie buried
and forgotten of men, spring up and ripen, as in one day, to the deep,
grateful, and external joy of them who had laboured in faith and gone
to rest in hope.

1 Thus, according to the better reading.
2 So Meyer.
3 The circumstance, that, according to
the Gospels, no miracle was wrought by
John, is not only evidential of the trust
worthiness of their report of our Lord's
miracles, but otherwise also deeply
significant. It shows that there is no
craving for the miraculous, as in the
Apocryphal and legendary narratives, and
it proves that the Gospel-narratives

were not cast in _the mould of Jewish
contemporary expectation, which would
certainly have assigned another role to
Elijah as the Forerunner of the Messiah
than, first, that of solitary testimony,
then of forsakenness, and, lastly, of cruel
and unavenged murder at the hands of a
Herodian. Truly, the history of Jesus is
not that of the Messiah of Judaic concep
tion !

THE SECOND SERIES OF PARABLES.

233

CHAPTER XV.
THE SECOND SERIES OF PARABLES — THE TWO PARABLES OF HIM WHO
IS NEIGHBOUR TO US: THE FIRST, CONCERNING THE LOVE THAT,
UNASKed, GIVES IN OUR NEED; THE SECOND, CONCERNING THE
LOVE WHICH IS ELICITED BY OUR ASKING IN OUR NEED.
(St. Luke x. 25-37; xi. 5-13.)
The period between Christ's return from the ' Feast of the Dedica- chap.
tion ' and His last entry into Jerusalem, may be arranged into two XV
parts, divided by the brief visit to Bethany for the purpose of raising s— -y — '
Lazarus from the dead. Even if it were possible, with any certainty,
chronologically to arrange the events of each of these periods, the
variety and briefness of what is recorded would prevent our closely
following them in this narrative. Accordingly, we prefer grouping
them together as the Parables of that period, its Discourses, and its
Events. And the record of the raising of Lazarus may serve as a
landmark between our Summary of the Parables and that of the
Discourses and Events which preceded the Lord's final appearance in
Jerusalem. These last words help us to understand the necessary difference
between the Parables of this and of the preceding and the following
periods. The Parables of this period look back upon the past, and
forward into the future. Those spoken by the Lake of Galilee were
purely symbolical. They presented unseen heavenly realities under
emblems which required to be translated into earthly language. It
was quite easy to do so, if you possessed the key to the heavenly
mysteries; otherwise, they were dark and mysterious. So to speak,
they were easily read from above downwards. Viewed from below
upwards, only most dim and strangely intertwining outlines could be
perceived. It is quite otherwise with the second series of Parables.
They could, as they were intended, be understood by all. They re
quired no translation. They were not symbolical but typical, using the
word 'tvne,' not in the sense of involving a predictive element," but "Asm
•> i * Rom. v 14
as indicating an example, or, perhaps, more correctly, an exempli-

234 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK fication/ Accordingly, the Parables of this series are also intensely
IV practical. Lastly, their prevailing character is not descriptive, but
' — "v — - hortatory; and they bring the Gospel, in the sense of glad tidings
* as in to the lost, most closely and touchingly to the hearts of all who hear
1 Cor. x. 6, ' J c J
17-iThess' tnem- They are signs in words, as the miracles are signs in works,
kj; 2 ... of what Christ has come to do and to teach. Most of them bear
Thess. m.9;
LTlS?./^ this character openly; and even those which do not, but seem more
12; Tit. n. i .' j 7
i; iPet.v.3 iike warning, have still an undertone of love, as if Divine compassion
lingered in tender pity over that which threatened, but might yet be
averted. Of the Parables of the third series it will for the present suffice
to say, that they are neither symbolical nor typical, but their pre
vailing characteristic is prophetic. As befits their historical place in
the teaching of Christ, they point to the near future. They are the
fast falling, lengthening shadows cast by the events which are near
at hand, The Parables of the second (or Perasan) series, which are typical
and hortatory, and ' Evangelical ' in character, are thirteen in number,
and, with the exception of the last, are either peculiar to, or else most
fully recorded in, the Gospel by St. Luke.
"st. Luke 1. The Parable of the Good Samaritan." — This Parable is con
nected with a question, addressed to Jesus by a ' lawyer ' — not one of
the Jerusalem Scribes or Teachers, but probably an expert in Jewish
Canon Law, ' who possibly made it more or less a profession- in that
district, though perhaps not for gain. Accordingly, there is a marked
absence of that rancour and malice which charaterised his colleagues
of Judasa. In a previous chapter it has been shown, that this narrative
probably stands in its proper place in the Gospel .of St. Luke.2 We
have also suggested, that the words of this lawyer referred, or else
that himself belonged, to that small party among the Rabbinists
who, at least in theory, attached greater value to good works than to
study. At any rate, there is no occasion to impute directly evil
motives to him. Knowing the habits of his class, we do not wonder
that he put his question to ' tempt ' — test, try — the great Rabbi of
Nazareth. There are many similar instances in Rabbinic writings of
meetings between great Teachers, when each tried to involve the
other in dialectic difficulties and subtle disputations. Indeed, this
was part of Rabbinism, and led to that painful and fatal trifling with
1 A distinction between different the Prophets, such as Dean Plumptre
classes of Scribes, of whom some gave suggests (on St. Matt. xxii. 35), did not
themselves to the study of the Law, exist.
while others included with it that of 2 See generally ch. v. of this Book.

X. 26-37

THE QUESTION OF THE 'LAWYER,' 235
truth, when everything became matter of dialectic subtlety, and CHAP.
nothing was really sacred. What we require to keep in view is, that xv
to this lawyer the question which he propounded was only one of '— — v — '
theoretic, not of practical interest, nor matter of deep personal con
cern, as it was to the rich young ruler, who, not long afterwards,
addressed a similar inquiry to the Lord." >st. Luke
We seem to witness the opening of a regular Rabbinic contest,
as we listen to this speculative problem: 'Teacher, what having done
shall I inherit eternal life ? ' At the foundation lay the notion, that
eternal life was the reward of merit, of works: the only question was,
what these works were to be. The idea of guilt had not entered
his mind; he had no conception of sin within. It was the old Judaism
of self-righteousness speaking without disguise: that which was the
ultimate ground of the rejecting and crucifying of the Christ. There
certainly was a way in which a man might inherit eternal life, not
indeed as having absolute claim to it, but (as the Schoolmen might
have said: de congruo) in consequence of God's Covenant on Sinai.
And so our Lord, using the common Rabbinic expression ' what
readest thou? ' (nxip *tm), pointed him to the Scriptures of the Old
Testament. The reply of the ' lawyer ' is remarkable, not only on its own
account, but as substantially, and even literally, that given on two
other occasions by the Lord Himself/ The question therefore "st. Matt.
J xix. 16-22;
naturally arises, whence did this lawyer, who certainly had not xxii. 34-40
spiritual insight, derive his reply? As regarded the duty of abso
lute love to God, indicated by the quotation of Deut. vi. 5, there
could, of course, be no hesitation in the mind of a Jew. The
primary obligation of this is frequently referred to, and, indeed,
taken for granted, in Rabbinic teaching. The repetition of this
command, which in the Talmud receives the most elaborate and
strange interpretation,1 formed part of the daily prayers. When
Jesus referred the lawyer to the Scriptures, he could scarcely fail to
quote this first paramount obligation. Similarly, he spoke as a
Rabbinic lawyer, when he referred in the next place to love to our
neighbour, as enjoined in Lev. xix. 18. Rabbinism is never weary
of quoting as one of the characteristic sayings of its greatest
1 Thus: ' "With all thy heart"— with to every measure with which He measures
both thy impulses, that to good and that to thee art thou bound to praise Him '
to evil; " with all thy soul"— even if it (there is here a play on the words which
takes away thy soul ; "with all thy might" cannot be rendered), Ber. 54 a, about the
— "with all thy money." Another interpre- middle.
tation: "With all thy might"— in regard

236

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

teacher, Hillel (who, of course, lived before this time), that he had
summed up the Law, in briefest compass, in these words: ' What is

d Bom. vii.

hateful to thee, that do not to another.

This is the whole Law; the

rest is only its explanation.'" Similarly, Rabbi Akiba taught, that
Lev. xix. 18 was the principal rule, we might almost say, the chief
summary of the Law (mro rnz bbj).b Still, the two principles
just mentioned are not enunciated in conjunction by Rabbinism,
nor seriously propounded as either containing the whole Law or as
securing heaven. They are also, as we shall presently see, sub
jected to grave modifications. One of these, as regards the negative
form in which Hillel put it, while Christ put it positively,0 1 has
been previously noticed. The existence of such Rabbinic modifica
tions, and the circumstance, already mentioned, that on two other
occasions the answer of Christ Himself to a similar inquiry was
precisely that of this lawyer, suggests the inference, that this ques
tion may have been occasioned by some teaching of Christ, to
which they had just listened, and that the reply of the lawyer may
have been prompted by what Jesus had preached concerning the
Law. If it be asked, why Christ seemed to give His assent to the
lawyer's answer, as if it really pointed to the right solution of the
great question, we reply: No other answer could have been given
him. On the ground of works — if that had been tenable — this was
the way to heaven. To understand any other answer, would have
required a sense of sin; and this could not be imparted by reason
ing: it must be experienced. It is the preaching of the Law which
awakens in the mind a sense of sin/ Besides, if not morally,
yet mentally, the difficulty of this ' way ' would soon suggest itself
to a Jew. Such, at least, is one aspect of the counter-question with
which ' the lawyer ' now sought to retort on Jesus.
Whatever complexity of motives there may have been — for we
know nothing of the circumstances, and there may have been that
in the conduct or heart of the lawyer which was specially touched
by what had just passed — there can be no doubt as to the maiu
object of his question: ' But who is my neighbour? ' He wished ' to
justify himself,' in the sense of vindicating his original question, and
showing that it was not quite so easily settled as the answer of Jesus

1 Hamburger (Real Encykl., Abth. ii.
p. 411) makes the remarkable admission
that the negative form was chosen to make
the command 'possible' and 'practical.'

It is not so that Christ has accommodated
the Divine Law to our sinfulness. See
previous remarks on this Law in Book III.
ch. xviii.

'WHO IS MY NEIGHBOUR?' 231
seemed to imply. And here it was that Christ could, in a ' Parable ' CHAP.
show how far orthodox Judaism was from even a true understanding, XV
much more from such perfect observance of this Law as would gain v-— - r —
heaven. Thus might He bring even this man to feel his short
comings and sins, and awaken in him a sense of his great need.
This, of course, would be the negative aspect of this Parable; the
positive is to all time and to all men.
That question: 'Who is my neighbour?' has ever been at the
same time the outcome of Judaism (as distinguished from the religion
of the Old Testament), and also its curse. On this point it is duty
to speak plainly, even in face of the wicked persecutions to which
the Jews have been exposed on account of it. Whatever modern
Judaism may say to the contrary, there is a foundation of truth
in the ancient heathen charge against the Jews of odium generis
humani (hatred of mankind). God had separated Israel unto Him
self by purification and renovation — and this is the original meaning
ofthe word 'holy' and 'sanctify' in the Hebrew (isnp). They
separated themselves in self-righteousness and pride — and that is
the original meaning of the word ' Pharisee ' and ' Pharisaism ' (ens).
In so saying no blame is cast on individuals; it is the system which
is at fault. This question: 'Who is my neighbour?' frequently
engages Rabbinism. The answer to it is only too clear. If a hyper-
criticism were to interpret away the passage " which directs that ¦ Ab zar.
idolaters are not to be delivered when in imminent danger, while
heretics and apostates are even to be led into it, the painful discus
sion on the meaning of Exod. xxiii. 5 * would place it beyond question, i. Babha
Mots 32 b
The sum of it is, that, except to avert hostility, a burden is only to
be unloaded, if the beast that lieth under it belongeth to an Israelite,
not if it belong to a Gentile; and so the expression/ 'the ass of cex.xxiu.s
him that hateth thee,' must be understood of a Jewish, and not of a
Gentile enemy (n"x x?® xbt rxir" k:tc).4 d Babha
It is needless to follow the subject further. But more complete lmelitrom
rebuke of Judaistic narrowness, as well as more full, generous, and
spiritual world-teaching than that of Christ's Parable could not be
imagined. The scenery and colouring are purely local. And here
we should remember, that, while admitting the lawfulness of the
widest application of details for homiletical purposes, we must take
care not to press them in a strictly exegetical interpretation. x
1 As to many of these allegorisations, germanumejussensum haclicentiatrans-
Calvin rightly observes: 'Scripture figurare liceat.' In general, see Goebel,
major habenda est reverentia, quam ut u. s.

bottom

238

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» Jer. Ber.
3 a; Shabb.
134 a

Some one coming from the Holy City, the Metropolis of Judaism,
is pursuing the solitary desert-road, those twenty-one miles to
Jericho, a district notoriously insecure, when he ' fell among robbers,
who, having both stripped and inflicted on him strokes, went away
leaving him just as he was,1 half dead.' This is the first scene. The
second opens with an expression which, theologically, as well as
exegetically, is of the greatest interest. The word rendered ' by
chance ' (crvyKvpia) occurs only in this place,2 for Scripture commonly
views matters in relation to agents rather than to results. As already
noted,3 the real meaning of the word is ' concurrence,' much like the
corresponding Hebrew term (mptt). And better definition could not
be given, not, indeed, of ' Providence, ' which is a heathen abstraction
for which the Bible has no equivalent, but for the concrete reality of
God's providing. He provides through a concurrence of circumstances,
all in themselves natural and in the succession of ordinary causation
(and this distinguishes it from the miracle), but the concurring of
which is directed and overruled by Him. And this helps us to put
aside those coarse tests of the reality of prayer and of the direct rule
of God, which men sometimes propose. Such stately ships ride not
in such shallow waters.
It was by such a ' concurrence, ' that, first a priest, then a Levite,
came down that road, when each, successively, ' when he saw him,
passed by over against (him).' It was the principle of questioning,
' Who is my neighbour? ' which led both priest and Levite to such
heartless conduct. Who knew what this wounded man was, and how
he came to lie there: and were they called upon, in ignorance of
this, to take all the trouble, perhaps incur the risk of life, which care
of him would involve? Thus Judaism (in the persons of its chief
representatives) had, by its exclusive attention to the letter, come to
destroy the spirit of the Law. Happily, there came yet another that
way, not only a stranger, but one despised, a semi-heathen Samaritan/
He asked not who the man was, but what was his need. What
ever the wounded Jew might have felt towards him, the Samaritan
proved a true 'neighbour.' 'He came towards him, and behold
ing him, he was moved with compassion.' His resolution was
soon taken. He first bound up his wounds, and then, taking
from his travelling provision wine and oil, made of them, what
was regarded as the common dressing for wounds/ Next, having

1 'rf/xiBavij TvyxdvovTa,Germ.,wie
er eben war,' Grimm, Clavis N.T.p. 438 b.
2 I cannot (as some writers do) see
any irony in the expression.

3 Vol. i. p. 560.
* In the Greek, ver. 33 begins with ' A
Samaritan, however,' to emphasise the
contrast to the priest and Levite.

THE GOOD SAMARITAN. 239
' set ' (lifted) him on his own beast, he walked by his side, and chap.
brought him to one of those houses of rest and entertainment, whose XV
designation (navS oxsiov) has passed into Rabbinic language (sp-ijie).  >  '
These khans, or hostelries, by the side of unfrequented roads, afforded
free lodgment to the traveller. But generally they also offered
entertainment, in which case, of course, the host, commonly a non-
Israelite, charged for the victuals supplied to man or beast, or for the
care taken. In the present instance the Samaritan seems himself to
have tended the wounded man all that evening. But even thus his
care did not end. The next morning, before continuing his journey,
he gave to the host two dinars — about one shilling and threepence of
our money, the amount of a labourer's wages for two days," — as it -st. Matt.
were, two days' wages for his care of him, with this provision, that if xx'
any further expense were incurred, either because the wounded man
was not sufficiently recovered to travel, or else because something
more had been supplied to him; the Good Samaritan would pay it
when he next came that way.
So far the Parable: its lesson 'the lawyer' is made himself to
enunciate. ' Which of these three seems to thee to have become
neighbour of him that fell among the robbers?' Though unwilling
to take the hated name of Samaritan on his lips, especially as the
meaning of the Parable and its anti-Rabbinic bearing were so evident,
the ' lawyer ' was obliged to reply, ' He that showed mercy on him, '
when the Saviour finally answered, ' Go, and do thou likewise. '
Some further lessons may be drawn. The Parable implies not a
mere enlargement of the Jewish ideas, but a complete change of them.
It is truly a Gospel-Parable, for the whole old relationship of mere
duty is changed into one of love. Thus, matters are placed on an
entirely different basis from that of Judaism. The question now is
not 'Who is my neighbour?' but 'Whose neighbour am I?' The
Gospel answers the question of duty by pointing us to love. Wouldst
thou know who is thy neighbour? Become a neighbour to all by the
utmost service thou canst do them in their need. And so the Gospel
would not only abolish man's enmity, but bridge over man's sepa
ration. Thus is the Parable truly Christian, and, more than this, points
up to Him Who, in our great need, became Neighbour to us, even at
the cost of all He had. And from Him, as well as by His. Word, are
we to learn our lesson of love.
2. The Parable which follows in St. Luke's narrative" seems »st. Luke
closely connected with that just commented upon. It is also a story
of a good neighbour who gives in our need, but presents another

240 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK aspect of the truth to which the Parable of the Good Samaritan had
IV pointed. Love bends to our need: this is the objective manifestation
^ — -v-—- of the Gospel. Need looks up to love, and by its cry elicits the
boon which it seeks. And this is the subjective experience of the
Gospel. The one underlies the story of the first Parable, the other
that of the second.
Some such internal connection between the two Parables seems,
indeed, indicated even by the loose manner in which this second
Parable is strung to the request of some disciples to be taught what
»ver. 1 to pray/ Like the Parable of the ' Good Samaritan, ' it is typical, and
its application would be the more felt, that it not only points to an
exemplification, but appeals to every man's conciousness of what him
self would do in certain given circumstances. The latter are as follows.
A man has a friend who, long after nightfall, unexpectedly comes to
him from a journey. He has nothing in the house, yet he must pro
vide for his need, for hospitality demands it. Accordingly, though it
be so late, he goes to his friend and neighbour to ask him for three
loaves, stating the case. On the other hand, the friend so asked re
fuses, since, at that late hour, he has retired to bed with his children,
and to grant his request would imply not only inconvenience to
himself, but the disturbing of the whole household. The main cir
cumstances therefore are: Sudden, unthought-of sense of imperative
need, obliging to make what seems an unseasonable and unreasonable
request, which, on the face of it, offers difficulties and has no claim
upon compliance. It is, therefore, not ordinary but, so to speak,
extraordinary prayer, which is here alluded to.
To return to the Parable: the question (abruptly broken off from
the beginning of the Parable in ver. 5), is what each of us would do
in the circumstances just detailed. The answer is implied in what
"ver. 8 follows/ It points to continued importunity, which would at last
obtain what it needs. ' I tell you, even if he will not give him,
rising up, because he is his friend, yet at least * on account of his
importunity, he will rise up and give him as many as he needeth.'
This literal rendering will, it is hoped, remove some of the seeming
difficulties of the Parable. It is a gross misunderstanding to describe
it as presenting a mechanical view of prayer: as if it implied, either
that God was unwilling to answer; or else, that prayer, otherwise
unheard, would be answered merely for its importunity. It must be
remembered, that he who is within is a friend, and that, under ordi-
1 did ye, Goebel, ad loc]

THE PARABLE OF THE IMPORTUNATE NEIGHBOUR. 241
nary circumstances, he would at once have complied with the request. CHAP.
But, in this case, there were special difficulties, which are represented XV
as very great; it is midnight; Jie has retired to bed, and with his ' 
children; the door is locked. And the lesson is, that where, for
some reasons, there are, or seem, special difficulties to an answer to
our prayers (it is very late, the door is no longer open, the children
have already been gathered in), the importunity arising from the
sense of our absolute need, and the knowledge that He is our Friend,
and that He has bread, will ultimately prevail. The difficulty is not
as to the giving, but as to the giving then — ' rising up,' and this is
overcome by perseverance, so that (to return to the Parable), if he
will not rise up because he is his friend, yet at least he will rise
because of his importunity, and not only give him ' three ' loaves,
but, in general, ' as many as he needeth.'
So important is the teaching of this Parable, that Christ makes
detailed application of it. In the circumstances described a man
would persevere with his friend, and in the end succeed. And,
similarly, the Lord bids us ' ask,' and that earnestly and believingly;
'seek,' and that energetically and instantly; 'knock,' and that
intently and loudly. Ask — He is a Friend, and we shall 'receive; '
' seek,' it is there, and we shall ' find; " knock,' — our need is absolute,
and it shall be opened to us. But the emphasis of the Parable and its
lesson are in the word ' every one ' (nas). Not only this or that, but
' every one, ' shall so experience it. The word points to the special
difficulties that may be in the way of answer to prayer — the difficul
ties of the ' rising up, ' which have been previously indicated in the
Parable. These are met by perseverance which indicates the reality
of our need (' ask '), the reality of our belief that the supply is there
('seek'), and the intensity and energy of our spiritnal longing
( ' knock '). Such importunity applies to ' every one, ' whoever he be,
and whatever the circumstances which would seem to render his prayer
specially difficult of answer. Though he feel that he has not and
needs, he ' asks; ' though he have lost — time, opportunities, mercies —
he ' seeks; ' though the door seem shut, he ' knocks.' Thus the Lord
is helper to 'every one; ' but, as for us, let us learn the lesson from
what we ourselves would do in analogous circumstances.
Nay, more than this, God will not deceive by the appearance of
what is not reality. He will even give the greatest gift. The Para
bolic relation is now not that of friends, but of father and son. If
the son asks for bread, will the father give what seems such, but
is only a stone? If he asks for a fish, will he tender him what

242 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK looks such, but is a serpent? If he seek an egg, will he hand to him
iv what breeds a scorpion? The need, the hunger, of the child will
"- — y — not, in answer to its prayer, receive at the Father's Hftnds, that which
seems, but gives not the reality of satisfaction — rather is poison.
Let us draw the inference. Such is our conduct — how much more
shall our heavenly Father give His Holy Spirit to them that ask
Him. That gift will not disappoint by the appearance of what is
not reality; it will not deceive either by the promise of what it does
not give, or by giving what would prove fatal. As we follow Christ's
teaching, we ask for the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, in leading
us to Him, leads us into all truth, to all life, and to what satisfies
all need.

THE THREE PARABLES OF WARNING. 243

xii. 13-21

CHAPTER XVI.
THE THREE PARABLES OF WARNING: TO THE INDIVIDUAL, TO THE NATION
AND TO THE THEOCRACY — THE FOOLISH RICH MAN— THE BARREN FIG-
TREE  THE GREAT SUPPER.
(St. Luke xii. 13-21 ; xiii. 6-9 ; xiv. 16-24.)
The three Parables, which successively follow in St. Luke's Gospel, chap.
may generally be designated as those 'of warning.' This holds XVI
specially true of the last two of them, which refer to the civil and '  , 
the ecclesiastical polity of Israel. Each of the three Parables is set
in an historical frame, having been spoken under circumstances
which gave occasion for such illustration.
1. The Parable of the foolish rich man." It appears, that some -st. Luke
one among them. that listened to Jesus conceived the idea, that the
authority of the Great Rabbi of Nazareth might be used for his own
selfish purposes. This was all he had profited, that it seemed to open
possibilities of gain — stirred thoughts of covetousness. But other
inferences also come to us. Evidently, Christ must have attracted and
deeply moved multitudes, or His interposition would not have been
sought; and, equally evidently, what He preached had made upon
this man the impression, that he might possibly enlist Him as his
champion. The presumptive evidence which it affords as regards the
effect and the subject-matter of Christ's preaching is exceedingly
interesting. On the other hand, Christ had not only no legal authority
for interfering, but the Jewish law of inheritance was so clearly defined,
and, we may add, so just, that if this person had any just or good
cause, there could have been no need for appealing to Jesus. Hence
it must have been ' covetousness, ' in the strictest sense, which
prompted it — perhaps, a wish to have, besides his own share as a
younger brother, half of that additional portion which, by law, came
to the eldest son of the family/1 Such an attempt for covetous "Bektor.
purposes to make use ofthe pure unselfish preaching of love, and to BabaB.viii.
7 Cases might, however, arise when the five sons were left, the property was
claim was doubtful, and then the inheri- divided into six parts, and the eldest son
tance would be divided (Baba B. ix. 2). had two parts, or one-third of the property.
The double part of an eldest son was If nine sons were left, the property was
computed in the following manner. If divided into ten parts, and the eldest son

244 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK derive profit from His spiritual influence, accounts for the severity with
iv which Christ rejected the demand, although, as we judge, He would,
x— —y — ' under any circumstances, have refused to interfere in purely civil
disputes, with which the established tribunals were sufficient to deal.
All this accounts for the immediate reference of our Lord to
covetousness, the folly of which He showed by this almost self-
evident principle, too often forgotten — that ' not in the super-
abounding to any one [not in that wherein he has more than enough]
consisteth his life, from the things which he possesseth. ' 1 In other
words, that part of the things which a man possesseth by which his
life is sustained, consists not in what is superabundant ; his life is
sustained by that which he needs and uses; the rest, the super
abundance, forms no part of his life, and may, perhaps, never be of
use to him. Why, then, be covetous, or long for more than we need ?
And this folly also involves danger. For, the love of these things
will engross mind and heart, and care about them will drive out
higher thoughts and aims. The moral as regarded the Kingdom of
God, and the warning not to lose it for thought of what ' perisheth
with the using,' are obvious.
The Parable itself bears on all these points. It consists of two
parts, of which the first shows the folly, the second the sin and
danger, of that care for what is beyond our present need, which is
the characteristic of covetousness. The rich man is surveying his
land, which is bearing plentifully — evidently beyond its former yield,
since the old provision for storing the corn appears no longer sufficient.
It seems implied — or, we may at least conjecture — that this was not
only due to the labour and care of the master, but that he had
devoted to it his whole thought and energy. More than this, it
seems as if, in the calculations which he now made, he looked into
the future, and saw there progressive increase and riches. As yet,
the harvest was not reaped ; but he was already considering what to
do, reckoning upon the riches that would come to him. And so he
resolved to pull down the old, and build larger barns, where he would
store his future possessions. From one aspect there would have been
nothing wrong in an act of almost necessary foresight — only great
folly in thinking, and speaking, and making plans, as if that were
already absolutely his which might never come to him at all, which,
had two parts, or a fifth of the property, or gain that might have accrued since
But there were important limitations to the father's death. For a brief sum-
this. Thus, the law did not apply to a mary, see Saalschiitz, Mos. Recht, pp.
posthumous son, nor yet in regard to the 820 &c.
mother's property, nor to any increase 7 So literally.

THE PARABLE OF THE FOOLISH RICH MAN. 245
was still unreaped, and might be garnered long after he was dead. chap.
His life was not sustained by that part of his possessions which xvi
were the ' superabounding. ' But to this folly was also added sin. ^— -^ 
For, God was not in all his thoughts. In all his plans for the future —
and it was his folly to make such absolutely — he thought not of God.
His whole heart was set on the acquisition of earthly riches — not on
the service of God. He remembered not his responsibility; all that
he had, was for himself, and absolutely his own to batten upon; ' Soul,
thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat,
drink, be merry.' He did not even remember, that there was a God
Who might cut short his years.
So had he spoken in his heart — proud, selfish, self-indulgent,
God-forgetting — as he looked forth upon what was not yet, even in
an inferior sense, his own, but which he already treated as such, and
that in the most absolute sense. And now comes the quick, sharp,
contrast, which is purposely introduced quite abruptly. 'But God
said unto Him' — not by revelation nor through inward presentiment,
but, with awful suddenness, in those unspoken words of fact which
cannot be gainsaid or answered: 'Thou fool! this very night' —
which follows on thy plans and purposings — ' thy soul is required of
thee. But, the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they
be? ' Here, with the obvious evidence of the folly of such state of
mind, the Parable breaks off. Its sinfulness — nay, and beyond this
negative aspect of it, the wisdom of righteousness in laying up the
good treasure which cannot be taken from us, appears in this con
cluding remark of Christ — 'So is he who layeth up treasure (trea-
sureth) for himself, and is not rich towards God. '
It was a barbed arrow, we might say, out of the Jewish quiver,
but directed by the Hand of the Lord. For, we read in the Talmud " -shabb.
J 163 a, line
that a Rabbi told his disciples, 'Repent the day before thy death;' ie&c. irom
and when his disciples asked him: 'Does a man know the day of
his death?' he replied, that on that very ground he should repent
to-day, lest he should die to-morrow. And so would all his days be
days of repentance. Again, the Son of Sirach wrote:" 'There is ^°°i™-
that waxeth rich by his wariness and pinching, and this is the portion
of his reward; whereas he saith, I have found rest, and now will
eat continually of my goods; and yet he knoweth not what time
shall come upon him, and that he must leave those things to others,
and die.' But we sadly miss in all this the spiritual application which
Christ made. Similarly, the Talmud, r by^ a play on the last word
(T>n), in the first verse of Psalm xlix., compares man to the weasel, '°p

Jer.
Shabb. 14 c.

246

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

' Debar. K.
9, ed.
Warsh. p.
19 b, line
6 from top
and
onwards

* St. Luke
xiii. 6-9

« Baba K.
91 b

'' Wrar. iii.
10, 8

e Phaggim,
Shebh. iv. 7

' Shebh. v 1

which laboriously gathers and deposits, not knowing for whom, while
the Midrash" tells a story, how, when a Rabbi returned from a feast
where the Host had made plans of storing his wine for a future occa
sion, the Angel of Death appeared to him, grieved for man, ' since you
say, thus and thus shall we do in the future, while no one knoweth how
soon he shall be called to die,' as would be the case with the host of
that evening, who would die after the lapse of thirty days. But once
more we ask, where is the spiritual application, such as was made by
Christ? So far from it, the Midrash adds, that when the Rabbi chal
lenged the Angel to show him the time of his own death, he received
this reply, that he had not dominion over the like of him, since
God took pleasure in their good works, and added to their days!
2. The special warning intended to be conveyed by the Parable
of the Barren Fig-tree " sufficiently appears from the context. As
explained in a previous chapter, 1 the Lord had not only corrected the
erroneous interpretation which the Jews were giving to certain re
cent national occurrences, but pointed them to this higher moral of
all such events, that, unless speedy national repentance followed, the
whole people would perish. This Parable offers not merely an exem
plification of this general prediction of Christ, but sets before us
what underlies it: Israel in its relation to God; the need of re
pentance; Israel's danger; the nature of repentance, and its urgency;
the relation of Christ to Israel; the Gospel; and the final judgment
on impenitence. As regards the details of this Parable, we mark that the fig-tree
had been specially planted by the owner in his vineyard, which was
the choicest situation. This, we know, was not unusual. Fig-trees, as
well as palm and olive-trees, were regarded as so valuable, that to cut
them down if they yielded even a small measure of fruit, was popu
larly deemed to deserve death at the Hand of God/ Ancient Jewish
writings supply interesting particulars of this tree and its culture.
According to Josephus, in favoured localities the ripe fruit hung on
the tree for ten months of the year/ the two barren months being
probably April and May, before the first of the three crops which it
bore had ripened. The first figs ' ripened towards the end of June,
sometimes earlier. The second, which are those now dried and
exported, ripened in August; the third, which were small and of
comparatively little value, in September, and often hung all winter
on the trees. A species (the Benoth Shuach) is mentioned, of
which the fruit required three years for ripening/ The fig-tree was
1 See ch. xiii. of this Book.

THE PARABLE OF THE BARREN FIG-TREE.

247

regarded as the most fruitful of all trees." On account of its re
peated crops, it was declared not subject to the ordinance which
enjoined that fruit should be left in the corners for the poor." Its
artificial inoculation was known/ The practice mentioned in the
Parable, of digging about the tree (p-ii>tt), and dunging it (y'^fa),
is frequently mentioned in Rabbinic writings, and by the same
designations. Curiously, Maimonides mentions three years as the
utmost limit within which a tree should bear fruit in the land
of Israel.4 Lastly, as trees were regarded as by their roots under
mining and deteriorating the land," a barren tree would be of threefold
disadvantage: it would yield no fruit; it would fill valuable space.
which a fruit-bearer might occupy; and it would needlessly deterio
rate the land. Accordingly, while it was forbidden to destroy fruit-
bearing trees, r it would, on the grounds above stated, be duty to cut
down a ' barren ' or ' empty ' tree (Han seraqe).
These particulars will enable us more fully to understand the
details of the Parable. Allegorically, the fig-tree served in the Old
Testament as emblem of the Jewish nation11 — in the Talmud, rather
as that of Israel's lore, and hence of the leaders and the pious
of the people/ The vineyard is in the New Testament the symbol
of the Kingdom of God, as distinct from the nation of Israel/
Thus far, then, the Parable maybe thus translated: God called Israel
as a nation, and planted it in the most favoured spot : as a fig-tree
in the vineyard of His own Kingdom. ' And He came seeking, ' as
He had every right to do, ' fruit thereon, and found none. ' It was
the third year 1 that He had vainly looked for fruit, when He turned
to His Vinedresser — the Messiah, to Whom the vineyard is committed
as its King — with this direction: 'Cut it down — why doth it also
deteriorate the soil?' It is barren, though in the best position; as
a fig-tree it ought to bear figs, and here the best; it fills the place
which a good tree might occupy; and besides, it deteriorates 2 the
soil (literally : rpnpn nx v'-rm). And its three years' barrenness has
established (as before explained) its utterly hopeless character. Then
it is that the Divine Vinedresser, in His infinite compassion, pleads,
and with far deeper reality than either Abraham or Moses could
have entreated, for the fig-tree which Himself had planted and
tended, that it should be spared 'this year also,' 'until then that I
shall dig about it, and dung it, '—till He labour otherwise than before,

CHAP. XVI

• Shebh. i, 3
b Peah i. 4
' Shebh. ii.

d Moreh
Nebhukh.iii. 37, apud
Wetstein,
ad loc.
= Baba B.
19 b

'Deut. xx,
19; Baba
K. 916; 92a

1 Joel, i. 7

'Ber. 57 a;
Mikr. on
Cant. i. 1
n St. Matt.
xx. 1 &c. ;
xxi. 33 &c.
In Jewish
thought the two
werescarcelyseparated.

1 Not after three years, but evidently
in the third year, when the third year's
¦crop should have appeared.

2 tcarapyei. Grimm renders
word, enervo, sterilem reddo.

the

248

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Luke
xiv. 16-24.

even by His Own Presence and Words, nay, by laying to its roots
His most precious Blood. ' And if then it bear fruit '—here the text
abruptly breaks off, as implying that in such case it would, of course,
be allowed to remain; ' but if not, then against' the future (coming)
year shalt thou cut it down.' The Parable needs no further com
mentation.' In the words of a recent writer:3 'Between the tree
and the axe nothing intervenes but the intercession of the Gardener,
Who would make a last effort, and even His petition applies only to
a short and definite period, and, in case it pass without result, this
petition itself merges in the proposal, " But if not. then cut it down. " :
How speedily and terribly the warning came true, not only students
of history, but all men and in all ages have been made to know. Of
the lawfulness of a further application of this Parable to all kindred
circumstances of nation, community, family, nay, even of individuals,
it is not necessary to speak.
3. The third Parable of warning — that of the Great Supper" —
refers not to the political state of Israel, but to their ecclesiastical
status, and their continuance as the possessors and representatives
of the Kingdom of God. It was spoken after the return of Jesus
from the Feast of the Dedication, and therefore carries us beyond the
point in this history which we have reached. Accordingly, the
attendant circumstances will be explained in the sequel. In regard
to these we only note, how appropriately such a warning of Israel's
spiritual danger, in consequence of their hardness of heart, misre
presentation, and perversion of God's truth, would come at a Sabbath-
meal of the Pharisees, when they lay in wait against Him, and He
first challenged their externalising of God's Day and Law to the
subversion of its real meaning, and then rebuked the self-assertion,
pride, and utter want of all real love on the part of these leaders of
Israel. What led up to the Parable of ' the Great Supper ' happened after
these things: after His healing of the man with the dropsy in sight
of them all on the Sabbath, after His twofold rebuke of their per
version ofthe Sabbath-Law, and of those marked characteristics of
Pharisaism, which showed how far they were from bringing forth fruit
worthy of the Kingdom, and how. instead of representing, they mis-

1 £li to /.isXXov. Goebel points to a
similiar use of eti in St. Luke i. 20 ; Acts
xiii. 12.
2 Dean Plumptre regards the fig-tree
as the symbol of a soul making fruitless
profession; the vineyard as that of Israel.
For homiletical purposes, or for practical

application, this is, of course, perfectly
fair; but not in strict exegesis. To waive
other and obvious objections, it were to
introduce modern, Christian ideas, which
would have been wholly unintelligible to
Christ's hearers.
3 Goebel.

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE THIRD PARABLE WAS SPOKEN. 249
represented the Kingdom, and were utterly unfit ever to do other- CHAP.
wise. " The Lord had spoken of making a feast, not for one's kindred, XVI
nor for the rich — whether such outwardly, or mentally and spritually  r 
from" the standpoint of the Pharisees— but for the poor and afflicted. 'J*- Lu^e
This would imply true spirituality, because that fellowship of giving,
which descends to others in order to raise them as brethen, not
condescends, in order to be raised by them as their Master and
Superior/ And He had concluded with these words: 'And thou "vv. 12, 13
shalt be blessed — because they have not to render back again to
thee, for it shall be rendered back to thee again in the Resurrection
Ofthe JllSt.'" 'St. Luke
XIV. 14
It was this last clause — but separated, in true Pharisaic spirit,
from that which had preceded, and indicated the motive — on which
one of those present now commented, probably with a covert, per
haps a provocative, reference to what formed the subject of Christ's
constant teaching: ' Blessed whoso shall eat bread in the Kingdom
of Heaven. ' An expression this, which to the Pharisee meant the
common Jewish expectancy of a great feast * at the beginning of the
Messianic Kingdom. So far he had rightly understood, and yet he
had entirely misunderstood, the words of Christ. Jesus had, indeed,
referred to the future retribution of (not, for) deeds of love, among
which He had named as an instance, suggested by the circumstances,
a feast for, or rather brotherly love and fellowship towards, the poor
and suffering. But although the Pharisee referred to the Messianic
Day, his words show that he did not own Jesus as the Messiah.
Whether or not it was the object of his exclamation, as sometimes
religious commonplaces or platitudes are in our days, to interrupt
the course of Christ's rebukes, or, as before hinted, to provoke Him
to unguarded speech, must be left undetermined. What is chiefly
apparent is, that this Pharisee separated what Christ said about the
blessings of the first Resurrection from that with which He had
connected them— we do not say as their condition, but as logically
their moral antecedent: viz., love, in opposition to self-assertion
and self-seeking. The Pharisee's words imply that, like his class,
he, at any rate, fully expected to share in these blessings, as a
matter of course, and because he was a Pharisee. Thus to leave
out Christ's anteceding words was not only to set them aside, but
to pervert His saying, and to place the blessedness of the future
on the very opposite basis from that on which Christ had rested it.
1 The expression ' eating bread ' is a Old Testament and in Rabbinic writings
well-known Hebraism, used both in the for taking part in a meal.

250 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK Accordingly, it was to this man personally a that the Parable was
IV addressed.
- — t  ' There can be no difficulty in understanding the main ideas under-
»ver. i6 lying the Parable. The man who made the ' Great Supper' 1 was
» is. xxv. 6, ue "who had, in the Old Testament, prepared ' a feast of fat things. ' *
The ' bidding many ' preceded the actual announcement of the day
and hour of the feast. We understand by it a preliminary intima
tion of the feast then preparing, and a general invitation of the
guests, who were the chief people in the city; for, as we shall pre
sently see, the scene is laid in a city. This general announcement
was made in the Old Testament institutions and prophecies, and the
guests bidden were those in the city, the chief men — not the igno
rant and those out of the way, but the men who knew, and read, and
expounded these prophecies. At last the preparations were ended,
and the Master sent out His Servant, not necessarily to be under
stood of any one individual in particular — such as John the Baptist
— but referring to whomsoever He would employ, in His Service for
that purpose. It was to intimate to the persons formerly bidden,
that everything was now ready. Then it was that, however differing
in their special grounds for it, or expressing it with more or less
courtesjr, they were all at one in declining to come. The feast, to
which they had been bidden some time before, and to which they
had apparently agreed to come (at least, this was implied), was,
when actually announced as ready, not what they had expected, at
any rate not what they regarded as more desirable than what they
had, and must give up in order to come to it. For — and this seems
one of the principal points in the Parable — to come to that feast, to
enter into the Kingdom, implies the giving up of something that
seems if not necessary yet most desirable, and the enjoyment of
which appears only reasonable. Be it possession, business, and
pleasure (Stier), or the priesthood, the magistracy, and the people
generally (St. Augustine), or the priesthood, the Pharisees, and the
Scribes, or the Pharisees, the Scribes, and the self-righteously vir
tuous, with reference to whom we are specially to think of the three
fold excuse, the main point lies in this, that, when the time came, they
all refused to enter in, each having some valid and reasonable excuse.
But the ultimate ground of their refusal was, that they felt no real
desire, and saw nothing attractive in such a feast;, had no real
reverence for the host: in short, that to them it was not a feast at
all, but something much less to be desired than what they had, and'
1 Rather the principal meal, which was towards evening.

THE PARABLE OF THE GREAT SUPPER. 251
would have been obliged' to give up, if they had complied with the chap.
invitation. xvi
Then let the feast — for it was prepared by the goodness and  <  '
liberality of the Host — be for those who were in need of it, and to
whom it would be a feast: the poor and those afflicted — the maimed,
and blind, and lame, on whom those great citizens who had been •
first bidden would look down. This, with reference to, and in higher
spiritual explanation of, what Christ had previously said about bid
ding such to our feasts of fellowship and love/ Accordingly, the »st. Luke
Servant is now directed to 'go out quickly into the (larger) streets
and the (narrow) lanes of the City, — a trait which shows that the
scene is laid in ' the City, ' the professed habitation of God. The
importance of this circumstance is evident. It not only explains who
the first bidden chief citizens were, but also that these poor were the
despised ignorant, and the maimed, lame, and blind — such as the
publicans and sinners. These are they in ' the streets ' and 'lanes; '
and the Servant is directed, not only to invite, but to ' bring them
in, ' as otherwise they might naturally shrink from coming to such
a feast. But even so, ' there is yet room; ' for the great Lord of the
house has, in His great liberality, prepared a very great feast for
very many. And so the Servant is once more sent, so that the
Master's ' house may be filled. ' But now he is bidden to ' go out, '
outside the City, outside the Theocracy, ' into the highways and
hedges, ' to those who travel along the world's great highway, or who
have fallen down weary, and rest by its hedges; into the busy, or
else weary, heathen world. This reference to the heathen world is
the more apparent that, according to the Talmud, " there were com- »b. Batiu-.
rI ' ° . . 4 a, lines 8-
monly no hedges round the fields of the Jews. And this time the io irom
J ° bottom
direction to the Servant is not, as in regard to those naturally bash
ful outcasts of the City — who would scarcely venture to the great
house — to 'bring them in,' but 'constrain ' [without a pronoun] 'to
come in,' Not certainly as indicating their resistance and implying
force, ' but as the moral constraint of earnest, pressing invitation,
coupled with assurance both of the reality of the feast and of their
welcome to it. For, these wanderers on the world's higlrway had,
before the Servant came to them, not known anything of the Master
of the house, and all was quite new and unexpected. Their- being
invited by a Lord Whom they had not known, perhaps never heard
of before, to a City in which they were strangers, and to a feast for
1 It is most sad, and seems almost in ' has from of old been quoted in justi-
incredible, that this ' constrain to come flcation of religious persecution.

252 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK which — as wayfarers, or as resting by the hedges, or else as working
IV within their enclosure — they were wholly unprepared, required
^— — y~— ' special urgency, ' a constraining, ' to make them either believe in it,
or come to it from where the messengers found them, and that with
out preparing for it by dress or otherwise. And so the house would
• be filled! Here the Parable abruptly breaks off. What follows are the
words of our Lord in explanation and application of it to the com
pany then present: ' For I say unto you, that none of those men
which were bidden shall taste of My supper.' And this was the final
answer to this Pharisee and to those with him at that table, and to
all such perversion of Christ's Words and misapplication of God's
Promises as he and they were guilty of.

THE THREE PARABLES OF GOSPEL-TIDINGS. 253

CHAPTER XVII.
THE THREE PARABLES OF THE GOSPEL: OF THE RECOVERY OF THE
LOST  OF THE LOST SHEEP, THE LOST DRACHM, THE LOST SON.
(St. Luke xv.)
A simple perusal of the three Parables, grouped together in the CHAP.
fifteenth chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, will convince us of their con- XVII
nection. Although they treat of ' repentance, ' we can scarcely call v— v~~
them ' The Parables of Repentance; ' for, except in the last of them,
the aspect of repentance is subordinate to that of restoration, which
is the moral effect of repentance. They are rather peculiarly Gospel-
Parables 'of the recovery of the lost: ' in the first instance, through
the unwearied labour; in the second, through the anxious care, of
the owner; and in the third Parable, through the never-ceasing love
of the Father.
Properly to understand these Parables, the circumstance which
elicited them must be kept in view. As Jesus preached the Gospel
of God's call, not to those who had, as they imagined, prepared them
selves for the Kingdom by study and good works, but as that to a
door open, and a welcome free to all, ' all the publicans and sinners
were [constantly] drawing near to Him.' It has formerly been
shown,1 that the Jewish teaching concerning repentance was quite
other than, nay, contrary to, that of Christ. Theirs was not a Gospel
to the lost: they had nothing to say to sinners. They called upon
them to ' do penitence, ' and then Divine Mercy, or rather Justice,
would have its reward for the penitent. Christ's Gospel was to the
lost as such. It told them of forgiveness, of what the Saviour was
doing, and the Father purposed and felt for them; and that, not in
the future and as reward of their penitence, but now in the imme
diate present. From what we know ofthe Pharisees, we can scarcely
wonder that 'they were murmuring at Him, saying, This man re-
ceiveth "sinners," and eateth with them. Whether or not Christ
1 See Book III. ch. xvii.

254

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Matt.
ix. 10, 11

>> St. Luke
-xv. 4

had on this, as on other occasions," joined at a meal with such.
persons — which, of course, in the eyes of the Pharisees would have

been a great aggravation

to His offence — their charge was so far
true, that ' this One, ' in contrariety to the principles and practice of
Rabbinism, ' received sinners ' as such, and consorted with them.
Nay, there was even more than they charged Him with: He not
only received them when they sought Him, but He sought them, so
as to bring them to Him; .not, indeed, that they might remain
'sinners,' but that, by seeking and finding them, they might be re
stored to the Kingdom, and there might be joy in heaven over them.
And so these are truly Gospel-Parables, although presenting only
some aspects of it.
Besides their subject-matter, these three Parables have some
other points in common. Two things are here of chief interest.
They all proceed on the view that the work of the Father and of
Christ, as regards ' the Kingdom,' is the same; that Christ was doing
the work of the Father, and that they who know Christ know the
Father also. That work was the restoration of the lost; Christ had
come to do it, and' it was the longing of the Father to welcome the
lost home again. Further, and this is only second in importance,
the lost was still God's property; and he who had wandered farthest
was a child of the Father, and considered as such. And, although
this may, in a wider sense, imply the general propriety of Christ in
all men, and the universal Fatherhood of God, yet, remembering that
this Parable was spoken to Jews, we, to whom these Parables now
come, can scarcely be wrong in thinking, as we read them, with
special thankfulness of our Christian privileges, as by Baptism num
bered among the sheep of His Flock, the treasure of His Possession,
and the children of His Home.1
In other particulars there are, however, differences, all the more
marked that they are so finely shaded. These concern the lost, their
restoration, and its results.
1. The Parable ofthe Lost Sheep. — At the outset we remark that
this Parable and the next, that of the Lost Drachm, are intended as
an answer to the Pharisees. Hence they are addressed to them:
'What man of you?'b 'or what woman?'0 just as His late rebuke
to them on the subject of their Sabbath-cavils had been couched:

1 The only other alternative would
seem, if one were to narrow the under
lying ideas in a strictly Predestinarian
sense. But this seems not only incom
patible with the third Parable, where all

turns on personal resolve, but runs con
trary to the whole spirit of these Para
bles, which is not of the exclusion of
any, but of the widest inclusion.

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP. 255
'Which of you shall have a son or an ox fallen into a well?'" Not chap.
so the last Parable, of the Lost Son, in which He passed from de- XVII
fence, or rather explanation, of His conduct, to its higher reason, ^- — ~< —
showing that He was doing the work of the Father. Hence, while ° st. Luke
. ' xiv. 5
the element of comparison (with that which had not been lost) ap
pears in most detailed form in the first Parable, it is generalised in
the second, and wholly omitted in the third.
Other differences have to be marked in the Parables themselves.
In the first Parable (that of the Lost Sheep) the main interest centres
in the lost; in the second (that of the Lost Drachm), in the search;
in the third, in the restoration. And although in the third Parable
the Pharisees are not addressed, there is the highest personal appli
cation to them in the words which the Father speaks to the elder
son — an application, not so much of warning, as of loving correction ¦
and entreaty, and which seems to imply, what otherwise these Para
bles convey, that at least these Pharisees had ' murmured, ' not so
much from bitter hostility to Christ, as from spiritual ignorance and
misunderstanding. Again, these Parables, and especially that of the Lost Sheep, are
evidently connected with the preceding series, that 'of warnings.'
The last of these showed how the poor, the blind, lame, and maimed,
nay, even the wanderers on the world's highway, were to be the
guests at the heavenly Feast. And this, not only in the future, and
after long and laborious preparation, but now, through the agency of
the Saviour. As previously stated, Rabbinism placed acceptance at
the end of repentance, and made it its wages. And this, because it
knew not, nor felt the power of sin, nor yet the free grace of God.
The Gospel places acceptance at the beginning of repentance, and as
the free gift of God's love. And this, because it not only knows the
power of sin, but points to a Saviour, provided of God.
The -Lost Sheep is only one among a hundred: not a very great
loss. Yet which among us would not, even from the common
motives of ownership, leave the ninety-and-nine, and go after it, all
the more that it has strayed into the wilderness? And, to take these
Pharisees on their own ground,1 should not the Christ have done
likewise to the straying and almost lost sheep of His own flock?
Nay, quite generally and to all time, is this not the very work of the
'Good Shepherd,' and may we not, each of us, thus draw from it
i There is to some extent a Rabbinic wine, leaves the eleven and follows the
parallel Parable (Ber. R. 86, ed. Warsh. twelfth into the shop of a Gentile, for
STj about the middle), where one fear (hat the wine which it bears might
who is driving twelve animals laden with be mixed there.

256 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK precious comfort? As we think of it, we remember that it is natural
IV for the foolish sheep so to wander and stray. And we think not only
^—~-y — ' of those sheep which Jewish pride and superciliousness had left to go
astray, but of our own natural tendency to wander. And we recall
the saying of St. Peter, which, no doubt, looked back upon this
Parable: 'Ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned
*ipet. H.25 unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 'a It is not difficult in
imagination to follow the Parabolic picture: how in its folly and
ignorance the sheep strayed further and further, and at last was lost
in solitude and among stony places; how the shepherd followed and
found it, weary and footsore; and then with tender care lifted it on
his shoulder, and carried it home, gladsome that he had found the
lost. And not only this, but when, after long absence, he returned
• home with his found sheep, that now nestled close to its Saviour, he
called together his friends, and bade them rejoice with hiin over the
erst lost and now found treasure.
It needs not, and would only diminish the pathos of this exquisite
Parable, were we to attempt interpreting its details. They apply
wherever and to whatever they can be applied. Of these three things
we think: of the lost sheep; of the Good Shepherd, seeking, finding,
bearing, rejoicing; and of the sympathy of all who are truly friends-
like-minded with Him. These, then, are the emblems of heavenly
things. In heaven — oh, how different the feeling from that of Pha
risaism! View 'the flock' as do the Pharisees, and divide them into
those who need and who need not repentance, the ' sinners ' and the
'righteous,' as regards man's application of the Law — does not this
Parable teach us that in heaven there shall be joy over the ' sinner
that repenteth ' more than over the ' ninety-and-nine ' 'righteous,'
which ' have not need of repentance ' ? And to mark the terrible
contrast between the teaching of Christ and that of the Pharisees; to
mark also, how directly from heaven must have been the message of
Jesus, and how poor sinners must have felt it such, we put down in
all its nakedness the message which Pharisaism brought to the lost.
Christ said to them: 'There is joy in heaven over one sinner that
repenteth.' Pharisaism said — and we quote here literally — ' There is
bsiphre, )°y before God when those who provoke Him perish from the world/"
t!?a„nnpd~<n 2. In proceeding to the second Parable, that of the Lost Drachm,
iro'mtop we must keep i11 mind taat iii the first the danger of being lost arose
from the natural tendency of the sheep to wander.' In the second
1 In St. Matt, xviii. 12-14, the same cation— not as here to the loss,but to what
Parable is used, but with different appli- men might deem the smallness of the

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST DRACHM. 25 7
Parable it is no longer our natural tendency to which our loss is CHAP.
attributable. The drachm (about 1\d. of our money) has been lost, XVII
as the woman, its owner, was using or counting her money. The
loss is the more sensible, as it is one out of only ten, which constitute
the owner's property. But it is still in the house— not like the
sheep that had gone astray — only covered by the dust that is con
tinually accumulating from the work and accidents around. And so
it is more and more likely to be buried under it, or swept into chinks
and corners, and less and less likely to be found as time passes. But
the woman lights a lamp, sweeps the house, and seeks diligently, till
she has found it. And then she calleth together those around, and
bids them rejoice with her over the finding of the lost part of her
possessions. And so there is joy in the presence of the Angels over
one sinner that repenteth. The comparison with others that need
not such is now dropped, because, whereas formerly the sheep had
strayed — though from the frowardness of its nature — here the money
had simply been lost, fallen among the dust that accumulates —
practically, was no longer money, or of use; became covered, hidden,
and was in danger of being for ever out of sight, not serviceable, as
it was intended to be and might have been.
We repeat, the interest of this Parable centres in the search, and
the loss is caused, not by natural tendency, but by surrounding cir
cumstances, which cover up the bright silver, hide it, and render it
useless as regards its purpose, and lost to its owner.
3. If it has already appeared that the two first Parables are not
merely a repetition, in different form, of the same thought, but
represent two different aspects and causes of the ' being lost ' —
the essential difference between them appears even more clearly in
the third Parable, that of the Lost Son. Before indicating it in
detail, we may mark the similarity in form, and the contrast in
spirit, of analogous Rabbinic Parables. The thoughtful reader will
have noted this even in the Jewish parallel to the first Parable,1
where the reason of the man following the straying animal is
Pharisaic fear and distrust, lest the Jewish wine which it carried
should become mingled with that of the Gentiles. Perhaps, how
ever, this is a more apt parallel, when the Midrash" relates how, «onEx.iii.
when Moses fed the sheep of Jethro in the wilderness, and a kid had
gone astray, he went after it, and found it drinking at a spring. As
he thought it might be weary, he laid it on his shoulder and
loss, with special reference to the com- our A.V. is spurious).
mand in ver. 10 (ver. 11 in the text of ] See Note on p. 255 of this chapter.

¦2oS

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

c Midr. on
Cant. i. 1,
ed. Warsh
p. 3 a,
about the
. middle

>i Ber. 34 b
about the
middle

'Jer. iii. 12
e Debar. R.
2, on Deut.
iii. 25,
which, in
general,
contains several re
ferences to
repentance.
ed. Warsh.
p.7 b, about
the middle

brought it back, when God said that, because he had shown pity-
on the sheep of a man, He would give him His own sheep, Israel, to
feed/ As a parallel to the second Parable, this may be quoted as
similar in form, though very different in spirit, when a Rabbi notes, h
that, if a man had lost a Sela (drachm) or anything else of value in his
house, he would light ever so many lights (m'^nc n>23 rvn: ~7D3 yb-fc)
till he had found what provides for .only one hour in this world.
How much more, then, should he search, as for hidden treasures, for
the words of the Law, on which depends the life of this and of
the world to come ! g And in regard to the high place which Christ
assigned to the repenting sinner, we may note that, according to
the leading Rabbis, the penitents would stand nearer to God than
the 'perfectly righteous' (a^Tm;, c*p"|}>), since, in Is. lvii. 19, peace
was first bidden to those who had been afar off, and then only to
those near. This opinion was, however, not shared by all, and one
Rabbi maintained," that, while all the prophets had only prophesied
with reference to penitents (this had been the sole object of their
mission), yet, as regarded the ' perfectly righteous, ' ' eye hath not seen'
O God, beside Thee, what He hath prepared' for them/' Lastly, it
may, perhaps, be noted, that the expression 'there is joy before Him '
(Tizb "hot nrrn) is not uncommon in Jewish writings with reference
to events which take place on earth.
To complete these notes, it may be added that, besides illustrations,
to which reference will be made in the sequel, Rabbinic tradition
supplies a parallel to at least part of the third Parable, that of the
Lost Son. It tells us that, while prayer may sometimes find the gate
of access closed, it is never shut against repentance, and it introduces
a Parable in which a king sends a tutor after his son, who, in his
wickedness, had left the palace, with this message : ' Return, my son! '
to which the latter replied: 'With what face can I return? I am
ashamed!' On which the father sends this message: 'My son, is
there a son who is ashamed to return to his father — and shaft thou
not return to thy father? Thou shalt return.' So, continues the
Midrash, had God sent Jeremiah after Israel in the hour of their
sin with the call to return, f and the comforting reminder that it was
to their Father/
In the Parable of ' the Lost Son, ' the main interest centres in his
restoration. It is not now to the innate tendency of his nature, nor
yet to the work and dust in the house that the loss ' is attributable,
but to the personal, free choice of the individual. He does not
stray; he does not fall aside — he wilfully departs, and under aggra-

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SON.

259

vated circumstances. It is the younger of two sons of a father,
who is equally loving to both, and kind even to his hired servants,
whose home, moreover, is one not only of sufficiency, but of super
abundance and wealth. The demand which he makes for the
' portion of property falling ' to him is founded on the Jewish Law of
Inheritance.1 Presumably, the father had only these two sons. The
eldest would receive two .portions, the younger the third of all
movable property. The father could not have disinherited the

younger son.

although

if there had been several younger sons, he

might have divided the property falling to them as he wished, pro
vided he expressed only his disposition, and did not add that such or
such of the children were to have a less share or none at all. On
the other hand, a man might, during his lifetime, dispose of all his
property by gift, as he chose, to the disadvantage, or even the total
loss, ofthe first-born, or of any other children; nay, he might give all
to strangers/ In such cases, as, indeed, in regard to all such dis
positions, greater latitude was allowed if the donor was regarded as
dangerously ill, than if he was in good health. In the latter case a
legal formality of actual seizure required to be gone through. With
reference to the two eventualities just mentioned — that of diminishing
or taking away the portion of younger children, and the right of gift
— the Talmud speaks of Testaments,3 which bear the name Diyatiqi,
as in the New Testament/ These dispositions might be made either
in writing or orally. But if the share of younger children was to be
diminished or taken away, the disposition must be made by a person
presumably near death (Shekhibh mera). But no one in good health
(Bari) could diminish (except by gift) the legal portion of a younger
son/ It thus appears that the younger son was, by law, fully entitled
to his share of the possessions, although, of course, he had no right
to claim it during the lifetime of his father. That he did so, might
have been due to the "feeling that, after all, he must make his own
way in the world; to dislike ofthe order and discipline of his home;
to estrangement from his elder brother; or, most likely, to a desire
for liberty and enjoyment, with the latent belief that he would

1 See ch. xvi. Note 1.
2 But in regard to such disinheriting
of children, even if they were bad, it wa3
said, that the Spirit of Wisdom did not
rest on them who made such disposition
(Baba B. viii. 5).
3 It may be interesting here to quote,
in connection with the interpretation of

CHAP. XVII

" Baba B.
viii. 6;
Moed K.
iii. 3

Heb. vii. 18, viii. 7-13, this Rabbinic
principle: ¦ A testament makes void a
[previous] testament,' Jer. BabaB. 16 6,
below. 4 The present Jewish Law of Inherit
ance is fully given in Fassel, Mos. Rabb.
Civil-Recht, vol. i. pp. 274-412.

260

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Luke
xiii. 2, 3

» Baba K.
82 b, and
the refer
ence to it
in the Mid
rash on
Eccles.viii. 1

succeed well enough if left to himself. At any rate, his conduct,
whatever his motives, was most heartless as regarded his father, and
sinful as before God. Such a disposition could not prosper. The
father had yielded to his demand, and, to be as free as possible from
control and restraint, the younger son had gone into a far country.
There the natural sequences soon appeared, and his property was
wasted in riotous living. Regarding the demand for his inheritance
as only a secondary trait in the Parable, designed, on the one hand,
more forcibly to bring out the guilt of the son, and, on the other,
the goodness, and afterwards the forgiveness, of the Father, we can
scarcely doubt that by the younger son we are to understand those
' publicans and sinners ' against whose reception by, and fellowship
with, Christ the Pharisees had murmured.
The next scene in the history is misunderstood when the ob
jection is raised, that the young man's misery is there represented as
the result of Providential circumstances rather than of his own mis
doing. To begin with, he would not have been driven to such straits
in the famine, if he had not wasted his substance with riotous living.
Again, the main object is to show, that absolute liberty and indulgence
of sinful desires and passions ended in anything but happiness. The
Providence of God had an important part in this. Far more frequently
are folly and sin punished in the ordinary course of Providence than
by special judgments. Indeed, it is contrary to the teaching of
Christ," and it would lead to an unmoral view of life, to regard such
direct interpositions as necessary, or to substitute them for the ordi
nary government of God. Similarly, for our awakening also we are
frequently indebted to what is called the Providence, but what is
really the manifold working together of the grace, of God. And so
we find special meaning in the occurrence of this famine. That, in
his want, ' he clave ' (skoWij&i?) to one of the citizens of that country,'
seems to indicate that the man had been unwilling to engage the dis
sipated young stranger, and only yielded to his desperate importunity.
This also explains how he employed him in the lowest menial service,
that of feeding swine. To a Jew, there was more than degradation
in this, since the keeping of swine (although perhaps the ownership
rather than the feeding) was prohibited to Israelites under a curse/ "
And even in this demeaning service he was so evil entreated, that for
very hunger he would fain have ' filled his belly with the carob-pods
that the swine did eat.' But here the same harshness, which had

1 More literally, -was glued.' The
LXX. translate thus the Hebrew i?2*l, ' to
cleave.'

' This prohibition is connected by tra
dition with Maccabean times.

RETURN AND WELCOME OF THE LOST SON. 261
sent him to such employment, met him on the part of all the people CHAP.
of that country: ' and no man gave unto him,' even sufficient of such XVII
food. What perhaps gives additional meaning to this description is ¦ — y — ¦
the Jewish saying: 'When Israel is reduced to the carob-tree, they
become repentant. ' " 1 ¦ vayyik.
. B. 35 ed.
It was this pressure of extreme want which first showed to the warsh.,
, . . pp. 63 b, 54
younger son the contrast between the country and the circumstances «¦
to which his sin had brought him, and the plentiful provision of the
home he had left, and the kindness which provided bread enough
and to spare for even the hired servants. There was only a step
between what he said, ' having come into himself, ' and his resolve
to return, though its felt difficulty seems implied in the expression:
' I will arise. ' Nor would he go back with the hope of being reinstated
in his position as son, seeing he had already received, and wasted in
sin, his portion of the patrimony. All he sought was to be made as
one of the hired servants. And, alike from true feeling, and to show
that this was all his pretence, he would preface his request by the
confession, that he had sinned ' against heaven ' — a frequent He
braism for ' against God ' 2 — and in the sight of his father, and hence
could no longer lay claim to the name of son. The jirovision of the
son he had, as. stated, already spent, the name he no longer deserved.
This favour only would he seek, to be as a hired servant in his
father's house, instead of in that terrible, strange land of famine and
harshness. But the result was far other than he could have expected. When
we read that, ' while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, ' we
must evidently understand it in the sense, that his father had been
always on the outlook for him, an impression which is strengthened
by the later command to the servants to ' bring the calf, the fatted
one,'" as if it had been specially fattened against his return. As he i st. Luke
now saw him, ' he was moved with compassion, and he ran, and he
fell on his neck, and covered him with kisses.'3 Such a reception
rendered the purposed request, to be made as one of the hired
1 The fruit of the carob-tree is re- food of ascetics, such as Chanina b. Dosa,
garded in Jewish and heathen literature &c. (Ber. 17 b), and Simeon b. Jochai
as the poorest, and, indeed, only fit for (Shabb. 33 b), even as it had been that of
animals. See Wetstein ad loc. Accord- John the Baptist. Its leaves seem on
ing to Jewish ideas, it took seventy years occasions to have been used as writing-
before the carob-tree bore fruit (Bekhor. material (Tos. Gitt. 2).
8 a). It is at least doubtful whether the 2 Other terms were also substituted
tree is mentioned in the Old Testament (such as 'Might,' 'Mercy,' &c.) — with the
(the X33 of 2 Sam. v. 23, 24). In the view of avoiding needless mention of
Mishnah it is frequently referred to the Deity.
(Peah i. 5; Shabb. xxiv. 2; Baba B. ii. 3 Or 'kissed him much,' KaretpiXr/crEy
7). Its fruit seems to have been the olvtoy.

XV. 23

262

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» ver. 21.
See marg.
ol E. V.

b Siphre,
ed. Friedin.
p. 35 a

servants, impossible — and its spurious insertion in the text of some
important manuscripts " aflbrds sad evidence of the want of spiritual
tact and insight of early copyists. The father's love had anticipated
his confession, and rendered its self-spoken sentence of condemnation
impossible. ' Perfect love casteth out fear, ' and the hard thoughts
concerning himself and his deserts on the part of the returning
sinner were banished by the love of the father. And so he only
made confession of his sin and wrong — not now as preface to the
request to be taken in as a servant, but as the outgoing of a humbled,
grateful, truly penitent heart. Him whom want had humbled, thought
had brought to himself, and mingled need and hope led a suppliant
servant — the love of a father, which anticipated his confession, and
did not even speak the words of pardon, conquered, and so morally
begat him a second time as his son. Here it deserves special notice,
as marking the absolute contrast between the teaching of Christ and
Rabbinism, that we have in one of the oldest Rabbinic works " a
Parable exactly the reverse of this, when the son of a friend is
redeemed from bondage, not as a son, but to be a slave, that so
obedience might be demanded of him. The inference drawn is, that
the obedience ofthe redeemed is not that of filial love of the pardoned,
but the enforcement ofthe claim of a master. How otherwise in the
Parable and teaching of Christ !
But even so the story of love has not come to an end. They
have reached the house. And now the father would not only restore
the son, but convey to him the evidence of it, and he would do so
before, and by the servants. The three tokens of wealth and position
are to be furnished him. ' Quickly ' the servants are to bring forth
the 'stola,' the upper garment of the higher classes, and that 'the
first ' — the best, and this instead of the tattered, coarse raiment of
the foreign swineherd. Similarly, the finger-ring for his hand, and
the sandals for his unshod feet, would indicate the son of the house.
And to mark this still further, the servants were not only to. bring
these articles, but themselves to ' put them on ' the son, so as thereby
to own his mastership. And yet further, the calf, ' the fatted one '
for this very occasion, was to be killed, and there was to be a joyous
feast, for ' this ' his son ' was dead, and is come to life again; was
lost, and is found.' 1
Thus far for the reception of ' publicans and sinners, ' and all in
every time whom it may concern. Now for the other aspect of the
1 Thus the text correctly. As it seems rect, but, as Goebel remarks, they would
to me, the words do not, in the first scarcely have, in that sense, been ad*
place, point to a moral change. Dog- dressed to the servants.
matically, the inferenee.is no doubt cor-

THE ERROR OF THE ELDER SON. 263
history. While this was going on, so continues the Parable, the elder CHAP.
brother was still in the field. On his return home, he inquired of XVII
a servant the reason of the festivities which he heard within the ^— ~>  '
house. Informed that his younger brother had come, and the call-
long prepared against a feast had been killed, because his father had
recovered him ' safe and sound, ' he was angry, would not go in, and
even refused the request to that effect of the father, who had come out
for the purpose. The harsh words of reproach with which he set forth
his own apparent wrongs could have only one meaning: his father had
never rewarded him for his services. On the other hand, as soon as
' this ' his ' son ' — whom he will not even call his brother — had come
back, notwithstanding all his disservice, he had made a feast of joy!
But in this very thing lay the error of the elder son, and — to
apply it — the fatal mistake of Pharisaism. The elder son regarded
all as of merit and reward, as work and return. , But it is not so.
We mark, first, that the same tenderness which had welcomed the
returning son, now met the elder brother. He spoke to the angry
man, not in the language of merited reproof, but addressed him
lovingly as ' son, ' and reasoned with him. And then, when he had
shown him his wrong, he would fain recall him to better feeling by
telling him of the other as his ' brother. ' a But the main point is » st. Luke
this. There can be here no question of desert. So long as the son
is in His Father's house He gives in His great goodness to His child
all that is the Father's. But this poor lost one — still a son and a
brother — he has not got any reward, only been taken back again by a
Father's love, when he had come back to Him in the deep misery of his
felt need. This son, or rather, as the other should view him, this
'brother,' had been dead, and was come to life again; lost, and was
found. And over this ' it was meet to make merry and be glad,'
not to murmur. Such murmuring came from thoughts of work and
pay — wrong in themselves, and foreign to the proper idea of Father
and son; such joy, from a Father's heart. The elder brother's were
the thoughts of, a servant: • of service and return; the younger
brother's was the welcome of a son in the mercy and everlasting love
of a Father. And this to us, and to all time !
1 It maybe worth mentioning a some- king had made for all the people, but to
what similar parable in Bemidb. R. 15 (ed. which he does not bid his special friend.
Warsh. p. 62 b, near beginning). Refer- And while the latter seems to fear that
ence is made to the fact, that, accord- this exclusion may imply disfavour, the
ing to Numb, vii., all the twelve tribes king has a special feast for his friend
brought gifts, except Levi. Upon that only, and shows him that while the
follows in Numb. viii. the consecration of common meal was for all, the special
the Levites to the service of the Lord, feast is for those he specially loves.
The Midrash likens it to a feast which a

xv. 32

264

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER XVIII.

BOOK IV

» St. Luke

xvi.

» verl

« ver. 15

a St. Luke
xv. 1. 2

« St. Luke
xvi 15
' ver. 16
k ver. 17
" ver. 18

THE UNJUST STEWARD — DIVES AND LAZARUS — JEWISH AGRICULTURAL
NOTES — PRICES OF PRODUCE — WRITING AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS —
PURPLE AND FINE LINEN — JEWISH NOTIONS OF HADES.
(St. Luke xvi.)
Although widely differing in their object and teaching, the last
group of Parables spoken during this part of Christ's Ministry are, at
least outwardly, connected by a leading thought. The word by which
we would string them together is Righteousness. There are three
Parables of the {7nrighteous: the Unrighteous Steward, the Un
righteous Owner, and the Unrighteous Dispenser, or Judge. And
these are followed by two other Parables of the #e£/-righteous: Self-
righteousness in its Ignorance, and its clangers as regards oneself;
and Self-righteousness in its Harshness, and its dangers as regards
others. But when this outward connection has been marked, we have
gone the utmost length. Much more close is the internal connection
betweeu some of them.
We note it, first and chiefly, between the two first Parables.
Recorded in the same chapter, a and in the same connection, they were
addressed to the same audience. True, the Parable of the Unjust
Steward was primarily spoken 'to His disciples,"1 that of Dives and
Lazarus to the Pharisees/ But then the audience of Christ at that
time consisted of disciples and Pharisees. And these two classes in
the audience stood in peculiar relation to each other, which is exactly
met in these two Parables, so that the one may be said to have sprung
out of the other. For, the ' disciples, ' to whom the first Parable was
addressed, were not primarily the Apostles, but those ' publicans and
sinners ' whom Jesus had received, to the great displeasure of the
Pharisees.'1 Them He would teach concerning the Mamon of un
righteousness. And, when the Pharisees sneered at this teaching, He
would turn it against them, and show that, beneath the self-justifica
tion,8 which made them forget that now the Kingdom of God was
opened to all,' and imagine that they were the sole vindicators of a
Law6 which in their everyday practice they notoriously broke, "there
lay as deep sin and as great alienation from God as that ofthe sinners

THE PARABLES CONCERNING UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. 265
whom they despised. Theirs might not be the M anion of, yet it CHAP.
might be that for unrighteousness; and, while they sneered at the XVIII
idea of such men making of their Mamon friends that would receive  1 — -'
them into everlasting tabernacles, themselves would experience that
in the end a terrible readjustment before God would follow on their
neglect of using for God, and their employment only for self of such
Mamon as was theirs, coupled as it was with harsh and proud neglect
of what they regarded as wretched, sore-covered Lazarus, who lay
forsaken and starving at their very doors.
It will have been observed, that we lay once more special stress
on the historical connection and the primary meaning of the Parables.
We would read them in the light of the circumstances in which
they were spoken — as addressed to a certain class of hearers, and as
referring to what had just passed. The historical application once
ascertained, the general lessons may afterwards be applied to the
widest range. This historical view will help us to understand the
introduction, connection, and meaning, of the two Parables which
have been described as the most difficult: those of the Unjust Stew
ard,'' and of Dives and Lazarus.
At the outset we must recall, that they were addressed to two
different classes in the same audience. In both the subject is Un
righteousness. In the first, which is addressed to the recently con
verted publicans and sinners, it is the Unrighteous Steward, making
unrighteous use of what had been committed to his administration
by his Master; in the second Parable, which is addressed to the self-
justifying, sneering Pharisees, it is the Unrighteous Possessor, who
uses only for himself and for time Avhat he has, while he leaves
Lazarus, who, in his view, is wretched and sore-covered, to starve or
perish, unheeded, at his very door. In agreement with its object,
and as suited to the part of the audience addressed, the first Parable
points a lesson, while the second furnishes a warning. In the first
Parable we are told, what the sinner when converted should learn
from his previous life of sin; in the second, what the self-deceiving,
proud Pharisee should learn as regarded the life which to him seemed
so fair, but was in reality so empty of God and of love. It follows —
and this is of greatest importance, especially in the interpretation of
the first Parable — that we must not expect to find spiritual equiva
lents for each of the persons or incidents introduced. In each case,
the Parable itself forms only an illustration of the lessons, spoken or
1 The reader who wishes to see the commentaries, and especially to Arch-
different views and interpretations of bishop Trench's Notes on the Parables
this Parable is referred to the modern (13th ed.). pp. 427-452,

266

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Luke
xvi. 1-8
b ver. 9
' vv. 10-13
¦> vv. 1-8
c ver. 8

implied, which Christ would convey to the one and the other class
in His audience.
I. TJie Parable of the Unjust Steward. — In accordance with the
canon of interpretation just laid down, we distinguish — 1. The il
lustrative Parable/ 2. Its moral/ 3. Its application in the com
bination ofthe moral with some ofthe features ofthe Parable/
1. The illustrative Parable/ This may be said to converge to
the point brought out in the concluding verse: e the prudence which
characterises the dealings of the children of this world in regard to
their own generation — or, to translate the Jewish forms of expression
into our own phraseology, the wisdom with which those who care not
for the world to come choose the means most effectual for attaining
their worldly objects. It is this prudence by which their aims are so
effectually secured, and it alone, which is set before ' the children of
light,' as that by which to learn. And the lesson is the more practi
cal, that those primarily addressed had hitherto been among these
men of the world. Let them learn from the serpent its wisdom, and
from the dove its harmlessness; from the children of this world, their
prudence as regarded their generation, while, as children .of the new
light, they must remember the higher aim for which that prudence
was to be employed. Thus would that Mamon which is ' of unright
eousness, ' and which certainly ' faileth, ' become to us treasure in the
world to conic — welcome us there, and, so far from ' failing, ' prove
permanent — welcome us in everlasting tabernacles.. Thus, also, shall
we have made friends of the 'Mamon of unrightousness, ' and that,
which from its nature must fail, become eternal gain — or, to translate
it into Talmudic phraseology, it will be of the things of which a man
enjoys the interest in this world, while the capital remains for the
world to come.
It cannot now be difficult to understand the Parable. Its object
is simply to show, in the most striking manner, the prudence of a
worldly man, who is unrestrained by any other consideration than
that of attaining his end. At the same time, with singular wisdom,
the illustration is. so chosen as that its matter (materia), ' the Mamon
of unrighteousness,' may serve to point a life-lesson to those newly
converted publicans and sinners, who had formerly sacrificed all for
the sake, or in the enjoyment of, that Mamon. All else, such as the
question, who is the master and who the steward, and such like, Ave
dismiss, since the Parable is only intended as an. illustration of the
lesson to be afterwards taught.
The connection between this Parable and what the Lord had

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 267
previously said concerning returning sinners, to which our remarks CHAP.
have already pointed, is further evidenced by the use of the term XVIII
' wasting ' (diao-KopniZoov), in the charge against the steward, just ^ — •< 
as the prodigal son had 'wasted' (diEo-Kopnio-e) his substance." »st. Luke
Only, in the present instance, the property had been entrusted to his
administration. As regards the owner, his designation as ' rich '
seems intended to mark how large was the property committed to
the steward. The ' steward ' was not, as in St. Luke xii. 42-46, a
slave, but one employed for the administration of the rich man's
affairs, subject to notice of dismissal/ He was accused — the term »st. Luke
xvi 2 3
implying malevolence, but not necessarily a false charge — not of
fraud, but of wasting, probably by riotous living and carelessness, his
master's goods. And his master seems to have convinced himself
that the charge was true, since he at once gives him notice of dis
missal. The latter is absolute, and not made dependent on the
'account of his stewardship,' which is only asked as, of course,
necessary, when he gives up his office. Nor does the steward either
deny the charge or plead any extenuation. His great concern rather
is, during the time still left of his stewardship, before he gives up
his accounts, to provide for his future support. The only alternative
before him in the future is that of manual labour or mendicancy.
But for the former he has not strength; from the latter he is re
strained by shame.
Then it is that his ' prudence ' suggests a device by which, after
his dismissal, he may, without begging, be received into the houses
of those whom he has made friends.1 It must be borne in mind,
that he is still steward, and, as such, has full power of disposing. of
his master's affairs. When, therefore, ho sends for one after another
of his master's debtors, and tells each to alter the sum in the bond,
he does not suggest to them forgery or fraud, but, in remitting part
of the debt — whether it had been incurred as. rent in kind, or as the
price of produce, purchased — he acts, although unrighteously, yet
strictly within his rights. Thus, neither the steward nor the debtors
could be charged with criminality, and the master must have been
struck with the cleverness of a man who had thus secured a future
provision by making friends, so long as he had the means of so doing
(ere his Mamon of unrighteousness failed).
1 A somewhat similar parable occurs turned, flattering replies to the inquiries
in Vayyik. R. 5 (towards the close) about about the cattle and the crops, he so
a 'prudent' farmer. When matters go conciliates favour, that when the land-
badly with his farm, he dresses himself lord finally inquires what he wished, and
in his best, puts on a cheerful mien, and he requests a loan, he receives double
so appears before his landlord. By well the sum he had asked.

268

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

a Ant. viii.
2, 9; comp.
ix. 4, 5

b Jewish
War. ii. 21.
2"Life, 13

A few archaeological notices may help the interpretation of details.
From the context it seems more likely, that the ' bonds, ' or rather
' writings, ' of these debtors were written acknowledgments of debt,
than, as some have supposed that they were, leases of farms. The
debts over which the steward variously disposed, according as he
wished to gain more or less favour, were considerable. In the first
case they are stated at ' a hundred Bath of oil, ' in the second as ' a
hundred Cor of wheat. ' In regard to these quantities we have the
preliminary difficulty, that three kinds of measurement were in use
in Palestine — that ofthe 'Wilderness,' or, the original Mosaic; that
of ' Jerusalem,' which was more than a fifth larger; and that of Sep-
phoris, probably the common Galilean measurement, which, in turn,
was more than a fifth larger than the Jerusalem measure/ To be
more precise, one Galilean was equal to ~ ' Wilderness ' measures.
Assuming the measurement to have been the Galilean, one Bath 2
would have been equal to an Attic Metrites, or about 39 litres. On
the other hand, the so-called ' Wilderness measurement ' would corre
spond with the Roman measures, and, in that case, the ' Bath ' would
be the same as the Amphora, or amount to a little less than 26
litres.' The latter is the measurement adopted by Josephus.' a In
the Parable, the first debtor was owing 100 of these 'Bath,' or,
according to the Galilean measurement, about 3,900 litres of oil. As
regards the value of a Bath of oil, little information can be derived
from the statements of Josephus, since he only mentions prices under
exceptional circumstances, either in particularly plentiful years," or
else at a time of war and siege/ In the former, an Amphora, or 26
litres, of oil seems to have fetched about 9d. ; but it must be
added, that, even in such a year, this represents a rare stroke
of business, since the oil was immediately afterwards re-sold for
eight times the amount, and this — 3s. for half an Amphora of about
one thirty-secondth of a log is reckoned
equal to a large (table), one sixty-fourth
to a small (dessert) 'spoon.
3 This difference between the ' Wilder
ness,' or 'Mosaic,' and the 'Galilean'
measure removes the difficulty (raised
by Theuius) about the capacity of the
'brazen sea' in Solomon's Temple (1
Kings vii. 23, 26). The Bath should be
calculated, not according to the Gali
lean ( = Metretes = about thirty-nine
litres), but according to the 'Wilderness'
measure ( = amphora = about twenty-
six litres).
4 The reading in Ant. xv. 9. 2: 'The
Attic Medimni,' is evidently a copyist's
error for ' Metretai.'

1 See Herzfeld, Handelsgesch, pp.
183-185. I have proceeded on his com
putation. I am bound to add, that there
are few subjects on which the statements
of writers are more inconsistent or con
fused. The statements made in the text
are derived from Jewish sources.
2 The writer in Smith's Bibl. Diet.,
vol. iii. p. 1740 b, is mistaken in saying
that ' the Bath is the largest of liquid
measures.' According to Ezek. xiv. 11,
the Chomer or Cor = ten bath or ephah,
was equally applied to liquid and dry
measures. The Bath (one-tenth of the
Chomer or Cor) = three seah; the
seuh = two hin; the hin = twelve log;
the log = space of six eggs. Further,

THE DEBTORS AND THEIR DEBT. 269
13 litres — would probably represent an exceptionally high war-price. CHAP.
The fair price for it would probably have been 9d. For the Mishnah XVIII
informs us, that the ordinary ' earthenware casks ' (the Gerabh) held *— ~~v — -
each 2 Seah, or 48 Log, or about 26 litres." Again, according to a «Terum. ....
notice in the Talmud," 100 such 'casks,' or, 200 Seah, were sold for 6jer. Baba
10 (presumably gold) dinars, or 250 silver dinars, equal to about fd1Y'%p'
11. 10s. of our money. And as the Bath (= 3 Seah) held a third more
than one of those ' casks,' or Gerabhin, the value ofthe 100 Bath of
oil would probably amount to about 101. of our money, and the re
mission of the steward, of course, to bl.
The second debtor owed ' a hundred Cor of wheat ' — that is, in
dry measure, ten times the amount of the oil of the first debtor, since
the Cor was ten Ephah or Bath, the Ephah three Seah, the Seah six
Qabh, and the Qabh four Log. This must be borne in mind, since
the dry and the fluid measures were precisely the same; and here,
also, their threefold computation (the 'Wilderness,' the 'Jerusalem,'
and the ' Galilean ') obtained. As regards the value of wheat, we
learn0 that, on an average, four Seah of seed were expected to pro- "from
duce one Cor — that is, seven and a half times their amount; and 1050, about
that a field 1,500 cubits long and 50 wide was expected to grow a
Cor. The average price of a Cor of wheat, bought uncut, amounted
to about 25 dinars, or 15s. Striking an average between the lowest
prices mentioned d and the highest," we infer that the price of 3 Seah 1 Peah vm.
7 - Erub
or an Ephah would be from two shillings to half-a-crown, and accord- viii. 2;
ingly of a Cor (or 10 Ephah) from 20 to 25 shillings (probably this is &
rather more than it would cost). On this computation the hundred '9flb&B
Cor would represent a debt of from 100?. to 125Z., and the remission
of the steward (of 20 Cor), a sum of from 201. to 25/. Comparatively
small as these sums may seem, they are in reality large, remembering
the value of money in Palestine, which, on a low. computation, would
be five times as great as in our own country. ' These two debtors are
only mentioned as instances, and so the unjust steward would easily
secure for himself friends by the ' Mamon of unrighteousness, '
the term Mamon,1 we may note, being derived from the Syriac and
Rabbinic word of the same kind (]'^, from ym^a , n:s, to ap
portion).3 Another point on which acquaintance with the history and habits
1 This will appear from the cost of derivation of Laganle (ap. Kautzsch,
living, labour, &c. p. 173) seems very difficult. Buxtorf
2 The word should be written with one (s. v.) largely, but not very satisfactorily,
m. See Grimm s. v. discusses its etymology. The view in
3 Grimm (after Drusins) derives it the text has the sanction of Levy.
from fax, but this is most unlikely. The

270

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

b Kel. xxiv.
7

' St. Luke i.
53

a Kel. xxiv.
7

« Shabb.
xii. 4

e Jer.
Shabb 13 d.
about the
middle

of those times throws light is, how the debtors could so easily alter
the sum mentioned in their respective bonds. For, the text implies
that this, and not the writing of a new bond, is intended; since in
that case the old one would have been destroyed, and not given back
for alteration. It would be impossible, within the present limits, to
enter fully on the interesting subject of writing, writing-materials,
and written documents among the ancient Jews.1 Suffice it to give
here the briefest notices.
The materials on which the Jews wrote were of the most divers
kind: leaves, as of olives, palms, the carob, &c. ; the rind of the
pomegranate, the shell of walnuts, &c. ; the prepared skins of ani
mals (leather and parchment); and the product ofthe papyrus, used
long before the time of Alexander the Great for the manufacture of
paper, and known inTalmudic writings by the same name, as Papir*
or Apipeirf" but more frequently by that of Nayyar —probably from
the stripes (Nirin) of the plant of which it was made. 2 But what
interests us more, as we remember the 'tablet' (nivaKiSiov) on
which Zacharias wrote the name of the future Baptist," is the cir
cumstance that it bears not only the same name, Pinaqes or Pinqesa,
but that it seems to have been of such common use in Palestine.3 It
consisted of thin pieces of wood (the Luach) fastened or strung
together. The Mishnah" enumerates three kinds of them: those
where the wood was covered with papyrus,4 those where it was
covered with wax, and those where the wood was left plain to be
written on with ink. The latter was of different kinds. Black ink
was prepared of soot (the Deyo), or of vegetable or mineral substances.5
Gum Arabic and Egyptian (Qumos and Quma) and vitriol (Qan-
qanthos) seem also to have been used c in writing. It is curious to
read of writing in colours and with red ink or Siqra,' and even of a
kind of sympathetic. ink, made from the bark of the ash, and brought
out by a .mixture of vitriol and gum/ We also read of a gold-ink, as
that in which the copy of the Law was written which, according to
the legend, the High-Priest had sent to Ptolemy Philadelphus for

1 I must here refer generally to the
monograph of Low (Graphische Requis.
u. Erzeugn., 2 vols.). Its statements re
quire, however, occasionally to be recti
fied. See also Herzfeld, Handelsgeseb.
pp. 113 &c, and Note 17.
2 Low, u. s. vol. i. pp. 97, 98. It is
curious to learn that in those days also
waste paper went to the grocer. (Baba
M. 56 b.)
3 From earlier times comes to us no
tice of the Gillr/yon (Is. viii. 1) — a

smooth tablet of wood, metal, or stone
— and of the Cheret, or stylus (Is. viii.
1), and the Et, which means probably
not only a sti/lus but also a calamus
(Ps. xiv. 2; Jer. viii. 8).
* So Sachs, Beitr. z. Sprach u. Alterth.
Forsch. vol. i. p. ] 65 ; but Low (u. s.)
seems of different opinion.
5 The Deyo seems to have been a dry
substance which was made into black
ink. Ink from gall-nuts appears to be
of later invention.

BONDS AND OTHER WRITTEN DOCUMENTS.

211

the purpose of being translated into Greek by the LXX/ But the
Talmud prohibits copies ofthe Law in gold letters, l or more probably
such in which the Divine Name was written in gold letters/2 In
writing, a pen, Qolemos, made of reed (Qaneh°) was used, and the
reference in an Apostolic Epistle" to writing ' with ink and pen ' (did
^iXavo; kui KaXapiov) finds even its verbal counterpart in the Mid
rash, which speaks of Milanin and Qolemin (ink and pens). Indeed,
the public ' writer ' — a trade very common in the East 3 — went about
with a Qolemos, or reed-pen, behind his ear, as a badge of his em
ployment/ * With the reed-pen we ought to mention its neces
sary accompaniments: the penknife/ the inkstand (which, when
double, for black and red ink, was sometimes made of earthenware,
Qalamarim1), and the ruler h — it being regarded by the stricter
set as unlawful to write any words of Holy Writ on any unlined
material, no doubt to ensure correct writing and reading/5
In all this we have not referred to the practice of writing on
leather specially prepared with salt and flour, k nor to the Qelaph, or
parchment in the stricter sense."1 For we are here chiefly interested
in the common mode of writing, that on the Pinaqes, or ' tablet, '
and especially on that covered with wax. Indeed, a little vessel
holding wax was generally attached to it (Pinaqes sheyesh bo beth
Qibbul shaava7i"). On such a tablet they wrote, of course, not with
a reed-pen, but with a stylus, generally of iron. This instrument

CHAP. XVIII

a Jos. Ant.
xii. 2. 10
* Shabb.
103 b;
Sopher. i.
' Shabb.
viii. 5

< Shabb. i. 3
f Already
mentionedin Jer.
xxxvi. 23,
and in the
Mishnahcalled Olar.
~\V<X.Kel. xii. 8
e Kel. ii. 7
' Kel. xii. 8
i Meg. 16 b
k Meg. 17 a;
19 a
» Shabb.
viii. 3

n Kel. xvii.
17

5 But the learned Relandus asserts
that there were in his country such texts
written in gold letters, and that hence
the Talmudic prohibition could have
only applied to the copies used in the
Synagogues (Havercamp's ed. of Jose
phus, vol. i. p. 593, Note e).
2 Not to make a distinction between
any portions of Scripture, and also from
the curious Kabbalistic idea that some
how every word in the Bible contained
the Divine Name.
3 We read of one, Ben Qamtsar, who
wrote four letters (the Tetragram) at
once, holding four reeds (Qolemosin) at
the same time between his four fingers
(Yoma 38 b). The great R. Meir was
celebrated as a copyist, specially of the
Bible, at which work he is said to have
made about 8.s. weekly, of which, it is
stated, he spent a third on his living, a
third on his dress, and a third on charity
to Rabbis (Midr. on Eccles. ii. 18, ed.
Warsh. p. 83 b, last two lines). The co
dices of R. Meir seem to have embodied
some variations of the common text.

Thus, in the Psalms he wrote Halleluyah
in one word, as if it had been an interjec
tion, and not in the orthodox way, as two
words: Halletu Yah (Jer. Meg. 72 a). His
codices seem also to have had marginal
notes. Thus, on the words ' very good '
("INJ2 D'B), Gen. i. 31, he noted ' death is
good ' (i"l VD -lu), a sort of word-play, to
support his view, that death was origin
ally of God and created by Him — anatural
necessity rather than a punishment (Ber.
R. 9). Similarly, on Gen. iii. 21, he al
tered in the margin the Iii'. ' skin,' of the
text into ",'X, 'light,' thus rendering
' garments of light ' (u. s. 20). Again, in
Gen. xlvi. 23, he left out the ' from *;n,
rendering it ' And the son of Dan was
Chushim ' (u. s. 94). Similarly, he altered
the words, Is. xxi. 11, mtl N2?15, ' the
burden of Dumah' into JJoma/TSlI (Jer.
Taan. p. 64 a, line 10 from top).
4 Similarly, the carpenter carried a.
small wooden rule behind his ear.
5 Letters, other documents, or bales of
merchandise, were sealed with a kind of
red clay.

272

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF 'HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV
¦ Kel. xiii. 2

"BabaB.1616

a u. s. 163 a,
b; 164 a

> St. Luke
xvi. 7

f Shem. R.
15

'' Baba B.
163 a, b

consisted of two parts, which might be detached from each other:
the hard pointed 'writer' (Kothebh), and the 'blotter' (Mocheq)
which was flat and thick for smoothing out letters and words which
had been written or rather graven in the wax." There can be no
question that acknowledgments of debt, and other transactions, were
ordinarily written down on such wax-covered tablets; for not only is
direct reference made to it," but there are special provisions in re
gard to documents where there are such erasures, or rather efface-
ments: such as, that they require to be noted in the document/
under what conditions and how the witnesses are in such cases to
affix their signatures, d just as there are particular injunctions how
witnesses who could not write are to affix their mark.
But although we have thus ascertained that ' the bonds ' in the
Parable must have been written on wax — or else, possibly, on parch
ment — where the Mocheq, or blotter, could easily efface the numbers,
we have also evidence that they were not, as so often, written on
' tablets' (the Pinaques) . For, the Greek term, by which these
' bonds ' or ' writings ' are designated in the Parable (yp dp. par a'), is
the same as is sometimes used in Rabbinic writings (Gerammation)
for an acknowledgment of debt;" the Hebraised Greek word corre
sponding to the more commonly used (Syriac) term Shitre (Shetar),
which also primarily denotes 'writings,' and is used specifically for
such acknowledgments/ a Of these there were two kinds. The most
formal Shetar was not signed by the debtor at all, but only by the
witnesses, who were to write their names (or marks) immediately
(not more than two lines) below the text of the document, to prevent
fraud. Otherwise, the document would not possess legal validity.
Generally, it was further attested by the Sanhedrin 3 of three, who
signed in such manner as not to leave even one line vacant/ Such
a document contained the names of creditor and debtor, the amount
owing, and the date, together with a clause attaching the property
ofthe debtor. In fact, it was a kind of mortgage; all sale of prop-

1 The designations for the general
formulary (Tophos, or Tiphos (Gitt. iii.
2), = typos), and for the special clauses
(Toreph = Tropos) were of Greek deri
vation. For the full draft of the various
legal documents we refer the reader to
Note ix. at the end of Sammter's edition
of Baba Mets. pp. 144-148. How many
documents of this kind Jewish legalism
must have invented, may be gathered from
the circumstance that Herzfeld (u. s. p.
314) enumerates not fewer than thirty-
eight different kinds of them! It appears

that there were certain forms of these and
similar documents, prepared with spaces
left" blank to be filled in (Gitt. iii. 2).
2 The more full designation was Shetar
Chobh, a writing of debt (Baba M. i-. 6),
or Shetar Milvah (Gitt. iii. 2), a writing
of loan.
3 The attestation of the court was
called Qiyum Beth Din, ' the establish
ment of the court,' Ashra, or Asharta,
strengthening, or Henpheq (Baba Mez.
7 b), literally, the production, viz. before
the court.

THE MORAL OF THE PARABLE. 273
erty being, as with us, subject to such a mortgage," which bore the CHAP.
name Acharayutli (probably, 'guarantee'1). When the debt was XVIII
paid, the legal obligation was simply returned to the debtor; if paid ' — y — '
in part, either a new bond was written, or a receipt given, which was -BabhaB.
called Shobher" or Tebhara, because it 'broke' the debt. * Babha m.
But in many respects different were those bonds which were
acknowledgments of debt for purchases made, such as we suppose
those to have been which are mentioned in the Parable. In such
cases it was not uncommon to dispense altogether with witnesses, and
the document was signed by the debtor himself. In bonds of this
kind, the creditor' had not the benefit of a mortgage in case of sale.
We have expressed our belief that the Parable refers to such docu
ments, and we are confirmed in this by the circumstance that they
not only bear a different name from the more formal bonds (the Shitre),
but one which is perhaps the most exact rendering of the Greek term
("T mV a 'writing of hand, ' 'note of hand'2). For completeness' ° Babha b.
sake we add, in regard to the farming of land, that two kinds of
leases were in use. Under the first, called Shetar Arisuth, the lessee
(Aris=ovpog 3) received a certain portion of the produce. He might
be a lessee for life, for a specified number of years, or even a
hereditary tiller of the ground; or he might sub-let it to another
person. a Under the second kind of lease, the farmer — or Meqabbel a Babha b.
— entered into a contract for payment either m kind, when he under
took to pay a stipulated and unvarying amount of produce, in which
case he was called a Chokher (Chakhur or Chakhira "), or else a certain
annual rental in money, when he was called a Sokher.6
2. From this somewhat lengthened digression, we return to notice
the moral ofthe Parable/ It is put in these words: ' Make to your- -st. Luke
XVI. 9
selves friends out of [by means of] the Mamon of unrighteousness,
that, when it shall fail,6 they may receive you into everlasting taber
nacles. ' From what has been previously stated, the meaning of these
words offers little serious difficulty. We must again recall the circum-
1 For the derivation and legal bearing the Chokher is stated in Jer. Bikkur. 64 b.
of the term, see Low, vol. ii. p. 82. . 5 The difference between the Chokher
2 Although it is certain that letters of and the Sokher is expressed in Tos.
credit were used by the Jews of old, there Demai vi. 2. TJgolini (Thes. vol. xx.
is sufficient reason for believing that pp. cxix., cxx.) not only renders but
'bills' were first introduced into com- copies this passage wrongly. A more
merce by the Italians, an.d not by Jews, composite bargain of letting land and
3 But Guisins(inSni-enhusiiis'U\shna, lending money for its better cultivation
vol. i. pp. 56, 57) gives a different deri- is mentioned in B. Mez. 69 b.
vation and interpretation, which the 6 This, and not 'they shall fail,' is the
learned reader may consult for himself, correct reading.
4 The difference between the Aris and

274 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK stance, that they were primarily addressed to converted publicans
IV and sinners, to whom the expression ' Mamon of unrighteousness' —
K— — y— — ' of which there are close analogies, and even an exact transcript ' in
the Targum — would have an obvious meaning. Among us, also,
there are not a few who may feel its aptness as they look back on the
past, while to all it carries a much needed warning. Again, the
addition ofthe definite article leaves no doubt, that 'the everlasting
tabernacles ' mean the well-known heavenly home; in which sense
" Ps. x7-.i- ; the term ' tabernacle ' is, indeed, already used in the Old Testament. " 2
xxvu. 5, the ' " ^
bein1 'real ^ut ^s a wacue we regard it (as previously hinted) as an adaptation
isticaiiy t0 the Parable of the well-known Rabbinic saying, that there were
understood J °'
insiphra certain graces of which a man enjoyed the benefit here, while the
capital, so to speak, remained for the next world. And if a more
literal interpretation were demanded, we cannot but feel the duty
incumbent on those converted publicans, nay, in a sense, on us all, to
seek to make for ourselves of the Mamon — be it of money, of know
ledge, of strength, or opportunities, which to many has, and to all
may so easily, become that ' of unrighteousness ' — such lasting and
spiritual application: gain such friends by means of it, that, 'when
it fails, ' as fail it must when we die, all may not be lost, but rather
meet us in heaven. Thus would each deed done for God with this
Mamon become a friend to greet us as we enter the eternal world.
3. The suitableness both of the Parable and of its application to
the audience of Christ appears from its similarity to what occurs in
Jewish writings. Thus, the reasoning that the Law could not have
been given to the nations of the world, since they have not observed
the seven Noachic commandments (which Rabbinism supposes to
have been given to the Gentiles), is illustrated by a Parable in which
a king is represented as having employed two administrators (Api-
terophin); one over the goid and silver, and the other over the straw.
The latter rendered himself suspected, and — continues the Parable
— when he complained that he had not been set over the gold and
silver, they said unto nim: Thou fool, if thou hast rendered thyself
suspected in regard to the straw, shall they commit to thee the trea-
•¦ Yaikut, sure of gold and silver?" And we almost seem to hear the very
vol. 1. p. 81 . •>
a. lines words of Christ: ' He that is faithful 3 in that which is least, is faith-
19 &c. from
top ful also m much,' in this of the Midrash: 'The Holy One, blessed be
His Name, does not give great things to a man until he has been
1 So in the Targ. on Hab. ii. 9, yrx> 3 No doubt the equivalent for the
S>2?!~- Rabbinic yoXl acereditus, and used in
2 Comp. Schbttgen ad loc. the same sense.

RELATION OF 'SPIRITUAL AND 'SECULAR.' 275
tried in a small matter;' which is illustrated by the history of Moses CHAP.
and of David, who were both called to rule from the faithful guiding xvm
of sheep/ — -> — '
Considering that the Jewish mind would be familiar with such "suem. r.,
° ed. Warsh.
modes of illustration, there could have been no misunderstanding of p^^
the words of Christ. These converted publicans might think — and middle
so may some of us — that theirs was a very narrow sphere of service,
one of little importance; or else, like the Pharisees, and like so
many others among us, that faithful administration of the things of
this world ('the Mamon of unrighteousness ') had no bearing on the
possession ofthe true riches in the next world. In answer to the
first difficulty, Christ points out that the principle of service is the
same, whether applied to much or to little; that the one was, indeed,
meet preparation for, and, in truth, the test of the other." ' He that "St. Luke
is faithful' — or, to paraphrase the word (mar 6s), he that has
proved himself, is accredited (answering to px:) — ' in the least,
is also faithful [accredited] in much; and who in the least is un
just is- also in much unjust.' Therefore, if a man failed in faithful
service of God in his worldly matters — in the language of the
Parable, if he were not faithful in the Mamon of unrighteousness —
could he look for the true Mamon, or riches of the world to come?
Would not his unfaithfulness in the lower stewardship imply unfit
ness for the higher? And — still in the language of the Parable —
if they had not proved faithful in mere stewardship, ' in that which
was another's, ' could it be expected that they would be exalted from
stewardship to proprietorship? And the ultimate application of all
was this, that dividedness was impossible in the service of God/ ° ver. 13
It is impossible for the disciple to make separation between spiritual
matters and worldly, and to attempt serving God in the one and
Mamon in the other. There is absolutely no such distinction to the
disciple, and our common usage of the words secular and spiritual
is derived from a terrible misunderstanding and mistake. To the
secular, nothing is spiritual; and to the spiritual, nothing is
secular: No servant can serve two Masters; ye cannot serve God
and Mamon.
II. The Parable of Dives and Lazarus.11 — Although primarily ast. Luke
spoken to the Pharisees, and not to the disciples, yet, as will pre
sently appear, it was spoken fm- the disciples. The words of Christ
had touched more than one sore spot in the hearts of the Phari
sees. This consecration of all to God as the necessary condition of
high spiritual service, and then of higher spiritual standing — as it

xvi. 1^31

276

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

* St. Luke
xvi. 14

were 'ownership' — such as they claimed, was a very hard saying.
It touched their covetousness. They would have been quite ready
to hear, nay, they believed that the ' true' treasure had been com
mitted to their trust. But that its condition was, that they should
prove themselves God-devoted in ' the unrighteous Mamon, ' faithful
in the employment of it in that for which it was entrusted to their
stewardship, this was not to be borne. Nor yet, that such prospects
should be held out to publicans and sinners, while they were with
held from those who were the custodians of the Law and of the
Prophets. But were they faithful to the Law? And as to their
claim of being the ' owners,' the Parable of the Rich Owner and of
his bearing would exhibit how unfaithful they were in ' much ' as
well as in 'little,' in what they claimed as owners as well as in
their stewardship — and this, on their own showing of their relations
to publicans and sinners: the Lazarus who lay at their doors.
Thus viewed, the verses which introduce the second Parable
(that of Dives and Lazarus) will appear, not ' detached sayings,' as
some commentators would have us believe, but most closely con
nected with the Parable to which they form the Preface. Only, here
especially, must we remember, that we have only Notes of Christ's
Discourse, made years before by one who had heard it, and contain
ing the barest outline — as it were, the stepping-stones — of the argu
ment as it proceeded. Let us try to follow it. As the Pharisees
heard what Christ said, their covetousness was touched. It is said,
moreover, that they derided Him — literally, ¦ turned up their noses
at Him."* The mocking gestures, with which they pointed to His
publican-disciples, would be accompanied by mocking words in
which they would extol and favourably compare their own claims
and standing with that of those new disciples of Christ. Not
only to refute but to confute, to convict, and, if possible, to con
vince them, was the object of Christ's Discourse and Parable. One
by one their pleas were taken up and shown to be utterly untenable.
They were persons who by outward righteousness and pretences sought
to appear just before men, but God knew their hearts; and that which
was exalted among men, their Pharisaic standing and standing aloof,
was abomination before Him." These two points form the main
subject ofthe Parable. Its first object was to show the great differ
ence between the ' before men ' and the 'before God;' between Dives
as he appears to menin this world, and as he is before God and will be
in the next world. Again, the second main object ofthe Parable was
to illustrate that their Pharisaic standing and standing aloof— the

PREFACE TO THE PARABLE OF DIVES AND LAZARUS. 277
bearing of Dives in reference to a Lazarus — which was the glory of CHAP.
Pharisaism before men, was an abomination before God. Yet a XVIII
third object of the Parable was in reference to their covetousness, "¦ — r —
the selfish use which they made of their possessions — their Mamon.
But a selfish was an unrighteous use; and, as such, would meet with
sorer retribution than in the case of an unfaithful steward.
But we leave for the prseent the comparative analysis of the
Parable to return to the introductory words of Christ. Having
shown that the claims of the Pharisees and their standing aloof from
poor sinners were an abomination before God, Christ combats these
grounds of their bearing, that they were the custodians and ob
servers of the Law and of the Prophets, while those poor sinners
had no claims upon the Kingdom of God. Yes — but the Law and
the Prophets had their terminus ad quern in John the Baptist, who
'brought the good tidings of the Kingdom of God.' Since then
' every one ' had to enter it by personal resolution and ' force. ' a * comp. st.
J J r Matt. xi. 12,
Yes — it was true that the Law could not fail in one tittle of it." and our
remarks on
But, notoriously and m everyday life, the Pharisees, who thus spoke the pas-
of the Law and appealed to it, were the constant and open breakers b st. Luke
of it. Witness here their teaching and practice concerning divorce, XT1 '16,17
which really involved a breach ofthe seventh commandment/ • ver. is
Thus, when bearing in mind that, as previously stated, we have
here only the 'heads,' or rather the 'stepping stones,' of Christ's
argument — from notes by a hearer at the time, which were after
wards given to St. Luke — we clearly perceive, how closely connected
are the seemingly disjointed sentences which preface the Parable,
and how aptly they introduce it. The Parable itself is strictly of the
Pharisees and their relation to the ' publicans and sinners ' whom
they despised, and to. whose stewardship they opposed thoughts of
their own proprietorship. With infinite wisdom and depth the
Parable tells in two directions: in regard to their selfish use of the
literal riches — their covetousness — and in regard to their selfish
use of the figurative riches: their Pharisaic righteousness, which
left poor Lazarus at their door to the dogs and to famine, not bestow
ing on him aught from their supposed rich festive banquets.
On the other hand, it will be necessary in the interpretation of
this Parable to keep in mind, that its Parabolic details must not be
exploited, nor doctrines of any kind derived from them, either as
to the character of the other world, the question of the duration of
future punishments, or the possible moral improvement of those in
Gehinnom. All such things are foreign to the Parable, which is

278

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION

BOOK IV

1 VV. 16-22

only intended as a type, or exemplification and illustration, of what is
intended to be taught. And, if proof were required, it would surely
be enough to remind ourselves, that this Parable is addressed to
the Pharisees, to whom Christ would scarcely have communicated
details about the other world, on which He was so reticent in His
teaching to the disciples. The Parable naturally falls into three
parts. 1. Dives and Lazarus before and after death,* or the contrast
between ' before men ' and ' before God; ' the unrighteous use of
riches — literal and figurative; and the relations of the Pharisaic
Dives to the publican Lazarus, as before men and as before God:
the ' exalted among men ' an ' abomination before God. ' And the
application of the Parable is here the more telling, that alms were so
highly esteemed among the Pharisees, and that the typical Pharisee
is thus set before them as, on their own showing, the typical
sinner. The Parable opens by presenting to us 'a rich man ' ' clothed in
purple and byssus, joyously faring every day in splendour. ' All here
is in character. His dress is described as the finest and most costly,
for byssus and purple were the most expensive materials, only in
ferior to silk, which, if genuine and unmixed — for at least three kinds
of silk are mentioned in ancient Jewish writings — was worth its
weight in gold. Both byssus — of which it is not yet quite certain,
whether it was of hemp or cotton — and purple were indeed manu
factured in Palestine, but the best byssus (at least at that time')
came from Egypt and India. The white garments of the High-
Priest on the Day of Atonement were made of it/ To pass over
exaggerated accounts of its costliness," the High-Priest's dress of
Pelusian linen for the morning service of the Day of Atonement
was said to have cost about 36Z. ; that of Indian linen for the even
ing of the same day about 24Z. Of course, this stuff would, if of
home-manufacture, whether made in Galilee or in Judasa,4 be much
cheaper. As regarded purple, which was obtained from the coasts of
shabb.26a Tyre," wool of violet-purple was sold about that period by weight1
at the rate of about SI. the Roman pound, though it would, of course,
considerably vary in price.
Quite in accordance with this luxuriousness — unfortunately not
uncommon among the very high-placed Jews, since the Talmud
(though, no doubt, exaggeratedly) speaks of the dress of a corrupt
1 In later times Palestinian byssus seems to have been in great repute. See
Herzfekl, Handelsgesch p. 107.

b Yoma iii.
6, 7
* Jer. Yoma
iii. 6, p.
40 d

a Jer. Kidd.
62 c

'Kel.
xxix.

DIVES AND LAZARUS ON EARTH. 279
High-Priest as having cost upwards of 300Z/ — was the feasting every CHAP.
day, the description of which conveys the impression of company, me?-- XVIII
riment, and splendour. All this is, of course, intended to set forth v— ^ 
the selfish use which this man made of his wealth, and to point the Jj61; Yoma
contrast of his bearing towards Lazarus. Here also every detail
is meant to mark the pitiableness of the case, as it stood out before
Dives. The very name — not often mentioned in any other real, and
never in any other Parabolic story — tells it: Lazarus, Laazar, a
common abbreviation of Elazar, as it were, ' God help him ! ' Then
we read that he ' was cast ' * (e/3ef3\j?ro) at his gateway, as if to mark
that the bearers were glad to throw down their unwelcome burden.2
Laid there, he was in full view of the Pharisee as he went out or
came in, or sat in his courtyard. And as he looked at him, he was
covered with a loathsome disease; as he heard him, he uttered a pit
eous request to be filled with what fell from the rich man's table.
Yet nothing was done to help his bodily misery, and, as the word
'desiring' (emdvpwv) implies, his longing for the 'crumbs' re
mained unsatisfied. So selfish in the use of his wealth was Dives,
so wretched Lazarus in his view; so self-satisfied and unpitying was
the Pharisee, so miserable in his sight and so needy the publican
and sinner. ' Yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores ' — for it
is not to be understood as an alleviation, but as an aggravation of
his ills, that he was left to the dogs, which in Scripture are always
represented as unclean animals.
So it was before men. But how was it before God? There the
relation was reversed. The beggar died — no more of him here.
But the Angels ' carried him away into Abraham's bosom. ' Leaving
aside for the present3 the Jewish teaching concerning the 'after
death, ' we are struck with the sublime simplicity of the figurative
language used by Christ, as compared with the wild and sensuous
fancies of later Rabbinic teaching on the subject. It is, indeed,
true, that we must not look in this Parabolic language for Christ's
teaching about the 'after death.' On the other hand, while He
would say nothing that was essentially divergent from, at least, the
1 The better reading of ver. 20 is that his name would have been given to Dives,
adopted in the Revised Version: ' And a and not to the beggar. But besides, can
certain beggar named Lazarus' — only we for one moment believe that Christ
that we should render ' was cast.' would in such manner have introduced
2 I cannot agree with Dean Plumptre the name of Lazarus of Bethany into
that the name Lazarus had been chosen such a Parable, he being alive at the
with special reference, and as a warning, time? Nothing, surely, could be further
to the brother of Martha and Mary. If from His general mode of teaching than
Lazarus of Bethany was thus to be warned the introduction of such personalities.
in regard to the proper use of his riches, 3 For this see Book V. ch. vi.

280

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» Kethub.
104 a;
Bemidb. K.
11, ed.
Warsh. p.
42 b ; Targ.
on Cant. iv.
12
b 4 Mace.
xiii. 16;
Kidd. 72 b,
1st line
• Erub. 19 a

d St. Luke
xvi. 23-26

• Jer. Targ.
on Gen. iii.
24

'Ber. 34 b
b Vayyik.R.
32, begin
ning
h u.s. p.48 b,
lines 8 and
9 from top
» Midr. on
Eccles. i.15,
ed. Warsh.
p. 81 b.
about the
middle

purest views entertained on the subject at that time — since otherwise
the object of the Parabolic illustration would have been lost — yet,
whatever He did say must, when stripped of its Parabolic details,
be consonant with fact. Thus, the carrying up of the soul of the
righteous by Angels is certainly in accordance with Jewish teaching,
though stripped of all legendary details, such as about the number and
the greetings of the Angels/ But it is also fully in accordance with
Christian thought of the ministry of Angels. Again, as regards the
expression Abraham's bosom, ' it occurs, although not frequently, in
Jewish writings."1 On the other hand, the appeal to Abraham as
our father is so frequent, his presence and merits are so constantly
invoked; notably, he is so expressly designated as he who receives
(52ptt) the penitent into Paradise,0 that we can see how congruous
especially to the higher Jewish teaching, which dealt not in coarsely
sensuous descriptions of Gan Eden, or Paradise, the phrase 'Abra
ham's bosom ' must have been. Nor surely can it be necessary to
vindicate the accord with Christian thinking of a figurative expres
sion, that likens us to children lying lovingly in the bosom of Abra
ham as our spiritual father.
2. Dives and Lazarus after death a : The 'great contrast' fully
realised, and how to enter into the Kingdom. — Here also the main
interest centres in Dives. He also has died and been buried. Thus
ends all his exaltedness before men. The next scene is in Hades or
Sheol, the place of the disembodied spirits before the final Judgment.
It consists of two divisions: the one of consolation, with all the
faithful gathered unto Abraham as their father; the other of fiery
torment. Thus far in accordance with the general teaching of the
New Testament. As regards the details, they evidently represent
the views current at the time among the Jews. According to them,
the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life were the abode of the
blessed/ Nay, in common belief, the words of Gen. ii. 10: ' a river
went out of Eden to water the garden, ' indicated that this Eden was
distinct from, and superior to, the garden in which Adam had been
originally placed/ With reference to it, we read that the righteous
in Gan Eden see the wicked in Gehinnom, and rejoice; g and,
similarly, that the wicked in Gehinnom see the righteous sitting
beatified in Gan Eden, and their souls are troubled/ Still more
marked is the parallelism in a legend told1 about two wicked com
panions, of whom one had died impenitent, while the other on seeing

1 But I cannot think with Grimm
(Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb. z. d. Apokr.

Lief. iv. p. 347) that the expression refers
to a feast of fellowship.

DIVES AND LAZARUS AFTER DEATH. 281
it had repented. After death, the impenitent in Gehinnom saw the chap.
happiness of his former companion, and murmured. When told that xvin
the difference of their fate was due to the other's penitence, he wished v— ¦">  '
to have space assigned for it, but was informed that this life (the
eve of the Sabbath) was the time for making provision for the next
(the Sabbath). Again, it is consonant with what were the views of
the Jews, that conversations could be held between dead persons, of
which several legendary instances are given in the Talmud/1 The «Ber. is&
torment, especially of thirst, of the wicked, is repeatedly mentioned
in Jewish writings. Thus, in one place " the fable of Tantalus is "Jer.cnag.77 d
apparently repeated. The righteous is seen beside delicious springs,
and the wicked with his tongue parched at the brink of a river, the
waves of which are constantly receding from him/ But there is this j^"™^80
very marked and characteristic contrast, that in the Jewish legend ^^
the beatified is a Pharisee, while the sinner tormented with thirst is
a Publican! Above all, and as marking the vast difference between
Jewish ideas and Christ's teaching, we notice that there is no analogy
in Rabbinic writings to the statement in the Parable, that there is a
wide and impassable gulf between Paradise and Gehenna.
To return to the Parable. When we read that Dives in torments
' lifted up his eyes, ' it was, no doubt, for help, or, at least, alleviation.
Then he first perceived and recognised the reversed relationship.
The text emphatically repeats here: 'And he, — literally, this one
(kcci avros), as if now, for the first time, he realised, but only to
misunderstand and misapply it, how easily superabundance might
minister relief to extreme need — 'calling (viz., upon = invoking)
said: " Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus."'
The invocation of Abraham, as having the power, and of Abraham as
' Father, ' was natural on the part of a Jew. And our Lord does not
here express what really was, but only introduces Jews as speaking in
accordance with the popular notions. Accordingly, it does not
necessarily imply on the part of Dives either glorification of carnal
descent (gloriatio carnis, as Bengel has it), nor a latent idea that
he might still dispose of Lazarus. A Jew would have appealed to
' Father Abraham ' under such or like circumstances, and many
analogous statements might be quoted in proof. But all the more
telling is it, that the rich Pharisee should behold in the bosom of
Abraham, whose child he specially claimed to be, what, in his sight,
had been poor Lazarus, covered with moral sores, and, religiously
speaking, thrown down outside his gate — not only not admitted to
' According to some of the commentators these were, however, dreams.

282

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• St. Luke
xvi. 27-31

the fellowship of his religious banquet, but not even to be fed by the
crumbs that fell from his table, and to be left to the dogs. And it
was the climax of the contrast that he should now have to invoke,
and that in vain, his ministry, seeking it at the hands of Abraham.
And here we also recall the previous Parable about making, ere it
fail, friends by means of the Mamon of unrighteousness, that they
may welcome us in the everlasting tabernacles.
It should be remembered that Dives now limits his request to
the humblest dimensions, asking only that Lazarus might be sent
to dip the tip of his finger in the cooling liquid, and thus give him
even the smallest relief. To this Abraham replies, though in a tone
of pity: 'Child, 'yet decidedly — showing him, first, the rightness of
the present position of things; and, secondly, the impossibility of
any alteration, such as he had asked. Dives had, in his lifetime,
received his good things; that had been his things, he had chosen
them as his part, and used them for self, without communicating of
them. And Lazarus had received evil things. Now Lazarus was
comforted, and Dives in torment. It was the right order — not that
Lazarus was comforted because in this world he had suffered, nor
yet that Dives was in torment because in this world he had had
riches. But Lazarus received there the comfort which had been
refused to him on earth, and the man who had made this world his
good, and obtained there his portion, of which he had refused even
the crumbs to the most needy, now received the meet reward of his
unpitying, unloving, selfish life. But, besides all this, which in
itself was right and proper, Dives had asked what was impossible: no
intercourse could be held between Paradise and Gehenna, and on
this account 1 a great and impassable chasm existed between the two,
so that, even if they would, they could not, pass from heaven to hell,
nor yet from hell to those in bliss. And, although doctrinal state
ments should not be drawn from Parabolic illustrations, we would
suggest that, at least so far as this Parable goes, it seems to preclude
the hope of a gradual change or transition after a life lost in the
service of sin and self.
3. Application of the Parable," showing how the Law and the
Prophets cannot fail, and how we n;u t now press into the Kingdom.
It seems a strange misconception on the part of some commentators,
that the next request of Dives indicates a commencing change of
mind on his part. To begin with, this part of the Parable is only

1 The exact rendering in ver. 26 is; 'in order that (o7Coo%, so also in ver. 28) they
who would pass from hence to you,' &c.

THE FINAL REQUEST OF DIVES. 283
intended to illustrate the need, and the sole means of conversion to chap.
God — the appeal to the Law and the Prophets being the more apt XVIII
that the Pharisees made their boast of them, and the refusal of any — ^ -y — '
special miraculous interposition the more emphatic, that the Pharisees
had been asking for ' a sign from heaven. ' Besides, it would require
more than ordinary charity to discover a moral change in the desire
that his brothers might — not be converted, but not come to that
place of torment!
Dismissing, therefore, this idea, we now find Dives pleading that
Lazarus might be sent to his five brothers, who, as we infer, were of
the same disposition and life as himself had been, to ' testify unto
them ' — the word implying more than ordinary, even earnest, testi
mony. Presumably, what he so earnestly asked to be attested was, that
he, Dives, was in torment; and the expected effect, not of the testi
mony but of the mission of Lazarus," whom they are supposed to have » ver. 30
known, was, that these_, his brothers, might not come to the same
place. At the same time, the request seems to imply an attempt at
self-justification, as if, during his life, he had not had sufficient
warning. Accordingly, the reply of Abraham is no longer couched
in a tone of pity, but implies stern rebuke of Dives. They need no
witness-bearer: they have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear
them. If testimony be needed, theirs has been given, and it is
sufficient — a reply this, which would specially appeal to the Pharisees.
And when Dives, now, perhaps, as much bent on self-justification as
on the message to his brothers, remonstrates that, although they had
not received such testimony, yet ' if one come to them from the
dead,' they would repent, the final, and, as, alas! history has shown
since the Resurrection of Christ, the true answer is, that ' if they hear
not [give not hearing to] Moses and the Prophets, neither will they
be influenced1 [moved: their intellects to believe, their wills to
repent] , if one rose from the dead. '
And here the Parable, and the warning to the Pharisees, abruptly
break off. When next we hear the Master's voice," it is in loving bcn. xvii.
application to the disciples of some of the lessons which were implied
in what He had spoken to the Pharisees.
' This is the real meaning of the verb fluencing the intellect. To us the other
TttiQoo in the passive voice. The render- sense, that of influencing the will to re-
ing 'persuade' is already Targumic — pentance, seems more likely to have
giving it the sense of ' moving or in- been intended.

284

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• St. Luke
xi. 6 &c.

b Comp.
St. Luke
xviii. 7, 8
c xvii. 20, 21
4 vv. 22-37

¦ St. John

' St. Luke
xvii. 11
e St. Luke
xvii.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE THREE LAST PARABLES OF THE PERAEAN SERIES: THE UNRIGHTEOUS
JUDGE — THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN — THE
UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. (St. Luke xviii. 1-14; St. Matt, xviii. 23-35.)
If we were to seek confirmation of the suggestion, that these last
and the two preceding Parables are grouped together under a
common viewpoint, such as that of Bighteousness, the character
and position of the Parables now to be examined would supply it.
For, while the Parable of the Unjust Judge evidently bears close
affinity to those that had preceded — especially to that of him who
persisted in his request for bread " — it evidently refers not, as the
other, to man's present need, but to the Second Coming of Christ.
The prayer, the perseverance, the delay, and the ultimate answer of
which it speaks, are all connected with it." Indeed, it follows on
what had passed on this subject immediately before — first, between
the Pharisees and Christ," and then between Christ and the disciples."
Again, we must bear in mind that between the Parable of Dives
and Lazarus and that of the Unjust Judge, not, indeed, a great
interval of time, but most momentous events, had intervened. These
were: the visit of Jesus to Bethany, the raising of Lazarus, the
Jerusalem council against Christ, the flight to Ephraim,0 a brief stay
and preaching there, and the commencement of His last journey to
Jerusalem/ During this last slow journey from the borders of
Galilee to Jerusalem, we suppose the Discourses B and the Parable
about the Coming of the Son of Man to have been spoken. And
although such utterances will be best considered in connection with
Christ's later and full Discourses about ' The Last Things,' we readily
perceive, even at this stage, how, when He set His Face towards
Jerusalem, there to be offered up, thoughts and words concerning
the ' End ' may have entered into all His teaching, and so have given
occasion for the questions of the Pharisees and disciples, and for the
answers of Christ, alike by Discourse and in Parable.
The most common and specious, but also the most serious mis-

THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST JUDGE. 285
take in reference to the Parable of ' the Unjust Judge,' is to. regard chap.
it as implying that, just as the poor widow insisted in her petition and XIX
was righted because of her insistence, so the disciples should persist ^— y—^
in prayer and would be heard because of their insistence. But this
is an entirely false interpretation. When treating of the Parable of
the Unrighteous Steivard, we disclaimed all merely mechanical ideas
of prayer, as if God heard us for our many repetitions. This error
must here also be carefully avoided. The inference from the Parable
is not, that the Church will be ultimately vindicated because she per
severes in prayer, but that she so perseveres, because God will surely
right her cause: it is not, that insistence in prayer is the cause of its
answer, but that the certainty of that which is asked for should lead
to continuance in prayer, even when all around seems to forbid the
hope of answer. This is the lesson to be learned from a comparison
of the Unjust Judge with the Just and Holy God in His dealings
with His own. If the widow persevered, knowing that, although no
other consideration, human or Divine, would influence the Unjust
Judge, yet her insistence would secure its object, how much more
should we ' not faint, ' but continue in prayer, who are appealing to
God, Who has His people and His cause at heart, even though He
delay, remembering also that even this is for their sakes who pray.
And this is fully expressed in the introductory words. ' He spake
also a Parable to them with reference J to the need be (xpos to 6slv)
of their2 always praying and not fainting.'3
The remarks just made will remove Avhat otherwise might seem
another serious difficulty. If it be asked, how the conduct of the
Unjust Judge could serve as illustration of what might be expected
from God, we answer, that the lesson in the Parable is not from the
similarity but from the contrast between the Unrighteous human and
the Righteous Divine Judge. ' Hear what the Unrighteous Judge
saith. But God [mark the emphatic position ofthe word], shall He
not indeed [ov prf\ vindicate [the injuries of, do judgment for] His
elect . . . ? ' In truth, this mode of argument is perhaps the most
common in Jewish Parables, and occurs on almost every page of
ancient Rabbinic commentaries. It is called the Qal vaChomer, ' light
and heavy, ' and answers to our reasoning a fortiori or de minore ad
majus (from the less to the greater)/ According to the Rabbis, ten
1 Even this shows that it is intended 3 The verbs are, of course, in the in
to mark an essential difference between flnitive.
this and the preceding Parables. * Sometimes it is applied in. the oppo-
8 The word avrovi should be inserted site direction, from the greater to the less.
in the text.

286

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

* Ber. B. 92'
ed. Warsh.
p. 164 b
from about
the middle

b Pesquita,
ed. Baber.
p. 161 a,
lines 3 and
2 from
bottom

« Siphre, ed
Friedm. p.
60 b, line 7
from top

instances of such reasoning occur in the Old Testament1 itself/
Generally, such reasoning is introduced by the words Qal vaChomer;
often it is prefaced by, Al achath Eammah veEammah, ' against one
how much and how much, ' that is, ' how much more. ' Thus, it is
argued that, ' if a King of flesh and blood ' did so and so, shall not
the King of Kings, &c. ; or, if the sinner received such and such,
shall not the righteous, &c. ? In the present Parable the reasoning
would be: 'If the Judge of Unrighteousness ' said that he would
vindicate, shall not the Judge of all Righteousness do judgment on
behalf of His Elect? In fact, we have an exact Rabbinic parallel to
the thought underlying, and the lesson derived from, this Parable.
When describing, how at the preaching of Jonah Nineveh repented
and cried to God, His answer to the loud persistent cry of the people
is thus explained: ' The bold (he who is unabashed) conquers even a
wicked person [to grant him his request], how much more the All-
Good of the world ! ' "
The Parable opens by laying down as a general principle the
necessity and duty of the Disciples always to pray — the precise mean
ing being defined by the opposite, or limited clause: 'not to faint,'
that is, not ' to become weary. ' 2 The word ' always ' must not be
understood in respect of time, as if it meant continuously, but at all
times, in the sense of under all circumstances, however apparently
adverse, when it might seem as if an answer could not come, and we
would therefore be in danger of ' fainting ' or becoming weary. This
rule applies here primarily to that ' weariness ' which might lead to the
cessation of prayer for the Coming of the Lord, or of expectancy of
it, during the long period when it seems as if He delayed His return,
nay, as if increasingly there were no likelihood of it. But it may
also be applied to all similar circumstances, when prayer seems so
long unanswered that weariness in praying threatens to overtake us.
Thus, it is argued, even in Jewish writings, that a man should never
be deterred from, nor cease praying, the illustration by Qal vaChomer
being from the case of Moses, who knew that it was decreed he should
not enter the land, and yet continued praying about it/
The Parable introduces to us a Judge in a city, and a widow.
Except where a case was voluntarily submitted for arbitration rather
than judgment, or judicial advice was sought of a sage, one man

1 These ten passages are: Gen. xliv. 8;
Exod. vi. 9, 12; Numb. xii. 14; Deut.
xxxi. 21 ; two instances in Jerem. xii. 5 ;
1 Sam. xxiii. 3; Prov. xi. 31; Esth. ix.
12; and Ezek. xv. 5.
2 The verb is used in the same sense

wherever it occurs in the N.T. : viz., St.
Luke xviii. 1; 2 Cor. iv. 1, 16; Gal. vi.
9 ; Eph. iii. 13 ; and 2 Thess. iii. 13. It
is thus peculiar to St. Luke and to St.
Paul.

JUDGES IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL. 287
could not have formed a Jewish tribunal. Besides, his mode of speak- chap.
ing and acting is inconsistent with such a hypothesis. He must XIX
therefore have been one of the Judges, or municipal authorities, v — -i 
appointed by Herod or the Romans — perhaps a Jew, but not a Jewish
Judge. Possibly, he may have been a police-magistrate, or one who
had some function of that kind delegated to him. We know that,
at least in Jerusalem, there were two stipendiary magistrates (Day-
yaney Gezeroth*), whose duty it was to see to the observance of all "Kethub.
police-regulations and the prevention of crime. Unlike the regular
Judges, who attended only on certain days and hours," and were "Shabb.ioa
unpaid,. these magistrates were, so to speak, always on duty, and
hence unable to engage in any other occupation. It was probably
for this reason that they were paid out of the Temple-Treasury," and « Jer. sheq.
received so large a salary as225Z., or, if needful, even more/ On dK"tll 105
account of this, perhaps also for their unjust exactions, Jewish wit ^^Keth-
designated them, by a play on the words, as Dayyaney Gezeloth —
Robber-Judges, instead of their real title of Dayyaney Gezerotli
(Judges of Prohibitions, or else of Punishments).1 It may have
been that there were such Jewish magistrates in other places also.
Josephus speaks of local magistracies/2 At any rate there were °sA^-ir-
in every locality police-officials, who watched over order and law.3
The Talmud speaks in very depreciatory terms of these ' village-
Judges ' (Dayyaney deMegista), in opposition to the town tribunals
(Bey Davar), and accuses them of ignorance, arbitrariness, and
covetousness, so that for a dish of meat they would pervert justice.1' ' Babha k.
Frequent instances are also mentioned of gross injustice and bribery
in regard to the non-Jewish Judges in Palestine.
It is to such a Judge that the Parable refers — one who was con
sciously, openly, and avowedly6 inaccessible to the highest motive, ^st. Luke
the fear of God, and not even restrained by the lower consideration of
regard for public opinion. It is an extreme case, intended to illus
trate the exceeding unlikelihood of justice being done. For the same
purpose, the party seeking justice at his hands is described as a poor,
unprotected widow. But we must also bear in mind, in the inter
pretation of this Parable, that the Church, whom she represents, is
also widowed in the absence of her Lord. To return — this widow
' came ' to the Unjust Judge (the imperfect tense in the original in-
1 Comp. Geiger, Urschr. u. Uebers. pp. 3 Comp. Bloch, Mos.Talm. Polizeirecht,
119, 120, Note, with which, however, which is, however, only an enlargement
comp. the two Essays mentioned in of Frankel's essay in the Monatschr. fur
Note 3. Gesch. d. Judenth. for 1852, pp. 243-261.
2 See Geiger, u. s. p. 115.

288

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

•Comp. St.
Luke xi. 8

» St. Luke
xviii. 8

dicating repeated, even continuous coming), with the urgent demand
to be vindicated of her adversary, that is, that the Judge should
make legal inquiry, and by a decision set her right as against him at
whose hands she was suffering wrong. For reasons of his own he
would not; and this continued for a while. At last, not from any
higher principle, nor even from regard for public opinion — both of
which, indeed, as he avowed to himself, had no weight with him — he
complied with her request, as the text (literally translated) has it:
' Yet at any rate a because this widow troubleth me, I will do justice
for her, lest, in the end, coming she bruise me ' 1 — do personal violence
to me, attack me bodily. Then follows the grand inference from it:
If the ' Judge of Unrighteousness ' speak thus, shall not the Judge
of all Righteousness — God — do judgment, vindicate [by His Coming
to judgment and so setting right the wrong done to His Church]
' His Elect, which cry to Him day and night, although He suffer long
on account of them ' — delay His final interposition of judgment and
mercy, and that, not as the Unjust Judge, but for their own sakes,
in order that the number of the Elect may all be gathered in, and they
fully prepared?
Difficult as the rendering of this last clause admittedly is, our
interpretation of it seems confirmed by the final application of this
Parable." Taking the previous verse along with it, we would have
this double Parallelism : ' But God, shall He not vindicate [do judg
ment on behalf of] His Elect?'" 'I tell you, that He will do judg
ment on behalf of them shortly ' — this word being chosen rather than
' speedily' (as in the A. and R.V.), because the latter might convey
the idea of a sudden interposition, such as is not implied in the ex
pression. This would be the first Parallelism; the second this:
' Although He suffer long [delay His final interposition] on account
of them' (verse 1), to which the second clause of verse 8 would cor
respond, as offering the explanation and vindication : ' But the Son
of Man, when He have come, shall He find the faith upon the earth?.'
It is a terribly sad question, as put by Him Who is the Christ: After
all this long-suffering delay, shall He find the faith upon the earth —
intellectual belief on the part of one class, and on the part of the
Church the faith of the heart which trusts in, longs, and prays,
because it expects and looks for His Coming, all undisturbed by the
prevailing unbelief around, only quickened by it to more intensity

1 This, as the only possible rendering of
the verb in this instance, is also vindicated
by Meyer ad loc. The Judge seems

afraid of bodily violence from the exas
perated woman. For a significant pugi
listic use of the verb, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 27.

THE PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. 289
of prayer! Shall He find it? Let the history of the Church, nay, CHAP.
each man's heart, make answer! XIX
2. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, which follows," '  ^~ — •
is only internally connected with that of ' the Unjust Judge.' It is ^uiL9-u
not unrighteousness, but of seZ/-righ£eousness — and this, both in
its positive and negative aspects : as trust in one's own state, and as
contempt of others. Again, it has also this connection with the
previous Parable, that, whereas that of the Unrighteous Judge pointed
to continuance, this to humility in prayer.
The introductory clause shows that it has no connection in point
of time with what had preceded, although the interval between the
two may, of course, have been very short. Probably, something had
taken place, which is not recorded, to occasion this Parable, which, if
not directly addressed to the Pharisees,1 is to such as are of Phari
saic spirit. It brings before us two men going up to the Temple —
whether ' at the hour of prayer, ' or otherwise, is not stated. Re
membering that, with the exception of the Psalms for the day and the
interval for a certain prescribed prayer, the service in the Temple was
entirely sacrificial, we are thankful for such glimpses, which show
that, both in the time of public service, and still more at other times,
the Temple was made the place of private prayer. " On the present b comp. st.
occasion the two men, who went together to the entrance ofthe 37; Acts' ii.'
46; v. 12, 42
Temple, represented the two religious extremes m Jewish society.
To the entrance of the Temple, but no farther, did the Pharisee and
the Publican go together. Within the sacred enclosure — before
God, where man should least have made it, began their separation.
'The Pharisee put himself by himself,2 and prayed thus: 0 God, I
thank Thee that I am not as the rest of men — extortioners, unjust,
adulterers — nor also as this Publican [there] . ' Never, perhaps, were
words of thanksgiving spoken in less thankfulness than these. For,
thankfulness implies the acknowledgment of a gift; hence, a sense
of not having had ourselves what we have received; in other words,
1 The objection of Schleiermacher 'stood' would seem utterly idle. He could
(followed by later commentators), that, not have sat. 3. The rendering ' prayed
in a Parable addressed to Pharisees, a with himself,' is not correct. The words
Pharisee would not have been introduced mean : ' to himself ' — and this would give
as the chief figure, seems of little force, no meaning. But even were we to render
2 For the philological vindication of it 'with himself in the sense of silent
this rendering, see Goebel, Parabeln (i. p. prayer, the introduction of such a remark
327). The arguments in its favour are as as that he prayed silently, would be both
follows: 1. It corresponds to the descrip- needless and aimless. But what decides
tion of the position of the Publican, who us is the parallelism with the account of
also stood by himself ' afar off. ' 2. Other- the posture of the Publican.
wise, the mention that the Pharisee

290 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK then, a sense of our personal need, or humility. But the very first act
IV of this Pharisee had been to separate himself from all the other wor-
"¦ — "v-"-" shippers, and notably from the Publican, whom, as his words show,
he had noticed, and looked down upon. His thanksgiving referred
not to what he had received, but to the sins of others by which they
were separated from him, and to his own meritorious deeds by which he
was separated from them. Thus, his words expressed what his atti
tude indicated; and both were the expression, not of thankfulness, but
of boastfulness. It was the same as their bearing at the feast and in
public places; the same as their contempt and condemnation of ' the
rest of men,' and especially 'the publicans; ' the same that even their
designation — 'Pharisees,' 'Separated' ones,' implied. The 'rest of
men ' might be either the Gentiles, or, more probably, the common
unlearned people, the Am haArets, whom they accused or suspected
of every possible sin, according to their fundamental principle:
' The unlearned cannot be pious. ' And, in their sense of that term,
they were right — and in this lies the condemnation of their righteous
ness. And, most painful though it be, remembering the downright
earnestness and zeal of these men, it must be added that, as we
read the Liturgy of the Synagogue, we come ever and again upon
such and similar thanksgiving — that they are ' not as the rest of
men.'1 But this was not all. From looking down upon others the Phari
see proceeded to look up to himself. Here Talmudic writings offer
painful parallelisms. They are full of references to the merits of the
just, to 'the merits and righteousness of the fathers,' or else of
Israel in taking upon itself the Law. And for the sake of these
merits and of that righteousness, Israel, as a nation, expects general
acceptance, pardon, and temporal benefits 2 — for, all spiritual bene
fits Israel as a nation, and the pious in Israel individually, possess
already, nor do they need to get them from heaven, since they can
and do work them out for themselves. And here the Pharisee in
the Parable significantly dropped even the form of thanksgiving. The
1 Of this spirit are even such Eulogies limit to such extravagances. The world
as these in the ordinary morning-prayer: itself had been created on account of the
' Blessed art Thou, Lord, our God, King merits of Israel, and is sustained by them,
of the world, that Thou hast not made even as all nations only continue by rea-
me a stranger (a Gentile) ... a servant son of this (Shemoth R. 15, 28 ; Bemidb.
. . a woman.' R. 2). A most extraordinary account is
2 The merit or Zekhuth. On this sub- given in Bemidb. R. 20 of.the four merits
ject we must refer, as far too large for for the sake of which Israel was delivered
quotation, to the detailed account in such out of Egypt : they did not change their
works as Weber, System d. altsynag. names; nor their language; nor reveal
Theol. pp. 280 &c. Indeed, there is no their secrets; nor were dissolute.

THE PHARISEE IN THE TEMPLE.

291

religious performances which he enumerated are those which mark CHAP.
the Pharisee among the Pharisees : ' I fast twice a week, and I give XIX
tithes of all that I acquire. ' J The first of these was in pursuance of v- — r~ —
the custom of some ' more righteous than the rest, ' who, as previously
explained, fasted on the second and fifth days of the week (Mondays
and Thursdays)/ But, perhaps, we should not forget that these were ¦ Taan. 12 a
also the regular market days, when the country-people came to the
towns, and there were special Services in the Synagogues, and the
local Sanhedrin met — so that these saints in Israel would, at the same
time, attract and receive special notice for their fasts. As for the
boast about giving tithes of all that he acquired — and not merely of his
land, fruits, &c. — it has already been explained," that this was one of
the distinctive characteristics of ' the sect of the Pharisees. ' Their
practice in this respect may be summed up in these words of the
Mishnah:" ' He tithes all that he eats, all that he sells, and all that ' Domain 2
he buys, and he is not a guest with an unlearned person [Am
haArets, so as not possibly to partake of what may have been left
untithed] . '
Although it may not be necessary, yet one or two quotations will
help to show how truly this picture of the Pharisee was taken from
life. Thus, the following prayer of a Rabbi is recorded: ' I thank
Thee, 0 Lord my God, that Thou hast put my part with those who
sit in the Academy, and not with those who sit at the corners [money
changers and traders] . For, I rise early and they rise early : I rise
early to the words of the Law, and they to vain things. I labour
and they labour: I labour and receive a reward, they labour and
receive no reward. I run and they run: I run to the life of the world
to come, and they to the pit of destruction. ' ° Even more closely « Ber. 286
parallel is this thanksgiving, which a Rabbi puts into the mouth of
Israel: 'Lord of the world, judge me not as those who dwell in the
big towns [such as Rome] : among whom there is robbery, and
uncleanness, and vain and false swearing.'4 Lastly, as regards the «Erub.2i6,
boastful spirit of Rabbinism, we recall such painful sayings as those and 11
of Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, to which reference has already been bottom
made 3 — notably this, that if there were only two righteous men in
the world, he and his son were these; and if only one, it was he! c ' Ber. e. 35
ed. Warsh.
The second picture, or scene, in the Parable sets before us the p. 64 b, end
reverse state of feeling from that of the Pharisee. Only, we must
bear in mind, that, as the Pharisee is not blamed for his giving of

1 Not 'possess,

' as in the A.V. 2 See Book III. ch. ii.
3 Comp. vol. i. p. 540.

292 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK thanks, nor yet for his good-doing, real or imaginary, so the prayer
IV of the Publican is not answered, because he was a sinner. In both cases
^— -v-»-' what decides the rejection or acceptance ofthe prayer is, whether or
not it was prayer. The Pharisee retains the righteousness which he
had claimed for himself, whatever its value; and the Publican receives
the righteousness which he asks: both have what they desire before
God. If the Pharisee 'stood by himself,' apart from others, so did
the Publican: 'standing afar off,' viz. from the Pharisee — quite far
back, as became one who felt himself unworthy to mingle with God's
people. In accordance with this : ' He would not so much as lift 1 his
eyes to heaven, ' as men generally do in prayer, ' but smote his 2 breast '
— as the Jews still do in the most solemn part of their confession on
the Day of Atonement — ' saying, God be merciful to me the sinner.'
The definite article is used to indicate that he felt, as if he alone were
a sinner — nay, the sinner. Not only, as has been well remarked,3
' does he not think of any one else ' (de nemine alio hominexogitat),
while the Pharisee had thought of every one else; but, as he had
taken a position not in front of, but behind, every one else, so, in
contrast to the Pharisee, who had regarded everyone but himself as a
sinner, the Publican regarded every one else as righteous compared
with him ' the sinner. ' And, while the Pharisee felt no need, and
uttered no petition, the Publican felt only need, and uttered only
petition. The one appealed to himself for justice, the other appealed
to God for mercy.
More complete contrast, therefore, could not be imagined. And
once more, as between the Pharisee and the Publican, the seeming
and the real, that before men and before God, there is sharp contrast,
and the lesson which Christ had so often pointed is again set forth,
not only in regard to the feelings which the Pharisees entertained,
but also to the gladsome tidings of pardon to the lost: 'I say unto
you, This man went down to his house justified above the other ' [so
according to the better reading, nap etcsTvov]. In other words, the
sentence of righteousness as from God with which the Publican went
home was above, far better than, the sentence of righteousness as
pronounced by himself, with which the Pharisee returned. This
saying casts also light on such comparisons as between ' the
righteous ' elder brother and the pardoned prodigal, or the ninety-
nine that ' need no repentance ' and the lost that was found, or,
on such an utterance as this : ' Except your righteousness shall
1 This, and not ' lift so much as his 2 The word ' upon ' should be left out.
eyes,' is the proper position of the words. s So Bengel.

THE PARABLE OF THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. 293
exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in CHAP.
no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." And so the Parable XIX
ends with the general principle, so often enunciated : ' For every one ' — -n  '
that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself "St. Matt.
' V. 20
shall be exalted. And with this general teaching of the Parable
fully accords the instruction of Christ to His disciples concerning the
reception of little children, which immediately follows." »st.Luke
3. The Parable with which this series closes — that of the Unmer
ciful Servant* can. be treated more briefly, since the circumstances °st. Matt.
J ' J' xviii. 23-35
leading up to it have already been explained in chapter iii. of this
Book. We are now reaching the point where the solitary narrative
of St. Luke again merges with those of the other Evangelists. That
the Parable was spoken before Christ's final journey to Jerusalem,
appears from St. Matthew's Gospel/ On the other hand, as we com- dst. Matt.
pare what in the Gospel by St. Luke follows on the Parable of the
Pharisee and Publican e with the circumstances in which the Parable ' st. Luke
. . . . xviii. 15-17
of the Unmerciful Servant is introduced, we cannot fail to perceive
inward connection between the narratives of the two Evangelists,
confirming the conclusion, arrived at on other grounds, that the Para
ble of the Unmerciful Servant belongs to the Peraean series, and
closes it.
Its connection with the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican
lies in this, that Pharisaic self-righteousness and contempt of others
may easily lead to unforgiveness and unmercifulness, which are
utterly incompatible with a sense of our own need of Divine mercy
and forgiveness. And so in the Gospel of St. Matthew this Parable
follows on the exhibition of a self-righteous, unmerciful spirit,
which would reckon up how often we should forgive, forgetful of
our own need of absolute and unlimited pardon at the hands of
God ' — a spirit, moreover, of harshness, that could look down upon f st. Matt.
xviii. 15-22
Christ's 'little ones,' m forgetfulness of our own need perhaps of
cutting off even a right hand or foot to enter the Kingdom of
Heaven. » * st. Matt.
xviii. X— IAj
In studying this Parable, we must once more remind ourselves of passim
the general canon of the need of distinguishing between what is
essential in a Parable, as directly bearing on its lessons, and what is
merely introduced for the sake of the Parable itself, to give point to
its main teaching. In the present instance, no sober interpreter
would regard of the essence of the Parable the King's command to
sell into slavery the first debtor, together with his wife and children.
It is simply a historical trait, introducing what in analogous circum-

294

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» Ex. xxii.
3; Lev.
XXV. 39, 47

stances might happen in real life, in order to point the lesson, that
a man's strict desert before Go.d is utter, hopeless, and eternal ruin
and loss. Similarly, when the promise of the debtor is thus intro
duced: 'Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all,' it can only
be to complete in a natural manner the first part of the Parabolic
history and to prepare for the second, in which forbearance is asked
by a follow-servant for the small debt which he owes. Lastly, in the
same manner, the recall of the King's original forgiveness of the great
debtor can only be intended to bring out the utter incompatibility of
such harshness towards a brother on the part- of one who has been
consciously forgiven by God his great debt.
Thus keeping apart the essentials of the Parable from the acci
dents of its narration, we have three distinct scenes, or parts, in this
story. In the first, our new feelings towards our brethren arc traced
to our new relation towards God, as the proper spring of all our
thinking, speaking, and acting. Notably, as regards forgiveness, we
are to remember the Kingdom of God: ' Therefore has the Kingdom
of God become like' — 'therefore': in order that thereby we may
learn the duty of absolute, not limited, forgiveness — not that of
' seven,' but of ' seventy times seven.' And now this likeness of the
Kingdom of Heaven is set forth in the Parable of ' a man, a King '
(as the Rabbis would have expressed it, ' a king of flesh and blood '),
who would 'make his reckoning' (avvaipeiv) 'with his servants'
— certainly not his bondservants, but probably the governors of his
provinces, or those who had charge of the revenue and finances.
'But after he had begun to reckon' — not necessarily at the very be
ginning of it — 'one was brought to him, a debtor of ten thou
sand talents.' Reckoning them only as Attic talents (1 talent =60
minas = 6,000 dinars) this would amount to the enormous sum of
about two and a quarter millions sterling. No wonder, that one
who during his administration had been guilty of such peculation,
or else culpable negligence, should, as the words ' brought to him '
imply, have been reluctant to face the king. The Parable further
implies, that the debt was admitted; and hence, in the course of
ordinary judicial procedure — according to the Law of Moses," and
the universal code of antiquity — that ' servant, ' with his family and
all his property, was ordered to be sold,1 and the returns paid into
the treasury.
Of course, it is not suggested that the ' payment ' thus made
1 Accordingly, these servants could not have been 'bondservants,' as in the mar
gin of the R.V.

THE FORGIVEN SERVANT AND HIS FELLOW SERVANTS. 295
had met his debt. Even this would, if need were, confirm the view, chap.
previously expressed, that this trait belongs not to the essentials of XIX
the Parable, but to the details of the narrative. So does the promise, v— ¦ -^  •
with which the now terrified 'servant,' as he cast himself at the
feet of the King, supported his plea for patience : ' I will pay thee
all.' In truth, the narrative takes no notice of this, but, on the
other hand, states : ' But, being moved with compassion, the lord of
that servant released him [from the bondage decreed, and which had
virtually begun with his sentence] , and the debt forgave he him. ' :
A more accurate representation of our relation to God could not be
made. We are the debtors of our heavenly King, Who has entrusted
to us the administration of what is His, and which we have pur
loined or misused, incurring an unspeakable debt, which we can
never discharge, and of which, in the course of justice, unending
bondage, misery, and utter ruin would be the proper sequence. But,
if in humble repentance we cast ourselves at His Feet, He is ready,
in infinite compassion, not only to release us from meet punishment,
but — O blessed revelation of the Gospel! — to forgive us the debt.
It is this new relationship to God which must be the foundation
and the rule for our new relationship towards our fellow-servants.
And this brings us to the second part, or scene in this Parable.
Here the lately pardoned servant finds one of his fellow-servants, who
owes him the small sum of 100 dinars, about 4d. 10s. Mark now
the sharp contrast, which is so drawn as to give point to the Parable.
In the first case, it was the servant brought to account, and that
before the Eing; here it is a servant finding and that his fellow-
servant; in the first case, he owed talents, in the second dinars (a
six-thousandth part of them); in the first, ten thousand talents; in
the second, one hundred dinars. Again, in the first case payment is
only demanded, while in the second the man takes his fellow-servant
by the throat — a not uncommon mode of harshness on the part of
Roman creditors — and says: 'Pay what,' or according to the better
reading, 'if thou owest anything.' And, lastly, although the words of
the second debtor are almost the same '' as those in which the first
debtor besought the King's patience, yet no mercy is shown, but he
is 'cast' [with violence] into prison, till he have paid what was due.3
1 Mark the emphatic position of the perform ; while he who undertook what
words in the original. be might reasonably perform, did not
2 According to the better reading, the say ' all.'
word ' all ' in ver. 29 should be left out 3 The Rabbinic Law was much more
— and the omission is significant. The merciful than this apparently harsh
servant who promised to pay ' all ' (ver. (Roman or Herodian) administration of
26) promised more than he could possibly it. It laid it down that, just as when a ,

296

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

" St. Matt.
xviii. 35

It can scarcely be necessary to show the incongruousness or the
guilt of such conduct. But this is the object of the third part, or
scene, in the Parable. Here — again for the sake of pictorialness — the
other servants are introduced as exceedingly sorry, no doubt about the
fate of their fellow-servant, especially in the circumstances of the case.
Then they come to their lord, and 'clearly set forth,' or 'explain'
(diao-a'^siv) what had happened, upon which the Unmerciful Servant
is summoned, and addressed as ' wicked servant, ' not only because
he had not followed the example of his lord, but because, after
having received such immense favour as the entire remission of his
debt on entreating his master, to have refused to the entreaty of
his fellow-servant even a brief delay in the payment of a small sum,
argued want of all mercy and positive wickedness. And the words
are followed by the manifestations of righteous anger. As he has
done, so is it done to him — and this is the final application of the
Parable/ He is delivered to the 'tormentors,' not in the sense of
being tormented by them, which would scarcely have been just, but
in that of being handed over to such keepers of the prison, to whom
criminals who were to be tortured were delivered, and who executed
such punishment on them: in other words he is sent to the hard
est and severest prison, there to remain till he should pay all
that was due by him — that is, in the circumstances, for ever. And
here we may again remark, without drawing any dogmatic inferences
from the language of the Parable, that it seems to proceed on these
two assumptions: that suffering neither expiates guilt, nor in itself
amends the guilty, and that as sin has incurred a debt that can never
be discharged, so the banishment, or rather the loss and misery of it,
will be endless.
We pause to notice, how near Rabbinism has come to this
Parable, and yet how far it is from its sublime teaching. At the
outset we recall that unlimited forgiveness — or, indeed, for more
than the farthest limit of three times — was not the doctrine of
Rabbinism. It did, indeed, teach how freely God would forgive
Israel, and it introduces a similar Parable of a debtor appealing to

person had owed to the Sanctuary a certain
sum or his property, his goods might be
distrained, but so much was to be de
ducted and left to the person, or given to
him, as was needful for his sustenance, so
was it to be between creditor and debtor.
If a creditor distrained the goods of his
debtor, he was bound to leave to the
latter, if he had been a rich man, a sofa [to

recline at table] and a couch and pillow;
if the debtor had been a poor man, a sofa
and a couch with a reed-mat [for coverlet]
(Bab. Mets. 113 a and b). Nay, certain
tools had to be returned for his use, nor
was either the Sheriff-officer nor the
creditor allowed to enter the house to
make distraint. (As regards distraints
for Vows, see Arach. 23 b, 24 a).

LESSON AS AGAINST HARSH JUDGMENTS. 291
his creditor, and receiving the fullest and freest release of mercy," CHAP.
and it also draws from it the moral, that man should similarly show XIX
mercy; but it is not the mercy of forgiveness from the heart, but of ^ — -<-~— '
forgiveness of money debts to the poor," or of various injuries,0 and ^Tie*"
the mercy of benevolence and beneficence to the wretched/ But, Snem- E-31
however beautifully Rabbinism at times speaks on the subject, the ,3°'-d14
Gospel conception of forgiveness, even as that of mercy, could only ^•¦a1r.9s'11ed-
come by blessed experience of the infinitely higher forgiveness, and 77 a
the incomparably greater mercy, which the pardoned sinner has snem.PB.3i
received in Christ from our Father in Heaven.
But to us all there is the deepest seriousness in the warning
against unmercifulness; and that, even though we remember that
the case here referred to is only that of unwillingness to forgive
from the heart an offending brother who actually asks for it. Yet,
if not the sin, the temptation to it is very real to us all — perhaps
rather unconsciously to ourselves than consciously. For, how often
is our forgiveness in the heart, as well as from the heart, narrowed by
limitations and burdened with conditions; and is it not of the very
essence of sectarianism to condemn without mercy him who does
not come up to our demands — ay, and until he shall have come up to
them to the uttermost farthing?

298

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER XX.
CHRIST'S DISCOURSES IN PERiEA — CLOSE OF THE PERAEAN MINISTRY.

BOOK IV

" St. Luke
xiii. 23-30
'' ver. 24 ;
comp. St.
Matt. vii.
13, 14 ; vv.
25-27 ;
comp. St.
Matt. viii. ,
21-23' vv. 28. 29;
comp. St.
Matt. vii.
21-23••• vv. 28, 29 ;
comp. St.
Matt. viii.
11, 12
* St. Mat
thew and
St. Luke
•¦ St. Luke
xiii. 23 &c.

' See also
ver. 31

(St. Luke xiii. 23-30, 31-35; xiv. 1-11, 25-35; xvii. 1-10.)
From the Parables we now turn to such Discourses of the Lord as
belong to this period of His Ministry. Their consideration may be
the more brief, that throughout we find points of correspondence with
previous or later portions of His teaching.
Thus, the first of these Discourses, of which we have an outline,"
recalls some passages in the 'Sermon on the Mount,'" as well as
what our Lord had said on the occasion of healing the servant of the
centurion/ But, to take the first of these parallelisms, the differences
are only the more marked for the similarity of form. These prove
incontestably, not only the independence of the two Evangelists " in
their narratives, but, along with deeper underlying unity of thought
in the teaching of Christ, its different application to different circum
stances and persons. Let us mark this in the Discourse as outlined
by St. Luke, and so gain fresh evidential confirmation of the trust
worthiness of the Evangelic records.
The words of our Lord, as recorded by St. Luke," are not spoken,
as in ' The Sermon on the Mount, ' in connection with His teaching
to His disciples, but are in reply to a question addressed to Him by
some one — we can scarcely doubt, a representative ofthe Pharisees: f
' Lord, are they few, the saved ones [that are being saved] ? ' Viewed
in connection with Christ's immediately preceding teaching about
the Kingdom of God in its wide and deep spread, as the great
Mustard-Tree from the tiniest seed, and as the Leaven hid, which
pervaded three measures of meal, we can scarcely doubt that the
word ' saved ' bore reference, not to the eternal state of the soul, but
to admission to the benefits of the Kingdom of God — the Messianic
Kingdom, with its privileges and its judgments, such as the Pharisees
understood it. The question, whether ' few ' were to be saved, could
not have been put from the Pharisaic point of view, if understood of

THE FIRST OF CHRIST'S PERSIAN DISCOURSES. 299
personal salvation;' while, on the other hand, if taken as applying CHAP.
to part in the near-expected Messianic Kingdom, it has its distinct XX
parallel in the Rabbinic statement, that, as regarded the days of *— — y~ — '
the Messiah (His Kingdom), it would be similar to what it had been
at the entrance into the land of promise, when only two (Joshua and
Caleb), out of all that generation, were allowed to have part in it/ •sanh.
Again, it is only when understanding both the question of this Phari
see and the reply of our Lord as applying to the Kingdom of the
Messiah — though each viewing ' the Kingdom ' from his own stand
point — that we can understand the answering words of Christ in their
natural and obvious sense, without either straining or adding to them
a dogmatic gloss, such as could not have occurred to His bearers at the
time.2 Thus viewed, we can mark the characteristic differences between
this Discourse and the parallels in ' the Sermon on the Mount, ' and
understand their reason. As regarded entrance into the Messianic
Kingdom, this Pharisee, and those whom he represented, are told,
that this Kingdom was not theirs, as a matter of course — their question
as to the rest of the world being only, whether few or many would
share in it — but that all must ' struggle3 [agonise] to enter in through
the narrow door.' 4 When we remember, that in ' the Sermon on the
Mount ' the call was only to ' enter in, ' we feel that we have now
reached a period, when the access to ' the narrow door ' was
obstructed by the enmity of so many, and when it needed ' violence '
to break through, and 'take the Kingdom' 'by force."1 This 'fit;,Matt-
personal breaking through the opposing multitude, in order to enter
in through the narrow door, was in opposition to the many — the
Pharisees and Jews generally — who were seeking to enter in, in their
own way, never doubting success, but who would discover their
terrible mistake. Then, ' when once the Master of the house is risen
up, ' to welcome His guests to the banquet, and has shut to the door,
while they, standing without, vainly call upon Him to open it, and
He replies: 'I know you not whence ye are,' would they begin to
1 It is difficult to understand how do not struggle* for admission.' But
Wiinsche could have referred to Sukk. would any one be refused who sought, in
45 b as a parallel, since anything more the sense of desiring, or wishing ?
thoroughly contrary to all Christ's teach- 3 The word implies a real combat to
ing can scarcely be imagined. Other- get at the narrow door, not ' a large
wise also the parallel is inapt. The crowd . . . struggling for admission.'
curious reader will find the passage in de- The verb occurs besides in the following
tail in Schottgen, onl Cor.xiii. 12(p.652). passages: St. John xviii. 36 ; 1 Cor. ix.
2 Thus, Canon Cook makes this distinc- 25; Col. i. 29; iv. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 12;
tion: 'They who are said to seek, seek 2 Tim. iv. 1.
(i.e. desire and wish) and no more. They 4 So* according to the best reading.

xi. 12

300

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

a Comp.
also St.
Matt. xix.
30; xx

16

' St, Matt.
vii. 21, 22

remind Him of those covenant-privileges on which, as Israel after
the flesh, they had relied ( ' we have eaten and drunk in Thy presence,
and Thou hast taught in our streets '). To this He would reply by a
repetition of His former words, now seen to imply a disavowal of all
mere outward privileges, as constituting a claim to the Kingdom,
grounding alike His disavowal and His refusal to open on their
inward contrariety to the King and His Kingdom: ' Depart from Me,
all ye workers of iniquity. ' It was a banquet to the friends of the
King: the inauguration of His Kingdom. When they found the door
shut, they would, indeed, knock, in the confident expectation that
their claims would at once be recognised, and they admitted. And
when the Master of the house did not recognise them, as they had
expected, and they reminded Him of their outward connection, He
only repeated the same words as before, since it was not outward but
inward relationship that qualified the guests, and theirs was not
friendship, but antagonism to Him. Terrible would then be their sor
row and anguish, when they would see their own patriarchs ( ' we have
eaten and drunk in Thy Presence') and their own prophets (' Thou
hast taught in our streets ') within, and yet themselves were excluded
from what was peculiarly theirs — while from all parts of the heathen
world the welcome guests would flock to the joyous feast. And here
pre-eminently would the saying hold good, in opposition to Pharisaic
claims and self-righteousness : ' There are last which shall be first,
and there are first which shall be last. ' a
As a further characteristic difference from the parallel passage in
'the Sermon on the Mount,' we note, that there the reference seems
not to any special privileges in connection with the Messianic
Kingdom, such as the Pharisees expected, but to admission into
the Kingdom of Heaven generally." In regard to the latter also
the highest outward claims would be found unavailing; but the
expectation of admission was grounded rather on what was done,
than on mere citizenship and its privileges. And here it deserves
special notice, that in St. Luke's Gospel, where the claim is that
of fellow-citizenship ("eaten and drunk in Thy Presence, and
Thou hast taught in our streets'), the reply is made, 'I know you
not whence ye are ; ' while in ' the Sermon on the Mount, ' where
the claim is of what they had done in His Name, they are told:
' I never knew you.' In both cases the disavowal emphatically bears
on the special plea which had been set up. With this, another
slight difference may be connected, which is not brought out in the
Authorised or in the Revised Version. Both in the ' Sermon on

THE SECOND OF THE PERAEAN DISCOURSES. 301
the Mount ' * and in St. Luke's Gospel," they who are bidden depart are CHAP.
designated as 'workers of iniquity.' But, whereas, in St. Matthew's XX
Gospel the term (avojxia) really means ' lawlessness, ' the word used in ^-^ 
that of St. Luke should be rendered ' unrighteousness ' 1 (aSiKia). "St. Matt.
° v ' vn. 23
Thus, the one class are excluded, despite the deeds which they plead, bSt. Luke
for their real contrariety to God's Law; the other, despite the plea of xil1' 27
citizenship and privileges, for their unrighteousness. ° And here we ° Kom. 11.
may also note, as a last difference between the two Gospels, that in
the prediction of the future bliss from which they were to be
excluded, the Gospel of St. Luke, which had reported the plea that
He had ' taught ' in their ' streets, ' adds, as it were in answer, to the
names of the Patriarchs, Q mention of ' all the prophets. ' a st. Matt.
2. The next Discourse, noted by St. Luke," had been spoken 'in ™t'Luie
that very day, ' 2 as the last. It was occasioned by a pretended xili- 31_35
warning of ' certain of the Pharisees ' to depart from Peraea, which,
with Galilee, was the territory of Herod Antipas, as else the Tetrarch
would kill Him. We have previously3 shown reason for suppos
ing secret intrigues between the Pharisaic party and Herod, and
attributing the final imprisonment of the Baptist, at least in part,
to their machinations. We also remember, how the conscience of
the Tetrarch connected Christ with His murdered Forerunner, and
that rightly, since, at least so far as the Pharisees wrought on the fears
of that intensely jealous and suspicious prince, the imprisonment of
John was as much due to his announcement of the Messiah as to the
enmity of Herodias. On these grounds we can easily understand
that Herod should have wished to see Jesus/ not merely to gratify »st. Lute
curiosity, nor in obedience to superstitious impulses, but to convince
himself, whether He was really what was said of Him, and also to get
Him into his power. Probably, therefore, the danger of which these
Pharisees spoke might have been real enough, and they might have
special reasons for knowing of it. But their suggestion, that Jesus
should depart, could only have proceeded from a ruse to get Him
out of Perasa, where, evidently, His works of healing s were largely ^fnsfj*en
attracting and influencing the people. ^2uke xiil-
But if our Lord would not be deterred by the fears of His disciples
from going into Judaea," feeling that each one had his appointed work- " st. jonn
ing day, in the light of which he was safe, and during the brief dura-
1 It is characteristic of 'higher' criti- in St. Luke's as a retort upon Petrine
cism when Hilgenfeld declares that the or Jewish Christianity!
' lawlessness ' in St. Matthew's Gospel is 2 Perhaps we should rather read 'hour.'
intended as a covert hit at Pauline 3 See Book III. chap, xxviii.
Christianity, and the ' unrighteousness '

302 BOOK IV

a The word
iropeveadai,ver. 31, is
also used
in ver. 32
•go,' and
ver. 33
' walk '

k w. 34, 35

« St. Matt.
xxiii. 37-39

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
tion of which he was bound to 'walk,' far less would He recede before
His enemies. Pointing to their secret intrigues, He bade them, if
they chose, go back to ' that fox,' and give to his low cunning, and to
all similar attempts to hinder or arrest His Ministry, what would be a
decisive answer, since it unfolded what He clearly foresaw in the near
future. ' Depart '? a— yes, • depart ' ye to tell ' that fox,' I have still
a brief and an appointed time ' to work, and then ' I am perfected,'
in the sense in which we all readily understand the expression, as
applying to His Work and Mission. 'Depart!' 'Yes,Imust "depart,"
or go My brief appointed time: I know that at the goal of it is
death, yet not at the hands of Herod, but in Jerusalem, the slaughter
house of them that " teach in her streets." '
And so, remembering that this message to Herod was spoken in
the very day, perhaps the very hour that He had declared how
falsely ' the workers of wickedness ' claimed admission on account of
the ' teaching in their streets, ' and that they would be excluded
from the fellowship, not only of the fathers, but of ' all the prophets '
whom they called their own — we see peculiar meaning in the refer
ence to Jerusalem as the place where all the prophets perished.2
One, Who in no way indulged in illusions, but knew that He had an
appointed time, during which He would work, and at the end of
which He would ' perish, ' and where He would so perish, could not be
deterred either by the intrigues of the Pharisees nor by the thought
of what a Herod might attempt — not do, which latter was in far
other hands. But the thought of Jerusalem — of what it was, what
it might have been, and what would come to it — may well have
forced from the lips of Him, Who wept over it, a cry of mingled
anguish, love, and warning." It may, indeed, be, that these very
words, which are reported by St. Matthew in another, and manifestly
most suitable, connection, oS are here quoted by St. Luke, because
they fully express the thought to which Christ here first gave distinct
utterance. But some such words, we can scarcely doubt, He did
speak even now, when pointing to His near Decease in Jerusalem.

1 The words ' to-day, and to-morrow,
and the third day,' must not be taken as
a literal, but as a well-known figurative
expression. Thus we are told (Mechilta,
Par. Bo, 18, towards end, ed. Weiss, p.
21b), 'There is a "to-morrow" which
is now [refers to the immediate present],
and a '• to-morrow " of a later time,' indi
cating a fixed period connected with the
present, The latter, for example, in the
passage illustrated in the Rabbinic quo

tation just made: Ex. xiii. 14, 'It shall be
when thy son shall ask thee [literally]
to-morrow,' in our A.V. 'in time to come/
So also Josh. xxii. 24. ' The third day '
in such connection would be ITOT NVI75.
2 Even the death of John the Baptist
may, as indicated, be said to have been
compassed in Jerusalem.
3 The words will be considered in con
nection with that passage.

THE THIRD OF THE PER^AN DISCOURSES. 303
3. The next in order of the Discourses recorded by St. Luke " is CHAP.
that which prefaced the Parable of 'the Great Supper, 'expounded in XX
a previous chapter." The Rabbinic views on the Sabbath-Law have — -<-- —
been so fully explained, that a very brief commentation will here *f*- ^ks
suffice. It appears, that the Lord condescended to accept the invi- « chapter
tation to a Sabbath-meal in the house ' of one of the Rulers of the XT1'
Pharisees ' — perhaps one of the Rulers of the Synagogue in which
they had just worshipped, and where Christ may have taught.
Without here discussing the motives for this invitation, its accep
tance was certainly made use of to 'watch Him.' And the man
with the dropsy had, no doubt, been introduced for a treacherous
purpose, although it is not necessary to suppose that he himself had
been privy to it. On the other hand, it is characteristic of the
gracious Lord, that, with full knowledge of their purpose, He sat down
with such companions, and that He did His Work of power and love
unrestrained by their evil thoughts. But, even so, He must turn
their wickedness also to good account. Yet we mark, that He first
dismissed the man healed of the dropsy before He reproved the
Pharisees/ It was better so — for the sake of the. guests, and for »st. Luke
the healed man himself, whose mind quite new and blessed Sabbath-
thoughts would fill, to which all controversy would be jarring.
And, after his departure, the Lord first spake to them, as was
His wont, concerning their misapplication of the Sabbath-Law, to
which, indeed, their own practice gave the lie. They deemed it
unlawful ' to heal ' on the Sabbath-day, though, when He read their
thoughts and purposes as against Him, they would not answer His
question on the point/ And yet, if 'a son,1 or even an ox,' of any in.u
of them, had 'fallen into a pit,' they would have found some valid
legal reason for pulling him out! Then, as to their Sabbath-feast,
and their invitation to Him, when thereby they wished to lure Him
to evil — and, indeed, their much-boasted hospitality: all Avas charac
teristic of these Pharisees — only external show, with utter absence of
all real love; only self-assumption, pride, and self-righteousness,
together with contempt of all who were regarded as religiously or
intellectually beneath them — chiefly of ' the unlearned ' and ' sinners,'
those in ' the streets and lanes ' of their city, whom they considered
as ' the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. ' ° Even • ver. 21
among themselves there was strife about ' the first places ' — such as,
perhaps, Christ had on that occasion witnessed, ' amidst mock pro- f ver. 7-11
fessions of humility, when, perhaps, the master of the house had
1 So — and not ' ass ' — according to the best reading.

304

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

0 Chapter
xvi.

«Ab. de B.
Nathan 7

'St. Luke
xiv. 25-35

i St. Matt.
X. 37, 38

afterwards, in true Pharisaic fashion, proceeded to re-arrange the
guests according to their supposed dignity. And even the Rabbis
had given advice to the same effect as Christ's a — and of this His
words may have reminded them. 1
But further — addressing him who had so treacherously bidden
Him to this feast, Christ showed how the principle of Pharisaism
consisted in self-seeking, to the necessary exclusion of all true love.
Referring, for the fuller explanation of His meaning, D to a previous
chapter,0 we content ourselves here with the remark, that this self-
seeking and self-righteousness appeared even in what, perhaps, they
most boasted of— their hospitality. For, if in an earlier Jewish
record we read the beautiful words : ' Let thy house be open
towards the street, and let the poor be the sons of thy house, ' d we
have, also, this later comment on them, c that Job had thus had his
house opened to the four quarters of the globe for the poor, and
that, when his calamities befell him, he remonstrated with God on
the ground of his merits in this respect, to which answer was made,
that he had in this matter come very far short of the merits of
Abraham. So entirely self-introspective and self-seeking did Rab
binism become, and so contrary was its outcome to the spirit of Christ,
the inmost meaning of Whose Work, as well as Words, was entire
self-forgetfulness and self-surrender in love.
4. In the fourth Discourse recorded by St. Luke, f we pass from
the parenthetic account of that Sabbath-meal in the house of the
' Ruler of the Pharisees,' back to where the narrative of the Phari
sees' threat about Herod and the reply of Jesus had left us/ And,
if proof were required of the great influence exercised by Jesus,
and which, as we have suggested, led to the attempt ofthe Pharisees
to induce Christ to leave Persea, it would be found in the opening
notice," as well as in the Discourse itself which He spoke. Christ
did depart — from that place, though not yet from Perasa; but with
Him 'went great multitudes.' And, in view of their professed adhe
sion, it was needful, and now more emphatically than ever, to set
before them all that discipleship really involved, alike of cost and of
strength — the two latter points being illustrated by brief ' Parables '
(in the wider sense of that term). Substantially, it was only what
Christ had told the Twelve, when He sent them on their first
Mission.1 Only it was now cast in a far stronger mould, as befitted
the altered circumstances, in the near prospect of Christ's condemna
tion, with all that this would involve to His followers.

1 Almost precisely the same sayings occur in Ab. de Rabbi Nathan 25
Vayyikra R. 1.

and

THE FOURTH OF THE PERvEAN DISCOURSES. 305
At the outset we mark, that we ave not here told what constituted CHAP.
the true disciple, but what would prevent a man from becoming such. XX
Again, it was now no longer (as in the earlier address to the Twelve), '  . 
that he who loved the nearest and dearest of earthly kin more than
Christ, — and hence clave to such rather than to Him — was not
worthy of Him; nor that he who did not take his cross and follow
after Him was not worthy of the Christ. Since then the enmity
had ripened, and discipleship become impossible without actual re
nunciation of the nearest relationship, and, more than that, "of life
itself/ Of course, the term ' hate' does not imply hatred of parents »st. Luke
or relatives, or of life, in the ordinary sense. But it points to this,
that, as outward separation, consequent upon men's antagonism
to Christ, was before them in the near future, so, in the present,
inward separation, a renunciation in mind and heart, preparatory
to that outwardly, was absolutely necessary. And this immediate
call was illustrated in twofold manner. A man who was about to
begin building a tower, must count the cost of his undertaking." It * w. 28-30
was not enough that he was prepared to defray the expense of the
foundations; he must look to the cost of the whole. So must they,
in becoming disciples, look not on what was involved in the present
following of Christ, but remember the cost of the final acknowledg
ment of Jesus. Again, if a king went to war, common prudence
would lead him to consider whether his forces were equal to the great
contest before him; else it were far better to withdraw in time, even
though it involved humiliation, from what, in view of his weakness,
would end in miserable defeat/ So, and much more, must the intend- • w. 31, 32
ing disciple make complete inward surrender of all, deliberately count
ing the cost, and, in view of the coming trial, ask himself whether
he had, indeed, sufficient inward strength — the force of love to
Christ — to conquer. And thus discipleship, then, and, in measure,
to all time, involves the necessity of complete inward surrender of
everything for the love of Christ, so that if, and when, the time of
outward trial comes, we may be prepared to conquer in the fight/ "ver. 33
He fights well, who has first fought and conquered within.
Or else, and here Christ breaks once more into that pithy Jewish
proverb — only, oh! how aptly, applying it to His disciples — 'Salt is
good; ' 'salt, if it have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? ' e »w. 34, 35
We have preferred quoting the proverb in its Jewish form," to show fBekhor.
its popular origin. Salt in such condition was neither fit to improve u, '13 from

bottom

1 In the Talmud : H? THM "X753 [has an evil odour, is spoiled] '"ID "D XnTTi.

306

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

« St. Luke
xvii. 1-10

0 vv. 1^1,
comp. St.
Matt, xviii.
6-35 ; ver. 6,
comp. St.
Matt. xvii.
20a St. John

« St. Luke
xvii. 1, 2
' vv. 3, 4
g ver. 6

i St. Matt.
xviii. 1-6,
&c, 21, 22
k St. Luke
xvii. 6

the land, nor, on the other hand, to be mixed with the manure. The
disciple who had lost his distinctiveness would neither benefit the
land, nor was he even fit, as it were, for the dunghill, and could
only be cast out. And so, let him that hath ears to hear, hear the
warning !
5. We have still to consider the last Discourses of Christ before
the raising of Lazarus." As being addressed to the disciples," we
have to connect them with the Discourse just commented upon. In
point of fact, part of these admonitions had already been spoken on a
previous occasion, and that more fully, to the disciples in Galilee/
Only wc must again bear in mind the difference of circumstances.
Here, they immediately precede the raising of Lazarus, d and they
form the close of Christ's public Ministry in Peraaa. Hence they
come to us as Christ's parting admonitions to His Peraean fol
lowers. Thus viewed, they are intended to impress on the new disciples
these four things: to be careful to give no offence; ° to be careful to
take no offence; ' to be simple and earnest in their faith, and abso
lutely to trust its all-prevailing power;6 and yet, when they had
made experience of it, not to be elated, but to remember their rela
tion to their Master, that all was in His service, and that, after all,
when everything had been done, they were but unprofitable servants."
In other words, they urged upon the disciples holiness, love, faith,
and service of self-surrender and humility.
Most of these points have been already considered, when ex
plaining the similar admonitions of Christ in Galilee.1 The four
parts of this Discourse are broken by the prayer of the Apostles,
who had formerly expressed their difficulty in regard to these very
requirements: ' ' Add unto us faith.' It was upon this that the Lord
spake to them, for their comfort, of the absolute power of even the
smallest faith," and ofthe service and humility of faith/' The latter
was couched in a Parabolic form, well calculated to impress on them
those feelings which would keep them lowly. They were but ser
vants; and, even though they had done their work, the Master ex
pected them to serve Him, before they sat down to their own meal
and rest. Yet meal and rest there would be in the end. Only, let
there not be self-elation, nor weariness, nor impatience; but let the
Master and His service be all in all. Surely, if ever there was em
phatic protest against the fundamental idea of Pharisaism, as claim-

See Book IV. chap. iii.

CLOSING ADMONITION OF THE PERAEAN DISCOURSES. 307
ing merit and reward, it was in the closing admonition of Christ's CHAP.
public Ministry in Peraea: 'When ye shall have done all those things XX
which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we v— ^v — '
have done that which was our duty to do. '
And with these parting words did He most effectually and for
ever separate, in heart and spirit, the Church from the Synagogue.

308 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER XXI.
THE DEATH AND THE RAISING OF LAZARUS — THE QUESTION OF MIRACLES
AND OF THIS MIRACLE OF MIRACLES — VIEWS OF NEGATIVE CRITICISM
ON THIS HISTORY — JEWISH BURYING-RITES AND SEPULCHRES.
(St. John xi. 1-54.)
BOOK From listening to the teaching of Christ, we turn once more to follow
IV His working. It will be remembered, that the visit to Bethany
— ~^  ' divides the period from the Feast of the Dedication to the last
Paschal week into two parts. It also forms the prelude and prepa
ration for the awful events of the End. For, it was on that occasion
that the members of the Sanhedrin formally resolved on His Death.
It now only remained to settle and carry out the plans for giving
effect to their purpose.
This is one aspect of it. There is yet another and more solemn
one. The raising of Lazarus marks the highest point (not in the
Manifestation, but) in the ministry of our Lord; it is the climax in
a history where all is miraculous — the Person, the Life, the Words,
the Work. As regards Himself, we have here the fullest evidence
alike of His Divinity and Humanity; as regards those who witnessed
it, the highest manifestation of faith and of unbelief. Here, on this
height, the two ways finally meet and part. And from this high
point — not only from the resolution of the Sanhedrists, but from the
raising of Lazarus — we have our first clear outlook on the Death and
Resurrection of Christ, of which the raising of Lazarus was the
typical prelude. From this height, also, have we an outlook upon
the gathering of the Church at His empty Tomb, where the precious
words spoken at the grave of Lazarus received their full meaning
— till Death shall be no more. But chiefly do we now think of
it as the Miracle of Miracles in the history of the Christ. He
had, indeed, before this raised the dead; but it had been in far-off
Galilee, and in circumstances essentially different. But now it would
be one so well known as Lazarus, at the very gates of Jerusalem,
in the sight of all men, and amidst surroundings which admitted

CONSIDERATIONS IN REGARD TO THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 309
not of mistake or doubt. If this Miracle be true, we instinctively CHAP.
feel all is true; and Spinoza was right in saying,1 that if he could XXI
believe the raising of Lazarus, he would tear to shreds his system,
and humbly accept the creed of Christians.
But is it true? We have reached a stage in this history when
such a question, always most painful, might seem almost uncalled for.
For, gradually and with increasing clearness, we have learned the
trustworthiness of the Evangelic records; and, as we have followed
Him, the conviction has deepened into joyous assurance, that He,
Who spake, lived, and wrought as none other, is in very deed the
Christ of God. And yet we ask ourselves here this question again,
on account of its absolute and infinite importance; because this may
be regarded as the highest and decisive moment in this History;
because, in truth, it is to the historical faith of the Church what the
great Confession of Peter was to that of the disciples. And, although
such an inquiry may seem like the jarring of a discord in Heaven's
own melody, we pursue it, feeling that, in so doing, we are not dis
cussing what is doubtful, but rather setting forth the evidence of
what is certain, for the confirmation of the faith of our hearts, and,
as we humbly trust, for the establishment of the faith as it is in
Jesus. At the outset, we must here once more meet, however briefly, the
preliminary difficulty in regard to Miracles, of which the raising of
Lazarus is, we shall not say, the greatest — for comparison is not pos
sible on such a point — but the most notable. Undoubtedly, a Miracle
runs counter, hot only to our experience, but to the facts on which
our experience is grounded; and can only be accounted for by a direct
Divine interposition, which also runs counter to our experience,
although it cannot logically be said to run counter to the facts on
which that experience is grounded. Beyond this it is impossible to
go, since the argument on other grounds than of experience — be it
phenomenal [observation and historical information] or real [know
ledge of laws and principles] — would necessitate knowledge alike of
all the laws of Nature and of all the secrets of Heaven.
On the other hand (as indicated in a previous part2), to argue
this point only on the ground of experience (phenomenal or real),
were not only reasoning a priori, but in a vicious circle. It would
really amount to this: A thing has not been, because it cannot be;
and it cannot be, because, so far as I know, it is not and has not been.
But, to deny on such a priori prejudgment the possibility of Miracles,
1 As quoted by Godet (ad loc). 2 See vol. i., p. 559.

310

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

1 In the
earlier editions of
his Vie de
Jesus

ultimately involves a denial of a Living, Reigning God. For, the
existence of a God implies' at least the possibility, in certain circum
stances it may be the rational necessity, of Miracles. And the same
grounds of experience, which tell against the occurrence of a Miracle,
would equally apply against belief in a God. We have as little
ground in experience (of a physical kind) for the one as for the other.
This is not said to deter inquiry, but for the sake of our argument.
For, we confidently assert and challenge experiment of it, that dis
belief in a God, or Materialism, involves infinitely more difficulties,
and that at every step and in regard to all things, than the faith of
the Christian.
But we instinctively feel that such a Miracle as the raising of
Lazarus calls for more than merely logical formulas. Heart and
mind crave for higher than questions of what may be logically pos
sible or impossible. We want, so to speak, living evidence, and we
have it. We have it, first of all, in the Person of the Incarnate God,
Who not only came to abolish death, but in Whose Presence the con
tinuance of disease and death was impossible. And we have it also
in the narrative of the event itself. It were, indeed, an absurd de
mand to prove a Miracle, since to do so were to show that it was not
a Miracle. But we may be rationally asked these three things: first,
to show, that no other explanation is rationally possible than that
which proceeds on the ground of its being a Miracle; secondly, to
show, that such a view of it is consistent with itself and with all the
details ofthe narrative; and, thirdly, that it is harmonious with
what precedes and what follows the narrative. The second and third
of these arguments will be the outcome of our later study of the
history of this event; the first, that no other explanation of the
narrative is rationally possible, must now be briefly attempted.
We may here dismiss, as what would not be entertained by any
one familiar with historical inquiries, the idea that such a narrative
could be an absolute invention, ungrounded on any faet. Again, we
may put aside as repugnant to, at least English, common sense, the
theory that the narrative is consistent with the idea that Lazarus
was not really dead (so, the Rationalists). Nor would any one, who
had the faintest sympathy with the moral standpoint of the Gospels,
entertain the view of M. Beuan," that it was all a ' pious fraud ' con
cocted between all parties, and that, in onler to convert Jerusalem
by a signal miracle, Lazarus had himself dressed up as a dead body
and laid in the family tomb. Scarcely more rational is M. Benan's
latest suggestion, that it was all a misunderstanding: Martha and

VARIOUS VIEWS IN REGARD TO THE RAISING OF LAZARUS.

311

Mary having told Jesus the wish of friends, that He should do
some notable miracle to convince the Jews, and suggesting that they
would believe if one rose from the dead, when He had replied, that
they would not believe even if Lazarus rose from his grave — and
that tradition had transformed this conversation into an actual event !
Nor, finally, would English common sense readily believe (with Baur),
that the whole narrative was an ideal composition to illustrate what
must be regarded as the metaphysical statement: ' I am the Resur
rection and the Life.' Among ourselves, at least, no serious refuta
tion of these and similar views can be necessary.
Nor do the other theories advanced require lengthened discussion.
The mythical explanation of Strauss is, that as the Old Testament
had recorded instances of raising from the dead, so Christian tradition
must needs ascribe the same to the Messiah. To this (without
repeating the detailed refutation made by Benan and Baur), it is
sufficient to reply: The previous history of Christ had already offered
such instances, why needlessly multiply them? Besides, if it had
been ' a legend, ' such full and minute details would not have been
introduced, and while the human element would have been suppressed,
the miraculous would have been far more accentuated. Only one
other theory on the subject requires notice: that the writer of the
Fourth Gospel, or rather early tradition, had transformed the Parable
of Dives and Lazarus into an actual event. In answer, it is suffi
cient to say: first, that (as previously shown) there is no connection
between the Lazarus of the Parable and him of Bethany; secondly,
that, if it had been a Parable transformed, the characters chosen
would not have been real persons, and that they were such is evident
from the mention of the family in different circumstances in the
three Synoptic Gospels," of which the writer of the Fourth Gospel
was fully aware." Lastly, as Godet remarks, whereas the Parable
closes by declaring that the Jews would not believe even if one rose
from the dead, the Narrative closes on this wise:0 'Many therefore
of the Jews, which came to Mary and beheld that which He did,
believed on Him.' x
In view of these proposed explanations, we appeal to the impartial

CHAP. XXI

1 I do not quite understand, whether
or not Dr. Abbott (Encycl. Brit., Art.
'Gospels,' pp. 837, 838) holds the 'his
torical accuracy' of this narrative. In
a foot-note he disclaims its ' complete
discussion ' as foreign to the purpose of
his essay. He refers us, however, to the
Parable of Dives and Lazarus, together

¦St. Luke
x. 38 &c. ;
St. Matt.
xxvi. 6 &c.
St. Mark
xiv. 3
"¦ St. John
xi. 2
• St. John
xi. 45

with the comments on it of Lightfoot in
his Horse Hebr., and of Wiinsche in his
Beitr. z. Erl. d. Evangelien. I have
carefully examined both, but cannot see
that either or both contribute anything
to help our understanding of the raising
of Lazarus.

312 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK reader, whether any of them rationally accounts for the origin and
iv existence of this history in Apostolic tradition? On the other hand,
^— -v—-' everything is clear and consistent on the supposition of the historical
truth of this narrative: the minuteness of details; the vividness and
pictorialness of the narrative: the characteristic manner in which
Thomas, Martha, and Mary speak and act, in accordance with what
we read of them in the other Gospels or in other parts of this Gospel;
the Human affection of the Christ; the sublime simplicity and ma
jesty of the manner of the Miracle; and the effects of it on friend
and foe. There is, indeed, this one difficulty (not objection), that
the event is not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. But we know
too little of the plan on which the Gospels, viewed as Lives of Christ,
were constructed, to allow us to draw any sufficient inference from
the silence of the Synoptists, whilst we do know that the Judasan
and Jerusalem Ministry of Christ, except so far as it was absolutely
necessary to refer to it, lay outside the plan of the Synoptic Gospels,
and formed the special subject of that by St. John. Lastly, we
should remember, that in the then state of thought the introduction
of another narrative of raising from the dead could not have seemed
to them of such importance as it appears to us in the present state
of controversy — more especially, since it was soon to be followed
by another Resurrection, the importance and evidential value of which
far overshadowed such an event as the raising of Lazarus. Their
Galilean readers had the story of the raising of the widow's son at
Nain, and of Jairus' daughter at Capernaum; and the Roman world
had not only all this, but the preaching of the Besurrection, and of
pardon and life in the Name of the Risen One, together with ocular
demonstration of the miraculous power of those who preached it. It
remained for the beloved disciple, who alone stood under the Cross,
alone to stand on that height from which he had first full and intense
outlook upon His Death, and the Life which sprang from it, and
flowed into all the world.
We may now, undisturbed by preliminary objections, surrender
ourselves to the subliineness and solemnity of this narrative. Perhaps
the more briefly we comment on it the better.
It was while in Perasa, that this message suddenly reached the
Master from the well-remembered home at Bethany, ' the village of
Mary ' — who, although the younger, is for obvious reasons first men
tioned in this history — 'and her sister Martha,' concerning their
(younger) brother Lazarus: ' Lord, behold he whom Thou lovest is
sick! ' They are apparently the very words which 'the sisters' bade

DEATH OF LAZARUS AND ITS IMPRESSION ON THE SISTERS.

313

their messeger tell. We note as an important fact to be stored in
our memory, that the Lazarus, who had not even been mentioned in
the only account preserved to us of a previous visit of Christ to
Bethany, " is described as ' he whom Christ loved. ' What a gap of
untold events between the two visits of Christ to Bethany — and what
modesty should it teach us as regards inferences from the circumstance
that certain events are not recorded in the Gospels ! The messenger
was apparently dismissed by Christ with this reply: 'This sickness is
not unto death, but for the glory of God, in order that the Son of
God may be glorified thereby. ' We must here bear in mind, that this
answer was heard by such ofthe Apostles as were present at the time.1
They would naturally infer from it that Lazarus would not die, and
that his restoration would glorify Christ, either as having foretold it,
or prayed for it, or effected it by His Will. Yet its true meaning —
even, as we now see, its literal interpretation, was, that its final upshot
was not to be the death of Lazarus, but that it was to be for the glory
of God, in order that Christ as the Son of God might be made manifest.
And we learn, how much more full are the Words of Christ than they
often appear to us; and how truly, and even literally, they may bear
quite another meaning than appears to our honest misapprehension
of them — a meaning which only the event, the future, will disclose.
And yet, probably at the very time when the messenger received
his answer, and ere he could have brought it to the sisters, Lazarus
was already dead ! Nor — and this should be especially marked — did
this awaken doubt in the minds of the sisters. We seem to hear
the very words which at the time they said to each other when each
of them afterwards repeated it to the Lord: ' Lord, if Thou hadst
been here, my brother would not have died. ' 2 They probably
thought the message had reached Him too late, that Lazarus would
have lived if Christ had been appealed to in time, or had been able
to come — at any rate, if He had been there. Even in their keenest
anguish, there, was no failure of trust, no doubt, no close weighing of
words on their part — only the confidence of love. Yet all this while
Christ knew that Lazarus had died, and still He continued two whole
days where He was, finishing His work. And yet — and this is sig
nificantly noted before anything else, alike in regard to His delay
and to His after-conduct — He ' loved Martha, and her sister, and

CHAP. XXI

'St.Lukex.18 &c.

1 From the non-mention of Peter and
the prominence of Thomas it seems at
least doubtful, whether all the Apostles
were there.
2 According to the best reading, the

words are the same, but the position of
the personal pronoun (fiov) ' my '
brother is significantly different (see
Westcott ad loc).

3U THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK Lazarus. ' Had there been no after-history, or had it not been known
IV to us, or before it became known, it might have seemed otherwise —
v— — f  ' and in similar circumstances it often does seem otherwise to us. And
again, what majestic calm, what Self-restraint of Human affections and
sublime consciousness of Divine Power in this delay: it is once more
Christ asleep, while the disciples are despairing, in the bark almost
swamped in the storm! Christ is never in haste: least of all, on His
errands of love. A nd He is never in haste, because He is always sure.
It was only after these two days that Christ broke silence as to
His purposes and as to Lazarus. Though thoughts of him must
have been present with the disciples, none dared ask aught, although
not from misgiving, nor yet from fear. This also of faith and of
confidence. At last, when His work in that part had been completed,
He spoke of leaving, but even so not of going to Bethany, but into
Judasa. For, in truth, His work in Bethany was not only geogra
phically, but really, part of His work in Judasa; and He told the
disciples of His purpose, just because He knew their fears and would
teach them, not only for this but for every future occasion, what prin
ciple applied to them. For when, in their care and affection, they
reminded the ' Rabbi ' — and the expression here almost jars on us —
that the Jews ' were even now seeking to stone ' Him, He replied by
telling them, in figurative language, that we have each our working
day from God, and that while it lasts no foe can shorten it or
break up our work. The day had twelve hours, and while these
lasted no mishap would befall him that walked in the way [he stumbleth
not, because he seeth the light of this world] . It was otherwise when
the day was past and the night had come. When our God-given
day has set, and with it the light been withdrawn which hitherto
prevented our stumbling — then, if a man went in his own way and
at his own time, might such mishap befall him, 'because,' figura
tively as to light in the night-time, and really as to guidance and
direction in the way, ' the light is not in him. '
But this was only part of what Jesus said to His disciples in
preparation for a journey that would issue in such tremendous con
sequences. He next spoke of Lazarus, their 'friend,' as 'fallen
asleep ' — in the frequent Jewish (as well as Christian) figurative
sense of it,' and of His going there to wake him out of sleep. The
disciples would naturally connect this mention of His going to
Lazarus with His proposed visit to Judasa, and, in their eagerness to
keep Him from the latter, interposed that there could be no need for
1 As to the Jewish usits of the expression 'sleep' for death, see Book III. chap. xxvi.

THE JOURNEY TO BETHANY. 315
going to Lazarus, since sleep was, according to Jewish notions, one of chap.
the six," or, according to others," five symptoms or crises in recovery XXI
from dangerous illness. And when the Lord then plainly stated it, ' — -<~ — -
' Lazarus died, ' adding, what should have aroused their attention, * Ber. 57 6
that for their sakes He was glad He had not been in Bethany before
the event, because now that would come which would work faith in
them, and proposed to go to the dead Lazarus — even then, their whole
attention was so absorbed by the certainty of danger to their loved
Teacher, that Thomas had only one thought: since it was to be so, let
them go and die with Jesus. So little had they understood the
figurative language about the twelve hours on which God's sun shone
to light us on our way; so much did they need the lesson of faith to
be taught them in the raising of Lazarus !
We already know the quiet happy home of Bethany.1 When
Jesus reached it, ' He found ' — probably from those who met Him by
the way ° 2 — that Lazarus had been already four days in the grave. « comp. st.
According to custom, he would be buried the same day that he had
died/ Supposing his death to have taken place when the message *MoedK.
for help was first delivered, while Jesus continued after that two whole sani. 46 1> '
days in the place where He was, this would leave about a day for His
journey from Peraea to Bethany. We do not, indeed, know the exact
place of His stay; but it must have been some well-known centre of
activity in Peraea, since the sisters of Bethany had no difficulty in
sending their messenger. At the same time we also infer that, at least
at this period, some kind of communication must have existed between
Christ and His more intimate disciples and friends — such as the
family of Bethany — by which they were kept informed ofthe general
plan of. His Mission-journeys, and of any central station of His tem
porary sojourn. If Christ at that time occupied such a central station,
we can the more readily understand how some of His Galilean dis
ciples may, for a brief space, have been absent at their Galilean
homes when the tidings about Lazarus arrived. Their absence may
explain the prominent position taken by Thomas; perhaps, also, in
part, the omission of this narrative from the Synoptic Gospels. One
other point may be of interest. Supposing the journey to Bethany
to have occupied a day, we would suggest the following as the order
of events. The messenger of the Sisters left Bethany on the Sunday
(it could not have been on the Sabbath), and reached Jesus on the
1 See chap. v. of this Book. exinanition in His great Humiliation of
2 In that case Christ's inquiry would ' becoming obedient.'
afford another instance of His self-

316

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

* BabaB.
25 a

» 2 Kings
xxiii. 6;
Jer. xxvi. 23
« St. Matt.
xxvii. 7;
Acts i. 19
(1 Sanh. vi. 5

e Targ. on
Ps. cxv. 17
' Moed K.
9b * Erub.iii.l;
Tohar. iii. 7

Monday. Christ continued in Persea other two days, till Wednesday,
and arrived at Bethany on Thursday. On Friday the meeting of the
Sanhedrists against Christ took place, while He rested in Bethany on
the Friday, and, of course, on the Sabbath, and returned to Peraea
and ' Ephraim ' on the Sunday.
This may be a convenient place for adding to the account already
given,1 in connection with the burying of the widow's son at Nain,
such further particulars of the Jewish observances and rites, 2 as may
illustrate the present history. Referring to the previous description,
we resume, in imagination, our attendance at the point where Christ
met the bier at Nain and again gave life to the dead. But we
remember that, as we are now in Judaea, the hired mourners —
both mourning-men (for there were such) and mourning-women —
would follow, and not, as in Galilee, precede, the body. s From the
narrative we infer that the burial of Lazarus did not take place in a
common burying-ground, which was never nearer a town than 50
cubits, " dry and rocky places being chosen in preference. Here the
graves must be at least a foot and a half apart. It was deemed a
dishonour to the dead to stand on, or walk over, the turf of a grave.
Roses and other flowers seem to have been planted on graves/ But
cemeteries, or common burying-places, appear in earliest times to
have been used only for the poor," or for strangers/ In Jerusalem
there were also two places where executed criminals were buried/
All these, it is needless to say, were outside the City. But there is
abundant evidence, that every place had not its own burying-ground;
and that, not unfrequently, provision had to be made for the trans
port of bodies. Indeed, a burying-place is not mentioned among the
ten requisites for every fully-organised Jewish community.5 The
names given, both to the graves and to the burying-place itself, are
of interest. As regards the former, we mention such as ' the house of
silence; ' e ' the house of. stone; ,f ' the hostelry,' or, literally, ' place
where you spend the night; ' ' the couch; ' ' ' the resting-place; ' ' the
valley ofthe multitude,' or 'ofthe dead.' The cemetery was called
' the house of graves; ' e or ' the court of burying; ' and ' the house of
eternity. ' ' By a euphemism, ' to die ' was designated as ' going to

1 When relating the history of the
raising of the widow's son at Nain,
Book III. chap. xx.
2 An interesting account (to which I
would acknowledge obligations) is given
in a brochure by Dr. Perles, reprinted
from Franker s Monatsschrift.
3 Shabb. 153 a; comp. also as re

gards Jerusalem (where the Galilean
custom prevailed), Semach. iii. 6.
4 Comp. Perles, u. s. p. 25.
5 These were : a law court, provision
for the poor, a synagogue, a public bath,
a secessus, a doctor, a surgeon, a scribe,
a butcher, and a schoolmaster.

THE TOMB OF LAZARUS. 317
rest, ' ' been completed;' ' being gathered to the world ' or ' to the CHAP.
home of light;' 'being withdrawn,' or 'hidden.' Burial without XXI
eoffin seems to have continued the practice for a considerable time, and v— ~y — "
rules are given how a pit, the size of the body, was to be dug, and
surrounded by a wall of loose stones to prevent the falling in of earth.
When afterwards earth-burials had to be vindicated against the
Parsee idea of cremation, Jewish divines more fully discussed the
question of burial, and described the committal of the body to the
ground as a sort of expiation." It was a curious later practice, that »sann. 46 6
children who had died a few days after birth were circumcised on their
graves. Children not a month old were buried without coffin or
mourning, and, as some have thought, in a special place." In con- "Keth. 20 6
nection with a recent controversy it is interesting to learn that, for
the sake of peace, just as the poor and sick of the Gentiles might be
fed and nursed as well as those of the Jews, so their dead might be
buried with those of the Jews, though not in their graves/ On the °oitt.6ia
other hand, a wicked person should not be buried close to a sage/ asanh. 47 a
Suicides were not accorded all the honours of those who had died a
natural death, and the bodies of executed criminals were laid in a
special place, whence the relatives might after a time remove their
bones/ The burial terminated by casting earth on the grave/ «u.s. 46 a
But, as already stated, Lazarus was, as became his station, not 'Ber-8a
laid in a cemetery, but in his own private tomb in a cave — probably
in a garden, the favourite place of interment. Though on terms of
close friendship with Jesus, he was evidently not regarded as an
apostate from the Synagogue. For, every indignity was shown at the
burial of an apostate; people were even to array themselves in white
festive garments to make demonstration of joy/ Here; on the con- esemach.2
trary, as we gather from the sequel, every mark of sympathy, respect,
and sorrow had been shown by the people in the district and by
friends in the neighbouring Jerusalem. In such case it would be
regarded as a privilege to obey the Rabbinic direction of accompanying
the dead, so as to show honour to the departed and kindness to the
survivors. As the sisters of Bethany were 'disciples,' we may well
believe that some of the more extravagant demonstrations of grief
were, if not dispensed with, yet modified. We can scarcely believe, „ Bemacn.
that the hired ' mourners 'would alternate between extravagant praises *' 6
1 1 Moed K.
ofthe dead and calls upon the attendants to lament; " or that, as was 276
their wont, they would strike on their breast, beat their hands, and ^6reaiso
dash about their feet,' or break into wails and mourning songs, alone tSeirext
or in chorus/ In all probability, however, the funeral oration would laments
1 . . m Jer, Moed
be delivered — as in the case of all distinguished persons'" — either in k-i-s

318

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» Baba B.
100 b
<> Meg. 28
u., b
o Shabb.
153 o
11 Many of
them in
Moed K. 25

» Baba B.
100 6

fBer. 53 a
s Bets, fi a

11 Meg. 26 6
1 Mearta.
Babha Mets. 85 b;
Baba B.

' Baba B.
vi. 8

the house," or at one of the stations where the bearers changed, or
at the burying-place; perhaps, if they passed it, in the Synagogue."
It has previously been noted, what extravagant value wias, in later
times, attached to these orations, as indicating both a man's life on
earth and his place in heaven/ The dead was supposed to be pre
sent, listening to the words of the speaker- and watching the expres
sion on the face of the hearers. It would serve no good purpose to
reproduce fragments from these orations/ Their character is suffi
ciently indicated by the above remarks. '
When thinking of these tombs in gardens, 2 we so naturally revert
to that which for three days held the Lord of Life, that all details
become deeply interesting. And it is, perhaps, better to give them
here rather than afterwards to interrupt, by such inquiries, our solemn
thoughts in presence of the Crucified Christ. Not only the rich, but
even those moderately well-to-do, had tombs of their own, which
probably were acquired and prepared long before they were needed,
and treated and inherited as private and personal property/ In
such caves, or rock-hewn tombs, the bodies were laid, having been
anointed with many spices/ with myrtle, g aloes, and, at a later period,
also with hyssop, rose-oil, and rose-water. The body was dressed
and, at a later period, wrapped, if possible, in the worn cloths in
which originally a Roll of the Law had been held/ The 'tombs'
were either ' rock-hewn ' or natural ' caves ' ' or else large walled
vaults, with niches along the sides. Such a ' cave ' or ' vault ' of 4
cubits' (6 feet) width, 6 cubits' (9 feet) length, and 4 cubits' (6 feet)
height, contained ' niches ' for eight bodies— three on each of the
longitudinal sides, and two at the end opposite the entrance. Each
' niche ' was 4 cubits (6 feet) long, and had a height of seven and
a width of six handbreadths. As these burying ' niches ' were hol
lowed out in the walls they were called Itukhin.3 The larger caves
or vaults were 6 cubits (9 feet) wide, and 8 cubits (12 feet) long, and
held thirteen bodies — four along each side-wall, three opposite to, and
one on either side ofthe entrance/ These figures apply, of course,
only to what the Law required, when a vault had been contracted for.
When a person constructed one for himself, the dimensions of the walls
and the number of Eukhin might, of course, vary. At the entrance

1 See Zunz, Zur Gesch. u. Liter, pp.
304 to 458. In Moed K. 25 b we have
the miraculous portents at the death of
great Rabbis : columns weeping or statues
flattening or bursting, blood flowing,
stars appearing, trees uprooted, arches
bending, &c.

2 Nicolai (De Sepulchr. Hebr., a book
of no great value) gives a pictorial illus
tration at p. 170.
3 Not Kokim. On the difference, as
regards the entrance into these caves,
between Jewish and Phoenician tombs,
see Conder, 'Heth and Moab,' p. 93.

JEWISH SEPULCHRES. 319
to the vault was ' a court ' 6 cubits (9 feet) square, to hold the bier and CHAP.
its bearers. Sometimes two ' caves ' opened on this ' court. ' But it XXI
is difficult to decide whether the second ' cave, ' spoken of, was intended ^•^r—'
as an ossary1 (ossarium). Certain it is, that after a time the bones
were collected and put into a box or coffin, having first been anointed
with wine and oil, and being held together by wrappings of cloths/ "Jer. Moed
This circumstance explains the existence of the mortuary chests, or semach. 12
osteophagi, so frequently found in the tombs of Palestine by late
explorers, who have been unable to explain their meaning.2 This
unclearness " is much to be regretted, when we read, for example, of
such a 'chest' as found in a cave near Bethany/ One of the ex- "Recovery
of Jerusa-
plorers4 has discovered on them fragments of Hebrew inscriptions. iem, p. 494
Dp to the present, only few Hebrew memorial inscriptions have been
discovered in Palestine. The most interesting are those in or near
Jerusalem, dating from the first century B. c. to the first a. c. 5 There
are, also, many inscriptions found on Jewish tombs out of Palestine (in
Rome, and other places), written in bad Greek or Latin, containing,
perhaps, a Hebrew word, and generally ending with shalom, ' peace, '
and adorned with Jewish symbols, such as the Seven-branched Candle
stick, the Ark,, the festive emblems of the Feast of Tabernacles, and
others.6 In general, the advice not to read such inscriptions,0 as it "Horay.
would affect the sight, seems to imply the common practice of having
memorial inscriptions in Hebrew. They appear to have been graven
either on the lid of the mortuary chest, or on the Golel, or great stone
' rolled ' at the entrance to the vault, or to the ' court ' leading into it,
or else on the inside walls of yet another erection, made over the vaults
of the wealthy," and which was supposed to complete the burying- a this is
. „ , 7 expressly
place, or Qebher. stated in
Mood, tz
These small buildings surmounting the graves may have served % &, lines
as shelter to those who visited the tombs. They also served as
' monuments, " of which we read in the Bible, in the Apocrypha,8 MMacc.
1 J l xiii. 27-29
1 This partly depends whether, with 4 M. Clermont-Ganneau .
Rashi and Perles (p. 29), we regard 5 The supposed ancient (pre-Christian,
X^tTO "2 as an ossarium,or, with Levy, re- Israelitish) inscriptions in the Crimea are
gard it as= XJ23J13 h2, 'house of mourn- now generally ascribed to a .much later
ing,' Ber. 6 b (comp. Schwab ad loc). date. Comp. Harkavy, Altjiid. Denkm.
2 Comp. letters, (a) by Dr. Chaplin, 6 See Schiirer, Gemeinde Verf. d.
Quart. Stat. Oct. 1873, p. 155; (b) by M. Juden in Rom. Schiirer has collected
Clermont-Ganneau, Ap. 1874, pp. 95, forty-five of the most interesting of
&c. ; (c) Dr. Chaplin, Quart. Stat. Jan. these inscriptions.
1876, p. 9; (d) Art. by Capt. Conder ib. 7 On account of the^poverty of some of
pp. 18, &c. thesages, itwasdeclared thatthey needed
3 See, especially, Capt. Wilson's Re- not monuments ; their deeds were their
port in the third Quart. Stat. (1869), pp. monuments (Jer. Sheqal. ii. 7, p. 47 a).
66, &c.

320

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK

a Ant. xvi.
7. 1
b Erub.v. 1;
Sheq. ii. 5

= Moed K.
i. 2
i St. Matt.
xxiii. 27
Moed K. 6 -

• Moed K.
29 a

'BabaB.
100 6

and in Josephus."1 In Rabbinic writings they are frequently men
tioned, chiefly by the name Nephesh,'1 'soul,' 'person' — transferred
in the sense of ' monument, ' " or, by the more Scriptural name
of bamah,3 or, by the Greco- Aramaic,4 or the Hebrew designation
for a building generally. But of gravestones with inscriptions we
cannot find any record in Talmudic works. At the same time,
the place where there was a vault or a grave was marked by a
stone, which was kept whitened,'' to warn the passer-by against
defilement/ We are now able fully to realise all the circumstances and sur
roundings in the burial and raising of Lazarus.
Jesus had come to Bethany. But in the house of mourning they
knew it not. As Bethany was only about fifteen furlongs — or about
two miles — from Jerusalem, many from the City, who were on terms
of friendship with what was evidently a distinguished family, had
come in obedience to one of the most binding Rabbinic directions —
that of comforting the mourners. In the funeral procession the
sexes had been separated, and the practice probably prevailed even at
that time for the women to return alone from the grave. This may
explain why afterwards the women went and returned alone to the
Tomb of our Lord. The mourning, which began before the burial, 5
had been shared by the friends who sat silent on the ground, or were
busy preparing the mourning meal. As the company left the dead,
each had taken leave of the deceased with a ' Depart in peace ! ' 8
Then they had formed into lines, through which the mourners passed
amidst expressions of sympathy, repeated (at least seven times) as
the procession halted on the return to the house of mourning/ Then
began the mourning in the house, which really lasted thirty days, of
which the first three were those of greatest, the others, during the
seven days, or the special week of sorrow, of less intense mourning.
But on the Sabbath, as God's holy day, all mourning was intermitted —
and so 'they rested on the Sabbath, according to the commandment.'
In that household of disciples this mourning would not have

1 The firstgives an exaggerated account
of the great monument erected by Simon
Maccabeus in honour of his father and
brothers; the second refers to amonument
erected by Herod over the tomb of David.
- On the use of the word Nephesh as
meaning not only 'soul' and 'person,'
but as applied also to the , the reader
will find some very interesting remarks in
the App. Not. Miscell. to Pocock's Porta

Mosis, pp. 19, 20, and 75-78, and in Pag-
iuni, Thes. Ling. Sanct. col. 1658, &c.
3 Ezek. xliii. 7. Probably the second
clause of Is. liii. 9 should read thus:
' And with the rich His sepulchre.'
* crcn.
5 On the subject of 'mourning' I
must refer generally to the correspond
ing chapter in 'Sketches of Jewish So
cial Life.'

JESUS ARRIVED IN BETHANY. 321
assumed such violent forms, as when we read that the women were in CHAP.
the habit of tearing out their hair," or of a Rabbi who publicly scourged XXI
himself/ But we know how the dead would be spoken of. In death v — -<  '
the two worlds were said to meet and kiss/ And now they who ?Jer- KIdd-
had passed away beheld God/ They were at rest. Such beautiful dad. a. r.
passages as Ps. cxii. 6, Prov. x. 7," Is. xi. 10, last clause, and Is. lvii. f^' 25
2, f were applied to them. Nay, the holy dead should be called ' living. ' Yebam. 4 a
In truth, they knew about us, and unseen still surrounded us/ Nor towards'
should they ever be mentioned without adding a blessing on their ™d „ ,„
J ° ° »Ber. K.49
memory/ fshabb.
In this spirit, we cannot doubt, the Jews were now ' comforting ' 15^ b „ ,
r ' ^ e Ber. 18 b,
the sisters. They may have repeated words like those quoted as the g "; °°™f
conclusion of such a consolatory speech: ' 'May the Lord of consola- >. Yoma 38 5;
tions (man; bsn) comfort you! Blessed be He Who coinforteth the Taan-28tt
x ' ' Kethub.
mourners!' But they could scarcely have imagined how literally a Sb
wish like this was about to be fulfilled. For, already, the message
had reached Martha, who was probably in one of the outer apart
ments of the house: Jesus is coming! She hastened to meet the
Master. Not a word of complaint, not a murmur, nor doubt, escaped
her lips — only what during those four bitter days these two sisters
must have been so often saying to each other, when the luxury of
solitude was allowed them, that if He had been there their brother
would not have died. And even now — when it was all too late — when
they had not received what they had asked of Him by their messenger,
it must have been, because He had not asked it, though he had said
that this sickness was not unto death; or else because he had delayed
to work it till He would come. And still she held fast by it, that
even now God would give Him whatsoever He asked. Or, did they
mean more : were they such words of unconscious prophecy, or sight
and sound of heavenly things, as sometimes come to us in our passion
of grief, or else winged thoughts of faith too soon beyond our vision?
They could not have been the expression of any real hope of the
miracle about to take place, or Martha would not have afterwards
sought to arrest Him, when He bade them roll away the stone. And
yet is it not even so, that, when that comes to us which our faith had
once dared to suggest, if not to hope, we feel as if it were all too
great and impossible — that a very physical ' cannot be ' separates
us from it?
It was in very truth and literality that the Lord meant it, when
He told Martha her brother would rise again, although she under
stood His Words of the Resurrection at the Last Day. In answer,

522

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. John
si. 4

Christ pointed out to her the connection between Himself and the
Resurrection; and, what He spoke, that He did when He raised
Lazarus from the dead. The Resurrection and the Life are not
special gifts either to the Church or to humanity, but are connected
with the Christ — the outcome of Himself. The Resurrection of the
Just and the General Resurrection are the consequence of the relation
in which the Church and humanity in general stand to the Christ.
Without the Christ there would have been no Resurrection. Most
literally He is the Resurrection and the Life — and this, the new teach
ing about the Resurrection, was the object and the meaning of the
raising of Lazarus. And thus is this raising of Lazarus the outlook,
also, upon His own Resurrection, ' Who is ' the first-fruits from the
dead.' And though the special, then present, application, or rather mani
festation of it, would be in the raising of Lazarus — yet this teaching,
that accompanied it, is to ' all believers : ' ' He that believeth in Me,
even if [though] he die, shall live; and whosoever liveth and believeth
in Me shall not die for ever ' 1 (unto the AHon) — where possibly we
might, for commentation, mentally insert the sign of a pause ( — )
between the words ' die ' and ' for ever, ' or ' unto the JEon. ' It is
only when we think of the meaning of Christ's previous words, as im
plying that the Resurrection and the Life are the outcome of Himself,
and come to us only through Him and in Him, that we can under
stand the answer of Martha to His question: 'Believest thou this?
Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God
[with special reference to the original message of Christ "], He that
cometh into the world [ ' the Coming One into the world ' 2 = the
world's promised, expected, come Saviour].
What else passed between them we can only gather from the con
text. It seems that the Master ' called ' for Mary. This message
Martha now hasted to deliver, although ' secretly.' Mary was prob
ably sitting in the chamber of mourning, with its upset chairs and
couches, and other melancholy tokens of mourning, as was the custom;
surrounded by many who had come to comfort them ; herself, we can
scarcely doubt, silent, her thoughts far away in that world to, and of
which the Master was to her ' the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' As
1 This is not only the literal rendering,
but the parallelism of the previous
member of the sentence (' even if he die,
shall live') — where the 'life' is neither
the spiritual nor the eternal, but life in
opposition to physical death — seems to
demand this, rather than the rendering

of both the A.V. and the R.V.
2 Possibly it might be : 'He that was
to come,' or shouln come, like N3H or
T ~
"PN", in which case it would be another
evidence of Hebraisms in the Fourth
Gospel.

JESUS AT THE TOMB OF LAZARUS. 323
she heard of His coming and call, she rose ' quickly, ' and the Jews CHAP.
followed her, under the impression that she was again going to visit, XXI
and to weep at the tomb of her brother. For, it was the practice to "- — -, 
visit the grave, especially during the first three days. a When she came » semach.
to Jesus, where He still stood, outside Bethany, she was forgetful of
all around. It was, as if sight of Him melted what had frozen the
tide of her feelings. She could only fall at His Feet, and repeat the
poor words with which she and her sister had these four weary days
tried to cover the nakedness of their sorrow: poor words of consolation,
and poor words of faith, which she did not, like her sister, make still
poorer by adding the poverty of her hope to that of her faith — the
poverty of the future to that of the past and present. To Martha
that had been the maximum, to Mary it was the minimum of her faith;
for the rest, it was far, far better to add nothing more, but simply to
worship at His Feet.
It must have been a deeply touching scene: the outpouring of
her sorrow, the absoluteness of her faith, the mute appeal of her
tears. And the Jews who witnessed it were moved as she, and
wept with her. What follows is difficult to understand; still more
difficult to explain: not only from the choice of language, which is
peculiarly difficult, but because its difficulty springs from the yet
greater difficulty of expressing what it is intended to describe. The
expression, ' groaned in spirit, ' cannot mean that Christ ' was moved
with indignation in the spirit,' since this could not have been
the consequence of witnessing the tears of Mary and what, we feel
sure, was the genuine emotion of the Jews. Ofthe various interpre
tations,1 that commends itself most to us, which would render the
expression: ' He vehemently moved His Spirit and troubled Him
self.' One, whose insight into such questions is peculiarly deep, has
reminded us 2 that ' the miracles of the Lord were not wrought by the
simple word of power, but that in a mysterious way the element
of sympathy entered into them. He took away the sufferings and
diseases of men in some sense by taking them upon Himself. ' If,
with this most just view of His Condescension to, and union with,
humanity as its Healer, by taking upon Himself its diseases, we
combine the statement formerly made about the Resurrection, as not
a gift or boon but the outcome of Himself— we may, in some way,
not understand, but be able to gaze into, the unfathomed depth
1 For a brief but excellent summary of the principal views on the subject, see
Westcott, ad loc.
2 Canon Westcott.

324

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Luke
xix. 41

k St. John
Ix. 32

of that Theanthropic fellow-suffering which was both vicarious
and redemptive, and which, before He became the Resurrection
to Lazarus, shook His whole inner Being, when, in the words of
St. John, ' He vehemently moved His Spirit and troubled Himself. '
And now every trait is in accord. ' Where, have ye laid him? '
So truly human — as if He, Who was about to raise the dead, needed
the information where he had been laid; so truly human, also, in
the underlying tenderness of the personal address, and in the ab
sorption of the whole Theanthropic energy on the mighty burden
about to be lifted and lifted away. So, also, as they bade Him come
and see, were the tears that fell from Him (eodficpvo-ev), not like the
violent lamentation (sKXavcrsv) that burst from Him at sight and
prophetic view of doomed Jerusalem." Yet we can scarcely think
that the Jews rightly interpreted it, when they ascribed it only to
His love for Lazarus. But surely there was not a touch either of
malevolence or of irony, only what we feel to be quite natural in the
circumstances, when some of them asked it aloud: 'Could not this
One, Which opened the eyes of the blind, have wrought so that [in
order] this one also should not die ? ' Scarcely was it even unbelief.
They had so lately witnessed in Jerusalem that Miracle, such as had
' not been heard' ' since the world began; " that it seemed difficult to
understand how, seeing there was the will (in His affection for Laz
arus), there was not the power — not to raise him from the dead, for
that did not occur to them, but to prevent his dying. Was there,
then, a barrier in death? And it was this, and not indignation, which
once more caused that Theanthropic recurrence upon Himself, when
again ' He vehemently moved His Spirit. '
And now they were at the cave which was Lazarus' tomb. He
bade them roll aside the great stone which covered its entrance.1
Amidst the awful pause which preceded obedience, one voice only was
raised. It was that of Martha. Jesus had not spoken of raising
Lazarus. But what was about to be done? She could scarcely have
thought that He merely wished to gaze once more upon the face
of the dead. Something nameless had seized her. She dared not
believe; she dared not disbelieve. Did she, perhaps, not dread a
failure, but feel misgivings, when thinking of Christ as in presence of
commencing corruption before these Jews— and yet, as we so often,
still love Him even in unbelief? It was the common Jewish idea that
corruption commenced on the fourth day, that the drop of gall, which
1 In St. John xi. 41 the words, -from the place where the dead was laid,' should
be omitted, as not in the best MSS.

* St. John
xi. 4

LAZARUS COME FORTH FROM THE TOMB. 325
had fallen from the sword of the Angel and caused death, was then CHAP.
working its effect, and that, as the face changed, the soul took its XXI
final leave from the resting-place of the body/ Only one sentence *- — ">  '
Jesus spake of gentle reproof, of reminder of what He had said to -ami. z 20
1 " * ' 5; Ber. B.
her just before, and of the message He had sent when first He heard J°°;
. Vayyik. R.
of Lazarus' illness," but, oh so full of calm majesty and consciousness 18
of Divine strength. And now the stone was rolled away. We all feel
that the fitting thing here was prayer — yet not petition, but thanks
giving that the Father ' heard ' Him, not as regarded the raising of
Lazarus, which was His Own Work, but in the ordering and arrang
ing of all the circumstances — alike the petition and the thanksgiving
having for their object them that stood by, for He knew that the
Father always heard Him: that so they might believe, that the
Father had sent Him. Sent of the Father — not come of Himself, not
sent of Satan — and sent to do His Will !
And in doing this Will, He was the Resurrection and the Life.
One loud command spoken into that silence; one loud call to that
sleeper; one flash of God's Own Light into that darkness, and the
wheels of life again moved at the outgoing of The Life. And, still
bound hand and foot with graveclothes [ ' bands, ' Takhrikhin] , and his
face with the napkin, Lazarus stood forth, shuddering and silent, in
the cold light of earth's day. In that multitude, now more pale and
shuddering than the man bound in the graveclothes, the Only One
majestically calm was He, Who before had been so deeply moved and
troubled Himself, as He now bade them 'Loose him, and let him go.'
We know no more. Holy Writ in this also proves its Divine
authorship and the reality of what is here recorded. The momenta
rily lifted veil has again fallen over the darkness of the Most Holy
Place, in which is only the Ark of His Presence and the cloudy in
cense oPour worship. What happened afterwards — how they loosed
him, what they said, what thanks, or praise, or worship, the sisters
spoke, and what were Lazarus' first words, we know not. And bet
ter so. Did Lazarus remember aught of the late past, or was not
rather the rending of the grave a real rending from the past: the
awakening so sudden, the transition so great, that nothing of the
bright vision remained, but its impress — just as a marvellously beau
tiful Jewish legend has it, that before entering this world, the soul
of a child has seen all of heaven and hell, of past, present, and
future; but that, as the Angel strikes it on the mouth to waken it
into this world, all of the other has passed from the mind? Again
we say: We know not — and it is better so.

326

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

« Ber. R. 94 ;
comp. also
91, and the
Midr. on
Bccl. ix. 18

And here abruptly breaks off this narrative. Some of those who
had seen it believed on Him; others hurried back to Jerusalem to
tell it to the Pharisees. Then was hastily gathered a meeting of the
Sanhedrists, ' not to judge Him, but to deliberate what was to be done.
That He was really doing these miracles, there could be no question
among them. Similarly, all but one or two had no doubt as to the
source of these miracles. If real,2 they were of Satanic agency — and
all the more tremendous they were, the more certainly so. But
whether really of Satanic power, or merely a Satanic delusion, one
thing, at least, was evident, that, if He were let alone, all men would
believe on Him? And then, if He headed the Messianic movement
ofthe Jews as a nation, alike the Jewish City and Temple, and Israel
as a nation, would perish in the fight with Rome. But what was
to be done? They had not the courage of, though the wish for,
judicial murder, till he who was the High-Priest, Caiaphas, reminded
them of the well-known Jewish adage, that it ' is better one man
should die, than the community perish. ' " Yet, even so, he who spoke
was the High-Priest; and for the last time, ere in speaking the
sentence he spoke it for ever as against himself and the office he
held, spake through him God's Voice, not as regards the counsel of
murder, but this, that His Death should be ' for that nation ' — nay,
as St. John adds, not only for Israel, but to gather into one fold all
the now scattered children of God.
This was the last prophecy in Israel; with the sentence of death
on Israel's true High-Priest died prophecy in Israel, died Israel's
High-Priesthood. It had spoken sentence upon itself.
This was the first Friday of dark resolve. Henceforth it only
needed to concert plans for carrying it out. Some one, perhaps
Nicodemus, sent word of the secret meeting and resolution of" the
Sanhedrists. That Friday and the next Sabbath Jesus rested in
Bethany, with the same majestic calm which He had shown at the
grave of Lazarus. Then He withdrew, far away to the obscure bounds
of Persea and Galilee, to a city of which the very location is now
unknown.3 And there He continued with His disciples, withdrawn
from the Jews — till He would make His final entrance into Jerusalem.

1 On the Sanhedrin, see further, in
Book V.
2 The doubt as to their reality would,
of course, come from the Sadducees in
the Sanhedrin. It will be remembered,
that both Caiaphas and the Chief Priests
belonged to that party.
3 The ' city ' ' called Ephraim' has not

been localised. Most modern writers
identify it with the Ephraim, or Ephron,
of 2 Chron. xiii. 19, in the neighbour
hood of Bethel, and near the wilderness
of Bethaven. But the text seems to re
quire a place in-Peraa and close to Gali
lee. Comp. p. 127.

THE LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. 32Y

CHAPTER XXII.
ON THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM — DEPARTURE FROM EPHRAIM BY WAY
OF SAMARIA AND GALILEE  HEALING OF TEN LEPERS — PROPHETIC
DISCOURSE OF THE COMING KINGDOM — ON DIVORCE: JEWISH VIEWS
OF IT  THE BLESSING TO LITTLE CHILDREN.
(St. Matt. xix. 1, 2; St. Mark x.l; St. Luke xvii. 11; St. Luke xvii. 12-19; St.
Matt. xix. 3-12; St. Mark x. 2-12; St. Matt. xix. 13-15; St. Mark x. 13-16; St.
Luke xviii. 15-17.)
The brief time of rest and quiet converse with His disciples in the
retirement of Ephraim was past, and the Saviour of men prepared for
His last journey to Jerusalem. All the three Synoptic Gospels mark
this, although with varying details." From the mention of Galilee
by St. Matthew, and by St. Luke of Samaria and Galilee — or more
correctly, ' between (along the frontiers of) Samaria and Galilee,' we
may conjecture that, on leaving Ephraim, Christ made a very brief
detour along the northern frontier to some place at the southern
border of Galilee — perhaps to meet at a certain point those who were
to accompany him on his final journey to Jerusalem. This sugges
tion, for it is no more, is in itself not improbable, since some of
Christ's immediate followers might naturally wish to pay a brief visit
to their friends in Galilee before going up to Jerusalem. And it is
further confirmed by the notice of St. Mark," that among those who bst. Mark
had followed Christ there were ' many women which came up with
Him unto Jerusalem.' For, we can scarcely suppose that these
'many women' had gone with Him in the previous autumn from
Galilee to the Feast of Tabernacles, nor that they were with Him at
the Feast of the Dedication, or had during the winter followed Him
through Persea, nor yet that they had been at Bethany. ' All these
difficulties are obviated if, as suggested, we suppose that Christ had
passed from Ephraim along the border of Samaria to a place in
Galilee, there to meet such of His disciples as would go up with Him
1 Indeed, any lengthened journeying, Not so, of course, the travelling in the
and for an indefinite purpose, would have festive band up to the Paschal Feast.
been quite contrary to Jewish manners.

XV. 40, 11

328

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

¦• St. Mat
thew

•St. Luke
xvii. 12-19
* vv. 20-37

• St. Matt.
vill. 2-4 ;
St. Mark i.
40-45

'St. Luke
xvii. 20-37

i St. Matt.
xxiv. ; St.
Mark xiii.

to Jerusalem. The whole company would then form one of those
festive bands which travelled to the Paschal Feast, nor would there
be anything strange or unusual in the appearance of such a band, in
this instance under the leadership of Jesus.
Another and deeply important notice, furnished by SS. Matthew
and Mark, is, that during this journey through Persea, 'great multi
tudes ' resorted to, and followed Him, and that ' He healed ' " and
' taught them. ' " This will account for the incidents and Discourses
by the way, and also how, from among many deeds, the Evangelists
may have selected for record what to them seemed the most important
or novel, or else best accorded with the plans of their respective
narratives.1 Thus, to begin with, St. Luke alone relates the very first incident
by the way," and the first Discourse/ Nor is it difficult to under
stand the reason of this. To one who, like St. Matthew, had followed
Christ in His Galilean Ministry, or, like St. Mark, had been the
penman of St. Peter, there would be nothing so peculiar or novel in
the healing of lepers as to introduce this on the overcrowded canvas
of the last days. Indeed, they had both already recorded what may
be designated as a typical healing of lepers/ But St. Luke had not
recorded such healing before; and the restoration of ten at the same
time would seem to the 'beloved physician' matter, not only new
in his narrative, but of the deepest importance. Besides, we have
already seen, that the record of the whole of this East-Jordan
Ministry is peculiar to St. Luke; and we can scarcely doubt that it
was the result of personal inquiries made by the Evangelist on the
spot, in order to supplement what might have seemed to him a gap
in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. This would explain
his fulness of detail as regards incidents, and, for example, the intro
duction of the history of Zacchseus, which to St. Mark, or rather to
St. Peter, but especially to St. Matthew (himself once a publican),
might appear so like that which they had so often witnessed and re
lated, as scarcely to require special narration. On the same ground
we account for the record by St. Luke of Christ's Discourse predic
tive of the Advent of the Messianic Kingdom/ This Discourse is
evidently in its place at the beginning of Christ's last journey to
Jerusalem. But the other two Evangelists merge it in the account
of the fuller teaching on the same subject during the last days of
Christ's sojourn on earth/
1 This will more fully appear when we study the history of Zacchseus and the cure
of the blind man in Jericho.

THE TEN LEPERS THAT WERE CLEANSED. 329
It is a further confirmation of our suggestion as to the road taken chap.
by Jesus, that of the ten lepers whom, at the outset of His journey, xxh
He met when entering into a village, one was a Samaritan. It may ^— ~y — '
have been that the district was infested Avith leprosy; or these lepers
may, on tidings of Christ's approach, have hastily gathered there. It
was, as fully explained in another place,1 in strict accordance with
Jewish Law, that these lepers remained both outside the village and
far from Him to Whom they now cried for mercy. And, without
either touch or even command of healing, Christ bade them go and
show themselves as healed to the priests. For this it was, as will be
remembered, not necessary to repair to Jerusalem. Any priest might
declare ' unclean ' or ' clean ' provided the applicants presented them
selves singly, and not in company," for his inspection." And they »Neg. m. i
went at Christ's bidding, even before they had actually experienced the
healing! So great was their faith, and, may we not almost infer, the
general belief throughout the district, in the power of ' the Master. '
And as they went, the new life coursed in their veins. Restored
health began to be felt, just as it ever is, not before, nor yet after
believing, but in the act of obedience of a faith that has not yet
experienced the blessing.
But now the characteristic difference between these men ap
peared. Of the ten, equally recipients of the benefit, the nine Jews
continued their way — presumably to the priests — while the one
Samaritan in the number at once turned back, with a loud voice
glorifying God. The whole event may not have occupied many
minutes, and Jesus with his followers may still have stood on
the same spot whence He bade the ten lepers go show themselves to
the priests. He may have followed them with his eyes, as, but a
few steps on their road of faith, health overtook them, and the grate
ful Samaritan, with voice of loud thanksgiving, hastened back to his
Healer. No longer now did he remain afar off, but in humblest
reverence fell on his face at the Feet of Him to Whom he gave
thanks. This Samaritan 3 had received more than new bodily life
and health: he had found spiritual life and healing.
But why did the nine Jews not return? Assuredly, they must
have had some faith when first seeking help from Christ, and still
1 See Book III. chap. xv. St. Luke here, and in the Parable of the
9 As we note, in St. Luke xvii. 14, the Good Samaritan, a peculiarly Pauline
direction to show themselves ' to the trait. But we remember St. John's refer-
priests ' (in the plural), this forms another ence to the Samaritans (iv.), and such
point of undesigned evidence of the sentiments in regard to the Gentiles as
authenticity of the narrative. St. Matt. viii. 11, 12.
3 Some have seen in the reference by

330 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK more when setting out for the priests before they had experienced the
IV healing. But perhaps, regarding it from our own standpoint, we may
-- — .  ' overestimate the faith of these men. Bearing in mind the views of the
Jews at the time, and what constant succession of miraculous cures
— without a single failure — had been witnessed these years, it cannot
seem strange that lepers should apply to Jesus. Nor yet perhaps did
it, in the circumstances, involve very much greater faith to go to the
priests at His bidding— implying, of course, that they were or would
be healed. But it was far different to turn back and to fall down at
His feet in lowly worship and thanksgiving. That made a man a
disciple. Many questions here suggest themselves: Did these nine Jews
separate from the one Samaritan when they felt healed, common
misfortune having made them companions and brethren, while the
bond was snapped so soon as they felt themselves free of their com
mon sorrow? The History of the Church and of individual Christians
furnishes, alas! not a few analogous instances. Or did these nine
Jews, in their legalism and obedience to the letter, go on to the
priests, forgetful that, in obeying the letter, they violated the spirit
of Christ's command? Of this also there are, alas! only too many
parallel cases which will occur to the mind. Or was it Jewish pride,
which felt it had a right to the blessings, and attributed them, not
to the mercy of Christ, but to God; or, rather, to their own relation
as Israel to God? Or, what seems to us the most probable, was it
simply Jewish ingratitude and neglect of the blessed opportunity
now within their reach — a state of mind too characteristic of those
who know not ' the time of their visitation ' — and which led up to
the neglect, rejection, and final loss of the Christ? Certain it is, that
the Lord emphasised the terrible contrast in this between the chil
dren of the household and ' this stranger. ' x And here another im
portant lesson is implied in regard to the miraculous in the Gospels.
The history shows how little spiritual value or efficacy they attach
to miracles, and how essentially different in this respect their ten
dency is from all legendary stories. The lesson conveyed in this
case is, that we may expect, and even experience, miracles, without
any real faith in the Christ; with belief, indeed, in His Power, but
1 The equivalent for this would be the same time it must be admitted that
"'"lSS. This, as may be shown from very in Demai iii. 4, the Nokhri is also dis-
many passages, means not so much a «nguis^<J ^om the Cuihcan or Samar-
stranger as a non-Jew. Thus, the expres- ^ But see the explanatory note of
sion Nokhri and Yisrael are constantly f^mdes referred to by Surenhusius,
contrasted as non-Jews and Jews. At o . i. p. »/.

DISCOURSES ON THE JOURNEY. 331
without surrender to His Rule. According to the Gospels, a man CHAP.
might either seek benefit from Christ, or else receive Christ through XXII
such benefit. In the one case, the benefit sought was the object, in "- — y — '
the other, the means; in the one, it was the goal, in the other, the
road to it; in the one, it gave healing, in the other, brought salvation;
in the one, it ultimately led away from, in the other, it led to Christ
and to discipleship. And so Christ now spake it to this Samaritan:
'Arise, go thy way; thy faith has made thee whole.' But to all time
there are here to the Church lessons of most important distinction.
2. The Discourse concerning the Coming of the Kingdom, which
is reported by St. Luke immediately after the healing of the ten
lepers," will be more conveniently considered in connection with the "s*: ^uke
^ ' J xvii. 20-37
fuller statement of the same truths at the close of our Lord's Minis
try." It was probably delivered a day or so after the healing ofthe "st. Matt.
lepers, and marks a farther stage in the Persean journey towards
Jerusalem. For, here we meet once more the Pharisees as ques
tioners/ This circumstance, as will presently appear, is of great "s*-. ^uke
importance, as carrying us back to the last mention of an interpella
tion by the Pharisees/ «mst.
^ Luke xvi.
3. This brings us to what we regard as, in point of time, the next i*
Discourse of Christ on this journey, recorded both by St. Matthew,
and, in briefer form, by St. Mark/ These Evangelists place it im- -st. Matt.
mediately after their notice of the commencement of this journey/ st. Markx.
For reasons previously indicated, St. Luke inserts the healing of rst. Matt.
the lepers and the prophetic Discourse, while the other two Evan- lt.XMark
gelists omit them. On the other hand, St. Luke omits the Dis- x' 1
course here reported by St. Matthew and St. Mark, because, as
we can readily see, its subject-matter would, from the standpoint of
his Gospel, not appear of such supreme importance as to demand
insertion in a narrative of selected events.
The subject-matter of that Discourse is, in answer to Pharisaic
' tempting, ' an exposition of Christ's teaching in regard to the
Jewish law and practice of divorce. The introduction of this subject
in the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Mark seems, to say the
least, abrupt. But the difficulty is entirely removed, or, rather,
changed into undesigned evidence, when we fit it into the general
history. Christ had advanced farther on His journey, and now once
more encountered the hostile Pharisees. It will be remembered
that He had met them before in the same part of the country, g ' and est. Luke
answered their taunts and objections, among other things, by charg-
1 See chap, xviii. of this Book.

332

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION

b St. Matt.
xix. 3

ing them with breaking in spirit that Law of which they professed
to be the exponents and representatives. And this He had proved
by reference to their views and teaching on the subject of divorce."
This seems to have rankled in their minds. Probably they also
imagined, it would be easy to show on this point a marked difference
between the teaching of Jesus and that of Moses and the Rabbis, and
to enlist popular feeling against Him. Accordingly, when these
Pharisees again encountered Jesus, now on his journey to Judaea, they
resumed the subject precisely where it had been broken off when they
had last met Him, only now with the object of 'tempting Him.'
Perhaps it may also have been in the hope that, by getting Christ to
commit Himself against divorce in Persea — the territory of Herod —
they might enlist against Him, as formerly against the Baptist, the
implacable hatred of Herodias.1
But their main object evidently was to involve Christ in con
troversy with some of the Rabbinic Schools. This appears from the
form in which they put the question, whether it was lawful to put
away a wife ' for every cause ' ? * St. Mark, who gives only a very
condensed account, omits this clause; but in Jewish circles the whole
controversy between different teachers turned upon this point. All
held that divorce was lawful, the only question being as to its grounds.
We will not here enter on the unsavoury question of ' Divorce '
among the Jews,2 to which the Talmud devotes a special tractate."
There can, however, be no question that the practice was discouraged
by many of the better Rabbis, alike in word 3 and by their example; 4
nor yet, that the Jewish Law took the most watchful care of the
interests of the woman. In fact, if any doubt were raised as to the
legal validity of the letter of divorce, the Law always pronounced
against the divorce. At the same time, in popular practice, divorce
must have been very frequent; while the principles underlying Jewish
legislation on the subject are most objectionable/ These were in
turn due to a comparatively lower estimate of woman, and to an
unspiritual view of the marriage-relation. Christianity has first
raised woman to her proper position, not by giving her a new

1 So, according to many commentators.
See Meyer, ad loc.
2 On the general subject I would refer
to 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp.
142, 157, 158.
3 Thus, the Talmudic tractate on ' Di
vorce, ' while insisting on its duty in case
of sin, closes with the words: 'He who
divorces his first wife, the very altar sheds
tears over him' (Gitt. 90 b, last lines;

comp. Mai. ii. 13-16).
4 An instance of refusing to be divorced,
even from a very disagreeable and quar
relsome wife, is that of R. Chiya, men
tioned in Yebam. 63 a, towards end.
5 Two disgusting instances of Rabbis
making proclamation of their wish to be
married for a day (in a, strange place,
and then divorced), are mentioned in
Yoma 18 b.

ON DIVORCE.

333

one, but by restoring and fully developing that assigned to her
in the Old Testament. Similarly, as regards marriage, the New
Testament — which would have us to be, in one sense, ' eunuchs for
the Kingdom of God, ' has also fully restored and finally developed
what the Old Testament had already implied. And this is part of
the lesson taught in this Discourse, both to the Pharisees and to the
disciples. To begin with, divorce (in the legal sense) was regarded as a
privilege accorded only to Israel, not to the Gentiles." 1 On the
question: what constituted lawful grounds of divorce, the Schools were
divided. Taking their departure from the sole ground of divorce
mentioned in Deut. xxiv. 1 : ' a matter of shame [literally, naked
ness],' the School of Shammai applied the expression only to moral
transgressions," and, indeed, exclusively to unchastity/ It was de
clared that, if a woman were as mischievous as the wife of Ahab, or
[according to tradition] as the wife of Korah, it were well that her hus
band should not divorce her, except it be on the ground of adultery."
At the same time this must not be regarded as a fixed legal principle,
but rather as an opinion and good counsel for conduct. The very
passages, from which the above quotations are made, also afford only
too painful evidence of the laxity of views and practices current.
And the Jewish Law unquestionably allowed divorce on almost any
grounds; the difference being, not as to what was lawful, but on
what grounds a man should set the Law in motion, and make use of
the absolute liberty which it accorded him. Hence, it is a serious
mistake on the part of Commentators to set the teaching of Christ on
this subject by the side of that of Shammai.
But the School of Hillel proceeded on different principles. It
took the words, ' matter of shame ' in the widest possible sense, and
declared it sufficient ground for divorce if a woman had spoiled
her husband's dinner/2 Rabbi Akiba thought, that the words,' ' if

CHAP. XXII

1 This by a very profane application to
this point of the expression ' God of
Israel,' in Mai. ii. 16.
2 An extraordinary attempt has been
made to explain the expression ( ~mpn
l^ffiDn. ' burns his mess ' ) as meaning
'brings dishonour upon him.' But (1) in
the two passages quoted as bearing out
this meaning (Ber. 17 6, Sanh. 103 a, sec
ond line from bottom), the expression is
not the precise equivalent for ' bringing
dishonour,' while in both cases the addi
tion of the words 'in public' (B^DID)

a Jer. Kidd.
68 c; Ber. B.
18

' Gitt. ix.
10 0 Bemidb.
E. 9, ed.
Warsh. p.
29 0, about
the middle
a Gitt. 90 a;
Sanh. 22 a
and b

marks its figurative use. The real mean
ing of the expression in the two passages
referred to is: One who brings into dis
repute (destroys) that which has been
taught and learned. But (2) in Gitt. ix.
10; 90 a; Bemidb. R. 9 there is no indi
cation of any figurative use of the ex
pression, and the commentators explain
it, as burning the dish, ' either by Are or
by salt ' ; while (3), the expression is fol
lowed by an anti-climax giving permis
sion of divorce if another woman more
pleasing were found.

° Gitt. 90 a
' Deut.
xxiv. 1

334

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

a Yebam,
63 6 ; Gitt.
90 a, b
b Gitt. iv. 7
« Keth.vii. 6

a Erub. 41 6
« Yebam.
63 6
f Gitt. iv.
7,8

E Used in
the same
sense, for
example,
Baba B. 8 6

she find no favour in his eyes,' implied that it was sufficient if a
man had found another woman more attractive than his wife. All
agreed that moral blame made divorce a duty," and that in such cases
a woman should not be taken back." According to the Mishnah,"
women could not only be divorced, but with loss of their dowry,
if they transgressed against the Law of Moses or of Israel. The
former is explained as implying a breach of the laws of tithing, of
setting apart the first of the dough, and of purification. The latter
is explained as referring to such offences as that of going in public
with uncovered head, of spinning in the public streets, or entering
into talk with men, to which others add, that of brawling, or of dis
respectfully speaking of her husband's parents in his presence. A
troublesome," or quarrelsome wife might certainly be sent away; " and
ill repute, or childlessness (during ten years) were also regarded as
valid grounds of divorce/
Incomparably as these principles differ from the teaching of
Christ, it must again be repeated, that no real comparison is possible
between Christ and even the strictest of the Rabbis, since none of
them actually prohibited divorce, except in case of adultery, nor yet
laid down those high eternal principles which Jesus enunciated. But
we can understand how, from the Jewish point of view, ' tempting
Him, ' they would put the question, whether it was lawful to divorce
a wife ' for every cause. ' x Avoiding their cavils, the Lord appealed
straight to the highest authority — God's institution of marriage. He,
Who at the beginning 2 [from the first, originally, N2r-ro] e had made
them male and female, had in the marriage-relation 'joined them
together, ' to the breaking of every other, even the nearest, relation
ship, to be ' one flesh ' — that is, to a union which was unity. Such
was the fact of God's ordering. It followed, that they were one — and
what God had willed to be one, man might not put asunder. Then
followed the natural Rabbinic objection, why, in such case, Moses had
commanded a bill of divorcement. Our Lord replied by point
ing out that Moses had not commanded divorce, only tolerated it
on account of their hardness of heart, and in such case commanded
to give a bill of divorce for the protection of the wife. And this
argument would appeal the more forcibly to them, that the Rabbis
themselves taught that a somewhat similar concession had been

1 These words are omitted by St. Mark
in his condensed account. But so far
from regarding, with Meyer, the briefer
account of St. Mark as the original one,
we look on that of St. Matthew as more

fully reproducing what had taken place.
'-' The clause, St. Matt. xix. 4, should, I
think, be thus pointed: 'He Who made
them, at the beginning made them, &c.'

THE HARD SAYING OF CHRIST AND THAT OF THE DISCIPLES. 335
made " by Moses in regard to female captives of war — as the Talmud CHAP.
has it, 'on account of the evil impulse.'" But such a separa- XXII
tion, our Lord continued, had not been provided for in the original  ¦• 
institution, which was a union to unity. Only one tiling could put * Deut- xxi-
an end to that unity — its absolute breach. Hence, to divorce one's t Kidd. 21 »
wife (or husband) while this unity lasted, and to marry another, was
adultery, because, as the divorce was null before God, the original
marriage still subsisted — and, in that case, the Rabbinic Law would
also have forbidden it. The next part of the Lord's inference, that
' whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery, ' is more
difficult of interpretation. Generally, it is understood as implying
that a woman divorced for adultery might not be married. But it
has been argued, 1 that, as the literal rendering is, ' whoso marrieth
her when put away,' it applies to the woman whose divorce had just
before been prohibited, and not, as is sometimes thought, to ' a woman
divorced [under any circumstances] . ' Be this as it may, the Jewish
Law, which regarded marriage with a woman divorced under any cir
cumstances as unadvisable," absolutely forbade that of the adulterer °*es. 112 a
with the adulteress." t sot. ». 1
Whatever, therefore, may be pleaded, on account of ' the hard
ness of heart ' in modern society, in favour of the lawfulness of re
laxing Christ's law of divorce, which confines dissolution of marriage
to the one ground (of adultery), because then the unity of God's
making has been broken by sin — such a retrocession was at least not
in the mind of Christ, nor can it be considered lawful, either by the
Church or for individual disciples. But, that the Pharisees had
rightly judged, when ' tempting Him,' what the popular feeling on the
subject would be, appears even from what ' His disciples ' [not neces
sarily the Apostles] afterwards said to Him. They waited to express
their dissent till they were alone with Him ' in the house,'" and then eSt- M»rk
J ' X. 10
urged that, if it were as Christ had taught, it would be better not to
marry at all. To which the Lord replied, ' that ' this saying ' of the f st. Matt.
xix 10-12
disciples,2 ' it is not good to marry,' could not be received by all men,
but only by those to whom it was ' given.' For, there were three cases
in which abstinence from marriage might lawfully be contemplated.
In two of these it was, of course, natural; and, where it was not so, a
man might, ' for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake ' — that is, in the ser
vice of God and of Christ — have all his thoughts, feelings, and impulses
1 Canon Cook argues this with great But 'the saying' may, without much
ingenuity. difficulty, be also applied to that of
2 This is the view commonly taken. Christ.

336

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• Comp.
1 Cor. vii.
1, 25-40
>> St. Matt.
xix. 13-15
St. Mark x.
13-16; St.
Luke xviii.
15-17

so engaged that others were no longer existent. For, we must here
beware of a twofold misunderstanding. It is not bare abstinence
from marriage, together, perhaps, with what the German Reformers
called immunda continentia (unchaste continency), which is here
commended, but such inward preoccupation with the Kingdom of God
as would remove all other thoughts and desires. 1 It is this which
requires to be ' given' of God; and which ' he that is able to receive
it ' — who has the moral capacity for it — is called upon to receive.
Again, it must not be imagined that this involves any command of
celibacy: it only speaks of such who in the active service of the
Kingdom feel, that their every thought is so engrossed in the work,
that wishes and impulses to marriage are no longer existent in
them." 2
4. The next incident is recorded by the three Evangelists." It
probably occurred in the same house where the disciples had ques
tioned Christ about His teaching on the Divinely sacred relationship
of marriage. And the account of His blessing of ' infants ' and ' little
children ' most aptly follows on the former teaching. It is a
scene of unspeakable sweetness and tenderness, where all is in cha
racter — alas ! even the conduct of the ' disciples ' as we remember
their late inability to sympathise with the teaching of the Master.
And it is all so utterly unlike what Jewish legend would have
invented for its Messiah. We can understand how, when One Who
so spake and wrought, rested in the house, Jewish mothers should
have brought their ' little children, ' and some their ' infants, ' to Him,
that He might ' touch, ' ' put His Hands on them, and pray. ' What
power and holiness must these mothers have believed to be in His
touch and prayer; what life, to be in, and to come from Him; and
what gentleness and tenderness must His have been, when they
dared so to bring these little ones! For, how utterly contrary it
was to all Jewish notions, and how incompatible with the supposed
dignity of a Rabbi, appears from the rebuke of the disciples. It was
an occasion and an act when, as the fuller and more pictorial account
of St. Mark informs us, Jesus ' was much displeased ' — the only time

1 For, it is not merely to practise out
ward continence, but to become in mind
and heart a eunuch.
2 The mistaken literalism of applica
tion on the part of Origcn is well known.
Such practice must have been not un-
frequent among Jewish Christians, for,
curiously enough, the Talmud refers to
it, reporting a conversation between a

Rabbi and such a Jewish Christian
.eunuch (NTNW "plIS), Shabb. 152 a.
The same story is related, with slight
alterations, in the Midrash on Eccles. x.
7, ed. Warsh. p. 102 a, last four lines.
Any practice of this kind would have
been quite contrary to Jewish law (Pes
112 b; Shabb. 110 b).

CHRIST BLESSING LITTLE CHILDREN.

337

this strong word is used of our Lord1 — and said unto them: ' Suffer
the little children to come to Me,2 hinder them not, for of such is
the Kingdom of God.' Then He gently reminded His own dis
ciples of their grave error, by repeating what they had apparently
forgotten," that, in order to enter the Kingdom of God, it must be
received as by a little child — that here there could be no question of.
intellectual qualification, nor of distinction due to a great Rabbi, but
only of humility, recepriveness, meekness, and a simple application
to, and trust in, the Christ. And so He folded these little ones in
His Arms, put His Hands upon them, and blessed them,3 and thus
for ever consecrated that child-life, which a parent's love and faith
brought to Him; blessed it also by the laying-on of His Hands — as
it were, ' ordained it, ' as we fully believe to all time, ' strength
because of His enemies. '

CHAP. XXII

• St. Matt.
xviii. 3

1 The other places in which the verb
occurs are: St. Matt. xx. 24; xxi. 15;
?xxvi. 8; St. Mark x. 41; xiv. 4; St.
Luke xiii. 14 ; the substantive in 2 Cor.
vii. 11.
2 The ' and ' before ' hinder ' should be
omitted according to the best MSS.

3 As Mr. Brown McClellan notes, in
his learned work on the New Testament,
the word is an ' intensitive compound
form of blessing, especially of dearest
friends and relations at meeting and
parting.'

338

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

CHAPTER XXIII.

BOOK IV

> St. Luke

• St. Matt.
xix. 16

THE LAST INCIDENTS IN PER^A — THE YOUNG RULER WHO WENT AWAY
SORROWFUL — TO LEAVE ALL FOR CHRIST — PROPHECY OF HIS PAS
SION — THE REQUEST OF SALOME, AND OF JAMES AND JOHN.
(St. Matt. xix. 16-22; St. Mark x. 17-22; St. Luke xviii. 18-23; St. Matt. xix. 23-
30; St. Mark x. 23-31; St. Luke xviii. 24-30; St. Matt. xx. 17-19; St. Mark x.
32-34: St. Luke xviii. 31-34; St. Matt. xx. 20-28; St. Mark x. 35- 45.)
As we near the goal, the wondrous story seems to grow in tenderness
and pathos. It is as if all the loving condescension of the Master
were to be crowded into these days; all the pressing need also, and the
human weaknesses of His disciples. And with equal compassion does
He look upon the difficulties of them who truly seek to come to Him,
and on those which, springing from without, or even from self and
sin, beset them who have already come. Let us try reverently to
follow His steps, and learn of His words.
As ' He was going forth into the way ' 1 — we owe this trait, as one
and another in the same narrative, to St. Mark — probably at early
morn, as He left the house where He had for ever folded into His
Arms and blessed the children brought to Him by believing parents —
His progress was arrested. It was ' a young man, ' ' a ruler, ' a prob
ably of the local Synagogue,2 who came with all haste, 'running,'
and with lowliest gesture [kneeling]," to ask what to him, nay to us
all, is the most important question. Remembering that, while we
owe to St. Mark the most graphic touches,3 St. Matthew most fully
reports the words that had been spoken, we might feel inclined to
adopt that reading of them in St. Matthew0 which is not only most
strongly supported, but at first sight seems to remove some of the
difficulties of exposition. This reading would omit in the address
of the young ruler the word ' good ' before ' Master, what good thing
shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? ' and would make Christ's

1 This is the exact rendering.
2 Dean Plumptre needlessly supposes
him to have been a member of the Great
Sanhedrin, and even identifies him with

Lazarus of Bethany.
3 This is well pointed out by Canon
Cook on St. Mark x. 19.

THE QUESTION OF THE YOUNG RULER. 339
reply read: ' Why askest thou Me concerning the good [that which CHAP.
is good] ? One there is Who is good. ' This would meet not only XXIII
the objection, that in no recorded instance was a Jewish Rabbi v — ¦* 
addressed as 'Good Master,' but the obvious difficulties connected
with the answer of Christ, according to the common reading: 'Why
callest thou Me good? none is good, save only One: God.' But
on the other side it must be urged, that the undoubted reading of
the question and answer in St. Mark's and St. Luke's Gospels agrees
with that of our Authorised Version, and hence that any difficulty of
exposition would not be removed, only shifted, while the reply of
Christ tallies far better with the words ' Good Master, ' the strangeness
of such an address from Jewish lips giving only the more reason for
taking it up in the reply: ' Why callest thou Me good? none is good
save only One: God.' Lastly, the designation of God as the only One
'good' agrees with one ofthe titles given Him in Jewish writings:
1 The Good One ofthe world '(aw ?v 131b).'1 el6^
The actual question ofthe young Ruler is one which repeatedly ^suines
occurs in Jewish writings, as put to a Rabbi by his disciples. Amidst
the different answers given, we scarcely wonder that they also pointed
to observance of the Law. And the saying of Christ seems the more
adapted to the young Ruler when we recall this sentence from the
Talmud: 'There is nothing else that is good but the Law.'" But "Ber. sa,
. . . . about
here again the similarity is only of form, not of substance. For, it middle; Ab
° j j j i Zar M h
will be noticed, that, in the more full account by St. Matthew, Christ
leads the young Ruler upwards through the table of the prohibitions
of deeds to the first positive command of deed, and then, by a rapid
transition, to the substitution for the tenth commandment in its
negative form of this wider positive and all-embracing command: °
' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ' Any Jewish ' Ruler, '
but especially one so earnest, would have at once answered a chal
lenge on the first four commandments by ' Yes ' — and that not self-
righteously, but sincerely, though of course in ignorance of their
real depth. And this was not the time for lengthened discussion and
instruction; only for rapid awakening, to lead up, if possible, from
earnestness and a heart-drawing towards the Master to real disciple-
1 To really remove exegetical difficulties, genious, is not supported. And then,
the reading should be further altered to ev what of the conversation in the other
io-Ti to dyadov, as Wiinsche suggests, Gospels, where we could scarcely expect
whoregardsourpresentreadingez's ferric a variation of the saying from the more
6 dyaBdi, as a mistake of the translator easy to the more difficult 1 On the ap-
in rendering the neuter of the Aramaic plication to God of the term ' the Good
original by the masculine. We need One,' see an interesting notice in the Jiid
scarcely say, the suggestion, however in- Liter. Blatt, for Sept. 20, 1882, p. 152.

c Lev. xix. ,
18

340

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

» St. Luke
x. 29

ship. Best here to start from what was admitted as binding — the
ten commandments — and to lead from that in them which was least
likely to be broken, step by step, upwards to that which was most
likely to awaken consciousness of sin.
And the young Ruler did not, as that other Pharisee, reply by
trying to raise a Rabbinic disputation, over the ' Who is neighbour
to me? ' " but in the sincerity of an honest heart answered that he
had kept — that is, so far as he knew them — ' all these things from his
youth.'1 On this St. Matthew puts into his mouth the question —
' What lack I yet? ' Even if, like the other two Evangelists, he had
not reported it, we would have supplied this from what follows.
There is something intensely earnest, genuine, generous, even enthu
siastic, in the higher cravings ofthe soul in youth, when that youth
has not been poisoned by the breath of the world, or stricken with
the rottenness of vice. The soul longs for the true, the higher,
the better, and, even if strength fails of attainment, we still watch
with keen sympathy the form of the climber upwards. Much more
must all this have been the case with a Jeiuish youth, especially in
those days; one, besides, like this young Ruler, in whose case affluence
of circumstances not only allowed free play, but tended to draw out
and to give full scope to the finer feelings, and where wealth was
joined with religiousness and the service of the Synagogue. There
was not in him that pride of riches, nor the self-sufficiency which
they so often engender; nor the pride of conscious moral purity and
aim after righteousness before God and man; nor yet the pride of
the Pharisee or of the Synagogue-Ruler. What he had seen and
heard of the Christ had quickened to greatest intensity all in him
that longed after God and heaven, and had brought him in this
supreme moral earnestness, lowly, reverently, to the Feet of Him in
Whom, as he felt, all perfectness was, and from Whom all perfectness
came. He had not been first drawn to Christ, and thence to the pure,
as were the publicans and sinners; but, like so many — even as Peter,
when in that hour of soul-agony he said: ' To whom shall we go?
Thou hast the words of eternal life,'— he had been drawn to the
pure and the higher, and therefore to Christ. To some the way to
Christ is up the Mount of Transfiguration, among the shining Beings
of another world; to some it is across dark Kedron, down the deep
Garden of Gethsemane with its agonies. What matters it, if it
equally lead to Him, and equally bring the sense of need and experience

1 In St. Matt. xix. 20, these words should be struck out as spurious.

THE ONE THING WHICH THE YOUNG RULER LACKED. 341
of pardon to the seeker after the better, and the sense of need and CHAP.
experience of holiness to the seeker after pardon? XXIII
And Jesus saw it all: down, through that intense upward look; v-"~<  '
inwards, through that question, ' What lack I yet? ' far deeper down
than that young man had ever seen into his own heart — even into
depths of weakness and need which he had never sounded, and which
must be filled, if he would enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus
saw what he lacked; and what He saw, He showed him. For, ' look
ing at him ' in his sincerity and earnestness, ' He loved him ' — as He
loves those that are His Own. One thing was needful for this young
man: that he should not only become His disciple, but that, in so
doing, he should ' come and follow ' Christ. We can all perceive
how, for one like this young man, such absolute and entire coming
and-following Christ was needful. And again, to do this, it was in
the then circumstances both of this young man and of Christ neces
sary, that he should go and part with all that he had. And what was
an outward, was also, as we perceive it, an inward necessity; and so,
as ever, Providence and Grace would work together. For, indeed,
to many of us some outward step is often not merely the means of
but absolutely needful for, spiritual decision. To some it is the first
open profession of Christ; to others, the first act of self-denial, or the
first distinct 'No '-saying; to some, it may be, it is the first prayer,
or else the first act of self-consecration. Yet it seems, as if it needed
not only the word of God but a stroke of some Moses'-rod to make
the water gush forth from the rock. And thus would this young Ruler
have been ' perfect; ' and what he had given to the poor have become,
not through merit nor by way of reward, but really ' treasure in
heaven.' 1
What he lacked — was earth's poverty and heaven's riches; a
heart fully set on following Christ: and this could only come to him
through willing surrender of all. And so this was to him alike the
means, the test, and the need. To him it was this; to us it may be
something quite other. Yet each of us has a lack — something quite
deep down in our hearts, which we may never yet have known, and
which we must know and give up, if we would follow Christ. And
without forsaking, there can be no following. This is the law of the
Kingdom — and it is such, because we are sinners, because sin is not only
the loss of the good, but the possession of something else in its place.
There is something deeply pathetic in the mode in which St. Mark
1 The words 'take up the cross, 'in the spurious — the gloss of a clumsy inter-
textus receptus of St. Mark x. 21, are polator.

342

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

a Arach.
viii. 4
t Kethub.
50 a

• St. Mark
X. 23

i Ber. 55 b,
last line ;
uomp. also
BabhaMets. 38 b

describes it: ' he was sad' — the word painting a dark gloom that
overshadowed the face ofthe young man.' Did he then not lack it,
this one thing? We need scarcely here recall the almost extrava
gant language in which Rabbinism describes the miseries. of poverty; 2
we can understand his feelings without that. Such a possibility had
never entered his mind: the thought of it was terribly startling.
That he must come and follow Christ, then and there, and in order
to do so, sell all that he had and give it away among the poor,
and be poor himself, a beggar, that he might have treasure in
heaven; and that this should come to him as the one thing needful
from that Master in Whom he believed, from Whose lips he would
learn the one thing needful, and who but a little before had
been to him the All in All! It was a terrible surprise, a sentence of
death to his life, and of life to his death. And that it should come
from His lips, at Whose Feet he had run to kneel, and Who held
for him the keys of eternal life! Rabbinism had never asked this;
if it demanded almsgiving, it was in odious boastfulness; 3 while
it was declared even unlawful to give away all one's possessions " —
at most, only a fifth of them might be dedicated."
And so, with clouded face he gazed down into what he lacked —
within; but also gazed up in Christ on what he heeded. And,
although we hear no more of him, who that day went back to his
rich home very poor, because ' very sorrowful,' we cannot but believe
that he, whom Jesus loved, yet found in the poverty of earth the
treasure of heaven.
Nor was this all. The deep pity of Christ for him, who had
gone that day, speaks also in his warning to his disciples/ But
surely those are not only riches in the literal sense which make it
so difficult for a man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven *  so
difficult, as to amount almost to that impossibility which was ex
pressed in the common Jewish proverb, that a man did not even
in his dreams see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle/
But when in their perplexity the disciples put to each other the
saddened question: Who then can he saved? He pointed them
onward, then upward, as well as inward, teaching them that, what

1 The word is only used in St. Matt.
xvi. 3, of the lowering sky.
2 Many sayings might here be quoted.
It was worse than all the plagues of Egypt
put together (Babha B. 116 a); than all
other miseries (Betsah 32 b) ; the worst
affliction that could befall a man (Shem.
R. 31).

¦! See a story of boastfulness in that
respect in Wiinsche, ad loc. To make a
merit of giving up riches for Christ is,
surely, the Satanic caricature of the
meaning of His teaching.
4 The words in St. Mark x. 24, ' for
them that trust in riches,' are most likely
a spurious gloss.

CHRIST'S REWARD OF GRACE TO HIS DISCIPLES AND APOSTLES. 343
was impossible of achievement by man in his own strength, God CHAP.
would work by His Almighty Grace. XXIII
It almost jars on our ears, and prepares us for still stranger and *——y — '
sadder to come, when Peter, perhaps as spokesman of the rest,
seems to remind the Lord that they had forsaken all to follow Him.
St. Matthew records also the special question which Simon added
to it: ' What shall we have therefore? ' and hence his Gospel alone
makes mention of the Lord's reply, in so far as it applied only to the
Apostles. For, that reply really bore on two points: on the reward
which all who left everything to follow Christ would obtain; * and on «st. Matt.
xix 29-
the special acknowledgment awaiting the Apostles of Christ." In st. Mark*.
regard to the former we mark, that it is twofold. They who had Luke'xviii.29 30
forsaken all ' for His sake ' c ' and the Gospel's, ' d ' for the Kingdom „ gt Matt
of God's sake ' — and these three expressions explain and supplement X1X- w
each other — would receive ' in this time ' ' manifold more ' of new, mew and
St .Mark
and better, and closer relationships of a spiritual kind for those dSt Mark
which they had surrendered, although, as St. Mark significantly
adds, to prevent all possible mistakes, ' with persecutions. ' But by
the side of this stands out unclouded and bright the promise for
' the world to come ' of ' everlasting life.' As regarded the Apostles
personally, some mystery lies on the special promise to them.1 We
could quite understand, that the distinction of rule to be bestowed on
them might have been worded in language taken from the expecta
tions of the time, in order to make the promise intelligible to them.
But, unfortunately, Ave have no explanatory information to offer.
The Rabbis, indeed, speak of a renovation or regeneration of the
world (i?a?ij> nx Binw) which was to take place after the 7,000 or else
5.000 years of the Messianic reign/ Such a renewal of all things is ample is.
J ° ° xxxiv. i ; ll.
not only foretold by the prophets/ and dwelt upon in later Jewish e;ixv. 17
writings,6 but frequently referred to in Rabbinic literature/ 2 But as Enochxci.
regards the special rule or 'judgment ' of the Apostles, or ambassadors Esd.'vu. 28
of the Messia-h, we have not, and, of course, cannot expect any parallel ''Targum
' ' i j l Onkelos on
in Jewish writings. That the promise of such rule and judgment to Deilt:XXX1L 1"_ ;
the Apostles is not peculiar to what is called the Judaic Gospel of Targ.
sr l i Jerus. on
St. Matthew, appears from its renewal at a later period, as recorded Deut.
by St. Luke.1 Lastly, that it is in accordance with Old Testament Targ. jdn.
J J ' on Habak.
iii. 2 ; Ber,
1 Of course, the expression ' twelve away, as if the ' regeneration ' referred Warsh. p.
thrones '' (St. Matt. xix. 28) must not be only to the Christian dispensation, and to a± b. near
pressed to utmost literality, or it might spiritual relations under it. end ; Pirke
be asked whether St. Paul or St. Matthias s This subject will be further treated 61 '
occupied the place of Judas. On the in the sequel. , st Luke
other hand, neither must it be frittered xxii. 30

' Sanh. 97 6
f Aa for ex-

344

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

c Comp. al
so Acts
xxvl. 7

a St. Matt.
xx. 17-19

•St. Mat.,
xx. 16; St.
Mark x. 31

f St. Matt.
xvi. 21;
xvii. 22, 23

promise, will be seen by a reference to Dan. vii. 9, 10, 14, 21; and
there are few references in the New Testament to the blessed con
summation of all things in which such renewal of the world," and
even the rule and judgment of the representatives of the Church," are
not referred to.
However mysterious, therefore, in their details, these things seem
clear, and may without undue curiosity or presumption be regarded
as the teaching of our Lord: the renewal of earth; the share in His
rule and judgment which He will in the future give to His saints;
the special distinction which He will bestow on His Apostles, corre
sponding to the special gifts, privileges, and rule with which He had
endowed them on earth, and to their nearness to, and their work and
sacrifices for Him; and, lastly, we may add, the preservation of Israel
as a distinct, probably tribal, nation/ As for the rest, as so much
else, it is ' behind the veil, ' and, even as we see it, better tfor the
Church that the veil has not been further lifted.
The reference to the blessed future with its rewards was followed
by a Parable, recorded, as, with one exception, all of that series, only
by St. Matthew. It will best be considered in connection with the
last series of Christ's' Parable's. 1 But it was accompanied by what, in
the circumstances, was also a most needful warning. d Thoughts ofthe
future Messianic reign, its glory, and their own part in it might have
so engrossed the minds of the disciples as to make them forgetful of
the terrible present, immediately before them. In such case they
might not only have lapsed into that most fatal Jewish error of a Mes
siah-King, Who was not Saviour — the Crown without the Cross — but
have even suffered shipwreck of their faith, when the storm broke on
the Day of His Condemnation and Crucifixion. If ever, it was most
needful in that hour of elation to remind and forewarn them of what
was to be expected in the immediate future. How truly such prepara
tion was required by the disciples, appears from the narrative itself.
There was something sadly mysterious in the words with which
Christ had closed His Parable, that the last should be first and
the first last0'2 — and it had carried dark misgivings to those who
heard it. And now it seemed all so strange! l"et the disciples
could not have indulged in illusions. His own sayings on at least
two previous occasions, 'however ill or partially understood, must have
led them to expect at any rate grievous opposition and tribulations
in Jerusalem, and their endeavour to deter Christ from going to

1 See in Book V.
2 The words, 'many be called, but few chosen,' seem spurious in that place.

PREDICTION OF THE NEAR END. 345
Bethany to raise Lazarus proyes, that they were well aware of the CHAP.
danger which threatened the Master in Judasa. " Yet not only ' was XXIII
He now going up ' to Jerusalem,' but there was that in His bearing ' — ¦> — -*
which was quite unusual. As St. Mark writes, He was going 'before ^Vi?11
them ' — we infer, apart and alone, as One, busy with thoughts all-
engrossing, Who is setting Himself to do His great work, and goes
to meet it. 'And going before thein was Jesus; and they were
amazed [utterly bewildered, viz. the Apostles] ; and those who were
following, were afraid. ' 2 It was then that Jesus took the Apostles
apart, and in language more precise than ever before, told them
how all things that were ' Avritten by the prophets shall be accom
plished on the Son of Man'" — not merely, that all that had been »st.Luke
written concerning the Son of Man should be accomplished, but
a far deeper truth, all-comprehensive as regards the Old Testa
ment : that all its true prophecy ran up into the sufferings ofthe Christ.
As the three Evangelists report it, the Lord gave them full details
of His Betrayal, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. And yet we may,
without irreverence, doubt whether on that occasion He had really
entered into all those particulars. In such case it would seem diffi
cult to explain how, as St. Luke reports, ' they understood none of
these things, and the saying was hid from them, neither knew they
the things which were spoken; ' and again, how afterwards the actual
events and the Resurrection could have taken them so by surprise.
Rather do we think, that the Evangelists report what Jesus had
said in the light of after-events. He did tell them of His Betrayal
by the leaders of Israel, and that into the hands of the Gentiles; of His
Death and Resurrection on the third day — yet in language which
they could, and actually did, misunderstand at the time, but which,
when viewed in the light of what really happened, was perceived
by them to have been actual prediction of those terrible days in
Jerusalem and of the Resurrection-morning. At the time they may
have thought that it pointed- only to His rejection by Jews and
Gentiles, to Sufferings and Death — and then to a Resurrection,
either of His Mission or to such a reappearance of the Messiah, after
His temporary disappearance, as Judaism expected.
But all this time, and with increasing fierceness, were < terrible
thoughts contending in the breast of Judas; and beneath the tramp
of that fight was there only a thin covering of earth, to hide and
keep from bursting forth the hellish fire of the master-passion within.
1 This is the precise rendering of the 2 This is the precise rendering of St.
verb. Mark x. 32.

34-6

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

• St. Matt.
xvi. 23

» St. Matt.
xxvii. 56;
comp. St.
Mark xv. 40
° St. Mark

' St. Luke
ix. 51

' by St.
Mark (x. 35)

'St. Matt.
XX. 20-28;
St. Mark x.
35-45

One other incident, more strange and sad than any that had
preceded, and the Perasan stay is for ever ended. It almost seems,
as if the fierce blast of temptation, the very breath of the destroyer,
were already sweeping over the little flock, as if the twilight of the
night of betrayal and desertion were already falling around. And
now it has fallen on the two chosen disciples, James and John — 'the
sons of thunder, ' and one of them, ' the beloved disciple ! ' Peter,
the third in that band most closely bound to Christ, had already
had his fierce temptation," and would have it more fiercely — to the
uprooting of life, if the Great High-Priest had not specially inter
ceded for him. And, as regards these two sons of Zebedee and of
Salome," we know what temptation had already beset them, how
John had forbidden one to cast out devils, because he followed not
with them,' and how both he and his brother, James, would have
called down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans who would
not receive Christ/ It was essentially the same spirit that now
prompted the request which their mother Salome preferred,1 not only
with their full concurrence, but, as we are expressly told,0 with their
active participation. There is the same faith in the Christ, the same
allegiance to Him, but also the same unhallowed earnestness, the
same misunderstanding — and, let us add, the same latent self-exalta
tion, as in the two former instances, in the present request that, as
the most honoured of His guests, and also as the nearest to Him,
they might have their places at His Right Hand and at His Left in
His Kingdom/ Terribly incongruous as is any appearance of self-
seeking at that moment an.d with that prospect before them, we
cannot but feel that there is also ah intenseness of faith and absolute
ness of love almost sublime, when the mother steps forth from among
those who follow Christ to His Suffering and Death, to proffer such
a request with her sons, and for them.
And so the Saviour seems to have viewed it. With unspeakable
patience and tenderness, He, Whose Soul is filled with the terrible
contest before Him, bears with the weakness and selfishness which
could cherish such thoughts and ambitions even at such a time. To
correct them, He points to that near prospect, when the Highest is
to be made low. 'Ye know not what ye ask!' The King is to be
King through suffering— are they aware of the road which leads to
that goal? Those nearest to the King of sorrows must reach the

1 It is very remarkable that, in St.
Matt. xx. 20, she bears the unusual title :
' the mother of Zebedee's children ' (comp.
also "for the mention of Zebedee, St. Mark

x. 35). This, evidently, to emphasise
that the distinction was not asked on the
ground of earthly kinship, as through
Salome, who was the aunt of Jesus.

THE REQUEST OF THE MOTHER OF ZEBEDEE'S CHILDREN. 347
place nearest to Him by the same road as He. Are they prepared for CHAP.
it; prepared to drink that cup of soul-agony, which the Father will XXIII
hand to Him — to submit to, to descend into that baptism of consecra- "— ~v— -'
tion, when the floods will sweep over Him?1 In their ignorance,
and listening only to the promptings of their hearts, they imagine
that they are. Kay, in some measure it would be so; yet, finally to
correct their mistake: to sit at His Right and at His Left Hand,
these were not marks of mere favour for Him to bestow — in His own
words: it ' is not Mine to give except to them for whom it is pre
pared of My Father. '
But as for the other ten, when they heard, of it, it was only the
pre-eminence which, in their view, James and John had sought,
which stood out before them, to their envy, jealousy, and indignation." "St.Matt,
And so, in that tremendously solemn hour would the fierce fire of *?• : s*-
controversy have broken out among them, who should have been most &0-
closely united; would jealousy and ambition have filled those who
should have been most humble, and fierce passions, born of self, the
world and Satan, have distracted them, whom the thought of the
great love and the great sacrifice should have filled. It was the
rising of that storm on the sea, the noise and tossing of those angry
billows, which He hushed into silence when He spoke to them ofthe
grand contrast between the princes of the Gentiles as they ' lord it
over them,' or the ' great among them ' as they ' domineer ' 2 over men,
and their own aims — how, whosoever would be great among them,
must seek his greatness in service — not greatness through service,
but the greatness of service; and, whosoever would be chief or
rather ' first ' among them, let it be in service. And had it not been
thus, was it not, would it not be so in the Son of Man — and must it
not therefore be so in them who would be nearest to Him, even His
Apostles and disciples? The Son of Man — let them look back, let
them look forward — He came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister. And then, breaking through the reserve that had held
Him, and revealing to them the inmost thoughts which had occupied
Him when He had been alone and apart, going before, them on the
way, He spoke for the first time fully what was the deepest meaning
of His Life, Mission, and Death: ' to give His Life a ransom for
1 The clause in St. Matthew : ' and to the same in the two Gospels) express not
be baptized with the baptism that I am ordinary ' dominion ' and ' authority,' but
baptised with,' is probably a spurious in- a forcible and tyrannical exercise of it.
sertion, taken from St. Mark's Gospel. The first verb occurs again in Acts xix. 16,
2 I have chosen these two words be- and 1 Pet. v. 3; the second only in this
cause the verbs in the Greek (which are passage in the Gospels.

348

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV

* St. Matt.
XX. 28;
St. Mark x.
45 ' St. John
xiii. c Kom. iii.
24; 1 Cor.
vi. 20;
1 Tim. ii. 6 ;
IPet. i. 19;
1 John iv.
10

many ' " * — to pay with His Life-Blood the price of their redemption,
to lay down His Life for them: in their room and stead, and for their
salvation. These words must have sunk deep into the heart of one at least
in that company.2 A few days later, and the beloved disciple tells us
of this Ministry of His Love at the Last Supper," and ever after
wards, in his writings or in his life, does he seem to bear them about
with him, and to re-echo them. Ever since also have they remained
the foundation-truth, on which the Church has been built: the
subject of her preaching, and the object of her experience/

1 We would here call attention to some exquisitely beautiful and forcible remarks
by Dean Plumptre on the passage. 2 Comp. Dean Ptumptre, u. s.

IN JERICHO. 349

CHAPTER XXIV.
IN JERICHO AND AT BETHANY — JERICHO — A GUEST WITH ZACCH.EUS —
THE HEALING OF BLIND BARTIMiEUS — THE PLOT AT JERUSALEM — AT
BETHANY, AND IN THE HOUSE OF SIMON THE LEPER.
(St. Luke xix. 1-10; St. Matt. xx. 29-34; St. Mark x. 46-52; St. Luke xviii. 35-43;
St. John xi. 55 — xii. 1 ; St. Matt. xxvi. 6-13 ; St. Mark xiv. 3-9 ; St. John xii.
2-11.)
Once more, and now for the last time, were the fords of Jordan CHAP.
passed, and Christ was on the soil of Judasa proper. Behind Him XXIV
were Peraea and Galilee; behind Him the Ministry ofthe Gospel by v— -v — '
Word and Deed; before Him the final Act of His Life, towards
which all had consciously tended. Rejected as the Messiah of
His people, not only in His Person but as regarded the Kingdom of
God, which, in fulfilment of prophecy and of the merciful Counsel
of God, He had come to establish, He was of set purpose going up
to Jerusalem, there to accomplish His Decease, ' to give His Life a
Ransom for many/ And He was coming, not, as at the Feast of
Tabernacles, privately, but openly, at the head of His Apostles, and
followed by many disciples — a festive band going up to the Paschal
Feast, of which Himself was to be ' the Lamb ' of sacrifice.
The first station reached was Jericho, the ' City of Palms, ' a
distance of only about six hours from Jerusalem. The ancient City
occupied not the site of the present wretched hamlet, but lay about
half an hour to the north-west of it, by the so-called Elisha-Spring.
A second spring rose an hour further to the north-north-west. The
water of these springs, distributed by aqueducts, gave, under a
tropical sky, unsurpassed fertility to the rich soil along the ' plain '
of Jericho, which is about twelve or fourteen miles wide. The Old
Testament history of the ' City of Palms ' is sufficiently known. It
was here also that King Zedekiah had, on his flight, been seized
by the Chaldeans," and thither a company of 345 men returned '2 Kings
under Zerubbabel." In the war of liberation under the Maccabees bEzraii. 34

350 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK the Syrians had attempted to fortify Jericho." These forts were after-
IV wards destroyed by Pompey in his campaign. Herod the Great had
¦  r— - '¦ first plundered, and then partially rebuilt, fortified, and adorned
nMaccix. Jericho. It was here that he died/ His son Archelaus also built
k ./os. Ant. there a palace. At the time of which . we write, it was, of course,
Jewish war under Roman dominion. Long before, it had recovered its ancient
1- 33' 6 fame for fertility and its prosperity. Josephus describes it as the
richest part of the country, and calls it a little Paradise. Antony-
had bestowed the revenues of its balsam-plantations as an Imperial
gift upon Cleopatra, who in turn sold them to Herod. Here grew
• cant. i. u palm-trees of various kinds, sycamores, the cypress-flower,0 the myro-
balsamum, which yielded precious oil, but especially the balsam-
plant. If to these advantages of climate, soil, and productions we
add, that it was, so to speak,, the key of Judaea towards the east,
that it lay on the caravan-road from Damascus and Arabia, that it
was a great commercial and military centre, and lastly, its nearness
to Jerusalem, to which it formed the last ' station ' on the road of
the festive pilgrims from Galilee and Perasa — it will not be difficult
to understand either its importance or its prosperity.
We can picture to ourselves the scene, as our Lord on that after
noon in early spring beheld it. There it was, indeed, already
*wanv. summer, for, as Josephus tells us,d even in winter the inhabitants
could only bear the lightest clothing of linen. We are approaching
it from the Jordan. It is protected by walls, flanked by four forts.
These walls, the theatre, and the amphitheatre, have been built by
Herod; the new palace and its splendid gardens are the work of
Archelaus. All around wave groves of feathery palms, rising in
stately beauty; stretch gardens of roses, and especially sweet-
scented balsam-plantations — the largest behind the royal gardens,
of which the perfume is carried by the wind almost out to sea, and
which may have given to the city its name (Jericho, ' the perfumed ').
It is the Eden of Palestine, the very fairyland of the old world. And
how strangely is this gem set! Deep down in that hollowed valley,
through which tortuous Jordan winds, to lose his waters in the slimy
mass of the Sea of Judgment. The river and the Dead Sea are
nearly equidistant from the town — about six miles. Far across the
river rise the mountains of Moab, on which lies the purple and
violet colouring. Towards Jerusalem and northwards stretch .those
bare limestone hills, the hiding-place of robbers along the desolate
road towards the City. There, and in the neighbouring wilderness
of Judasa, are also the lonely dwellings of anchorites — while over all

xix. 1-10

ZACCILEUS. 351
this strangely varied scene has been flung the many-coloured mantle CHAP.
of a perpetual summer. And in the streets of Jericho a motley XXIV
throng meets: pilgrims from Galilee and Peraea, priests who have a v— - v— -^
' station ' here, traders from all lands, who have come to purchase or to
sell, or are on the great caravan-road from Arabia and Damascus —
robbers and anchorites, wild fanatics, soldiers, courtiers, and busy
publicans — for Jericho was the central station for the collection of
tax and custom, both on native produce and on that brought from
across Jordan. And yet it was a place for dreaming also, under
that glorious summer-sky, in those scented groves — when these many
figures from far-off lands and that crowd of priests, numbering, ac
cording to tradition, half those in Jerusalem," seemed fleeting as in a • Jer. Taan.
vision, and (as Jewish legend had it) the sound of Temple-music
came from Moriah, borne in faint echoes on the breeze, like the dis
tant sound of many waters/ "jer. sukk.
It was through Jericho that Jesus, ' having entered, ' was pass- c st. Luke
ing.10 Tidings ofthe approach ofthe festive band, consisting of His
disciples and Apostles, and headed by the Master Himself, must
have preceded Him, these six miles from the fords of Jordan. His
Name, His Works, His Teaching — perhaps Himself, must have been
known to the people of Jericho, just as they must have been aware of
the feelings of the leaders of the people, perhaps of the approaching
great contest between them and the Prophet of Nazareth. Was He
a good man; had He wrought those great miracles in the power of
God or by Satanic influence — was He the Messiah or the Antichrist;
would He bring salvation to the world, or entail ruin on His own
nation? Conquer or be destroyed? Was it only one more in the
long list of delusions and illusions, or was the long-promised morning
of heaven's own day at last to break? Close by was Bethany, whence
tidings had come; most incredible yet unquestioned and unquestiona
ble, of the raising of Lazarus, so well known to all in that neighbour
hood. And yet the Sanhedrin — it was well known — had resolved on
His death! At any rate there was no concealment about Him; and
here, in face of all, and accompanied by His followers — humble and
unlettered, it must be admitted, but thoroughly convinced of His
superhuman claims, and deeply attached — Jesus was going up to
Jerusalem to meet His enemies!
It was the custom, when a festive band passed through a place,
that the inhabitants gathered in the streets to bid their brethren
1 So more accurately.

352 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK welcome. And on that afternoon, surely, scarce any one in Jericho
IV but would go forth to see this pilgrim-band. Men — curious, angry,
^— -v"-" half-convinced ; women, holding up their babes, it may be for a pass
ing blessing, or- pushing forward their children that in after 3'ears
they might say they had seen the Prophet of Nazareth; traders^
soldiers — a solid wall of onlookers before their gardens was this
' crowd ' along the road by which Jesus ' was to pass. ' Would He
only pass through the place, or be the guest of some of the leading
priests in Jericho; would He teach, or work any miracle, or silently
go on His way to Bethany? Only one in all that crowd seemed
unwelcome; alone, and out of place. It was the ' chief of the Pub
licans ' — the head of the tax and customs department. As his name
shows, he was a Jew; but yet that very name Zacchseus, 'Zakkai,'
' the just, ' or ' pure, ' sounded like mockery. We know in what repute
Publicans were held, and what opportunities of wrong-doing and
oppression they possessed. And from his after-confession it is only
too evident,- that Zacchaeus had to the full used them for evil. And
he had got that for which he had given up alike his nation and his
soul: 'he was rich.' If, as Christ had taught, it was harder for any
rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle, what of him who had gotten his riches
by such means?
And yet Zacchaeus was in the crowd that had come to see Jesus.
What had brought him? Certainly, not curiosity only. Was it the
long working of conscience; or a dim, scarcely self-avowed hope of
something better; or had he heard Hiin before; or of Him, that He
was so unlike those harsh leaders and teachers of Israel, who refused
all hope on earth and in heaven to such as him, that Jesus received
— nay, called to Him the publicans and sinners? Or was it only the
nameless, deep, irresistible inward drawing of the Holy Ghost, which
may perhaps have brought us, as it has brought many, we know not
why or how, to the place and hour of eternal decision for God, and
of infinite grace to our souls? Certain it is, that, as so often in such
circumstances, Zacchaeus encountered only hindrances which seemed
to render his purpose almost impossible. The narrative is singularly
detailed and pictorial. Zacchseus, trying to push his way through
'the press,' and repulsed; Zacchaeus, 'little of stature,' and unable to
look over the shoulders of others: it reads almost like a symbolical
story of one who is seeking 'to see Jesus,' but cannot push his
way because of the crowd — whether of the self-righteous, or of his
own conscious sins, that seem to stand between him and the Saviour,

SALVATION COME TO ZACCHAEUS. 353
and which will not make room for him, while he is unable to look CHAP.
over them because he is, so to speak, ' little of stature. ' XXIV
Needless questions have been asked as to the import of Zacchaeus' "— ^ 
wish 'to see who Jesus was.' It is just this vagueness of desire,
which Zacchaeus himself does not understand, which is characteristic.
And, since he cannot otherwise succeed, he climbs up one of those
wide-spreading sycamores in a garden, perhaps close to his own
house, along the only road by which Jesus can pass — ' to see Him. '
Now the band is approaching, through that double living wall : first,
the Saviour, viewing that crowd, with, ah ! how different thoughts from
theirs — surrounded by His Apostles, the face of each expressive of
such feelings as were uppermost; conspicuous among them, he who
1 carried the bag, ' with furtive, uncertain, wild glance here and
there, as one who seeks to gather himself up to a terrible deed.
Behind them are the disciples, men and women, who are going up
with Him to the Feast. Of all persons in that crowd the least
noted, the most hindered in coming — and yet the one most con
cerned, was the Chief Publican. It is always so — it is ever the
order of the Gospel, that the last shall be first. Yet never more
self-unconscious was Zacchaeus than at the moment when Jesus
was entering that garden-road, and passing under the overhanging
branches of that sycamore, the crowd closing up behind, and fol
lowing as He went along. Only one thought — without ulterior
conscious object, temporal or spiritual — filled his whole being. The
present absolutely held him — when those wondrous Eyes, out of which
heaven itself seemed to look upon earth, were upturned, and that
Face of infinite grace, never to be forgotten, beamed upon him the
welcome of recognition, and He uttered the self-spoken invitation
in which the invited was the real Inviter, the guest the true Host.
Did Jesus know Zacchaeus before — or was it only all open to His-
Divine gaze as ' He looked up and saw him ' ? This latter seems,
indeed, indicated by the ' must ' of His abiding in the house of
Zacchseus — as if His Father had so appointed it, and Jesus come for
that very purpose. And herein, also, seems this story spiritually
symbolical. As bidden by Christ, Zacchseus 'made haste and came down.'
Under the gracious influence of the Holy Ghost he ' received Him
rejoicing.' Nothing was as yet clear to him, and yet all was joyous,
within his soul. In that dim twilight of the new day, and at this
new creation, the Angels sang and the Sons of God shouted together,
and all was melody and harmony in his heart. But a few steps;

354 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK farther, and they were at the house of the Chief Publican. Strange
IV hostelry this for the Lord; yet not stranger in that Life of absolute
~— ¦— v- — - contrasts than that first hostelry — the same, even as regards its
designation in the Gospel,1 as when the manger had been His cradle;
not so strange, as at the Sabbath-feast ofthe Pharisee Rulers of the
Synagogue. But now the murmur of disappointment and anger
ran through the accompanying crowd — which perhaps had not before
heard what had passed between Jesus and the Publican, certainly,
had not understood, or else not believed its import — because He was
gone to be guest with a man that was a sinner. Oh, terribly fatal
misunderstanding of all that was characteristic of the Mission of
the Christ! oh, terribly fatal blindness and jealousy! But it was
this sudden shock of opposition which awoke Zacchaeus to full con
sciousness. The hands so rudely and profanely thrust forward only
served to rend the veil. It often needs some such sudden shock of
opposition, some sudden sharp contest, to waken the new convert
to full consciousness, to bring before him, in clear outline, alike
the past and the present. In that moment Zacchaeus saw it all:
what his past had been, what his present was, what his future
must be. Standing forth, not so much before the crowd as before
the Lord, and not ashamed, nay, scarcely conscious ofthe confession
it implied — so much is the sorrow of the past in true repentance
swallowed up by the joy of the present — Zacchaeus vowed fourfold
»ex. xxii.i restoration, as by a- thief," of what had become his through false
accusation,2 as well as the half of all his goods to the poor. And
so the whole current of his life had been turned, in those few
moments, through his joyous reception of Christ, the Saviour of
sinners; and Zacchaeus the public robber, the rich Chief of the Publi
cans, had become an almsgiver.
It was then, when it had been all done in silence, as mostly all
God's great works, that Jesus spake it to him, for his endless comfort,
and in the hearing of all, for their and our teaching: ' This day became
— arose — there salvation to this house,' 'forasmuch as,' truly and
spiritually, 'this one also is a son of Abraham.' And, as regards
1 The word here used is KaraXvoo, restoration by penitents in cases where
and the hostelry at Bethlehem (St. Luke the malappro'priation was open to ques-
ii. 7) was KaTdXvfia. tion, when the Talmud lavs down the
2 Literally, 'if I have sycophanted any principle, that if any one wishes to
man anything.' It should be remarked, escape the Divine punishment, he must
as making this restoration by Zacchasus restore even that which, according to
the more intelligible, that to a penitent strict justice, he might not be obliged to
Jew this would immediately occur. In the give up (Baba Mez. 37 a).
Talmud there is a long discussion as to

35-43

BLIND BARTIMtEUS. 355
this man, and all men, so long as time endureth: 'For the Son of CHAP.
Man came to seek and to save that which was lost.' XXIV
The Evangelistic record passes with significant silence over that ^— -^ 
night in the house of Zacchaeus. It forms not part of the public
history ofthe Kingdom of God, but ol that joy with which a stranger
intermeddleth not. It was in the morning, when the journey in
company with His disciples was resumed, that the next public inci
dent occurred in the healing ofthe blind by the wayside/ The small *st. Matt.
divergences in the narratives of the three Evangelists are well known. st.'Mark x.
It may have been that, as St. Matthew relates, there were two blind Luke xviii.
men sitting by the wayside, and that St. Luke and St. Mark mention
only one — the latter by name as 'Bar Timaeus' — because he was
the spokesman. But, in regard to the other divergence, trifling as it
is, that St. Luke places the incident at the arrival, the other two
Evangelists at the departure of Jesus from Jericho, it is better to admit
our inability to conciliate these differing notes of time, than to make
clumsy attempts at harmonising them. We can readily believe that
there may have been circumstances unknown to us, which might show
these statements to be not really diverging. And, if it were other
wise, it would in no way affect the narrative itself. Historical infor
mation could only have been derived from local sources; and we have
already seen reason to infer that St. Luke had gathered his from
personal inquiry on the spot. And it may have been, either that the
time was not noted, or wrongly noted, or that this miracle, as the. only
one in Jericho, may have been reported to him before mention was
made of the reception by Christ of Zacchaeus. In any case, it shows
the independence of the account of St. Luke from that of the other
two Evangelists.
Little need be said of the incident itself: it is so like the other
Deeds of His Life. So to speak — it was left in Jericho as the
practical commentary, and the seal on what Christ had said and done
the previous evening in regard to Zacchaeus. Once more the crowd
was following Jesus, as in the morning He resumed the journey with
His disciples. And, there by the wayside, begging, sat the blind men
— there, where Jesus was passing. As they heard the tramp of many
feet and the sound of many voices, they learned that Jesus of Nazareth
was passing by. It is all deeply touching, and deeply symbolical.
But what must their faith have been, when there, in Jericho, they
not only owned Him as the true Messiah, but cried — in the deep
significance of that special mode of address, as coming from Jewish

356

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK lips: ' 'Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me!' It was quite
IV in accordance with what one might almost have expected — certainly
s- — r-— ' with the temper of Jericho, as we learned it on the previous evening,
when ' many, ' the ' multitude, ' ' they which went before, ' would have
bidden that cry for help be silent as an unwarrantable intrusion and
interruption, if not a needless and meaningless application. But only
all the louder and more earnest rose the cry, as the blind felt that
they might for ever be robbed of the opportunity that was slipping
past. And He, Who listens to every cry of distress, heard this.
He stood still, and commanded the blind to be called. Then it was
that the sympathy of sudden hope seized the 'multitude' the wonder
about to be wrought fell, so to speak, in its heavenly influences upon
them, as they comforted the blind in the agony of rising despair with
¦ st. Mark the words, ' He calleth thee. ' " As so often, we are indebted to
X. 49 St. Mark for the vivid sketch of what passed. We can almost see
Bartimseus as, on receiving Christ's summons, he casts aside his
upper garment and hastily comes. That question: what he would
that Jesus should do unto him, must have been meant for those around
more than for the blind. The cry to the son of David had been only
for mercy. It might have been for alms — though, as the address, so
the gift bestowed in answer, would be right royal — ' after the order of
David. ' But our general cry for mercy must ever become detailed when
we come into the Presence of the Christ. And the faith of the blind
rose to the full height of the Divine possibilities opened before them.
Their inward eyes had received capacity for The Light, before that of
earth lit up their long darkness. In the language of St. Matthew,
'Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes.' This is
one aspect of it. The other is that given by St. Mark and St. Luke,
in recording the words with which He accompanied the healing:
' Thy faith has saved thee. ' 2
And these two results came of it: 'all the people, when they saw
it gave praise unto God; ' and, as for Bartimseus, though Jesus had
bidden him 'go thy way,' yet, 'immediately he received his sight,'
» st. Luke he 'followed Jesus in the way,' glorifying God/ And this is Divine
disobedience, or rather the obedience of the spirit as against the
observance of the letter.3
The arrival of the Paschal band from Galilee and Peraea was not
in advance of many others. In truth, most pilgrims from a distance

1 Comp. our remarks on this point in
vol. ii. p. 49.
2 The expression is the same in St.
Mark and St. Luke.

1 The Parable of the Ten Pieces of
Money will be expounded in connection
with the last series of Parables.

CHRIST'S ARRIVAL AT BETHANY. 35*7
would probably come to the Holy City some days before the Feast, CHAP.
for the sake of purification in the Temple, since those who for any XXIV
reason needed such — and there would be few families that did not ^ — -v— —
require it — generally deferred it till the festive season brought them
to Jerusalem. We owe this notice, and that which follows, to
St. John," and in this again recognise the Jewish writer of the >st. John
Fourth Gospel. It was only natural that these pilgrims should have
sought for Jesus, and, when they did not find Him, discuss among
themselves the probability of His coming to the Feast. His absence
would, after the work which He had done these three years, the
claim which He made, and the defiant denial of it by the priesthood
and the Sanhedrin, have been regarded as a virtual surrender to the
enemy. There was a time when He need not have appeared at the
Feast — when, as we see it, it was better He should not come. But
that time was past. The chief priests and the Pharisees also knew
it, and they ' had given commandment that, if any one knew where
He was, he would show it, that they might take Him. ' It would be
better to ascertain where He lodged, and to seize Him before He
appeared in public, in the Temple.
But it was not as they had imagined. Without concealment
Christ came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom He had raised
from the dead. He came there six days before the Passover — and yet
His coming was such that they could not ' take Him. ' b They might » st. John
as well take Him in the Temple; nay, more easily. For, the
moment His stay in Bethany became known, ' much people x of the
Jews ' came out, not only for His sake, but to see that Lazarus whom
He had raised from the dead. And, of those who so came, many
went away believing. And how, indeed, could it be otherwise?
Thus one of their plans was frustrated, and the evil seemed only to
grow worse. The Sanhedrin could perhaps not be moved to such
flagrant outrage of all Jewish Law, but ' the chief priests, ' who
had no such scruples, consulted how they might put Lazarus also to
death.0 °st. John
Yet, not until His hour had come could man do aught against x ' '
Christ or His disciples. And, in contrast to such scheming, haste, and
search, we mark the majestic calm and quiet of Him Who knew what
was before Him. Jesus had arrived at Bethany six days before the
Passover — that is, on a Friday/ The day after was the Sabbath,
1 Canon Westcott prefers the reading : mentaries. It has been impossible here
' the eommon people.' to discuss in detail every little difficulty.
2 On the precise dates, see the Com- Rather has it been thought best to tell

358

THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.

BOOK IV
» St. John

berg
0 Ewald

a Kerith.
6 a
•Hist. Nat.
xii. 12, 26
' xii. 12, 26

and 'they made Him a supper.' " It was the special festive meal of
the Sabbath. The words of St. John seem to indicate that the
meal was a public one, as if the people of Bethany had combined to
do Him this honour, and so share the privilege of attending the
feast. In point of fact, we know from St. Matthew and St. Mark
that it took place ' in the house of Simon the Leper ' — not, of course,
an actual leper — but one who had been such: Perhaps his guest-
chamber was the largest in Bethany; perhaps the house was nearest
to the Synagogue: or there may have been other reasons for it,
unknown to us — least likely is the suggestion that Simon was the
husband of Martha," or else her father.0 But all is in character.
Among the guests is Lazarus: and, prominent in service, Martha;
and Mary (the unnamed woman of the other two Gospels, which do
not mention that household by name), is also true to her charac
ter.1 She had 'an alabaster'2 of 'spikenard genuine,' which was
very precious. It held ' a litra ' (8~te<? or NnT^?), which was a
' Roman pound, ' and its value could not have been less than nearly
91. Remembering the price of Nard,a as given by Pliny," and that
the Syrian was only next in value to the Indian, which Pliny
regarded as the best f ointment of ' genuine ' 3 Nard — unadulterated
and unmixed with any other balsam* (as the less expensive kinds
were), such a price (300 dinars= nearly 91.) would be by no means
excessive; indeed, much lower than at Rome. But, viewed in
another light, the sum spent was very large, remembering that
200 dinars (about 61.) nearly sufficed to provide bread for 5,000
men with their families, and that the ordinary wages of a labourer
amounted to only one dinar a day.
We can here offer only conjectures, But it is, at least, not
unreasonable to suppose — remembering the fondness of Jewish
women for such perfumes 5— that Mary may have had that ' alabaster '
of very costly ointment from olden days, before she had learned to

the events, as we regard them as having
taken place. See Nebe, Leidensgesch. i.
pp. 23, 24.
1 Those, if any, who identify this Mary
with the Magdalene, and regard the
anointing of St. Luke vii. 36, &c, as
identical with that of Bethany, are re
ferred, for full discussion and refutation,
to Nebe, Leidensgesch. vol. i. pp. 21 &c.
30 Ac.
8 Unguentri opfime serrantur in ala-
bastris (Plin. H. N. xiii. 2, 3). These ' ala
basters '—for the flask itself obtained that
name from the stone used— had at the top

the form of a cylinder, and are likened
by Pliny to a closed rose-bud.
3 The expression TuariKr) has given
rise to much controversy. Of the various
renderings, that by ' genuine ' has most
in its favour. For a full discussion see
Nebe, u. s. pp. 33, 34, and Meyer on St
Mark xiv. 3-9.
4 On the various mixtures of precious
ointments, their adulteration, the cost of
the various ingredients, and the use
made of perfumes in Palestine, see
Herzfeld, u. s. pp. 99, 100, 191, 192.
5 See Book III. chap. xxi.

THE ANOINTING OF MARY. 359
serve Christ. Then, when she came to know Him, and must have chap.
learned how constantly that Decease, of which He ever spoke , was XXIV
before His Mind, she may have put it aside, ' kept it,' ' against the ^— ^y^'
day of His burying. ' And now the decisive hour had come. Jesus
may have told her, as He had told the disciples, what was before
Him in Jerusalem at the Feast, and she would be far more quick to
understand, even as she must have knewn far better than they, how
great was the danger from the Sanhedrin. And it is this believing
apprehension of the mystery of His Death on her part, and this pre
paration of deepest love for it— this mixture of sorrow, faith, and
devotion — which made her deed so precious, that, wherever in the
future the Gospel would be preached, this also that she had done
would be recorded for a memorial of her." And the more we think «st.Matt.
of it, the better can we understand, how at that last feast of fellow
ship, when all the other guests realised not — no, not even His
disciples — how near the end was, she would ' come aforehand to
anoint His Body for the burying. ' ° 1 Her faith made it a twofold b st. Mark
anointing: that of the best Guest at the last feast, and that of pre
paration for that Burial which, of all others, she apprehended as so
terribly near. And deepest humility now offered, what most earnest
love had provided, and intense faith, in view of what, was coming,
applied. And so she poured the precious ointment over His Head,
over His Feet 2 — then, stooping oyer them, wiped them with her hair,
as if, not only in evidence of service and love, but in fellowship of
His Death/ ' And the house was filled ' — and to all time His House, «st. jonn
the Church, is filled — ' with the odour of the ointment.'
It is ever the light which throws the shadows of objects — and
this deed of faith and love now cast the features of Judas in gigantic
dark outlines against the scene. He knew the nearness of Christ 's
Betrayal, and hated the more; she knew of the nearness of His
precious Death, and loved the more. It was not that he cared for the
poor, when, taking the mask of charity, he simulated anger that such
costly ointment had not been sold, and the price given to the poor.
1 St. Matthew and St. Mark. head was not so uncommon. We recall the
2 St. John. There is manifestly neither ideal picture of Aaron when anointed to
contradiction nor divergence here be- the priesthood, Ps. cxxxiii. 2, to mark
tween the Evangelists. Mary first poured here the fulfilment of the type when the
the nard over the Head, and then over His Great High-Priest was anointed for His
Feet (Godet sees this implied in the Sacrifice. She who had so often sat at
kcctexeey avrov of St. Mark). St. John His feet, now anoints them, and alike
notices the anointing of the Feet, not only for love, reverence, and fellowship of
as the act of greatest humility and the His sufferings, will not wipe them but
mark of deepest veneration, but from Its with her hair.
unusual character, while anointing of the

xiv. 41

360 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION.
BOOK For he was essentially dishonest, ' a thief, ' and covetousness was the
IV underlying master-passion of his soul. The money, claimed for the
v-^~v~~— ' poor, would only have been used by himself. Yet such was his
pretence of righteousness, such his influence as ' a man of prudence '
among the disciples, and such their sad weakness, that they, or at
st. j«ark least ' some, ' a expressed indignation among themselves and against
her who had done the deed of love, which, when viewed in the
sublimeness of a faith, that accepted and prepared for the death
of a Saviour Whom she so loved, and to Whom this last, the best
service she could, was to be devoted, would for ever cause her to
be thought of as an example of loving. There is something inex
pressibly sad, yet so patient, gentle, and tender in Christ's ' Let her
alone.' Surely, never could there be waste in ministry of love to
Him! Nay, there is unspeakable pathos in what He says of His
near Burying, as if He would still their souls in view of it. That He,
Who was ever of the poor and with them, Who for our sakes became
poor, that through His poverty we might be made rich, should have
to plead for a last service of love to Himself, and for Mary, and as
against a Judas, seems, indeed, the depth of self-abasement. Yet,
even so, has this falsely-spoken plea for the poor become a real plea,
since He has left us this, as it were, as His last charge, and that
by His own Death, that we have the poor always with us. And so
do even the words of covetous dishonesty become, when passing across
Him, transformed into the command of charity, and the breath of
hell is changed into the summer-warmth of the Church's constant
service to Christ in the ministry to His poor.

Book V.
THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

'Ave, Scala peccatorum,
Qua ascendit rex ccelorum,
Ut ad choros Angelorum
Homo sic ascenderet;
In te vitam reparavit
Auctor vitas, proles David,
Et sic se humiliavit.
Ut mundum redimeret.
Ap. Daniel, Thes. Hymnol. vol. v. p. 183.
' The blessing from the cloud that showers,
In wondrous twofold birth
Of heaven is and earth —
He is both yours, ye hosts, and ours:
Hosannah, David's Son,
For victory is won!
He left us with a blessing here,
And took it to the sky;
The blessing from on high
Bespeaks to us His Presence near:
Hosannah, David's Son,
For victory is won ! '
(From an Ascension Hymn). — A. E.

CHRIST'S ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. 363

CHAPTER I.
THE FIRST DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — PALM-SUNDAY — THE ROYAL ENTRY
INTO JERUSALEM.
(St. Matt. xxi. 1-11; St. Mark xi. 1-11; St. Luke xix. 29-44; St. John xii. 12-19.)
At length the time of the end had come. Jesus was about to make
Entry into Jerusalem as King: King of the Jews, as Heir of David's
royal line, with all of symbolic, typic, and prophetic import attaching
to it. Yet not as Israel after the flesh expected its Messiah was
the Son of David to make triumphal entrance, but as deeply and
significantly expressive of His Mission and Work, and as of old the
rapt seer had beheld afar off the outlined picture of the Messiah-
King: not in the proud triumph of war-conquests, but in the ' meek '
rule of peace.
It is surely one of the strangest mistakes of modern criticism to
regard this Entry of Christ into Jerusalem as implying that, fired by
enthusiasm, He had for the moment expected that the people would
receive Him as the Messiah.1 And it seems little, if at all better,
when this Entry is described as ' an apparent concession to the fevered
expectations of His disciples and the multitude . . . the grave,
sad accommodation to thoughts other than His own to which the
Teacher of new truths must often have recourse when He finds Him
self misinterpreted by those who stand together on a lower level. ' 2
' Apologies ' are the weakness of ' Apologetics '—and any ' accommoda
tion ' theory can have no place in the history of the Christ. On the
contrary, we regard His Royal Entry into the Jerusalem of Prophecy
and of the Crucifixion as an integral part of the history of Christ,
which would not be complete, nor thoroughly consistent, without it.
It behoved Him so to enter Jerusalem, because He was a King; and
as King to enter it in such manner, because He was such a King —
and both the one and the other were in accordance with the prophecv
of old.
1 So notably Keim. Of course, the spurious.
theory proceeds on the assumption that 2 Dean Plumptre on St. Matt. xxi. 5.
the Discourses reported by St. Luke are

364

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

a Siphre.ed.
Friedm. p.
55 a, last
lines; Sot.
45 a; Tos.
Pes. viii. 8
KPes. 63 6;
91 a;
Menach.78 6; Babha
Mets. 90 a
' St. Mark
andSt. Luke

a St. Matt.
xxvi. 6-13 ;
St. Mark
xiv. 3-9

• Comp. St.
Luke xxii.
8

It was a bright day in early spring of the year 29, when the
festive procession set out from the home at Bethany. There can be
no reasonable doubt as to the locality of that hamlet (the modern
EW Azariye, ' of Lazarus '), perched on a broken rocky plateau on the
other side of Olivet. More difficulty attaches to the identification of
Bethphage, which is associated with it, the place not being mentioned
in the Old Testament, though repeatedly in Jewish writings. But,
even so, there is a curious contradiction, since Bethphage is sometimes
spoken of as distinct from Jerusalem," while at others it is described
as, for ecclesiastical purposes, part of the City itself/ Perhaps the
name Bethphage — ' house of figs ' — was given alike to that district
generally, and to a little village close to Jerusalem where the district
began. 1 And this may explain the peculiar reference, in the Synoptic
Gospels, to Bethphage (St. Matthew), and again to 'Bethphage and
Bethany. ' ° For, St. Matthew and St. Mark relate Christ's brief stay
at Bethany and His anointing by Mary not in chronological order, 2 but
introduce it at a later period, as it were, in contrast to the betrayal of
Judas." Accordingly, they pass from the Miracles at Jericho im
mediately to the Royal Entry into Jerusalem — from Jericho to
' Bethphage, ' or, more exactly, to ' Bethphage and Bethany, ' leaving
for the present unnoticed what had occurred in the latter hamlet.
Although all the four Evangelists relate Christ's Entry into
Jerusalem, they seem to do so from different standpoints. The
Synoptists accompany Him from Bethany, while St. John, in accord
ance with the general scheme of his narrative, seems to follow from
Jerusalem that multitude which, on tidings of His approach, hastened
to meet Him. Even this circumstance, as also the paucity of events
recorded on that day, proves that it could not have been at early
morning that Jesus left Bethany. Remembering, that it was the
last morning of rest before the great contest, we may reverently
think of much that may have passed in the Soul of Jesus and in the
home of Bethany. And now He has left that peaceful resting-place.
It was probably soon after His outset, that He sent the 'two
disciples' ' — possibly Peter and John6 — into ' the village over against '
them— presumably Bethphage. There they would find by the side of
the road an ass's colt tied, whereon never man had sat. We mark
the significant symbolism of the latter, in connection with the general
1 See also Caspari, Chron. Geogr. ducees) sat after leaving the Temple and
Einl. p. 161. The question as to the pro- which was destroyed three years before
posed identification (by some) of Bethany the City, must be left here undiscussed.
with the Beth Hini, or Beth Hanioth, 2 St. Augustine has it, recapitulando
where the Sanhedrin (apparently of Sad- dixerunt.

THE LOOSING OF THE COLT ON WHICH NO MAN HAD SAT. 365
conditions of consecration to Jehovah * — and note in it, as also in the chap.
Mission of the Apostles, that this was intended by Christ to be His I
Royal and Messianic Entry. This colt they were to loose and to bring ' — -n — ^
to Him. "Num. xix.
2; Deut.
The disciples found all as He had said. When they reached xxi- 3
Bethphage, they saw, by a doorway where two roads met, the colt
tied by its mother. As they loosed it, ' the owners ' and ' certain of
them that stood by '" asked their purpose, to which, as directed by »st. Mark;
the Master, they answered: 'The Lord [the Master, Christ] hath need st.Ma'tthew
of him,' when, as predicted, no further hindrance was offered. In
explanation of this we need not resort to the theory of a miraculous
influence, nor even suppose that the owners of the colt were them
selves ' disciples. ' Their challenge to ' the two, ' and the little more
than permission which they gave, seem to forbid this idea. Nor is
such explanation requisite. From the pilgrim-band which had ac
companied Jesus from Galilee and Persea, and preceded Him to Jeru
salem, from the guests at the Sabbath-feast in Bethany, and from the
people who had gone out to see both Jesus and Lazarus, the tidings
of the proximity of Jesus and of His approaching arrival must have
spread in the City. Perhaps that very morning some had come from
Bethany, and told it in the Temple, among the festive bands — specially
among his own Galileans, and generally in Jerusalem, that on that
very day — in a few hours — Jesus might be expected to enter the
City. Such, indeed, must have been the case, since, from St. John's
account, ' a great multitude ' 'went forth to meet Him.' The latter,
we can have little doubt, must have mostly consisted, not of citizens
of Jerusalem, whose enmity to Christ was settled, but of those ' that
had come to the Feast. ' ° With these went also a number of ' Phari- c st. John
xii. 12
sees, ' their hearts filled with bitterest thoughts of jealousy and hatred. d a st. mte
And, as we shall presently see, it is of great importance to keep in Jofrnxu.8^
mind this composition of ' the multitude. '
If such were the circumstances, all is natural. We can under
stand, how eager questioners would gather about the owners of the
colt (St. Mark), there at the cross-roads at Bethphage, just outside
Jerusalem; and how, so soon as from the bearing and the peculiar
words of the disciples they understood their purpose, the owners of
the ass and colt would grant its use for the solemn Entry into the
City of the ' Teacher of Nazareth, ' 1 Whom the multitude was so
1 It is surely one of those instances we must regard as a very jejune gloss:
in which the supposed authority of MSS. ' and straightway He [viz. Christ] will
should not be implicitly followed, when send him back hither ' — as if the dis-
in St. Mark xi. 3, the R.V. adopts what ciples had obtained the colt by pledging

366

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» St. John
xii. 16

eagerly expecting; and, lastly, how, as from the gates of Jerusalem
tidings spread of what had passed in Bethphage, the multitude would
stream forth to meet Jesus.
Meantime Christ and those who followed Him from Bethany had
slowly entered on1 the well-known caravan-road from Jericho to
Jerusalem. It is the most southern of three, which converge close to
the City, perhaps at the very place where the colt had stood tied.
' The road soon loses sight of Bethany. It is now a rough, but still
broad and well-defined mountain-track, winding over rock and loose
stones; a steep declivity on the left; the sloping shoulder of Olivet
above on the right; fig-trees below and above, here and there grow
ing out of the rocky soil.' 2 Somewhere here the disciples who
brought ' the colt ' must have met Him. They were accompanied
by many, and immediately followed by more. For, as already stated,
Bethphage — we presume the village — formed almost part of Jeru
salem, and during Easter-week must have been crowded by pilgrims,
who could not find accommodation within the City walls. And the
announcement, that disciples of Jesus had just fetched the beast of
burden on which Jesus was about to enter Jerusalem, must have
quickly spread among the crowds which thronged the Temple and
the City.
As the two disciples, accompanied, or immediately followed by
the multitude, brought ' the colt ' to Christ, ' two streams of people
met ' — the one coming from the City, the other from Bethany. The
impression left on our minds is, that what followed was unexpected by
those who accompanied Christ, that it took them by surprise. The
disciples, who understood not," till the light of the Resurrection-
glory had been poured on their minds, the significance of ' these
things, ' even after they had occurred, seem not even to have guessed,
that it was of set purpose Jesus was about to make His Royal Entry
into Jerusalem. Their enthusiasm seems only to have been kindled
when they saw the procession from the town come to meet Jesus
with palm-branches, cut down by the way, and greeting Him with
Hosanna-shouts of welcome. Then they spread their garments on
the colt, and set Jesus thereon — ' unwrapped their loose cloaks from
their shoulders and stretched them along the rough path, to form a

the Master to its immediate restoration.
The gloss is the more inapt as it does
not occur in the parallel passages in St.
Matthew and St. Luke.
1 They may have awaited in Bethany
the return of the two, but the succession

followed in the text seems to me by far
the most probable.
2 The quotations are from the well-
known and classical passage in Dean
Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 189 &c.

THE HOSANNA TO THE SON OF DAVID. 36f
momentary carpet as He approached.' Then also in their turn they
cut down branches from the trees and gardens through which they
passed, or plaited and twisted palm-branches, and strewed them as
a rude matting in His way, while they joined in, and soon raised to a
much higher, pitch a the Hosanna of welcoming praise. Nor need * st. Luke
we wonder at their ignorance at first of the meaning of that, in
which themselves were chief actors. We are too apt to judge
them from our standpoint, eighteen centuries later, and after full
apprehension of the significance of the event. These men walked
in the procession almost as in a dream, or as dazzled by a brilliant
light all around — as if impelled by a necessity, and carried from
event to event, which came upon them in a succession of but par
tially understood surprises.
They had now ranged themselves: the multitude which had come
from the City preceding, that which had come with Him from Bethany
following the triumphant progress of Israel's King, ' meek, and sitting
upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. ' ' Gradually the long
procession swept up and over the ridge where first begins ' ' the
descent of the Mount of Olives " towards Jerusalem. At this point
the first view is caught of the south-eastern corner of the City. The
Temple and the more northern portions are hid by the slope of Olivet
on the right; what is seen is only Mount Zion, now for the most
part a rough field. ' But at that time it rose, terrace upon terrace,
from the Palace of the Maccabees and that of the High-Priest, a very
city of palaces, till the eye rested in the summit on that castle,,
city, and palace, with its frowning towers and magnificent gardens,
the royal abode of Herod, supposed to occupy the very site of the
Palace of David. They had been greeting Him with Hosannas ! But
enthusiasm, especially in such a cause, is infectious. They were
mostly stranger-pilgrims that had come from the City, chiefly because
they had heard of the raising of Lazarus/ And now they must have * st. joim
questioned them which came from Bethany, who in turn related that
of which themselves had been eyewitnesses/ We can imagine it -ver. 17
all — how the fire would leap from heart to heart. So He was the
promised Son of David — and the Kingdom was at hand ! It may
have been just as the precise point of the road was reached, where
' the City of David ' first suddenly emerges into view, ' at the
descent of the Mount of Olives,' 'that the whole multitude of the
disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all
the mighty works that they had seen."1 As the burning words of "St. Luke
joy and praise, the record of what they had seen, passed from mouth

368

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

a Ps. cxviii.
25, 26

b ver. 29
° Midr. on
Ps. cxviii.,
ed. Warsh.,
pp. 85 b,
last 3 lines,
and p. 86 a

to mouth, and they caught their first sight of 'the City of David,'
adorned as a bride to welcome her King — Davidic praise to David's
Greater Son wakened the echoes of old Davidic Psalms in the
morning-light of their fulfilment. ' Hosanna to the Son of David !
Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord. . . . Blessed
the Kingdom that cometh, the Kingdom of our father David. . . .
Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord. . . . Hosanna
. . . Hosanna in the highest . . . Peace in heaven, and glory in the
highest.' They were but broken utterances, partly based upon Ps. cxviii. ,
partly taken from it — the ' Hosanna, ' : or ' Save now, ' and the ' Blessed
be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord,' a forming part of the
responses by the people with which this Psalm was chanted on
certain of the most solemn festivals/ Most truly did they thus
interpret and apply the Psalm, old and new Davidic praise min
gling in their acclamations. At the same time it must be remem
bered that, according to Jewish tradition, Ps. cxviii. vv. 25-28,
was also chanted antiphonally by the people of Jerusalem, as they
went to welcome the festive pilgrims on their arrival, the latter
always responding in the second clause of each verse, till the last
verse of the Psalm " was reached, which was sung by both parties in
unison, Psalm ciii. 1 1 being added by way of conclusion/ But as
' the shout rang through the long defile, ' carrying evidence far and
wide, that, so far from condemning and forsaking, more than the
ordinary pilgrim-welcome had been given to Jesus — the Pharisees,
who had mingled with the crowd, turned to one another with angry
frowns: 'Behold [see intently], how ye prevail nothing! See — the
world 3 is gone after Him ! ' It is always so, that, in the disappoint
ment of malice, men turn in impotent rage against each other with
taunts and reproaches. Then, psychologically true in this also, they
made a desperate appeal to the Master Himself, Whom they so bit
terly hated, to check and rebuke the honest zeal of His disciples.
He had been silent hitherto — alone unmoved, or only deeply moved

1 There can be no question that
'flaavvd represents X| n5?",ii"i~, but
probably in an abbreviated form of pro
nunciation Nj JTiTiri (comp. Siegfried in
Hilgenf eld's Zeitsch. f. wissensch. Theol.
for '1884, p. 385).
2 As will be remembered, it formed the
last Psalm in what was called the Hallel

(Ps. cxiii.-cxviii). For the mode in
which, and the occasions on which it was
chanted, see 'Temple, &c.' pp. 191-193.
The remarks of Godet on the subject
(Comm. on St. John xii.) are not ac
curate. 3 A common Jewish expression, NttT,
Babha Mez. 85 a, line 3 from top, or
XmV "?1D Ber. 58 a, about the middle.

CHRIST WEEPING OVER JERUSALEM. 369
inwardly — amidst this enthusiastic crowd. He could be silent no
longer — but, with a touch of quick and righteous indignation,
pointed to the rocks and stones, telling those leaders of Israel, that,
if the people held their peace, the very stones would cry out. " 1 It " st- Luke
would have been so in that day of Christ's Entry into Jerusalem.
And it has been so ever since. Silence has fallen these many centu
ries upon Israel; but the very stones of Jerusalem's ruin and deso-
lateness have cried out that He, Whom in their silence they rejected,
has come as King in the Name of the Lord.
'Again the procession advanced. The road descends a slight
declivity, and the glimpse of the City is again withdrawn behind
the intervening ridge of Olivet. A few moments and the path
mounts again, it climbs a rugged ascent, it reaches a ledge of smooth
rock, and in an instance the whole City bursts into view. As now
the dome of the Mosque El-Aksa rises like a Ghost from the earth
before the traveller stands on the ledge, so then must have risen
the Temple-tower; as now the vast enclosure of the Mussulman
sanctuary, so then must have spread the Temple courts; as now the
grey town on its broken hills, so then the magnificent City, with its
background — long since vanished away — of gardens and suburbs on
the western plateau behind. Immediately before was the Valley of
the Kedron, here seen in its greatest depth as it joins the Valley of
Hinnom, and thus giving full effect to the great peculiarity of Jeru
salem, seen only on its eastern side — its situation as of a City rising
out of a deep abyss. It is hardly possible to doubt that this rise
and turn of the road — this rocky ledge — was the exact point where
the multitude paused again, and "He, when He beheld the City,
wept over it. " ' Not with still weeping (eSaKpvffev), as at the grave
of Lazarus, but with loud and deep lamentation (i'KXavaev). The
contrast was, indeed, terrible between the Jerusalem that rose before
Him in all its beauty, glory, and security, and the Jerusalem which
He saw in vision dimly rising on the sky, with the camp of the
enemy around about it on every side, hugging it closer and closer in
deadly embrace, and the very ' stockade ' which the Roman Legions
raised around it;0 then, another scene in the shifting panorama, *jos. war
and the city laid with the ground, and the gory bodies of her
children among her ruins; and yet another scene: the silence and
desolateness of death by the Hand of God — not one stone left upon
another! We know only too well how literally this vision has become
1 The expression : stones bearing wit- not uncommon in Jewish writings. See
ness when sin has been committed, is Taan. 11 a; Chag. 16 a.

370

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» Zech. ix. 9

l>Ber. 66 6;
Sanh. 98 a;
Pirke de
R. El. 31 ;
Ber. E. 75 ;
98; 99;
Del). B. 4;
Midr. on
Cant. i. 4:
Midr. on
Cant. i. 4:
Midr. on
Eceles. i. 9;
Midr. She'muel 14

reality; and yet, though uttered as prophecy by Christ, and its
reason so clearly stated, Israel to this day knows not the things
which belong unto its peace, and the upturned scattered stones of
its dispersion are crying out in testimony against it. But to this
day, also do the tears of Christ plead with the Church on Israel's
behalf, and His words bear within them precious seed of promise.
We turn once more to the scene just described. For, it was no
common pageantry; and Christ's public Entry into Jerusalem seems
so altogether different from — we had almost said, inconsistent with
— His previous mode of appearance. Evidently, the time for the
silence so long enjoined had passed, and that for public declaration
had come. And such, indeed, this Entry was. From the moment of
His sending forth the two disciples to His acceptance of the homage
of the multitude, and His rebuke of the Pharisee's attempt to arrest
it, all m,ust be regarded as designed or approved by Him: not only
a public assertion of His Messiahship, but a claim to its national
acknowledgment. And yet, even so, it was not to be the Messiah
of Israel's conception, but He of prophetic picture : 'just and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass.'a It is foreign to our
present purpose to discuss any general questions about this prophecy,
or even to vindicate its application to the Messiah. But, when
we brush aside all the trafficking and bargaining over words, that
constitutes so much of modern criticism, which in its care over
the lesson so often loses the spirit, there can, at least, be no question
that this prophecy was intended to introduce, in contrast to earthly
warfare and kingly triumph, another Kingdom, of which the just
King would be the Prince of Peace, Who was meek and lowly in
His Advent, Who would speak peace to the heathen, and Whose
sway would yet extend to earth's utmost bounds. Thus much
may be said, that if there ever was true picture of the Messiah-
King and His Kingdom, it is this, and that, if ever Israel was to
have a Messiah or the world a Saviour, He must be such as described
in this prophecy— not merely in the letter, but in the spirit of it.
And' as so often indicated, it was not the letter but the spirit of
prophecy — and of all prophecy — which the ancient Synagogue, and
that rightly, saw fulfilled in the Messiah and His Kingdom. Ac
cordingly, with singular unanimity the Talmud and the ancient
Rabbinic authorities- have applied this prophecy to the Christ/ Nor
was it quoted by St. Matthew and St. John in the stiffness and
deadness of the letter. On the contrary (as so often in Jewish
writings, two prophets — Isa. Ixii. 11, and Zech. ix. 9 — are made

EXPLANATION OF THE ACCLAMATIONS OF THE POPULACE. 3Y1
to shed their blended light upon this Entry of Christ, as exhibit- chap.
ing the reality, of which the prophetic vision had been the reflex. I
Nor yet are the words of the Prophets given literally — as modern v— ~ y —
criticism would have them weighed out in the critical balances —
either from the Hebrew text, or from the LXX. rendering; but their
real meaning is given, and they are ' Targum e.d ' by the sacred
writers, according to their wont. Yet who that sets the prophetic
picture by the side of the reality — the description by the side of
Christ's Entry into Jerusalem — can fail to recognise in the one the
real fulfilment of the other?
Another point seems to require comment. We have seen reasons
to regard the bearing of the disciples as one of surprise, and that, all
through these last scenes, they seem to have been hurried from event
to event. But the enthusiasm of the people — their royal welcome
of Christ — how is it to be explained, and how reconciled with the
speedy and terrible reaction of His Betrayal and Crucifixion? Yet
it is not so difficult to understand it; and, if we only keep clear of
unconscious exaggeration, we shall gain in truth and reasonableness
what we lose in dramatic effect. It has already been suggested, that
the multitude which went to meet Jesus must have consisted chiefly
of pilgrim-strangers. The overwhelming majority of the citizens of
Jerusalem were bitterly and determinately hostile to Christ. But
we know that, even so, the Pharisees dreaded to take the final steps
against Christ during the presence of these pilgrims at the Feast,
apprehending a movement in His favour/ -It proved, indeed, other- *st. Matt.
wise; for these country-people were but ill-informed; they dared not It Mark'
resist the combined authority of their own Sanhedrin and of the Lukexxii'.
Romans. Besides, the prejudices of the populace, and especially of
an Eastern populace, are easily raised, and they readily sway from
one extreme to the opposite. Lastly, the very suddenness and com
pleteness of the blow, which the Jewish authorities delivered, would
have stunned even those who had deeper knowledge, more cohesion,
and greater independence than most of them who, on that Palm-
Sunday, had gone forth from the City.
Again, as regards their welcome of Christ, deeply significant as it
was, we must not attach to it deeper meaning than it possessed.
Modern writers have mostly seen in it the demonstrations of the Feast
of Tabernacles,1 as if the homage of its services had been offered to
1 This after Lightfoot. Wiinsche (Er- with the Feast of the Tabernacles, or
laut. d. Eyang. p. 241) goes so far as that they purposely transferred to the
to put this alternative, that either the Passover a ceremony of the Feast of
Evangelists confounded the Passover Tabernacles!

2

372

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

a Ps. cxiil.-
cxviii.

Christ. It would, indeed, have been symbolic of much about Israel
if they had thus confounded the Second with the First Advent of
Christ, the Sacrifice of the Passover with the joy of the Feast of
Ingathering. But, in reality, their conduct bears not that interpre
tation. It is true that these responses from Ps. cxviii. , which formed
part of what was known as the (Egyptian) Hallel," were chanted by
the people on the Feast of Tabernacles also, but the Hallel was
equally sung with responses during the offering of the Passover, at
the Paschal Supper, and on the Feasts of Pentecost and of the Dedi
cation of the Temple. The waving of the palm-branches was the
welcome of visitors or kings,1 and not distinctive of the Feast of
Tabernacles. At the latter, the worshippers carried, not simple palm-
branches, but the Lulabh, which consisted of palm, myrtle, and willow
branches interwined. Lastly, the words of welcome from Ps. cxviii.
were (as already stated) those with which on solemn occasions the
people also greeted the arrival of festive pilgrims,2 although, as being
offered to Christ alone, and as accompanied by such demonstrations,
they may have implied that they hailed Him as the promised King, and
have converted His Entry into a triumph in which the people did
homage. And, if proof were required of the more sober, and, may
we not add, rational view here advocated, it would be found in this,
that not till after His Resurrection did even His own disciples under
stand the significance of the whole scene which they had witnessed,
and in which they had borne such a part.
The anger and jealousy of the Pharisees understood it better,
and watched for the opportunity of revenge. But, for the present,
on that bright spring-day, the weak, excitable, fickle populace
streamed before Him through the City-gates, through the narrow
streets, up the Temple-mount. Everywhere the tramp of their feet,
and the shout of their acclamations brought men, women, and
children into the streets and on the housetops. The City was
moved, and from mouth to mouth the question passed among the
eager crowd of curious onlookers: 'Who is He?' And the multitude

1 Such were, and even now are, com
mon demonstrations in the East, to wel
come a king, a conqueror, or a deliverer.
For a large number of heathen and
Jewish instances of the same time, comp.
Wetstein, ad loc. (i. pp. 460, 461).
2 I am aware, that so great an autho
rity as Professor Delitzsch calls this in
question (Zeitschr. fur Luther. Theol. for
1855, p. 653). But the testimony of the

Midrash is against him. Delitzsch re
gards it as the shout of the Feast of
Tabernacles. But how should that have
been raised before the Feast of Pass
over? Again, it does not seem reasonable
to suppose, that the multitude had with
full consciousness proclaimed Jesus as
the Messiah, and intended to celebrate
there and then the fulfilment of the typi
cal meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles.

CHRIST'S ENTRY INTO THE TEMPLE. 373
answered — not, this is Israel's Messiah-King, but: ' This is Jesus the
Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. ' And so up into the Temple !
He alone was silent and sad among, this excited multitude, the
marks of the tears He had wept over Jerusalem still on His cheek.
It is not so, that an earthly King enters His City in triumph; not so,
that the Messiah of Israel's expectation would have gone into His
Temple. He spake not, but only looked round about upon all things,
as if to view the field on which He was to suffer and die. And now
the shadows of evening were creeping up; and, weary and sad, He
once more returned with the twelve disciples to the shelter and rest of
Bethany.

374

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

CHAPTER II.

BOOK V

» St. Mark i.
35; St.
Luke v. 16 ;
St. Matt.
xiv. 23 ; St.
Luke vi. 12;
ix. 28

i- St. Mark

THE SECOND DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — THE BARREN FIG-TREE — THE
CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE — THE HOSANNA OF THE CHILDREN.
(St. Matt. xxi. 12-22; St. Mark xi. 15-26; St. Luke xix. 45-48.)
How the King of Israel spent the night after the triumphal Entry
into His City and Temple, we may venture reverently to infer. His
royal banquet would be fellowship with the disciples. We know how
often His nights had been spent in lonely prayer, • and surely it is not
too bold to associate such thoughts with the first night in Passion
week. Thus, also, we can most readily account for that exhaustion
and faintness of hunger, which next morning made Him seek fruit
on the fig-tree on His way to the City.
It was very early * on the morning of the second day in Passion-
week (Monday), when Jesus, with his disciples, left Bethany. In
the fresh, crisp, spring air, after the exhaustion of that night, ' He
hungered. ' By the roadside, as so often in the East, a solitary tree 2
grew in the rocky soil. It must have stood on an eminence, where it
caught the sunshine and warmth, for He saw it ' afar off, ' b and
though spring had but lately wooed nature into life, it stood out,
with its wide-spreading mantle of green, against the sky. ' It was
not the season of figs,' but the tree, covered with leaves, attracted
His attention. It might have been, that they hid some of the fruit
which hung through the winter, or else the springing fruits of the
new crop. For it is a well-known fact, that in Palestine ¦ the fruit
appears before the leaves,'3 and that this fig-tree, whether from its
exposure or soil, was precocious, is evident from the fact that it was
in leaf, which is quite unusual at that season on the Mount of
Olives,4 The old fruit would, of course, have been edible, and in
regard to the unripe fruit Ave have the distinct evidence of the

1 it pooi, used of the last night-watch in
St. Mark i. 35.
2 ISeov avKf/v fiidv, a single tree.
3 Tristram, Nat. Hist, of the Bible, p.

352. * On the fig-tree generally, see the
remarks on the Parable of the Barren
Fig-tree, Book IV. ch. xvi.

THE WITHERING OF THE BARREN FIG TREE. 375
Mishnah," confirmed by the Talmud," that the unripe fruit was eaten, chap.
so soon as it began to assume a red colour — as it is expressed, ' in the II
field, with bread,' or, as we understand it, by those whom hunger ' — ^ — J
overtook in the fields, whether working or travelling. But in the "Shebh.
present case there was neither old nor new fruit, 'but leaves only.' bJer.
It was evidently a barren fig-tree, cumbering the ground, and to be fasTiinel6'
hewn down. Our mind almost instinctively reverts to the Parable of
the Barren Fig-tree, which He had so lately spoken/ To Him, Who °st. Luke
but yesterday had wept over the Jerusalem that knew not the day of
its visitation, and over which the sharp axe of judgment was already
lifted, this fig-tree, with its luxuriant mantle of leaves, must have re
called, with pictorial vividness, the scene of the previous clay. Israel
was that barren fig-tree; and the leaves only covered their nakedness,
as erst they had that of our first parents after their Fall. And the
judgment, symbolically spoken in the Parable, must be symbolically
executed in this leafy fig-tree, barren when searched for fruit by the
Master. It seems almost an inward necessity, not only symbolically
but really also, that Christ's Word should have laid it low. We can
not conceive that any other should have eaten of it after the
hungering Christ had in vain sought fruit thereon. We cannot
conceive that anything should resist Christ, and not be swept away.
We cannot conceive, that the reality of what He had taught should
not, when occasion came, be visibly placed before the eyes of the dis
ciples. Lastly, we seem to feel (with Bengel) that, as always, the
manifestation of His true Humanity, in hunger, should be accompanied
by that of His Divinity, in the power of His Word of judgment/ acomp. st.
With St. Matthew, who, for the sake of continuity, relates this M
incident after the events of that day (the Monday) and immediately
before those of the next," we anticipate what was only witnessed on «st. Matt.
the morrow.' As St. Matthew has it: on Christ's Word the fig-tree fst. Mark
immediately withered away. But according to the more detailed X1' 2(
account of St. Mark, it was only next morning, when they again
.passed by, that they noticed the fig-tree had withered from its very
roots. The spectacle attracted their attention, and vividly recalled
the Words of Christ, to which, on the previous day, they had, perhaps,
scarcely attached sufficient importance. And it was the suddenness
and completeness of the judgment that had been denounced, which
now struck Peter, rather than its symbolic meaning. It was rather
the Miracle than its moral and spiritual import — the storm and
earthquake rather than the still small Voice — which impressed the
disciples. Besides, the words of Peter are at least capable of this

376 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK interpretation, that the fig-tree had withered in consequence of, rather
V than by the Word of Christ. But He ever leads His own from mere
'  •  ' wonderment at the Miraculous up to that which is higher." His
* SmBd answer now combined all that they needed to learn. It pointed to
the typical lesson of what had taken place: the need of realising,
simple faith, the absence of which was the cause of Israel's leafy
barrenness, and which, if present and active, could accomplish all,
however impossible it might seem by outward means. 1 And yet it
was only to ' have faith in God; ' such faith as becomes those who
know God; a faith in God, which seeks not and has not its foundation
in anything outward, but rests on Him alone. To one who ' shall not
doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass,
it shall be to him. ' 2 And this general principle of the Kingdom,
which to the devout and reverent believer needs neither explanation
nor limitation, received its further application, specially to the Apostles
in their coming need: ' Therefore I say unto you, whatsoever things,
praying, ye ask for, believe that ye have received them [not, in the
counsel of God,3 but actually, in answer to the prayer of faith], and
it shall be to you. '
These two things follow: faith gives absolute power in prayer, but
it is also its moral condition. None other than this is faith; and
none other than faith — absolute, simple, trustful — gives glory to God,
or has the promise. This is, so to speak, the New Testament applica
tion of the first Table of the Law, summed up in the ' Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God.' But there is yet another moral condition of
prayer closely connected with the first — a New Testament application
of the second Table of the Law, summed up in the ' Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself. ' If the first moral condition was God-ward,
the second is man-ward; if the first bound us to faith, the second
binds us to charity, while hope, the expectancy of answered prayer,
is the link connecting the two. Prayer, unlimited in its possibilities,
stands midway between heaven and earth; with one hand it reaches
up to heaven, with the other down to earth; in it, faith prepares to.
receive, what charity is ready to dispense. He who so prays believes
in God and loves man; such prayer is not selfish, self-seeking, self-
conscious; least of all, is it compatible with mindfulness of wrongs,
or an unforgiving spirit. This, 'then, is the second condition of
1 We remind the reader, that the ex- ~)~p'J) ; for the latter (0,-i~ "lplS>) Ber. 64
pression ' rooting up mountains ' is in a ; Sanh. 24 a ; Horay. 14 a.
common Rabbinic use as a hyperbole for 2 The other words are spurious.
doing the impossible or the incredible. 3 So Meyer.
For the former, see Babha B. 3 b ("Hits

THE SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. 211
prayer, and not only of such all-prevailing prayer, but even of CHAP.
personal acceptance in prayer. We can, therefore, have no doubt II
that St. Mark correctly reports in this connection this as the con- ^—^ -i  '
dition which the Lord attaches to acceptance, that we previously put
away all uncharitableness." We remember, that the promise had *st. Mark
a special application to the Apostles and early disciples; we also
remember, how difficult to them was the thought of full forgiveness
of offenders and persecutors; " and again, how great the temptation to b st. Matt.
avenge wrongs and to wield miraculous power in the vindication of
their authority." In these circumstances Peter and his fellow-disciples, ° st. Luke
J r ' ix. 62-56
when assured of the unlimited power of the prayer of faith, required
all the more to be both reminded and warned of this as its second
moral condition: the need of hearty forgiveness, if they had aught
against any.
From this digression we return to the events of that second day
in Passion-week (the Monday), which began with the symbolic
judgment on the leafy, barren fig-tree. The same symbolism of
judgment was to be immediately set forth still more clearly, and that
in the Temple itself. On the previous afternoon, when Christ had
come to it, the services were probably over, and the Sanctuary com
paratively empty of worshippers and of those who there carried on
their traffic. When treating of the first cleansing of the Temple, at
the beginning of Christ's Ministry, sufficient has been said to explain
the character and mode of that nefarious traffic, the profits of which
went to the leaders of the priesthood, as also how popular indignation
was roused alike against this trade and the traders. We need not
here recall the words of Christ; Jewish authorities sufficiently describe,
in even stronger terms, this transformation of ' the House of Prayer '
into ' a den of robbers. ' 2 If, when beginning to do the ' business ' of
His Father, and for the first time publicly presenting Himself with
Messianic claim, it was fitting He should take such authority, and
first ' cleanse the Temple ' of the nefarious intruders who, under the
guise of being God's chief priests, made His House one of traffic,
much more was this appropriate now, at the close of His Work, when,
as King, He had entered His City, and publicly claimed authority.
At the first it had been for teaching and warning, now it was in
symbolic judgment; what and as He then began, that and so He
now finished. Accordingly, as we compare the words, and even
some of the acts, of the first ¦' cleansing ' with those accompanying
1 Ver. 26 is in all probability a spurious 1 See the full account in Book HI.
addition. ch. v.

378

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK and explaining the second, we find the latter, we shall not say, much
V more severe, but bearing a different character — that of final judicial
- — y — • sentence.1 Nor did the Temple-authorities now, as on the former occasion,
seek to raise the populace against Him, or challenge His authority by
demanding the warrant of ' a sign. ' The contest had reached quite
another stage. They heard what He said in their condemnation,
and with bitter hatred in their hearts sought for some means to
destroy Him. But fear of the people restrained their violence. For,
marvellous indeed was the power which He wielded. With rapt
st. Luke attention the people hung entranced on his lips," 'astonished' at
those new and blessed truths which dropped from them. All was so
other than it had been! By His authority the Temple was cleansed
of the unholy, thievish traffic which a corrupt priesthood carried on,
and so, for the time, restored to the solemn Service of God; and that
purified House now became the scene of Christ's teaching, when He
spake those words of blessed truth and of comfort concerning the
Father — thus truly realising the prophetic promise of ' a House of
¦ st. Mark Prayer for all the nations. ' b And as those traffickers were driven
front the Temple, and He spake, there flocked in from porches and
Temple-Mount the poor sufferers — the blind and the lame — to get
healing to body and soul. It was truly spring-time in that Temple,
and the boys that gathered about their fathers and looked in turn from
their faces of rapt wonderment and enthusiasm to the Godlike Face of
the Christ, and then on those healed sufferers, took up the echoes of
the welcome at His entrance into Jerusalem — in their simplicity un
derstanding and applying them better — as they burst into ' Hosanna
to the Son of David
It rang through the courts and porches of the Temple, this

1 The grounds on which this second
has to be distinguished from the first
cleansing of the Temple, which is re
corded only by St. John (ii. 13-23) have
been explained on a previous occasion.
They are stated in most commentaries,
though perhaps not always satisfactorily.
But intelligent readers can have no diffi
culty in gathering them for themselves.
The difficulty lies not in the two purifi
cations, nor yet in the silence of the
Synoptists as to the first, since the early
Jerusalem Ministry lay not within the
scope of their narratives, but in the
silence of the Fourth Gospel in regard to
the second purification. But here we
would remark that, less than any of the

others, is the Fourth Gospel a history
or successive narration ; but, if we may
so say, historical dogmatics — the Logos
in the historical manifestation of His
Person and Work. If so.the first included
the second purification of the Temple.
Again, to have introduced it, or the curs
ing of the fig-tree, would have been to
break up the course, and mar the symme
try of the narrative (St. John xii.), which
presents in successive and deepening
shading the attestation of the Christ: at
the Supper of Bethany, on His Entry into
Jerusalem, before the Greeks in the Tem
ple, by the Voice from Heaven before His
gainsayers, and to His disciples.

THE HOSANNA OF THE CHILDREN. IN THE TEMPLE. 379
Children's Hosanna. They heard it, whom the wonders He had CHAP.
spoken and done, so far from leading to repentance and faith, had n
only filled with indignation. Once more in their impotent anger "— ~ ~y-~— '
they sought, as the Pharisees had done on the day of His Entry, by
a hypocritical appeal to His reverence for God, not only to mislead,
and so to use His very love of the truth against the truth, but to
betray Him into silencing those Children's Voices. But the tin-
dimmed mirror of His soul only reflected the light.1 These Children's
Voices were Angels' Echoes, echoes of the far-off praises of heaven,
which children's souls had caught and children's lips welled forth.
Not from the great, the wise, nor the learned, but ' out of the mouth
of babes and sucklings ' has He ' perfected praise. ' 2 And this, also,
is the Music of the Gospel.
1 We may here note, once for all, that play of power, as they understand it, but
the manner- of answering used by Christ, by the mouth of young boys [such is the
that of answering a question by putting proper rendering] and sucklings. The
another in which the answer appeared Eternal of Hosts has these for His
with irresistible force, was very common armourbearers, and needs none other.
among the Jews ("OS "pros ~0~\ ^ffitt). The ancient Synagogue, somewhat realis-
Another mode was by an allegory — tically, yet with a basis of higher truth,
whether of word or action. declared (in the Haggadah), that at the
2 So in the LXX., rightly giving the Red Sea little children, even the babes
sense; in the original ' strength.' It is in the womb, had joined in Israel's song
perhaps one of the grandest of the grand of triumph, so fulfilling this saying of
contrasts in the Psalms : God opposing the Psalmist.
and appeasing His enemies, not by a dis-

380

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

CHAPTER III.

BOOK V

» St. Mark
xi. 20

<• St. Matt.
XXV. 46;
St. Mark
xiii. 37; St.
Luke xxi.
36-38« St. Matt.
xxvi. 1; St.
Mark xiv.
1 ; St. Luke
xxii. 1
' St. Mat
thew "St. Luke
' St. Mark

THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — THE EVENTS OF THAT DAY — THE
QUESTION OF CHRIST'S AUTHORITY  THE QUESTION OF TRIBUTE TO
CESAR — THE WIDOW'S FARTHING  THE GREEKS WHO SOUGHT TO SEE
JESUS — SUMMARY AND RETROSPECT OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF
CHRIST.
(St. Matthew xxi. 23-27 ; St. Mark xi. 27-33 ; St. Luke xx. 1-8 ; St. Matt. xxii. 15-
22 ; St. Mark xii. 13-17 ; St. Luke xx. 20-26 ; St. Matt. xxii. 41-46 ; St. Luke
xxi. 1-4; St. John xii. 20-50.)
The record of this third day is so crowded, the actors introduced on
the scene are so many, the occurrences so varied, and the transitions
so rapid, that it is even more than usually difficult to arrange all in
chronological order. Nor need we wonder at this, when we remem
ber that this was, so to speak, Christ's last working-day — the last, of
His public Mission to Israel, so far as its active part was concerned;
the last day in the Temple; the last, of teaching and warning to
Pharisees and Sadducees; the last, of his call to national repent
ance. That what follows must be included in one day, appears from the
circumstance that its beginning is expressly mentioned by St. Mark"
in connection with the notice of the withering of the fig-tree, while
its close is not only indicated in the last words of Christ's Discourses,
as reported by the Synoptists,' but the beginning of another day is
afterwards equally clearly marked/
Considering the multiplicity of occurrences, it will be better to
group them together, rather than follow the exact order of their suc
cession. Accordingly, this chapter will be devoted to the events of
the third day in Passion Week.
1. As usually, the day commenced d with teaching in the Temple/
We gather this from the expression: ' as He was walking, ,f viz., in
one of the Porches, where, as we know, considerable freedom of
meeting, conversing, or even teaching, was allowed. It will be re
membered, that on the previous day the authorities had been afraid
to interfere with Him. In silence they had witnessed, with im-

THE AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING OF CHRIST CHALLENGED.

381

potent rage, the expulsion of their traffic-mongers; in silence they had
listened to His teaching, and seen His miracles. Not till the Hosanna
of the little boys — perhaps those children of the Levites who acted as
choristers in the Temple '-—wakened them from the stupor of their
fears, had they ventured on a feeble remonstrance, in the forlorn
hope that He might be induced to conciliate them. But with the
night and morning other counsels had come. Besides, the circum
stances were somewhat different. It was early morning, the hearers
were new, and the wondrous influence of His Words had not yet
bent them to His Will. From the formal manner in which ' the
chief priests, the scribes, and the elders are introduced," and from
the circumstance that they so met Christ immediately on His entry
into the Temple, we can scarcely doubt that a meeting, although in
formal,2 of the authorities had been held to concert measures against
the growing danger. Yet, even so, cowardice as well as cunning
marked their procedure. They dared not directly oppose Him, but
endeavoured, by attacking Him on the one point where he seemed
to lay Himself open to it, to arrogate to themselves the appearance
of strict legality, and so to turn popular feeling against Him.
For, there was no principle more firmly established by universal
consent than that authoritative teaching 3 required previous authori
sation. Indeed, this logically followed from the principle of Rabbin
ism. All teaching must be authoritative, since it was traditional —
approved by authority, and handed down from teacher to disciple.
The highest honour of 'a scholar was, that he was like a well-plastered
cistern, from which not a drop had leaked of what had been poured
into it. The ultimate appeal in cases of discussion was always to
some great authority, whether an individual Teacher or a Decree by
the Sanhedrin. In this manner had the great Hillel first vindicated
his claim to be the Teacher of his time and to decide the disputes
then pending. And, to decide differently from authority, was
either the mark of ignorant assumption or the outcome of daring
rebellion, in either case to be visited with 'the ban.' And this was
at least one aspect of the controversy as between the chief authori
ties and Jesus. No one would have thought of interfering with a

CHAP. Ill

1 For these Levite chorister-boys,
comp. 'The Temple and its Services,' p.
143. 2 There is no evidence of a formal
meeting of the Sanhedrin, nor, indeed,
was there any case which, according to
Jewish Law, could have been laid before
them. Still less can we admit (with

Dean Plumptre), that the Chief Priests,
Scribes, and Elders represented 'the
then constituent elements of the San
hedrin.' 3 Otherwise the greatest liberty of
utterance was accorded to all who were
qualified to teach.

382

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK mere Haggadist — a popular expositor, preacher, or teller of legends.
V But authoritatively to teach, required other warrant. In fact there
- — -<•— -— - was regular ordination (Semikhah) to the office of Rabbi, Elder, and
Judge, for the three functions were combined in one. According to
the Mishnah, the ' disciples ' sat before the Sanhedrin in three rows,
the members of the Sanhedrin being recruited successively from the
» sanh. iv. 4 front-rank of the Scholars. " At first the practice is said to have been
for every Rabbi to accredit his own disciples. But afterwards this
right was transferred to the Sanhedrin, with the proviso that this
body might not ordain without the consent of its Chief, though the
Sanhedrin/ But this
Although

latter might do so without consent of the

b Jer. Sanh.
29 lo. 'from privilege was afterwards, withdrawn on account of abuses.
we have not any description of the earliest mode of ordination, the
very name — Semikhah — implies the imposition of hands. Again, in
the oldest record, reaching up, no doubt, to the time of Christ, the
presence of at least three ordained persons was required for ordina-
°sann. i. 3 tion/ At a later period, the presence of an ordained Rabbi, with
the assessorship of two others, even if unordained, was deemed suffi-
4 sanh. 7!> cient." In the course of time certain formalities were added. The
person to be ordained had to deliver a Discourse; hymns and poems
were recited; the title 'Rabbi' was formally bestowed on the candi
date, and authority given him to teach and to act as Judge [to bind
and loose, to declare guilty or free]. Nay, there seem to have
been even different orders, according to the authority bestowed on
the person ordained. The formula in bestowing full orders was:
'Let him teach; let him teach; let him judge; let him decide on
questions of first-born;1 let him decide; let him judge!' At one
time it was held that ordination could only take place in the Holy
Land. Those who went abroad took with them their 'letters of
orders.' 2
At whatever periods some of these practices may have been in
troduced, it is at least certain that, at the time of 'our Lord, no one
would have ventured authoritatively to teach without proper Rab
binic authorisation. The question, therefore, with which the Jewish
authorities met Christ, while teaching, was one which had a very
real meaning, and appealed to the habits and feelings of the people
of special

1 These involved points
difficulty' in canon-law.
2 Comp. Hamburger, Real-Encvcl. ii.
pp. 883-886. But he adds little "to the
learned labours of Selden, De Synedriis,
ed. Frcf. pp. 681-713. How the notion
can have arisen that in early times a key

was handed at ordination (Dean Plump-
tre and many others), it is difficult to
say — unless it be from a misunderstand
ing of St. Luke xi. 52, or from a
strange mistake of Lightfoot's meaning
ad loc.

CHRIST'S APPEAL TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE BAPTIST. 383
who listened to Jesus. Otherwise, also, it was cunningly framed. CHAP.
For, it did not merely challenge Him for teaching, but also asked for ni
His .authority in what He did; referring not only to His Work — ~y~~^
generally, but, perhaps, especially to what had happened on the pre
vious day. They were not there to oppose Him; but, when a man
did as He had done in the Temple, it was their duty to verify his
credentials. Finally, the alternative question reported by St. Mark:
'or' — if Thou hast not proper Rabbinic commission — 'who gave
Thee this authority to do these things?' seems clearly to point to
their contention, that the power which Jesus wielded was delegated
to Him by none other than Beelzebub
The point in our Lord's reply seems to have been strangely over
looked by commentators/ As His words are generally understood, -st. Matt.
J . . xxi. 23-27 ;
they would have amounted only to silencing His questioners — and st.Mark
that, in a manner which would, under ordinary circumstances, be st.'Luke'
scarcely regarded as either fair or ingenuous. It would have been
simply to turn the question against themselves, and so in turn to raise
popular prejudice. But the Lord's words meant quite other. He did
answer their question, though He also exposed the cunning and
cowardice which prompted it. To the challenge for His authority,
and the dark hint about Satanic agency, He replied by an appeal to
the Baptist. He had borne full witness to the Mission of Christ from
the Father, and ' all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.'
Were they satisfied? What was their view of the Baptism in pre
paration for the Coming of Christ? No? They would not, or
could not, answer! If they said the Baptist was a prophet, this
implied not only the authorisation of the Mission of Jesus, but the
call to believe on Him. On the other hand, they were afraid publicly
to disown John! And so their cunning and cowardice stood out
self-condemned, when they pleaded ignorance — a plea so grossly and
manifestly dishonest, that Christ, having given what all must have
felt to be a complete answer, could refuse further discussion with
them on this point.
2. Foiled in their endeavour to involve Him with the ecclesias
tical, they next attempted the much more dangerous device of bring
ing Him into collision with the civil authorities. Remembering
the ever watchful jealousy of Rome, the reckless tyranny of Pilate,
and the low artifices of Herod, who was at that time in Jerusalem, b ^t.Luke
we instinctively feel, how even the slightest compromise on t"he part
of Jesus in regard to the authority of Cassar would have been abso
lutely fatal. If it could have been proved, on undeniable testimony,

384

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ Acts v. 37 ;
Jos. Ant.
xviii. 1. 1;
xx. 6. 2

t St. Luke
xxiii. 2
« St. Matt.
xxii. 15-22 ;
St. Mark
xii. 13-17 ;
St. Luke
XX. 19-26
a St. Luke
« St. Mat
thew

that Jesus had declared Himself on the side of, or even encouraged,
the so-called ' Nationalist ' party, He would have quickly perished,
like Judas of Galilee." The Jewish leaders would thus have readily
accomplished their object, and its unpopularity have recoiled only on
the hated Roman power. How great the danger was which threat
ened Jesus, may be gathered from this, that, despite His clear
answer, the charge that He preverted the nation, forbidding to give
tribute to Caesar, was actually among those brought against Him
before Pilate/
The plot, for such it was," was most cunningly concocted. The
object was to ' spy ' out His inmost thoughts," and, if possible, ' en
tangle 7 Him in His talk." For this purpose it was not the old Phari
sees, whom He knew and would have distrusted, who came, but some
of their disciples — apparently fresh, earnest, zealous, conscientious
men. With them had combined certain of ' the Herodians ' — of
course, not a sect nor religious school, but a political party at the
time. We know comparatively little of the deeper political move
ments in Judaea, only so much as it has suited Josephus to record.
But we cannot be greatly mistaken in regarding the Herodians as
a party which honestly accepted the House of Herod as occupants of
the Jewish throne. Differing from the extreme section of the Phari
sees, who hated Herod, and from the 'Nationalists,' it might have
been a middle or moderate Jewish party — semi-Roman and semi-
Nationalist. We know that it was the ambition of Herod Antipas
again to unite under his sway the whole of Palestine;.- but we know
not what intrigues may have been carried on for that purpose, alike
with the Pharisees and the Romans. Nor is it the first time in this
history, that we find the Pharisees and the Herodians combined.1
Herod may, indeed, have been unwilling to incur the unpopularity of
personally proceeding against the Great Prophet of Nazareth, espe
cially as he must have had so keen a remembrance of what the
murder of John had cost him. Perhaps he would fain, if he could,
have made use of Him, and played Him off as the popular Messiah
against the popular leaders. But, as matters had gone, he must have
been anxious to rid himself of what might be a formidable rival, while,
at the same time, his party would be glad to join with the Pharisees
in what would secure their gratitude and allegiance. Such, or
similar, may have been the motives which brought about this strange
alliance of Pharisees and Herodians.
Feigning themselves just men, they now came to Jesus with
1 Comp., for example, St. Mark iii. 6.

IS IT LAWFUL TO GIVE TRIBUTE UNTO CAESAR?

385

honeyed words, intended not only to disarm His suspicions, but, by chap.
an appeal to His fearlessness and singleness of moral purpose, to in- in
duce Him to commit Himself without reserve. Was it lawful for them ' — ~, 
to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? were they to pay the capitation-
tax" of one drachm, or to refuse it? We know how later Judaism »joS.j6w.
would have answered such a question. It lays down the principle,
that the right of coinage implies the authority of levying taxes, and
indeed constitutes such evidence of de facto government as to make
it duty absolutely to submit to it/ So much was this felt, that the " Babha k.
'113 a, and
Maccabees, and, m the last Jewish war, Bar Kokhabh, the false Messiah, tne ln-
' ' ' ' stance
issued a coinage dating from the liberation of Jerusalem. We cannot °f Abigail
° pleading
therefore doubt, that this principle about coinage, taxation, and with David
tn&t Saul s
government was generally accepted in Judaea. On the other hand, coinage
there was a strong party in the land; with which, not only politically eircuia-
but religiously, many of the noblest spirits would sympathise, which sani. 20 1>
maintained, that to pay the tribute-money to Caesar was virtually to
own his royal authority, and so to disown that of Jehovah, Who
alone was Israel's King. They would argue, that all the miseries of
the land and people were due to this national unfaithfulness. Indeed,
this was the fundamental principle of the Nationalist movement.
History has recorded many similar movements, in which strong poli
tical feelings have been strangely blended with religious fanaticism,
and which have numbered in their ranks, together with unscrupulous
partisans, not a few who were sincere patriots or earnest religionists.
It has been suggested in a former part of this book, that the Nation
alist movement may have had an important preparatory bearing on
some of the earlier followers of Jesus, perhaps at the beginning of
their inquiries, just as, in the West, Alexandrian philosophy proved
to many a preparation for Christianity.1 At any rate, the scruple
expressed by these men would, if genuine, have called forth sym
pathy/ But what was the alternative here presented to Christ?
To have said No, would have been to command rebellion; to have
said simply Yes, would have been to give a painful shock to deep
feeling, and, in a sense, in the eyes of the people, the lie to His own
claim of being Israel's Messiah-King!
But the Lord escaped from this ' temptation '—because, being
1 For fuller particulars on this point throw it into the water, and pretend it
see Book II. ch. x. had accidentally dropped from his hand.
2 Some might have even religious But probably that instance refers to the
scruples about handling a coin of Csesar. avoidance of all possibility of being
Such an instance is mentioned in Ab. regarded as sharing in idol-festivities.
Zar. 6 b, where a Rabbi is advised to

386

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. Mark
xii. 17

true, it was no real temptation to Him. ' Their knavery and hypo
crisy He immediately perceived and exposed, in this also respond
ing to their appeal of being ' true. ' Once more and emphatically
must Ave disclaim the idea that Christ's was rather an evasion of the
question than a reply. It was a very real answer, when, pointing to
the image and inscription on the coin,' for which He had called, He
said, ' What is Caesar's render to Caesar, and what is God's to God.' "
It did far more than rebuke their hypocrisy and presumption; it
answered not only that question of theirs to all earnest men of that
time, as it would present itself to their minds, but it settles to all
time and for all circumstances the principle underlying it. Christ's
Kingdom is not of this world; a true Theocracy is not inconsistent
with submission to the secular power in things that are really its
own; politics and religion neither include, nor yet exclude, each
other: they are, side by side, in different domains. The State is
Divinely sanctioned, and religion is Divinely sanctioned — and both
are equally the ordinance of God. On this principle did Apostolic
authority regulate the relations between Church and State, even
when the latter was heathen. The question about the limits of
either province has been hotly discussed by sectarians on either side,
who have claimed the saying of Christ in support of one or the
opposite extreme which they have advocated. And yet, to the simple
searcher after duty, it seems not so difficult to see the distinction, if
only we succeed in purging ourselves of logical refinements and
strained inferences.
It was an answer not only most truthful, but of marvellous beauty
and depth. It elevated the controversy into quite another sphere,
where there was no conflict between what was due to God and to
man — indeed, no conflict at all, but Divine harmony and peace.
Nor did it speak harshly of the Nationalist aspirations, nor yet plead
the cause of Rome. It said not whether the rule of Rome was right
or should be permanent — but only what all must have felt to be
Divine. And so they, who had come to ' entangle ' Him, ' went
away,' not convinced nor converted, but marvelling exceedingly/

1 However pictorial, the sketch of this
given by Keim (' Jesu von Nazara,' iii. 1, .
pp. 131 &c.1 is — as too often — somewhat
exaggerated. 2 By a strange concurrence the coin,
which on Christ's demand was handed to
Him, bore ' the image ' of the Emperor.
It must, therefore, have been either a
foreign one (Roman), or else one of the
Tetrarch Philip, who exceptionally had
the image of Tiberius on his coins

(comp. Schiirer, N.T. Zeitgesch. p. 231).
Neither Herod nor Herod Antipas had
any ' image ' on their coins, but. only the
usual ' devices ' of the Maccabfean period.
And the coins, which the Roman em
perors had struck specially for Pales
tine, bore till the time of Vespasian, in
accommodation to Jewish prejudices, no
image of any kind.
3 sl-E8av/.ta:Zov according to the better
reading in St. Mark.

THE WIDOW'S OFFERING OF THE TWO MITES. 38 T
3. Passing for the present from the cavils of the Sadducees and CHAP.
the gainsaying of the Scribes, we come unexpectedly on one of those Hi
sweet pictures — a historical miniature, as it is presented to us — v— ^ '— -"
which affords real relief to the eve amidst the glare all around." °st Mark
. ° xiii. 41-44 ;
From the bitter malice of His enemies and the predicted judgment gv1^6
upon them, we turn to the silent worship of her who gave her all,
and to the words with which Jesus owned it, all unknown to her. It
comes to us the more welcome, that it exhibits in deed what Christ
had said to those hypocrites who had discussed it, whether the tribute
given to Caesar was not robbing God of what was His. Truly here
was one, who, in the simplicity of her humble worship, gave to the
Lord what was His!
Weary with the contention, the Master had left those to whom
He had spoken in the Porches, and, while the crowd wrangled about
His Words or His Person, had ascended the flight of steps which led
from ' the Terrace ; into the Temple-building. From these steps —
whether those leading up to the ' Beautiful Gate, ' or one of the side
gates — He could gain full view into 'The Court of the Women,'
into which they opened. On these steps, or within the gate (for in
no other place was it lawful), He sat Him down, watching the multi
tude. The time of Sacrifice was past, and those who still lingered
had remained for private devotion, for private sacrifices, or to pay
their vows and offerings. Although the topography of the Temple,
especially of this part of it, is not without its difficulties, we know
that under the colonnades, which surrounded 'the Court of the
Women,' but still left in the middle room for more than 15,000
worshippers, provision was made for receiving religious and charitable
contributions. All along these colonnades were the thirteen trumpet-
shaped boxes (Shopharoth); somewhere here also we must locate
two chambers:" that of 'the silent,' for gifts to be distributed in »sheqai.
. Vi. 5 ; v . 6
secret to the children ofthe pious poor, and that where votive vessels
were deposited. Perhaps there was here also a special chamber for
offerings/ These ' trumpets ' bore each inscriptions, marking the °Midd. i.i.
objects of contribution — whether to make up for past neglect, to pay
for certain sacrifices, to provide incense, wood, or for other gifts.
As they passed to this or that treasury-box, it must have been a
study of deep interest, especially on that day, to watch the givers.
Some might come with appearance of self-righteousness, some even
with ostentation, some as cheerfully performing a happy duty.
' Many that were rich cast in much '—yes, very much, for such was
the tendency that (as already stated) a law had to be. enacted',

388

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

4 Jos. Ant.
xiv. 4, 4; 7
1

* Babha B.
10 6

forbidding the gift to the Temple of more than a certain proportion
of one's possessions. And the amount of such contributions may be
inferred by recalling the circumstance, that, at the time of Pompey
and Crassus, the Temple-Treasury, after having lavishly defrayed
every possible expenditure, contained in money nearly half a million,
and precious vessels to the value of nearly two millions sterling."
And as Jesus so sat on these steps, looking out on the ever-
shifting panorama, His gaze was riveted by a solitary figure. The
simple words of St. Mark sketch a story of singular pathos. ' It was
one pauper widow. ' We can see her coming alone, as if ashamed to
mingle with the crowd of rich givers; ashamed to have her offering
seen; ashamed, perhaps, to bring it; a 'widow,' in the garb of a
desolate mourner; her condition, appearance, and bearing that of a
' pauper. ' He observed her closely and read her truly. She held in
her hand only the smallest coins, ' two Perutahs ' — and it should be
known that it was not lawful to contribute a less amount." Together
these two Perutahs made a guadrans, which was the ninety-sixth part
of a denar, itself of the value of about sevenpence. But it was ' all her
living ' (ftios), perhaps all that she had been able to save out of her
scanty housekeeping; more probably, all that she had to live upon for
that day and till she wrought for more. And of this she now made
humble offering unto God. He spake not to her words of encourage
ment, for she walked by faith; He offered not promise of return, for
her reward was in beaven. She knew not that any had seen it — for
the knowledge of eyes turned on her, even His, would have flushed
with shame the pure cheek of her love; and any word, conscious notice,
or promise would have marred and turned aside the rising incense of
her sacrifice. ' But to all time has it remained in the Church, like
the perfume of Mary's alabaster that filled the house, this deed of
self-denying sacrifice. More, far more, than the great gifts of their
' superfluity, ' which the rich cast in, was, and is to all time, the
gift of absolute self-surrender and sacrifice, tremblingly offered by

1 Jewish tradition, though it ever and
painfully thrusts forward the reward, has
some beautiful legends, allegories, and
sayings about the gifts of the poor. One
quotation must here suffice (Bemidb. R.
14). It is to the effect, that, if one who
is poor, doeth charity, God says of him:
This one is preventing Me. He has kept
My commandments before they have
come to him. I must recompense him.
In Vayyikra R. 3, we read of a woman,
whose offering of a handful of flour the

priest despised, when God admonished
him in a dream to value the gift as highly
as if she had offered herself. Yet
another quotation from the Mishnah.
The tractate Menachoth closes with these
words : ' Alike as regards burnt-ofi'erings
of beasts and those of fowls [those of the
poor] and the meat-offering, we find the
expression " for a sweet savour," to teach
us, that to offer much or to offer little is
the same, provided only that a person
direct mind and heart towards God.'

THE GREEKS WHO WOULD SEE JESUS. 389
the solitary mourner. And though He spake not to her, yet the CHAP.
sunshine of His words must have fallen into the dark desolateness HI
ol her heart; and, though perhaps she knew not why, it must have v— — .  '
been a happy day, a day of rich feast in the heart, that when she
gave up ' her whole living ' unto God. And so, perhaps, is every
sacrifice for God all the more blessed, when we know not of its
blessedness. Would that to all time its lesson had been cherished, not theo
retically, but practically, by the Church! How much richer would
have been her ' treasury': twice blessedUin gift and givers. But so
is not legend, written. If it had been a story invented for a purpose
or adorned with the tinsel of embellishment, the Saviour and the
widow would not have so parted — to meet and to speak not on earth,
but in heaven. She would have worshipped, and He spoken or done
some great thing. Their silence was a tryst for heaven.
4. One other event of solemn joyous import remains to be re
corded on that day/ But so closely is it connected with what the »st. John
. xii. 20-50
Lord afterwards spoke, that the two cannot be separated. It is
narrated only by St. John, who, as before explained, 1 tells it as one
of a series of progressive manifestations ofthe Christ: first in His
Entry into the City, and then in the Temple — successively, to the
Greeks, by the Voice from Heaven, and before the people.
Precious as each part and verse here is, when taken by itself,
there is some difficulty in combining them, and in showing their con
nection, and its meaning. But here we ought not to forget, that we
have, in the Gospel-narrative, only the briefest account — as it were,
headings, summaries, outlines, rather than a report. Nor do we know
the surrounding circumstances. The words which Christ spoke after
the request of the Greeks to be admitted to His Presence may bear
some special reference also to the state of the disciples, and their
unreadiness to enter into and share His predicted sufferings. And
this may again be connected with Christ's prediction and Discourse
about 'the last things.'" For the position of the narrative in St. ^Matt-
John's Gospel seems to imply that it was the last event of that day-
nay, the conclusion of Christ's public Ministry. If this be so, words
and admonitions, otherwise somewhat mysterious in their connection,
would acquire a new meaning.
It was then, as we suppose, the evening of a long and weary day
of teaching. As the sun had been hastening towards its setting in
1 See ch. vi.

390 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK red, He had spoken of that other sun-setting, with the sky all aglow
V in judgment, and of the darkness that was to follow — but also ofthe
v— - y— -^ better Light that would rise in it. And in those Temple-porches
they had been hearing Him — seeing Him in His wonder-working
yesterday, hearing Him in His wonder-speaking that day— those
' men of other tongues. ' They were ' Proselytes, ' Greeks by birth,
who had groped their way to the porch of Judaism, just as the first
streaks of the light were falling within upon its altar. They must
have been stirred in their inmost being; felt, that it was just for such
as they, and to them that Hje spoke; that this was what in the Old
Testament they had guessed, anticipated, dimly ho'ped for, if they
had not seen it — its grand faith, its grander hope, its grandest reality.
Not one by one, and almost by stealth, were they thenceforth to come
to the gate; but the portals were to be flung wide open, and as the
golden light streamed out upon the way, He stood there, that bright
Divine Personality, Who was not only the Son of David, but the Son
of Man, to bid them the Father's welcome of good pleasure to the
Kingdom. And so, as the lengthening shadows gathered around the Temple-
court and porches, they would fain have ' seen ' Him, not afar off, but
near: spoken to Him. They had became ' Proselytes of Righteous
ness, ' they would become disciples ofthe Lord our Righteousness; '
as Proselytes they had come to Jerusalem ' to worship^ ' and they
would learn to praise. Yet, in the simple self-unconscious modesty
of their religious childhood, they dared not go to Jesus directly, but
came with their request to Philip of Bethsaida.1 We know not why
to him: whether from family connections, or that his education, or
previous circumstances, connected Philip with these ' Greeks, ' or
whether anything in his position in the Apostolic circle, or something
that had just occurred, influenced their choice. And he also — such
was the ignorance of the Apostles of the inmost meaning of their
Master — dared not go directly to Jesus, but went to his own towns
man, who had been his early friend and fellow-disciple, and now
stood so close lo the Person of the Master — Andrew, the brother of
Simon Peter. 'Together the two came to Jesus, Andrew apparently
foremost. The answer of Jesus implies what, at any rate, we would
have expected, that the request of these Gentile converts was granted,
1 We mark here also the utter absence Evangelist is peculiarly meagre and void
of all legendary embellishments as of details. We may note that only
evidence of truth. So far from yielding 'proselytes of righteousness,' who had
to what, even in a book like the present, submitted to circumcision, would be al
ls a temptation, the narrative of the lowed fellowship in the regular worship.

THE GRAIN OF WHEAT THAT MUST FALL INTO THE EARTH. 391
though this is not expressly stated, and it is extremely difficult to CHAP.
determine whether, and what portion of what He spake was addressed HI
to the Greeks, and what to the disciples. Perhaps we should regard "— — 1 
the opening words as bearing reference to the request of the Greeks,
and hence as primarily addressed to the disciples," but also as serving -st. John
as introduction to the words that follow, which were spoken primarily
to the Greeks," but secondarily also to the disciples, and which bear «.w. 24-26
on that terrible, ever near, mystery of His Death, and their Baptism
into it.
As we see these ' Greeks ' approaching, the beginning of Christ's
History seems re-en-acted at its close. Not now in the stable of Beth
lehem, but in the Temple, are ' the wise men, ' the representatives of
the Gentile world, offering their homage to the Messiah. But the life
which had then begun was now all behind Him — and yet, in a sense,
before Him. The hour of decision was about to strike. Not merely
as the Messiah of Israel, but in His world-wide bearing as ' the Son of
Man, ' was He about to be glorified by receiving the homage of the
Gentile world, of which the symbol and the firstfruits were now before
Him. But only in one way could He thus be glorified: by dying for
the salvation of the world, and so opening the Kingdom of Heaven to
all believers. On a thousand hills was the glorious harvest to tremble
in the golden sunlight; but the corn of wheat falling into the ground,
must, as it falls, die, burst its envelope, and so spring into a very
manifoldedness of life. Otherwise would it have remained alone.
This is the great paradox of the Kingdom of God — a paradox which
has its symbol and analogon in nature, and which has also almost
become the law of progress in history: that life which has not sprung
of death abideth alone, and is really death, and that death is life. A
paradox this, which has its ultimate reason in this, that sin has
entered into the world.
And as to the Mas'ter, the Prince of Life, so to the disciples, as
bearing forth the life. If, in this world of sin, He must fall as the
seed-corn into the ground and die, that many may spring of Him, so
must they also hate their life, that they may keep it unto life eternal.
Thus serving, they must follow Him, that where He is they may also
be, for the Father will honour them that honour the Son.
It is now sufficiently clear to us, that our Lord spake primarily
to these Greeks, and secondarily to His disciples, of the meaning of
His impending Death, of the necessity of faithfulness to Him in it,
and of the blessing attaching thereto. Yet He was not unconscious
of the awful realities which this involved/ He was true Man, and °w.27.28a

392

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

» St. John
xii. 28 6-33

BOOK His Human Soul was troubled in view of it: 1 True Man, therefore
V He felt it; True Man, therefore He spake it, and so also sympathised
— ^— ' with them in their coming struggle. Truly Man, but also truly more
than Man — and hence both the expressed desire, and at the same time
the victory over that desire: 'Whafshall I say?2 "Father, save
Me from this hour?3 But for this cause came I unto this hour!'"
And the seeming discord is resolved, as both the Human and the
Divine in the Son — faith and sight — join in glorious accord: ' Father,
glorify Thy Name ! '
Such appeal and prayer, made in such circumstances, could not
have remained unacknowledged, if He was the Messiah, Son of God.
As at His Baptism, so at this Baptism of self-humiliation and abso
lute submission to suffering, came the Voice from Heaven, audible to
all, but its words intelligible only to Him: 'I both glorified it, and
will again glorify itV " Words these, which carried the Divine seal
of confirmation to all Christ's past work, and assured it for that which
was to come. The words of confirmation could only be for Himself;
' the Voice ' was for all. What mattered it, that some spoke of it as
thunder on a spring-evening, while others, with more reason, thought
of Angel -Voices? To him it bore the assurance, which had all
along been the ground of His claims, as it was the comfort in His
Sufferings, that, as God had in the past glorified Himself in the Son,
so would it be in the future in the perfecting of the work given Him
to do. And this He now spake, as, looking on those Greeks as the
emblem and firstfruits of the work finished in His Passion, He saw
of the travail of His Soul, and was satisfied. Of both He spake in
the prophetic present. To His view judgment had already come
to this world, as it lay in the power of the Evil One, since the Prince
of it was cast out from his present rule. And, in place of it, the
Crucified Christ, ' lifted up out of the earth' — in the twofold sense —
was, as the result of His Work, drawing, with sovereign, conquering
power, ' all ' unto Him, and up with Him.
The Jews who heard it, so far understood Him, that His words
referred to His removal from earth, or His Death, since this was a
¦>w. 34-36 a common Jewish mode of expression (D?l»n p F">E)/ 4 But they failed

1 Concurrebat horror mortis et ardor
obediential. — Jengel.
2 Quid dicam ? non, quid eligam ? —
Bengel. 3 Professor Westcott has declared him
self in favour of regarding this clause,
not as a question, but as a prayer. But
this seems to me incompatible alike

with the preceding and the succeeding
clause. 4 This is another evidence of the Ara
maic education of the writer of the Fourth
Gospel. Yet another is the peculiar
Judaic use of the word TW®, hour, in
ver. 27. But the idea of ' Prince of
this world' has no analogon in the

THE LAST APPEAL IN THE TEMPLE. 393
to understand His special reference to the manner of it. And yet, CHAP.
in view of the peculiarly shameful death of the Cross, it was most m
important that He should ever point to it also. But, even in what ~^  '
they understood, they had a difficulty. They understood Him to
imply that He would be taken from earth; and yet they had always
been taught from the Scriptures ' that the Messiah was, when fully
manifested, to abide for ever, or, as the Rabbis put it, that His
Reign was to be followed by the Resurrection. Or did He refer to
any other One by the expression, Son of Man'? Into the contro
versial part of the question the Lord did not enter; nor would it
have been fitting to have done so in that ' hour. ' But to their
inquiry He fully replied, and that with such earnest, loving admo
nition as became His last address in the Temple. Yes; it was so!
But a little while would the Light be among them/ Let them
hasten to avail themselves of it,3 lest darkness overtake them — and
he that walked in darkness knew not whither he went. Oh, that
His love could have arrested them! While they still had 'the
Light, ' would that they might learn to believe in the Light, that so
they might become the children of Light!
They were His last words of appeal to them, ere He withdrew to
spend His Sabbath of soul before the Great Contest." And the writer '?'. John
r Xll. 36 b
of the Fourth Gospel ga-thers up, by way of epilogue, the great con
trast between Israel and Christ." Although He had shown so many -St. John
° J xii. 37-43
miracles, they believe not on Him — and this their wilful unbelief
was the fulfilment of Esaias' prophecy of old concerning the Messiah/ ° Is- Wl- *
On the other hand, their wilful unbelief was also the judgment of
God in accordance with prophecy/ Those who have followed the "is. vi.
course of this history must have learned this above all, that the
rejection of Christ by the Jews was not an isolated act, but ' the out
come and direct result of their whole previous religious development.
In face of the clearest evidence, they did not believe, because they
could not believe. The long course of their resistance to the pro
phetic message, and their perversion of it, was itself a hardening of
their hearts, although at the same time a God-decreed sentence on
their resistance/ Because they would not believe — through this
D7WH "127 (or Metatron) of Rabbinism, 1 It is another mark of Jewish author-
to whom, strangely, the designation "\Si ship, this use of the word 'Law,' to de-
(in Zech. ii. 4 [A.V.], Babha B. 75 b, and note the whole Scriptures.
in Ps. xxxvii. 25, Yebam. 16 b, about a Lux ipsa manet ; sed non semper in
middle) is applied. And this is, on the vobis.
other hand, quite as characteristic of the 3 Ambulandum, non disceptandum.
Gospel which, under Jewish forms, bears Fides non est deses, sed agilis in luce.
a totally contrary spirit. 4 Hence the effect which in Isa. vi. is

394

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. John
xii. 44

« W. 49, 60

their mental obscuration, which came upon them in Divine judg
ment, although in the natural course of their self-chosen religious
development — therefore, despite all evidence, they did not believe,
when He came and did such miracles before them. And all this in
accordance with prophecy, when Isaiah saw in far-off vision the
bright glory L of Messiah, and spoke of Him. Thus far Israel as a
nation. And though, even among their ' chief rulers, ' there were
many who believed on Him, yet dared they not 'make confession,'
from fear that the Pharisees would put them out of the Synagogues,
with all the terrible consequences which this implied. For such
surrender of all were they not prepared, whose intellect might be
convinced, but whose heart was not converted — who ' loved the glory
of men more than the glory of God. '
Such was Israel. On the other hand, what was the summary of
the Christ's activity? His testimony now rose so .loud, as to be
within hearing of all ('Jesus cried')/ From first to last that
testimony had pointed from Himself up to the Father. Its sub
stance was the reality and the realisation of that which the Old
Testament had infolded and gradually unfolded to Israel, and
through Israel to the world: the Fatherhood of God. To believe
on Him was really not faith in Him, but faith in Him that sent
Him. A step higher: To behold Christ was to behold Him that had
sent Him." To combine these two: Christ had come a light into the
world, God had sent Him as the Sun of Righteousness, that by
believing on Him as the God-sent, men might attain moral vision —
no longer ' abide in darkness, ' but in the bright spiritual Light that
had risen. But as for the others, there were those who heard and
did not keep 2 His words; and, again, those who rejected Him, and
did not receive His words. Neither in one nor the other case was
the controversy as between His sayings and men. As regarded the
one class, He had come into the world with the Word of salvation,
not with the sword of judgment. As regarded His open enemies,
He left the issue till the evidence of His word should appear in the
terrible judgment of the Last Day.
Once more, and more emphatic than ever, was the final appeal to
His Mission by the Father/ From first to last it had not been His

ascribed to the prophet, is here assigned
to God. We say ' decreed ' — but not de
creed beforehand, and irrespective of
their conduct. The passage is neither
quoted from the Hebrew nor from the
LXX., but Targumed.
1 The paraphrase of this passage in the

Targum Jonathan (for which see Appen
dix II.) is, indeed, most interesting; but
the Yeqara or outshining splendour of
Jehovah, is not that to which the Evange
list here refers.
2 So according to the better reading.

ST. JOHN'S FINAL SUMMARY OF THIS HISTORY. 395
own work: what He should say, and what He should speak, the CHAP.
Father 'Himself had given Him commandment. Nay, this com- HI
mandment, and what He spoke in it, was not mere teaching, nor '  .  '
Law : it was Life everlasting. And so it is, and ever shall be —
eternal thanks to the love of Him Who sent, and the grace of Him
Who came: that the things which He spake, He spake as the Father
said unto Him.
These two things, then, are the final summary by the Apostle of
the History of the Christ in His public activity. On the one hand,
he shows us how Israel, hardened in the self-chosen course of its
religious development, could not, and, despite the clearest evidence,
did not, believe. And, on the other hand," he sets before us the Christ
absolutely surrendering Himself to do the Will and Work of the
Father; witnessed by the Father; revealing the Father; coming as
the Light of the world to chase away its moral darkness; speaking
to all men, bringing to them salvation, not judgment, and leaving the
vindication of His Word to its manifestation in the Last Day; and
finally, as the Christ, Whose every message is commanded of God,
and Whose every commandment is life everlasting — and therefore and
so speaking it, as the Father said unto Him.
These two things: concerning the history of Israel and their neces
sary unbelief, and concerning the Christ as God-sent, God-witnessed,
God-revealing, bringing light and life as the Father's gift and com
mand — the Christ as absolutely surrendering Himself to this Mission
and embodying it — are the sum of the Gospel-narratives. They ex
plain their meaning, and set forth their object and lessons.

396 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

CHAPTER IV.
THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — THE LAST CONTROVERSIES AND DIS
COURSES — THE SADDUCEES AND THE RESURRECTION — THE SCRIBE AND
THE GREAT COMMANDMENT — QUESTION TO THE PHARISEES ABOUT
DAVID'S SON AND LORD — FINAL WARNING TO THE PEOPLE : THE
. EIGHT ' WOES '  FAREWELL.
(St. Matt. xxii. 23-33; St. Mark xii. 18-27; St. Luke xx. 27-39; St. Matt. xxii. 34-
40 ; St. Mark xii. 28-34 ; St. Matt. xxii. 41-46 ; St. Mark xii. 35-40 ; St. Luke xx.
40-47 ; St. Matt, xxiii.)
BOOK The last day in the Temple was not to pass without other ' tempta-
v tions ' than that of the Priests when they questioned His authority,
^— — y— — ' 0r of the Pharisees when they cunningly sought to entangle Him in
His speech. Indeed, Christ had on this occasion taken a different
position; He had claimed supreme authority, and thus challenged
the leaders of Israel. For this reason, and because at the last we
expect assaults from all His enemies, we are prepared for the con
troversies of that day.
We remember that, during the whole previous history, Christ had
only on one occasion come into public conflict with the Sadducees,
> st. Matt, when, characteristically, they had asked of Him ' a sign from heaven. ' a
Their Rationalism would lead them to treat the whole movement as
beneath serious notice, the outcome of ignorant fanaticism. Never
theless, when Jesus assumed such a position in the Temple, and was
evidently to such extent swaying the people, it behoved them, if only
to guard their position, no longer to stand by. Possibly, the dis
comfiture and powerlessness of the Pharisees may also have had their
influence. At any rate, the impression left is, that those of them who
now went to Christ were delegates, and that the question which they
put had been well planned.1
Their object was certainly not serious argument, but to use the
1 There seems some reference to this (Yoma 66 b) previously referred to (see
question put to Christ in what we regard pp. 193, 194). Comp. the interesting
as covert references to Christianity in dissertation of Tottermann on R. Eliezer
that mysterious passage in the Talmud ben Hyrcanos (pp. 16-18).

CONTROVERSY WITH SADDUCEES ABOUT THE RESURRECTION. 397
much more dangerous weapon of ridicule. Persecution the populace chap.
might have resented; for open opposition all would have been pre- rv
pared; but to come with icy politeness and philosophic calm, and by '  r— —
a well-turned question to reduce tne renowned Galilean Teacher to
silence, and show the absurdity of His teaching, would have been to
inflict on His cause the most damaging blow. To this day such
appeals to rough and ready common-sense are the main stock-in-
trade of that coarse infldelity, which, ignoring alike the demands of
higher thinking and the facts of history, appeals — so often, alas!
effectually — to the untrained intellect of the multitude, and — shall we
not say it? — to the coarse and lower in us all. Besides, had the Sad
ducees succeeded, they would at the same time have gained a signal
triumph for their tenets, and defeated, together with the Galilean ?¦"¦
Teacher, their own Pharisaic opponents. The subject of attack was
to be the Resurrection1 — the same which is still the favourite topic
for the appeals of the coarser forms of infidelity to ' the common
sense ' of the masses. Making allowance for difference of circum
stances, we might almost imagine we were listening to one of our
modern orators of materialism. And in those days the defence of
belief in the Resurrection laboured under twofold difficulty. It was
as yet a matter of hope, not of faith: something to look forward to,
not to look back upon. The isolated events recorded in the Old
Testament, and the miracles of Christ — granting that they were
admitted — were rather instances of resuscitation than of Resurrec
tion. The grand fact of history, than which none is better attested
— the Resurrection of Christ — had not yet taken place, and was not
even clearly in view of any one. Besides, the utterances of the Old
Testament on the subject of the ' hereafter ' were, as became alike
that stage of revelation and the understanding of those to whom it
was addressed, far from clear. In the light of the New Testament
it stands out in the sharpest proportions, although as an Alpine
height afar off ; but then that Light had not yet risen upon it.
Besides, the Sadducees would allow no appeal to the highly
poetic language of the Prophets, to whom, at any rate, they attached
less authority, but demanded proof from that clear and precise letter
of the Law, every tittle and iota of which the Pharisees exploited
for their doctrinal inferences, and from which alone they derived
them. Here, also, it was the Nemesis of Pharisaism, that the postu
lates of their system laid it open to attack. In vain would the Phari-
1 In regard to the denial of the' Re- views generally, we refer to the sketch
surrection by the Sadducees, and to their of the three sects in Book HI. ch. ii.

398 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK sees appeal to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, or the Psalms.1- To such an
v argument as from the words,' 'this people will rise up,'" the Sad-
^— v-^-' ducees would rightly reply, that the context forbade the application
• Deut to the Resurrection; to the quotation of Isaiah xxvi. 19, they would
answer that that promise must be understood spiritually, like the
vision of the dry bones in Ezekiel; while such a reference as to this,
t cant. vii. ' causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak, ' " would scarcely
«see sanh re1uire serious refutation." Of similar character would be the argu-
the'mwaie ment fr°m tne use 0I* a special word, such as ' return ' in Gen. iii. 19/
a Ber. b. 20 or that from the twofold mention of the word ' cut off' in the original
of Num. xv. 31, as implying punishment in the present and in the
• sanh, 90 b future dispensation/ Scarcely more convincing would be the appeal
lines j iSio.
irom to such passages, as Deut. xxxii. 39: 'I kill and make alive,'1 or the
bottom r ° '
'sanh. 91 b statement that, whenever a promise occurs m the form which in
Hebrew represents the future tense,2 it indicates a reference to the
Resurrection. Perhaps more satisfactory, although not convincing
to a Sadducee, whose special contention it was to insist on proof
i sanh, 905 from the Law/ might be an appeal to such passages as Dan. xii. 2,
lineslOand ' & . . r r & '
9 irom 13/ or to the restoration to life by certain of the prophets, with the
bottom ' . r v t
t sanh. 92 a superadded canon, that God had in part prefiguratively wrought by
His prophets whatever He would fully restore in the future.
If Pharisaic argumentation had failed to convince the Sadducees
on Biblical grounds, it would be difficult to imagine that, even in the
then state of scientific knowledge, any enquiring person could have
really believed that there was a small bone in the spine which was
indestructible, and from which the new man would spring;3 or that
there existed even now a species of mice, or else of snails, which
'Sanh. 90 b gradually and visibly developed out of the earth.1 Many clever
sayings of the Pharisees are, indeed, here recorded in their con
troversies, as on most subjects, and by which a Jewish opponent
might have been silenced. But here, especially, must it have been
felt that a reply was not ' always an answer, and that the silencing of
an opponent was not identical with proof of one's own assertion.
And the additions with which the Pharisees had encumbered the
doctrine of the Resurrection would not only surround it with fresh
difficulties, but deprive the simple fact of its grand majesty. Thus,
it was a point in discussion, whether a person would rise in his
1 Hamburger (Real Encykl. vol. i. p. Hamburger.
125) has given the Rabbinic argumenta- 2 It is well known that the Hebrew has
tion, a,niWHnsche (ad St. Matt. xxii. 23) no future tense in the strict sense.
has reproduced it— unfortunately, with 3 Hence called the os sacrum (see
the not unnatural exaggerations of again in the sequel).

» Sanh. 90 b
*> Jer. Keth.

THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 399
clothes, which one Rabbi tried to establish by a reference to the grain chap.
of wheat, which was buried ' naked, ' but rose clothed. " Indeed, some IV
Rabbis held, that a man would rise in exactly the same clothes in
which he had been buried, while others denied this." On the other
hand, it was beautifully argued that body and soul must be finally
judged together, so that, in their contention to which of them the sins
of man had been due, justice might be meted out to each — or rather
to the two in their combination, as in their combination they had
sinned.1 Again, it was inferred from the apparition of Samuel" °isam.
that the risen would look exactly as in life — have even the same bodily
defects, such as lameness, blindness, or deafness. It is argued, that
they were only afterwards to be healed, lest enemies might say that
God had not healed them when they were alive, but that He did so
when they were dead, and that they were perhaps not the same
persons/ In some respects even more strange was the contention *Ber. b. 95,
that, in order to secure that all the pious of Israel should rise on the
sacred soil of Palestine," there were cavities underground in which the ' Is- xlli- 5
body would roll till it reached the Holy Land, there to rise to newness
Of life/ 'Ber. B. 96,
towards
But all the more, that it was so keenly controverted by heathens, the olose
Sadducees, and heretics, as appears from many reports in the Talmud,
and that it was so encumbered with realistic legends, should we
admire the tenacity with which the Pharisees clung to this doctrine.
The hope of the Resurrection-world appears in almost every religious
utterance of Israel. It is the spring-bud on the tree, stript by the
long winter, of disappointment and persecution. This hope pours its
morning carol into the prayer which every Jew is bound to say on
awakening; g it sheds its warm breath over the oldest of the daily *Ber. 60&
prayers which date from before the time of our Lord;2 in the formula
' from age to age, ' ' world without end, ' it forms, so to speak, the
rearguard to every prayer, defending it from Sadducean assault; 3 it
is one of the few dogmas denial of which involves, according to the
Mishnah, the loss of eternal life, the Talmud explaining — almost in
the words of Christ — that in the retribution of God this is only ' mea
sure according to measure; '" nay, it is venerable even in its exag- »sanh.9oo,
0 ' ... . line 4 from
geration, that only our ignorance fails to perceive it in every section bottom
ofthe Bible, and to hear it in every commandment ofthe Law.
But in the view of Christ the Resurrection would necessarily
1 This was illustrated by a very apt 3 It is expressly stated in Ber. ix. 5,
Parable, see Sanh. 91 a and 6. that the formula was introduced for that
2 It forms the second of the eighteen purpose.
Eulogies.

400

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

* Deut. xxv.
S&c.

b Bekhor.
1. 7

« Yebam.
39 b

• Jer.
Yebam. i. 6.
This seema
also to
have been
the view
ofthe School of
Shammai

occupy a place different from all this. It was the innermost shrine
in the Sanctuary of His Mission, towards which He steadily tended;
it was also, at the same time, the living corner-stone of that Church
which he had builded, and its spire, which, as with uplifted finger,
ever pointed all men heavenwards. But of such thoughts connected
with His Resurrection Jesus could not have spoken to the Saddu
cees; they would have been unintelligible at that time even to His
Own disciples. He met the cavil of the Sadducees majestically,
seriously, and solemnly, with words most lofty and spiritual, yet such
as they could understand, and which, if they had received them,
would have led them onwards and upwards far beyond the standpoint
of the Pharisees. A lesson this to us in our controversies.
The story under which the Sadducees conveyed their sneer was
also intended covertly to strike at their Pharisaic opponents. The
ancient ordinance of marrying a brother's childless widow"1 had
more and more fallen into discredit, as its original motive ceased to
have influence. A large array of limitations narrowed the number
of those on whom this obligation now devolved. Then the Mishnah
laid it down that, in ancient times, when the ordinance of such
marriage was obeyed in the spirit of the Law, its obligation took
precedence of the permission of dispensation, but that afterwards
this relationship became reversed." Later authorities went further.
Some declared every such union, if for beauty, wealth, or any other
than religious motives, as incestuous," while one Rabbi absolutely
prohibited it, although opinions continued divided on the subject.
But what here most interests us is, that what are called in the
Talmud the ' Samaritans,' but, as we judge, the Sadducees, held the
opinion that the command to marry a brother's widow only applied
to a betrothed wife, not to one that had actually been wedded/ This
gives point to the controversial question, as addressed to Jesus.
A case such as they told, of a woman who had successively been
married to seven brothers, might, according to Jewish Law, have
really happened/ Their sneering question now was, whose wife she

1 The Talmud has it that the woman
must have no child at all — not merely no
son. 2 Jer. Yebam. 6 b, relates what I regard
as a legendary story of a man who was
thus induced to wed the twelve widows
of his twelve brothers, each widow pro
mising to pay for the expenses of one
month, and the directing Rabbi for
those of the 13th (intercalatory) month.
But to his horror, after three years the

women returned, laden with thirty-six
children, to claim the fulfilment of the
Rabbi's promise!
On the other hand it was, however, also
laid down that, if a woman had lost two
husbands, she should not marry a third —
according to others, if she had married
three, not a fourth, as there might be
some fate (77f2) connected with her (Yeb.
64 b). On the question of the Levirate,
from the modern Jewish standpoint, see

lels.

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING OF THE RESURRECTION. 401
was to be in the Resurrection. This, of course, on the assumption chap.
of the grossly materialistic views of the Pharisees. In this the Saddu- IV
cean cavil was, in a sense, anticipating certain objections of modern ' 
materialism. It proceeded on the assumption that the relations of
time would apply to eternity, and the conditions of the things seen
hold true in regard to those that are unseen. But perchance it is
otherwise; and the future may reveal what in the present we do not
see. The reasoning as such may be faultless; but, perchance, some
thing in the future may have to be inserted in the major or the
minor, which will make the conclusion quite other! All such cavils
we would meet with the twofold appeal of Christ to the Word 1 and
to the Power of God — how God has manifested, and how He will
manifest Himself — the one flowing from the other. .
In His argument against the Sadducees Christ first appealed to
the power of" God/ What God would work was quite other than »st.Matt.
they imagined: not a mere re-awakening, but a transformation, and'parai.
The world to come was not to be a reproduction of that which had
passed away — else why should it have passed away — but a regenera
tion and renovation; and the body with which we were to be clothed
would be like that which Angels bear. What, therefore, in our
present relations is of the earth, and of our present body of sin and
corruption, will cease; what is eternal in them will continue. But
the power of God will transform all — the present terrestrial into the
future heavenly, the body of humiliation into one of exaltation.
This will be the perfecting of all things by that Almighty Power by
which He shall subdue all things to Himself in the Day of His Power,
when death shall be swallowed up in victory. And herein also con
sists the dignity of man, in virtue of the Redemption introduced, and,
so to speak, begun at his Fall, that man is capable of such renovation
and perfection — and herein, also, is ' the power of God, ' that He
hath quickened us together with Christ, so that here already the
Church receives in Baptism into Christ the germ of the Resurrection,
which is afterwards to be nourished and fed by faith, through the
believer's participation in the Sacrament of fellowship with His body
and Blood.2 Nor ought questions here to rise, like dark clouds, such
an interesting article by Gutmann in Talmud.
Geiger's Wiss. Zeitschr. f. Jiid. Theol.vol. '' Through the Resurrection of Christ
iv. (1839), pp. 61-87. resurrection has become the gift of uni-
1 The reproach ' Ye err, not knowing versal humanity. But,beyond this general
the Scriptures,' occurs in almost the gift to humanity, we believe that we re-
same form in the discussions on the ceive in Baptism, as becoming connected
Resurrection between the Pharisees and with Christ, the inner germ of the glori-
the Sadducees which are recorded in 'the ous Resurrection-body. Its nourishment

402

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• Ber. 17 a,
towards the end

as of the perpetuity of those relations which on earth are not only so
precious to us, but so holy. Assuredly, they will endure, as all that
' is of God and good; only what in them is earthly will cease, or
rather be transformed with the body. Nay, and we shall also recog
nise each other, not only by the fellowship of the soul; but as, even
now, the mind impresses its stamp on the features, so then, when all
shall be quite true, shall the soul, so to speak, body itself forth, fully
impress itself on the outward appearance, and for the first time shall
we then fully recognise those whom we shall now fully know — with
all of earth that was in them left behind, and all of God and good
fully developed and ripened into perfectness of beauty.
But it was not enough to brush aside the flimsy cavil, which had
only meaning on the supposition of grossly materialistic views of the
Resurrection. Our Lord would not merely reply, He would answer
the Sadducees; and more grand or noble evidence of the Resur
rection has never been offered than that which He gave. Of course
as speaking to the Sadducees, He remained on the ground of the
Pentateuch; and yet it was not only to the Law but to the whole
Bible that He appealed, nay, to that which underlay Revelation
itself: the relation between God and man. Not this nor that isolated
passage only proved the Resurrection: He Who, not only historically
but in the fullest sense, calls Himself the God of Abraham, of Isaac,
and of Jacob, cannot leave them dead. Revelation implies, not
merely a fact of the past — as is the notion which traditionalism
attaches to it — a dead letter; it means a living relationship. ' He is
not the God ofthe dead, but of the living, for all live unto Him.'
The Sadducees were silenced, the multitude was astonished, and
even from some of the Scribes the admission was involuntarily wrung:
'Teacher, Thou hast beautifully said.' One point, however, still
claims our attention. It is curious that, as regards both these argu
ments of Christ, Rabbinism offers statements closely similar. Thus,
it is recorded as one of the frequent sayings of a later Rabbi, that in
the world to come there would be neither eating nor drinking, fruitful-
ness nor increase, business nor envy, hatred nor strife, but that the just
would sit with crowns on their heads, and feast on the splendor of
the Shekhinah." This reads like a Rabbinic adaptation of the saying
of Christ. As regards the other point, the Talmud reports a discus
sion on the Resurrection between ' Sadducees, ' or perhaps Jewish
heretics (Jewish-Christian heretics), in which Rabbi Gamaliel II. at

(or otherwise) depends on our personal
relationship to Christ by faith, and is

carried on through the Sacrament of
His Body and Blood.

THE QUESTION OF THE SCRIBE. 403
last silences his opponents by an appeal to the promise " ' that ye CHAP.
may prolong your days in the land which the Lord sware unto your IV
father to give unto them' — 'unto them,' emphasises the Rabbi, not K-— y~— -
'unto you.'1 Although this almost entirely misses the spiritual "Deut.xi.9
meaning conveyed in the reasoning of Christ, it is impossible to
mistake its Christian origin. Gamaliel II. lived after Christ, but
at a period when there was lively intercourse between Jews and
Jewish Christians; while, lastly, we have abundant evidence that
the Rabbi was acquainted with the sayings of Christ, and took
part in the controversy with the Church/ On the other hand,
Christians in his day — unless heretical sects — neither denied that
Resurrection, nor would they have so argued with the Jewish Patri
arch; while the Sadducees no longer existed as a party engaging
in active controversy. But we can easily perceive, that intercourse
would be more likely between Jews and such heretical Jewish Chris
tians as might maintain that the Resurrection was past, and only
spiritual. The point is deeply interesting. It opens such further
questions as these: In the constant intercourse between Jewish
Christians and Jews, what did the latter learn? and may there not be
much in the Talmud which is only an appropriation and adaptation
of what had been derived from the New Testament?
2. The answer of our Lord was not without its further results.
As we conceive it, among those who listened to the brief but deci
sive passage between Jesus and the Sadducees were some ' Scribes '
— Sopherim, or, as they are also designated, ' lawyers, ' ' teachers of
the Law,' experts, expounders, practitioners of the Jewish Law. 0ne
of them, perhaps he who exclaimed: Beautifully said, Teacher I
hastened to the knot of Pharisees, whom it requires no stretch of
the imagination to picture gathered in the Temple on that day, and
watching, with restless, ever foiled malice, the Saviour's every move
ment. As ' the Scribe ' came up to them, he would relate how Jesus
had literally ' gagged ' and ' muzzled ' 3 the Sadducees— just as, ac
cording to the will of God, we are ' by well-doing to gag the want 01
knowledge of senseless men.' There can be little doubt that the
report would give rise to mingled feelings, in which that prevailing
would be, that, although Jesus might thus have discomfited the Sad
ducees, He would be unable to cope with other questions, if only
1 The similar reference to Exod. vi. 4 ings towards Christianity (see pp. 193,
by a later Rabbi seems but an adapta- 194). This might open up a most inter-
tion of the argument of Gamaliel II. (See esting field of inquiry.
both in Sanh. 90 b.) 3 kcpi/xooas (St. Matt. xxii. 34). The
2 We also recall that Gamaliel II. was word occurs also in St. Matt. xxu. 12 ; St.
the brother-in-law of that Eliezer b. Hyr- Mark i. 25; iv. 39; St. Luke iv. 35; 1
canos, who was rightly suspected of lean- Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18; 1 Pet. ii. 15.

404

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

aComp. the
two ac
counts in
St. Mat
thew xxii.
34-40 and
in St. Mark
xii. 28-34
' Ab. ii. 1 ;
iv. 2
¦ Sanh. xi. 3

• St. Mark
xii. 28

'St. Matt.
xxii. 4

properly propounded by Pharisaic learning. And so we can under
stand how one of the number, perhaps the same Scribe, would volun
teer to undertake the office; " and how his question was, as St. Mat
thew reports, in a sense really intended to ' tempt ' Jesus.
We dismiss here the well-known Rabbinic distinctions of ' heavy f
and ' light ' commandments, because Rabbinism declared the ' light '
to be as binding as ' the heavy, ' " those of the Scribes more '¦ heavy '
(or binding) than those of Scripture," and that one commandment
was not to be considered to carry greater reward, and to be there
fore more- carefully observed, than another/ That such thoughts
were not in the mind of the questioner, but rather the grand general
problem — however himself might have answered it — appears even
from the form of his inquiry: 'Which [qualis] is the great — 'the
first ' e — commandment in the Law? ' So challenged, the Lord
could have no hesitation in replying. Not to silence him, but
to speak the absolute truth, He quoted the well-remembered words
which every Jew was bound to repeat in his devotions, and which
were ever to be on his lips, living or dying, as the inmost expression
of his faith: 'Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.' And
then continuing, He repeated the command concerning love to God
which is the outcome of that profession. But to have stopped here
would have been to propound a theoretic abstraction without con
crete reality, a mere Pharisaic worship of the letter. As God is love
— His Nature so manifesting itself — so is love to God also love 1 to
man. And so this second is ' like ' ' the first and great command
ment.' It was a full answer to the Scribe when He said: ' There is
none other commandment greater than these.'
But it was more than an answer, even deepest teaching, when, as
St. Matthew reports, He added: 'on these two commandments hang
all the Law and the Prophets. ' f It little matters for our present
purpose how the Jews at the time understood and interpreted these
two commandments/ They would know what it meant that
the Law and the Prophets ' hung ' on them, for it was a Jewish
expression (pbn). He taught them, not that any one commandment
was greater or smaller, heavier or lighter, than another — might be set
aside or neglected, but that all sprang from these two as their root
and principle, and stood in living connection with them. It was

1 Meyer rightly remarks on the use of
dyaitrj creii here, implying moral high es
timation and corresponding conduct, and
not cpiXsir, which refers to love as an
affection. The latter could not have
been commanded, although such cpiXia

of the world is forbidden (St. James iv. 4)
while the cpiXsiv of one's own ipvxr/ (St.
John xii. 25) and the /if) (piXslv rov
xvpio (1 Cor. xvi. 22) are stigmatised.
2 The Jewish view of these commands
has been previously explained.

THE 'SON OF DAVID' AND THE 'LORD OF DAVID.' 405
teaching similar to that concerning the Resurrection; that, as concern- chap.
ing the promises, so concerning the commandments, all Revelation was iv
one connected whole; not disjointed ordinances of which the letter was ~~-—y~y
to be weighed, but a life springing from love to God and love toman.
So noble was the answer, that for the moment the generous enthu
siasm of the Scribe, who had previously been favourably impressed
by Christ's answer to the Sadducees, was kindled. For the moment,
at least, traditionalism lost its sway; and, as Christ pointed to it,
he saw the exceeding moral beauty of the Law. He was not far
from the Kingdom of God." Whether or not he ever actually entered » st.Mark
• xii 33 34
it, is written on the yet unread page of its history.
3. The Scribe had originally come to put his question with mixed
motives, partially inclined towards Him from His answer to the
Sadducees, and yet intending to subject Him to the Rabbinic test.
The effect now wrought in him, and the silence which from that moment
fell on all His would-be questioners, induced Christ to follow up the
impression that had been made. Without addressing any one in par
ticular, He set before them all, what perhaps was the most familiar
subject in their theology, that of the descent of Messiah. Whose
Son was He? And when they replied: ' The Son of David,' ' He re
ferred them to the opening words of Psalm ex., in which David called
the Messiah ' Lord.' The argument proceeded, of course, on the two
fold supposition that the Psalm was Davidic and that it was Messianic.
Neither of these statements would have been questioned by the
ancient Synagogue. But we could not rest satisfied with the expla
nation that this sufficed for the purpose of Christ's argument, if the
foundation on which it rested could be seriously called in question.
Such, however, is not the case. To apply Psalm ex., verse by verse
and consistently, to any one of the Maccabees, were to undertake a
critical task which only a series of unnatural explanations of the
language could render possible. Strange, also, that such an inter
pretation of what at the. time of Christ would have been a compara
tively young composition, should have been wholly unknown alike to
Sadducee and Pharisee. For our own part, we are content to rest
the Messianic interpretation on the obvious and natural meaning of
the words taken in connection with the general teaching of the Old
Testament about the Messiah, on the undoubted interpretation of the
ancient Jewish Synagogue/' on the authority of Christ, and on the
testimony of History.
1 This also shows that the later dogma of Messiah the Son of Joseph had not yet
been invented.
2 Comp. Appendix IX.

406

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» St. Matt.
xxii. 46'

i' St. Matt.
xxiii.

' St. Luke
xi. 37-54

Compared with this, the other question as to the authorship ofthe
Psalm is of secondary importance. The character of infinite, nay,
Divine, superiority to any earthly Ruler, and of course to David,
which the Psalm sets forth in regard to the Messiah, would sufficiently
support the argument of Christ. But, besides, what does it matter,
whether the Psalm was composed by David, or only put into the
mouth of David (David's or Davidic), which, on the supposition of
Messianic application, is the only rational alternative?
But we should greatly err if we thought that, in calling the atten
tion of His hearers to this apparent contradiction about the Christ,
the Lord only intended to show the utter incompetence of the Phari
sees to teach the higher truths of the Old Testament. Such, indeed,
was the case — and they felt it in His Presence." But far beyond
this, as in the proof which He gave for the Resurrection, and in the
view which He presented of the great commandment, the Lord would
point to the grand harmonious unity of Revelation. Viewed sepa
rately, the two statements, that Messiah was David's Son, and that
David owned Him Lord, would seem incompatible. But in their
combination in the Person of the Christ, how harmonious and how
full of teaching — to Israel of old, and to all men — concerning the
nature of Christ's Kingdom and of His Work !
It was but one step from this demonstration of the incompetence
of Israel's teachers for the position they claimed to a solemn warning
on this subject. And this appropriately constitutes Christ's Farewell
to the Temple, to its authorities, and to Israel. As might have been
expected, we have the report of it in St. Matthew's Gospel." Much
of this had been said before, but in quite other connection, and there
fore with different application. We notice this, when comparing this
Discourse with the Sermon on the Mount, and, still more, with what
Christ had said when at the meal in the house of the Pharisee in
Perasa/ But here St. Matthew presents a regular series of charges
against the representatives of Judaism, formulated in logical manner,
taking up successively one point after the other, and closing with the
expression of deepest compassion and longing for that Jerusalem,
whose children He would fain have gathered under His sheltering
wings from the storm of Divine judgment.
To begin with — Christ would have them understand, that, in warn
ing thein of the incompetence of Israel's teachers for the position
which they occupied, He neither wished for Himself nor His disciples
the place of authority which they claimed, nor yet sought to incite
the people to resistance thereto. On the contrary, so long as they
held the place of authority they Avere to be regarded — in the Ian-

xxiii, 3, 4
• vv. 5-7

FINAL DENUNCIATION OF PHARISAISM. 407
guage of the Mishnah ° — as if instituted by Moses himself, as sitting chap.
in Moses' seat, and were to be obeyed, so far as merely outward obser- IV
vances were concerned. We regard this direction, not as of merely ' — -•  '
temporary application', but as involving au important principle. But hBsh*ii 9
we also recall that the ordinances to which Christ made reference
were those of the Jewish canon-law, and did not involve anything
which could really affect the conscience — except that of the ancient,
or of our modern Pharisees. But while they thus obeyed their out
ward directions, they were equally to eschew the spirit which cha
racterised their observances.1 In this respect a twofold charge is
laid against them: of want of spiritual earnestness and love," and tst. Matt.
of mere externalism, vanity, and self-seeking." And here Christ
interrupted His Discourse to warn His disciples against the first
beginnings of what had led to such fearful consequences, and to
point them to the better way/ ¦> w 8-12
This constitutes the first part of Christ's charge. Before proceed
ing to those which follow, we may give a few illustrative explanations.
Of the opening accusation about the binding (truly in bondage:
d£o-/.ieva)) of heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and laying them
on men's shoulders, proof can scarcely be required. As frequently
shown, Rabbinism placed the ordinances of tradition above those of
the Law," and this by a necessity ofthe system, since they were pro- >-seeespe-
fessedly the authoritative exposition and the supplement ofthe written Ber. i. 7, i>.
Law. ' And although it was a general rule, that no ordinance should be , Ab Hi n
enjoined heavier than the congregation could bear,8 yet (as previously ib. Kama
stated) it was admitted, that, whereas the words ofthe Law contained
what ' lightened ' and what ' made heavy, the words of the Scribes
contained only what ' made heavy. ' " Again, it was another principle, * Jer. sanh.
that, where an ' aggravation ' or increase of the burden had once been bottom
introduced, it must continue to be observed.' Thus the burdens be- 'Nidd. 66 a
came intolerable. And the blame rested equally on both the great
Rabbinic Schools. For, although the School of Hillel was supposed
in general to make the yoke lighter, and that of Shammai heavier,
yet not only did they agree on many points,2 but the School of
Hillel was not unfrequently even more strict than that of his rival.3
In truth, their differences seem too often only prompted by a spirit of
opposition, so that the serious business of religion became in their
hands one of rival authority and mere wrangling/
1 Even the literal charge of teaching een points ' "12~ ri'"1 Ab. Sar. 36 «.
and not doing is brought iii Jewish writ- 8 Twenty-four such are mentioned.
ings (see, for example, Ber. R. 34). Jer. Bets. 60 b.
¦ So notably on the well-known ' eight- 4 Many, very many of them are so

408

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

b vol. i. p.
101

BOOK It is not so easy to understand the second part of Christ's accu-
V sation. There were, indeed, many hypocrites among thein, who
-~>  ' might, in the language of the Talmud, alleviate for themselves and
sot. 2ii> make heavy for others." Yet the charge of not moving them with
the finger could scarcely apply to the Pharisees as a party — not even
in this sense, that Rabbinic ingenuity mostly found some means of
evading what was unpleasant. But, as previously explained," we
. would understand the word rendered ' move ' as meaning to ' set in
motion, ' or ' move away, in the sense that they did not ' alleviate '
where they might have done so, or else with reference to their ad
mitted principle, that their ordinances always made heavier, never
lighter — always imposed grievous burdens, but never, not even with
the finger, moved them away.
With this charge of unreality and want of love, those of external
ism, vanity, and self-seeking are closely connected. Here we can
only make selection from the abundant evidence in support of it.
By a merely externa Interpretation of Exod. xiii. 9, 16, and Deut.
vi. 8; xi. 18, practice of wearing Phylacteries, or, as they were
called, Tephillin, 'prayer-fillets,' was introduced.1 These, as will be
remembered, were square capsules, covered with leather, containing
on small scrolls of parchment, these four sections of the law: Exod.
xiii. 1-10; 11-16: Deut. vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21. The Phylacteries were
fastened by long leather straps to the forehead, and round the left
arm, near the heart. Most superstitious reverence was attached to
thein, and in later times they were even used as amulets. Never
theless, the Talmud itself gives confirmation that the practice of
constantly wearing phylacteries — or, it might be, making them broad,
and enlarging the borders ofthe garments, was intended 'for to be
seen of men.' Thus we are told of a certain man who had done so,
in order to cover his dishonest practices in appropriating what had
« Jer. Ber. been entrusted to his keeping/ Nay, the Rabbis had in so many
a q linfts 7
and 8 trom words to lay it down as a principle, that the Phylacteries were not to
'Menach be WOrn fOT sll0W"d
37 '' Detailed proof is scarcely required of the charge of vanity and
self-seeking in claiming marked outward honours, such as the upper
most places at feasts and in the Synagogue, respectful salutations in

utterly trivial and absurd, that only the
hairsplitting ingenuity of theologians can
account for them : others so profane that
it is difficult to understand how any re
ligion could co-exist with them. Con
ceive, for example, two schools in contro

versy whether it was lawful to kill a
louse on the Sabbath. (Schabb. 12 a;
107 6.)
1 On the Tephillin, comp. ' Sketches of
Jewish Social Life,' pp. 219-224.

JEWISH ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHRIST'S CHARGES. 409
the market, the ostentatious repetition of the title ' Rabbi, ' or ' Abba, ' chap.
' Father, ' or ' Master, ' " x or the distinction of being acknowledged iv
as 'greatest.' The very earnestness with which the Talmud some- v— ~y — ^
times warns against such motives for study or for piety sufficiently " Makk. ua
establishes it. But, indeed, Rabbinic writings lay down elaborate
directions, what place is to be assigned to the Rabbis, according to
their rank, and to their disciples," and how in the College the most i-Horay, 13
learned, but at feasts the most aged, among the Rabbis, are to occupy
the ' upper seats. ' " So weighty was the duty of respectful salutation ° ^ablia B-
by the title Rabbi, that to neglect it would involve the heaviest
punishment/ Two great Rabbis are described as literally complain- a Ber. 276
ing, that they must have lost the very appearance of learning, since
in the market-place they had only been greeted with ' May your peace
be great,' without the addition ' My masters.' e " Jer- Ber-
a ' J 9 a, about
A few further illustrations of the claims which Rabbinism pre- the middle.
^ Comp. Levy,
ferred may throw light tfn the words of Christ. It reads like a N<?.uhel?r-..
J ° Worterb. 11.
wretched imitation from the New Testament, when the heathen Gov- 10 a
ernor of Cassarea is represented as rising up before Rabbis because
he beheld ' the faces as it were of Angels; ' or like an adaptation of
the well-known story about Constantine the Great when the Governor
of Antioch is described as vindicating a similar mark of respect to
the Rabbis by this, that he had seen their faces and by them con
quered in battle. ' From another Rabbi rays of light are said to f Jer. Ber.
have visibly proceeded/ According to some, they were Epicurasans, the middle
who had no part in the world to come, who referred slightingly to EUs-
' these Rabbis. ' " To supply a learned man with the means of gain- " Jer. sanh
ing money in trade, would procure a high place in heaven.1 It was 1 pes. 836
said that, according to Prov. viii. 15, the sages were to be saluted
as kings; " nay, in some respects, they were higher — for, as between " Gitt. 62 a
a sage and a king, it would be duty to give the former priority
in redemption from captivity, since every Israelite was fit to be a
king, but the loss of a Rabbi could not easily be made up.m But i3^oray-
even this is not all. The curse of a Rabbi, even if uncaused, would
surely come to pass/ It would be too painful to repeat some of the »sann.9o&,
miracles pretended to have been done by them or for them, occasion- irom top
ally in protection of a lie; or to record their disputes which among
them was ' greatest, ' or how they established their respective claims." ° see, &>i
. . ©xfimpls
Nay, their self-assertion, extended beyond this life, and a Rabbi went Babha
so far as to order that he should be buried in white garments, and 86 a
to show that he was worthy of appearing before his Maker." But » Ber. r.96.
J 1 L ° towards
1 These titles are put in the mouth of King Jehoshaphat when saluting the Rabbis.

410

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

n Babha
Mets. 86 a

* St. Mark
ix, 35 ; St.
Luke xiv.
11; xviii.
14

° St. Matt.
xxiii. 13-33

perhaps the climax of blasphemous self-assertion is reached in the
story, that, in a discussion in heaven between God and the heavenly
Academy on a Halakhic question about purity, a certain Rabbi —
deemed the most learned on the subject — was summoned to decide
the p6int! As his soul passed from the body he had exclaimed:
' Pure, pure,' which the Voice from Heaven applied to the state of
the Rabbi's soul; and immediately afterwards a letter had fallen
from heaven to inform the sages of the purpose for which the Rabbi
had been summoned to the heavenly assembly, and afterwards
another enjoining a week's universal mourning for him on pain of
excommunication. "
Such daring profanities must have crushed out all spiritual reli
gion, and reduced it to a mere intellectual display, in which the
Rabbi was always chief — here and hereafter. Repulsive as such
legends are, they will at least help us to understand what otherwise
might seem harsh in our Lord's denunciations of Rabbinism. In
view of all this, we need not discuss the Rabbinic warnings against
pride and self-seeking when connected with study, nor their admoni
tions to humility. ' For, the question here is, what Rabbinism re
garded as pride, and what as humility, in its teachers? Nor is it
maintained that all were equally guilty in this matter; and what
passed around may well have led the more earnest to energetic
admonitions to humility and unselfishness. But no ingenuity can
explain away the facts as above stated, and, when such views pre
vailed, it would have been almost superhuman wholly to avoid what
our Lord denounced as characteristic of Pharisaism. And in this
sense, not with Pharisaic painful literalism, but as opposed to Rab
binic bearing, are we to understand the Lord's warning to His own
not to claim among brethren to be ' Rabbi, ' or ' Abba, ' or ' guide. ' 2
The Law of the Kingdom, as repeatedly taught," was the opposite.
As regarded aims, they were to seek the greatness of service; and as
regarded that acknowledgment which would come from God, it would
be the exaltation of humiliation.
It was not a break in the Discourse,3 rather an intensification of
it, when Christ now turned to make final denunciation of Pharisaism
in its sin and hypocrisy/ Corresponding to the eight Beatitudes in
the Sermon on the Mount with which His public Ministry began,

1 See the quotations to that effect in
Schbitgen, Wetstein,and Wiinsche ad loc.
2 Hac clausula (ver. 11) ostendit, se
non sophistice litigasse de vocibus, sed
rem potius spectasse (Calvin).

3 Keim argues at length, but very in
conclusively, that this is a different Dis
course, addressed to a different audience
and at a different time.

THE 'WOES' UPON PHARISAISM.

411

He now closed it with eight denunciations of woe.1 These are the
forthpouring of His holy wrath, the last and fullest testimony against
those whose guilt would involve Jerusalem in common sin and com
mon judgment. Step by step, with logical sequence and intensified
pathos of energy, is each charge advanced, and with it the Woe of
Divine wrath announced.
The first Woe against Pharisaism was on their shutting the King
dom of God against men by their opposition to the Christ. All knew
how exclusive were their pretensions in confining piety to the pos
session of knowledge, and that they declared it impossible for an
ignorant person to be pious. Had they taught men the Scriptures,
and shown them the right way, they would have been true to their
office; but woe to them who, in their position as leaders, had them
selves stood with their back to the door of the Kingdom, and
prevented the entrance of others.
The second Woe was on their covetousness and hypocrisy. They
made long prayers," but how often did it only cover the vilest selfish
ness, even to the ' devouring ' of widows' houses. We can scarcely
expect the Talmud here to furnish us with illustrative instances, and
yet at least one such is recorded; ° and we recall how often broad
phylacteries covered fraudulent minds.
The third Woe was on their proselytism, which issued only in
making their converts twofold more the children of hell than them
selves. Against this charge, rightly understood, Judaism has in vain
sought to defend itself. It is, indeed, true that, in its pride and
exclusiveness, Judaism seemed to denounce proselytism, laid down
strict rules to test the sincerity ' of converts, and spoke of them in
general contempt "as 'a plague of leprosy. ' a Yet the bitter com
plaint of classical writers," the statements of Josephus/ the frequent
allusions in the New Testament and even the admissions of the
Rabbis, prove their zeal for making proselytes — which, indeed, but
for its moral sequences, would neither have deserved nor drawn down
the denunciation of a ' woe.' Thus the Midrash, commenting on the
words :g 'the souls that they had gotten in Haran, ' refers it to the
converts which Abraham had made, adding that every proselyte was
to be regarded as if a soul had been created/3 To this we may

CHAP. IV

1 Although St. Matt, xxiii. 14 is in all
probability spurious, this ' woe ' occurs in
St. Mark xii. 40,' and in St. Luke xx. 47.
2 For passages in proof see Wetstein
ad loc.
3 Anyone who would see how Jewish

ingenuity can, for the purpose of misre
presenting the words of Christ, put a
meaning even on Jewish documents
which they can never bear, is advised to
read the remarks of the learned Jellinek
on St. Matt, xxiii. 15, in the Beth ha-Midr.

"Ber. 32 6;
Yoma 29 a

'Sot. 21 b;
comp. Jer.
Sot. 19 a

° Horay,13 a
a Yeb. 47 o,
b; Nidd. 13
b
' Tacit.
Hist. V. 6 ;
Seneca in
August. De
Civit. Dei
vi. 112
f Ant. xviii.
3. 5 ; xx. 2,
4; Jewish
War ii. 17.
10 &e. ; 20,
2; Lite 23
e Gen. xii. 5
<• Ber. R. 39,
ed. Warsh.
p. 72 a, and
Vayy. R. 1

412

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

B Midr. on
Eoel. v. 11

<» Shebh. iv.
13 and 35 b,

« Maaser, i.
1

f Maaser.
Iv. 5

add the pride with which Judaism looked back upon the 150,000
Gibeonite converts said to have been made when David avenged the
sin of Saul;" the satisfaction with which it looked forward to the
times of Messiah as those of spontaneous conversion to the Syna
gogue; " and the not unfrequent instances in which a spirit favour
able to proselytism is exhibited in Jewish writings,1 as, also, such a
saying as this, that when Israel is obedient to the will of God, He
brings in as converts to Judaism all the just of the nations, such as
Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, &c/ But after all, may the Lord not have
referred, not to conversion to Judaism in general, but to proselytism
to the sect of the Pharisees, which was undoubtedly sought to the
compassing of sea and land?
The fourth Woe is denounced on the moral blindness of these
guides rather than on their hypocrisy. From the nature of things it
is not easy to understand the precise allusion of Christ. It is true
that the Talmud makes the strangest distinction between an oath or
adjuration, such as ' by heaven ' or ' by earth,' which is not supposed
to be binding; and that by any of the letters of which the Divine
Name was composed, or by any of the attributes of the Divine Being,
when the oath is supposed to be binding/ But it seems more likely
that our Lord refers to oaths or adjurations in connection with vows,
where the casuistry was of the most complicated kind. In general,
the Lord here condemns the arbitrariness of all such Jewish dis
tinctions, which, by attaching excessive value to the letter of an oath
or vow, really tended to diminish its sanctity. All such distinctions
argued folly and moral blindness.
The fifth Woe referred to one of the best-known and strangest
Jewish ordinances, which extended the Mosaic law of tithing, inmost
burdensome minuteness, even to the smallest products of the soil
that were esculent and could be preserved," such as anise. Of these,
according to some, not only the seeds, but, in certain cases, even the
leaves and stalks, had to be tithed/ And this, together with grievous
omission of the weightier matters ofthe Law: judgment, mercy, and
faith. Truly, this was ' to strain out the gnat, and swallow the
camel!' We remember that this conscientiousness in tithing con
stituted one of the characteristics of the Pharisees; but we could
scarcely be prepared for such an instance of it, as when the Talmnd
gravely assures us that the ass of a certain Rabbi had been so well

vol. v. pp. xlvi. xlvii., and his rendering
of the quotation from Ber. R. 28.
1 The learned Danzius has collected
all that can be said on that subject in

Meuschen, Nov. Test, ex Talm. illustr., pp.
649-666. But in my opinion he exag
gerates his case.

THE FINAL 'WOES' ON THE CITY AND PEOPLE. 413
trained as to refuse corn of which the tithes had not been taken ! a CHAP.
And experience, not only in the past but in the present, has only IV
too plainly shown, that a religious zeal which expends itself on v — -y-'
trifles has not room nor strength left for the weightier matters of *JfI'em-
the Law.
From tithing to purification the transition was natural.1 It
constituted the second grand characteristic of Pharisaic piety. We
have seen with what punctiliousness questions of outward purity of
vessels were discussed. But woe to the hypocrisy which, caring for
the outside, heeded not whether that which filled the cup and platter
had been procured by extortion or- was used for excess. And, alas for
the blindness which perceived not, that internal purity was the real
condition of that which was outward!
Woe similarly to another species of hypocrisy, of which, indeed,
the preceding were but the outcome: that of outward appearance of
righteousness, while heart and mind were full of iniquity — just as
those annually-whited sepulchres of theirs seemed so fair outwardly,
but within were full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Woe,
lastly, to that hypocrisy which built and decorated sepulchres of
prophets and righteous men, and by so doing sought to shelter itself
from share in the guilt of those who had killed them. It was not
spiritual repentance, but national pride, which actuated them in this,
the same spirit of self-sufficiency, pride, and impenitence which had
led their fathers to commit the murders. And were they not about
to imbrue their hands in the blood of Him to Whom all the prophets
had pointed? Fast were they in the Divine judgment filling up the
measure of their fathers.
And thicker and heavier than ever before fell the hailstorm of His
denunciations, as He foretold the certain doom which awaited their
national impenitence." Prophets, wise men, and scribes would be bw. 34-36
sent them of Him; and only murder, sufferings, and persecutions
would await them — not reception of their message and warnings.
And so would they become heirs of all the blood of martyred saints,
from that of him whom Scripture records as the first one murdered,
down to that last martyr of Jewish unbelief of whom tradition spoke
in such terms — Zechariah,5 stoned by the king's command in the
1 Keim, with keen insight, character- sets forth their relations to those fore-
ises the Woe which contrasts their prose- runners of Christ, whose graves they
lytising zeal with their resistance to the built.
progress of the Kingdom; then, the 2 We need scarcely remind the reader
third and fourth which denounce their that this Zechariah was the son of Jehoi-
false teaching, the fifth ,and sixth their ada. The difference in the text of St.
false attempts at purity, while the last Matthew may either be due to family

414

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

tt 2 Chron.
xxiv. 20-22
" Sanh. 96
b ; Gitt, 67
t< : also in
the Midr.
on Eccl. iii.
16 and x. 4.
and on
Lament, ii.
2, and iv. 14
< vv. 37-39
'i Vayyik.
R. 25

Court of the Temple," whose blood, as legend had it, did not dry up
those two centuries and a half, but still bubbled on the pavement,
when Nebuzar-adan entered the Temple, and at last avenged it."
And yet it would not have been Jesus, if, while denouncing cer
tain judgment on them who, by continuance and completion of the
crimes of their fathers, through the same unbelief, had served them
selves heirs to all their guilt, He had not also added to it the pas
sionate lament of a love which, even when spurned, lingered with
regretful longing over the lost." They all knew the common illustra
tion ofthe hen gathering her young brood for shelter, d and they knew
also what of Divine protection, blessing, and rest it implied, when
they spoke of being gathered under the wings of the Shekhinah.
Fain and often would Jesus have given to Israel, His people, that
shelter, rest, protection, and blessing — but they would not. Looking
around on those Temple-buildings — that House, it shall be left to
them desolate! And He quitted its courts with these words, that
they of Israel should not see Him again till, the night of their unbelief
past, they would welcome His return with a better Hosanna than
that which had greeted His Royal Entry three days before. And this
was the ' Farewell ' and the parting of Israel's Messiah from Israel and
its Temple. Y'et a Farewell which promised a coming again; and a
parting which implied a welcome in the future from a believing
people to a gracious, pardoning King!

circumstances, unknown to us, which
might admit of his designation as 'the
son of Barachias' (the reading is un
doubtedly correct), or an error may have
crept into the text — how, we know not,
and it is of little moment. There can
be no question that the reference is to
this Zacharias. It seems scarcely neces
sary to refer to the strange notion that
the notice in St. Matt, xxiii, 35 has been
derived from the account of the murder
of Zacharias, the son of Baruch, in the
Temple during the last siege (Jos. War.
iv. 5. 4). To this there are the follow
ing four objections: (1) Baruch (as in
Jos.) and Barachias (as in St. Matt.) are
quite different names, in Greek as in
Hebrew — TfTi$, 'blessed,' Hapoiix, and
'"V2?T2i 'Jehovah will bless,' BapaxiaS.
Comp. for ex. LXX., Neh. iii. 20 with
iii. 30. (2) Because the place of their
slaughter was different, that of the one
'between the porch and the altar,' that
of the other 'in the midst (ev /.ieo-&>) of
the Temple' — either the court of the

women, or that of the Israelites. (3)
Because the murder of the Zacharias re
ferred to by St. Matt, stood out as the
crowning national crime, and as such is
repeatedly referred to in Jewish legend
(see references in margin), and dwelt
upon with many miraculous embellish
ments. (4) Because the clumsiest forger
would scarcely have put into the mouth
of Jesus an event connected with the
last siege of Jerusalem and derived
from Josephus. In general, we take
this opportunity strongly to assert that
only unacquaintance with the whole sub
ject could lead anyone to look to Jose
phus for the source of any part of the
evangelic narrative. To these remarks
we have to add that precisely the
same error (if such it be) as in our
text of St. Matthew occurs in the Tar
gum on Lament, ii. 20, where this Zecha
riah is designated 'the son ( = grand
son) of Iddo,' comp. Ezr. v. 1, and Zech.
i. 1, 7. For the correct reading (' son
of Jehoiada ') in the ' Gospel of the He
brews,' comp. Nicholson, p. 59.

THE LAST SERIES OF PARABLES. 415

CHAPTER V.
THE THIRD DAY IX PASSIOX- WEEK — THE LAST SERIES OF PARABLES: TO
THE PHARISEES AXD TO THE PEOPLE — OX THE WAY TO JERUSALEM:
THE PARABLE OF THE LABOURERS IX THE VINEYARD — IN THE TEMPLE:
THE PARABLE OP THE ' NO ' AND ' YES ' OF THE TWO SONS— THE PARA
BLE OF THE EVIL HUSBANDMEN EVILLY DESTROYED — THE PARABLE
OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING'S SON AND OF THE WEDDING GARMENT.
(St. Matt. xix. 30— xx. 16; St. Matt. xxi. 28-32; St. Matt. xxi. 33-46; St. Mark xii.
1-12; St. Luke xx. 9-19; St. Matt. xxii. 1-14.)
Although it may not be possible to mark their exact succession, it CHAP.
will be convenient here to group together the last series of Parables. v
Most, if not all of them, were spoken 011 that third day in Passion- "- — ^ 
week: the first four to a more general audience; the last three (to
be treated in another chapter) to the disciples, when, on the evening
of that third day, on the Mount of Olives," He told them of the ' Last * st. Matt.
" xxiv 1 Si*
Things.' They are the Parables of Judgment, and in one form or Luke xxi."
another treat of ' the End.'
1. TJie Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard." As treating »st. Matt.
of ' the End, ' this Parable evidently belongs to the last series, although hT'
it may have been spoken previously to Passion- Week, perhaps on that
Mission-journey in Peraea, in connection with which it is recorded by
St. Matthew. At any rate, it stands in internal relation with what
passed on that occasion, and must therefore be studied with reference
to it. We remember, that on the occasion of the rich young ruler's
failure to enter the Kingdom, to which he was so near, Christ had
uttered an earnest warning on the danger of ' riches. ' c In the low « Matt, xix
spiritual stage which the Apostles had as yet attained, it was, pei haps,
only natural that Peter should, as spokesman of the rest, have, in a kind
of spiritual covetousness, clutched at the promised reward, and that in
a tone of self-righteousness he should have reminded Christ of the
sacrifices which they had made. It was most painfully incongruous,
yet part of what He, the Lord, had always to bear, and bore so
patiently and lovingly, from their ignorance and failure to understand

23, 24

416 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK Him and His work. And this want of true sympathy, this constant
v contending with the moral dulness even of those nearest to Him,
— ^<  ' must have been part of His great humiliation and sorrow, one element
in the terrible solitariness of His Life, which made Him feel that, in
the truest sense, 'the Son of Man had not where to lay His Head.'
And yet we also mark the wondrous Divine generosity which, even
in moments of such sore disappointment, would not let Him take for
nought what should have been freely offered in the gladsome service
of grateful love. Only there was here deep danger to the disciples:
danger of lapsing into feelings kindred to those with which the
Pharisees . viewed the pardoned Publicans, or the elder son in the
Parable his younger brother; danger of misunderstanding the right
relations, and with it the very character of the Kingdom, and of work
in and for it. It is to this that the Parable of the Labourers in the
Vineyard refers.
The principle which Christ lays down is, that, while nothing done
for Him shall lose its reward, yet, from one reason or another, no
forecast can be made, no inferences of self-righteousness may be
drawn. It does not by any means follow, that most work done — at
least, to our seeing andjudging — shall entail a greater reward. On
the contrary, 'many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be
first. ' Not all, nor yet always and necessarily, but ' many. ' And in
such cases no wrong has been done; there exists no claim, even in
view ofthe promises of due acknowledgment of work. Spiritual pride
and self-assertion can only be the outcome either of misunderstanding
> st. Matt. God's relation to us, or else of a wrong state of mind towards others "
— that is, it betokens mental or moral unfitness.
Of this the Parable of the Labourers is an illustration. It teaches
nothing beyond this.1 But, while illustrating how it may come that
some who were first are ' last, and how utterly mistaken or Avrong
is the thought that they must necessarily receive more than others,
who, seemingly, have done more — how, in short, work for Christ is
not a ponderable quantity, so much for so much, nor yet we the judges
of when and why a worker has come — it also conveys much that is
new, and, in many respects, most comforting.
We mark, first, the bearing of ' the householder, who went out
immediately, at earliest morn (apa npwi), to hire labourers into his
1 Instead of discussing the explaua- seemed requisite. Our interpretation
tions of others, I prefer simply to turns on this, that the Parable is only
expound that which I have to propose, an illustration of what is said in St.
The difficulties of the usual interpreta- Matt. xix. 30.
tions are so great that a fresh study

xx. 15

THE ' LABOURERS ' IN THE MARKET-PLACE. 41 T
vineyard.' That he did not send his steward, but went himself," and
with the dawn of morning, shows both that there was much work to
do, and the householder's anxiety to have it done. That householder
is God, and the vineyard His Kingdom; the labourers, whom with
earliest morning He seeks in the market-place of busy life, are His
Servants. With these he agreed for a denarius a day, which was
the ordinary wages for a day's labour,1 and so sent them into the
vineyard; in other words, He told them He would pay the reward
promised to labourers. So passed the early hours ofthe morning.
About the third hour (the Jewish working day being reckoned from
sunrise to sunset), that is, probably as it was drawing towards a close,
he went out again, and, as he saw ' others ' standing idle in the
market-place, he said to them, ' Go ye also into the vineyard. ' There
was more than enough to do in that vineyard; enough and more to
employ them. And when he came, they had stood in the market
place ready and waiting to go to work, yet ' idle ' — unemployed as
yet. It might not have been precisely their blame that they had not
gone before; they were ' others ' than those in the market-place
when the Master had first come, and they had not been there at that
time. Only as he now sent them, he made no definite promise.
They felt that in their special circumstances they had no claim;
he told them, that whatsoever was right he would give them; and
they implicitly trusted to his word, to his justice and goodness.
And so happened it yet again, both at the sixth and at the ninth
hour of the day. We repeat, that in none of these instances was it
the guilt of the labourers — in the sense of being due to their unwill
ingness or refusal — that they had not before gone into the vineyard.
For some reason — perhaps by their fault, perhaps not — they had not
been earlier in the market-place. But as soon as they were there and
called, they went, although, of course, the loss of time, however caused,
implied loss of work. Neither did the Master in any case make,
nor they ask for, other promise than that implied in his word and
character. These four things, then, stand out clearly in the Parable: the
abundance of work to be done in the vineyard; the anxiety of the
householder to secure all available labourers; the circumstance that,
not from unwillingness or refusal, but because they had not been
there and available, the labourers had come at later hours; and
that, when they had so come, they were ready to go into the vineyard

1 In Rome, at the time of Cicero, a that is, rather less than in Judasa (comp.
day-labourer received 12 as=about6d. — Marquardt, Rom. Alterth. vol. v. p. 52).

418 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK without promise of definite reward, simply trusting to the truth and
v goodness of him whom they went to serve. . We think here of those
' — -v — ' 'last,' the Gentiles from the east, west, north, and south; " of the
xiii. 30 converted publicans and sinners; of those, a great part of whose lives
has, alas! been spent somewhere else, and who have only come at a
late hour into the market-place; nay, of them also whose opportu
nities, capacity, strength, or time have been very limited — and we
thank God for the teaching of this Parable. And if doubt should still
exist, it must be removed by the concluding sentences of this part of
the Parable, in which the householder is represented as going out at
the last hour, when, finding others standing, ' he asks them why they
stood there all the day idle, to which they reply, that no man had
hired them. These also are, in turn, sent into the vineyard, though
apparently without any expressed promise at all." It thus appears,
that in proportion to the lateness of their work was the felt absence
of any claim on the part of the labourers, and their simple reliance on
their employer.
And now it is even. The time for working is past, and the Lord
of the vineyard bids His Steward [here the Christ] pay His labourers.
But here the first surprise awaits them. The order of payment is
the inverse of that of labour: ' beginning from the last unto the first.'
This is almost a necessary part of the Parable. For, if the first
labourers had been paid first, they would either have gone away with
out knowing what was done to the last, or, if they had remained, their
objection could not have been urged, except on the ground of mani
fest malevolence towards their neighbours. After having received their
wages, they could not have objected that they had not received enough,
but only that the others had received too much. But it was not
the scope of the Parable to charge with conscious malevolence those
who sought a higher reward or deemed themselves entitled to it.
Again, we notice, as indicating the disposition of the later labourers,
that those of the third hour did not murmur, because they had not
got more than they of the eleventh hour. This is in accordance
with their not having made any bargain at the first, but trusted
entirely to the householder. But they of the first hour had their
cupidity excited. Seeing what the others had received, they ex
pected to have more than their due. When they likewise received
every man a denarius, they murmured, as if injustice had been done
1 The word 'idle' in the second clause '- The last clause in our T.R. and A.V.
of ver. 6 is spurious, though it may, of is spurious, though perhaps such a pro-
course, be supplied from the fourth clause, mise was understood.

THE REWARD AS OF GRACE. 419
them. And, as mostly in like circumstances, truth and fairness CHAP.
seemed on their side. For, selecting the extreme case of the V
eleventh hour labourers, had not the Householder made those who — — -r^— '
had wrought1 only one hour equal to them who had 'borne the
burden of the day and the heat ' ? Yet, however fair their reasoning
might seem, they had no claim in truth or equity, for had they not
agreed for one denarius with him? And it had not even been in the
general terms of a day's wages, but they had made the express bar
gain of one denarius. They had gone to work with a.stipulated sum
as their hire distinctly in view. They now appealed to justice; but
from first to last they had had justice. This as regards the ' so much
for so much' principle of claim, law, work, and pay.
But there was yet another aspect than that of mere justice.
Those other labourers, who had felt that, owing to the lateness of
their appearance, they had no claim — and, alas! which of us must
not feel how late* we have been in coming, and hence how little we
can have wrought — had made no bargain, but trusted to the Master.
And as they had believed, so was it unto them. Not because they
made or had any claim — ' I will, however, to give unto this last, even
as unto thee' — the word 'I will' (deXoo) being emphatically put first
to mark ' the good pleasure ' of His grace as the ground of action.
Such a Master could not have given less to those who had come when
called, trusting to His goodness, and not in their deserts. The re
ward was now reckoned, not of work nor of debt, but of grace. " In • Bom. iv.
passing we also mark, as against cavillers, the profound accord be
tween what negative critics would call the 'true Judaic Gospel' of
St. Matthew, and what constitutes the very essence of 'the anti-
Judaic teaching ' of St. Paul — and we ask our opponents to reconcile
on their theory what can only be explained on the ground that St.
Paul, like St. Matthew, was the true disciple of the true Teacher,
Jesus Christ.
But if all is to be placed on the new ground of grace, with which,
indeed, the whole bearing of the later labourers accords, then (as St.
Paul also shows) the labourers who murmured were guilty either of
ignorance in failing to perceive the sovereignty of grace — that it is
within His power to do with His own as He willeth " — or else of
malevolence, when, instead of with grateful joy, they looked on with
an evil eye — and this in proportion as ' the Householder ' was good.
1 1 prefer not rendering with Meyer and ers could not have meant, that the last
the R.Y. kwoir/crav, viz., mpar, by had 'spent,' not ' wrought,' an hour.
'spent, 'but taking the verb as the Hebrew This were a gratuitous imputation to
"273? = 'wrought.' And the first labour- them of malevolence and calumny.

4-8 ; xi. I

420

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

a Horn, ii.;
iii. 28-31;
ix. 18-24
* Eom. xi,
11-18• St. Matt.
xix. 30

But such a state of mind may be equally that ofthe Jews, "and of the
Gentiles." And so, in this illustrative case ofthe Parable, 'the first
shall be last, and the last first. ' 1 And in other instances also, though
not in all — 'many shall be last that are first; and first that are
last. ' c But He is the God, Sovereign in grace, in Whose Vineyard
there is work to do for all, however limited their time, power, or
opportunity; Whose labourers we are, if His Children; Who, in
His desire for the work, and condescension and patience towards
the workers, gpeth out into the market-place even to the eleventh
hour, and, with only gentlest rebuke for not having earlier come
thither and thus lost our day in idleness, still, even to the last, bids
us come; Who promises what is right, and gives far more than is
due to them who simply trust Him: the God not of the Jews nor
of the Gentiles only, but our Father; the God Who not only pays,
but freely gives of His own, and in Whose Wisdom and by Whose
Grace it may be, that, even as the first shall be last", so the last shall
be first. Another point still remains to be noticed. If anywhere, we expect
in these Parables, addressed to the people, forms of teaching and speak
ing with which they were familiar — in other words, Jewish parallels.
But we equally expect that the teaching of Christ, while conveyed
under illustrations with which the Jews were familiar, would be en
tirely different in spirit. And such we find it notably in the present
instance. To begin with, according to Jewish Law, if a man engaged
a labourer without any definite bargain, but on the statement that
he would be paid as one or another of the labourers in the place, he
was, according to some, only bound to pay the lowest wages in the
place; but, according to the majority, the average between the lowest
and the highest.'12 Again, as regards the letter ofthe Parable itself,
we have a remarkable parallel in a funeral oration on a Rabbi, who
died at the early age of twenty-eight. The text chosen was: 'The
ecci. v. 12 sleep of a labouring man is sweet,'" and this was illustrated by a
Parable of a king who had a vineyard, and engaged many labourers
to work in it. One of them was distinguished above the rest by his
ability. So the king took him by the hand, and walked up and
down with him. At even, when the labourers were paid, this one
received the same wages as the others, just as if he had wrought the
whole day. Upon this the others murmured, because he who had

d Babha
Mets. 87 a,
towards
the end

1 The clause which follows in our A.V.
is spurious.
2 Some interesting illustrations of sec
ondary importance, and therefore not

here introduced, may be found at the
close of Babha Mets. s:-> a and the be-
cinninff of b.

THE 'NO' AND 'YES' OF THE TWO SONS. 421
wrought only two hours had received the same as they who had CHAP.
laboured the whole day, when the king replied: ' Why murmur ye? V
This labourer has by his skill wrought as much in two hours as you — ¦>  '
during the whole day. ' " This in reference to the great merits of the " Mldr- °"
° J ° Ecci. v. 11;
deceased young Rabbi. Jer- Ber. n.
But it will be observed that, with all its similarity of form,
the moral of the Jewish Parable is in exactly the opposite direction
from the teaching of Christ. The same spirit of work and pay
breathes in another Parable, which is intended to illustrate the idea
that God had not revealed the reward attaching to each command
ment, in order that men might not neglect those which brought less
return. A king — so the Parable runs — had a garden, for which he
hired labourers without telling them what their wages would be.
In the evening he called them, and, having ascertained from each
under what tree he had been working, he paid them according to
the value of the trees on which they had been engaged. And when
they said that he ought to have told them, which trees would bring
the labourers most pay, the king replied that thereby a great part of
his garden would have been neglected. So had God in like manner
only revealed the reward ofthe greatest of the commandments, that
to honour father and mother," and that of the least, about letting the " E*- xx. 12
mother-bird fly away0 — attaching to both precisely the same reward/ "Deut.xxii.
To these, if need were, might be added other illustrations of that d Debar, e.
painful reckoning about work, or else sufferings, and reward, which xxii. e
characterises Jewish theology, as it did those labourers in theParable.0 ' see, tor
... , ©xamplo,
2. The second Parable m this series — or perhaps rather lllustra- Ber. 5 a
and b, but
tion — was spoken within the Temple. The Saviour had been especially
answering the question of the Pharisees as to His authority by an
appeal to the testimony of the Baptist. This led Him to refer to
the twofold reception of that testimony — on the one hand, by the
Publicans and harlots, and, on the other, by the Pharisees.
The Parable/ which now follows, introduces a man who has two 'St. Matt.
' . ' , xxi. 28-32
sons. He goes to the first, and in language of affection (tskvov)
bids him go and work in his vineyard. The son curtly and rudely
refuses; but afterwards he changes his mind 1 and goes.2 Meantime
1 The word is not the same as that for ! Looking away from the very profane
'repent' in St. Matt. iii. 2. The latter use made of the saying in the , Talmud,
refers to a change of heart, and means we may quote as a literary curiosity the
something spiritual. The word used in following as the origin of the proverb:
the text means only a change of mind He that will not when he may, when he
and purpose. It occurs besides in St. wm ne shall have nay, ns2J^ XaTPXISTD
Matt.xxvii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 8; Heb. vii. nim VN nxi") nnNffi VE3D Ber! 7 a,
21. line 8 from bottom.

422

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. Matt.
xxi. 33 &c.
and par
allels

b ver. 36
0 ver. 43
d ver. 44

the father, when refused by the one, has gone to his other son on
the same errand. The contrast here is marked. The tone is most
' polite, and the answer of the son contains not only a promise, but we
almost see him going: ' I, sir! — and he did not go.' The application
was easy. The first son represented the Publicans and harlots, whose
curt and rude refusal of the Father's call was implied in their life of
reckless sin. But afterwards they changed their mind — and went
into the Father's vineyard. The other son, with his politeness of
tone and ready promise, but utter neglect of obligations undertaken,
represented the Pharisees with their hypocritical and empty pro
fessions. And Christ obliged them to make application of the
Parable. When challenged by the Lord, which of the two had done
the will of his father, they could not avoid the answer. Then it
was that, in language equally stern and true. He pointed the moral.
The Baptist had come preaching righteousness, and, while the self-
righteous Pharisees had not believed him, those sinners had. And
yet, even when the Pharisees saw the effect on these former sinners,
they changed not their minds that they might believe. Therefore the
Publicans and harlots would and did go into the Kingdom before them.
3. Closely connected with the two preceding Parables, and, indeed,
with the whole tenor of Christ's sayings at that time, is that about
the Evil Husbandmen in the Vineyard." As in the Parable about
the Labourers sought by the Householder at different times, the
object here is to set forth the patience and goodness of the owner,
even towards the evil. And as, in the Parable of the Two Sons,
reference is made to the practical rejection of the testimony of the
Baptist by the Jews, and their consequent self-exclusion from the
Kingdom, so in this there is allusion to John as greater than the
prophets," to the exclusion of Israel as a people from their position
in the Kingdom," and to their punishment as individuals/ Only we
mark here a terrible progression. The neglect and non-belief which
had appeared in the former Parable have now ripened into rebellion,
deliberate, aggravated, and carried to its utmost consequences in the
murder ofthe King's only and loved Son. Similarly, what formerly
appeared as their loss, in that sinners went into the Kingdom of
God before them, is now presented alike as their guilt and their
judgment, both national and individual.
The Parable opens, like that in Is. v., with a description of the
complete arrangements made by the Owner of the Vineyard,1 to show

1 ' An hedge ' against animals or ma
rauders, 'a winepress,' or, more specifi

cally (St. Mark), a ' winefat ' (vitoXr/-
viov), into which the juice of the grapes

XX. 9
¦ St. Matt.
xxi. 45

THE EVIL HUSBANDMEN IN THE VINEYARD. 423
how everything had been done to ensure a good yield of fruit, and
what right the Owner had to expect at least a share in it. In the
Parable, as in the prophecy, the Vineyard represents the Theocracy,
although in the Old Testament, necessarily, as identified with the
nation of Israel, " while in the Parable the two are distinguished,
and the nation is represented by the labourers to whom the Vine
yard was ' let out.' Indeed, the whole structure ofthe Parable shows,
that the husbandmen are Israel as a nation, although they are ad
dressed and dealt with in the persons of their representatives and
leaders. And so it was spoken 'to the people,'" and yet 'the chief bstLuke
priests and Pharisees ' rightly ' perceived that He spake of them.
This vineyard the owner had let out to husbandmen, while he
himself ' travelled away ' [abroad] , as St. Luke adds, ' for a long time. '
From the language it is evident, that the husbandmen had the full
management of the vineyard. We remember, that there were three
modes of dealing with land. According to one of these (Arisuth), ' the
labourers ' employed received a certain portion of the fruits, say, a
third or a fourth of the produce/ In such cases it seems, at least "Jer.Bikk.
. ... 64 b
sometimes, to have been the practice, besides giving them a propor
tion of the produce, to provide also the seed (for a field) and to
pay wages to the labourers." The other two modes of letting land «shem. k.
were, either that the tenant paid a money rent to the proprietor,1 warsh, P.
or else that he agreed to give the owner a definite amount of line
produce, whether the harvest had been good or bad/ Such leases 'rSnaivi.
were given by the year or for life: sometimes the lease was even = Babha
hereditary, passing from father to son/ There can scarcely be a hj6r.Bikk.
doubt that it is the latter kind of lease (Chakhranutha, from -on) 64 "
which is referred to in the Parable, the lessees being bound to give
the owner a certain amount of fruits in their season.
Accordingly, ' when the time of the fruits drew near, he sent his
servants to the husbandmen to receive his fruits ' — the part of them
belonging to him, or, as St. Mark and St. Luke express it, ' of the
fruits ofthe vineyard. ' We gather, that it was a succession of servants,
who received increasingly ill treatment from these evil husbandmen.
We might have expected that the owner would now have taken
severe measures; but instead of this he sent, in his patience and good
ness, ' other servants ' — not ' more, ' i which would scarcely have any > as m the
meaning, but 'greater than the first,' no doubt, with the idea that
flowed, and 'a tower' for the watchmen are too minute for discussion here. The
and labourers generally. We may here principal one, in St. Matt. xxi. 40, 41,
remark that the differences in the narra- comp. with the parallels, will be briefly
tion of this Parable in the three Gospels referred to in the text.

424

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. Luke
vii. 26

' St. Matt.
xxiii. 34-36

their greater authority would command respect. And when these
also received the same treatment, we must regard it as involving,
not only additional, but increased guilt on the part of the husband
men. Once more, and with deepening force, does the question arise,
what measures the owner would now take. But once more we have
only a fresh and still greater display of his patience and unwilling
ness to believe that these husbandmen were so evil. As St. Mark
pathetically put it, indicating not only the owner's goodness, but
the spirit of determined rebellion and the wickedness of the hus
bandmen: ' He had yet one, a beloved son — he sent him last unto
them,' on the supposition that they would reverence him. The
result was different. The ajapearance of the legal heir made them
apprehensive of their tenure. Practically, the vineyard was already
theirs; by killing the heir, the only claimant to it would be put out
of the way, and so the vineyard become in every respect their own.
For, the husbandmen proceeded on the idea, that as the owner was
' abroad ' ' for a long time, ' he would not personally interfere — an
impression strengthened by the circumstance that he had not
avenged the former ill-usage of his servants, but only sent others
in the hope of influencing them by gentleness. So the labourers,
' taking him [the son], cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed
him ' — the first action indicating that by violence they thrust him
out of his possession, before they wickedly slew him.
The meaning of the Parable is sufficiently plain. The owner of
the vineyard, God, had let out His Vineyard — the Theocracy — to His
people of old. The covenant having been instituted, He withdrew,
as it were — the former direct communication between Him and Israel
ceased. Then in due season He sent ' His Servants, ' the prophets, to
gather His fruits — they had had theirs in all the temporal and spiri
tual advantages of the covenant. But, instead of returning the
fruits meet unto repentance, they only ill-treated His messengers,
and that increasingly, even unto death. In His longsuffering He
next sent on the same errand ' greater ' than them — John the Baptist."
And when he also received the same treatment, He sent last His own
Son, Jesus Christ. His appearance made them feel, that it was now
a decisive struggle for the Vineyard— and so, in order to gain its
possession for themselves, they cast the rightful heir out of His own
possession, and then killed Him !
And they must have understood the meaning of the Parable,
who had served themselves heirs to their fathers in the murder of
all the prophets," who had just been convicted of the rejection ofthe

THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE-FEAST. 425
Baptist's message, and whose hearts were even then full of murderous CHAP.
thoughts against the rightful Heir of the Vineyard. But, even so, they V
must speak their own judgment. In answer to His challenge, what ' — -^ 
in their view the owner of the vineyard would do to these husband
men, the chief priests and Pharisees could only reply: 'As evil
men evilly will he destroy them. And the vineyard will He let
out to other husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits in their
season.'" »st. Matt.
xxi. 41
The application was obvious, and it was made by Christ, first,
as always, by a reference to the prophetic testimony, showing not
only the unity of all God's teaching, but also the continuity of the
Israel of the present with that of old in their resistance and rejection
of God's counsel and messengers. The quotation, than which none
more applicable could be imagined, was from Ps. cxviii. 22, 23, and
is made in the (Greek) Gospel of St. Mathew — not necessarily by
Christ — from the LXX. Version. The only, almost verbal, difference
between it and the original is, that, whereas in the latter the adoption
of the stone rejected by the builders as head of the corner ('this,'
hoc, nxt) is ascribed to Jehovah, in the LXX. its original designation
(avrrj) as head of the corner (previous to the action of the builders),
is traced to the Lord. And then followed, in plain and unmistakable
language, the terrible prediction, first, nationally, that the Kingdom of
God would be taken from them, and 'given to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof;' and then, individually, that whosoever stumbled
at that stone and fell over it, in personal offence or hostility, should
be broken in pieces,1 but whosoever stood in the way of, or resisted
its progress, and on whom therefore it fell, it would ' scatter Him as
dust.' Once more was their wrath roused, but also their fears. They
knew that He spake of them, and would fain have laid hands on
Him; but they feared the people, who in those days regarded Him
as a prophet. And so for the present they left Him, and went their
way. 4. If Rabbinic writings offer scarcely any parallel to the preceding
Parable, that of the Marriage-Feast of the King's Son and the Wed
ding Garment " seems almost reproduced in Jewish tradition. In its b st. Matt.
xxii. 1-14
oldest form c it is ascribed to Jochanan ben Zakkai, who flourished o shabb.
about the time of the composition of the Gospel of St. Matthew. It Ijjij * and
1 The only Jewish parallel, even in sent his treasurer to collect tribute, when
point of form, so far as I know, is in the people, of the land killed and plun-
Vayy. R. 11 (ed. Warsh., p. 18 a, near dered him.
beginning), where we read of a king who

426

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

• Shabb.
162 1)

appears with variety of, or with additional details in Jewish commen
taries." But while the Parable of our Lord only consists of two parts,"
forming one whole and having one lesson, the Talmud divides it into
two separate Parables, of which the one is intended to show the
necessity of being prepared for the next world — to stand in readiness
for the King's feast;0 while the other' is meant to teach that we ought
to be able to present our soul to God at the last in the same state of
purity in which we had (according to Rabbinic notions) originally
received it." Even this shows the infinite difference between the
Lord's and the Rabbinic use of the Parable. 2 In the Jewish Parable
a King is represented as inviting to a feast,3 without, however, fixing
the exact time for it. The wise adorn themselves in time, and are
seated at the door of the palace, so as to be in readiness, since, as they
argue, no elaborate preparation for a feast can be needed in a palace;
while the foolish go away to their work, arguing there must be time
enough, since there can be no feast without preparation. (The
Midrash has it, that, when inviting the guests, the King had told
them to wash, anoint, and array themselves in their festive garments;
and that the foolish, arguing that, from the preparation of the food
and the arranging of the seats, they would learn when the feast was
to begin, had gone, the mason to his cask of lime, the potter to his
clay, the smith to his furnace, the fuller to his bleaching-ground. )
But suddenly comes the King's summons to the feast, when the wise
appear festively adorned, and the King rejoices over them, and they
are made to sit down, eat and drink; while he is wroth with the
foolish, who appear squalid, and are ordered to stand by and look on
in anguish, hunger and thirst.
The other Jewish Parable e is of a king who committed to his
servants the royal robes. The wise among them carefully laid them
by while the foolish put them on when they did their work. After a
time the king asked back the robes, when the wise could restore them
clean, while the foolish had them soiled. Then the king rejoiced over
the wise, and, while the robes were laid up in the treasury, they were
bidden go home in peace. ' But to the foolish he commanded that
the robes should be handed over to the fuller, and that they them
selves should be cast into prison.' We readily see that the meaning
of this Parable was, that a man might preserve His soul perfectly pure,
and so enter into peace, while the careless, who had lost their original
1 This Parable is only in the Talmud ish Social Life,' p. 179.
in this connection, not in the Midrashim. 3 In the Talmud he invites his ser-
2 The reader will find both these vants; in the Midrash, others.
Parables translated in 'Sketches of Jew-

THE INVITATION TO THE MARRIAGE-FEAST. 42 1
purity [no original sin here], would, in the next world, by suffering,
both expiate their guilt and purify their souls.
When, from these Rabbinic perversions, we turn to the Parable of
our Lord, its meaning is not difficult to understand. The King made
a marriage ' for his Son, when he sent his Servants to call them that
were bidden to the wedding. Evidently, as in the Jewish Parable,
and as before in that of the guests invited to the great Supper," a "St. Luke
preliminary general invitation had preceded the announcement that
all was ready. Indeed, in the Midrash on Lament, iv. 2" it is bea.
. , . . . . Warsh.
expressly mentioned among other distinctions of the inhabitants of p. 73 6
Jerusalem, that none of them went to a feast till the invitation had
been given and repeated. But in the Parable those invited would not
come. It reminds us both of the Parable of the Labourers for the
Vineyard, sought at different times, and of the repeated sending of
messengers to those Evil Husbandmen for the fruits that were due,
when we are next told that the King sent forth other servants to tell
them to come, for he had made ready his ' early meal ' (dpiarov, not
'dinner,' as in the Authorised and Revised Version), and that, no
doubt with a view to the later meal, the oxen and fatlings were killed.
These repeated endeavours to call, to admonish, and to invite, form a
characteristic feature of these Parables, showing that it was one of
the central objects of our Lord's teaching to exhibit the longsuffering
and goodness of God. Instead of giving heed to these repeated and
pressing calls, in the words of the Parable: ' But they [the one class]
made light of it, and went away, the one to his own land, the other
unto his own merchandise. '
So the one class; the other made not light of it, but acted even
worse than the first. ' But the rest laid hands on his servants, en
treated them shamefully, and killed them. ' By this we are to under
stand, that, when the servants came with the second and more press
ing message, the one class showed their contempt for the king, the
wedding of his son, and the feast, and their preference for and pre
occupation with their own possessions or acquisitions — their property
or their trading, their enjoyments or their aims and desires. And,
when these had gone, and probably the servants still remained to
plead the message of their lord, the rest evil entreated, and then
killed them — proceeding beyond mere contempt, want of interest, and
preoccupation with their own affairs, to hatred and murder. The sin
was the more aggravated that he was their king, and the messengers
had invited them to a feast, and that one in which every loyal subject
1 This rather than 'marriage-feast.'

428

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» St. Matt
xxii 8.

* St. Luke
xiv. 21-24

should have rejoiced to take part. Theirs was, therefore, not only
murder, but also rebellion against their sovereign. On this the king,
in his wrath, sent forth his armies, which — and here the narrative in
point of time anticipates the event — destroyed the murderers, and
burnt their city.1
But the condign punishment of these rebels forms only part of
the Parable. For it still leaves the wedding unprovided with guests,
to sympathise with the joy of the king, and partake of his feast.
And so the narrative continues : " ' Then ' — after the king had given
commandment for his armies to go forth, he said to his servants,
' The wedding indeed is ready, but they that were bidden were not
worthy. Go ye therefore into the partings of the highways [where
a number of roads meet and cross], and, as many as ye shall find, bid
to the marriage.' We remember that the Parable here runs parallel
to that other, when, first the outcasts from the city-lanes, and then
the wanderers on the world's highway, were brought in to fill the
place ofthe invited guests." At first sight it seems as if there were
no connection between the declaration that those who had been bidden
had proved themselves unworthy, and the direction to go into the
crossroads and gather any whom they might find, since the latter
might naturally be regarded as less likely to prove worthy. Yet this
is one of the main points in the Parable. The first invitation had
been sent to selected guests — to the Jews — who might have been
expected to be 'worthy,' but had proved themselves unworthy; the
next was to be given, not to the chosen city or nation, but to all that
travelled in whatever direction on the world's highway, reaching them
where the roads of life meet and part.
We have already in part anticipated the interpretation of this
Parable. ' The Kingdom ' is here, as so often in the Old and in the
New Testament, likened to a feast, and more jpecifically to a marriage-
feast. But we mark as distinctive, that the King makes it for His
Son. Thus Christ, as Son and Heir of the Kingdom, forms the central
Figure in the Parable. This is the first point set before us. The
next is, that the chosen, invited guests were the ancient Convenant-
people — Israel. To them God had sent first under the Old Testament.
And, although they had not given heed to His call, yet a second class
of messengers was sent to them under the New Testament. And the
message ofthe latter was, that ' the early meal ' was ready [Christ's

1 Reference is only made to that part
who were murderers. Not that the
others escaped suffering or loss, but, in
accordance with the plan of the Parable,

this is not mentioned. When we read
of 'their city,' may there not here be
also a reference to a commonwealth or
nation ?

THE WEDDING-GARMENT. 429
first coming] , and that all preparations had been made for the great
evening -meal [Christ's Reign] . Another prominent truth is set forth
in the repeated message ofthe King, which points to the goodness and
longsuffering of God. Next, our attention is drawn to the refusal
of Israel, which appears in the contemptuous neglect and pre
occupation with their own things of one party, and the hatred,
resistance, and murder by the other. Then follow in quick succes
sion the command of judgment on the nation, and the burning of
their city — God's army being, in this instance, the Romans — and,
finally, the direction to go into the crossways to invite all men, alike
Jews and Gentiles.
With verse 10 begins the second part of the Parable. The
' Servants ' — that is, the New Testament messengers — had fulfilled
their commission; they had brought in as many as they found, both
bad and good: that is, without respect to their previous history, or
their moral and religious state up to the time of their call; and 'the
wedding was filled with guests ' — that is, the table at the marriage-
feast was filled with those who as guests 'lay around it' (dvaKEipevwv).
But, if ever we are to learn that we must not expect on earth — not
even at the King's marriage-table — a pure Church, it is, surely, from
what now follows. The King entered to see His guests, and among
them he descried one who had not on a wedding-garment. Manifestly,
the quickness of the invitation and the previous unpreparedness of
the guests did not prevent the procuring of such a garment. As the
guests had been travellers, and as the feast was in the King's palace,
we cannot be mistaken in supposing that such garments were supplied
in the palace itself to all those who sought them. And with this
agrees the circumstance, that the man so addressed ' was speechless '
[literally, 'gagged, 'or 'muzzled']." His conduct argued utter in- «asinst.
sensibility as regarded that to which he had been called — ignorance 34^ see the
of what was due to the King, and what became such a feast. For,
although no previous state of preparedness was required of the
invited guests, all being bidden, whether good or bad, yet the fact
remained that, if they were to take part in the feast, they must put
on a garment suited to the occasion. All are invited to the
Gospel-feast; but they who will partake of it must put on the King's
wedding-garment of Evangelical holiness. And whereas it is said in
the Parable, that only one was descried without this garment, this is
intended to teach, that the King will not only generally view His
guests, but that each will be separately examined, and that no one —
no, not a single individual — will be able to escape discovery amidst the

note on it.

430

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

«St. Matt.
xxii. 14

mass of guests, if he has not the 'wedding-garment.' In short, in
that day of trial, it is not a scrutiny of Churches, but of individuals
in the Church. And so the King bade the servants — diotKovois — not
the same who had previously carried the invitation (dovXoig), but
others — evidently here the Angels, His ' ministers,' to bind him hand
and foot, and to ' cast him out into the darkness, the outer ' — that is,
unable to offer resistance and as a punished captive, he was to be cast
out into that darkness which is outside the brilliantly lighted guest-
chamber of the King. And, still further to mark that darkness out
side, it is added that this is the well-known place of suffering and
anguish: ' there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.'
And here the Parable closes with the general statement, appli
cable alike to the first part of the Parable — to the first invited guests,
Israel — and to the second, the guests from all the world: 'For'
(this is the meaning of the whole Parable) ' many are called, but
few chosen. ' a For the understanding of these words we have to keep
in view that, logically, the two clauses must be supplemented by the
same words. Thus, the verse would read: Many are called out of the
world by God to partake of the Gospel-feast, but few out of the world
— not, out of the called — are chosen by God to partake of it. The
call to the feast and the choice for the feast are not identical. The call
comes to all; but it may be outwardly accepted, and a man may sit
down to the feast, and yet he may not be chosen to partake of the
feast, because he has not the wedding-garment of converting, sancti
fying grace. And so one may be thrust even from the marriage-
board into the darkness without, with its sorrow and anguish.
Thus, side by side, yet wide apart, are these two — God's call and
God's choice. The connecting-link between them is the taking of
the wedding-garment, freely given in the Palace. Yet, we must
seek it, ask it, put it on. And so here also, we have, side by side,
God's gift and man's activity. And still, to all time, and to all men,
alike in its warning, teaching, and blessing, is it true: 'Many are
called, but few chosen I '

ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. 431

CHAPTER VI.
THE EVENING OF THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — ON THE MOUNT OF
OLIVES : DISCOURSE TO THE DISCIPLES CONCERNING THE LAST THINGS.
(St. Matt, xxiv.; St. Mark xiii.; St. Luke xxi. 5-38; xii. 35-48.)
The last and most solemn denunciation of Jerusalem had been CHAP.
uttered, the last and most terrible prediction of judgment upon the ^
Temple spoken, and Jesus was suiting the action fo the word. It "— ~~y- '
was as if He had cast the dust off His Shoes against ' the House '
that was to be 'left desolate.' And so He quitted for ever the
Temple and them that held office in it.
They had left the Sanctuary and the City, had crossed black
Kidron, and were slowly climbing the Mount of Olives. A sudden
turn in the road, and the Sacred Building was once more in full
view. Just then the western sun was pouring his golden beams on
tops of marble cloisters and on the terraced courts, and glittering on
the golden spikes on the roof of the Holy Place. In the setting,
even more than in the rising sun, must the vast proportions, the
symmetry, and the sparkling sheen of this mass of snowy marble
and gold have stood out gloriously. And across the black valley,
and up the slopes of Olivet, lay the dark shadows of those gigantic
walls built of massive stones, some of them nearly twenty-four feet
long. Even the Rabbis, despite their hatred of Herod, grow en
thusiastic, and dream that the very Temple-walls would have been
covered with gold, had not the variegated marble, resembling the
waves ofthe sea, seemed more beauteous." It was probably as they ^ab|uBt'k.
now gazed on all this grandeur and strength, that they broke the si h
silence imposed on them by gloomy thoughts of the near desolate
ness of that House, which the Lord had predicted." One and ». st.Matt.
another pointed out to Him those massive stones and splendid build
ings, or spake of the rich offerings with which the Temple was
adorned/ It was but natural that the contrast between this and cx|tlTM1att-
the predicted desolation should have impressed them; natural, also,

432

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.'

BOOK V

»St. Matt.
xxiv. 3
» St. Mark
xiii. 1

• St. Mark
xiii. 3

that they should refer to it— not as matter of doubt, but rather as
of question." Then Jesus, probably turning to one— perhaps to the
first, or else the principal— of His questioners," spoke fully of that
terrible contrast between the present and the near future, when, as
fulfilled with almost incredible literality, ' not one stone would be left
upon another that was not upturned.
In silence they pursued their way. Upon the Mount of Olives
they sat down, right over against the Temple. Whether or not the
others had gone farther, or Christ had sat apart with these four, Peter
and James and John and Andrew are named ° as those who now
asked Him further of what must have weighed so heavily on their
hearts. It was not idle curiosity, although inquiry on such a subject,
even merely for the sake of information, could scarcely have been
blamed in a Jew. But it did concern them personally, for had not the
Lord conjoined the desolateness of that ' House ' with His own ab
sence? He had explained the former as meaning the ruin of the City
and the utter destruction of the Temple. But to His prediction of
it had been added these words: ' Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till
ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord. '
In their view, this could only refer to His Second Coming, and to the
End of the world as connected with it. This explains the twofold
question which the four now addressed to Christ: ' Tell us, when shall
these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy Coming, and of
the consummation of the age? ' z
Irrespective of other sayings, in which a distinction between these
two events is made, we can scarcely believe that the disciples could
have conjoined the desolation of the Temple with the immediate
Advent of Christ and the end of the world. For, in the very saying
which gave rise to their question, Christ had placed an indefinite

1 According to Josephus (War vii. 1. 1)
the city was so upheaved and dug up,
that it was difficult to believe it had ever
been inhabited. At a later period Turnus
Rufus had the ploughshare drawn over it.
And in regard to the Temple walls,
notwithstanding the massiveness of the
stones, with the exception of some cor
ner or portion of wall — left almost to
show how great had been the ruin and
desolation — 'there is, certainly, nothing
now in situ.' (Capt. Wilson in the ' Orel-
nance Survey ').
2 rfji avvTEXsiai tov aioovoi. Godet
argues that the account in the Gospel of
St. Matthew contains, as in other parts
of that Gospel, the combined reports of
addresses, delivered at different times.

That may be so, but the inference of
Godet is certainly incorrect, — that nei
ther the question of the disciples, nor
the discourse of our Lord on that occa
sion primarily referred to the Second
Advent (the TCapovcria). When that
writer remarks, that only St. Matthew,
but neither St. Mark nor St. Luke refer
to such a question by the disciples, he
must have overlooked that it is not only
implied in the ' all these things ' of St.
Mark, and the 'these things' of St.
Luke — which, surely, refer to more than
one thing — but that the question of the
disciples about the Advent takes up a
distinctive part of what Christ had said
on quitting the Temple, as reported in
St. Matt, xxiii. 39.

THE TWOFOLD QUESTION OF THE DISCIPLES. 433
period between the two. Between the desolation of the House and CHAP.
their new welcome to Him, would intervene a period of indefinite VI
length, during which they would not see Him again. The disciples v— " -v —
could not have overlooked this; and hence neither their question, nor
yet the Discourse of our Lord, have been intended to conjoin the two.
It is necessary to keep this in view when studying the words of
Christ; and any different impression must be due to the exceeding
compression in the language of St. Matthew, and to this, that Christ
would purposely leave indefinite the interval between ' the desolation
ofthe house' and His own Return.
Another point of considerable importance remains to be noticed.
When the Lord, on quitting the Temple, said: 'Ye shall not see Me
henceforth,' He must have referred to Israel in their national capa
city — to the Jewish polity in Church and State. If so, the promise
in the text of visible reappearance must also apply to the Jewish
Commonwealth, to Israel in their national capacity. Accordingly, it
is suggested that in the present passage Christ refers to His Advent,
not from the general cosmic viewpoint of universal, but from the
Jewish standpoint of Jewish, history, in which the destruction of
Jerusalem and the appearance of false Christs are the last events of
national history, to be followed by the dreary blank and silence of the
many centuries of the ' Gentile dispensation, ' broken at last by the
events that usher in His Coming/ "st- Luke
° xxi. 24 &e.
Keeping in mind, then, that the disciples could not have conjoined
the desolation of the Temple with the immediate Advent of Christ
into His Kingdom and the end of the world, their question to Christ
was twofold: When would these things be ? and, What would be the
signs of His Royal Advent and the consummation of the ' Age ' ?
On the former the Lord gave no information; to the latter His
Discourse on the Mount of Olives was directed. On one point the
statement of the Lord had been so novel as almost to account for
their question. Jewish writings speak very frequently of the so-called
' sorrows of the Messiah ' (Chebhley shel Mashiach"1). These were "Shabb.
partly those of the Messiah, and partly — perhaps chiefly — those coming
on Israel and the world previous to, and connected with, the Coming
of the Messiah. There can be no purpose in describing them in detail,
since the particulars mentioned vary so much, and the descriptions are
so fanciful. But they may generally be characterised as marking a
period of internal corruption" and of outward distress, especially of "EndqttneTractate
1 If these are computed to last nine of fanciful analogy with the ' sorrows ' of Sotah
months, it must have been from a kind a woman.

434

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

n Comp.
Sanh. 98
and b

b Comp.
Jos. Warii.
13, 4;
and espe
cially vi. 6.
2

° Sukk. 62 a
and b

d Zech. xii.
12

¦ See espe
cially
Yaikut on
Is. Ix. vol.
ii. par 359,
quoted at
length in
Appendix
IX.

famine and War, of which the land of Palestine was to be the scene,
and in which Israel were to be the chief sufferers/ As the Rabbinic
notices which we possess all date from after the destruction of
Jerusalem, it is, of course, impossible td make any absolute assertion
on the point; but, as a matter of fact, none of them refers to desola
tion ofthe City and Temple as one ofthe ' signs ' or ' sorrows ' of the
Messiah. It is true that isolated voices proclaimed that fate of the
Sanctuary, but not in any connection with the triumphant Advent of
Messiah; 1 and, if we are to judge from the hopes entertained by the
fanatics during the last siege of Jerusalem, they rather expected a
Divine, no doubt Messianic, interposition to save the City and Temple,
even at the last moment." When Christ, therefore, proclaimed the
desolation of ' the house,' and even placed it in indirect connection
with His Advent, He taught that which must have been alike new
and unexpected.
This may be the most suitable place for explaining the Jewish ex
pectation connected with the Advent of the Messiah. Here we have
first to dismiss, as belonging to a later period, the Rabbinic fiction of
two Messiahs: the one, the primary and reigning, the Son of David;
the other, the secondary and warfaring Messiah, the Son of Ephraim or
of Manasseh. The earliest Talmudic reference to this second Messiah "
dates from the third century of our era, and contains the strange and
almost blasphemous notices that the prophecy of Zechariah, d concerning
the mourning for Him Whom they had pierced, referred to Messiah the
Son of Joseph, Who would be killed in the war of Gog and Magog;2
and that, when Messiah the Son of David saw it, He ' asked life ' of
God, Who gave it to Him, as it is written in Ps. ii. : ' Ask of Me, and I
will give Thee, ' upon which God informed the Messiah that His father
David had already asked and obtained this for Him, according to Ps.
xxi. 4. Generally the Messiah, Son of Joseph, is connected with the
gathering and restoration of the ten tribes. Later Rabbinic writings
connect all the sufferings of the Messiah for sin with this Son of
Joseph." The war in which ' the Son of Joseph ' succumbed would
finally be brought to a victorious termination by ' the Son of David, '
when the supremacy of Israel would be restored, and all nations walk
in His Light.
It is scarcely matter for surprise, that the various notices about
the Messiah, Son of Joseph, are confused and sometimes inconsistent,
1 When using the expression • Advent ' 2 Another Rabbinic authority, however,
in this connection, we reter to the Ad- refers it to the 'evil impulse,' which was,
vent of Messiah to reign. His Messianic in the future, to be annihilated-
manifestation — not His Birth.

JEWISH TERMS FOR THE FUTURE DISPENSATION.

435

considering the circumstances in which this dogma originated. Its
primary reason was, no doubt, controversial. When hardly pressed
by Christian argument about the Old Testament prophecies of the
sufferings of the Messiah, the fiction about the Son of Joseph as dis
tinct from the Son of David would offer a welcome means of escape.'
Besides, when in the Jewish rebellion " under the false Messiah ' Bar-
Kokhba ' ( ' the Son of a Star ' ") the latter succumbed to the Romans
and was killed, the Synagogue deemed it necessary to rekindle Israel's
hope, that had been quenched in blood, by the picture of two Messiahs,
of whom the first should fall in warfare, while the second, the Son of
David, would carry the contest to a triumphant issue.2
In general, we must here remember that there is a difference
between three terms used in Jewish writings to designate that which
is to succeed the ' present dispensation' or ' world ' (Olam hazzeh),
although the distinction is not always consistently carried out.
This happy period would begin with ' the days of the Messiah '
(rVE?3~ nw). These would stretch into the ' coming age ' (Athid labho),
and end with ' the world to come ' (Olam habba) — although the latter
is sometimes made to include the whole of that period.3 The most
divergent opinions are expressed of the duration of the Messianic
period. It seems like a round number when we are told that it would
last for three generations/ In the fullest discussion on the subject,"
the opinions of different Rabbis are mentioned, who variously fix the
period at from forty to one, two, and even seven thousand years,
according to fanciful analogies.4

1 Comp. J. M. Glaisener, De Gemino
Jud. Mess. pp. 145 &c. ; Schbttgen, Horse
Heb. ii. pp. 360-366.
2 So also both Levy (Neuhebr. Worterb.
vol. iii. p. 271 a) and Hamburger (Real.
Encykl. f. Bib. u.Talm., Abtheii.ii.p.768).
I must here express surprise that a writer
so learned and independent as Castelli (II
Messia, pp. 224-236) should have argued
that the theory of a Messiah, son of
Joseph, belonged to the oldest Jewish
traditions, and did not arise as explained
in the text. The only reason which Cas
telli urges against a view, which he ad
mits to be otherwise probable, is that
certain Rabbinic statements speak also
of the Son of David as suffering. Even
if this were so, such inconsistencies
would prove nothing, since there are so
many instances of them in Rabbinic
writings. But, really, the only passage
which from its age here deserves serious
attention is Sanh. 98 a and b. In Yaikut

CHAP. VI

* 132-135
A.D.
* Numb.
xxiv. 17

c Siphre.ed.
Friedmann,
p. 134 a,
about the
middle<• Tanchu-
ma, as in
Note 3

the suffering Messiah is expressly desig
nated as the Son of Ephraim.
3 In Bemidb. R. 15 (ed. Warsh. p. 63 a,
lines 9 and 8 from bottom), the ' days of
the Messiah ' are specially distinguished
from the 'Athid labho,' sceculum futu-
rum. In Tanchuma (Eqebh, ed. Warsh.
ii. p. 105 a, about the middle) it is said,
'And after the days of the Messiah
comes the "Olam habba"' — so that the
Messianic time is there made to include
the sazcidum futurum. Again, in Pes. 68
a and Sanh. 91 b, ' the days of the Messiah'
are distinguished from the ' Olam habba,'
and, lastly (not to multiply instances),
in Shabb. 113 b from the Athid labho.
4 40 years = the wilderness wander
ings : 1000 years = one day, Ps. xc. 4 ;
2000 years = ' the clay of vengeance and
the year of salvation ' (Is. lxiii. 4) ; "7000
years = the marriage-week (Is. Ixii. 5), a
day being = 1000 years.

436

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

a Yaikut on
Is. vol. ii.
p. 42 c;
Siphra, ed.
Weiss, 112 b
i Sanh. 113

° Kethub.
Ilia

a IV. Esd.
vi. 23 &c.

Where statements rest on such fanciful considerations, we can
scarcely attach serious value to them, nor expect agreement. This
remark holds equally true in regard to most of the other points in
volved. Suffice it to say, that, according to general opinion, the Birth
of the Messiah would be unknown to His contemporaries; 1 that He
would appear, carry on His work, then disappear — probably for forty-
five days; then reappear again, and destroy the hostile powers of the
world, notably ' Edom, ' ' Armilos, ' the Roman Power — the fourth and
last world-empire (sometimes it is said: through Ishmael). Ransomed
Israel would now be miraculously gathered from the ends of the earth,
and brought back to their own land, the ten tribes sharing in their
restoration, but this only on condition of their having repented of
their former sins. 2 According to the Midrash, * all circumcised Israel
would then be released from Gehenna, and the dead be raised — ac
cording to some authorities, by the Messiah, to Whom God would
give ' the Key of the Resurrection of the Dead. ' b This Resurrection
would take place in the land of Israel, and those of Israel who had
been buried elsewhere would have to roll under ground — not without
suffering pain" — till they reached the sacred soil. Probably the
reason of this strange idea, which was supported by an appeal to the
direction of Jacob and Joseph as to their last resting-place, was to
induce the Jews, after the final desolation of their land, not to quit
Palestine. This Resurrection, which is variously supposed to take
place at the beginning or during the course of the Messianic mani
festation, would be announced by the blowing of the great trumpet/ 3
It would be difficult to say how many of these strange and confused
views prevailed at the time of Christ; a which of them were uni
versally entertained as real dogmas; or from what source they had
been originally derived. Probably many of them were popularly
entertained, and afterwards further developed — as we believe, with
elements distorted from Christian teaching.
We have now reached the period of the ' coming age ' (the Athid
labho, or seeculum futurum). All the resistance to God would be
concentrated in the great war of Gog and Magog, and with it the

1 This confirms St. John vii. 26, and
affords another evidence that it cannot
have been of Ephesian authorship, but
that its writer must have been a Jew,
intimately conversant with Jewish belief.
2 But here opinions are divided, some
holding that they will never be restored.
See both opinions in Sanh. 110 b.
3 On the Resurrection-body, the bone
Luz, the dress worn, and the reappear

ance of the former bodily defects, see
previous remarks, pp. 398, 399.
4 In this extremely condensed abstract,
I have thought it better not to cumber
the page with Rabbinic references.
They would have been too numerous,
and the learned reader can easily find
sufficient to bear on each clause in books
treating on the subject.

THE 'NEW JERUSALEM' AND THE NEW LAW. 437
prevalence of all wickedness be conjoined. And terrible would be the CHAP.
straits of Israel. Three times would the enemy seek to storm the VI
Holy City. But each time would the assault be repelled — at the v— ^> 
last with complete destruction of the enemy. The sacred City would
now be wholly rebuilt and inhabited. But oh, how different from of
old ! Its Sabbath-boundaries would be strewed with pearl s and precious
gems. The City itself would be lifted to a height of some nine miles
— nay, with realistic application of Is. xlix. 20, it would reach up to
the throne of God, while it would extend from Joppa as far as the
gates of Damascus! For, Jerusalem was to be the dwelling-plaee
of Israel, and the resort of all nations. But more glorious in Jeru
salem would be the new Temple which the Messiah was to rear, and
to which those five things were to be restored which had been
wanting in the former Sanctuary; the Golden Candlestick, the Ark,
the Heaven-lit fire on the Altar, the Holy Ghost, and the Cherubim.
And the land of Israel would then be as wide as it had been sketched
in the promise which God had given to Abraham, and which had
never before been fulfilled — since the largest extent of Israel's rule
had only been over seven nations, whereas the Divine promise
extended it over ten, if not over the whole earth.
Strangely realistic and exaggerated by Eastern imagination as
these hopes sound, there is, connected with them, a point of deepest
interest on which, as explained in another place,1 remarkable diver
gence of opinion prevailed. It concerns the Services of the rebuilt
Temple, and the observance ofthe Law in Messianic days. One party
here insisted on the restoration of all the ancient Services, and the
strict observance ofthe Mosaic and Rabbinic Law — nay, on its full im
position on the Gentile nations.2 But this view must have been at
least modified by the expectation, that the Messiah would give a new
Law." But was this new Law to apply only to the Gentiles, or also 'Midr. on
, . „ .. . .. Cant. ii. 13
to Israel? Here again there is divergence of opinions. According («>™. r.
to some, this Law would be binding on Israel, but not on the Gentiles, Pugio '
' Fidei,
or else the latter would have a modified or condensed series of pp. 782,
783); Yal-
ordinances (at most thirty commandments). But the most liberal tutu. par.
view, and, as we may suppose, that most acceptable to the enlight
ened, was, that in the future only these two festive seasons would
be observed: The Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Esther (or
else that of Tabernacles), and that of all the sacrifices only thank-
1 See Book in. ch. iii. and Appen- phylacteries (comp. Ber. R. 98 ; Midr. on
dix XIV. Ps. xxi.).
2 Such as even the wearing of the

438

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

* Babha B
75 a

" Yaikut 11.
p. 57 b, par.
363, line 3
« Babha B.
75 b

a Gen.
xviii. 4, 5

offerings would be continued. l Nay, opinion went even further, and
many held that in Messianic days the distinctions of pure and im
pure, lawful and unlawful, as regarded food, would be abolished/
There can be little doubt that these different views were entertained
even in the days of our Lord and in Apostolic times, and they
account for the exceeding bitterness with which the extreme Phari
saic party in the Church at Jerusalem contended, that the Gentile
converts must be circumcised, and the full weight of the yoke of
the Law laid on their necks. And with a view to this new Law,
which God would give to his world through the Messiah, the Rabbis
divided all time into three periods: the primitive, that under the
Law, and that of the Messiah/
It only remains briefly to describe the beatitude of Israel, both
physical and moral, in those days, the state of the nations, and,
lastly, the end of that ' age ' and its merging into ' the world to
come ' (Olam habba). Morally, this would be a period of holiness, of
forgiveness, and of peace. Without, there would be no longer enemies
nor oppressors. And within the City and Land a more than Para
disiacal state would prevail, which is depicted in even more than the
usual realistic Eastern language. For that vast new Jerusalem (not
in heaven, but in the literal Palestine) Angels were to cut gems
45 feet long and broad (30 cubits), and place them in its gates; a the
windows and gates were to be of precious stones, the walls of silver,
gold, and gems, while all kinds of jewels would be strewed about, of
which every Israelite was at liberty to take. Jerusalem would be as
large as, at present, all Palestine, and Palestine as all the world/
Corresponding to this miraculous extension would be a miraculous
elevation of Jerusalem into the air." And it is one ofthe strangest
mixtures of self-righteousness and realism with deeper and more
spiritual thoughts, when the Rabbis prove by references to the pro
phetic Scriptures, that every event and miracle in the history of
Israel would find its counterpart, or rather larger fulfilment, in
Messianic days. Thus, what was recorded of Abraham d would, on
account of his merit, find, clause by clause, its counterpart in the
future: 'Let a little water be fetched,' in what is predicted in Zech.
xiv. 8 ; ' wash your feet, ' in what is predicted in Is. iv. 5 ; ' rest
yourselves under the tree,' in what is said in Is. iv. 4; and ' I will
fetch a morsel of bread,' in the promise of Ps. lxxii. 16/

1 Vayyik. R. 9, 27 ; Midr. on Ps. Ivi. ; c.
2 Midr. on Ps. cxlvi. ; Vayy. R. 13 ;
Tanch., Shemini 7 and 8.

3 Yaikut on Is. xxvi. ; Sanh. 97 a: Ab.
Z. 9 a.

' Shabb. S3
b
" Kethub.
1116

THE GENTILE WORLD IN THE MESSIANIC AGE. 439
But by the side of this we find much coarse realism. The land CHAP.
would spontaneously produce the best dresses and the finest cakes;" VI
the wheat would grow as high as palm-trees, nay, as the mountains,
while the wind would miraculously convert the grain into flour, and
cast it into the valleys. Every tree would become fruit-bearing;0
nay, they were to break forth, and to bear fruit every day;" daily 'Shabb. eo
was every woman to bear child, so that ultimately every Israelitish
family would number as many as all Israel at the time of the Exodus. d d Midr- ou
Ps. xiv.
All sickness and disease, and all that could hurt, would pass away.
As regarded death, the promise of its final abolition" was, with .is. xxv. 8
characteristic ingenuity, applied to Israel, while the statement that
the child should die an hundred years old 'was understood as re- fis. ixv. 20
ferring to the Gentiles, and as teaching that, although they would
die, yet their age would be greatly prolonged, so that a centenarian
would be regarded as only a child. Lastly, such physical and out
ward loss as Rabbinism regarded as the consequence of the Fall, g sBer. b. 12
would be again- restored to man/ : "Bemidb.
It would be easy to multiply quotations even more realistic than
these, if such could serve . any good purpose. The same literalism
prevails in regard to the reign of King Messiah over the nations of
the world. Not only is the figurative language of the prophets
applied in the most external manner, but illustrative details of the
same character are added. Jerusalem would, as the residence of the
Messiah, become the capital of the world, and Israel take the place
of the (fourth) world-monarchy, the Roman Empire. After the.
Roman Empire none other was to rise, for it was to be immediately
followed by the reign of Messiah.1 But that day, or rather that ivayyik.R.
of the fall of the (ten) Gentile nations, which would inaugurate the 13, en
Empire of Messiah, was among the seven things unknown to man/ kBer. e.
Nay, God had conjured Israel not to communicate to the Gentiles
the mystery ofthe calculation of the times.™ But the very origin of ™ Kethub.
the wicked world-Empire had been caused by Israel's sin. It had
been (ideally) founded 2 when Solomon contracted alliance with the
daughter of Pharaoh, while Romulus and Remus rose when Jeroboam
set up the worship of the two calves. Thus, what would have
become the universal Davidic Rule had, through Israel's sin, been
changed into subjection to the Gentiles. Whether or not these
1 They are the following six: His 2 On that day Gabriel had descended,
splendour, the continuance of life, hi3 cut a reed from the ocean, and planted it
original more than gigantic stature, the in mud from the sea, and on this the city
fruits of the ground, and of trees, and the of Rome was founded (Siphre 86 a).
. brightness of the heavenly lights.

111 i

440

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V
¦ Ab. Z. 24 a
l> Ab. Z. 3 6;
Yeb. 24 b

° Tanch.,
ed. Warsh
ii p. 116 a,
top

a Taan, 7 a
» Kethub.
111b

'Pirke d.
B. Eliez. 34

s Erub. 19 a

ll As to the
latter, a
solitary
opinion,
in Moed K.
27 a

Gentiles would in the Messianic future become proselytes, seems a
moot question. Sometimes it is affirmed; " at others it is stated
that no proselytes would then be received," and for this good reason,
that in the final war and rebellion those proselytes would, from fear,
cast off the yoke of Judaism and join the enemies.
That war, which seems a continuation of that of Gog and Magog,
would close the Messianic era. The nations, who had hitherto given
tribute to Messiah, would rebel against Him, when He would destroy
them by the breath of His mouth, so that Israel alone would be left
on the face of the earth/ The duration of that period of rebellion is
stated to be seven years. It seems, at least, a doubtful point, whether
a second or general Resurrection was expected, the more probable
view being, that there was only one Resurrection, and that of Israel
alone, a or, at any rate, only of the studious and the pious/ and
that this was to take place at the beginning of the Messianic reign.
If the Gentiles rose at all. it would only be immediately again to
die.'1 Then the final Judgment would commence. We must here once
more make distinction between Israel and the Gentiles, with whom,
nay, as more punishable than they, certain notorious sinners, heretics,
and all apostates, were to be ranked. Whereas to Israel the Gehenna,
to which all but the perfectly righteous had been consigned at death,
had proved a kind of purgatory, from which they were all ultimately
delivered by Abraham,5 or, according to some of the later Midrashim,
by the Messiah, no such deliverance was in prospect for the heathen
nor for sinners of Israel/ The question whether the fiery torments
suffered (which are very realistically described) would at last end in
annihilation, is one which at different times received different answers,
as fully explained in another place/ At the time of Christ the
punishment of the wicked was certainly regarded as of eternal dura
tion. Rabbi Jose, a teacher of the second century, and a repre
sentative of the more rationalistic school, says expressly, ' The fire of
Gehinnom is never quenched.' And even the passage, so often
(although only partially) quoted, to the effect, that the final tor
ments of Gehenna would last for twelve months, after which body
and soul would be annihilated, excepts from this a number of Jewish
sinners, specially mentioned, such as hereties, Epicureans, apostates,
and persecutors, who are designated as ' children of Gehenna '

1 It is, of course, not denied, that
individual voices would have assigned
part in the world to come to the pious
from among the Gentiles. But even so,

what is the precise import of this
admission? 2 See Appendix XIX.

THE 'WORLD TO COME.' 441
(ledorey doroth, to ' ages of ages ')/ And with this other statements CHAP.
agree," so that at most it would follow that, while annihilation would VI
await the less guilty, the most guilty were to be reserved for eternal ' — -v- — '
punishment. * Rosh
r haSh. 17 a
Such, then, was the final Judgment, to be held in the valley of t>sann.x.3;
Jehoshaphat by God, at the head ofthe Heavenly Sanhedrin, composed 106 b
of the elders of Israel/ Realistic as its description is, even this is • Tanch.
u. s. i. p. 71
terribly surpassed by a passage d in which the supposed pleas for a, b
mercy by the various nations are adduced and refuted, when, after an t0Ag" z' 2 "
unseemly contention between God and the Gentiles — equally shocking
to good taste and blasphemous — about the partiality that had been
shown to Israel, the Gentiles would be consigned to punishment. All
this in a manner revolting to all reverent feeling. And the contrast
between the Jewish picture ofthe last Judgment and that outlined in
the Gospel is so striking, as alone to vindicate (were such necessary)
the eschatological parts of the New Testament, and to prove what
infinite distance there is between the Teaching of Christ and the
Theology of the Synagogue.
After the final judgment we must look for the renewal of heaven
and earth. In the latter neither physical e nor moral darkness would « Ber. e. 91
any longer prevail, since the Yetser haBa, or ' Evil impulse, ' would be
destroyed/1 And renewed earth would bring forth all without < Yaikut i.
blemish and in Paradisiacal perfection, while alike physical and moral P'
evil had ceased. Then began the ' Olam habba,' or ' world to come.'
The question, whether any functions or enjoyments of the body would
continue, is variously answered. The reply of the Lord to the
question of the Sadducees about marriage in the other world seems
to imply, that materialistic views on the subject were entertained at
the time. Many Rabbinic passages, such as about the great feast
upon Leviathan and Behemoth prepared for the righteous in the
latter days,6 confirm only too painfully the impression of grossly * Babha b.
materialistic expectations.2 On the other hand, passages may be
1 But it does not seem clear to me, materialistic, when we read how the skin
whether this conjunction of the cessation of slaughtered Leviathan is to be made

of darkness, together with that of the into tents, girdles, necklets, or armlets
Yetser haRa, is not intended to be taken for the blessed, according to their vary-
figuratively and spiritually. ing merits (Babha B. 75 a). Altogether
2 At the same time, many quotations the account of the nature and hunt of
by Christian writers intended to show this Leviathan, of the feast held, the
the materialism of Jewish views are various dishes served (Babha B. 74 b to
grossly unfair. Thus, for example, Ber. 75 b), and the wine drunk on the oc-
57 b, quoted by Weber (Altsynag. Theol. casion (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Gen. xxvii.
p. 384), certainly does not express the 25 ; Targ. on Cant. viii. 2 ; on Eccles. ix.
grossly carnal expectancy imputed to it. 7), are too coarsely materialistic for
On the other hand, it is certainly grossly quotation. But what a contrast to the

442

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

» 2 Mace. v.
2,3.
>¦ Or, Sibyll.
iii. 795-306

«¦ IV. Bsdr.
v. 1-12

quoted in which the utterly unmaterial character of the ' world to
come ' is insisted upon in most emphatic language/ In truth, the
same fundamental divergences here exist as on other points, such as
the abode of the beatified, the visible or else invisible glory which
they would enjoy, and even the new Jerusalem. And in regard to
the latter, ' as indeed to all those references to the beatitudes of the
world to come, it seems at least doubtful, whether the Rabbis may not
have intended to describe rather the Messianic days than the final
winding up of all things.
To complete this sketch of Jewish opinions, it is necessary,
however briefly, to refer to the Pseudepigraphic Writings,2 which, as
will be remembered, expressed the Apocalyptic expectancies of the
Jews before the time of Christ. But here we have always to keep in'
mind this twofold difficulty: that the language used in works of this
kind is of a highly figurative character, and must therefore not be liter
ally pressed; and that more than one of them, notably IV. Esdras,
dates from post-Christian times, and was, in important respects, admit
tedly influenced by Christian teaching. But in the main the picture of
Messianic times in these writings is the same as that presented by
the Rabbis. Briefly, the Pseudepigraphic view may be thus sketched/
Of the so-called ' Wars of the Messiah ' there had been already a kind
of prefigurement in the clays of Antiochus Epiphanes, when armed
soldiery had been seen to carry on warfare in the air/ This sign is
mentioned in the Sibylline Books ° as marking the coming end, to
gether with the sight of swords in the starlit sky at night, the falling
of dust from heaven, the extinction of the sunlight and the appearance
of the moon by day, and the dropping of blood from the rocks. A
somewhat similar, though even more realistic, picture is presented in
.connection with the blast of the third trumpet in IV. (II.) Esdras/
Only that there the element of moral judgment is more clearly
introduced. This appears still more fully in another passage of the
same book,e in which, apparently in connection with the Judgment,
the influence of Christian teaching, although in an externalised form,
may be clearly traced. A perhaps even more detailed description of

description of the ' Last Things ' by our
Lord and His Apostles! This alone
would furnish sufficient presumptive
evidence in favour of the New Testament.
I have tried to touch this very painful
matter as delicately as I could, rather by
allusions than by descriptions, which
could only raise prejudices.
1 This is the Jerusalem built of

sapphire, which is to descend from
heaven, and in the central sanctuary of
which (unlike the worship of the Book
of Revelatiou) Aaron is to officiate and
to receive the priestly gifts (Taan. 5 a ;
Baba B. 75 b).
2 See Appendix.
3 Comp. generally Schiirer, Neutest.
Zeitgesch. pp. 579, &c.

THE MESSIANIC AGE IN THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS. 443
the wickedness, distress, and physical desolation upon earth at that CHAP.
time, is given in the Book of Jubilees/ VI
At last, when these distresses have reached their final height, when  <- —
signs are in the sky, ruin upon earth, and the unburied bodies that * Boo,k ot
' *• ' Jubilees
cover the ground are devoured by birds and wild beasts, or else Mili-
swallowed up by the earth," would God send ' the King,' Who would s&yn? m.
put an end to unrighteousness. Then would follow the last war

633-652 u. s. 653-

against Jerusalem, in which God would -fight from heaven with the ^ flCg™£;
,, c^ own Him/ But while in &?!&'$

nations, when they would submit to, and own Him/ But while in tlTeaoc'tln

the Book of Enoch and in another work of the same class a the f6n a°nYtoi-
judgment is ascribed to God, and the Messiah represented as appear- 1°^°*
ing only afterwards,6 1 in the majority of these works the judgment or Moa- x- *-w
its execution is assigned to the Messiah/ Enochxo.37
In the land thus restored to Israel, and under the rule of King ]$? '&$$£:
Messiah, the new Jerusalem would be the capital, purified from the Enochfu.
heathen, g enlarged, nay, quite transformed. This Jerusalem had been ^ xi™!w :
shown to Adam before his Fall, 2 but after that both it and Paradise fxlvlg; 9%*/
had been withdrawn from him. It had again been shown to Abra- lUx^-w;
ham,h to Moses, and to Ezra/ The splendour of this new Jerusalem Ba?Cxx£xix;
is described in most glowing language/ 3 Of the glorious Kingdom liljgfiiiu.
thus instituted, the Messiah would be King,m4 although under the (h^aras
supremacy of God. His reign would extend over the heathen nations.
The character of their submission was differently viewed, according to

xii. 32-34;
xiii. 25-30,
34-38 g "Psalter of
the more or less Judaic standpoint of the writers. Thus, in the Book soi. xvii.
of Jubilees " the seed of Jacob are promised possession of the whole " Apoe. of
earth; they would 'rule over all nations according to their pleasure; 3-6ru°
and after that draw the whole earth unto themselves, and inherit it ^li &s<?r"
for ever. ' In the ' Assumption of Moses ' ° this ascendency of Israel ' T°|>; xi^-
seems to be conjoined with the idea of vengeance upon Rome,5 |; Bo?k,?1'
although the language employed is highly figurative/ On the other 6,7;xc.28;
hand, in the Sibylline Books q the nations are represented as, in view' Baruch.
of the blessings enjoyed by Israel, themselves turning to acknowledge >» orac.
God, when perfect mental enlightenment and absolute righteous- 47-50 and
ness, as well as physical well-being, would prevail under the rule and psaiter 01
Solomon
1 In the Assumplio Mosis there is no follows : ' Et postea oportet renovari in *vS1:' p.ar"
reference at all to the Messiah. gloria, et coronabitur in perpetuum.' vv.U23^o.,
2 The words do not convey to me, as * I cannot understand how Schiirer can 32, 35, 38, 47
apparently to Dr. Schiirer, that the New throw doubt upon this, in view of such n Bk. of
Jerusalem actually stood in Eden, and, plain statements as in Ps. of Sol. xvii., Jub- x»H-
indeed, existed otherwise than ideally. such as (in regard to the Messiah) : Kal ° °j"- Slbyu-
3 But I do not see, with Schiirer, a avToS pao-iXivi SIklxioS SiSaKroi pC.omtlver
reference to its coming down from into Geov kit' ccvtovS. 9
heaven, not even in the passage in 5 ' Et ascendes supra cervices et alas , Ass. jios,
Baruch to which he refers, which is as aquilse.' ill. 715-726

444

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

»u. s. 7C6-
783

13 De Praem.
et Poen. ed.
Mang. ii.
422-424; ed.
Prel. 923-

« Book ol
Enoch
xlviii. 4, 5;
xc. 37 ; Ps.
of Sol. xvii.
34, 35, 38-40

* Book Of
Enoch xiv.
4, 5
e Ap. Bar.
1, 2, 3

f Sanh, 91 a
and b

!U. 3.11.1-6
b Ant. xviii.
1, 3; Warii.
8, 14

judgeship (whether literal or figurative,) ofthe Prophets/ The most
' Grecian ' view of the Kingdom, is, of course, that expressed by Philo.
He anticipates, that the happy moral condition of man would ulti
mately affect the wild beasts, which, relinquishing their solitary habits,
would first become gregarious; then, imitating the domestic animals.
gradually come to respect man as their master, nay, become as
affectionate and cheerful as ' Maltese dogs. ' Among men, the pious
and virtuous would bear rule, their dignity inspiring respect, their
terror fear, and their beneficence good will/ Probably intermediate
between this extreme Grecian and the Judaic conception of the
Millennium, are such utterances as ascribe the universal acknow
ledgment of the Messiah to the recognition, that God had in
vested Him with glory and power, and that His Reign was that of
blessing." It must have been remarked, that the differences between the
Apocalyptic teaching of the Pseudepigrapha and that of the New
Testament are as marked as those between the latter and that of the
Rabbis. Another point of divergence is, that the Pseudepigrapha
uniformly represent the Messianic reign as eternal, not broken up by
any further apostasy or rebellion. ' Then wo uld the earth be renewed, d 2
and this would be followed, lastly, by the" Resurrection. In the
Apocalypse of Baruch,* as by the Rabbis, it is set forth that men
would rise in exactly the same condition which they had borne in life,
so that, by being recognised, the reality of the Resurrection would be
attested, while in the re-union of body and soul each would receive its
due meed for the sins committed in their state of combination while
upon earth/ But after that a transformation would take place: ol
the just into the Angelic splendour of their glory, while, on view of
this, the wicked would correspondingly fade away/ Josephus states
that the Pharisees taught only a Resurrection of the Just/ As we
know that such was not the case, we must regard this as one of the

1 This is expressed in the clearest
language in every one of these books.
In view of this, to maintain the opposite
on the ground of these isolated words in
Baruch (xl. 3) : ' Et erit principatus ejus
stans in sseculum, donee finiatur mundus
corruptionis,' seems, to say the least, a
strange contention, especially when we
read in lxxiii. 1. : ' Sederit in pace in
seternum super throno regni sui.' We
can quite understand that Of rarer should
propound this view in order to prove
that the teaching of the New Testament
is only a reflection of that of later Juda

ism; but should an argument so untena
ble be repeated? IV. Esdras must not
here be quoted, as admittedly containing
New Testament elements.
2 Dr. Schiirer, following in this also
Gfrbrer, holds that one party placed
the renewal of the earth after the close
of the Messianic reign. He quotes in
support only Bar. lxxiv. 2, 3; but the
words do not convey to me that inference.
For the reason stated in the preceding
Note, IV. Esdras cannot here serve as
authority.

CHRIST'S TEACHING CONCERNING THE 'LAST THINGS.' 445
many assertions made by that writer for purposes of his own — probably chap.
to present to outsiders the Pharisaic doctrine in the most attractive VI
and rational light of which it was capable. Similarly, the modern ' — ¦>  '
contention, that some of the Pseudepigraphic Writings propound the
same view of only a Resurrection of the Just,1 is contrary to evidence.2
There can be no question that, according to the Pseudepigrapha, iiv
the general Judgment, which was to follow the universal Resurrection,
the reward and punishment assigned are represented as of eternal
duration, although it may be open to question, as in regard to
Rabbinic teaching, which of those who had been sinners would suffer
final and endless torment.
The many and persistent attempts, despite the gross inconsis
tencies involved, to represent the teaching of Christ concerning ' the
Last Things ' as only the reflection of contemporary Jewish opinion,
have rendered detailed evidence necessary. When, with the infor
mation just summarised, we again turn to the questions addressed to
Him by the disciples, we recall that (as previously shown) they could
not have conjoined, or rather confounded, the ' when ' of ' these
things ' — that is, of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple —
with the ' when ' of His Second Coming and the end of the ' Age. '
We also recall the suggestion, that Christ referred to His Advent, as
to His disappearance, from the Jewish standpoint of Jewish, rather
than from the general cosmic view-point of universal, history.
As regards the answer of the Lord to the two questions of His
disciples, it may be said that the first part of His Discourse a is in- *st. Matt.
tended to supply information on the two facts of the future: the and'parai-
destruction of the Temple, and His Second Advent and the end of
the ' Age, ' by setting before them the signs indicating the approach
or beginning of these events. But even here the exact period of
each is not defined, and the teaching given intended for purely
practical purposes. In the second part of His Discourse * the Lord n st. Matt.
distinctly tells them, what they are not to know, and why; and how "end, and
all that was communicated to them was only to prepare them for that
constant watchfulness, which has been to the Church at all times the
proper outcome of Christ's teaching on the subject. This, then, we
1 In support of it Schiirer quotes Ps. dixaprooX&iv Eli tov alio v a. Ps. xiv. 2
of Sol. iii. 16, xiv. 2, &c. But these has again only reference to the righteous,
passages convey to me, and will, I think, but in ver. 6 we have this plain statement,
to others, the very opposite. Ps. iii. 16 which renders any doubt impossible, Sid
says nothing of the wicked, only of the rovrorf KXr/povo/tiiaavroov dSiji Kai
righteous. But in ver. 13 b we have it: ovcoroS Kai ditdoXEia.
v ditooXEia rov duaprooXov el% rov 2 Comp. Book of Enoch and Apoc. of
aldbva, and in ver. 15, avrrj pspis tcov Bar.

446

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» vv. 4-8 ; 9-
14; 15-28;
29-35
« St. Matt.
xxiv. 8 ; St.
Mark xiii.
84 St. Matt.
xxiv. 6

'Acts v. 36;
viii. 9; xxi.
38 f War ii. 13,
4, 5 ; An t.
xx. 5, 1 ; 8,
10

may take as a guide in our study: that the words of Christ contain
nothing beyond what was necessary for the warning and teaching of
the disciples and of the Church.
Theirs* Part of Christ's Discourse" consists of four Sections," of
which the first describes ' the beginning of the birth-woes ' ° 1 of the
new ' Age ' about to appear. The expression: ' The End is not yet ' d
clearly indicates, that it marks only the earliest period of the begin
ning — the farthest terminus a quo of the ' birth-woes. ' 2 Another
general consideration, which seems of importance, is, that the
Synoptic Gospels report this part of the Lord's Discourse in almost
identical language. If the inference from this seems that their
accounts were derived from a common source — say, the report of St.
Peter — yet this close and unvarying repetition also conveys an im
pression, that the Evangelists themselves may not have fully under
stood the meaning of what they recorded. This may account for the
rapid and unconnected transitions from subject to subject. At the
same time it imposes on us the duty of studying the language anew,
and without regard to any scheme of interpretation. This only may
be said, that the obvious difficulties of negative criticism are here
equally great, whether we suppose the narratives to have been written
before or after the destruction of Jerusalem.
1. The purely practical character of the Discourse appears from
its opening words/ They contain a warning, addressed to the dis
ciples in their individual, not in their corporate, capacity, against
being 'led astray.' This, more particularly in regard to Judaic
seductions leading them after false Christs. Though in the multi
tude of impostors, who, in the troubled times between the rule of
Pilate and the destruction of Jerusalem, promised Messianic deliver
ance to Israel, few names and claims of this kind have been specially
recorded, yet the hints in the New Testament,1 and the references,
however guarded, by the Jewish historian," imply the -appearance of
many such seducers. And their influence, not only upon Jews, but on
Jewish Christians, might be the more dangerous, that the latter would
naturally regard ' the woes, ' which were the occasiou of their preten
sions, as the judgments which would usher in the Advent of their
Lord. Against such seduction they must be peculiarly t>n their

1 dpxv wolvoov. Si. Abut. xxiv. 8, and
so according to the better reading also in
St. Mark.
1 Generally, indeed, these are regarded
as 'the birth-woes' of 'the end.' But
this not only implies a logical im

possibility (the birth-woes of the end),
but it must be remembered that these
'travail-pains' are the judgments on
Jerusalem, or else on the world, which
are to usher in the new — to precede its
birth.

CHRIST'S WARNING TO INDIVIDUALS AND TO THE CHURCH. 447
guard. So far for the ' things ' connected with the destruction of chap.
Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth. But, vi
taking a wider and cosmic view, they might also be misled by either ^— -y~ — '
rumours of war at a distance, or by actual warfare,1 so as to believe
that the dissolution of the Roman Empire, and with it the Advent
of Christ, was at hand/2 This also would be a misapprehension, *st. Matt.
' ff > xxiT 6_8
grievously misleading, and to be carefully guarded against.
Although primarily applying to them, yet alike the peculiarly
Judaic, or, it might be even Christian, and the general cosmic
sources of misapprehension as to the near Advent of Christ, must
not be limited to the times of the Apostles. They rather indicate
these twofold grounds of misapprehension which in all ages have
misled Christians into an erroneous expectancy of the immediate
Advent of Christ: the seductions of false Messiahs, or, it may be,
teachers, and violent disturbances in the political world. So far as
Israel was concerned, these attained their climax in the great rebel
lion against Rome under the false Messiah, Bar Kokhba, in the time
of Hadrian," although echoes of similar false claims, or hope of them, u.t. 132-135
have again and again roused Israel during the night of these many
centuries into brief, startled waking. And, as regards the more
general cosmic signs, have not Christians in the early ages watched,
not only the wars on the boundaries of the Empire, but the condition
of the state in the age of Nero, the risings, turmoils, and threaten-
ings; and so onwards, those of later generations, even down to the
commotions of our own period, as if they betokened the immediate
Advent of Christ, instead of marking in them only the beginning of
the birth-woes ofthe new ' Age '?
2. From the warning to Christians as individuals, the Lord next
turns to give admonition to the Church in her corporate capacity.
Here we mark, that the events now described c must not be regarded ¦ st. Matt.
. ... , . xxiv. 9-14,
as following, with strict chronological precision, those referred to m and parai-
the previous verses. Rather is it intended to indicate a general nexus
with them, so that these events begin partly before, partly during.
and partly after, those formerly predicted. They form, in fact, ^ the
continuation of the ' birth-woes. ' This appears even from the
language used. Thus, while St. Matthew writes: ' Then' (tote, at
that time) ' shall they deliver you up, ' St. Luke places the persecu-
1 Of such wars and rumours of wars been identified with Anti-Christ, and
not only Josephus, but the Roman his- how the Church then expected the imme-
torians, have much to say about that diate return of Christ; nay, in all ages,
time. See the Commentaries. 'the End' has been associated with
2 We know how persistently Nero has troubles in 'the Roman Empire.'

448

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

• St. Matt.
xxiv. 14

' St. Matt.
xxiv. 15-28,
and par
allels; note
especially the lan
guage of
St. Luke
e St. Matt.
xxiv. 3

tions 'before all these things;'" while St. Mark, who reports this
part of the Discourse most fully, omits every note of time, and only
emphasises the admonition which the fact conveys." As regards the
admonition itself, expressed in this part ofthe Lord's Discourse,0 we
notice that, as formerly to individuals, so now to the Church, two
sources of danger are pointed out : internal from heresies ('false
prophets') and the decay of faith,4 and external, from persecutions,
whether Judaic and from their own kindred, or from the secular
powers throughout the world. But, along with these two dangers,
two consoling facts are also pointed out. As regards the persecutions
in prospect, full Divine aid is promised to Christians — alike to indi
viduals and to the Church. Thus all care and fear maybe dismissed:
their testimony shall neither be silenced, nor shall the Church be
suppressed or extinguished; but inward joyousness, outward perse
verance, and final triumph, are secured by the Presence of the Risen
Saviour with, and the felt indwelling of the Holy Ghost in His
Church. And, as for the other and equally consoling fact: despite
the persecution of Jews and Gentiles, before the End cometh ' this
the Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the inhabited
earth for a testimony to all the nations/ This, then, is really the
only sign of ' the End ' of the present ' Age. '
3. From these general predictions, the Lord proceeds, in the
third part of this Discourse,' to advertise the Disciples of the great
historic fact immediately before them, and of the dangers which
might spring from it. In truth, we have here His answer to their
question, ' When shall these things be ?' g not, indeed, as regards the
when, but the what of them. And with this He conjoins the present
application of His general warning regarding false Christs, given in
the first part of this Discourse/ The fact of which He now, in this
third part of His Discourse, advertises them, is the destruction of
Jerusalem. Its twofold dangers would be — outwardly, the diffi
culties and perils which at that time would necessarily beset men,
and especially the members of the infant-Church; and, religiously,
the pretensions and claims of false Christs or prophets at a period
when all Jewish thinking and expectancy would lead men to anticipate
the near Advent of the Messiah. There can be no question, that
from both these dangers the warning of the Lord delivered the
Church. As directed by him, the members of the Christian Church
fled at an early period of the siege ' of Jerusalem to Pella, while

1 So Eusebius (Hist. Ecci. iii. 5) re- Persea, in 68 a.d.
latesthat the Christians of Judaaa fled to iv. 9. 1, v. 10. 1.
Pella, on the northern boundary of

Comp. also Jos. War

THE SECOND QUESTION OF THE DISCIPLES. 449
the words in which He had told that His Coming would not be in CHAP.
secret, but with the brightness of that lightning which shot across VI
the sky, prevented not only their being deceived, but perhaps even *• — y^
the record, if not the rise of many who otherwise would have de
ceived them. As for Jerusalem, the prophetic vision initially fulfilled
in the days of Antiochusa would once more, and now fully, become » 2 Mace.
reality, and the abomination of desolation ' stand in the Holy Place. T1' 1_9
This, together with tribulation to Israel, unparalleled in the terrible
past of its history, and unequalled even in its bloody future. Nay,
so dreadful would be the persecution, that, if Divine mercy had not
interposed for the sake of the followers of Christ, the whole Jewish
race that inhabited the land would have been swept away." But on »st. Matt.
the morrow of that day no new Maccabee would arise, no Christ XX1V' '
come, as Israel fondly hoped; but over that carcase would the vul
tures gather;" and so through all the Age of the Gentiles, till con- « ver. 28
verted Israel should raise the welcoming shout: 'Blessed be He that
cometh in the Name of the Lord ! '
4. ° The Age of the Gentiles, ' the end of the Age, ' and with it d w. 29-31
the new allegiance of His now penitent people Israel; 'the sign of
the Son of Man in heaven,' perceived by them; the conversion of all
the world, the Coming of Christ, the last Trumpet, the Resurrection
of the dead — such, in most rapid sketch, is the outline which the
Lord draws of His Coming and the End of the world.
It will be remembered that this had been the second question of
the disciples/ We again recall, that the disciples did not, indeed, »st. Matt.
could not have connected, as immediately subsequent events, the de
struction of Jerusalem and His Second Coming, since he had expressly
placed between them the period — apparently protracted — of His
Absence,' with the many events that were to happen in it — notably, the f xxiii.
preaching of the Gospel over the whole inhabited earth/ Hitherto
the Lord had, in His Discourse, dwelt in detail only on those events
which would be fulfilled before this generation should pass/ It had
been for admonition and warning that He had spoken, not for the
gratification of curiosity. It had been prediction of the immediate
future for practical purposes, with such dim and general indication of
the more distant future of the Church as was absolutely necessary to
1 The quotation from Dan. ix. 27 is known Biblical expression in the general
neither a literal translation of the sense in which the Jews took it, that
original, nor a reproduction of the LXX. the heathen power (Rome, the abomina-
The former would be : 'And upon the ble) would bring desolation — lay the city
wing [or corner] of the abominations and Temple waste.
the destroyer.' Our Lord takes the well-

38, 39

450

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ St. Matt.
xxiv. SO

b Ter 14
» ver. 30
d ver. 31

mark her position in the world as one of persecution, with promise,
however, of His Presence and Help; with indication also other work
in the world, to its terminus ad quern — the preaching of the Gospel
of the Kingdom to all nations on earth.
More than this concerning the future of the Church could not
have been told without defeating the very object of the admonition
and warning which Christ had exclusively in view, when answering
the question of the disciples. Accordingly, what follows in ver. 29,
describes the history, not of the Church — far less any visible physical
signs in the literal heavens — but, in prophetic imagery, the history
of the hostile powers of the world, with its lessons. A constant
succession of empires and dynasties would characterise politically —
and it is only the political aspect with which we are here concerned
— the whole period after the extinction ofthe Jewish State/ Imme
diately after that would follow the appearance to Israel of the ' Sign '
of the Son of Man in heaven, and with it the conversion of all nations
(as previously predicted)," the Coming of Christ," and, finally, the
blast of the last Trumpet and the Resurrection/
5. From this rapid outline of the future the Lord once more
turned to make present application to the disciples; nay, application,
also, to all times. From the fig-tree, under which, on that spring-
afternoon, they may have rested on the Mount of Olives, they were
to learn a ' parable. ' e We can picture Christ taking one of its twigs,
just as its softening tips were bursting into young leaf. Surely, this
meant that summer was nigh — not that it had actually come. The
distinction is important. For, it seems to prove that 'all these
things,' which were to indicate to them that it1 was near, even at the
doors, and which were to be fulfilled ere this generation had passed
away, could not have referred to the last signs connected with the
immediate Advent of Christ,' but must apply to the previous predic
tion of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish Commonwealth.
At the same time we again admit, that the language of the Synop-
tists seems to indicate, that they had not clearly understood the words
of the Lord which they reported, and that in their own minds they
had associated the 'last signs' and the Advent of Christ with the
fall of the City. Thus may they have come to expect that Blessed
Advent even in their own days.
II. It is at least a question, whether the Lord, while distinctly
1 Not as in the R.V. 'He.' It can (not as Meyer would render Bspoi=
scarcely be supposed that Christ would ' harvest '). In St. Luke xxi. 31 it is
speak of Himself in the third person, paraphrased ' the Kingdom of God.'
The subject is evidently 'the summer'

THE WAITING ATTITUDE OP THE CHURCH. * 45 1
indicating these facts, had intended to remove the doubt and un- chap.
certainty of their succession from the minds of His disciples. To VI
have done so would have necessitated that which, in the opening ' — -y 
sentence of the Second Division of this Discourse," He had expressly xxiV. ss'to

end

declared to lie beyond their ken. The ' when ' — the day and the hour
of His Coming — was to remain hidden from men and Angels. " Nay, * st. Matt.

xxiv. 36

even the Son Himself1 — as they viewed Him and as He spake to them
— knew it not.1 It formed no part of His present Messianic Mission,
nor subject for His Messianic Teaching. Had it done so, all the
teaching that follows concerning the need of constant watchfulness,
and the pressing duty of working for Christ in faith, hope, and love —
with purity, self-denial, and endurance — would have been lost. The
peculiar attitude of the Church: with loins girt for work, since the
time was short, and the Lord might come at any moment; with her
hands busy; her mind faithful; her bearing self-denying and devoted;
her heart full of loving expectancy; her face upturned towards the
Sun that was so soon to rise; and her ear straining to catch the first
notes of heaven's song of triumph — all this would have been lost!
What has sustained the Church during the night of sorrow these
many centuries; what has nerved her with courage for the battle,
with steadfastness to bear, with love to work, with patience and joy
in disappointments — would all have been lost! The Church would
not have been that of the New Testament, had she known the mystery
of that day and hour, and not ever waited as for the immediate
Coming of her Lord and Bridegroom.
And what the Church of the New Testament has been, and is,
that her Lord and Master made her, and by no agency more effectu
ally than by leaving undetermined the precise time of His return. To
the world this would indeed become the occasion for utter careless
ness and practical disbelief of the coming Judgment." As in the days ¦ ™ 37^°
of Noah the long delay of threatened judgment had led to absorption
in the ordinary engagements of life, to the entire disbelief of what
Noah had preached, so would it be in the future. But that day would
come certainly and unexpectedly, to the sudden separation of those
who were engaged in the same daily business of life, of whom one
might be taken up (Ttapakapf^dverai, ' received '), the other left to
the destruction of the coming Ju dgment. " a TV- «>¦ «
But this very mixture of the Church with the world in the
ordinary avocations of life indicated a great danger. As in all such,
1 The expression does not, of course, the Christ, such as they saw Him, in His
refer to Christ in His Divinity, but to Messianic capacity and office.

452

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

i' St. Matt.
xxiv. 43, 44

ever. 45,
end

• ver. 44

the remedy which the Lord would set before us is not negative in
the avoidance of certain things, but positive/ We shall best succeed,
not by going out of the world, but by being watchful in it, and keep
ing fresh on our hearts, as well as on our minds, the fact that He is
our Lord, and that we are, and always most lovingly, to look and
long for His Return. Otherwise twofold damage might come to us.
Not expecting the arrival of the Lord in the night-time (which is the
most unlikely for His Coming), we might go to sleep, and the Enemy,
taking advantage of it, rob us of our peculiar treasure." Thus the
Church, not expecting her Lord, might become as poor as the world.
This would be loss. But there might be even worse. According to
the Master's appointment, each one had, during Christ's absence, his
work for Him, and the reward of grace, or else the punishment of
neglect, were in assured prospect. The faithful steward, to whom
the Master had entrusted the care of His household, to supply His
servants with what was needful for their support and work, would, if
found faithful, be rewarded by advancement to far larger and more
responsible work. On the other hand, belief in the delay of the
Lord's Return would lead to neglect of the Master's work, to unfaith
fulness, tyranny, self-indulgence and sin." And when the Lord
suddenly came, as certainly He would come, there would be not only
loss, but damage, hurt, and the punishment awarded to the hypocrites.
Hence, let the Church be ever on her watch, a let her ever be in
readiness! e And how terribly the moral consequences of unreadi
ness, and the punishment threatened, have ensued, the history ofthe
Church during these eighteen centuries has only too often and too
sadly shown.1

1 The Parable in St. Luke xii. 35^8 is
so closely parallel to this, that it seems

unnecessary to enter in detail upon its
consideration.

THE LAST PARABLES. 453

CHAPTER VII.
EVENING OF THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — ON THE MOUNT OP
OLIVES — LAST PARABLES: TO THE DISCIPLES CONCERNING THE LAST
THINGS — THE PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS — THE PARABLE OF THE
TALENTS  SUPPLEMENTARY PARABLE OF THE MINAS AND THE
KING'S RECKONING WITH HIS SERVANTS AND HIS REBELLIOUS
CITIZENS. (St. Matt. xxv. 1-13; St. Matt. xxv. 14-30; St. Luke xix. 11-28.)
1. As might have been expected, the Parables concerning the Last CHAP.
Things are closely connected with the Discourse of the Last Things, VII
which Christ had just spoken to His Disciples. In fact, that ofthe v— ~y- — ¦
Ten Virgins, which seems the fullest in many-sided meaning, is, in
its main object, only an illustration of the last part of Christ's Dis
course/ Its great practical lessons had been: the unexpectedness -st. Matt.
ofthe Lord's Coming; the consequences to be apprehended from its
delay; and the need of personal and constant preparedness. Simi
larly, the Parable of the Ten Virgins may, in its great outlines, be
thus summarised: Be ye personally prepared; be ye prepared for
any length of time; be ye prepared to go to Him directly.
Before proceeding, we mark that this Parable also is connected
with those that had preceded. But we notice not only connection,
but progression. Indeed, it would be deeply interesting, alike
historically and for the better understanding of Christ's teaching,
but especially as showing its internal unity and development, and
the credibility of the Gospel-narratives, generally to trace this con
nection and progress. And this, not merely in the three series of
Parables which mark the three stages of His History — the Parables
ofthe Founding of the Kingdom, of its Character, and of its Con
summation — but as regards the Parables themselves, that so the
first might be joined to the last as a string of heavenly pearls. But
this lies beyond our task. Not so, to mark the connection between
the Parable of the Ten Virgins and that of the Man without the
Wedding-Garment. Like the Parable of the Ten Virgins, it had -pointed to the

454 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK future. If the exclusion and punishment of the' Unprepared Guest
V did not primarily refer to the Last Day, or to the Return of Christ,
 .  but perhaps rather to what would happen in death, it pointed, at
least secondarily, to the final consummation. On the other hand,
in the Parable of the Ten Virgins this final consummation is the
primary point. So far, then, there is both connection and advance.
Again, from the appearance and the fate of the Unprepared Guest we
learned, that not every one who, following the Gospel-call, comes to
the Gospel-feast, will be allowed to partake of it; but that God will
search and try each one individually. There is, indeed, a society
of guests — the Church; but we must not expect either that the
Church will, while on earth, be wholly pure, or that its purification
will be achieved by man. Each guest may, indeed, come to the
banqueting-hall, but the final judgment as to his worthiness belongs
to God. Lastly, the Parable also taught the no less important
opposite lesson, that each individual is personally responsible; that
we cannot shelter ourselves in the community of the Church, but
that to partake of the feast requireth personal and individual prepa
ration. To express it in modern terminology: It taught Churchism as
against one-sided individualism, and spiritual individualism as against
dead Churchism. All these important lessons are carried forward in
the Parable of the Ten Virgins. If the union of the Ten Virgins for
the purpose of meeting the Bridegroom, and their h priori claims
to enter in with Him — which are, so to speak, the historical data
and necessary premisses in the Parable — point to the Church, the
main lessons of the Parable are the need of individual, personal,
and spiritual preparation. Only such will endure the trial ofthe
long delay of Christ's Coming; only such will stand that of an
immediate summons to meet the Christ.
It is late at even — the world's long day seems past, and the
Coming of the Bridegroom must be near. The day and the hour
we know not, for the Bridegroom has been far away. Only this we
know, that it is the Evening of the Marriage which the Bridegroom
had fixed, and that His word of promise may be relied upon. There
fore all has been made ready within the bridal house, and is in
waiting there; and therefore the Virgins prepare to go forth to meet
Him on His Arrival. The Parable proceeds on the assumption that the
Bridegroom is not in the town, but somewhere far away; so that it
cannot be known at what precise hour He may arrive. But it is
known that He will come that night; and the Virgins who are to
meet Him have, gathered — presumably in the house where the

THE PARABLE OP THE TEN VIRGINS. 455
Marriage is to take place — waiting for the summons to go forth and CHAP.
welcome the Bridegoom. The common mistake, that the Virgins VII
are represented in verse 1 as having gone forth on the road to meet x— ~"y  '
the Bridegroom, is not only irrational — since it is scarcely credible
that they would all have fallen asleep by the wayside, and with lamps
in their hands — but incompatible with the circumstance," that at »st. Matt.
xxv 6
midnight the cry is suddenly raised to go forth and meet Him. In
these circumstances, no precise parallel can be derived from the
ordinary Jewish marriage-processions, where the bridegroom, ac
companied by his groomsmen and friends, went to the .bride's house,
and thence conducted the bride, with her attendant maidens and
friends, into his own or his parents' home. But in the Parable, the
Bridegroom comes from a distance and goes to the bridal house.
Accordingly, the bridal procession is to meet Him on His Arrival,
and escort Him to the bridal place. No mention is made of the
Bride, either in this Parable or in that of the Marriage of the King's
Son. This, for reasons connected with their application: since in the
one case the Wedding Guests, in the other the Virgins, occupy the
place of the Bride. And here we must remind ourselves of the
general canon, that, in the interpretation of a Parable, details must
not be too closely pressed. The Parables illustrate the Sayings of
Christ, as the Miracles His Doings; and alike the Parables and the
Miracles present only one or another, not all the aspects of the
truth. Another archasological inquiry will, perhaps, be more helpful to our
understanding of this Parable. The ' lamps ' — not ' torches ' — which
the Ten Virgins carried, were of well-known construction. They
bear in Talmudic writings commonly the name Lappid, but the
Aramaised form of the Greek word in the New Testament also occurs
as Lampad and Lampadas." The lamps consisted of a round re- njer.Yoma
ceptacle for pitch or oil for the wick. This was placed in a hollow from top
cup or deep saucer — the Beth Shiqqua" — which was fastened by a "Kel- "• 8
pointed end into a long wooden pole, on which it was borne aloft.
According to Jewish authorities,4 it was the custom in the East to * see the
Arukh ad
carry in a bridal procession about ten such lamps. We have the less voo.
reason to doubt that such was also the case in Palestine, since, ac
cording to rubric, ten was the number required to be present at any
office or ceremony, such as at the benedictions accompanying the
marriage-ceremonies. And, in the peculiar circumstances supposed in
the Parable, Ten Virgins are represented as going forth to meet the
Bridegroom, each bearing her lamp.

456

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ St. Matt.
v. 16

11 quae-
cunque, es omnes
quas

The first point which we mark is, that the Ten Virgins brought,
presumably to the bridal house, ' their own 1 lamps. ' Emphasis must
be laid on this. Thus much was there of personal preparation on the
part of all. But while the five that were wise brought also ' oil in the
vessels ' 2 [presumably the hollow receptacles in which the lamp proper
stood], the five foolish Virgins neglected to do so, no doubt expecting
that their lamps would be filled out of some common stock in the
house. In the text the foolish Virgins are mentioned before the wise,3
because the Parable turns on this. We cannot be at a loss to
interpret the meaning of it. The Bridegroom far away is Christ,
Who is come for the Marriage-Feast from ' the far country' — the
Home above — certainly on that night, but we know not at what hour
of it. The ten appointed bridal companions who are to go forth to
meet Him are His professed disciples, and they gather in the bridal
house in readiness to welcome His arrival. It is night, and a
marriage-procession: therefore, they must go forth with their lamps.
All of them have brought their own lamps, they all have the Christian,
or, say, the Church-profession: the lamp in the hollow cup on the top
of the pole. But only the wise Virgins have more than this — the oil
in the vessels, without which the lamps cannot give their light. The
Christian or Church-profession is but an empty vessel on the top
of a pole, without the oil in the vessels. We here remember the
words of Christ: 'Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
your good works, and glorify your Father Which is in heaven."1 The
foolishness ofthe Virgins, which consisted in this that they had omitted
to bring their oil, is thus indicated in the text : 'All they which \_ai'Tivsg] "
were foolish, -when they brought their own lamps, brought not with
them oil: ' they brought their own lamps, but not their own oil. This
(as already explained), probably, not from forgetfulness — for they could
scarcely have forgotten the need of oil, but from wilful neglect, in the
belief that there would be a common stock in the house, out of which
they would be supplied, or that there would be sufficient time for the
supply of their need after the announcement that the Bridegroom was
coming. They had no conception either of any personal obligation in
this matter, nor that the call would come so suddenly, nor yet that
there would be so little interval between the arrival of the Bridegroom

1 The better reading in ver. 1, and
again in ver. 1, is not avrmv ' their,' but
iavrmv. 9 The word avrwv in ver. i, 'their
vessels,' is probably spurious. In both
cases, as so often, the ' improving ' copy

ists have missed the deeper meaning.
3 In ver. 2, according to the better
reading, the clauses should be inverted,
and, as in ver. 3, ' the foolish ' first
mentioned.

WHEREIN THE FOOLISHNESS OF THE FIVE CONSISTED. 457
and ' the closing of the door. ' And so they deemed it not necessary CHAP.
to undertake what must have involved both trouble and carefulness — VII
the bringing their own oil in the hollow vessels in which the lamps
were fixed.
We have proceeded on the supposition that the oil was not carried
in separate vessels, but in those attached to the lamps. It seems
scarcely likely that these lamps had been lighted while waiting in
the bridal house, where the Virgins assembled, and which, no doubt,
was festively illuminated. Many practical objections to this view
will readily occur. The foolishness of the five Virgins therefore con
sisted, not (as is commonly supposed) in their want of perseverance —
as if the oil had been consumed before the Bridegroom came, and
they had only not provided themselves with a sufficient extra-supply
— but in the entire absence of personal preparation,1 having brought
no oil of their own in their lamps. This corresponds to their conduct,
who, belonging to the Church — having the ' profession' — being bridal
companions provided with lamps, ready to go forth, and expecting to
share in the wedding feast — neglect the preparation of grace, personal
conversation and holiness, trusting that in the hour of need the oil may
be supplied out of the common stock. But they know not, or else
heed not, that every one must be personally prepared for meeting the
Bridegroom, that the call will be sudden, that the stock of oil is not
common, and that the time between His arrival and the shutting of
the door will be awfully brief.
For— and here begins the second scene in the Parable — the
interval between the gathering of the Virgins in readiness to meet
Him, and the arrival of the Bridegroom is much longer than had been
anticipated. And so it came, that both the wise and the foolish
Virgins ' slumbered and slept. ' Manifestly, this is but a secondary
trait in the Parable, chiefly intended to accentuate the surprise of
the sudden announcement of the Bridegroom. The foolish Virgins
did not ultimately fail because of their sleep, nor yet were the wise
reproved for it. True, it was evidence of their weakness — but then
it was night; all the world was asleep; and their own drowsiness
might be in proportion to their former excitement. What follows is.
intended to bring into prominence the startling suddenness of the
Bridegroom's Coming. It is midnight — when sleep is deepest^-
when suddenly ' there was a cry, Behold, the Bridegroom cometh !
Come ye out to the meeting of Him. Then all those Virgins awoke,
1 So especially Goebel, to whom, in general, we would acknowledge our obliga
tions.

458 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK and prepared (trimmed) their lamps.' This, not in the sense of
V heightening the low flame in their lamps, but in that of hastily
^—-y — ' drawing up the wick and lighting it, when, as there was no oil in the
vessels, the flame, of course, immediately died out. ' Then the foolish
said unto the wise, Give us of your oil ; for our lamps are going out.
But the wise answered, saying: Not at all ' — it will never 2 suffice for
us and you ! Go ye rather to the sellers, and buy for your own selves. '
This advice must not be regarded as given in irony. This trait
is introduced to point out the proper source of supply — to emphasise
that the oil must be their own, and also to prepare for what follows.
'But while they were going to buy, the Bridegroom came; and the
ready ones [they that were ready] went in with Him to the Marriage-
Feast, and the door was' shut.' The sudden cry at midnight: 'The
Bridegroom cometh ! ' had come with startling surprise both to the
wise and the foolish Virgins; to the one class it had come only un
expectedly, but to the other also unpreparedly. Their hope of sharing
or borrowing the oil of the wise Virgins being disappointed, the
foolish were, of course, unable to meet the Bridegroom. And while
they hurried to the sellers of oil, those that had been ready not only
met, but entered with the Bridegroom into the bridal house, and the
door was shut. It is of no importance here, whether or not the foolish
Virgins finally succeeded in obtaining oil — although this seems un
likely at that time of night — since it could no longer be of any pos
sible use, as its object was to serve in the festive procession, whjch
was now past. Nevertheless, and when the door was shut, those
foolish Virgins came, calling on the Bridegroom to open to them.
But they had failed in that which could alone give them a claim to
admission. Professing to be bridesmaids, they had not been in the
bridal procession, and so, in truth and righteousness, He could only
answer from within: ' Verily I say unto you, I know you not.' This,
not only in punishment, but in the right order of things.
The personal application of this Parable to the disciples, which
the Lord makes, follows almost of necessity. ' Watch therefore, for
ye know not the day, nor the hour. ' 3 Not enough to be in waiting
with the Church; His Coming will be far on in the night; it will be
sudden; it will be rapid: be prepared therefore, be ever and per
sonally prepared! Christ will come when least expected  at mid-
1 W.r/7toT£. See Grimm, ad voc. But want of better, by 'never.'
it is impossible to give the full force of 3 The clause ' in which the Son of
the word. Man cometh ' is spurious— an early gloss
2 The better reading is ov jur/, which crept into the text.
double negation I have rendered, for

THE PARABLE OP THE TALENTS. 459
to
night — ancr when the Church, having become accustomed to His chap.
long delay, has gone to sleep. So sudden will be His Coming, that VII
after the cry of announcement there will not be time for anything v— ~ v~~-'
but to go forth to meet Him; and so rapid will be the end, that,
ere the foolish Virgins can return, the door has been for ever closed.
To present all this in the most striking manner, the Parable takes
the form of a dialogue, first between the foolish and the wise Virgins,
in which the latter only state the bare truth when saying, that each
has only sufficient oil for what is needed when joining the marriage-
procession, and no one what is superfluous. Lastly, we are to learn
from the dialogue between the foolish Virgins and the Bridegroom,
that it is impossible in the day of Christ's Coming to make up for
neglect of previous preparation, and that those who have failed to
meet Him, even though of the bridal Virgins, shall be finally ex
cluded as being strangers to the Bridegroom.
2. The Parable of the Talents — their use and misuse " — follows » st. Matt.
closely on the admonition to watch, in view ofthe sudden and certain
Return of Christ, and the reward or punishment which will then be
meted out. Only that, whereas in the Parable ofthe Ten Virgins the
reference was to the personal state, in that of ' the Talents' it is to the
personal work ofthe Disciples. In the former instance, they are por
trayed as the bridal maidens who are to welcome His Return; in the
latter, as the servants who are to give an account of their stewardship. •
From its close connection with what precedes, the Parable opens
almost abruptly with the words: ' For [it is] like a Man going abroad,
[who] called His own servants, and delivered to them His goods. ' The
emphasis rests on this, that they were His own servants, and to act for
His interest. His property was handed over to them, not for safe
custody, but that they might do with it as best they could in the interest
of their Master. This appears from what immediately follows : ' and
so to one He gave five talents (about 1,1101.), but to one two (about
468L), and to one one (=6, 000 denarii, about 234Z.), to each according
to his own capability ' * — that is, He gave to each according to his
capacity, in proportion as He deemed them severally qualified for larger
or smaller administration. ' And He journeyed abroad straightway. ' 2
Having entrusted the management of His affairs to His servants,
according to their capacity, He at once went away.
1 Kara rr/v {Slav Svva/itv. Goebel against this seem to me quite
2 Some critics and the R.V. have convincing, besides the fact that there is
drawn the word ' straightway ' to the no cause for thus distinguishing the first
next verse, as referring to the activity of from the second faithful servant.
the first servant. The reasons urged by

460 The cross and the crown.
BOOK Thus far we can have no difficulty in understanding the meaning
V of the Parable. Our Lord, Who has left us for the Father's Home,
v— -y— — ' is He Who has gone on the journey abroad, and to His own servants
has He entrusted, not for custody, but to use for Him in the time
between His departure and His return, what He claims as His own
' goods. ' We must not limit this to the administration of His Word,
nor to the Holy Ministry, although these may have been pre
eminently in view. It refers generally to all that a man has,
wherewith to serve- Christ; for, all that the Christian has — his time,
money, opportunities, talents, or learning (and not only ' the Word'),
is Christ's, and is entrusted to us, not for custody, but to trade withal
for the absent Master — to further the progress of His Kingdom.
And to each of us He gives according to our capacity for working —
mental, moral, and even physical — to one five, to another two, and to
another one ' talent. ' This capacity for work lies not within our own
power; but it is in our power to use for Christ whatever we may have.
And here the characteristic difference appears. ' He that received
the five talents went and traded with them, and- made other five
talents. In like manner he that had received the two gained 1 other
two. ' As each had received according to his ability, so each worked
according to his power, as good and faithful servants of their Lord.
If the outward result was different, their labour, devotion, and faith
fulness were equal. It was otherwise with him who had least to do
for his Master, since only one talent had been entrusted to him.
He ' went away, digged up earth, and hid the money of his Lord.'
The prominent fact here is, that he did not employ it for the Master,
as a good servant, but shunned alike the labour and the responsi
bility, and acted as if it had been some stranger's, and not his Lord's
property. In so doing he was not only unfaithful to his trust, but
practically disowned that he was a servant of his Lord. Accordingly,
in contradistinction to the servant who had received much, two
others are introduced in the Parable, who had both received com
paratively little — one of whom was faithful, while the other in idle
selfishness hid the money, not heeding that it was ' his Lord's. ' Thus,
while the second servant, although less had been entrusted 'to him,
was as faithful and conscientious as he to whom much had been
given, and while both had, by their gain, increased the possessions
of their Master, the third had by his conduct rendered the money of
his Lord a dead, useless, buried thing.
1 'KspStjaEY—m the case of the first it was ixoir/crer, although even there
£ke'p8?io-ev is probably the better reading.

THE RECKONING WITH THE SERVANTS. 461
And now the second scene opens. ' But after a long time cometh chap.
the Lord of those servants, and maketh reckoning 1 with thein. ' "VII
The notice of the long absence of the Master not only connects v— ~ y~«— '
this with the Parable of the Ten Virgins, but is intended to show,
that the delay might have rendered the servants who traded more
careless, while it also increased the guilt of him, who all this time
had not done anything with his Master's money. And now the first
of the servants, without speaking of his labour in trading, or his
merit in ' making ' money, answers with simple joyousness: 'Lord,
five talents deliveredst Thou unto me. See, other five talents have
I gained besides.'2 We can almost see his honest face beaming
with delight, as he points to his Master's increased possession. His
approval was all that the faithful servant had looked for, for which he
had toiled during that long absence. And we can understand, how
the Master welcomed and owned that servant, and assigned to him
meet reward. The latter was twofold. Having proved his faithfulness
and capacity in a comparatively limited sphere, one much greater
would be assigned to him. For, to do the work, and increase the
wealth of his Master, had evidently been his joy and privilege, as
- well as his duty. Hence also the-second part of his reward — that of
entering into the joy of his Lord — must not be confined to sharing
in the festive meal at His return, still less to advancement from the
position of a servant to that of a friend who shares his Master's
lordship. It implies far more than this: even satisfied heart-
sympathy with the aims and gains of his Master, and participation
in them, with all that this conveys.
A similar result followed on the reckoning with the servant to
whom two talents had been entrusted. We mark that, although he
could only speak of two talents gained, he met his Master with the
same frank joyousness as he who had made five. For he had been
as faithful, and laboured as earnestly as he to whom more had been
entrusted. And, what is more important, the former difference be
tween the two servants, dependent on greater or less capacity for
work, now ceased, and the second servant received precisely the same
welcome and exactly the same reward, and in the same terms, as the
first. And a yet deeper, and in some sense mysterious, truth conies
to us in connection with the words: ' Thou hast been faithful over a
few things, I will set thee over many things.' Surely, then, if not after
1 avvaipei Xoyov, confert, vel com- tained in the text. It must at any rate
ponit, rem seu causam. be supplied.
2 etc' avToii should, I think, be re-

462 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK death, yet in that other ' dispensation,' there must be work to do for
V Christ, for which the preparation is in this life by faithful application
'  1  ' for Him of what He has entrusted to us — be it much or little. This
gives quite a neAv and blessed meaning to the life that now is — as
most truly and in all its aspects part of that into which it is to unfold.
No; not the smallest share of 'talents,' if only faithfully used for
Christ, can be lost, not merely as regards His acknowledgment, but
also their further and wider employment. And may we not suggest,
that this may, if not explain, yet cast the halo of His purpose and
Presence around what so often seems mysterious in the removal of
those who had just attained to opening, or to full usefulness, or
even of those who are taken from us in the early morn of youth and
loveliness. The Lord may ' have need ' of them, where or how we
know not — and beyond this working-day and working-world there are
' many things ' over which the faithful servant in little may be ' set, '
that he may still do, and with greatly enlarged opportunities and
powers, the work for Christ which he had loved so well, while at the
same time he also shares the joy of his Lord.
It only remains to refer to the third servant, whose sad unfaith
fulness and failure of service we already, in some measure, understand.
Summoned to his account, he returned the talent entrusted to him
with this explanation, that, knowing his Master to be a hard man,
reaping where He did not sow, and gathering (the corn) where He did
not 'winnow, ''he had been afraid of incurring responsibility,2 and
hence hid in the earth the talent which he now restored. It needs
no comment to show that his own words, however honest and self-
righteous they might sound, admitted dereliction of his work and
duty as a servant, and entire misunderstanding as well as heart-
alienation from his Master. He served Him not, and he knew Him
not; he loved Him not, and he sympathised not with Him. But,
besides, his answer was also an insult and a mendacious pretext. He
had been idle and unwilling to work for his Master. If he worked
it would be for himself. He would not incur the difficulties, the
self-denial, perhaps the reproach, connected with his Master's work.
We recognise here those who, although His servants, yet, from self-
indulgence and worldliness, will not do work for Christ with the one
talent entrusted to them — that is, even though the responsibility and
claim upon them be the smallest; and who deem it sufficient to hide
1 Siao-KopxiZeiv here in the same 2 Goebel exaggerates in supposing that
sense in which the LXX. render the He- the servant had done so, because any
brew m? in Ezek. v. 2, comp. Trommius possible returns for the money would not
Concord., and Grimm ad verb. be his own, but the Master's."

THE WICKED AND SLOTHFUL SERVANT. 463
it in the ground — not to lose it — or to preserve it, as they imagine, CHAP.
from being used for evil, without using it to trade for Christ. The vn
falseness of the excuse, that he was afraid to do anything with it — v— " -y^^
an excuse too often repeated in our days — lest, peradventure, he
might do more harm than good, was now fully exposed by the
Master. Confessedly, it proceeded from a want of knowledge of Him,
as if He were a hard, exacting Master, not One Who reckons even
the least service as done to Himself; from misunderstanding also of
what work for Christ is, in which nothing can ever fail or be lost;
and, lastly, from want of joyous sympathy with it. And so the
Master put aside the flimsy pretext. Addressing him as a ' wicked
and slothful servant, ' He pointed out that, even on his own showing,
if he had been afraid to incur responsibility, he might have ' cast '
(a word intended to mark the absence of labour) the money to ' the
bankers,' when, at His return, He would have received His own, ' with
interest.' Thus he might, without incurring responsibility, or much
labour, have been, at least in a limited sense, faithful to his duty and
trust as a servant.
The reference to the practice of lodging money, at interest, with
the bankers, raises questions too numerous and, lengthy for full
discussion in this place. The Jewish Law distinguished between
' interest ' and ' increase ' (neshekh and tarbith), and entered into
many and intricate details on the subject/ Such transactions were »Babna
forbidden with Israelites, but allowed with 'Gentiles. As in Rome, ana'v.,'
the business of ' money-changers ' (argentarii, nummularii) and vS6,and the
that of ' bankers ' (collectarii, mensularii) seem to have run into especially
each other. The Jewish ' bankers ' bear precisely the same name 70 0 &c.
(Shulchani, mensularius, rpaneZiTipi). In Rome very high interest
seems to have been charged in early times; by and-by it was
lowered, till it was fixed, first at 8|, and then at 4i, per cent. But
these laws were not of permanent duration. Practically, usury was
unlimited. It soon became the custom to charge monthly interest at
the rate of 1 per cent, a month. Yet there were prosperous times,
as at the close of the Republic, when the rate of interest was so low
as 4 per cent. ; during the early Empire it stood at 8 per cent.
This, of course, in what we may call fair business transactions.
Beyond them, in the almost incredible extravagance, luxury, and
indebtedness of even some of the chief historical personages, most
usurious transactions took place (especially in the provinces), and
that by people in high position (Brutus in Cyprus, and Seneca in
Britain). Money was lent at 12, 24, and even 48 per cent; the

464 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK bills bore a larger sum than that actually received; and the interest
V was added to the capital, so that debt and interest alike grew.
'  r- — ' In Greece there were regular State banks, while in Rome such
provision was only made under exceptional circumstances. Not
unfrequently the twofold business of money-changing and banking
was combined. Such ' bankers ' undertook to make payments, to
collect moneys and accounts, to place out money at interest — in short,
all the ordinary business of this kind.1 There can be no question
that the Jewish bankers of Palestine and elsewhere were engaged in
the same undertakings, while the dispersion of their race over the
world would render it more easy to have trusted correspondents in
every city. Thus, we find that Herod Agrippa borrowed from the
Jewish Alabarch at Alexandria the sum of 20,000 drachms, which
was paid him in Italy, the commission and interest on it amounting
to no less than 8J per cent. (2,500 drachms).2
We can thus understand the allusion to ' the bankers, ' with whom
the wicked and unfaithful servant might have lodged his lord's money,
if there had been truth in his excuse. To unmask its hollowness is
the chief object of this part ofthe Parable. Accordingly, it must not
be too closely pressed; but it would be in the spirit ofthe Parable to
apply the expression to the indirect employment of money in the
service of Christ, as by charitable contributions, &c. But the great
lesson intended is, that every good and faithful servant of Christ must,
whatever his circumstances, personally and directly use such talent
as he may have to make gain for Christ. Tried by this test, how
few seem to have understood their relation to Christ, and how cold has
the love ofthe Church grown in the long absence of her Lord!
But as regards the ' unprofitable ' servant in the Parable, the
well-known punishment of him that had come to the Marriage-Feast
without the wedding-garment shall await him, while the talent,
which he had failed to employ for his master, shall be entrusted to
him who had shown himself most capable of working. We need not
seek an elaborate interpretation for this. It points to the principle,
equally true in every administration of God, that ' unto every one
that hath shall be given, and he shall be placed in abundance; 3 but
as to him that hath not,4 also what he hath shall be taken away from
him.' Not a cynical rule this, such as the world, in its selfishness or
worship of success, caricatures it; nor yet the worship of superior
1 Comp. Marquard', Handb. d. Rom. 3 Ttepio-crEvBriaETai.
Alterth. vol. v. 2, pp. 56-68. * So the better reading, tov Se mv
2 Jos. Antiq. xviii. 6. 3. exovtoS.

PARABLE OF THE KING AND HIS SERVANTS AND ENEMIES. 465
force; but this, that faithful use for God of every capacity will ever CHAP.
open fresh opportunities, in proportion as the old ones have been VII
used, while spiritual unprofitableness must end in utter loss even of v— -^  '
that which, however humble, might have been used, at one time or
another, for God and for good.
3. To these Parables, that of the King who on his return makes
reckoning with His servants and His enemies may be regarded as
supplemental. It is recorded only by St. Luke, and placed by him
in somewhat loose connection with the conversion of Zacchaeus/ The "st- Luke
XIX. 11-^.0
most superficial perusal will show such unmistakable similarity with
the Parable of ' The Talents, ' that their identity will naturally suggest
itself to the reader. On the other hand, there are remarkable diver
gences in detail, some of which seem to imply a different standpoint
from which the same truth is viewed. We have also now the
additional feature of the message of hatred on the part of the
citizens, and their fate in consequence of it. It may have been that
Christ spoke the two Parables on the two different occasions men
tioned respectively by St. Luke and St. Matthew — the one on the
journey to Jerusalem, the other on the Mount of Olives. And yet it
seems difficult to believe that He would, within a few days of telling
the Parable recorded by St. Luke, have repeated it in almost the same
words to the disciples, who must have heard it in Jericho. This objec
tion would not be so serious, if the Parable addressed, in the first
instance, to the disciples (that of the Talents) had been afterwards
repeated (in the record of St. Luke) in a wider circle, and not, as
according to the Synoptists, the opposite. If, however, we are to
regard the two Parables of the Talents and of the Pieces of Money as
substantially the same, we would be disposed to consider the recension
by St. Matthew as the original, being the more homogeneous and
compact, while that of St. Luke would seem to combine with this
another Parable, that of the rebellious citizens. Perhaps it is safest
to assume, that, on His way to Jerusalem, when his adherents (not
merely the disciples) would naturally expect that He would inaugurate
His Messianic Kingdom, Christ may have spoken the latter Parable,
to teach them that the relation in which Jerusalem stood towards
Him, and its fate, were quite different from what they imagined, and
that His Entrance into the City and the Advent of His Kingdom
would be separated by a long distance of time. Hence the prospect
before them was that of working, not of reigning; after that would
the reckoning come, when the faithful worker would become the
trusted ruler. These points were, of course, closely connected with

466 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK ' the lessons ofthe Parable ofthe Talents, and, with the view of present-
V ing the subject as a whole, St. Luke may have borrowed details from
^— —y — ' that Parable, and supplemented its teaching by presenting another
aspect of it.
It must be admitted, that if St. Luke had really these two •
Parables in view (that of the King and of the Talents), and wished
to combine them into new teaching, he has most admirably welded
them together. For, as the Nobleman Who is about to entrust money
to His servants, is going abroad to receive a Kingdom, it was possible
to represent Him alike in relation to rebellious citizens and to His own
servants, and to connect their reward with His 'Kingdom.' And so
the two Parables are joined by deriving the illustration from political
instead of social life. It has been commonly supposed, that the
Parable contains an allusion to what had happened after the death
of Herod the Great, when his son Archelaus hastened to Rome to
obtain confirmation of his father's will, while a Jewish deputation
followed to oppose his appointment — an act of rebellion which
Archelaus afterwards avenged in the blood of his enemies. The
circumstance must have been still fresh in popular remembrance,
although more than thirty years had elapsed. But if otherwise,
applications to Rome for installation to the government, and popular
opposition thereto, were of such frequent occurrence amidst the quar
rels and intrigues of the Herodians, that no difficulty could have been
felt in understanding the allusions of the Parable.
A brief analysis will suffice to point out the special lessons of this
Parable. It introduces ' a certain Nobleman, ' Who has claims to
the throne, but has not yet received the formal appointment from
the suzerain power. As He is going away to receive it, He deals as
yet only with His servants. His object, apparently, is to try their
aptitude, devotion, and faithfulness: and so He hands — not to each
according to his capacity, but to all equally, a sum, not large (such
as talents), but small — to each a 'mina,' equal to 100 drachms, or
about 31. 5s. of our money. To trade with so small a sum would, of
course, be much more difficult, and success would imply greater
ability, even as it would require more constant labour. Here we
have some straits in which this differs from the Parable of the Talents.
The same small sum is supposed to have been entrusted to all, in
order to show which of them was most able and most earnest, and
hence who should be called to largest employment, and with it to
greatest honour in the Kingdom. While ' the Nobleman ' was at
the court of His suzerain, a deputation of His fellow-citizens arrived -

THE RETURN OF THE KING TO HIS COUNTRY. ~ 467
to urge this resolution of theirs: 'We will not that this One reign CHAP.
over us.' It was simply an expression of hatred; it stated no reason, VII
and only urged personal opposition, even if such were in the face of — -,  '
the personal wish of the sovereign who appointed him king.
In the last scene, the King, now duly appointed, has returned to
His country. He first reckons with His servants, when it is found
that all but one have been faithful to their trust, though with
varying success (the mina of the one having grown into ten; that of
another into five, and so on). In strict accordance with that success
is now their further appointment to rule — work here corresponding
to rule there, which, however, as we know from the Parable of the
Talents, is also work for Christ: a rule that is work, and work that
is rule. At the same time, the acknowledgment is the same to all
the faithful servants.. Similarly, the motives, the reasoning, and the
fate of the unfaithful servant are the same as in the Parable of the
Talents. But as regards His ' enemies, ' that would not have Him
reign over them — manifestly, Jerusalem and the people of Israel —
who, even after He had gone to receive the Kingdom, continued the
personal hostility of their ' We will not that this One shall reign over
us ' — the ashes of the Temple, the ruins of the City, the blood of the
fathers, and the homeless wanderings of their children, with the Cain-
curse branded on their brow and visible to all men, attest, that the
King has many ministers to execute that judgment which obstinate
rebellion must surely bring, if His Authority is to be vindicated, and
His Rule to secure submission.

468 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE FOURTH DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — JESUS IN HIS LAST SABBATIC REST
BEFORE HIS AGONY, AND THE SANHEDRISTS IN THEIR UNREST  THE
BETRAYAL — JUDAS: HIS CHARACTER, APOSTASY, AND END.
(St. Matt, xxvi.1-5, 14-16; St. Mark xiv. 1, 2, 10, 11; St. Luke xxii. 1-6.)
BOOK From the record of Christ's- Sayings and Doings, furnished by St.
V Matthew, we turn once more to that of public events, as, from one or
"y" ' another aspect they are related by all the Evangelists. With the
Discourses in the Temple the public Teaching of Christ had come to
an end; with that spoken on the Mount of Olives, and its applica
tion in the Parables of the ' Virgins ' and the ' Talents, ' the instruc
tion of the disciples had been concluded. What follows in His inter
course with His own isparxnetic, L rather than teaching, — exhortation,
advice, and consolation: rather, perhaps, all these combined.
The three busy days of Passion- Week were past. The day before
that on which the Paschal Lamb was to be slain, with all that was to
follow, would be one of rest, a Sabbath to His Soul before its Great
Agony. He would refresh Himself, gather Himself up for the terrible
conflict before Him. And He did so as the Lamb of God — meekly
submitting Himself to the Will and Hand of His Father, and so
fulfilling all types, from that of Isaac's sacrifice on Mount Moriah to
the Paschal Lamb in the Temple; and bringing the reality of all
prophecy, from that of the Woman's Seed that would crush the
Serpent's head to that of the Kingdom of God in its fullness, when
its golden gates would be flung open to all men, and Heaven's own
light flow out to them as they sought its way of peace. Only two
days more, as the Jews reckoned them2 — that Wednesday and
1 I take leave to introduce a term weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atone-
which has become naturalised in German ment, but not the other festive,nor yet the
theological literature. There is no other natural days, began with the evening.
single word which so expresses the The admission in regard to Sabbaths and
ideas. the Day of Atonement is, in the absence of
2 An attempt has been lately made, any qualifying remark in regard to them,
with great ingenuity, by the Rev. B. S. a primd facie argument against the
Clarke, of Boxted, to show that only the theory. But there is more than this. In

THE LAST SABBATIC REST BEFORE THE PASSION. 469
Thursday — and at its Even the Paschal supper! And Jesus knew it CHAP.
well, and He passed that- day of rest and preparation in quiet retire- vm
ment with His disciples — perhaps in some hollow of the Mount of v— ^  '
Olives, near the home of Bethany — speaking to them of His Cruci
fixion on the near Passover. They sorely needed His words; they,
rather than He, needed to be prepared for what was coming. But
what Divine calm, what willing obedience, and also what outgoing
of love to them, with full consciousness of what was before Him, to
think and speak of this only on that day! So would not a Messiah
of Jewish conception have acted; nay, He would not have been placed
in such circumstances. So would not a Messiah of ambitious aims
or of Jewish Nationalist aspirations have acted; He would have done
what the Sanhedrin feared, and raised a 'tumult of the people,'
prepared for it as the multitude was, which had so lately raised the
Hosanna-cry in street and Temple. So would a disillusioned enthu
siast not have acted; he would have withdrawn from the impending
fate. But Jesus knew it all — far more than the agony of shame and
suffering, even the unfathomable agony of soul. And the while He
thought only of them in it all. Such thinking and speaking is not
that of Man — it is that of the Incarnate Son of God, the Christ of
the Gospels.
He had, indeed, before that, sought gradually to prepare them for
what was to happen on the morrow's night. He had pointed to it
in dim figure at the very opening of His Ministry, on the first occasion
that he had taught in the Temple," as well as to Nicodemus/ He had ".st. John
hinted it, when He spoke of the deep sorrow when the Bridegroom „ m 14
would be taken from them," of the need of taking up His cross,1 of °st. Matt.
the fulfilment in Him of the Jonah-type," of His Flesh which He dxgg'
would give for the life of the world/ as well as in what might have -st. Matt.
seemed the Parabolic teaching about the Good Shepherd, Who laid fgt John
down His life for the Sheep," and the Heir Whom the evil husband- v1-61
men cast out and killed/ But He had also spoken of it quite x. 11,15 n
directly — and this, let us specially notice, always when some high- ^|J"^att-
point in His History had been reached, and the disciples might have
been carried away into Messianic expectations of an exaltation with
out humiliation, a triumph not a sacrifice. We remember, that the first
occasion on which He spoke thus clearly was immediately after that
Chull. 83 a it is noted, in connection with lasted till three stars became visible.
offerings, that as in the history of the Lastly, and most important in regard to
Creation the day always belonged to the the Passover, it is distinctly stated (Jer.
previous night (' one day '), it was always Pes. 27 c, below), that it began with the
to be reckoned in the same manner. darkness on the 14th Nisan,
Again, in Pes. 2 a it is stated that the day

470

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ St. Matt.
xvi. 21
* St. Matt.
xvii. 22'
• St. Matt.
XX. 17-19

confession of Peter, which laid the foundation of the Church, against
which the gates of hell should not prevail;- ' the next, after descend
ing from the Mount of Transfiguration;0 the last, on preparing to
make His triumphal Messianic Entry into Jerusalem/ The darker
hints and Parabolic sayings might have been misunderstood. Even as
regarded the clear prediction of His Death, preconceived ideas could
find no room for such a fact. Deep veneration, which could not asso
ciate it with His Person, and a love which could not bear the thought
of it, might, after the first shock of the words was past, and their
immediate fulfilment did not follow, suggest some other possible ex
planation of the prediction. But on that Wednesday it was impos
sible to misunderstand; it could scarcely have been possible to doubt
what Jesus said of His near Crucifixion.1 If illusions had still existed,
the last two days must have rudely dispelled them. The triumphal
Hosannas of His Entry into the City, and the acclamations in the
Temple, had given place to the cavils of Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Scribes, and with a 'Woe' upon it Jesus had taken His last depar
ture from Israel's sanctuary. And better far than those rulers,
whom conscience made cowards, did the disciples know how little
reliance could be placed on the adherence of the ' multitude. ' And
now the Master was telling it to them in plain words; was calmly con
templating it, and that not as in the dim future, but in the imme
diate present — at that very Passover, from which scarcely two days
separated them. Much as we wonder at their brief scattering on
His arrest and condemnation, those humble disciples must have loved

1 On the evidential force of the narra
tive of the Crucifixion, I must refer to
the singularly lucid and powerful reason
ing of Dr. Wace, in his work on ' The
Gospel and its Witnesses' (London,
1883, Lecture VI.). He first refers to the
circumstance, that in the narratives of
the Crucifixion, written by Apostles, or
by friends of Apostles, ' the writers do
not shrink from describing their own
conduct, or that of their Master,' with a
truthfulness which terribly reflects on
their constancy, courage, and even manli
ness. Dr. Wace's second argument is so
clearly put, that I must take leave to trans
fer his language to these pages. ' Christ
crucified was, we are told by St. Paul,
"unto the Jews a stumbling block, and
unto the Greeks foolishness." It was a
constant reproach to Christians, that
they worshipped a man who had been cru
cified as a malefactor. The main fact, of
course, could not be disguised. But that
the Evangelical writers should have so
diligently preserved what might other

wise have been forgotten — all the
minute circumstances of their Master's
humiliation, the very weakness of His
flesh, and His shrinking, in the garden,
from the cup He had to drink — all those
marks, in fact, of His human weakness
which were obliterated by His Resurrec
tion — this is an instance of truthfulness
which seems at least incompatible with
any legendary origin of the narratives,
at a time when our Lord was contem
plated in the glory of His Ascension,
and of His session at the right hand of
God. But wha-tsoever impression of
truthfulness, and of intense reality in
detail, is thus created by the history of
the Passion, must in justice be allowed to
reflect back over the whole preceding his
tory.' The argument is then further
carried out as to the truthfulness of
writers who could so speak of them
selves, and concerning the fate of the
Christ. But the whole subject should be
studied in the connection in which Dr.
Wace has presented it.

THE HISTORY OF JUDAS.

471

xiii. 2 and
27

Him much to sit around Him in mournful silence as He thus spake, CHAP
and to follow Him unto His Dying. Yjjj
But to one of them, in whose heart the darkness had long been v^-y-^
gathering, this was the decisive moment. The prediction of Christ,
which Judas as well as the others must have felt to be true, extin
guished the last glimmering of such light of Christ as his soul had
been capable of receiving. In its place flared up the lurid flame of
hell. By the open door out of which he had thrust the dying
Christ ' Satan entered into Judas. ' a YTet, even so, not permanently/ " s*- ^ute
It may, indeed, be doubted, whether, since God is in Christ, such can t St. John
ever be the case in any human soul, at least on this side eternity.
Since our world's night has been lit up by the promise from Paradise,
the rosy hue of its morning has lain on the edge of the horizon,
deepening into gold, brightening into day, growing into midday-
strength and evening-glory. Since God's Voice wakened earth by
its early Christmas-Hymn, it has never been quite night there, nor can
it ever be quite night in any human soul.1
But it is a terrible night-study, that of Judas. We seem to tread
our way over loose stones of hot molten lava, as we climb to the edge
of the crater, and shudderingly look down its depths. And yet there,
near there, have stood not only St. Peter in the night of his denial,
but mostly all of us, save they whose Angels have always looked up
into the Face of our Father in heaven. And yet, in our weakness,
we have even wept over them! There, near there, have we stood,
not in the hours of our weakness, but in those of our sore temptation,
when the blast of doubt had almost quenched the flickering light, or
the storm of passion or of self-will broken the bruised reed. But He
prayed for us — and through the night came over desolate moor and
stony height the Light of His Presence, and above the wild storm rose
the Voice of Him, Who has come to seek and to save that which was
lost. Yet near to us, close to us, was the dark abyss; and we can never
more forget our last, almost sliding, foothold as we quitted its edge.
A terrible night-study this of Judas, and best to make it here, at
once, from its beginning to its end. We shall indeed, catch sudden
glimpse of him again, as the light of the torches flashes on the
traitor-face in Gethsemane; and once more hear his voice in the
assemblage of the haughty, sneering councillors of Israel, when his
footfall on the marble pavement of the Temple-halls, and the clink
of those thirty accursed pieces of silver shall waken the echoes, wake
also the dirge of despair in his soul, and he shall flee from the night
of his soul into the night that for ever closes around him. But all
1 This apart from the question of the exceptional sin against the Holy Ghost.

28

472 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK this as rapidly as we may pass from it, after this present brief study
V of his character and history.
v— "•* — y We remember, that ' Judas, the man of Kerioth,' was, so far as we
know, the only disciple of Jesus from the province of Judaea. This
circumstance; that he carried the bag, i.e. was treasurer and adminis
trator of the small common stock of Christ and His disciples; and
• stjohn that he was both a hypocrite and a thief — this is all that we know
for certain of his history. From the circumstance that he was ap
pointed to such office of trust in the Apostolic community, we infer
that he must have been looked up to by the others as an able and
prudent man, a good administrator. And there is probably no reason
to doubt, that he possessed the natural gift of administration or of
f 1 cor. xii. ' government ' (Kvfikpvrjais)." The question, why Jesus left him ' the
bag ' after He knew him to be a thief — which, as we believe, he was
not at the beginning, and only became in the course of time and in
the progress of disappointment — is best answered by this other:
Why He originally allowed it to be entrusted to Judas? It was not
only because he was best fitted — probably, absolutely fitted — for such
work, but also in mercy to him, in view of his character. To engage
in that for which a man is naturally fitted is the most likely means
of keeping him from brooding, dissatisfaction, alienation, and eventual
apostasy. On the other hand, it must be admitted that, as mostly
all our life-temptations come to us from that for which we have most
aptitude, when Judas was alienated and unfaithful in heart, this very
thing became also his greatest temptation, and, indeed, hurried him
to his ruin. But only after he had first failed inwardly. And so,
as ever in like circumstances, the- very things which might have
been most of blessing become most of curse, and the judgment of
hardening fulfils itself by that which in itself is good. Nor could
' the bag ' have been afterwards taken from him without both ex
posing him to the others, and precipitating his moral destruction.
And so he had to be left to the process of inward ripening, till all was
ready for the sickle.
This very gift of ' government ' in Judas may also help us to
understand how he may have been first attracted to Jesus, and
through what process, when alienated, he came to end in that terri
ble sin which had cast its snare about him. The ' gift of govern
ment ' would, in its active aspect, imply the desire for it. From
thence to ambition in its worst, or selfish, aspect, there is only a
step — scarcely that: rather, only different moral premisses.1 Judas
1 On the relation between ambition and covetousness, generally, and in the
case of Judas, see p. 77.

DEVELOPMENT OF JUDAS' INNER HISTORY. 4*73
was drawn to Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and he believed in Him CHAP.
as such, possibly both earnestly and ardently; but he expected that VIII
His would be the success, the result, and the triumphs of the Jewish v— ^ 
Messiah, and he also expected personally and fully to share in
them. How deep-rooted were such feelings even in the best, purest,
and most unselfish of Jesus' disciples, we gather from the request of
the mother of John and James for her sons, and from Peter's question:
' What shall we have? ' It must have been sorrow, the misery
of moral loneliness, and humiliation, to Him Who was Unselfishness
Incarnate, Who lived to die and was full to empty Himself, to be
associated with such as even His most intimate disciples, who in this
sense also could not watch with Him even one hour, and in whom, at
the end of His Ministry, such heaviness was mentally and morally
the outcrop, if not the outcome. And in Judas all this must have
been an hundredfold more than in them who were in heart true to
Christ. He had, from such conviction as we have described, joined the
movement at its very commencement. Then, multitudes in Galilee
followed His Footsteps, and watched for His every appearance; they
hung entranced on His lips in the Synagogue or on ' the Mount ' ;
they flocked to Him from every town, village, and hamlet; they
bore the sick and dying to His Feet, and witnessed, awestruck, how
conquered devils gave their testimony to His Divine Power. It was
the spring-time ofthe movement, and all was full -of promise — land,
people, and disciples. The Baptist, who had bowed before Him and
testified to Him, was still lifting his voice to proclaim the near King
dom. But the people had turned after Jesus, and He swayed them.
And, oh! what power was therein His Face and Word, in His look
and deed. And Judas, also, had been one of them who, on their
early Mission, had temporarily had power given him, so that the very
devils had been subject to them. But, step by step, had come the
disappointment. John was beheaded, and not avenged; on the con
trary, Jesus withdrew Himself. This constant withdrawing, whether
from enemies or from success — almost amounting to flight — even
when they would have made Him a King; this refusal to show Him
self openly, either at Jerusalem, as His own brethren had taunted
Him, or, indeed, anywhere else; this uniform preaching of dis
couragement to them, when they came to Him elated and hopeful
at some success; this gathering enmity of Israel's leaders, and His
marked avoidance of, or, as some might have put it, His failure in
taking up the repeated public challenge of the Pharisees to show a
sign from heaven; last, and chief of all, this constant and growing

474 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK reference to shame, disaster, and death — what did it all mean, if not
V disappointment of all those hopes and expectations which had made
— ¦> — -^ Judas at the first a disciple of Jesus?
He that so knew Jesus, not only in His Words and Deeds, but in
His inmost Thoughts, even to His night-long communing with God
on the hill-side, could not have seriously believed in the coarse
Pharisaic charge of Satanic agency as the explanation of all. Yet,
from the then Jewish standpoint, he could scarcely have found it
impossible to suggest some other explanation of His miraculous
power. But, as increasingly the moral aud spiritual aspect of
Christ's Kingdom must have become apparent to even the dullest
intellect, the bitter disappointment of his Messianic thoughts and
hopes must have gone on, increasing in proportion as, side by side
with it, the process of moral alienation, unavoidably connected with
his resistance to such spiritual manifestations, continued and in
creased. And so the mental and the moral alienation went on to
gether, affected by and affecting each other. As if we were pressed
to name a definite moment when the process of disintegration, at
least sensibly, began, we would point to that Sabbath-morning at
Capernaum, when Christ had preached about His Flesh as the Food
ofthe World, and so many of His adherents ceased to follow after
Him; nay, when the leaven so worked even in His disciples, that
He turned to them with the searching question — intended to show
them the full import of the crisis — whether they also would leave
Him? Peter conquered by grasping the moral element, because it
was germane to him and to the other true disciples: ' To whom
shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.' But this moral
element was the very cliff on which Judas made shipwreck. After
this, all was wrong, and increasingly so. We see disappointment in
his face when not climbing the Mount of Transfiguration, and dis
appointment in the failure to heal the lunatick child. In the disputes
by the way, in the quarrels who was greatest among them, in all the
pettiness of misunderstandings and realistic folly of their questions
or answers, we seem to hear the echo of his voice, to see the result
of his influence, the leaven of his presence. And in it all we mark
the downward hastening of his course, even to the moment when, in
contrast to the deep love of a Mary, he first stands before us un
masked, as heartless, hypocritical, full of hatred — disappointed ambi
tion having broken down into -selfishness, and selfishness slid into
covetousness, even to the crime of stealing that which was destined
for the poor.
For, when an ambition which rests only on selfishness gives way

THE BETRAYAL OF JUDAS.' 415
there lies close by it the coarse lust of covetousness, as the kindred CHAP.
passion and lower expression of that other form of selfishness. When VIII
the Messianic faith of Judas gave place to utter disappointment, the v-— ~v— ^
moral and spiritual character of Christ's Teaching would affect him,
not sympathetically but antipathetically. Thus, that which should
have opened the door of his heart, only closed and double-barred it.
His attachment to the Person of Jesus would give place to actual
hatred, though only of a temporary character; and the wild intense-
ness of his Eastern nature would set it all in flame. Thus, when
Judas had lost his slender foothold, or, rather, when it had slipped
from under him, he fell down, down the eternal abyss. The only
hold to which he could cling was the passion of his soul. As he laid
hands on it, it gave way, and fell with him into fathomless depths.
We, each of us, have also some master-passion; and if, which God
forbid! we should lose our foothold, we also would grasp this master-
passion, and it would give way, and carry us with it into the eternal
dark and deep.
On that spring day, in the restfulness of Bethany, when the
Master was taking His sad and solemn Farewell of sky and earth, of
friends and disciples, and told them what was to happen only two
days later at the Passover, it was all settled in the soul of Judas.
' Satan entered ' it. Christ would be crucified; this was quite cer
tain. In the general cataclysm let Judas have at least something.
And so, on that sunny afternoon, he left them out there, to seek
speech of them that were gathered, not in their ordinary meeting-
place, but in the High-Priest's Palace. Even this indicates that it
was an informal meeting, consultative rather than judicial. For, it
was one of the principles of Jewish Law that, in criminal cases, sen
tence must be spoken in the regular meeting-place ofthe Sanhedrin/ *At>. zar.
r ° . ,8 b, line
The same inference is conveyed by the circumstance, that the captain before last
of the Temple-guard and his immediate subordinates seem to have
been taken into the council," no doubt to concert the measures for the bSt. Luke
actual arrest of Jesus. There had previously been a similar gather- XX11' i
ing and consultation, when the report of the raising of Lazarus reached
the authorities of Jerusalem." The practical resolution adopted at -st. John
• i xi. 47, 48
that meeting had apparently been, that a strict watch should hence
forth be kept on Christ's movements, and that every one of them, as
well as the names of His friends, and the places of His secret retire
ment, should be communicated to the authorities, with the view to
His arrest at the proper moment/ ast. John
It was probably in professed obedience to this direction, that the
traitor presented himself that afternoon in the Palace ofthe High-

476 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK Priest Caiaphas.1 Those assembled there were the ' chiefs ' of the
V Priesthood — no doubt, the Temple-officials, heads of the courses of
N— "y-"-' Priests, and connections of the High-Priestly family, who constituted
what both Josephus and the Talmud designate as the Priestly Council.2
All connected with the Temple, its ritual, administration, order, and
laws, would be in their hands. Moreover, it was but natural, that
the High-Priest and his council should be the regular official medium
between the Roman authorities and the people. In matters which
concerned, not ordinary misdemeanours, but political crimes (such as
it was wished to represent the movement of Jesus), or which affected
the status of the established religion, the official chiefs of the Priest
hood would, of course, be the persons to appeal, in conjunction with
the Sanhedrists, to the secular authorities. This, irrespective of the
question — to which reference will be made in the sequel — what place
the Chief Priests held in the Sanhedrin. But in that meeting in
the Palace of Caiaphas, besides these Priestly Chiefs, the leading
Sanhedrists (' Scribes and Elders') were also gathered. They were
deliberating how Jesus might be taken by subtilty and killed.
Probably they had not yet fixed on any definite plan. Only at
this conclusion had they arrived — probably in consequence of the
popular acclamations at His Entry into Jerusalem, and of what had
since happened — that nothing must be done during the Feast, for
fear of some popular tumult. They knew only too well the character
of Pilate, and how in any such tumult all parties — the leaders as
well as the led — might experience terrible vengeance.
It must have been intense relief when, in their perplexity, the
traitor now presented himself before them with his proposals. Yet
his reception was not such as he may have looked for. He probably
expected to be hailed and treated as a most important ally. They
were, indeed, 'glad, and covenanted to give him money,' even as he
promised to dog His steps, and watch for the opportunity which they
sought. In truth, the offer of the betrayer changed the whole aspect
of matters. What formerly they dreaded to attempt seemed now
both safe and easy. They could not allow such an opportunity to
slip; it was one that might never occur again. Nay, might it not
even seem, from the defection of Judas, as if dissatisfaction and
disbelief had begun to spread in the innermost circle of Christ's
disciples? Yet, withal, they treated Judas not as an honoured associate, but
as a common informer, and a contemptible betrayer. This was not
1 About Caiaphas, see Book II. ch. xi. not well arranged, by Wieseler Beitr
2 The evidence is collected, although pp. 205-230.

THE PRICE OF THE BETRAYAL. 47.7.
only natural but, in the circumstances, the wisest policy, alike in CHAP.
order to save their own dignity, and to keep most secure hold on the VIII
betrayer. And, after all, it might be said, so as to minimise his — —^-~— '
services, that Judas could really not do much for them — only show
them how they might seize Him at unawares in the absence of the
multitude, to avoid the possible tumult of an open arrest. So little
did they understand Christ ! And Judas had at last to speak it out
barefacedly — so selling himself as well as the Master: ' What will
ye give me?' It was in literal fulfilment of prophecy," that they «zecn. xi.
' weighed out ' to him 1 from the very Temple- treasury those thirty
pieces of silver (about 31. 15s.).2 And here we mark,* that there is
always terrible literality about the prophecies of judgment, while
those of blessing far exceed the words of prediction. And yet it was
surely as much in contempt of the seller as of Him Whom he sold,
that they paid the legal price of a slave. Or did they mean some
kind of legal fiction, such as to buy the Person of Jesus at the legal
price of a slave, so as to hand it afterwards over to the secular
authorities? Such fictions, to save the conscience by a logical
quibble, are not so uncommon — and the case of the Inquisitors hand
ing over the condemned heretic to the secular authorities will recur
to the mind. But, in truth, Judas could not now have escaped their
toils. They might have offered him ten or five pieces of silver,
and he must still have stuck to his bargain. Yet none the less do we
mark the deep symbolic significance of it all, in that the Lord was, so
to speak, paid for out of the Temple-money which was destined for the
purchase of sacrifices, and that He, Who took on Him the form of a
servant," was sold and bought at the legal price of a slave." " Phil- «• 7
And yet Satan must once more enter the heart of Judas at that 32'xo xx
Supper, before he can finally do the deed/ But, even so, we believe ^gt. joim
it was only temporarily, not for always — for, he was still a human
being, such as on this side eternity we all are — and he had still a
conscience working in him. With this element he had not reckoned
in his bargain in the High Priest's Palace. On the morrow of His
condemnation would it exact a terrible account. That night in Getii-
semane never more passed from his soul. In the thickening and
encircling gloom all around, he must have ever seen only the torch
light glare as it fell on the pallid Face of the Divine Sufferer. In the
terrible stillness before the storm, he must have ever heard only these
words: ' Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss? ' He did not
1 Probably such was the practice in dinars. The Jerusalem shekel is found,
public payments. on an average, to be worth about 2s. 6d.
2 The shekel of the Sanctuary = 4

478 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK hate Jesus then — he hated nothing; he hated everything. He was
V utterly desolate, as the storm of despair swept over his disenchanted
^ — -y~— ' soul, and swept him before it. No one in heaven or on earth to
appeal to; no one, Angel or man, to stand by him. Not the priests,
who had paid him the price of blood, would have aught of him, not
even the thirty pieces of silver, the blood-money of his Master and
of his own soul — even as the modern Synagogue, which approves of
what has been done, but not of the deed, will have none of him!
With their 'See thou to it!' they sent him reeling back into his
darkness. Not so could conscience be stilled. And, louder than the
ring of the thirty silver pieces as they fell on the marble pavement
of the Temple, rang it ever in his soul, ' I have betrayed innocent
blood ! ' Even if Judas possessed that which on earth cleaves closest
and longest to us — a woman's love — it could not have abode by him.
It would have turned into madness and fled; or it would have
withered, struck by the lightning-flash of that night of terrors.
Deeper — farther out into the night! to its farthest bounds —
where rises and falls the dark flood of death. The wild howl of the
storm has lashed the dark waters into fury: they toss and break in
wild billows at his feet. One narrow rift in the cloud-curtain over
head, and, in the pale, deathlike light lies the Figure of the Christ,
so calm and placid, untouched and unharmed, on the storm-tossed
waters, as it had been that night lying on the Lake of Galilee, nvhen
Judas had seen Him come to them over the surging billows, and then
bid them be peace. Peace ! What peace to him now — in earth or
heaven? It was the same Christ, but thorn-crowned, with nail-prints
in His Hands and Feet. And this Judas had done to. the Master!
Only for one moment did it seem to lie there; then it was sucked up
by the dark waters beneath. And again the cloud-curtain is drawn,
only more closely; the darkness is thicker, and the storm wilder than
before. Out into that darkness, with one wild plunge — there, where
the Figure of the Dead Christ had lain on the waters! And the dark
waters have closed around him in eternal silence.

In the lurid morn that broke on the other shore where the flood
cast him up, did he meet those searching, loving Eyes of Jesus,
Whose gaze he knew so well — when he came to answer for the deeds
done in the flesh?
And — can there be a store in the Eternal Compassion for the Be
trayer of Christ?

PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER. 479

b Ant. ii.
15,1

CHAPTER IX.
THE FIFTH DAY IN PASSION- WEEK — ' MAKE READY THE PASSOVER ! '
(St. Matt. xxvi. 17-19 ; St. Mark xiv. 12-16 ; St. Luke xxii. 7-13 ; St. John xiii. 1.)
When the traitor returned from Jerusalem on the Wednesday after- chap.
noon, the Passover, in the popular and canonical, though not in IX
the Biblical sense, was close at hand. It began on the 14th Nisan, "- — y~
that is, from the appearance of the first three stars on Wednesday
evening [the evening of what had been the 13th], and ended with
the first three stars on Thursday evening [the evening of what had
been the 14th day of Nisan]. As this is an exceedingly important
point, it is well here to quote the precise language of the Jerusalem
Talmud: " 'What means: On the PesacM1 On the 14th [Nisan].' «jer. pes.
And so Josephus describes the Feast as one of eight days," evidently before last
reckoning its beginning on the 14th, and its close at the end of the
21st Nisan. The absence of the traitor so close upon the Feast would
therefore, be the less noticed by the others. Necessary preparations
might have to be made, even though they were to be guests in some
house — they knew not which. These would, of course, devolve on
Judas. Besides, from previous conversations, they may also have
judged that ' the man of Kerioth ' would fain escape what the Lord
had all that day been telling them about, and which was now filling
their minds and hearts.
Everyone in Israel was thinking about the Feast. For the pre
vious month it had been the subject of discussion in the Academies,
and, for the last two Sabbaths at least, that of discourse in the
Synagogues.2 Everyone was going to Jerusalem, or had those near
and dear to them there, or at least watched the festive processions
to the Metropolis of Judaism. It was a gathering of universal
Israel, that of the memorial of the birth-night of the nation, and of
its Exodus, when friends from afar would meet, and new friends be
1 The question is put in connection 27 b, towards the end). ' But the detailed
with Pes. i. 8. quotations would here be so numerous,
2 See the Jerusalem Gemara (Jer. Pes. that it seems wiser to omit them.

480 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK made; when offerings long due would be brought, and purification
V long needed be obtained — and all worship in that grand and glorious
'  ,  ' Temple, with its gorgeous ritual. National and religious feelings
were alike stirred in what reached far back to the first, and pointed
far forward to the final Deliverance. On that day a Jew might
well glory in being a Jew. But we must not dwell on such thoughts,
nor attempt a general description of the Feast. Rather shall we
try to follow closely the footsteps of Christ and His disciples, and see
or know only what on that day they saw and did.
For ecclesiastical purposes Bethphage and Bethany seem to have
been included in Jerusalem. But Jesus must keep the Feast in the
City itself, although, if His purpose had not been interrupted, He
would have spent the night outside its walls.1 The first preparations
for the Feast would commence shortly after the return of the traitor.
For, on the evening [of the 13th] commenced the 14th of Nisan,
when a solemn search was made with lighted candle throughout each
house for any leaven that might be hidden, or have fallen aside by
accident. Such was put by in a safe place, and afterwards destroyed
with the rest. In Galilee it was the usage to abstain wholly from
work; in Judaea the day was divided, and actual work ceased only at
noon, though nothing new was taken in hand even in the morning.
This division of the day for festive purposes was a Rabbinic addi
tion; and, by way of a hedge around it, an hour before midday was
fixed after which nothing leavened might be eaten. The more strict
abstained from it even an hour earlier (at ten o'clock), lest the
eleventh hour might insensibly run into the forbidden midday. But
there could be little real danger of this, since, by way of public notifi
cation, two desecrated thankoffering cakes were laid on a bench in
the Temple, the removal of one of which indicated that the time
for eating what was leavened had passed; the removal of the other,
that the time for destroying all leaven had come.2
It was probably after the early meal, and when the eating of
leaven had ceased, that Jesus began preparations for the Paschal
Supper. St. John, who, in view of the details in the other Gospels,
summarises, and, in some sense, almost passes over, the outward
events, so that their narration may not divert attention from those
1 Comp. St. Matt. xxvi. 30, 36; St. Rabbi proposed that the search should be
Mark xiv. 26, 32; St. Luke xxii. 39; St. repeated at three different times! If ithad
John xviii. 1. been omitted on the evening of the 13th,
2 The Jerusalem Talmud gives the it would be made on the forenoon of the
most minute details of the places 14th Nisan.
in which search is to be made. One

THE NIGHT OF THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 481
all-important teachings which he alone records, simply tells by way chap.
of preface and explanation — alike of the ' Last Supper' and of what IX
followed — that Jesus, ' knowing that His hour was come that He v— ^ — ^
should depart out of this world unto the Father 1 . . . having loved
His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end. ' 2
But St. Luke's account of what actually happened, being in some
points the most explicit, requires to be carefully studied, and that
without thought of any possible consequences in regard to the har
mony of the Gospels. It is almost impossible to imagine anything
more evident, than that he wishes us to understand that Jesus was
about to celebrate the ordinary Jewish Paschal Supper. ' And the
Day of Unleavened Bread came, on which the Passover must be sac
rificed.'" The designation is exactly that of the commencement of «st. Luke
the Pascha, which, as we have seen, was the 14th Nisan, and the
description that of the slaying of the Paschal Lamb. What follows
is in exact accordance with it: 'And He sent Peter and John, say
ing, Go and make ready for us the Pascha, that we may eat it.'
Then occur these three notices in the same account: 'And . . .
they made ready the Pascha;'" 'and when the hour was come, He » ver. is
reclined [as usual at the Paschal Supper], and the Apostles with
Him;'0 and, finally, these words of His:" 'With desire I have de- « ver. 14
sired to eat this Pascha with you.' And with this fully agrees the
language of the other two Synoptists, St. Matt. xxvi. 17-20, and
St. Mark xiv. 12-1 "7/ No ingenuity can explain away these facts.
The suggestion, that in that year the Sanhedrin had postponed the
Paschal Supper from Thursday evening (the 14th-15th Nisan) to
Friday evening (15-16th Nisan), so as to avoid the Sabbath following
on the first day of the feast — and that the Paschal La-nib was there
fore in that year eaten on Friday, the evening of the day on which
Jesus was crucified, is an assumption void of all support in history
1 These phrases occur frequently in them to the end') as referring to the
Jewish writings for dying : 'the hour has final and greatest manifestation of His
come ' ' to depart out of this world.' Thus, love ; the one being the terminus a quo,
in Targum on Cant. i. 7, ' when the hour the other the terminus ad quern.
had come that Moses should depart out 3 It deserves notice, that the latest Jew-
of the world; ' Shem. R. 33, 'what hour ish writer on the subject (Joel, Blicke in
the time came for our father Jacob that d. Relig. Gesch. Part H. pp.62 &c.) — how-
he should depart out of the world.' ever we may otherwise differ from him —
2 The words may also be rendered ' to has by an ingenious process of combina-
the uttermost.' But it seems more tion shown, that the original view ex-
natural to understand the ' having loved ' pressed in Jewish writings was, that
as referring to all Christ's previous say- Jesus was crucified on the first Pascha!
ings and doings — as it were, the summing day, and that this was only at a later
up of the whole past, like St. Matt. xxvi. period modified to ' the eve of the
1: 'when Jesus had finished all these Pascha,' Sanh. 43 a, 67 a (the latter in
sayings' — and the other clause ('He loved Chasr. haSh., p. 23 b).

a ver. IS

482

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» St. John
xviii. 28

* St. John
xviii. 28

- Sebbach.

a St. Luke
xsii. 8

or Jewish tradition.1 Equally untenable is it, that Christ had held
the Paschal Supper a day in advance of that observed by the rest of
the Jewish world — a supposition not only inconsistent with the plain
language of the Synoptists, but impossible, since the Paschal Lamb
could not have been offered in the Temple, and, therefore, no
Paschal Supper held, out of the regular time. But, perhaps, the
strangest attempt to reconcile the statement of the Synoptists with
what is supposed inconsistent with it in the narration of St. John"
is, that while the rest of Jerusalem, including Christ and His Apos
tles, partook of the Paschal Supper, the chief priests had been inter
rupted in, or rather prevented from it by their proceedings against
Jesus — that, in fact, they had not touched it when they feared to
enter Pilate's Judgment-Hall;" and that, after that, they went back
to eat it, 'turning the Supper into a breakfast.'2 Among the vari
ous objections to this extraordinary hypothesis, this one will be suffi
cient, that such would have been absolutely contrary to one of the
plainest rubrical directions, which has it: 'The Pascha is not eaten
but during the night, nor yet later than the middle of the night.' c
It was, therefore, with the view of preparing the ordinary
Paschal Supper that the Lord now sent Peter and John/ For
the first time we see them here joined together by the Lord, these
two, who henceforth were to be so closely connected: he of deepest
feeling with him of quickest action. And their question, where He
would have the Paschal Meal prepared, gives us a momentary glimpse
of the mutual relation between the Master and His Disciples; how
He was still the Master, even in their most intimate converse, and
would only tell them what to do just when it needed to be done;
and how they presumed not to ask beforehand (far less to propose,
or to interfere), but had simple confidence and absolute submission
as regarded all things. The direction which the Lord gave, while
once more evidencing to them, as it does to us, the Divine fore
knowledge of Christ, had also its deep human meaning. Evidently,
neither the house where the Passover was to be kept, nor its owner,3
was to be named beforehand within hearing of Judas. That last Meal
with its Institution of the Holy Supper, was not to be interrupted,
nor their last retreat betrayed, till all had been said and done, even to
the last prayer of Agony in Gethsemane. We can scarcely err in

1 It has of late, however, found an
advocate even in the learned Bishop
Hani'lierg. 2 So Archdeacon Watkins (in Excursus
F, iu Bp. EUicott's ' Commentary on the

N.T.,' Gospel of St. John).
* St. Matthew calls him ' such an one'
(rov Seivlx). The details are furnished
by St. Mark and St. Luke, and must be
gathered from those Gospels.

THE PLACE OF THE LAST SUPPER. 483
seeing in this combination of foreknowledge with prudence the ex- chap.
pression of the Divine and the Human: the 'two Natures in One IX
Person.' The sign which Jesus gave the two Apostles reminds us of *- — -<  '
that by which Samuel of old had conveyed assurance and direction to
Saul/ On their entrance into Jerusalem they would meet a man — •isam.i.3
manifestly a servant — carrying a pitcher of water. Without accosting,
they were to follow him, and, when they reached the house, to deliver
to its owner this message: J ' The Master saith, My time is at hand —
with thee [i.e. in thy house: the emphasis is on this] I hold2 the
Passover with My disciples." Where is My 'hostelry [or 'hall'], »st. niat-

!?'°

thew

where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? „st Mark
Two things here deserve marked attention. The disciples were Luke*'
not bidden ask for the chief or ' Upper Chamber, ' but for what we
have rendered, for want of better, by ' hostelry, ' or ' hall ' — KaTakvpa
— the place in the house where, as in an open Khan, the beasts of
burden were unloaded, shoes and staff, or dusty garment and burdens
put down — if an apartment, at least a common one, certainly not
the best. Except in this place,34 the word only occurs as the desig- ast. Mark
nation of the ' inn ' or ' hostelry' (KaTakvpa) in Bethlehem, where Luiexxii.'
the Virgin-Mother brought forth her first-born Son, and laid Him in
a mangier/ He Who was born in a 'hostelry' — Eatalyma — was jst. Luke
content to ask for His last Meal in a Eatalyma. Only, and this we
mark secondly, it must be His own: 'My Eatalyma. ' It was a
common practice, that more than one company partook of the
Paschal Supper in the same apartment/5 In the multitude of those fpes- vii.
who would sit down to the Paschal Supper this was unavoidable, for
all partook of, including women and children/ only excepting those «Pes.viii.i
who were Levitically unclean. And, though each company might
not consist of less than ten, it was not to be larger than that each
should be able to partake of at least a small portion of the Paschal
Lamb" — and we know how small lambs are in the East. But, while " Pes- vm.
' 2
He only asked for His last Meal in the Eatalyma, some hall opening
on the open court, Christ would have it His own — to Himself, to eat
the Passover alone with His Apostles. Not even a company of
disciples — such as the owner of the house unquestionably was — nor
1 We combine the words from the three nine passages only in one, 1 Sam. ix. 22,
Synoptists. does it stand for 'apartment.'
2 Literally, I do. 5 The Mishnah explains certain regula-
s So in St. Luke and also according to tions for such cases. According to the
the better reading in St. Mark. Targum Pseudo-Jon., each company was
4 The word occurs seven times in the not to consist of less than ten persons;
LXX.and twice in the Apocrypba(Ecclus. according to Josephus (War vi. 9. 3), of
xiv. 25 ; 1 Mace, iii- 45). But out of these not more than twenty.

484

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

a 1 Cor. si.
23

h Yoma 12 a
Megill, 26 o

' Babha B
rt. 4

yet, be it marked, even the Virgin-Mother, might be present; witness
what passed, hear what He said, or be at the first Institution of His
Holy Supper. To us at least this also recalls the words of St. Paul:
' I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you.' a
There can be no reasonable doubt that, as already hinted, the
owner of the house was a disciple, although at festive seasons
unbounded hospitality was extended to strangers generally, and no
man in Jerusalem considered his house as strictly his own, far less
would let it out for hire/ But no mere stranger would, in answer
to so mysterious a message, have given up, without further question
ing, his best room. Had he known Peter and John; or recognised
Him Who sent the message by the announcement that it was ' The
Master; ' or by the words to which His Teaching had attached such
meaning: that His time had come; or even by the peculiar emphasis
of His command: 'With thee1 I hold the Pascha with My dis
ciples? ' It matters little which it was — and, in fact, the impression
on the mind almost is, that the owner of the house had not, indeed,
expected, but held himself ready for such a call. It was the last
request of the dying Master — and could he have refused it? But he
would do more than immediately and unquestioningly comply. The
Master would only ask for ' the hall ' : as He was born in a Eatalyma,
so He would have been content to eat there His last Meal — at the
same time meal, feast, sacrifice, and institution. But the unnamed
disciple would assign to Him, not the Hall, but the best and chiefest,
'the upper chamber, ' or Aliyoh, at the same time the most honour
able and the most retired place, where from the outside stairs
entrance and departure might be had without passing through the
house. And 'the upper room ' was 'large,' ' furnished and ready.'0
From Jewish authorities we know, that the average dining-apartment
was computed at fifteen feet square; a the expression ' furnished, ' no
doubt, refers to the arrangement of couches all round the Table,
except at its end, since it was a canon, that the very poorest must
partake of that Supper in a reclining attitude, to indicate rest, safety,
and liberty;2 while the term 'ready' seems to point to the ready
provision of all that was required for the Feast. In that case, all
that the disciples would have to ' make ready ' would be ' the Pas
chal Lamb,' and perhaps that first Chagigah, or festive Sacrifice,
which, if the Paschal Lamb itself would not suffice for Supper, was

1 Comp. similarly, for example, St.
Mark v. 41 ; x. 18.
2 The Talmud puts it that slaves were

wont to/ake their meals standing, and that
this reclining best indicated how Israel
had passed from bondage into liberty.

WAS IT THE HOME OF ST. MARK? 485
added to it. And here it must be remembered, that it was of religion CHAP.
to fast till the Paschal Supper — as the Jerusalem Talmud explains," IX
in order the better to relish the Supper. v— -y^^
Perhaps it is not wise to attempt lifting the veil which rests on * Pes- *¦ 1
the unnamed ' such an one, ' whose was the privilege of being the last
Host of the Lord and the first Host of His Church, gathered within
the new bond of the fellowship of His Body and Blood. And yet we
can scarcely abstain from speculating. To us at least it seems most
likely, that it was the house of Mark's father (then still alive) — a large
one, as we gather from Acts xii. 13. For, the most obvious explana
tion of the introduction by St. Mark alone of such an incident as
that about the young man who was accompanying Christ as He was
led away captive, and who, on fleeing from those that would have laid
hold on him, left in their hands the inner garment which he had
loosely cast about him, as, roused from sleep, he had rushed into
Gethsemane, is, that he was none other than St. Mark himself. If
so, we can understand it all: how the traitor may have first brought
the Temple-guards, who had come to seize Christ, to the house of
Mark's father, where the Supper had been held, and that, finding
Him gone, they had followed to Gethsemane, for ' Judas knew the
place, for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with His disciples ' " — and b st. John
how Mark, startled from his sleep by the appearance of the armed
men, would hastily cast about him his loose .tunic and run after
them; then, after the flight of the disciples, accompany Christ, but
escape intended arrest by leaving his tunic in the hands of his would-
be captors. If the view formerly expressed is correct, that the owner of the
house had provided all that was needed for the Supper, Peter and John
would find there the Wine for the four Cups, the cakes of unleavened
Bread, and probably also ' the bitter herbs.' Of the latter five kinds
are mentioned," which were to be dipped once in salt water, or «Pes. u. 6
vinegar, and another time in a mixture called Charoseth (a com
pound made of nuts, raisins, apples, almonds, &c/) — although this
Charoseth was not obligatory. The wine was the ordinary one of the
country, only red; it was mixed with water, generally in the propor
tion of one part to two of water.2 The quantity for each of the four
Cups is stated by one authority as five-sixteenths of a log, which may
1 As it was symbolic of the clay on mented wine is not worth serious discus-
which the children of Israel worked in sion, although in modern practice (for
Egypt, the rubric has it that it must be reasons needless to mention) its use is
thick (Pes. 116 a). allowed.
2 The contention that it was unfer-

486

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

•Chag.i. 2.

fcMenach.xiii. 8
° Sheqal. ii.

be roughly computed at half a tumbler — of course mixed with water.1
The Paschal Cup is described (according to the rubrical measure,
which of course would not always be observed) as two fingers long by
two fingers broad, and its height as a finger, half a finger, and one-
third of a finger. All things being, as we presume, ready in the
furnished upper room, it would only remain for Peter and John to see
to the Paschal Lamb, and anything else required for the Supper,
possibly also to what was to be offered as Chagigah, or festive sacrifice,
and afterwards eaten at the Supper. If the latter were to be brought,
the disciples would, of course, have to attend earlier in the Temple.
The cost of the Lamb, which had to be provided, -was very small.
So low a sum as about threepence of our money is mentioned for
such a sacrifice." But this must refer to a hypothetical case rather
than to the ordinary cost, and we prefer the more reasonable compu
tation, from one Sela" to three Selaim," i.e. from 2s. 6d. to Is. 6d. of
our money.
If we mistake not, these purchases had, however, already been
made on the previous afternoon by Judas. It is not likely that they
would have been left to the last; nor that He Who had so lately con
demned the traffic in the Courts ofthe Temple would have, sent His
two disciples thither to purchase the Paschal Lamb, which would have
been necessary to secure an animal that had passed Levitical inspec
tion, since on the Passover-day there would have been no time to
subject it to such scrutiny. On the other hand, if Judas had made this
purchase, we perceive not only on what pretext he may have gone to
Jerusalem on the previous afternoon, but also how, on his way from
the Sheep-market to the Temple, to have his lamb inspected, he
may have learned that the Chief-Priests and Sanhedrists were just
then in session in the Palace of the High-Priest close by/
On the supposition just made, the task of Peter and John would,
indeed, have been simple. They left the house of Mark with
wondering but saddened hearts. Once more had they had evidence,
how the Master's Divine glance searched the future in all its details.
They had met the servant with the pitcher of water; they had
delivered their message to the master of the house; and they had
seen the large Upper Room furnished and ready. But this prescience

1 The whole rubric is found in Jer.
Pes. 37 c. The log = to the contents of
six eggs. HerzfeJd (Handelsgesch. p. 184)
makes -.^ of a log = a dessert spoon.
12 log = 1 hin.
2 But it may have been otherwise;

perhaps the lamb was even procured by
the owner of the ' Upper Chamber,' since
it might be offered for another. At the
same time the account in the text seems
to accord best with the Gospel-narrative.

THE SLAYING OF THE PASCHAL LAMB. 487
of Christ afforded only further evidence, that what He had told of chap.
His impending Crucifixion would also come true. And now it would IX
be time for the ordinary Evening-Service and Sacrifice. Ordinarily ' — -> 
this began about 2.30 p.m. — the daily Evening-Sacrifice being
actually offered up about an hour later; but on this occasion, on
account of the Feast, the Service was an hour earlier.1 As at about
half-past one of our time the two Apostles ascended the Temple-
Mount, following a dense, motley crowd of joyous, chatting pilgrims,
they must have felt terribly lonely among them. Already the
shado\vs of death were gathering around'them. In all that crowd how
few to sympathise with them; how many enemies! The Temple-
Courts were thronged to the utmost by worshippers from all countries
#nd from all parts of the land. The Priests' Court was filled with
white-robed Priests and Levites — for on that day" all the twenty-
four Courses were on duty, and all their services would be called for,
although only the Course for that week would that afternoon engage
in the ordinary service, which preceded that of the Feast. Almost
mechanically would they witness the various parts of the well-
remembered ceremonial. There must have been a peculiar meaning
to them, a mournful significance, in the language of Ps. lxxxi., as the
Levites chanted it that afternoon in three sections, broken three
times by the threefold blast from the silver trumpets of the Priests.
Before the incense was burnt for the Evening Sacrifice, or yet the
lamps in the Golden Candlestick were trimmed for the night, the
Paschal-Lambs were slain. The worshippers were admitted in three
divisions within the Court of the Priests. When the first company
had entered, the massive Nicanor Gates — which led from the Court
of the Women to that of Israel — and the other side-gates into the
Court of the Priests, were closed. A threefold blast from the Priests'
trumpets intimated that the Lambs were being slain. This each
Israelite did for himself. We can scarcely be mistaken in supposing
that Peter and John would be in the first of the three companies
into which the offerers were divided; for they must have been anxious
to be gone, and to meet the Master and their brethren in that
' Upper Room.' Peter and John '' had slain the Lamb. In two rows
the officiating Priests stood, up to the great Altar of Burnt-offering.
As one caught up the blood from the dying Lamb in a golden bowl,
1 If it had been the evening from 2. Although, so far as we know, not of
Friday to Saturday, instead of from practical importance here, we should
Thursday to Friday, it would have been perhaps bear in mind that Johh was a
two hours earlier. See the rubric in priest.
Pes. v. 1.

188

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

a Ps. cxiii.
to cxviii.

he handed it to his colleague, receiving in return an empty bowl;
and so the blood was passed on to the Great Altar, where it was jerked
in one jet at the base of the Altar. ' While this was going on, the
Hallel " was being chanted by the Levites. We remember that only
the first line of every Psalm was repeated by the worshippers; while
to every other line they responded by a Halleluyah, till Ps. cxviii.
was reached, when, besides the first, these three lines were also
repeated: — Save now, I beseech Thee, Lord ;
0 Lord, I beseech Thee, send now prosperity.
Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord.
As Peter and John repeated them on that afternoon, the words must
have sounded most deeply significant. But their minds must have
also reverted to that triumphal Entry into the City a few days before,
when Israel had greeted with these words the Advent of their King.
And now — was it not, as if it had only been an anticipation of the
Hymn, when the blood of the Paschal Lamb was being shed ?
Little more remained to be done. The sacrifice was laid on
staves which rested on the shoulders of Peter and John, flayed,
cleansed, and the parts which were to be burnt on the Altar removed
and prepared for burning. The second company of offerers could not
have proceeded far in the service, when the Apostles, bearing their
Lamb, were wending their way back to the home of Mark, there to
make final preparations for the ' Supper. ' The Lamb would be roasted
on a pomegranate spit that passed right through it from mouth to
vent, special care being taken that, in roasting, the Lamb did not
touch the oven. Everything else, also, would be made ready: the
Chagigah for supper (if such was used): the unleavened cakes, the
bitter herbs, the dish with vinegar, and that with Charoseth would
be placed on a table which could be carried in and moved at will;
finally, the festive lamps would be prepared.
' It was probably as the sun was beginning to decline in the hori
zon that Jesus and the other ten disciples descended once more over
the Mount of Olives into the Holy City. Before them lay Jerusalem
in her festive attire. All around, pilgrims were hastening towards
it. White tents dotted the sward, gay with the bright flowers of

1 If we may suppose that there was a
double row of priests to hand up the
blood, and several to sprinkle it, or else
that the blood from one row of sacrifices
was handed to the priests in the opposite

row, there could be no difficulty in the
offering of lambs sufficient for all the
'companies,' which consisted of from ten
to twenty persons.

CHRIST'S LAST ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. 489
early spring, or peered out from the gardens or the darker foliage of chap.
the olive plantations. From the gorgeous Temple buildings, dazzling IX
in their snow-white marble and gold, on which the slanting rays of v— -v —
the sun were reflected, rose the smoke of the Altar of Burnt-offering.
These courts were now crowded with eager worshippers, offering for
the last time, in the real sense, their Paschal Lambs. The streets
must have been thronged with strangers, and the flat roofs covered
with eager gazers, who either feasted their eyes with a first sight of
the sacred City for which they had so often longed, or else once
more rejoiced in view of the well-known localities. It was the last
day-view which the Lord could take, free and unhindered, of the
Holy City till His Resurrection. Once more, in the approaching
night of His Betrayal, would He look upon it in the pale light of
the full moon. He was going forward to accomplish His Death in
Jerusalem; to fulfil type and prophecy, and to offer Himself up as
the true Passover Lamb — "the Lamb of God, Which taketh away
the sin of the world." They who followed Him were busy with many
thoughts. They knew that terrible events awaited them, and they
had only shortly before been told that these glorious Temple-
buildings, to which, with a national pride not unnatural, they had
directed the attention of their Master, were to become desolate, not
one stone being left upon the other. Among them, revolving his
dark plans, and goaded on by the great Enemy, moved the betrayer.
And now they were within the City. Its Temple, its royal bridge,
its splendid palaces, its busy marts, its streets filled with festive
pilgrims, were well known to them, as they made their way to the
house where the guest-chamber had been prepared. Meanwhile,
the crowd came down from the Temple-Mount, each bearing on his
shoulders the sacrificial Lamb, to make ready for the Paschal Supper. ' 1
1 'The Temple and its Services,' pp. 194, 195.

190

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

CHAPTER X.

BOOK V

* Ex. xii. 6 ;
Lev. xxiii,
5; Numb.
ix. 3, 5

b Acts xii.
12, 25

THE PASCHAL SUPPER — THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
(St. Matt. xxvi. 17-19; St. Mark xiv. 12-16; St. Luke xxii. 7-13; St. John xiii. 1;
St. Matt. xxvi. 20; St. Mark xiv. 17; St. Luke xxii. 14-16; St. Luke xxii. 24-30;
St. Luke xxii. 17, 18; St. John xiii. 2-20; St. Matt. xxvi. 21-24; St. Mark xiv.
18-21; St. Luke xxii. 21-23; St. John xiii. 21-26; St. Matt. xxvi. 25; St. John
xiii. 26-38; St. Matt. xxvi. 26-29; St. Mark xiv. 22-25; St. Luke xxii. 19, 20.)
The period designated as ' between the two evenings, ' a when the
Paschal Lamb was to be slain, was past. There can be no question
that, in the time of Christ, it was understood to refer to the interval
between the commencement of the sun's decline and what was
reckoned as the hour of his final disappearance (about 6 p.m.). The
first three stars had become visible, and the threefold blast of the
Silver Trumpets from the Temple-Mount rang it out to Jerusalem
and far away, that the Pascha had once more commenced. In the
festively-lit ' Upper Chamber ' of St. Mark's house the Master and
the Twelve were now gathered. Was this place of Christ's last, also
that of the Church's first, entertainment; that, where the Holy
Supper was instituted with the Apostles, also that, where it was
afterwards first partaken of by the Church; the Chamber where He
last tarried with them before His Death, that in which He first
appeared to them after His Resurrection; that, also, in which the
Holy Ghost was poured out, even as (if the Last Supper was in the
house of Mark) it undoubtedly was that in which the Church was at
first wont to gather for common prayer? b We know not, andean
only venture to suggest, deeply soul-stirring as such thoughts and
associations are.
So far as appears, or we have reason to infer, this Passover was
the only sacrifice ever offered by Jesus Himself. We remember in
deed, the first sacrifice ofthe Virgin-Mother at her Purification. But
that was hers. If Christ was in Jerusalem at any Passover before
His Public Ministry began, He would, of course, have been a guest
at some table, not the Head of a Company (which must consist of at

THE PASCHAL SUPPER AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. 491
least ten persons). Hence, He would not have been the offerer of chap.
the Paschal Lamb. And of the three Passovers since His Public X
Ministry had begun, at the first His Twelve Apostles had not been N-^ 
gathered," so that He could not have appeared as the Head of a l^30*111
Company; while at the second He was not in Jerusalem but in the
utmost parts of Galilee, in the borderland of Tyre and Sidon, where,
of course, no sacrifice could be brought/ Thus, the first, the last, bst. Matt.
' ° ' ' ' XV. 21, &c.
the only sacrifice which Jesus offered was that in which, symboli
cally, He offered Himself. Again, the only sacrifice which He brought
is that connected with the Institution of His Holy Supper; even as
the only purification to which He submitted was when, in His Bap
tism, He 'sanctified water to the mystical washing away of sin.'
But what additional meaning does this give to the words which He
spake to the Twelve as He sat down with them to the Supper:
' With desire have I desired to eat this Pascha with you before I
suffer. '
And, in truth, as we think of it, we can understand not only why
the Lord could not have offered any other Sacrifice, but that it was
most fitting He should have offered this one Pascha, partaken of its
commemorative Supper, and connected His own New Institution
with that to which this Supper pointed. This joining of the Old
with the New, the one symbolic Sacrifice which He offered with the
One Real Sacrifice, the feast on the sacrifice with that other Feast
upon the One Sacrifice, seems to cast light on the words with which
He followed the expression of His longing to eat that one Pascha
with them: 'I say unto you, I will not eat any more1 thereof,2
until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. ' And has it not been
so, that this His last Pascha is connected with that other Feast in
which He is ever present with His Church, not only as its Food but
as its Host, as both the Pascha and He Who dispenses it? With a
Sacrament did Jesus begin His Ministry : it was that of separation
and consecration in Baptism. With a second Sacrament did He
close His Ministry: it was that of gathering together and fellowship
in the Lord's Supper. Both were into His Death: yet not as some
thing that had power over Him, but as a Death that has been fol
lowed by the Resurrection. For, if in Baptism we are buried with
Him, we also rise with Him; and if in the Holy Supper we remember
His Death, it is as that of Him Who is risen again — and if we show
forth that Death, it is until He come again. And so this Supper,
1 We prefer retaining this in the text. even if the accusative ' it ' were regarded
5 Such would still be the meaning, as the better reading.

492 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK also, points forward to the Great Supper at the final consummation of
V His Kingdom.
v — y—' Only one Sacrifice did the Lord offer. We are not thinking now
of the significant Jewish legend, which connected almost every great
event and deliverance in Israel with the Night ofthe Passover. But
the Pascha was, indeed, a Sacrifice, yet one distinct from all others.
It was not of the Law, for it was instituted before the Law had been
given or the Covenant ratified by blood; nay, in a sense it was the
cause and the foundation of all the Levitical Sacrifices and of the
Covenant itself. And it could not be classed with either one or the
other of the various kinds of sacrifices, but rather combined them all,
and yet differed from them all. Just as the Priesthood of Christ
was real, yet not after the order of Aaron, so was the Sacrifice of
Christ real, yet not after the order of Levitical sacrifices, but after
that of the Passover. And as in the Paschal Supper all Israel were
gathered around the Paschal Lamb in commemoration of the past,
in celebration of the present, in anticipation of the future, and in
fellowship in the Lamb, so has the Church been ever since gathered
together around its better fulfilment in the Kingdom of God.
It is difficult to decide how much, not only of the present cere
monial, but even of the Rubric for the Paschal Supper, as contained
in the oldest Jewish Documents, may have been obligatory at the
time of Christ. Ceremonialism rapidly develops, too often in pro
portion to the absence of spiritual life. Probably in the earlier days,
even as the ceremonies were simpler, so more latitude may have been
left in their observance, provided that the main points in the ritual
were kept in view. We may take it, that, as prescribed, all would
appear at the Paschal Supper in festive array. We also know, that,
as the Jewish Law directed, they reclined on pillows around a low
table, each resting on his left hand, so as to leave the right free.
But ancient Jewish usage casts a strange light on the painful scene
with which the Supper opened. Sadly humiliating as it reads, and
almost incredible as it seems, the Supper began with ' a contention
among them, which of them should be accounted to be greatest. '
We can have no doubt that its occasion was the order in which they
should occupy places at the table. We know that this was subject
of contention among the Pharisees, and that they claimed to be
seated according to their rank.1 A similar feeling now appeared,
1 Wiinsche (on St. John xiii. 2) refers passage he quotes does not imply this—
to Pes. 108 a, and states in a somewhat only, that without distinction of rank all
general way that no order of rank was sat down at the same table, but not that
preserved at the Paschal Table. But the the well-established order of sittin«- was

THE ARRANGEMENTS AT THE PASCHAL TABLE. 493
alas! in the circle of the disciples and at the Last Supper of the chap.
Lord. Even if we had not further indications of it, we should in- X
stinctively associate such a strife with the presence of Judas. St. ^-~*<  '
John seems to refer to it, at least indirectly, when he opens his
narrative with this notice: 'And during supper, the devil having
already cast, it into his heart, that Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon,
shall betray Him.' " For, although the words form a general intro- "St John
duction to what follows, and refer to the entrance of Satan into the
heart of Judas on the previous afternoon, when he sold his Master
to the Sanhedrists, they are not without special significance as placed
in connection with the Supper. But we are not left to general
conjecture in regard to the influence of Judas in this strife. There
is, we believe, ample evidence that he not only claimed, but actually
obtained, the chief seat at the table next to the Lord. This, as
previously explained, was not, as is generally believed, at the right,
but at the left of Christ, not below, but above Him, on the couches
or pillows on which they reclined.
From the Gospel-narratives we infer, that St. John must have
reclined next to Jesus, on His Right Hand, since otherwise he could
not have leaned back on His Bosom. This, as we shall presently
show, would be at one end — the head of the table, or, to be more
precise, at one end of the couches. For, dismissing all conventional
ideas, we must think of it as a low Eastern table. In the Talmud,1' bBBathr.
the table of the disciples ofthe sages is described as two parts covered
with a cloth, the other third being left bare for the dishes to stand
on. There is evidence that this part of the table was outside the
circle of those who were ranged around it. Occasionally a ring was
fixed in it, by which the table was suspended above the ground, so as
to preserve it from any possible Levitical defilement. During the
Paschal Supper, it was the custom to remove the table at one part
ofthe service; or, if this be deemed a later arrangement, the dishes
at least would be taken off and put on again. This would render it
necessary that the end of the table should protrude beyond the line
of guests who reclined around it. For, as already repeatedly stated,
it was the custom to recline at table, lying on the left side and lean
ing on the left hand, the feet stretching back towards the ground,
and each guest occupying a separate divan or pillow. It would,
therefore, have been impossible to place or remove anything from
infringed. The Jerusalem Talmud says among the disciples. In general, there
nothing on the subject. The Gospel- are a number of inaccuracies in the part
narrative, of course, expressly states that of Wiinsche's Notes referring to the Last
there was a contention about rank Supper.

494

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

•Ber. mb;
Tos. Ber.
v. ; Jer.
Taan, 68 a,
towardsthe bottom

<¦ St. John
xiii. 26

i St. Matt.
xxvi. 25

r\

/

~\

c

s

r ~>
=3
c
A
c
s
TABLE
is
B
L- ->
B
arrangement of
documents are
to that of the
to have been
rule" that, in
the table from behind the guests. Hence, as a matter of necessity,
the free end of the table, which was not covered with a cloth, would
protrude beyond the line of those who reclined around it. We can
now form a picture ofthe arrangement. Around a low Eastern table,
oval or rather elongated, two parts covered with a cloth, and standing
or else suspended, the single divans or pillows are ranged in the
form of an elongated horseshoe, leaving free one end of the table,
^ somewhat as in the accompanying
woodcut. Here A represents the
table, b B respectively the ends of the
two rows of single divans on which
each guest reclines on his left side,
with his head (c) nearest the table,
and his feet (d) stretching back
towards the ground.
So far for the
the table. Jewish
equally explicit as
guests. It seems
quite an established
a company of more than two, say
of three, the chief personage or Head — in this instance, of course,
Christ— reclined on the middle divan. We know from the Gospel-
narrative that John occupied the place on His right, at that end of
the divans — as we may call it — at the head of the table. But the
chief place next to the Master would be that to His left, or above
Him. In the strife of the disciples, which should be accounted the
greatest, this had been claimed, and we believe it, to have been
actually occupied, by Judas. This explains how, when Christ whis
pered to John by what sign to recognise the traitor," none of the
other disciples heard it. It also explains, how Christ would first
hand to Judas the sop, Avhich formed part of the Paschal ritual,
beginning with him as the chief guest at the table, without thereby
exciting special notice. Lastly, it accounts for the circumstance
that, when Judas, desirous of ascertaining whether his treachery was
known, dared to ask whether it was he, and received the affirmative
answer," no one at table knew what had passed. But this could
not have been the case, unless Judas had occupied the place next to
Christ; in this case, necessarily that at His left, or the post of chief
honour. As regards Peter, we can quite understand how, when the
Lord with such loving words rebuked their self-seeking and taught
them of the greatness of Christian humility, he should, in his im-
THE DISPUTE AT TABLE. 495
petuosity of shame, have rushed to take the lowest place at the other chap.
end of the table.1 Finally, we can now understand how Peter could X
beckon to John, who sat at the opposite end of the table, over against "- — ¦> 
him, and ask him across the table, who the traitor was/ The rest -st. John
of the disciples would occupy such places as were most convenient,
or suited their fellowship with one another.
The words which the Master spoke as He appeased their un
seemly strife must, indeed, have touched them to the quick. First,
He showed them, not so much in the language of even gentlest re
proof as in that of teaching, the difference between worldly honour
and distinction in the Church of Christ. In the world kingship lay
.in supremacy and lordship, and the title of Benefactor accompanied
the sway of power. But in the Church the ' greater ' would not
exercise lordship, but become as the less and the younger [the latter
referring to the circumstance, that age next to learning was regarded
among the Jews as a claim to distinction and the chief seats];
while, instead of him that had authority being called Benefactor,
the relationship would be reversed, and he that served would be
chief. Self-forgetful humility instead of worldly glory, service
instead of rule: such was to be the title to greatness and to autho
rity in the Church/ Having thus shown them the character and title »st. Lute
... xxii. 25, 26
to that greatness in the Kingdom, which was in prospect for them, He
pointed them in this respect also to Himself as their example. The
reference here is, of course, not to the act of symbolic foot-washing,
which St. Luke does not relate — although, as immediately following on
the words of Christ, it would illustrate them — but to the tenor of His
whole Life and the object of His Mission, as of One Who served, not
was served. Lastly, He woke them to the higher consciousness of
their own calling. Assuredly, they would not lose their reward; but
not here, nor yet now. They had shared, and would share His ' trials ' 2
— His being set at nought, despised, persecuted; but they would also
share His glory. . As the Father had ' covenanted ' to Him, so He
' covenanted ' and bequeathed to them a Kingdom, ' in order, ' or ' so
that,' in it they might have festive fellowship of rest and of joy with
Him. What to them must have been 'temptations,' and in that
respect also to Christ, they had endured: instead of Messianic glory,
such as they may at first have thought of, they had witnessed only
1 It seems almost incomprehensible, beloved Disciple' had obtained. (So
that Commentators, who have not Nebe, Leidensgesch.; the former even
thought this narrative misplaced by Calvin.)
St. Luke, should have attributed the 2 Not 'temptation'— i.e. not assaults
strife to Peter and John, the former being from within, but assaults from without.
jealous of the place of honour which ' the

496

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

i> St. Luke
xxii. 17, 18

contradiction, denial, and shame— and they had ' continued 'with Him.
But the Kingdom was also coining. When His glory was manifested,
their acknowledgment would also come. Here Israel had rejected
the King and His Messengers, but then would that same Israel be
judged by their word. A Royal dignity this, indeed, but one of
service; a full Royal acknowledgment, but one of work. In that
sense were Israel's Messianic hopes to be understood by them.
Whether or not something beyond this may also be implied, and, in
that day when He again gathers the outcasts of Israel, some special
Rule and Judgment may be given to His faithful Apostles, we venture
not to determine. Sufficient for us the words of Christ in their primary
meaning. '
So speaking, the Lord commenced that Supper, which in itself
was symbol and pledge of what He had just said and promised. The
Paschal Supper began, as always," by the Head ofthe Company taking
the first cup, and speaking over it 'the thanksgiving.' The form
presently in use consists really of two benedictions — the first over
the wine, the second for the return of this Feastday with all that it
implies, and for being preserved once more to witness it.2 Turning to
the Gospels, the words which follow the record of the benediction on
the part of Christ b seem to imply, that Jesus had, at any rate, so far
made use of the ordinary thanksgiving as to speak both these bene
dictions. We know, indeed, that they were in use before His time,
since it was in dispute between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai,
whether that over the wine or that over the day should take pre
cedence. That over the wine was quite simple: 'Blessed art Thou,
Jehovah our God, Who hast created the fruit of the Vine! ' The
formula was so often used in blessing the cup, and is so simple, that
we need not doubt that these were the very words spoken by our
Lord. It is otherwise as regards the benediction ' over the day, ' which
is not only more composite, but contains words expressive of Israel's
national pride and self-righteousness, such as we cannot think would
have been uttered by our Lord. With this exception, however, they
were no doubt identical in contents with the present formula. This we
infer from what the Lord added, as He passed the cup round the
circle ofthe disciples/ No more, so He told them, would He speak

1 The ' sitting down with Him ' at the
feast is evidently a promise of joy, re
ward, and fellowship. The sitting on
thrones and judging Israel must be taken
as in contrast to the ' temptation ' of the
contradiction of Christ and of their
Apostolic message — as their vindication

against Israel's present gainsaying.
8 The whole formula is given in ' The
Temple and its Services,' pp. 204, 205.
3 I have often expressed my conviction
that in the ancient Services there was
considerable elasticity and liberty left to
the individual. At present a cup is filled

THE FIRST 'CUP.' 497
the benediction over the fruit of the vine — not again utter the thanks
' over the day, ' that they had been ' preserved alive, sustained, and
brought to this season. ' Another Wine, and at another Feast, now
awaited Him — that in the future, when the Kingdom would come.
It was to be the last of the old Paschas; the first, or rather the
symbol and promise, of the new. And so, for the first and last
time, did He speak the twofold benediction at the beginning of the
Supper. The cup, in which, according to express Rabbinic testimony, "the ° Babha b.
wine had been mixed with water before it was 'blessed,' had passed 11 anai2
from top
round. The next part of the ceremonial was for the . Head of the
Company to rise and ' wash hands. ' It is this part of the ritual of
which St. John " records the adaptation and transformation on the "St. John
xiii.
part of Christ. The washing of the disciples' feet is evidently
connected with the ritual of ' handwashing. ' Now this was done
twice during the Paschal Supper: ° the first time by the Head ofthe "Pes. x. 4
Company alone, immediately after the first cup; the second time by
all present, at a much later part of the service, immediately before the
actual meal (on the Lamb, &c). If the footwashing had taken place
on the latter occasion, it is natural to suppose that, when the Lord
rose, all the disciples would have followed His example, and so the
washing of their feet would have been impossible. Again, the foot-
washing, which was intended both as a lesson and as an example of
humility and service,4 was evidently connected with the dispute dst. John
' which of them should be accounted to be greatest. ' If so, the '
symbolical act of our Lord must have followed close on the strife of
the disciples, and on our Lord's teaching what in the Church consti
tuted rule and greatness. Hence the act must have been connected
with the first handwashing — that by the Head of the Company — im
mediately after the first cup, and not with that at a later period, when
much else had intervened.
All else fits in with this. For clearness' sake, the account given
by St. John e may here be recapitulated. The opening words concern- • st. John
ing the love .of Christ to His own unto the end form the general
introduction.1 Then follows the account of what happened 'during
Supper ' r — the Supper itself being left undescribed — beginning, by
for each individual, but Christ seems to determined.
have passed the one cup round among 1 (?ode<, who regards ver. las a general,
the Disciples. Whether such was some- and ver. 2 as a special, introduction to
limes done, or the alteration was de- the foot-washing, calls attention to the
signedly, and as we readily see, signi- circumstance that such introductions not
flcantly, made by Christ, cannot now be unfrequently occur in the Fourth Gospel.

Xlli.

498

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

•St. John
xiii. 1

way of explanation of what is to be told about Judas, with this:
' The Devil having already cast into his (Judas') heart, that Judas
Iscariot, the son of Simon, shall betray Him.' General as this notice
is, it contains much that requires special attention. Thankfully we
feel, that the heart of man was not capable of originating the
Betrayal of Christ; humanity had fallen, but not so low. It was
the Devil who had ' cast ' it into Judas' heart — with force and over
whelming power. 1 Next, we mark the full description of the name
and parentage of the traitor. It reads like the wording of a formal
indictment. And, although it seems only an introductory explana
tion, it also -points to the contrast with the love of Christ which
persevered to the end," even when hell itself opened its mouth to
swallow Him up; the contrast, also, between what Jesus and what
Judas were about to do, and between the wild storm of evil that
raged in the heart of the traitor and the calm majesty of love and
peace which reigned in that of the Saviour.
If what Satan had cast into the heart of Judas explains his conduct,
so does the knowledge which Jesus possessed account for that He was
about to do/2 Many as are the thoughts suggested by the words,
' Knowing that the Father had given all things into His Hands, and
that He came forth from God, and goeth unto God ' — yet, from their
evident connection, they must in the first instance be applied to the
Footwashing, of which they are, so to speak, the logical antecedent.
It was His greatest act of humiliation and service, and yet He never
lost in it for one moment aught of the majesty or consciousness of His
Divine dignity; for Ho did it with the full knowledge and assertion
that all things were in His Hands, and that He came forth from and
was going unto God — and He could do it, because He knew this.
Here, not side by side, but in combination, are the Humiliation and
Exaltation of the God-Man. And so, ' during Supper, ' which had
begun with the first cup, ' He riseth from Supper.' The disciples
would scarcely marvel, except that He should conform to that
practice of handwashing, which, as He had often explained, was, as
a ceremonial observance, unavailing for those who were not inwardly
clean, and needless and unmeaning in them whose heart and life had
been purified. But they must have wondered as they saw Him put
off His upper garment, gird Himself with a towel, and pour water
into a basin, like a slave who was about to perform the meanest
service.

2 Bengel: magna vis. Satan 'casting' it into the heart of
1 The contrast is the more marked, as Judas, and of Christ throwing into the
the same verb (ftdXXsiv) is used both of basin the water for the footwashing.

THE WASHING OF THE DISCIPLES' FEET. 499
From the position which, as we have shown, Peter occupied at the chap.
end of the table, it was natural that the Lord should begin with him X
the act of footwashing. ' Besides, had He first turned to others, '  y—
Peter must either have remonstrated before, or else his later expos
tulation would have been tardy, and an act either of self-righteousness
or of needless voluntary humility. As it was, the surprise with which
he and the others had witnessed the preparation of the Lord burst
into characteristic language when Jesus approached him to wash his
feet. ' Lord — Thou — of me washest the feet ! ' It was the utterance
of deepest reverence for the Master, and yet of utter misunder
standing of the meaning of His action, perhaps even of His Work.
Jesus was now doing what before He hail spoken. The act of
externalism and self-righteousness represented by the washing of
hands, and by which the Head of the Company was to be distinguished
from all others and consecrated, He changed into a footwashing, in
which the Lord and Master was to b.e distinguished, indeed, from
the others — but by the humblest service of love, and in which
He showed by His example what characterised greatness in the
Kingdom, and that service was evidence of rule. And, as mostly in
every symbol, there was the real also in this act of the Lord. For,
by sympathetically sharing in this act of love and service on the part
of the Lord, they who had been bathed— who had previously become
clean in heart and spirit — now received also that cleansing of the
'feet,' of active and daily walk, which cometh from true heart-
humility, in opposition to pride, and consisteth in the service which
love is willing to render even to the uttermost.
But Peter had understood none of these things. He only felt
the incongruousness of their relative positions. And so the Lord,
partly also wishing thereby to lead his impetuosity to the absolute
submission of faith, and partly to indicate the deeper truth he was
to learn in the future, only told him, that though he knew it not now,
he would understand hereafter what the Lord was doing. Yes,
hereafter — when, after that night of terrible fall, he would learn by
the Lake of Galilee what it really meant to feed the lambs and to
tend the sheep of Christ; yes, hereafter — when no longer, as when
he had been young, he would gird himself and walk whither he
would. But, even so, Peter could not content himself with the
prediction that in the future he would understand and enter into
what Christ was doing in washing their feet. Never, he declared,
1 St. Chrysostom and others unduly others, but from the place where the
urge the words (ver. 6), ' He cometh to basin and water for the purification had
Peter.' He came to him, not after the stood.

500

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

- St. Matt.
XV. 22

could he allow it. The same feelings, which had prompted him to
attempt withdrawing the Lord from the path of humiliation and suf
fering," now asserted themselves again. It was personal affection,
indeed, but it was also unwillingness to submit to the humiliation of
the Cross. And so the Lord told him, that if He washed him not, he
had no part with Him. Not that the bare act of washing gave him
part in Christ, but that the refusal to submit to it would have de
prived him of it; and that, to share in this washing, was, as it were,
the way to have part in Christ's service of love, to enter into it, and
to share it.
Still, Peter did not understand. But as, on that morning by
the Lake of Galilee, it appeared that, when he had lost all else, he
had retained love, so did love to the Christ now give him the victory
— and, once more with characteristic impetuosity, he would have
tendered not only his feet to be washed, but his hands and head. Yet
here, also, was there misunderstanding. There was deep symbolical
meaning, not only in that Christ did it, but also in what He did.
Submission to His doing it meant symbolically share and part with
Him — part in His Work. What He did, meant His work and service
of love; the constant cleansing of one's walk and life in the love of
Christ, and in the service of that love. It was not a meaningless cere
mony of humiliation on the part of Christ, not yet one where submis
sion to the utmost was required ; but the action was symbolic, and
meant that the disciple, who was already bathed and made clean in
heart and spirit, required only this — to wash his feet in spiritual
consecration to the service of love which Christ had here shown
forth in symbolic act. And so His Words referred not, as is so often
supposed, to the forgiveness of our daily sins — the introduction of
which would have been wholly abrupt and unconnected with the
context — but, in contrast to all self-seeking, to the daily consecra
tion of our life to the service of love after the example of Christ.
And still do all these words come to us in manifold and ever-
varied application. In the misunderstanding of our love to Him, we
too often imagine that Christ cannot will or do what seems to uo
incongruous on His part, or rather, incongruous with what we think
about Him. We know it not now, but we shall understand it here
after. And still we persist in our resistance, till it comes to us that
so we would even lose our part in and with Him. Yet not much,
not very much, does He ask, Who giveth so much. He that has
washed us wholly would only have us cleanse our feet for the service
of love, as He gave us the example.

THE LESSONS OF THE FOOTWASHING. 501
They were clean, these disciples, but not all. For He knew that
there was among them he ' that was betraying Him.' • He knew it,
but not with the knowledge of an inevitable fate impending, far less
of an absolute decree, but with that knowledge which would again
and again speak out the warning, if by any means he might be saved.
What would have come, if Judas had repented, is as idle a question
as this: What would have come if Israel, as a nation, had repented
and accepted Christ? For, from our human standpoint, we can only
view the human aspect of things — that earthwards; and here every
action is not isolated, but ever the outcome of a previous development
and history, so that a man always freely acts, yet always in consequence
of an inward necessity.
The solemn service of Christ now went on in the silence of
reverent awe/ None dared ask Him nor resist. It was ended, and "¦?*. Joh£
' Xlll. 12-17
He had resumed His upper garment, and again taken His place at the
Table. It was His now to follow the symbolic deed by illustrative
words, and to explain the practical application of what had just been
done. Let it not be misunderstood. They were wont to call Him by
the two highest names of Teacher and Lord, and these designations
were rightly His. For the first time He fully accepted and owned
the highest homage. How much more, then, must His Service of
love, Who was their Teacher and Lord, serve as example z of what
was due 3 by each to his fellow-disciple and fellow-servant ! He,
Who really was Lord and Master, had rendered this lowest service to
them as an example that, as He had done, so should they do. No
principle better known, almost proverbial in Israel, than that a servant
was not to claim greater honour than his master, nor yet he that was
sent than he who had sent him. They knew this, and now also the
meaning ofthe symbolic act of footwashing; and if they acted it out,
then theirs would be the promised ' Beatitude. ' 4
This reference to what were familiar expressions among the Jews,
especially noteworthy in St. John's Gospel, leads us to supplement a
few illustrative notes from the same source. The Greek word for ' the
towel,' with which our Lord girded Himself, occurs also in Rabbinic
writings, to denote the towel used in washing and at baths (Luntith
and Aluntith). Such girding was the common mark of a slave, by
1 So the expression in St. John xiii. literal outward imitation of this deed of
11, more accurately rendered. Christ in the ceremony of footwashing,
2 vitooEiyixa. The distinctive meaning still common in the Roman Catholic
of the word is best gathered from the Church, see Bingham, Antiq. xii. 4, 10.
other passages in the N.T. in which it 3 otpEiXsre.
occurs, viz. Heb. iv. 11; viii. 5; ix. 23; 4 The word is that employed in the
St. James v. 10; 2 Pet. ii. 6. For the ' Beatitudes,' ficxxapioi.

502

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

a Shem. R.
20 b Ezek. xvi.
9 " Comp .
Ezek. xvi.
10; Ex. xix.
4; xiii. 21
¦iComp. St.
John xiii.
17

« Kidd, 42 a
< Ber. R. 78

s Yaikut on
Is. Ix. vol.
ii. p. 56 d,
lines 12, 13
from top

t St. John
xiii. 18, 19

I Ps. xii. 9

whom the service of footwashing was ordinarily performed. And, in
a very interesting passage, the Midrash a contrasts what, in this
respect, is the way of man with what God had done for Israel. For, He
had been described by the prophet as performing for them the service of
washing," and others usually rendered by slaves." Again, the combi
nation of these two designations, 'Rabbi and Lord, ' or 'Rabbi, Father,
and Lord, 'was among those most common on the part of disciples.1
The idea, that if a man knows (for example, the Law) and does not
do it, it were better for him not to have been created,4 is not unfre
quently expressed. But the most interesting reference is in regard
to the relation between the sender and the sent, and a servant and his
master. In regard to the former, it is proverbially said, that while he
that is sent stands on the same footing as he who sent him," yet he
must expect less honour/ And as regards Christ's statement that
' the servant is not greater than his Master, ' there is a passage in
which we read this, in connection with the sufferings ofthe Messiah:
' It is enough for the servant that he be like his Master. ' s
But to return. The footwashing on the part of Christ, in which
Judas had shared, together with the explanatory words that followed,
almost required, in truthfulness, this limitation: ' I speak not of you
all. ' For it would be a night of terrible moral sifting to them all. A
solemn warning was needed by all the disciples. But, besides, the
treachery of one of their own number might have led them to doubt
whether Christ had really Divine knowledge. On the other hand, this
clear prediction of it would not only confirm their faith in Him, but
show that there was some deeper meaning in the presence of a Judas
among them." We come here upon these words of deepest mysterious-
ness: ' I know those I chose; but that the Scripture maybe fulfilled,
He that eateth My Bread lifteth up his heel against Me!' ' It were
almost impossible to believe, even if not forbidden by the context, that
this knowledge of which Christ spoke, referred to an eternal foreknow
ledge; still more, that it meant Judas had been chosen with such
foreknowledge in order that this terrible Scripture might be fulfilled
in him. Such foreknowledge and foreordination would be to sin, and
it would involve thoughts such as only the harshness of our human
logic in its fatal system-making could induce anyone to entertain.
Rather must we understand it as meaning that Jesus had, from- the
first, known the inmost thoughts of those He had chosen to be His
Apostles; but that by this treachery of one of their number, the ter
rible prediction of the worst enmity, that of ingratitude, true in all
1 ^"nS'! *2N "0") or Tim "01

JUDAS AT THE TABLE.

503

ages of the Church, would receive its complete fulfilment.1 The word
' that' — ' that the Scripture may be fulfilled,' does not mean ' in order
that, ' or ' for the purpose of; ' it never means this in that connection; 2
and it would be altogether irrational to suppose that an event hap
pened in order that a special prediction might be fulfilled. Rather-
does it indicate the higher internal connection in the succession of
events, when an event had taken place in the free determination of
its agents, by which, all unknown to them and un thought of by others,
that unexpectedly came to pass which had been Divinely foretold.
And herein appears the Divine character of prophecy, which is always
at the same time announcement and forewarning, that is, has besides
its predictive a moral element: that, while man is left to act freely,
each development tends to the goal Divinely foreseen and foreordained.
Thus the word ' that ' marks not the connection between causation
and effect, but between the Divine antecedent and the human sub
sequent. There is, indeed, behind this a much deeper question, to which
brief reference has already formerly been made. Did Christ know from
the beginning that Judas would betray Him, and yet, so knowing,
did He choose him to be one of the Twelve? Here we can only
answer by indicating this as a canon in studying the Life on earth of
the God-Man, that it was part of His Self-exinanition — of that empty
ing Himself, and taking upon Him the form of a Servant * — voluntarily » hui. 11.
to forego His Divine knowledge in the choice of His Human actions.
So only could He, as perfect Man, have perfectly obeyed the Divine
Law. For, if the Divine had determined Him in the choice of His
Actions, there could have been no merit attaching to His Obedience,
nor could He be said to have, as perfect Man, taken our place, and to-
have obeyed the Law in our stead and as our Representative, nor yet
be our Ensample. But if His Divine knowledge did not guide Him
in the choice of His actions, we can see, and have already indicated,
reasons why the discipleship and service of Judas should have been
accepted, if it had been only as that of a Judasan, a man in many
' At the same time there is also a rightly points out that iva is always used
terrible literality about this prophetic re- in that sense, marking the internal con
ference to one who ate his bread, when nection in the succession of events —
we remember that Judas, like the rest, iic/SariK&i not teXik&S— where the
lived of what was supplied to Christ, and phrase occurs ' that it might be fulfilled.'
at that very moment sat at His Table. This canon is most important, and of
On Ps. xii. see the Commentaries. very wide application wherever the 'iva
2 ' 'iva frequenter EK/3aTiKa>i, i.e. de is connected with the Divine Agency, in
eventu usurpari dicitur, ut sit eo eventu, which, from our human view-point, we
ut; eo successu, ut, ita ut' [Grimm, ad have to distinguish between the decree
verb.]  Angl. 'so that' And Grimm and the counsel of God.

5-7

504

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. John
xiii. 20

<• St. Matt.
xxvi. 21
« St. Mark
xiv. 18.

respects well fitted for such an office, and the representative of one of
the various directions which tended towards the reception of the
Messiah. We are not in circumstances to judge whether or not Christ spoke
all these things continuously, after He had sat down, having washed
the disciples' feet. More probably it was at different parts of the
meal. This would also account for the seeming abruptness of this
concluding sentence:" 'He that receiveth whomsoever I send re-
eeiveth Me. ' And yet the internal connection of thought seems clear.
The apostasy and loss of one of the Apostles was known to Christ.
Would it finally dissolve the bond that bound together the College of
Apostles, and so invalidate their Divine Mission (the Apostolate) and
its authority? The words of Christ conveyed an assurance which
would be most comforting in the future, that any such break would
not be lasting, only transitory, and that in this respect also ' the
foundation of God standeth. '
In the meantime the Paschal Supper was proceeding. We mark
this important note of time in the words of St. Matthew: 'as they
were eating, ' b or, as St. Mark expresses it, ' as they reclined and
were eating. ' c According to the Rubric, after the ' washing ' the
dishes were immediately to be brought on the table. Then the Head
of the Company would dip some of the bitter herbs into the salt-water
or vinegar, speak a blessing, and partake of them, then hand them to
each in the company. Next, he would break one of the unleavened
cakes (according to the present ritual the middle of the three), of
which half was put aside for after supper. This is called the Aphi-
qomon, or after-dish, and as we believe that ' the bread' ofthe Holy
Eucharist was the Aphiqomon, some particulars may here be of
interest. The dish in which the broken cake lies (not the Aphi
qomon), is elevated, and these words are spoken: 'This is the bread
of misery which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. All that are
hungry, come and eat; all that are needy, come, keep the Pascha.'
In the more modern ritual the words are added: ' This year here,
next year in the land of Israel; this year bondsmen, next year free! '
On this the second cup is filled, and the youngest in the company is
instructed to make formal inquiry as to the meaning of all the
observances of that night,1 when the Liturgy proceeds to give full
answers as regards the festival, its occasion, and ritual. The Talmud
adds that the table is to be previously removed, so as to excite the
• pes. ne b greater curiosity/ We do not suppose that even the earlier ritual
represents the exact observances at the time of Christ, or that, even

d Pes. x. 4

THH QUESTION ABOUT THE BETRAYER. 505
if it does so, they were exactly followed at that Paschal Table of the
Lord. But so much stress is laid in Jewish writings on the duty of
fully rehearsing at the Paschal Supper the circumstances of the first
Passover and the deliverance connected with it, that we can scarcely
doubt that what the Mishnah declares as so essential formed part of
the services of that night. And as we think of our Lord's comment
on the Passover and Israel's deliverance, the words spoken Avhen the
unleavened cake was broken come back to us, and with deeper mean
ing attaching to them.
After this the cup is elevated, and then the service proceeds
somewhat lengthily, the cup being raised a second time and certain
prayers spoken. This part of the service concludes with the two
first Psalms in the series called ' the Hallel,' a when the cup is raised *P3- oxl11-
' to cxviii.
a third time, a prayer spoken, and the cup drunk. This ends the
first part of the service. And now the Paschal meal begins by all
washing their hands — a part of the ritual which we scarcely think
Christ observed. It was, we believe, during this lengthened expo
sition and service that the ' trouble in spirit ' of which St. John
speaks b passed over the soul of the God-Man. Almost presump- » st. John
tuous as it seems to inquire into its immediate cause, we can scarcely
doubt that it concerned not so much Himself as them. His Soul could
not, indeed, but have been troubled, as, with full consciousness of all
that it would be to Him — infinitely more than merely human suffering
— He looked down into the abyss which was about to open at His Feet.
But He saw more than even this. He saw Judas about to take the
last fatal step, and His Soul yearned in pity over him. The very
sop which He would so soon hand to him, although a sign of recog
nition to John, was a last appeal to all that was human in Judas.
And, besides all this, Jesus also saw, how, all unknown to them, the
terrible tempest of fierce temptation would that night sweep over
them; how it would lay low and almost uproot one of them, and
scatter all. It was the beginning of the hour of Christ's utmost
loneliness, of which the climax was reached in Gethsemane. And
in the trouble of His Spirit did He solemnly ' testify ' to them 01
the near Betrayal. We wonder not, that they all became exceeding
sorrowful, and each asked, 'Lord, is it I?' This question on the
part of the eleven disciples, who were conscious of innocence of any
purpose of betrayal, and conscious also of deep love to the Master,
affords one of the clearest glimpses into the inner history of that
Night of Terror, in which, so to speak, Israel became Egypt, We
can now better understand their heavy sleep in Gethsemane, their

506

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

forsaking Him and fleeing, even Peter's denial. Everything must

» St, John
xiii. 22

i Jer.Chall.
67 6

¦ St. John
xiii. 28

» St. Matt.
xxvi. 21;
. St. Mark
xiv. 21

all to be enveloped in outer
whether he was to be the

have seemed to these men to give way;
darkness, when each man could ask
Betrayer. The answer of Christ left the special person undetermined, while
it again repeated the awful prediction — shall wc not add, the most
solemn warning — that it was one of those who took part in the
Supper. It is at this point that St. John resumes the thread of the
narrative/ As he describes it, the disciples were looking one on
another, doubting of whom He spake. In this agonising suspense
Peter beckoned from across the table to John, whose head, instead
of leaning on his hand, rested, in the absolute surrender of love and
intimacy born of sorrow, on the bosom of the Master.1 Peter would
have John ask of whom Jesus spake.2 And. to the whispered ques
tion of John, 'leaning back as he was on Jesus' breast,' the Lord
gave the sign, that it was he to whom He would give ' the sop ' when
He had dipped it. Even this perhaps was not clear to John, since
each one in turn received ' the sop. '
At present, the Supper itself begins by eating, first, a piece of
the unleavened cake, then of the bitter herbs dipped in Charoseth,
and lastly two small pieces of the unleavened cake, between which
a piece of bitter radish has been placed. But we have direct testi
mony, that, about the time of Christ,3 'the sop ' * which was handed
round consisted of these things wrapped together: flesh of the Pas
chal Lamb, a piece of unleavened bread, and bitter herbs/ This,
we believe, was 'the sop,' which Jesus, having dipped it for him in
the dish, handed first to Judas, as occupying the first and chief
place at Table. But before He did so, probably while He dipped it
in the dish, Judas, who could not but fear that his purpose might be
known, reclining at Christ's left hand, whispered into the Master's
ear, 'Is it I, Rabbi?' It must have been^ whispered, for no one
at the Table could have heard either the question of Judas or the
affirmative answer of Christ/ It was the last outgoing of the
pitying love of Christ after the traitor. Coming after the terrible
warning and woe on the Betrayer,0 it must be regarded as the final
warning and also the final attempt at rescue on the part of the
1 The reading adopted in the R.V. ot
St. John xiii. 24 represents the better
accredited text, though it involves some
difficulties. 2 On the circumstance that John does
not name himself in ver. 23, Bengel
beautifully remarks : ' Optabilius est,

amari ab Jesu, quam nomine proprio
celebrari.' 3 The statement is in regard to Hillel,
while the Temple stood.
4 Mark the definite article — not ' a
sop.'

JUDAS LEAVES THE PASCHAL TABLE. 507
Saviour. It was with full knowledge of all, even of this that his
treachery was known, though he may have attributed the information
not to Divine insight but to some secret human communication, that
Judas went on his way to destruction. We are too apt to attribute
crimes to madness; but surely there is moral, as well as mental
mania; and it must have been in a paroxysm of that, when all
feeling was turned to stone, and mental self-delusion was combined
with moral perversion, that Judas ' took ' 1 from the Hand of Jesus
' the sop.' It was to descend alive into the grave — and with a heavy
sound the gravestone fell and closed over the mouth of the pit.
That moment Satan entered again into his heart. But the deed was
virtually done; and Jesus, longing for the quiet fellowship of His own
with all that was to follow, bade him clo quickly that he did.
But even so there are questions connected with the human motives
that actuated Judas, to which, however, we can only give the answer
of some suggestions. Did Judas regard Christ's denunciation of
' woe ' on the Betrayer not as a prediction, but as intended to be de
terrent — perhaps in language Orientally exaggerated — or if he re
garded it as a prediction, did he not believe in it? Again, when after
the plain intimation of Christ and His Words to do quickly what he
was about to do, Judas still went to the betrayal, could he have had
an idea — rather, sought to deceive himself, that Jesus felt that He
could not escape His enemies, and that He rather wished it to be all
over? Or had all his former feelings towards Jesus turned, although
temporarily, into actual hatred which every Word and Warning of
Christ only intensified? But above all and in all we have, first
and foremost, to think of the peculiarly Judaic character of his first
adherence to Christ; of the gradual and at last final and fatal dis
enchantment of his hopes; of his utter moral, consequent upon his
spiritual, failure; ofthe change of all that had in it the possibility of
good into the actuality of evil; and, on the other hand, of the direct
agency of Satan in the heart of Judas, which his moral and spiritual
ship-wreck rendered possible.
From the meal scarcely begun Judas rushed into the dark night.
Even this has its symbolic significance. None there knew why this
strange haste, unless from obedience to something that the Master
had bidden him.2 Even John could scarcely have understood the sign
which Christ had given of the traitor. Some of them thought, he
1 St.. John xiii. 30 should be rendered, the ' sop,' containing as it did a piece of
'having taken,' not 'received.' the Paschal Lamb, the chief part in the
2 To a Jew it might seem -that with Paschal Supper was over.

508

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

•St. John

had been directed by the words of Christ to purchase what was
needful for the feast: others, that he was bidden go and give some
thing to the poor. Gratuitous objection has been raised, as if this
indicated that, according to the Fourth Gospel, this meal had not
taken place on the Paschal night, since, after the commencement of
the Feast (on the 15th Nisan), it would be unlawful to make pur
chases. But this certainly was not the case. Sufficient here to state,
that the provision and preparation of the needful food, and indeed of
all that was needful for the Feast, was allowed on the 15th Nisan.1
And this must have been specially necessary when, as in this instance,
the first festive day, or 15th Nisan, was to be followed by a Sabbath,
on which no such work was permitted. On the other hand, the men
tion of these two suggestions by the disciples seems almost necessarily
to involve, that the writer of the Fourth Gospel had placed this meal
in the Paschal Night. Had it been on the evening before, no one
could have imagined that Judas had gone out during the night to
buy provisions, when there was the whole next day for it, nor would
it have been likely that a man should on any ordinary day go at such
an hour to seek out the poor. But in the Paschal Night, when the
great Temple-gates were opened at midnight to begin early prepara
tions for the offering of the Chagigah, or festive sacrifice, which
was not voluntary but of due, and the remainder of which was after
wards eaten at a festive meal, such preparations would be quite
natural. And equally so, that the poor, who gathered around the
Temple, might then seek to obtain the help of the charitable.
The departure of the betrayer seemed to clear the atmosphere.
He was gone to do his work; but let it not be thought that it was
the necessity of that betrayal which was the cause of Christ's suffer
ing of soul. He offered Himself willingly — and though it was brought
about through the treachery of Judas, yet it was Jesus Himself Who
freely brought Himself a Sacrifice, in fulfilment of the work which
the Father had given Him. And all the more did He realise and ex
press this on the departure of Judas. So long as he was there,
pitying love still sought to keep him from the fatal step. But when
the traitor was at last gone, the other side of His own work clearly
emerged into Christ's view. And this voluntary sacrificial aspect is
further clearly indicated by His selection of the terms ' Son of Man '
and ' God ' instead of ' Son ' and ' Father. ' » ' Now is glorified the

1 The Mishnah expressly allows the the Law of the Sabbath-rest was much
procuring even on the Sabbath of that more strict than that of feast-days. See
which is required for the Passover, and this in Appendix XVII., p. 783.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 509
Son of Man, and God is glorified in Him.' And God shall glorify
Him in Himself, and straightway shall He glorify Him.' If the first
of these sentences expressed the meaning of what was about to take
place, as exhibiting the utmost glory of the Son of Man in the
triumph of the obedience of His Voluntary Sacrifice, the second
sentence pointed out its acknowledgment by God: the exaltation
which followed the humiliation, the reward 2 as the necessary sequel
of the work, the Crown after the Cross.
Thus far for one aspect of what was about to be enacted. As for
the other — that which concerned the disciples: only a little while would
He still be with them. Then would come the time of sad and sore
perplexity — when they would seek Him, but could not come whither
He had gone — during the terrible hours between His Crucifixion
and His manifested Resurrection. With reference to that period
especially, but in general to the whole time of His Separation
from the Church on earth, the great commandment, the bond which
alone would hold them together, was that of love one to another,
and such love as that which He had shown towards them. And this
— shame on us, as we write it! — was to be the mark to all men
of their discipleship." As recorded by St. John, the words of the *st. John
Lord were succeeded by a question of Peter, indicating perplexity as
to the primary and direct meaning of Christ's going away. On this
followed Christ's reply about the impossibility of Peter's now sharing
his Lord's way of Passion, and, in answer to the disciple's impetuous
assurance of his readiness to follow the Master not only into peril,
but to lay down his Life for Him, the Lord's indication of Peter's
present unpreparedness and the prediction of His impending denial.
It may have been, that all this occurred in the Supper-Chamber and
at the time indicated by St. John. But it is also recorded by the
Synoptists as on the way to Gethsemane, and in, what we may term,
a more natural connection. Its consideration will therefore be best
reserved till we reach that stage of the history.
We now approach the most solemn part of that night: The In
stitution of the Lord's Supper. It would manifestly be beyond the
object, as assuredly it would necessarily stretch beyond the limits, of
the present work, to discuss the many questions and controversies
which, alas ! have gathered around the Words of the Institution. On
1 The first clause in ver. 32 of our wrongly chosen, for I look on Christ's
T.R. seems spurious, though it indicates exaltation after the victory of His Obe-
the logical nexus, of facts. dience as rather the necessary sequence
2 Probably the word ' reward ' is than the reward of His Work.

510 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK the other hand, it would not be truthful wholly to pass them by.
V On certain points, indeed, we need have no hesitation. The Insti-
 1  ' tution of the Lord's Supper is recorded by the Synoptists, although
without reference to those parts of the Paschal Supper and its
Services with which one or another of its acts must be connected. In
fact, while the historical nexus with the Paschal Supper is evident,
it almost seems as if the Evangelists had intended, by their studied
silence in regard to the Jewish Feast, to indicate that with this Cele
bration and the new Institution the Jewish Passover had for ever
ceased. On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel does not record the
new Institution — it may have been, because it was so fully recorded
by the others; or for reasons connected with the structure of that
Gospel; or it may be accounted for on other grounds/ But whatever
way we may account for it, the silence ofthe Fourth Gospel must be
a sore difficulty to those who regard it as an Ephesian product of
symbolico-sacramentarian tendency, dating from the second century.
The absence of a record by St. John is compensated by the nar
rative of St. Paul in 1 Cor. xi. 23-26, to which must be added as
supplementary the reference in 1 Cor. x. 16 to 'the Cup of Blessing
which we bless ' as ' fellowship of the Blood of Christ, and the Bread
which we break ' as ' fellowship of the Body of Christ. ' We have thus
four accounts, which may be divided into two groups: St. Matthew
and St. Mark, and St. Luke and St. Paul. None of these give us
the very words of Christ, since these were spoken in Aramaean. In
the renderings which we have of them one series may be described as
the more rugged and literal, the other as the more free and para
phrastic. The differences between them are, of course, exceedingly
minute; but they exist. As regards the text which underlies the
rendering in our A.V., the differences suggested are not of any
practical importance,2 with the exception of two points. First, the
copula 'is' [ ' This is My Body, ' ' This is My Blood '] was certainly not
spoken by the Lord in the Aramaic, just as it does not occur in the
Jewish formula in the breaking of bread at the beginning of the
Paschal Supper. Secondly, the words: 'Body which is given,' or, in
1 Cor. xi. 24, 'broken,' and 'Blood which is shed,' should be more
correctly rendered: ' is being given, ' 'broken,' 'shed.'
1 Could there possibly be a hiatus in 2 The most important of these, per-
our present Gospel ? There is not the haps, is the rendering of ' covenant ' for
least external evidence to that effect, 'testament.' In St. Matthew the word
and yet the impression deepens on con- 'new' before 'covenant,' should be left
sideration. I have ventured to throw out out; this also in St. Mark, as well as the
some hints on this subject in ' The Temple word ' eat ' after ' take.'
and its Services,' Appendix at close.

» St. Matt.
xxvi. 26;
St. Mark
xiv. 22

THE WORDS OF THE INSTITUTION AND THEIR MEANING. 511
If we now ask ourselves at what part of the Paschal Supper the chap.
new Institution was made, we cannot doubt that it was before the x
Supper was completely ended." We have seen, that Judas had left ' — "v ¦
the Table at the beginning of the Supper. The meal continued to
its end, amidst such conversation as has already been noted. Accord
ing to the Jewish ritual, the third Cup was filled at the close of the
Supper. This was called, as by St. Paul," 'the Cup of Blessing,'
partly, because a special ' blessing ' was pronounced over it. It is
described as one of the ten essential rites in the Paschal Supper.
Next, ' grace after meat ' was s_poken. But on this we need not
dwell, nor yet on ' the washing of hands ' that followed. The latter
would not be observed by Jesus as a religious ceremony; while, in
regard to the former, the composite character of this part of the
Paschal Liturgy affords internal evidence that it could not have been
in use at the time of Christ. But we can have little doubt, that the
Institution of the Cup was in connection with this third ' Cup of
Blessing. ' 1 If we are asked, what part of the Paschal Service corre
sponds to the ' Breaking of Bread,' we answer, that this being really
the last Pascha, and the cessation of it, our Lord anticipated the
later rite, introduced when, with the destruction of the Temple, the
Paschal as all other Sacrifices ceased. While the Paschal Lamb was
still offered, it was the Law that, after partaking of its flesh, nothing
else should be eaten. But since the Paschal Lamb has ceased, it is
the custom after the meal to break and partake as Aphikomon, or
after-dish, of that half of the unleavened cake, which, as will be re
membered, had been broken and put aside at the beginning of the
Supper. The Paschal Sacrifice having now really ceased, and con
sciously so to all the disciples of Christ, He anticipated this, and con
nected with the breaking of the Unleavened Cake at the close of the
Meal the institution of the breaking of Bread in the Holy Eucharist.
What did the Institution really mean, and what does it mean to
us? We cannot believe that it was intended as merely a sign for
remembrance of His Death. Such remembrance is often equally vivid
in ordinary acts of faith or prayer; and it seems difficult, if no more
than this had been intended, to account for the Institution of a special
Sacrament, and that with such solemnity, and as the second great rite
of the Church — that for its nourishment. Again, if it were a mere
token of remembrance, why the Cup as well as the Bread? Nor can
1 Though, of course, most widely of the Jews, the article on it by the
differing from what is an attempt to learned Professor Bickell, of Innsbruck,
trace an analogy between the Ritual of possesses a curious interest. See Zeitsch.
the Romish Mass and the Paschal Liturgy fur Kathol. Theol. for 1880, pp. 90-112.

512 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
book we believe, that the copula ' is ' — which, indeed, did not occur in the
V words spoken by Christ Himself— can be equivalent to 'signifies.'
^-~y As little can it refer to any change of substance, be it in what is
called Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. If we may venture an
explanation, it would be that ' this, ' received in the Holy Eucharist,
conveys to the soul as regards the Body and Blood of the Lord, the
same effect as the Bread and the Wine to the body — receiving of the
Bread and the Cup in the Holy Communion is, really, though spiri
tually, to the Soul what the outward elements are to the Body: that
they are both the symbol and the vehicle of true, inward, spiritual
feeding on the Very Body and Blood of Christ. So is this Cup which
we bless fellowship of His Blood, and the Bread we break of His Body
— fellowship with Him Who died for us, and in His dying; fellowship
also in Him with one another, who are joined together in this,
that for us this Body was given, and for the remission of our sins
this precious Blood was shed.1
Most mysterious words these, yet most blessed mystery this of
feeding on Christ spiritually and in faith. Most mysterious — yet
' he who takes from us our mystery takes from us our Sacrament. ' 2
And ever since has this blessed Institution lain as the golden morn
ing-light far out even in the Church's darkest night — not only the
seal of His Presence and its pledge, but also the promise of the
bright Day at His Coming. ' For as often as we eat this Bread and
drink this Cup, we do show forth the Death of the Lord ' — for the
life of the world, to be assuredly yet manifested — ' till He come.'
' Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly! '
1 I would here refer to the admirable 2 The words are a hitherto unprinted
critical notes on 1 Cor. x. and xi. by Pro- utterance on this subject by the late
fes3or Evans in ' The Speaker's Com- Professor J. Duncan, of Edinburgh.'
mentary.'

AFTER THE LORD'S SUPPER.

513

CHAPTER XI.
THE LAST DISCOURSES OF CHRIST— THE PRAYER OF CONSECRATION.1
(St. John xiv. ; xv. ; xvi. ; xvii.)
The new Institution of the Lord's Supper did not finally close what cjj^p
passed at that Paschal Table. According to the Jewish Ritual, the xi
Cup is filled a fourth time, and the remaining part of the Hallel " -~-~-y- —
repeated. Then follow, besides Ps. cxxxvi., a number of prayers and -ps. cxv.-
hymns, of which the comparatively late origin is not doubtful. The
same remark applies even more strongly to what follows after the
fourth Cup. But, so far as we can judge, the Institution of the Holy
Supper was followed by the Discourse recorded in St. John xiv. Then
the concluding Psalms of the Hallel were sung,b after which the bSt. Matt.
Master left the ' Upper Chamber. ' The Discourse of Christ recorded It Mark
in St. John xvi., and His prayer," were certainly uttered after they *lv-26
had risen from the Supper, and before they crossed the brook Kidron/ xvii.
In all probability they were, however, spoken before the Saviour left ^Juf °hn
the house. We can scarcely imagine such a Discourse, and still less
such a Prayer, to have been uttered while traversing the narrow streets
of Jerusalem on the way to Kidron.
1. In any case there cannot be doubt, that the first Discourse ° was . Recorded
spoken, while still at the Supper-Table. It connects itself closely with STst' John
that statement which had caused them so much sorrow and perplexity,
that, whither He was going, they could not come/ If so, the Dis- tst.john
course itself may be arranged under these four particulars: explana- Xlli-33
tory and corrective; s explanatory and teaching; h hortatory and pro- gvv. i_4
missary; ' promissory and consolatory." Thus there is constant and "w. n-u
connected progress, the two great elements in the Discourse being: l"'1^
teaching and comfort.
At the outset we ought, perhaps, to remember the very common
Jewish idea, that those in glory occupied different abodes, corrcspond-
1 As this chapter is really in the quested to peruse it with the Bible-text
nature of a commentation on St. John beside him. Without this it could
xiv., xv., xvi., xvii., the reader is re- scarcely be intelligently followed.

514

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

b St. John
xiv. 1-4

ing to their ranks. * If the words of Christ, about the place whither
they could not follow Him, had awakened any such thoughts, the ex
planation which He now gave must effectually have dispelled them.
Let not their hearts, then, be troubled at the prospect. As they be
lieved in God, so let them also have trust in Him.1 It was His
Father's House of which they were thinking, and although there
were ' many mansions, ' or rather ' stations, ; in it — and the choice of
this word may teach us something — yet they were all in that one
House. Could they not trust Him in this? Surely, if it had been
otherwise, He would have told them, and not left them to be bitterly
disappointed in the end. Indeed, the object of His going was the
opposite of what they feared: it was to prepare by His Death and
Resurrection a place for them. Nor let them think that His going
away would imply permanent separation, because He had said they
could not follow Him thither. Rather did His going, not away, but
to prepare a place for them, imply His Coming again, primarily as
regarded individuals at death, and secondarily as regarded the Church
— that He might receive them unto Himself, there to be with Him.
Not final separation, then, but ultimate gathering to Himself, did His
present going away mean. ' And whither I go, ye know the way. ' b
Jesus had referred to His going to the Father's House, and im
plied that they knew the way which would bring them thither also.
But His Words had only the more perplexed, at least some of them.
If, when speaking of their not being able to go whither He went, He
had not referred to a separation between them in that landfar away,
whither was He going? And, in their ignorance of this, how could
they find their way thither? If any Jewish ideas of the disappear
ance and' the final manifestation of the Messiah lurked beneath the
question of Thomas, the answer of the Lord placed the matter in
the clearest light. He had spoken of the Father's House of many
' stations, ' but only one road led thither. They must all know it:
it was that of personal apprehension of Christ in the life, the mind,
and the heart. The way to the Father was Christ; the full mani
festation of all spiritual truth, and the spring of the true inner life
were equally in Him. Except through Him, no man could con
sciously come to the Father. Thomas had put his twofold question
thus: What was the goal? and, what was the way to it?" In His
answer Christ significantly reversed this order, and told them first
what was the way — Himself; and then what was the goal. If they

1 I prefer retaining the rendering of the A.V., as more congruous to the whole
context.

THE FIRST DISCOURSE AFTER SUPPER. 5 15
had spiritually known Him as the way, they would also have known chap.
the goal, the Father, and now, by having the way clearly pointed XI
out, they must also know the goal, God; nay, He was, so to speak,  «— -'
visibly before them — and, gazing on Him, they saw the shining track
up to heaven, the Jacob's ladder at the top of which was the Father." • st. John
xiv 7
But once more appeared in the words of Philip that carnal
literalising, which would take the words of Christ in only an external
sense/ Sayings- like these help us to perceive the absolute need of "ver. 8
another Teacher, the Holy Spirit. Philip understood the words of
Christ as if He held out the possibility of an actual sight of the
Father; and this, as they imagined, would for ever have put an end
to all their doubts and fears. We also, too often, would fain have
such solution of our doubts, if not by actual vision, yet by direct
communication from on high. In His reply Jesus once more and
emphatically returned to this truth, that the vision, which was that
of faith alone, was spiritual, and in no way external; and that this
manifestation had been, and was fully, though spiritually and to
faith, in Him. Or did Philip not believe that the Father was really
manifested in Christ, because he did not actually behold' Him?
Those words which had drawn them and made them feel that heaven
was so near, they were not His own, but the message which He had
brought them from the Father; those works which He had done, they
were the manifestation of the Father's ' dwelling ' in Him. Let them
then believe this vital union between the Father and Him — and, if
their faith could not absolutely rise to that height, let it at least
rest on the lower level of the evidence of His works. And so would
He still lead us upwards, from the experience of what He does to the
knowledge of what He is. Yea, and if they were ever tempted to
doubt His works, • faith might have evidence of them in personal
experience. Primarily, no doubt, the words" about the greater • ver .12
works which they who believed in Him would do, because He went
to the Father, refer to the Apostolic preaching and working in its
greater results after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. To this also
must primarily refer the promise of unlimited answer to prayer in
His Name/ But in a secondary, yet most true and blessed, sense, «w.i3, u
both these promises have, ever since the Ascension of Christ, also
applied both to the Church and to all individual Christians.
A twofold promise, so wide as this, required, it must be felt, not
indeed limitation, but qualification — let us say, definition — so far as
concerns the indication of its necessary conditions. Unlimited power
of working by faith and of praying in faith is qualified by obedience

516

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ St. John
xiv. 15
' ver. 16

> 1 John ii.

' ver 17

to His Commandments, such as is the outcome of personal love to
Him." And for such faith, which compasseth all things in the obedi
ence of love to Christ, and can obtain all by the prayer of faith in His
Name, there will be a need of Divine Presence ever with them/
While He had been with them, they had had one Paraclete,1 or
' Advocate, ' Who had pleaded with them the cause of God, explained
and advocated the truth, and guarded and guided them. Now that
His outward Presence was to be withdrawn from earth, and He was
to be their Paraclete or Advocate in Heaven with the Father," He
would, as His first act of advocacy, pray the Father, Who would send
them another Paraclete, or Advocate, who would continue with them
for ever. To the guidance and pleadings of that Advocate they could
implicitly trust themselves, for He was ' the Spirit of Truth. ' The
world, indeed, would not listen to His pleadings, nor accept Him as
their Guide, for the only evidence by which they judged was that of
outward sight and material results. But theirs would be other
Empirics: an experience not outward, but inward and spiritual.
They would know the reality of His Existence and the truth of His
pleadings by the continual Presence with them as a body of this
Paraclete, and by His dwelling in them individually.
Here (as Bengel justly remarks) begins the essential difference
between believers and the world. The Son was sent into the world;
not so the Holy Spirit. Again, the world receives not the Holy Spirit,
because it knows Him not; the disciples know Him, because they
possess Him. Hence ' to have known ' and ' to have ' are so conjoined,
that not to have known is the cause of not having, and to have is
the cause of knowing/ In view of this promised Advent of the
other Advocate, Christ could tell the disciples that He would not
leave them ' orphans ' in this world. Nay, in this Advocate Christ
Himself came to them. True, the world, which only saw and knew
what fell within the range of its sensuous and outward vision (ver. 17),
would not behold Him, but they would behold Him, because He lived,
and they also would live — and hence there was fellowship of spiritual
life between them.2 On that day of the Advent of His Holy Spirit
would they have full knowledge, because experience, of the Christ's
Return to the Father, and of their own being in Christ, and of His

1 Without entering on the discussion
of what has engaged so much attention,
I must content myself here with indicat
ing the result at which I have arrived.
This is simply to abide by the real and
natural meaning of the word, alike in
the Greek and in Rabbinic usage. This

is: not Comforter but Advocate, or, it
may be, according to circumstances,
Defender, Representative, Counsellor,
and Pleader.
2 Ver. 19 should, I think, be rendered:
'But you behold Me, because [for] I
live, and ye shall live.'

THE MISSION OF THE HOLY GHOST BY THE FATHER. 51 Y
being in them. And, as regarded this threefold relationship, this' chap.
must be ever kept in view: to be in Christ meant to love Him, and XI
this was: to have and to keep His commandments; Christ's being in ^- — .  '
the Father implied, that they who were in Christ or loved Him would
be loved also of His Father; and, lastly, Christ's being in them implied,
that He would love them and manifest Himself to them." ¦ st. John
xiv. 20 21
One outstanding novel fact here arrested the attention of the
disciples. It was contrary to all their Jewish ideas about the future
manifestation of the Messiah, and it led to the question of one of
their number. Judas — not Iscariot: 'Lord, what has happened, that
to us Thou wilt manifest Thyself, and not to the world? ' Again they
thought of an outward, while He spoke of a spiritual and inward
manifestation. It was of this coming of the Son and the Father for
the purpose of making ' station ' with them ' that He spoke, of which
the condition was love to Christ, manifested in the keeping of His
Word, and which secured the love of the Father also. On the other
hand, not to keep His Word was not to love Him, with all that it
involved, not only as regarded the Son, but also the Father, since the
Word which they heard was the Father's/ "w. 22-24
Thus far then for this inward manifestation, springing from life-
fellowship with Christ, rich in the unbounded spiritual power of faith,
and fragrant with the obedience of love. All this He could say to
them now in the Father's Name — as the first Representative, Pleader,
and 'Advocate,' or Paraclete. But what, when He was no longer
present with them? For that He had provided ' another Paraclete,'
Advocate, or Pleader. This ' Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, Whom the
Father will send in My Name, that same will teach you all things,
and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.' It is
quite evident, that the interpretation of the term Paraclete as ' the
Comforter ' will not meet the description here given of His twofold
function as teaching all, and recalling all, that Christ Himself had
said. Nor will the other interpretation of ' Advocate ' meet the
requirements, if we regard the Advocate as one who pleads for us.
But if we regard the Paraclete or Advocate as the Representative of
Christ, and pleading, as it were, for Him, the cause of Christ, all
seems harmonious. Christ came in the Name of the Father, as the
first Paraclete, as His Representative; the Holy Spirit comes in the
Name of Christ, as the second Paraclete, the Representative of Christ,
Who is in the Father. As such the second Paraclete is sent by the
1 KoA)j.ovrfv nap' avrw Ttocr/aduEBa. is only to the state of believers while on
Of course only 'a station, ' as the reference earth.

518 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK Father in Name of the first Paraclete, and He would both complete
V in them, and recall to them, His Cause.
v— ~  And so at the end of this Discourse the Lord returned again, and
now with fuller meaning, to its beginning. Then He had said: ' Let
not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in Me.'
Now, after the fuller communication of His purpose, and of their
relation to Him, He could convey to them the assurance of peace,
even His Own peace, as His gift in the present, and His legacy for
• st. John the future." In their hearing, the fact of His going away, which
had filled them with such sorrow and fear, had now been conjoined
with that of His Coming 1 to them. Yes, as He had explained it,
His departure to the Father was the necessary antecedent and con
dition of His Coming to them in the permanent Presence of the other
Paraclete, the Holy Ghost. That Paraclete, however, would, in the
economy of grace, be sent by the Father alone. In the dispensation
j of grace, the final source from whence all cometh, Who sendeth both
the Son and the Holy Ghost, is God the Father. The Son is sent
by the Father, and the Holy Ghost also, though proceeding from the
Father and the Son, is sent by the Father in Christ's Name. In
the economy of grace, then, the Father is greater than the Son. And
the return of the Son to the Father marks alike the completion of
Christ's work, and its perfection, in the Mission of the Holy Ghost,
with all that His Advent implies. Therefore, if, discarding thoughts
of themselves, they had only given room to feelings of true love to
Him, instead of mourning they would have rejoiced because He went
to the Father, with all that this implied, not only of rest and triumph to
Him, but of the perfecting of His Work — since this was the condition
of that Mission of the Holy Ghost by the Father, Who sent both the
Son and the Holy Spirit. And in this sense also should they have
rejoiced, because, through the presence of the Holy Ghost in them,
sis sent by the Father in His ' greater ' work, they would, instead of
the present selfish enjoyment of Christ's Personal Presence, have the
more power of showing their love to Him in apprehending His Truth,
obeying His Commandments, doing His Works, and participating in
His Life.2 Not that Christ expected them to understand the full
1 The word ' again ' before ' come unto Him, they would rejoice that He went to
you ' is spurious, as also are the words 'I the Father, as marking the completion
said ' before ' I go to the Father.' of His work ; and again, that they should
2 The great difficulty in understanding rejoice in His going to the Father, Who
the last part of ver. 28 lies not in any one was greater, and would send the Holy
of the clauses, nor in the combination of Ghost, as implying benefit to themselves.
two, but in that of three of them. We But the difficulty of combining all these,
could understand that, if they loved so that love to Christ should induce a

DISCOURSE ABOUT THE VINE AND THE BRANCHES. 519
meaning of all these words. But afterwards, when it had all come chap.
to pass, they would believe." xi
With the meaning and the issue of the great contest on which  -¦ — '
He was about to enter thus clearly before Him, did He now go forth * ver. 29
to meet the last assault of the ' Prince of this World. ' " But why that » st. John
fierce struggle, since in Christ ' he hath nothing ' ? To exhibit to X1T' 30'
' the world ' the perfect love which He had to the Father; how even
to the utmost of self-exinanition, obedience, submission, and suffer
ing He was doing as the Father had given Him commandment, when
He sent Him for the redemption of the world. In the execu
tion of this Mission He would endure the last sifting assault and
contest on the part of the Enemy, and, enduring, conquer for us.
And so might the world be won from its Prince by the full manifes
tation of Christ, in His infinite obedience and righteousness, doing
the Will of the Father and the Work which He had given Him, and
in His infinite love doing the work of our salvation/ «ver. ai
2. The work of our salvation! To this aspect of the subject
Christ now addressed Himself, as He rose from the Supper-Table.
If in the Discourse recorded in the fourteenth chapter of St. John's
Gospel the Godward aspect of Christ's impending departure was ex
plained, in that of the fifteenth chapter the new relation is set forth
which was to subsist between Him and His Church. And this —
although epigrammatic sayings are so often fallacious — may be sum
marised in these three words: Union, Communion, Disunion. The
Union between Christ and His Church is corporate, vital, and effective,
alike as regards results and blessings/ This Union issues in Com- <"xv. 1-8
munion — of Christ with His disciples, of His disciples with Him,
and of His disciples among themselves. The principle of all these
is love: the love of Christ to the disciples, the love of the disciples
to Christ, and the love in Christ of the disciples to one another/ <w. 9-17
Lastly, this Union and Communion has for its necessary counterpart
Disunion, separation from the world. The world repudiates them
for their union witli Christ and their communion. But, for all that,
there is something that must keep them from going out of the
world. They have a Mission in it, initiated by, and carried on in
the power of, the Holy Ghost — that of uplifting the testimony of
Christ/ 'vv. 18-27
As regards the relation of the Church to the Christ Who is about
wish that He should go to the Father, in the interpretation which I have ven-
because He was greater, seems one, of tured to suggest.
which I can only see the natural solution

520

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

;1 There the
two could
with diffl-
culty be
separated.Hence the
vine the
symbol of
Israel, the
aages be
ing the
ripe grapes,
Chull .92 a

to depart to the Father, and to come to them in the Holy Ghost as
His Representative, it is to be one of Union — corporate, vital, and
effective. In the nature of it, such a truth could only be set forth
by illustration. When Christ said: 'lam the Vine, the true one,
and My Father is the Husbandman;' or again, ' Ye are the branches '
— bearing in mind that, as He spake it in Aramaic, the copulas ' am,'
' is,' and ' are,' would be omitted — He did not mean that He signi
fied the Vine or was its sign, nor the Father that of the Husband
man, nor yet the disciples that ofthe branches. What He meant was,
that He, the Father, and the disciples, stood in exactly the same
relationship as the Vine, the Husbandman, and the branches. That
relationship was of corporate union of the branches with the Vine
for the production of fruit to the Husbandman, Who for that purpose
pruned the branches. Nor can we forget in this connection, that,
in the old Testament, and partially in Jewish thought," the Vine was
the symbol of Israel, not in their national but in their Church-
capacity. Christ, with His disciples as the branches, is ' the Vine,
the true One ' — the reality of all types, the fulfilment of all promises.
They are many branches, yet a grand unity in that Vine; there is
one Church of which He is the Head, the Root, the Sustenance, the
Life. And in that Vine will the object of its planting of old be
realised: to bring forth fruit unto God.
Yet, though it be one Vine, the Church must bear fruit not only
in her corporate capacity, but individually in each of the branches.
It seems remarkable that we read of branches in Him that bear not
fruit. This must apparently refer to those who have by Baptism
been inserted into the Vine, but remain fruitless — since a merely
outward profession of Christ could scarcely be described as ' a branch
in ' Him. On the other hand, every fruit-bearing branch the Hus
bandman ' cleanseth ' 1 — not necessarily nor exclusively by pruning,
but in whatever manner may be requisite — so that it may produce the
largest possible amount of fruit. As for them, the process of cleans
ing had ' already ' been accomplished through, or because of [the
meaning is much the same], the Word which He had spoken unto
them. If that condition of fruit-bearing now existed in them in
consequence of the impression of His Word, it followed as a cognate
condition that they must abide in Him, and He would abide in them.
Nay, this was a vital condition of fruit-bearing, arising from the
fundamental fact that He was the Vine and they the branches. The
proper, normal condition of every branch in that Vine was to bear
1 ai'pEi — KaOaipsi : Suavis rhythmus (Bengel).

UNION AND COMMUNION WITH CHRIST. 521
much fruit, of course, in proportion to its size and vigour. But, both CHAP.
figuratively and really, the condition of this was to abide in Him, XI
since ' apart ' from Him they could do nothing. It was not like a "— v*-'
force once set in motion that would afterwards continue of itself. It
was a life, and the condition of its permanence was continued union
with Christ, from Whom alone it could spring.
And now as regarded the two alternatives: he that abode not in
Him was the branch ' cast outside ' and withering, which, when ready
for it, men would cast into the fire — with all of symbolic meaning as
regards the gatherers and the burning that the illustration implies.
On the other hand, if the corporate and vital union was effective, if
they abode in Him, and in consequence, His Words abode in them,
then: ' Whatsoever ye will ye shall ask, and it shall be done to you.'
It is very noteworthy that the unlimitedness of prayer is limited, or,
rather, conditioned, by our abiding in Christ and His Words in us,1
just as in St. John xiv. 12-14 it is conditioned by fellowship with
Him, and in St. John xv. 16 by permanent fruitfulness/ For, it
were the most dangerous fanaticism, and entirely opposed to the
teaching of Christ, to imagine that the promise of Christ implies
such absolute power — as if prayer were magic — that a person might
ask for anything, no matter what it was, in the assurance of obtain
ing his request.3 In all moral relations, duties and privileges are
correlative ideas, and in our relation to Christ conscious immanence
in Him and of His Word in us, union and communion with Him,
and the obedience of love, are the indispensable conditions of our
privileges. The believer may, indeed, ask for anything, because he
may always and absolutely go to God; but the certainty of special
answers to prayer is proportionate to the degree of union and com
munion with Christ. And such unlimited liberty of prayer is con
nected with our bearing much fruit, because thereby the Father is
glorified and our discipleship evidenced. a 4 a st. John
This union, being inward and moral, necessarily unfolds into com
munion, of which the principle is love. 'Like as the Father loved
Me, even so loved I you. Abide in My love. If ye keep My com
mandments, ye shall abide in the love that is Mine (s'v Trf dydnr^
' Canon Westcott beautifully observes : 3 Some, to me at least, horrible in-
' Their prayer is only some fragment of stances of this supposed absolute licence
His teaching transformed into a supplica- of prayer have appeared in a certain
tion, and so it will necessarily be heard.' class of American religious literature
2 Every unprejudiced reader will feel which of late has found too wide circula-
thatSt. Matt, xviii. 19, 20, so far as it tion among us.
does not belong to an entirely different * Preces ipsre sunt fructus, et fructum
sphere, is subject to similar conditions. augent (Bengel).

522

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

» St. John
xv. 11

BOOK Trf eprf).' We mark the continuity in the scale of love: the Father
V towards the Son, and the Son towards us; and its kindredness of
— -v— ' forthgoing. And now all that the disciples had to do was to abide in
it. This is connected, not with sentiment nor even with faith, but
with obedience.1 Fresh supplies are drawn by faith, but continuance
in the love of Christ is the manifestation and the result of obedience.
It was so even with the Master Himself in His relation to the Father.
And the Lord immediately explained * what His object was in saying
this. In this, also, were they to have communion with Him: com
munion in that joy which was His in consequence of His perfect
obedience. ' These things have 1 spoken to you, in order that the
joy that is Mine (rj xotpd r/ eprf) may be z in you, and your joy may be
fulfilled [completed].'
But what of those commandments to which such importance
attached? Clean as they now were through the Words which He had
spoken, one great commandment stood forth as specially His Own,
consecrated by His Example and to be measured by His observance
of it. From whatever point we view it, whether as specially demanded
by the pressing necessities ofthe Church; or as, from its contrast to
what Heathenism exhibited, affording such striking evidence of the
power of Christianity; 3or, on the other hand, as S3 congruous to all
the fundamental thoughts of the Kingdom : the love of the Father in
sending His Son for man, the work of the Son in seeking and saving
the lost at the price of His Own Life, and the new bond which in
Christ bound them all in the fellowship of a common calling, common
mission, and common interests and hopes — love of the brethren was
» w. 12-14 the one outstanding Farewell-Command of Christ. " And to keep His
commandments was to be His friend. And they were His friends.
1 No longer ' did He call them servants, for the servant knew not what
his lord did. He had now given them a new name, and with good
reason: ' You have I called friends, because all things which I heard
of My Father I made known to you. ' And yet deeper did He descend,
in pointing them to the example and measure of His love as the
standard of theirs towards one another. And with this teaching He
combined what He had said before, of bearing fruit and ofthe privilege
of fellowship with Himself. They were His friends; He had proved
it by treating them as such in now opening up before them the whole

1 We would fain here correct another
modern religious extravagance.
2 So according to the better reading.
3 ' The heathen are wont to exclaim

with wonder, See how these Christians
love one another!' (Tertullian, apud
Westcott.)

THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD.

523

counsel of God. And that friendship: 'Not you did choose Me, but
I did choose you '—the object of His ' choosing ' [that to which they
were 'appointed'] being, that, as they went forth into the world, they
should bear fruit, that their fruit should be permanent, and that they
should possess the full privilege of that unlimited power to pray of
which He had previously spoken." All these things were bound up
with obedience to His commands, of which the outstanding one was
to ' love one another. ' b
But this very choice on His part, and their union of love in Him
and to one another, also implied not only separation from, but repudia
tion by, the world." For this they must be prepared. It had come
to Him, and it would be evidence of their choice to discipleship.
The hatred of the world showed the essential difference and antago
nism between the life-principle of the world and theirs. For evil or
for good, they must expect the same treatment as their Master. Nay,
was it not their privilege to realise, that all this came upon them for
His sake? and should they not also remember, that the ultimate
ground of the world's hatred was ignorance of Him Who had sent
Christ? d And yet, though this should banish all thoughts of per
sonal resentment, their guilt who rejected Him was truly terrible.
Speaking to, and in, Israel, there was no excuse for their sin — the
most awful that could be conceived; since, most truly: 'He that
hateth Me, hateth My Father also.' For, Christ was the Sent of God,
and God manifest. It was a terrible charge this to bring against
God's ancient people Israel. And yet there was, besides the evidence
of His Words, that of His Works/ If they could not apprehend
the former, yet, in regard to the latter, they could see by comparison
with the works of other men that they were unique.2 They saw it,
but only hated Him and His Father, ascribing it all to the power
and agency of Beelzebub And so the ancient prophecy had now
been fulfilled : 'They hated Me gratuitously.'' But all was not yet
at an end: neither His Work through the other Advocate, nor yet
theirs in the world. ' When the Advocate is come, Whom I will
send to you from the Father — the Spirit of the Truth — Who pro-

CHAP. XI

¦ St. John
XV. 16

d vv. 19-21

f Ps. xxxv.
19; lxix. 4

1 This, although the primary meaning
of ver. 17 is : ' in order that ye love one
another ' — such is the object and scope
of what He commanded them. It ought
perhaps to be noted, that, as the com
pany of Priests that had ministered in the
Temple for the week gave place to their
successors, this farewell prayer was
spoken: He that dwelleth in this house

put among you brotherhood, love, peace,
and friendship (Jer. Ber. 3 c).
2 Canon Westcott writes : ' The works
are characterised (wJiich none other did) ;
the words are undefined (come and
spoken). The works of Christ might be
compared with other works: His words
had an absolute power.'

524

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» St. John
xvi.

¦> Sanh. 81
b; Bemid.
E. 21

« St. John
xvi. 1-4

ceedeth from the Father [goeth forth on His Mission as sent by the
Father1], this Same will bear witness about Me. And ye also bear
witness,2 because ye are with Me from the beginning.'
3. The last of the parting Discourses of Christ, in the sixteenth
chapter of St. John, was, indeed, interrupted by questions from the
disciples. But these, being germane to the subject, carry it only
forward. In general, the subjects treated in it are: the new relations
arising from the departure of Christ and the coming of the other
Advocate. Thus the last point needed would be supplied — chap. xiv.
giving the comfort and teaching in view of His departure ; chap. xv.
describing the personal relations of the disciples towards Christ, one
another, and the world; and chap. xvi. fixing the new relations to
be established. The chapter appropriately opens by reflecting on the predicted
enmity of the world/ Christ had so clearly foretold it, lest this
should prove a stumbling-block to them. Best, to know distinctly
that they would not only be put out of the Synagogue, but that
everyone who killed them would deem it ' to offer a religious service
to God.' So, no doubt, Saul of Tarsus once felt, and so did many
others who, alas! never became Christians. Indeed, according to
Jewish Law, 'a zealot' might have slain without formal trial those
caught in flagrant rebellion against God — or in what might be re
garded as such, and the Synagogue would have deemed the deed as
meritorious as that of Phinehas/ It was a sorrow, and yet also a
comfort, to know that this spirit of enmity arose from ignorance of
the Father and of Christ. Although they had in a general way been
prepared for it before, yet He had not told it all so definitely and
connectedly from the beginning, because He was still there/ But
now that He was going away, it was absolutely necessary to do so.
For even the mention of it had thrown them into such confusion of
personal sorrow, that the main point, whither Christ was going, had
not even emerged into their view/3 Personal feelings had quite
engrossed them, to the forgetftdness of their own higher interests.
He was going to the Father, and this was the condition, as well as
the antecedent of His sending the Paraclete.

1 On this meaning of the words see
the Note of Canon Westcott.
2 For the fulfilment of this predicted
twofold testimony, see Acts v. 32.
3 The question of Thomas (St. John
xiv. 5) bore as to the way, rather than
the goal ; that of Peter (xiii. 36) seemed
founded either on the Jewish idea that

the Messiah was to disappear, or else
referred to Christ's going among enemies
and into danger, whither Peter thought
he would follow Him. But none of the
questions contemplated the Messianic
Return of the Son to the Father with a
view to the Mission of the Holy Ghost.

xvi. 7

THE OFFICE OF THE PARACLETE. 525
But the Advent of the ' Advocate ' would mark a new era, as chap.
regarded the Church " and the world. It was their Mission to go XI
forth into the world and to preach Christ. That other Advocate,  ¦— -'
as the Representative of Christ, would go into the world and l?t. John
convict on the three cardinal points on which their preaching
turned. These three points on which all Missioning proceeds, are
— Sin, Righteousness, and Judgment. And on " these would the
New Advocate convict the world. Bearing in mind that the term
' convict ' is uniformly used in the Gospels 1 for clearly establishing
or carrying home guilt,2 we have here three separate facts presented
to us. As the Representative of Christ, the Holy Ghost will carry
home to the world, establish the fact of its guilt in regard to sin —
on the ground that the world believes not in Christ. Again, as the
Representative of Christ, He will carry home to the world the fact of
its guilt in regard to righteousness — on the ground that Christ has
ascended to the Father, and hence is removed from the sight of man.
Lastly, as the Representative of Christ, He will establish the fact of
the world's guilt, because of this: that its Prince, Satan, has already
been judged by Christ— a judgment established in His sitting at the
Right Hand of God, and which will be vindicated at His Second
Coming. Taking, then, the three great facts in the History of the
Christ: His First Coming to salvation, His Resurrection and Ascen
sion, and His Sitting at the Right Hand of God, of which His Second
Coming to Judgment is the final issue, this Advocate of Christ will in
each case convict the world of guilt; in regard to the first — concerning
sin, because it believes not on Him Whom God has sent; in regard
to the second — concerning righteousness, because Christ is at the
Father's Right Hand; and, in regard to the third — concerning judg
ment, because that Prince whom the world still owns has already
been judged by Christ's Session at the Right Hand of God, and by His
Reign, which is to be completed in His Second Coming to Earth.
Such was the cause of Christ which the Holy Spirit as the Advo
cate would plead to the world, working conviction as in a hostile
guilty party. Quite other was that cause of Christ which, as His
Advocate, He would plead with the disciples, and quite other in their
case the effect of His advocacy. We have, even on the present
occasion, marked how often the Lord was hindered, as well as
1 It occurs besides this place in St. and in Rev. iii. 19. This may be called
Matt, xviii. 15 ; St. Luke iii. 19 ; St. the Hebraic usus of the word. In the
John iii. 20; viii. (9) 46. Epistles of St. Paul it is more general;
2 Closely similar to the above is the use in that to the Hebrews (xii. 5) it seems
of the verb kXeyx00 m St. James ii. 9, to stand for punishing.

&J6 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK grieved, by the misunderstanding and unbelief of man. Now it was
V the self-imposed law of His Mission, the outcome of His Victory in
^ — y — ' the Temptation in the Wilderness, that He would not achieve His
Mission in the exercise of Divine Power, but by treading the ordi
nary path of humanity. This was the limitation which He set
to Himself — one aspect of His Self-exinanition. But from this His
constant sorrow must also have flowed, in view of the unbelief of
even those nearest to Him. It was, therefore, not only expedient,
but even necessary for them, since at present they could not bear
more, that Christ's Presence should be withdrawn, and His Repre
sentative take His place, and open up His Cause to them. And
this was to be His special work to the Church. As Advocate, not
speaking from 1 Himself, but speaking whatsoever He shall hear — as
it were, according to His heavenly ' brief ' — He would guide them
into all truth. And here His first 'declaration' would be of 'the
things that are coming. ' A whole new order of things was before
the Apostles — the abolition of the Jewish, the establishment of the
Christian Dispensation, and the relation of the New to the Old,
together with many kindred questions. As Christ's Representative,
and speaking not from Himself, the Holy Spirit would be with them,
not suffer them to go astray into error or wrong, but be their ' way-
leader ' into all truth. Further, as the Son glorified the Father, so
would the Spirit glorify the Son, and in analogous manner — because
He shall take of His and ' declare ' it unto them. This would be
the second line, as it were, in the ' declarations ' of the Advocate,
Representative of Christ. And this work of the Holy Spirit, sent
by the Father, in His declaration about Christ, was explained by the
circumstance of the union and communication between the Father
« st. John and Christ." And so — to sum up, in one brief Farewell, all that He
xvi 8-15 had said to them — there would be 'a little while' in which they
would not ' behold' Him (ovksti dswpsiTs ps), and again a little while
and they would ' see ' Him (oipsads ps), though in quite different
"ver. 16 manner, as even the wording shows/2
If we had entertained any doubt of the truth of the Lord's
previous words, that in their absorbedness in the present the dis
ciples had not thought of the ' whither ' to which Christ was going,
and that it was needful for them that He should depart and the
• w. 6-7 other Advocate come, ° this conviction would be forced upon us by their
1 This meaning of the word is not only 18 ; xi. 51 ; xv. 4.
most important but well marked. Canon 2 The words, ' because I go to the
Westcott calls attention to its use also Father,' are spurious in ver. 16.
in the following passages: v. 19; vii.

THE • LITTLE WHILE.' 527
perplexed questioning among themselves as to the meaning of the chap.
twofold 'little while,' and of all that He had said about, and con- xi
nected with, His going to the Father. They would fain have asked. 
yet dared not. But He knew their thoughts, and answered them.
That first ' little while ' comprised those terrible days of His Deatli
and Entombment, when they would weep and lament, but the world
rejoice. Yet their brief sorrow would be turned into joy. It was
like the short sorrow of childbearing — afterwards no more remembered
in the joy that a human being had been born into the world. Thus
would it be when their present sorrow would be changed into the
Resurrection-joy — a joy which no man could ever afterwards take
from them. On that day of joy would He have them dwell in
thought during their present night of sorrow. That would be,
indeed, a day of brightness, in which there would be no need of
their making further inquiry of Him (s'ps ovk spooTjjcrsTs).-' All *st. John
would then be clear in the new light of the Resurrection. A day comp. ver.
this, when the promise would become true, and whatsoever they asked
the Father (airiyo-r/Ts), He would give it them in Christ's Name.1
Hitherto they had not yet asked in His Name; let them ask: they
would receive, and so their joy be completed. Ah! that day of
brightness. Hitherto He had only been able to speak to them, as it
were, in parables and allegory, but then would He ' declare ' to them
in all plainness about the Father. And, as He would be able to speak
to them directly and plainly about the Father, so would they then
be able to speak directly to the Father — as the Epistle to the
Hebrews expresses if , come with ' plainness ' 2 or ' directness ' to the
throne of grace. They would ask directly in the Name of Christ;
and no longer would it be needful, as at present, first to come
to Him that He may ' inquire ' ofthe Father ' about ' them (ipooTrjaw
nspi vpwv). For, God loved them as lovers of Christ, and as recog
nising that He had come forth from God. And so it was — He had
come forth from out the Father 3 when He came into the world,
and, now that He was leaving it, He was going to the Father.
The disciples imagined that they understood this at least.
Christ had read their thoughts, and there was no need for anyone
1 According to the better reading of John vii. 4, 13, 26; x. 24; xi. 14, 54;
ver. 23: 'He will give it you in" My xvi. 25, 29; xviii. 20; 1 John ii. 28; iii.
Name.' 21; iv. 17; v. 14.
2 The same word (TCap'pr/aia) is used 3 According to the better reading: kx
of Christ's ' plainly ' declaring the Father rov TcarpoS. Surely, if words have any
(ver. 25), and of our liberty in prayer in meaning, these teach the unity of Es-
Heb. iv. 16; comp. also x. 19. For the sence of the Son and the Father.
Johannine use of the word, comp. St.

528

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. John
xvi. 30

>> St. John
xvi. 32

• St. John
xvii.

rvv.l-5; (
19; 20-26

to put express questions." He knew all things, and by this they
believed — it afforded them evidence — that He came forth from 1 God.
But how little did they know their own hearts! The hour had even
come when they would be scattered, every man to his own home,
and leave Him alone — yet, truly, He would not be alone, because the
Father would be with Him/ Yet, even so, His latest as His first
thought" was of them; and through the night of scattering and of
sorrow did He bid them look to the morning of joy. For, the battle
was not theirs, nor yet the victory doubtful: ' I [emphatically] have
overcome [it is accomplished] the world.'"
We now enter most reverently what may be called the innermost
Sanctuary/' For the first time we are allowed to listen to what was
really 'the Lord's Prayer, ' 2 and, as we hear, we humbly worship.
That Prayer was the great preparation for His Agony, Cross, and
Passion; and, also, the outlook on the Crown beyond. In its three
parts ' it seems almost to look back on the teaching of the three
previous chapters,3 and convert them into prayer/ We see the
great High-Priest first solemnly offering up Himself, and then con
secrating and interceding for His Church and for her work.
The first, part of that Prayer" is the consecration of Himself by
the Great High-Priest. The final hour had come. In praying that
the Father would glorify the Son, He was really not asking anything
for Himself, but that ' the Son ' might ° ' glorify ' the Father. For,
the glorifying of the Son — His support, and then His Resurrection,
was really the completion of the work which the Father had given
Him to do, as well as its evidence. It was really in accordance
(' even as ') with the power or authority which the Father gave Him
over ' all flesh, ' 6 when He put all things under His Feet as the
Messiah — the object of this Messianic Rule being, ' that the totality ;
(the all, nav) ' that Thou hast given Him, He should give to them
eternal life. ' The climax in His Messianic appointment, the object
of His Rule over all flesh, was the Father's gift to Christ of the
Church as a totality and a unity: and in that Church Christ gives to

1 Very significantly, however, they use
neither itapd, nor ek, but dito.
2 That in St. Matt. xi. 25-27 is a brief
thanksgiving. 3 Comp. each chapter with the corre
sponding section of verses in ch. xvii.
* I cannot agree with Canon Westcott
that these last Discourses and this Prayer
were spoken in the Temple. It is, indeed,
true, that on that night the Temple was
thrown open at midnight, and speedily

thronged. But if our Lord had come
before that time, He would have found
its gates closed ; if after that time, He
could not have found a place of retire
ment and quiet, where it is conceivable
that could have been said and prayed
which is recorded in St. John xiv., xv.,
xvi., xvii.
5 The word 'also' should be struck out.
15 We mark this Hebraism in the
Fourth Gospel.

CHRIST PRESENTING HIS OWN TO THE FATHER. 529
each individually eternal life. What follows " seems an intercalated chap.
sentence, as shown even by the use of the particle ' and,', with which XI
the all-important definition of what is ' eternal life ' is introduced, v  1  '
and by the last words in the verse. But although embodying, so to "inSt-
, ° J °> John xvii.
speak, as regards the form, the record which St. John had made of 3
Christ's Words, we must remember that, as regards the substance,
we have here Christ's own Prayer for that eternal life to each of
His own people. And what constitutes ' the eternal life ' ? Not
what we so often think, who confound with the thing its effects or
else its results. It refers not to the future, but to the present. It
is the realisation of what Christ had told them in these words: ' Ye
believe in God, believe also in Me.' It is the pure sunlight on the
soul, resulting in, or reflecting the knowledge of Jehovah; the Per
sonal, Living, True God, and of Him Whom He did send, Jesus
Christ. These two branches of knowledge must not so much be
considered as co-ordinate, but rather as inseparable. Returning
from this explanation of ' the eternal life ' which they who are
bathed in the Light possess even now and here, the Great High-
Priest first offered up to the Father that part of His work which was
on earth and which He had completed. And then, both as the con
summation and the sequel of it; He claimed what was at the end of
His Mission: His return to that fellowship of essential glory, which
He possessed together with the Father before the world was." byv- *-6
The gift of His consecration could not have been laid on more
glorious Altar. Such Cross must have been followed by such Crown/ j™- "¦ 8
And now again His first thought was of them for whose sake He had
consecrated Himself. These He now solemnly presented to the Father. a " s?.- J„oh»
1 xvii. 6-10
He introduced them as those (the individuals) whom the Father
had specially given to him out of the world. As such they were
really the Father's, and given over to Christ — and He now pre
sented them as having kept the Word of the Father. Now they
knew that all things whatsoever the Father had given the Son were
of the Father. This was the outcome, then, of all His teaching,
and the sum of all their learning — perfect confidence in the Person
of Christ, as in His Life, Teaching, and Work sent not only of God,
but ofthe Father. Neither less nor yet more did their ' knowledge'
represent. All else that sprang out of it they had yet to learn.
But it was enough, for it implied everything; chiefly these three
things — that they received the words which He gave them as from
the Father; that they knew truly that Christ had come out from the
Father; and that they believed that the Father had sent Him. And,

xvii. 9-12

530 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK indeed, reception of Christ's Word, knowledge of His Essential
v Nature, and faith in His Mission: such seem the three essential cha-
— -v — racteristics of those who are Christ's.
¦st. John And now He brought them in prayer before the Father." He
was interceding, not for the ' world ' that was His by right of His
Messiahship, but for them whom the Father had specially given Him.
They were the Father's in the special sense of covenant-mercy, and
all that in that' sense was the Father's was the Son's, and all that
was the Son's was the Father's. Therefore, although all the world
was the Son's, He prayed not now for it; and although all in earth
and heaven were in the Father's Hand, He sought not now His bless
ing on them, but on those whom, while He was in the world, ne had
shielded and guided. They were to be left behind in a world of sin,
evil, temptation, and sorrow, and He was going to the Father. And
this was His prayer: 'Holy Father, keep them in Thy Name which
Thou hast given Me, that so (in order that) they may be one (a unity,
sv), as We are.' The peculiar address, 'Holy Father,' shows that
the Saviour once more referred to the keeping in holiness, and what
is of equal importance, that 'the unity' ofthe Church sought for was
to be primarily one of spiritual character, and not a merely outward
combination. Unity in holiness and of nature, as was that of the
Father and Son, such was the great object sought, although such
union would, if properly carried out, also issue in outward unity.
But while moral union rather than outward unity was in His view,
our present ' unhappy divisions, ' arising so often from wilfulness and
unreadiness to bear slight differences among ourselves — each other's
burdens — are so entirely contrary not only to the Christian, but even
to the Jewish, spirit, that we can only trace them to the heathen
clement in the Church.
While He was 'with them,' He 'kept' them- in the Father's
Name. Them whom the Father had given Him, by the effective
drawing of His grace within them, He guarded (stfrvkaga), and none
from among them was lost, except the son of perdition — and this,
according to prophecy. But ere He went to the Father, He prayed
thus for them, that in this realised unity of holiness the joy that was
II is x (rr)v x^pdv ttjv spijv), might be 'completed' in them." And
tliere was the more need of this, since they were left behind with
nought but His Word in a world that hated them, because, as Christ,
so they also were not of it [ ' from ' it, sk] . Nor yet did Christ ask
with a view to their being taken out of the world, but with this
1 Comp. here St. John xv. 11.

CLOSE OF THE LORD'S PRAYER.

531

' that ' [in order that] the Father should ' keep them [preserve,
rrfp^o-rjs] from the Evil One.'1 And this the more emphatically,
because, even as He was not, so were they not 'out of the world,'
which lay in the Evil One. And the preservative which He sought
for them was not outward but inward, the same in kind as while He
had been with them," only coming now directly from the Father. - It
was sanctification 'in the truth,'2 with this significant addition:
' The word that is Thine (6 koyos 6 crag) is truth.'"
In its last part this intercessory Prayer of the Great High-Priest
bore on the work of the disciples and its fruits. As the Father had
sent the Son, so did the Son send the disciples into the world — in
the same manner, and on the same Mission. And for their sakes He
now solemnly offered Himself, ' consecrated ' or ' sanctified ' Himself,
that they might 'in truth'3 — truly — be consecrated. And in view
of this their work, to which they were consecrated, did Christ pray not
for them alone, but also for those who, through their word, would
believe in Him, 'in order,' or 'that so,' 'all may be one' — form a
unity. Christ, as sent by the Father, gathered out the original
' unity; ' they, as sent by Him, and consecrated by His consecration,
were to gather others, but all were to form one great unity, through
the common spiritual communication. ' As Thou in Me, and I also
in Thee, so that [in order that] they also may be in TJs, so that [in
order that] the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.' ' And
the glory that Thou hast given Me ' — referring to His Mission in the
world, and His setting apart and authorisation for it — 'I have given
to them, so that [in order that] [in this respect also] they may be
one, even as We are One [a unity]/ I in them, and Thou in Me, so
that they may be perfected into One '—the ideal unity and real cha
racter of the Church, this — ' so that the world may know that Thou
didst send Me, and lovedst them as Thou lovedst Me.'
After this unspeakably sublime consecration of His Church, and
communication to her of His glory as well as of His Work, we cannot
marvel at what follows and concludes 'the Lord's Prayer.'" We
remember the unity of the Church— a . unity in Him, and as that
between the Father and the Son — as we listen to this: ' That which
Thou hast given Me, I will that, whore I am, they also may be Avith

CHAP. XI

a St. John
xvii. 12

vv. 12-17

1 This meaning is ruled by a reference
to I John v. 18, 19, and, if so, it seems
in turn to rule the meaning of the pe
tition: 'Deliver us from the Evil One.'
» Not, 'by Thy truth.'
s Not, as in the A.V. (ver. 19),

'through the truth' (ev dXtflEzd).
4 It need scarcely be said that by the
term ' unity ' we refer not to unity of
Person, but of Nature, Character, and
Work.

532 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK Me — so that they may gaze [behold] on the glory that is Mine,
. v which Thou hast given Me [be sharers in the Messianic glory] :
^ —  ' because Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world.'
And we all would fain place ourselves in the shadow of this final
consecration of Himself and of His Church by the Great High-Priest,
which is alike final appeal, claim, and prayer: ' 0 Righteous
Father, the world knew Thee not, but I know Thee, and these know
that Thou sentest Me. And I made known unto them Thy Name,
and will make it known, so that [in order that] the love wherewith
Thou lovedst Me may be in them, and I in them.' This is the
charter of the Church: her possession and her joy; her faith, her
hope also, and love; and in this she standeth, prayeth, and worketh.

ON THE WAY TO GETHSEMANE. 533

CHAPTER XII.
GETHSEMANE.
(St. Matt. Xxvi. 30-56; St. Mark xiv. 26-52; St. Luke xxii. 31-53; St. John xviii.
1-11.)
We turn once more to follow the steps of Christ, now among the last CHAP.
He trod upon earth. The 'hymn/ with which the Paschal Supper xn
ended, had been sung. Probably we are to understand this of the ~y — '
second portion of the Hallel,2' sung some time after the third Cup, °**{£xv-t0
or else of Psalm cxxxvi., which, in the present Ritual, stands near
the end of the service. The last Discourses had been spoken, the
last Prayer, that of Consecration, had been offered, and Jesus prepared
to go forth out of the City, to the Mount of Olives. The streets
could scarcely be said to be deserted, for, from many a house shone
the festive lamp, and many a company may still have been gathered;
and everywhere was the bustle of preparation for going up to the
Temple, the gates of which were thrown open at midnight.
Passing out by the gate north of the Temple, we descend into a
lonely part ofthe valley of black Kidron, at that season swelled into
a winter torrent. Crossing it, we turn somewhat to the left, where
the road leads towards Olivet. Not many steps farther (beyond,
and on the other side of the present Church of the Sepulchre of the
Virgin) we turn aside from the road to the right, and reach what
tradition has since earliest times — and probably correctly — pointed
out as 'Gethsemane,' the 'Oil-press.' It was a small property
enclosed (xoopiov), ' a garden ' in the Eastern sense, where probably,
amidst a variety of fruit trees and flowering shrubs, was a lowly,
quiet summer-retreat, connected with, or near by, the ' Olive-press.'
The present Gethsemane is only some seventy steps square, and
though its old gnarled olives cannot be those (if such there were) of
the time of Jesus, since all trees in that valley — those also which
stretched their shadows over Jesus — were hewn down in the Roman
siege, they may have sprung from the old roots, or from the odd
kernels. But we love to think of this ' Garden ' as the place where

534

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

•> St Matt.
xxvi. 32; St,
Mart. xiv.
28

Jesus ' often ' — not merely on this occasion, but perhaps on previous
visits to Jerusalem — gathered with His disciples. It was a quiet
resting-place, for retirement, prayer, perhaps sleep, and a trysting-
place also where not only the Twelve, but others also, may have been
wont to meet the Master. And as such it was known to Judas, and
thither he led the armed band, when they found the Upper Chamber
no longer occupied by Jesus and His disciples. Whether it had been
intended that He should spend part of the night there, before return
ing to the Temple, and whose that enclosed garden was— the other
Eden, in which the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, bore the
penalty of the first, and in obeying gained life — we know not, and
perhaps ought not to inquire. It may have belonged to Mark's father.
But if otherwise, Jesus had loving disciples even in Jerusalem, and,
we rejoice to think, not only a home at Bethany, and an Upper
Chamber furnished in the City, but a quiet retreat and trysting-place
for His own under the bosom of Olivet, in the shadow of the garden
of ' the Oil-press. '
The sickly light of the moon was falling full on them as they
were crossing Kidron. It was here, we imagine, after they had left
the City behind them, that the Lord addressed Himself first to the
disciples generally. We can scarcely call it either prediction or
warning. Rather, as we think of that last Supper, of Christ passing
through the streets of the City for the last time into that Garden,
and especially of what was now immediately before Him, does what
He spake seem natural, even necessary. To them — yes, to them all
— He would that night be even a stumbling-block. And so had it been
foretold of old," that the Shepherd would be smitten, and the sheep
scattered. Did this prophecy of His suffering, in its grand outlines,
fill the mind of the Saviour as He went forth on His Passion? Such
Old Testament thoughts were at any rate present with Him, when,
not unconsciously nor of necessity, but as the Lamb of God, He went
to the slaughter. A peculiar significance also attaches to His pre
diction that, after He was risen, He would go before them into
Galilee." For, with their scattering upon His Death, it seems to us,
the Apostolic circle or College, as such, was for a. time broken up.
They continued, indeed, to meet together as individual disciples, but
the Apostolic bond was temporarily dissolved. This explains many
things: the absence of Thomas on the first, and his peculiar position
on the second Sunday; the uncertainty ofthe disciples, as evidenced
by the words of those on the way to Emmaus; as well as thc
seemingly strange movements of the Apostles — all which are quite

CHRIST'S INTERCESSION FOR PETER. 535
changed when the Apostolic bond is restored. Similarly, we mark, CHAP.
that only seven of them seem to have been together by the Lake of XII
Galilee," and that only afterwards the Eleven met Him on the moun- - — ¦y-'
tain to which He had directed them." It was here that the Apostolic ^l"01"3
circle or College was once more re-formed, and the Apostolic commis- b st. Matt.
sion renewed," and thence they returned to Jerusalem, once more sent f vy
forth from Galilee, to await the final events of His Ascension, and the 18-20
Coming of the Holy Ghost.
But in that night they understood none of these things. While
all were staggering under the blow of their predicted scattering, the
Lord seems to have turned to Peter individually. What He said,
and how He put it, equally demand our attention: 'Simon, Simon'1 ^:L"ke
— using his old name when referring to the old man in him — ' Satan
has obtained [out-asked, s'SnTtjcraTo] you, for the purpose of sifting
like as wheat. But I have made supplication for thee, that thy faith
fail not. ' The words admit us into two mysteries of heaven. This
night seems to have been ' the power of darkness, ' when, left of God,
Christ had to meet by Himself the whole assault of hell, and to
conquer in His own strength as Man's Substitute and Representative.
It is a great mystery: but quite consistent with itself. We do not,
as others, here see any analogy to the permission given to Satan in
the opening chapters of the Book of Job, always supposing that this
embodies a real, not ah allegorical story. But in that night the
fierce wind of hell was allowed to sweep unbroken over the Saviour,
and even to expend its fury upon those that stood behind in His
Shelter. Satan had ' out-asked, 'obtained it — yet not to destroy, nor to
cast. cloAvn, but ' to sift, ' like as wheat 1 is shaken in a sieve to cast out
of it what is not grain. Hitherto, and no farther, had Satan obtained
it. In that night of Christ's Agony and loneliness, of the utmost
-conflict between Christ and Satan, this seems almost a necessary
element. This, then, was the first mystery that had passed. And this
sifting would affect Peter more than the others. Judas, who loved
not Jesus at all, had already fallen; Peter, who loved Him— perhaps
not most intensely, but, if the expression be allowed, most extensely
—stood next to Judas in danger. In truth, though most widely
apart in their directions, the springs of their inner life rose in close
proximity. There was the same readiness to kindle into enthusiasm,
the same desire to have public opinion with him, the same shrink
ing from the Cross, the same moral inability or unwillingness to
1 It is very probable that the basis of the figure is Amos ix. 9.

536

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

•St. John
vi. 68
>> St. Matt.
xvi. 16
' St. John
xxi. 15-17

¦' St. John
xvii. 15

stand alone, in the one as in the other. Peter had abundant courage
to sally out, but not to stand out. Viewed in its primal elements
(not in its development), Peter's character was, among the disciples,
the likest to that of Judas. If this shows what Judas might have
become, it also explains how Peter was most in danger that night;
and, indeed, the husks of him were cast out of the sieve in his
denial of the Christ. But what distinguished Peter from Judas
was his ' faith ' of spirit, soul, and heart — of spirit, when he appre
hended the spiritual element in Christ; " of soul, when he confessed
Him as the Christ; " and of heart, when he could ask Him to sound
thc depths of his inner being, to find there real, personal love to Jesus."
The second mystery of that night was Christ's supplication for
Peter. We dare not say, as the High-Priest — and we know not when
and where it was offered. But the expression is very strong, as of
one who has need of a thing.1 And that for which He made such sup
plication was, that Peter's faith should not fail. This, and not that
something new might be given him, or the trial removed from Peter.
We mark, how Divine grace presupposes, not supersedes, human
liberty. And this also explains why Jesus had so prayed for Peter,
not for Judas. In the former case there was faith, which only
required to be strengthened against failure — an eventuality which,
without the intercession of Christ, was possible. To these words of
His, Christ added this significant commission: ' And thou, when thou
hast turned again, confirm thy brethren. ' 2 And how fully he did this,
both in the Apostolic circle and in the Church, history has chronicled.
Thus, although such may come in the regular moral order of things,
Satan has not even power to 'sift' without leave of God; and thus
does the Father watch in such terrible sifting over them for whom
Christ has prayed. This is the first fulfilment of Christ's Prayer,
that the Father would 'keep them from the Evil One.'d Not by any
process from without, but by the preservation of their faith. And
thus also may we learn, to our great and unspeakable comfort, that
not every sin — not even conscious and wilful sin — implies the failure
of our faith, very closely though it lead to it; still less, our final
rejection. On the contrary, as the fall of Simon was the outcome of
the natural elements in him, so would it lead to their being brought

1 This even philologically, and in all
the passages in which the word is
used. Except in St. Matt. ix. 38, it
occurs only in the writings of St. Luke
and St. Paul.
s Curiously enough, Roman Catholic

writers see in the prediction of his fall
by implication an assertion of Peter's
supremacy. This, because they regard
Peter as the representative and head of
the others.

THE PREDICTED DENIAL. 53f
to light and removed, thus fitting him the better for confirming his chap.
brethren. And so would light come out of darkness. From our XII
human standpoint we might call such teaching needful: in the ^ — ,  '
Divine arrangement it is only the Divine sequent upon the human
antecedent. We can understand the vehement earnestness and sincerity with
which Peter protested against the possibility of any failure on his
part. We mostly deem those sins farthest which are nearest to us;
else, much of the power of their temptation wonlcl be gone, and
temptation changed into conflict. The things which we least antici
pate are our falls. In all honesty — and not necessarily with self-
elevation over the others — he said, that even if all should be offended
in Christ, he never could be, but was ready to go with Him into
prison and death. And when, to enforce the warning, Christ pre
dicted that before the repeated crowing of the cock J ushered in the
morning,2 Peter would thrice deny that he knew Him, Peter not only
persisted in his asseverations, but was joined in them by the rest.
Yet — and this seems the meaning and object of the words of Christ
which follow — they were not aware how terribly changed the former
relations had become, and what they would have to suffer in conse
quence/ When formerly He had-sent them forth, both without pro- "s':L,Sjj?8
vision and defence, had they lacked anything? No! But now no
helping hand would be extended to them; nay, what seemingly they
would need even more than anything else would be ' a sword' —
defence against attacks, for at the close of His history He was
reckoned with transgressors.3 The Master a crucified Malefactor —
what could His followers expect? But once more they only understood
Him in a grossly realistic manner. These Galileans, after the custom
of their countrymen," had provided" themselves with short swords, *jm. war
1 This crowing of the cock has given than doubt as to the existence of this
rise to a curious controversy, since, ordinance at the time. There is repeated
according to Rabbinic law, it was for- mention of the 'cock-crow' in connection
bidden to keep fowls in Jerusalem, on with the Temple-watches, and if the ex-
account of possible Levitical defilements pression be regarded as not literal, but
through tbem (Baba K. vii. 7). Reland simply a designation of time, we have in
has written a special dissertation on the Jer. Erub. x. 1 (p. 26 a, about middle) a
subject, of which Schbttgen has given a story in which a cock caused the death
brief abstract. We need not reproduce the of a child at Jerusalem, proving that
arguments.but Reland urges that,even if fowls must have been kept there.
that ordinance was really in force at the 2 St. Matthew speaks of ' this night,'
time of Christ (of which there is grave St. Mark and St. Luke of 'this day,'
doubt), Peter might have heard the cock proving, if such were needed, that the
crow from Fort Antonia, occupied by the day was reckoned from evening to even-
Romans,or else that itmighthave reached ing.
thus far in the still night air from outside 3 Omit the article.
the walls of Jerusalem. But there is more

538

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» St. Matt.
xxvi. 36

b St. Mark
v. 37
« St. Matt.
xvii. 1

which they concealed under their upper garment. It was natural for
men of their disposition, so imperfectly understanding their Master's
teaching, to have taken what might seem to them only a needful pre
caution in coming to Jerusalem. At least two of them — among them
Peter — now produced swords.1 But this was not the time to reason
with them, and our Lord simply put it aside. Events would only too
soon teach them.
They had now reached the entrance to Gethsemane. It may have
been that it led through the building with the ' oil-press, ' and that
the eight Apostles, who were not to come nearer to the ' Bush burning,
but not consumed, ' were left there. Or they may have been taken
within the entrance of the Garden, and left there, while, pointing
forward with a gesture of the Hand, He went ' yonder ' and prayed."
According to St. Luke, He added the parting warning to pray that
they might not enter into temptation.
Eight did He leave there. The other three — Peter, James, and
John — companions before of His glory, both when He raised the
daughter of Jairus " and on the Mount of Transfiguration c — He took
with Him farther. If in that last contest His Human Soul craved for
the presence of those who stood nearest Him and loved Him best, or
if He would have them baptized with His Baptism, and drink of His
Cup, these were the three of all others to be chosen. And now of a
sudden the cold flood broke over Him. Within these few moments
He had passed from the calm of assured victory into the anguish ofthe
contest. Increasingly, with every step forward, He became ' sorrow
ful,' full of sorrow, ' sore amazed,' and ' desolate.' 2 He told them of the
deep sorrow of His Soul (ipvx^) even unto death, and bade them tarry
there to watch with Him. Himself went forward to enter the contest
with prayer. Only the first attitude of the wrestling Saviour saw
they, only the first words in that Hour of Agony did they hear. For,
as in our present state not uncommonly in the deepest emotions ofthe
soul, and as had been the case on the Mount of Transfiguration,
irresistible sleep crept over their frame. But what, we may reverently
ask, was the cause of this sorrow unto death ofthe Lord Jesus Christ?
Not fear, either of bodily or mental suffering: but Death. Man's
nature, created of God immortal, shrinks (by the law of its nature)

1 The objection has been raised, that,
according to the Mishnah (Shabb. vi. 4),
it was not lawful to carry swords on the
Sabbath. But even this Mishnah seems
to indicate that there was divergence of
opinion on the subject, even as regarded

the Sabbath, much more a feast-day.
2 We mark a climax. The last word
(aSrii.iovEtv (used both by St, Matthew
and St. Mark seems to indicate utter
loneliness, desertion, and desolateness.

CHRIST IN THE AGONY OF HIS SOUL. 539
from the dissolution of the bond that binds body to soul. Yet to chap.
fallen man Death is not by any means fully Death, for he is born with xii
the taste of it in his soul. Not so Christ. It was the Unfallen Man v— ^  •
dying; it was He, Who had no experience of it, tasting Death, and
that not for Himself but for every man, emptying the cup to its
bitter dregs. It was the Christ undergoing Death by man and for
man; -the Incarnate God, the God-Man, submitting Himself vica
riously to the deepest humiliation, and paying the utmost penalty:
Death — all Death. No one as He could know what Death was (not
dying, which men dread, but Christ dreaded not) ; no one could taste
its bitterness as He. His going into Death was His final conflict with
Satan for man, and on his behalf. By submitting to it He took
away the power of Death; He disarmed Death by burying his shaft
in His own Heart. And beyond this lies the deep, unutterable mys
tery of Christ bearing the penalty due to our sin, bearing our death,
bearing the penalty of the broken Law, the accumulated guilt of
humanity, and the holy wrath of the Righteous Judge upon them.
And in view of this mystery the heaviness of sleep seems to steal
over our apprehension.
Alone, as in His first conflict with the Evil One in the Temptation
in the wilderness, must the Saviour enter on the last contest. With
what agony of soul He took upon Him now and there the sins of the
world, and in taking expiated them, we may learn from this account
of what passed, when, with strong crying and tears unto Him that
was able to save Him from death, ' He ' offered up prayers and sup
plications. ' " And — we anticipate it already — with these, results: »Heb. v. 7
that He was heard; that He learned obedience by the things which
He suffered; that He was made perfect; and that He became: to
us the Author of Eternal Salvation, and before God, a High-Priest
after the order of Melchizedek. Alone — and yet even this being
'parted from them' (dnso-ndsdrr),1' implied sorrow/ : And now, 'on »st. Luke
His knees, ' prostrate on the ground, prostrate on His Face, began His „ Comp
Agony. His very address bears witness to it. It is the only time, so Act8' xxt
far as recorded in the Gospels, when He addressed God with the per
sonal pronoun: 'My Father.' d 2 The object of the prayer was, that, ast. Matt.
' if it were possible, the hour might pass away from Him. ' e The . st. Mark
subject of the prayer (as recorded by the three Gospels) was, that the
Cup itself might pass away, yet always with the limitation, that not
His Will but the Father's might be done. The petition of Christ, there-
1 The Vulgate renders: ' avulsus est.' 2 St. Jerome notes: ' dicitque blan-
Bengel notes: ' serio affectu.' diens: Mi Pater.'

xiv. 36

540

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

«St Matt.
xxvi. 10

fore, was subject not only to the Will of the Father, but to His own
Will that the Father's Will might be done.1 We are here in full view
of the deepest mystery of our faith: the two Natures in One Person.
Both Natures spake here, and the ' if it be possible ' of St. Matthew
and St. Mark is in St. Luke ' if Thou be willing. ' In any case, the
' possibility ' is not physical — for with God all things are possible —
but moral: that of inward fitness. Was there, then, any thought or
view of ' a possibility,' that Christ's work could be accomplished with
out that hour and Cup? Or did it only mark the utmost limit of
His endurance and submission? We dare not answer; we only rev
erently follow what is recorded.
It was in this extreme Agony of Soul almost unto death, that
the Angel appeared (as in the Temptation in the wilderness) to
' strengthen ' and support His Body and Soul. And so the conflict
went on, with increasing earnestness of prayer, all that terrible hour/
For, the appearance of the Angel must have intimated to Him, that
the Cup could not pass away.2 And at the close of that hour — as we
infer from the fact that the . disciples must still have . seen on His
Brow the marks of the Bloody Sweat 3 — His Sweat, mingled with
Blood,1 fell in great drops on the ground. And when the Saviour with
this mark of His Agony on His Brow 5 returned to the three, He
found that deep sleep held them. While He lay in prayer, they lay
in sleep; and yet where soul-agony leads not to .the one, it often in
duces the other. His words, primarily addressed to 'Simon,' roused
them, yet not sufficiently to fully carry to their hearts either the
loving reproach, the admonition to ' Watch and pray ' in view of the
coming temptation, or the- most seasonable warning about the weak
ness of the flesh, even where the spirit was willing, ready and ardent
(npodvpov).
The conflict had been virtually, though not finally, decided, when
the Saviour went back to the three sleeping disciples. He now
returned to complete it, though both the attitude in which He prayed
(no longer prostrate) and the wording of His Prayer — only slightly
altered as it was — indicate how near it was to perfect victory. And

1 This explains the ditb Tf)i E-uXafisiaS
of Hebr. v. 7.
2 Bengel: ' Signum bibendi calicis.?
3 The pathological phenomenon of blood
being forced out of the vessels in bloody
sweat, as the consequence of agony, has
been medically sufficiently attested. See
the Commentaries.
4 No one who has seen it, can forget

the impression of Carlo Dolce's picture,
in which the drops as they fall kindle
into heavenly light.
5 They probably knew of the Bloody
Sweat by seeing its marks on His Brow,
though those who did not follow Him on
His capture may have afterwards gone,
and in the moonlight seen the drops on
the place where He had knelt.

JUDAS AND THE BAND OF SOLDIERS. 541
once more, on His return to them, He found that sleep had weighted chap.
their eyes, and they scarce knew what answer to make to Him. Yet XII
a third time He left them to pray as before. And now He returned '  .  '
victorious. After three assaults had the Tempter left Him in the
wilderness; after the threefold conflict in the Garden he was van
quished. Christ came forth triumphant. No longer did He bid His
disciples watch. They might, nay they should, sleep and take rest,
ere the near terrible events of His Betrayal — for, the hour had come
when the Son of Man was to be betrayed into the hands of sinners.
A very brief period of rest this, 1 soon broken by the call of Jesus
to rise and go to where the other eight had been left, at the entrance
of the Garden — to go forward and meet the band which was coming
under the guidance of the Betrayer. And while He was speaking,
the heavy tramp of many men and the light of lanterns and
torches indicated the approach of Judas and his band. During the
hours that had passed all had been prepared. When, according to
arrangement, he appeared at the High-Priestly Palace, or more prob
ably at that of Annas, who seems to have had the direction of
affairs, the Jewish leaders first communicated with the Roman gar
rison. By their own admission they possessed no longer (for forty
years before the destruction of Jerusalem) the power of pronouncing
capital sentence." It is difficult to understand how, in view of this .santu.
fact (so fully confirmed in the New Testament), it could have been
imagined (as so generally) that the Sanhedrin had, in regular session,
sought formally to pronounce on Jesus what, admittedly, they had not
the power to execute. Nor, indeed, did they, when appealing to
Pilate, plead that they had pronounced sentence of death, but only
that they had a law by which Jesus should die." It was otherwise as * st. John
regarded civil causes, or even minor offences. The Sanhedrin, not stjohn'
possessing the power of the sword, had, of course, neither soldiery,
nor regularly armed band at command. The ' Temple-guard ' under
their officers served merely for purposes of police, and, indeed, were
neither regularly armed nor trained." Nor would the Romans have ¦*•»
0 J iv. i. 6
tolerated a regular armed Jewish force in Jerusalem..
We can now understand the progress of events. In the fortress
of Antonia, close to the Temple and connected with it by two stairs," ^jm.war
lay the Roman garrison. But during the Feast the Temple itself was
guarded by an armed Cohort, consisting of from 400 to 600 men,2 so
1 It will be noticed that we place an already St. A ugustine.
interval of time, however brief, between 2 The number varied. See Marquardt,
St. Matt. xxvi. 45 (and similarly St. Mark Rom. Alterthumsk. vol. v. 2, pp. 359, 386,
xiv. 41) and the following verse. So 441. Canon Westcott suggests that it

v. 5,

542

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

b St. John
xviii. 12

u Jos. War
ii. 9, 4

a St. John
xviii. 3

as to prevent or quell any tumult among the numerous pilgrims. " It
would be to the captain of this ' Cohort ' that the Chief Priests and
leaders of the Pharisees would, in the first place, apply for an
armed guard to effect the arrest of Jesus, on the ground that it
might lead to some popular tumult. This, without necessarily
having to state the charge that was to be brought against Him, which
might have led to other complications. Although St. John speaks
of ' the band ' by a word (6itsipa) which always designates a ' Cohort '
— in this case 'the Cohort,' the definite article marking it as that of
the Temple — yet there is no reason for believing that the whole
Cohort was sent. Still, its commander would scarcely have sent a
strong detachment out of the Temple, and on what might lead to a
riot, without having first referred to the Procurator, Pontius Pilate.
And if further evidence were required, it would be in the fact that
the band was led not by a Centurion, but by a Chiliarch," which, as
there were no intermediate grades in the Roman army, must repre
sent one of the six tribunes attached to each legion. This also ex
plains not only the apparent preparedness of Pilate to sit in judgment
early next morning, but also how Pilate's wife may have been disposed
for those dreams about Jesus which so affrighted her.
This Roman detachment, armed with swords and ' staves ' — with
the latter of which Pilate on other occasions also directed his soldiers
to attack them who raised a tumult ° — was accompanied by servants
from the High-Priest's Palace, and other Jewish officers, to direct the
arrest of Jesus. They bore torches and lamps placed on the top of
poles, so as to prevent any possible concealment/
Whether or not this was the ' great multitude ' mentioned by St.
Matthew and St. Mark, or the band was swelled by volunteers or
curious onlookers, is a matter of no importance. Having received
this band, Judas proceeded on his errand. As we believe, their first
move was to the house where the Supper had been celebrated.
Learning that Jesus had left it with His disciples, perhaps two or
three hours before, Judas next directed the band to the spot he
knew so well: to Gethsemane. A signal by which to recognise Jesus
seemed almost necessary with so large a band, and where escape or
resistance might be apprehended. It was — terrible to say— none
other than a kiss. As soon as he had so marked Him, the guard were
to seize, and lead Him safely away.

might have been, not a cohort, but a
' mrinipulus ' (of about 200 men); but, as
himself points out, the expression as

used in the N.T. seems always to indicate
a cohort.

• St. Luke

THE ARREST OF CHRIST. 543
Combining the notices in the four Gospels, we thus picture to CHAP.
ourselves the succession of events. As the band reached the XII
Garden, Judas went somewhat in advance of them," and reached
Jesus just as He had roused the three and was preparing to go and
meet His captors. He saluted Him, ' Hail, Rabbi, ' so as to be heard
by the rest, and not only kissed but covered Him with kisses, kissed
Him repeatedly, loudly, effusively (KaTsfakfjasv). The Saviour sub
mitted to the indignity, not stopping, but only saying as He passed
on: 'Friend, that for which thou art here; ,bl and then, perhaps in ". st. Matt.
xxvi 49 ¦
answer to his questioning gesture: 'Judas, with a kiss deliverest comp. st.
~\I'i/'li. xiv
thou up the Son of Man? ' ° If Judas had wished, by thus going in 45
advance of the band and saluting the Master with a kiss, even now
to act the hypocrite and deceive Jesus and the disciples, as if he had
not come with the armed men, perhaps only to warn Him of their
approach, what the Lord said must have reached his inmost being.
Indeed, it was the first mortal shaft in the soul of Judas. The only
time we again see him, till he goes on what ends in his self-destruc- a St. John
tion, is as he stands, as it were sheltering himself, with the armed

« St. Luke
xxii. 48

xviii. 5
xviii. 4-9

It is at this point, as we suppose, that the notices from St. John's
Gospel " come in. Leaving the traitor, and ignoring the signal which
he had given them, Jesus advanced to the band, and asked them:
'Whom seek ye?' To the brief spoken, perhaps somewhat con
temptuous, ' Jesus the Nazarene, ' He replied with infinite calm
ness and majesty: ' I am He.' The immediate effect of these words
was, we shall not say magical, but Divine. They had no doubt been
prepared for quite other: either compromise, fear, or resistance. But
the appearance and majesty of that calm Christ — heaven in His look
and peace on His lips — was too overpowering in its effects on that
untutored heathen soldiery, who perhaps cherished in their hearts
secret misgivings of the work they had in hand. The foremost of
them went backward, and they fell to the ground. But Christ's hour
had come. And once more He now asked them the same question as
before, and, on repeating their former answer, He said: ' I told you
that I am He; if' therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way,'— the
Evangelist seeing in this watchful care over His own the inital ful
filment of the words which the Lord had previously spoken concern
ing their safe preservation/ not only in the sense of their outward fst.john
- We cannot, as many interpreters, St. Matthew and what St. Luke record.
take the words in an interrogative sense. Both bear internal marks of genuineness.
I presume that Christ spoke both what

544

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. Matt.
xxvi. 50 b
b St. Mark
xiv. 46
° St. John
xviii. 11. 26

a St. Mat
thew
•St. John

preservation, but in that of their being guarded from such tempta<
tions as, in their then state, they could not have endured.
The words of Christ about those that were with Him seem to
have recalled the leaders ofthe guard to full consciousness — perhaps
awakened in them fears of a possible rising at the incitement of His
adherents. Accordingly, it is here that we insert the notice of St.
Matthew," and of St. Mark," that they laid hands on Jesus and took
Him. Then it was that Peter,0 seeing what was coming, drew the
sword which he carried, and putting the question to Jesus, but
without awaiting His answer, struck at Malchus,1 the servant 2 of the
High-Priest — perhaps the Jewish leader of the band — cutting off his
ear. But Jesus immediately restrained all such violence, and re
buked all self-vindication by outward violence (the taking of the
sword that had not been received) — nay, with it all merely outward
zeal, pointing to the fact how easily He might, as against, this
' cohort,' have commanded Angelic legions/3 He had in wrestling
Agony received from His Father that Cup to drink/4 and the Scrip
tures must in that wise be fulfilled. And so saying, He touched the
ear of Malchus, and healed him/
But this faint appearance of resistance was enough for the guard.
Their leaders now bound Jesus/ It was to this last, most unde
served and uncalled-for indignity that Jesus replied by asking them,
why they had come against Him as against a robber — one of those
wild, murderous Sicarii. Had He not been all that week daily in
the Temple, teaching? Why not then seize Him? But this 'hour'
of theirs that had come, and ' the power of darkness ' — this also had
been foretold in Scripture !
And as the ranks of the armed men now closed around the bound
Christ, none dared to stay with Him, lest they also should be bound
as resisting authority. So they all forsook Him and fled. But
there was one tliere who joined not in the flight, but remained,

1 The name Malchus, which occurs also
in Josephus (Ant. i. 15. 1. ; xiv. 5. 2; 11.
4; War i. 8. 3), must not. be derived, as
is generally done, from "])Ba king. Its
Hebrew equivalent, apparently, is Mal-
luch. 'Counsellor,' a name which occurs
both in tbe Old Testament and in the
LXX. (1 Chron. vi. 44; Neh. x. 4, &c),
and as a later Jewish name in the
Talmud. But both Frankel (Einl. in d.
Jer. Talm. p. 114) and Freudenthal (Hell.
Stud. p. 131) maintain that it was not
a Jewish name, while it was common
among Syrians, Phoenicians, Arabians,

and Samaritans. The suggestion there
fore lies near, that Malchus was either a
Syrian or a Phoenician by birth.
2 The definite article here marks that
he was, in a special sense, the servant of
the High-Priest — his body-servant.
3 A legion had ten cohorts.
4 This reference to the ' cup which
the Father had given Him to drink' by
St. John, implies the whole history of the
Agony in Gethsemane, which is not re
corded in the Fourth Gospel. And this
is, on many grounds, very instructive..

THE ESCAPE OF MARK. 545
a deeply interested onlooker. When the soldiers had come to seek CHAP.
Jesus in the Upper Chamber of his home, Mark, roused from sleep, XII
had hastily cast about him the loose linen garment or wrapper ' that *- — v~~-
lay by his bedside, and followed the armed band to see what would
come of it. He now lingered in the rear, and followed as they led
away Jesus, never imagining that they would attempt to lay hold on
him, since he had not been with the disciples nor yet in the Garden.
But they,2 perhaps the Jewish servants of the High-Priest, had
noticed him. They attempted to lay hold on him, when, disengag
ing himself from their grasp, he left his upper garment in their
hands, and fled.
So ended the first scene in the terrible drama of that night.
1 aivStbv. This, no doubt, corresponds may also mean a nightdress (see Levy,
to the Sadin or Sedina which, in Rab- ad voc).
binic writings, means a linen cloth, or a 2 The designation ' young men ' (St.
loose linen wrapper, though, possibly, it Mark xiv. 51) is spurious.

546

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

CHAPTER XIII.

BOOK V

» St. John
xviii. 14

b xi. 50

THURSDAY NIGHT — BEFORE ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS  PETER AND JESUS.
(St. John xviii. 12-14; St. Matt. xxvi. 57, 58; St. Mark xiv. 53, 54; St. Luke xxii.
54, 55; St. John xviii. 24, 15-18; St. John xviii. 19-23; St. Matt. xxvi. 69, 70;
St. Mark xiv. 66-68; St. Luke xxii. 56, 57; St. John xviii. 17, 18; St. Matt. xxvi.
71, 72 ; St. Mark xiv. 69, 70 ; St. Luke xxii. 58 ; St. John xviii. 25 ; St. Matt. xxvi.
59-68; St. Mark xiv. 55-65; St. Luke xxii. 67-71, 63-65; St. Matt. xxvi. 73-75;
St. Mark xiv. 70-72; St. Luke xxii. 59-62; St. John xviii. 26, 27.)
It was not a long way that they led the bound Christ. Probably
through the same gate by which He had gone forth with His dis
ciples after the Paschal Supper, up to Avhere, on the slope between
the Upper City and the Tyropceon, stood the well-known Palace of
Annas. There were no idle saunterers in the streets of Jerusalem
at that late hour, and the tramp of the Roman guard must have been
too often heard to startle sleepers, or to lead to the inquiry why that
glare of lamps and torches, and Who was the Prisoner, guarded on
that holy night by both Roman soldiers and servants of the High-
Priest. If every incident in that night were not of such supreme interest,
we might dismiss the question as almost idle, why they brought
Jesus to the house of Annas, since he was not at that time the actual
High-Priest. That office now devolved on Caiaphas, his son-in-law,
who, as the Evangelist significantly reminds us/ had been the first
to enunciate in plain words what seemed to him the political neces
sity for the judicial murder of Christ." There had been no pretence
on his part of religious motives or zeal for God; he had cynically
put it in a way to override the scruples of those old Sanhedrists by
raising their fears. What was the use of discussing about forms of
Law or about that Man? it must in any case be done; even the
friends of Jesus in the Council, as well as the punctilious observers
of Law, must regard His Death as the less of two evils. He
spoke as the bold, unscrupulous, determined man that he was;
Sadducee in heart rather than by conviction; a worthy son-in-law of
Annas.

BEFORE ANNAS. 547
No figure is better known in contemporary Jewish history than CHAP.
that of Annas; no person deemed more fortunate or successful, but Xiii
none also more generally execrated than the late High-Priest. He '  <• — '
had held the Pontificate for only six or seven years; but it was filled
by not fewer than five of his sons, by his son-in-law Caiaphas, and by
a grandson. And in those days it was, at least for one of Annas'
disposition, much better to have been than to be High-Priest. He
enjoyed all the dignity of the office, and all its influence also, since
he was able to promote to it those most closely connected with him.
And, while they acted publicly, he really directed affairs, without
either the responsibility or the restraints which the office imposed.
His influence with the Romans he owed to the religious views which
he professed, to his open partisanship of the foreigner, and to his
enormous wealth. The Sadducean Annas was an eminently safe
Churchman, not troubled with any special convictions nor with
Jewish fanaticism, a pleasant and a useful man also, who was able to
furnish his friends in the Prastorium with large sums of money. .
We have seen what immense revenues the family of Annas must
have derived from the Temple-booths, and how nefarious and un
popular was the traffic. The names of those bold, licentious, unscru
pulous, degenerate sons of Aaron were spoken with whispered curses. " • Pea. 57 a
Without referring to Christ's interference with that Temple-traffic,
which, if His authority had prevailed, would, of course, have been
fatal to it, we can understand how antithetic in every respect a
Messiah, and such a Messiah as Jesus, must have been to Annas.
He was as resolutely bent on His Death as his son-in-law, though
with his characteristic cunning and coolness, not in the hasty, bluff
manner of Caiaphas. It was probably from a desire that Annas
might have the conduct of the business, or from the active, leading
part which Annas took in the matter; perhaps for even more prosaic
and practical reasons, such as that the Palace of Annas was nearer
to the place of Jesus' capture, and that it was desirable to dismiss
the Roman soldiery as quickly as possible — that Christ was first
brought to Annas, and not to the actual High-Priest.
In any case, the arrangement was most congruous, whether as
regards the character of Annas, or the official position of Caiaphas.
The Roman soldiers had evidently orders to bring Jesus to the late
High-Priest. This appears from their proceeding directly to him,
and from this, that apparently they returned to quarters immediately
on delivering up their prisoner. 1 And we cannot ascribe this to any
1 No further reference whatever is made to the Roman guard.

548

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» St. John
xviii. 15-18

b ver. 24

• St. John
xviii. 19-23

official position of Annas in the Sanhedrin, first, because the text
implies that it had not been due to this cause,1 and, secondly,
because, as will presently appear, the proceedings against Christ
were not those of the ordinary and regular meetings of the San
hedrin. No account is given of what passed before Annas. Even the
fact of Christ's being first brought to him is only mentioned in the
Fourth Gospel. As the disciples had all forsaken Him and fled, we
can understand that they were in ignorance of what actually passed,
till they had again rallied, at least so far, that Peter and ' another
disciple,' evidently John, 'followed Him into the Palace of the
High-priest' — that is, into the Palace of Caiaphas, not of Annas.
For as, according to the three Synoptic Gospels, the Palace of the
High-Priest Caiaphas was the scene of Peter's denial, the account of
it in the Fourth Gospel " 2 must refer to the same locality, and not to
the Palace of Annas, while the suggestion that Annas and Caiaphas
occupied the same dwelling is not only very unlikely in itself, but
seems incompatible with the obvious meaning of the notice," 'Now
Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the High-Priest.' But if
Peter's denial, as recorded by St. John, is the same as that described
by the Synoptists, and took place in the house of Caiaphas, then the
account of the examination by the High-Priest/ which follows the
notice about Peter, must also refer to that by Caiaphas, not Annas.3
We thus know absolutely nothing of what passed in the house of
Annas — if, indeed, anything passed — except that Annas sent Jesus
bound to Caiaphas/

1 We read (St. John xviii. 13) : ' For he
was father-in-law to Caiaphas.'
2 And hence also that of the two dis
ciples following Christ.
3 In this argument we lay little stress
on the designation, 'High-Priest,' which
St. John (ver. 19) gives to the examiner
of Christ, although it is noteworthy that
he carefully distinguishes between Annas
and Caiaphas, marking the latter as ' the
High-Priest' (vv. 13, 24).
4 According to our argument, St. John
xviii. 24 is an intercalated notice, refer
ring to what had previously been recorded
in vv. 15-23. To this two critical objec
tions have been raised. It is argued, that
as diCEo-TEiXEv is in the aorist, not plu
perfect, the rendering must be, ' Annas
sent,' not 'had sent Him.' But then it
is admitted, that the aorist is occasionally
used for the pluperfect. Secondly, it
is insisted that, according to the better

reading, ovv should be inserted after
aitso-TEiXEv which Canon Westcottren-
ders : ' Annas therefore sent Him.' But
notwithstanding Canon Westcott's high
authority, we must repeat the critical
remark of Meyer, that there are 'im
portant witnesses ' against as well as for
the insertion of ovv, while the insertion of
other particles in other Codd. seems to
imply that the insertion here of any par
ticle was a later addition.
On the other hand, what seem to me
two irrefragable arguments are in favour
of the retrospective application of ver. 24.
First, the preceding reference to Peter's
denial must be located in the house of
Caiaphas. Secondly, if vv. 19-23 refer to
an examination by Annas, then St. John
has left us absolutely no account of any
thing that had passed before Caiaphas —
which, in view of the narrative of the
Synoptists, would seem incredible.

BEFORE CAIAPHAS. 549
Of what occurred in the Palace of Caiaphas we have two accounts. CHAP.
That of St. John " seems to refer to a more private interview between XIII
the High-Priest and Christ, at which, apparently, only some personal
attendants of Caiaphas were present, from one of whom the Apostle
may have derived his information.1 The second account is that of
the Synoptists, and refers to the examination of Jesus at dawn of
day " by thc leading Sanhedrists, who had been hastily summoned " st. Luke
j, , , xxii. 66
for the purpose.
It sounds almost like presumption to say, that in His first inter
view with Caiaphas Jesus bore Himself with the majesty of the Son
of God, Who knew all that was before Him, and passed through it as
on the way to the accomplishment of His Mission. The questions of
Caiaphas bore on two points: the disciples of Jesus, and Histeaching
— the former to incriminate Christ's followers, the latter to in
criminate the Master. To the first inquiry it was only natural that
He should not have condescended to return an answer. The reply to
the second was characterised by that ' openness ' which He claimed for
all that He had said/2 If there was to be not unprejudiced, but «st.joim
• • xviii 20
even fair inquiry, let Caiaphas not try to extort confessions to Which
he had no legal right, nor to ensnare Him when the purpose was
evidently murderous. If he really wanted information, there could
be no difficulty in procuring witnesses to speak to His doctrine: all
Jewry knew it. His was no secret doctrine ( ' in secret , I spake
nothing'). He always spoke 'in Synagogue and in the Temple,
whither all the Jews gather together.'3 If the inquiry were a fair
one, let the judge act judicially, and ask not Him, but those who had
heard Him.
It must be admitted, that the answer sounds not like that of one
accused, who seeks either to make apology, or even greatly cares to
defend himself. And there was in it that tone of superiority which
1 Canon Westcott supposes that the ' the world ' in the sense of ' everybody '
Apostle himself was present in the is common in every language. And its
audience chamber. But, although we Rabbinic use has been shown on p. 368,
readily admit that John went into the Note 3. Christ proves that He had bad
house, and was as near as possible to no 'secret' doctrine, about which He
Christ, many reasons suggest themselves might be questioned, by three facts:
why we can scarcely imagine John to 1. He had spoken icappnaioi ' without re-
have been present, when Caiaphas in- serve'; 2. He had spoken rep Koo-fiao to
quired about the disciples and teaching everybody, without confining Himself to
of Jesus. a select audience; 3. He had taught in
2 I cannot think that the expression the most public places— in Synagogue
rea Koo-pay 'to the world,' in ver. 20 can and in the Temple, whither all Jews re-
have any implied reference to the great sorted.
world in opposition to the Jews (as so 3 So according to the better reading,
many interpreters hold). The expression and literally.

550

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. Matt.
xxvi. 58;
St. Mark
xiv. 54;
St Luke
xxii, 54, 55
b St, John
xviii. 15-18

'St John
xviii. 15

even injured human innocence would have a right to assume before a
nefarious judge, who sought to ensnare a victim, not to elicit the
truth. It was this which emboldened one of those servile attendants,
with the brutality of an Eastern in such circumstances, to inflict on
the Lord that terrible blow. Let us hope that it was a heathen, not
a Jew, who so lifted his hand. We are almost thankful that the text
leaves it in doubt, whether it was with the palm of the hand, or the
lesser indignity — with a rod. Humanity itself seems to reel and
stagger under this blow. In pursuance of His Human submission,
the Divine Sufferer, without murmuring or complaining, or without
asserting His Divine Power, only answered in such tone of patient
expostulation as must have convicted the man of his wrong, or at
least have left him speechless. May it have been that these words
and the look of Christ had gone to his heart, and that the now
strangely-silenced malefactor became the confessing narrator of this
scene to the Apostle John?
2. That Apostle was, at any rate, no stranger in the Palace of"
Caiaphas. We have already seen that, after the first panic of Christ's
sudden capture and their own flight, two of them at least, Peter and
John, seem speedily to have rallied. Combining the notices of the
Synoptists" with the fuller details, in this respect, of the Fourth
Gospel," we derive the impression that Peter, so far true to his word,
had been the first to stop in his flight and to follow ' afar off.' If he
reached the Palace of Annas in time, he certainly did not enter it,
bnt probably waited outside during the brief space which preceded
the transference of Jesus to Caiaphas. He had now been joined by
John, and the two followed the melancholy procession which escorted
Jesus to the High-Priest. John seems to have entered ' the court '
along with the guard/ while Peter remained outside till his fellow-
Apostle, who apparently was well known in the High-Priest's house,
had spoken to the maid who kept the door — the male servants being
probably all gathered in the court ] — and so procured his admission.
Remembering that the High-Priests Palace was built on thc
slope of the hill, and that there was an outer court, from which a
door led into the inner court, we can, in some measure, realise the
scene. As previously stated, Peter had followed as far as that inner
door, while John had entered with the guard. When he missed his
fellow-disciple, who was left outside this inner door, John 'went out,'
'The circumstance that Josephus (Ant. of the widowed mother of John Mark
vii. 2. 1) on the ground of 2 Sam. iv 6 (Acts xii. 13), does not convince me, that
(LXX.) speaks of a female ' porter,' and in the Palace of the High-Priest a female
that Rhoda opened the door in the house servant regularly discharged that office.

THE DENIAL OF PETER. 55 1
and, having probably told the waiting-maid that this was a friend of chap.
his, procured his admission. While John now hurried up to be in XIII
the Palace, and as near Christ as he might, Peter advanced into the v— -v — -
middle of the court, where, in the chill spring nignt, a coal fire had
been lighted. The glow ofthe charcoal, around which occasionally a
blue flame played, threw a peculiar sheen on the bearded faces of the
men as they crowded around it, and talked of the events of that night,
describing, with Eastern volubility, to those who had not been there
what had passed in the Garden, and exchanging, as is the manner of
such serving-men and officials, opinions and exaggerated denuncia
tions concerning Him Who had been captured with such unexpected
ease, and was now their master's safe Prisoner. As the red light
glowed and flickered, it threw the long shadows of these men across
the inner court, up the walls towards the gallery that ran round, up
there, where the lamps and lights within, or as they moved along
apartments and corridors, revealed other faces: there, where, in an
inner audience-chamber, the Prisoner was confronted by His enemy,
accuser, and judge.
What a contrast it all seemed between the Purification of the
Temple only a few days before, when the same Jesus had overturned
the trafficking tables of the High-Priest, and as He now stood, a
bound Prisoner before him, at the mercy of every menial who might
carry favour by wantonly insulting Him? It was a chill night when
Peter, down ' beneath,' " looked up to the lighted windows. There, «st. Mark
. . . . . ' xiv. 66
among the serving-men m the court, he was m every sense ' without. " „ st Matt
He approached the group around the fire. He would hear what they
had to say; besides, it was not safe to stand apart; he might be recog
nised as one of those who had only escaped capture in the Garden by
hasty flight. And then it was chill — and not only to the body, the
chill had struck to his soul. Was he right in having come there at
all? Commentators have discussed it as involving neglect of Christ's
warning. As if the love of any one who was, and felt, as Peter, could
have credited the possibility of what he had been warned of; and, if
he had credited it, would, in the first moments of returning flood
after the panic of his flight, have remembered that warning, or with
cool calculation acted up to the full measure of it! To have fled to his
home and shut the door behind him, by way of rendering it impos
sible to deny that he knew Christ, would not have been Peter nor
any true disciple. Nay, it would itself have been a worse and more
cowardly denial than that of which he was actually guilty. Peter
followed afar off, thinking of nothing else but his imprisoned Master,

XXVI.

552

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

« The Syn
optists b St. John

* St. Mat
thew

and that he would see the end, whatever it might be. But now it
was chill, very chill, to body and soul, and Peter remembered it
all; not, indeed, the warning, but that of which he had been warned.
What good could his confession do? perhaps much possible harm;
and why was he there?
Peter was very restless, and yet he must seem very quiet. He
'sat down' among the servants," then he stood up among them."
It was this restlessness of attempted indifference which attracted the
attention of the maid who had at the first admitted him. As in the
uncertain light she scanned the features of the mysterious stranger,
she boldly charged him/ though still in a questioning tone, with being
one of thc disciples of the Man Who stood incriminated up there
before the High-Priest. And in the chattering of his soul's fever,
into which the chill had struck, Peter vehemently denied all
knowledge of Him to Whom the woman referred, nay, of the very
meaning of what she said. He had said too much not to bring soon
another charge upon himself. We need not inquire which of the
slightly varying reports in the Gospels represents the actual words of
the woman or the actual answer of Peter. Perhaps neither; perhaps
all — certainly, she said all this, and, certainly, he answered all that,
though neither of them would confine their words to the short
sentences reported by each of the Evangelists.
What had he to do there? And why should he incriminate him
self, or perhaps Christ, by a needless confession to those who had
neither the moral nor the legal right to exact it? That was all he
now remembered and thought; nothing about any denial of Christ.
And so, as they were still chatting together, perhaps bandying words,
Peter withdrew. We cannot judge how long time had passed, but
this we gather, that the words of the woman had either not made
any impression on those around the fire, or that the bold denial of
Peter had satisfied them. Presently, we find Peter walking away
down 'the porch,"1 which ran round and opened into 'the outer
court. ' " He was not thinking of anything else now than how chilly it
felt, and how right he had been in not being entrapped by that woman.
And so he heeded it not, while his footfall sounded along the marble-
paved porch, that just at this moment ' a cock crew.' But there was
no sleep that night in the High-Priest's Palace. As he walked down
the porch towards thc outer court, first one maid met him; and then,
as he returned from the outer court, he once more encountered his
old accuser, the door-portress; and as he crossed the inner court to
mingle again with the group around the fire, where he had formerly
found safety, he was first accosted by one man, and then they all

thaw

WAS CHRIST CONDEMNED BY THE GREAT SANHEDRIN? 553
around the fire turned upon him — and each and all had the same thing chap.
to say, the same charge, that he was also one of the disciples of Jesus XIII
of Nazareth. But Peter's resolve was taken; he was quite sure it was "- — -y^-
right;, and to each separately, and to all together, he gave the same
denial, more brief now, for he was collected and determined, taut more ; stMat-
emphatic — even with an oath." And once more he silenced suspicion
for a time. Or, perhaps, attention was now otherwise directed.
3. For, already, hasty footsteps were heard along the porches
and corridors, and the maid who that night opened the gate at the
High-Priest's Palace was busy at her post. They were the leading
Priests, Elders, and Sanhedrists,1 who had been hastily summoned to
the High-Priest's Palace, and who were hurrying up just as the first
faint streaks of gray light were lying on the sky. The private ex
amination by Caiaphas we place (as in the Gospel of St. John) between
the first and second denial of Peter; the first arrival of Sanhedrists
immediately after his second denial. The private inquiry of Caiaphas
had elicited nothing; and, indeed, it was only preliminary. The
leading Sanhedrists must have been warned that the capture of
Jesus would be attempted that night, and to hold themselves in
readiness when summoned to the High-Priest. This is not only
quite in accordance with all the previous and after circumstances in
the narrative, but nothing short of a procedure of such supreme im
portance would have warranted the presence for such a purpose of
these religious leaders on that holy Passover-night.
But whatever view be taken, thus much at least is certain, that
it was no formal, regular meeting of the Sanhedrin. We put aside,
as a priori reasoning, such considerations as that protesting voices
would have been raised, not only from among the friends of Jesus,
but from others whom (with all their Jewish hatred of Christ) we
cannot but regard as incapable of such gross violation of justice and
law. But all Jewish order and law would have been grossly infringed
in almost every particular, if this had been a formal meeting of the
Sanhedrin.2 We know what their forms were, although many of
them (as so much in Rabbinic accounts) may represent rather the
ideal than the real — what the Rabbis imagined should be, rather than
1 The expression ' all . the council ' torian, my lamented friend, the late Dr.
must evidently be taken in a general, Jost (Gesch. d. Judeuth. i. pp. 402-409).
not literal sense. No one would believe, He designates it 'a private murder
for example, that either Nicodemus or (Privat-Mord), committed by burning
Gamaliel was present. I would not, enemies, not the sentence of a regularly
however, attach any great importance to constituted Sanhedrin. The most promi-
this. The reference to the ' Elders ' (in nent men who represented the Law, such
St. Matt.) is spurious. as Gamaliel, Jochanan b. Zakkai, and
2 This is also the conclusion of the others, were not present.' The defence of
calmest and most impartial Jewish his- the proceedings as a right and legal pro-

554

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

'Sanh. 2 a;
Maim.
Sanh. iv.
1-3

bSanh. 2 a;
15 b

' Sanh. 88
b; Maim. u.
s. ch. ii. 7, £
a 1 Tim.
iii. ; Tit. i.

what was; or else what may date from later times. According to
Rabbinic testimony, there were three tribunals. In towns numbering
less than 120 (or, according to one authority. 230 J) male inhabitants,
there was only the lowest tribunal, that consisting of three Judges.2
Their jurisdiction was limited, and notably did not extend to capital
causes/ The authority of the tribunal of next instance — that of
twenty-three * — was also limited, although capital causes lay within
its competence. The highest tribunal was that of seventy-one, or the
Great Sanhedrin, which met first in one ofthe Temple-Chambers, the
so-called Lishkath haGazith- — or Chamber of Hewn Stones — and at the
time of which we write in ' the booths of the sons of Annas. ' 5 The
Judges of all these Courts were equally set apart by qrdination
(Semikhah), originally that of the laying on of hands. Ordination
was conferred by three, of whom one at least must have been himself
ordained, and able to trace up his ordination through Joshua to
Moses/ This, of course, on the theory that there had been a regular
succession of ordained Teachers, not only up to Ezra, but beyond him
to Joshua and Moses. The members of the tribunals of twenty-three
were appointed by the Great Sanhedrin." The members of the
tribunals of three were likewise appointed by the Great Sanhedrin,
which entrusted to men, specially accredited and worthy, the duty of
travelling through the towns of Palestine and appointing and ordain
ing in them the men best fitted for the office/ The qualifications
mentioned for the office remind us of those whicn St. Paul indicates
as requisite for the Christian eldership/
Some inferences seem here of importance, as throwing light on
early Apostolic arrangements — believing, as we do, that the outward

cedure by the Sanhedrin, as made by
Salvador (Gesch. d. Mos. Instit. [German
Transl.] vol. ii. pp. 67-79) is.from the cri
tical point of view, so unsatisfactory, that
I can only wonder the learned Saal-
schiitz should, even under the influence
of Jewish prejudice, have extended to it
his protection (Mos. Recht, pp. 623-626).
At the same time, the refutation of
Salvador by M. Dnpin (reproduced as
App. to vol. iii. of the German transla
tion of Salvador) is as superficial as the
original attack. Cohen's ' Les Deicides'
is a mere party-book which deserves not
serious consideration. Gratz (Gesch. d.
Juden. iii. p. 244) evades the question.
1 In Sanh. i. 6, the reasons for the
various numbers are given : but we can
scarcely regard them "as historical.
- Various modern writers have of late
denied the existence of tribunals of three.

But the whole weight of evidence is
against them. A number of passages
might here be quoted, but the reader may
be generally referred to the treatment of
the subject in Selden. de Synedriis,
ii. c. 5, and especially to Maimonides,
Hilkh. Sanh.
3 In the case of a Mumcheh or ad
mitted authority, even one Judge could
in certain civil cases pronounce sentence
(Sauh. 2 b ; 3 a).
4 In Jerusalem there were said to have
been two such tribunals; one whose
locale was at the entrance to the Temple-
Court, the other at that to the inner or
Priest-Court. 5 It is a mistake to identify these with
the four shops on the Mount of Olives.
They were the Temple-shops previously
described.

THE ARRANGEMENTS OF THE SANHEDRIN. 555
form ofthe Church was in great measure derived from the Synagogue. CHAP.
First, we notice that there was regular ordination, and, at first at XIII
least, by the laying on of hands. Further, this ordination was not ^-y — '
requisite either for delivering addresses or conducting the liturgy in
the Synagogue, but for authoritative teaching, and especially for
judicial functions, to which would correspond in the Christian Church
the power of the Keys — the administration of discipline and of the
Sacraments as admitting into, and continuing in the fellowship of the
Church. Next, ordination could only be conferred by those who had
themselves been rightly ordained, and who could, therefore, through
those previously ordained, trace their ordination upwards. Again,
each of these ' Colleges of Presbyters ' had its Chief or President.
Lastly, men entrusted with supreme (Apostolic) authority were sent
to the various towns ' to appoint elders in every city. ' a » Tit. i. 5
The appointment to the highest tribunal, or Great Sanhedrin,
was made by that tribunal itself, either by promoting a member of
the inferior tribunals or one from the foremost of the three rows, in
which ' the disciples ' or students sat facing the Judges. The latter
sat in a semicircle, under the presidency of the Nasi ('prince ') and
the vice-presidency of the Ab-beth-din ('father of the Court of Law ')/
At least twenty-three members were required to form a quorum." * Bemidb.
We have such minute details of the whole arrangements and pro
ceedings of this Court as greatly confirms our impression of the
chiefly ideal character of some of the Rabbinic notices. Facing the
semicircle of Judges, we are told, there were two shorthand writers,
to note down, respectively, the speeches in favour and against the
accused. Each ofthe students knew, and sat in his own place. In
capital causes the arguments in defence of and afterwards those
incriminating the accused, were stated. If one had spoken in favour,
he might not again speak against the panel. Students might speak
for, not against him. He might be pronounced ' not guilty ' on tbe
same day on which the case was tried; but a sentence of ' guilty '
might only be pronounced on the day following that of the trial. It
seems however, at least doubtful, whether in case of profanation of
the Divine Name (Chillul haShem), judgment was not immediately
executed." Lastly, the voting began with the youngest, so that °Kidd, 40 «
1 Kuenen and after him Schiirer scholar, Prof. Struck of Berlin, p. 9,
(Neutest Zeitgesch.) have denied the notes). Comp. also Levy, Neuhebr.
existence of this arrangement, but, as Worterb., s. v. Schiirer has to account
I think on quite insufficient grounds, for other passages besides those which he
Thev have been answered by D. Hoff- quotes (p. 413)— notably for the very
mann (see the very able ed. of the Pirqe clear statement in Chag. ii. 2.
Abhoth, by that learned and accurate

556 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK juniors might not be influenced by the seniors; and a bare majority
V was not sufficient for condemnation.
v— -v— ' These are only some of the regulations laid down in Rabbinic
writings. It is of greater importance to enquire, how far they were
carried out under the iron rule of Herod and that of the Roman
Procurators. Here we are in great measure left to conjecture. We
can well believe that neither Herod nor the Procurators would wish
to abolish the Sanhedrin, but would leave to them the administra
tion of justice, especially in all that might in any way be connected
with purely religious questions. Equally we can understand, that
both would deprive them of the power ofthe sword and of decision
on all matters of political or supreme importance. Herod would
reserve to himself the final disposal in all cases, if he saw fit to in
terfere, and so would the Procurators, who especially would not have
tolerated any attempt at jurisdiction over a Roman citizen. In short,
the Sanhedrin would be accorded full jurisdiction in inferior and in
religious matters, with the greatest show, but with the least amount,
of real rule or of supreme authority. Lastly, as both Herod and the
Procurators treated the High-Priest, who was their own creature,
as the real head and representative ofthe Jews; and as it would be
their policy to curtail the power of the independent and fanatical
Rabbis, we can understand how, in great criminal causes or in im
portant investigations, the High-Priest would always preside — the
presidency of the Nasi being reserved for legal and ritual questions
and discussions. And with this the notices alike in the New Testa
ment and in Josephus accord.
Even this brief summary about the Sanhedrin would be needless,
if it were a question of applying its rules of procedure to the arraign
ment of Jesus. For, alike Jewish and Christian evidence establish
the fact, that Jesus was not formally tried and condemned by the
Sanhedrin. It is admitted on all hands, that forty years before the
destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin ceased to pronounce capital
sentences. This alone would be sufficient. But, besides, the trial
and sentence of Jesus in the Palace of Caiaphas would (as already
stated) have outraged every principle of Jewish criminal law and pro
cedure. Such causes could only be tried, and capital sentence pro-
¦ Ab. zar. nounced, in the regular meeting-place ofthe Sanhedrin," l not, as here,
in the High-Priest's Palace; no process, least of all such an one,
1 There is truly not a tittle of evidence whole proceedings took place in the
for the assumption of commentators, that former, and from it Christ was brought
Christ was led from the Palace of Caia- to Pilate (St. John xviii. 28).
phas into the Council-Chamber. The

THE PROCEDURE AGAINST CHRIST. 55*7
might be begun in the night, not even in the afternoon/1 although if CHAP.
the discussion had gone on all clay, sentence might be pronounced at xiii
night." Again, no process could take place on Sabbaths or Feastdays/ '  > — -"
or even on the eves of them/2 although this would not have nullified "Shabb, 9&
proceedings, and it might be argued on the other side, that a process o B^s ' a
against one who had seduced the people should preferably be carried a Baba k.
on, and sentence executed, at the great public Feasts/ for the warning c a^ x.
of all. Lastly, in capital causes there was a very elaborate system of |jj££s- t 6
warning and cautioning witnesses/ while it may safely be affirmed,
that at a regular trial Jewish Judges, however prejudiced, would not
have acted as the Sanhedrists and Caiaphas did on this occasion.
But as we examine it more closely, we perceive that the Gospel-
narratives do not speak of a formal trial and sentence by the San
hedrin. Such references as to 'the Sanhedrin' ('council'), or to
'all the Sanhedrin,' must be taken in the wider sense, which will
presently be explained. On the other hand, the four Gospels equally
indicate that the whole proceedings of that night were carried on in
the Palace of Caiaphas, and that during that night no formal sentence
of death was pronounced. St. John, indeed, does not report the
proceedings at all; St. Matthew1 only records the question of Caiaphas < st. Matt.
and the answer of the Sanhedrists; and even the language of St.
Mark does not convey the idea of a formal sentence/ And when in est. Hark
J . . xiv. 64:
the morning, in consequence of a fresh consultation, also m the 'con-
Palace of CaiaDhas, they led Jesus to the Prsetorium, it was not as a Him to be
1 ' J ' worthy of
prisoner condemned to death of whom they asked the execution/ but death'
as one against whom they laid certain accusations worthy of death/ xvm^sTso
while, when Pilate bade them iudge Jesus according to Jewish Law, ' st. Luke
xxiii. 2*
they replied, not: that they had done so already, but, that they had ^^atl
no competence to try capital causes/ kSt John
4. But although Christ was not tried and sentenced in a formal XTil1- 31-
meeting of the Sanhedrin, there can, alas! be no question that His
Condemnation and Death were the work, if not of the Sanhedrin, yet
of the Sanhedrists— of the whole body of them ('all the council'),
in the sense of expressing what was the judgment and purpose of
1 The ordinary Court-hours were from In a capital cause not only would the
after morning-service till the time of the formal and very solemn warning charge
meal (Shabb. 10 a). against false testimony have been ad-
2 In civil cases at least no process was dressed to the witnesses, but the latter
carried on in the months of Nisan and would be tested by the threefold process
Tishri (comp. Bloch, Civil Process- known as Chaqiroth, Derishoth, and Bedi-
Ordnuno-). ' qoth; the former two referring to ques-
3 The"d'etails on these points are given tions on the main points, the third on
in most commentaries. (Comp. the Trac- secondary points in the evidence.
tate Sanhedrin and the Gemara on it.)

558

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. John
ii. 18, 19

all the Supreme Council and Leaders of Israel, with only very few
exceptions. We bear in mind, that the resolution to sacrifice Christ
had for some time been taken. Terrible as the proceedings of that
night were, they even seem a sort of concession — as if the Sanhe
drists would fain have found some iegal and moral justification for
what they had determined to do. They first sought ' witness, ' or as
St. Matthew rightly designates it, 'false witness' against Christ.1
Since this was throughout a private investigation, this witness could
3iily have been sought from their own creatures. Hatred, fanaticism,
and unscrupulous Eastern exaggeration would readily misrepresent
and distort certain sayings of Christ, or falsely impute others to Him.
But it was altogether too hasty and excited an assemblage, and the
witnesses contradicted themselves so grossly, or their testimony so
notoriously broke down, that for very shame such trumped-up charges
had to be abandoned. And to this result the majestic calm of Christ's
silence must have greatly contributed. On directly false and contra
dictory testimony it must be best not to cross-examine at all, not to
interpose, but to leave the false witness to destroy itself.
Abandoning this line of testimony, the Priests next brought for
ward probably some of their own order, who on the first Purgation of
the Temple had been present when Jesus, in answer to the challenge
for ' a sign ' in evidence of His authority, had given them that
mysterious ' sign ' of the destruction and upraising of the Temple of
His Body/2 They had quite misunderstood it at the time, and its
reproduction now as the ground of a criminal charge against Jesus
must have been directly due to Caiaphas and Annas. We remember,
that this had been the first time that Jesus had come into collision,
not only with the Temple authorities, but with the avarice of ' the
family of Annas. ' We can imagine how the incensed High-Priest would
have challenged the conduct of the Temple-officials, and how, in reply,
he would have been told what they had attempted, and how Jesus
had met them. Perhaps it was the only real inquiry which a man like
Caiaphas would care to institute about what Jesus said. And here,

1 The Pharisaic Law of witnesses was
very peculiar. Witnesses who contra
dicted each other were not considered in
Rabbinic Law as false witnesses, in the
sense of being punishable. Nor would
they be so, even if an alibi of the ac
cused were proved — only if the alibi of
the witnesses themselves were proved
(comp. Bd'irfiesetz ii. Falsche Zeug.,pp.
29, &c). Thus the • Story of Susanna ' is
bad in Jewish Law, unless, as Geiger sup
poses, it embodies an earlier mode of pro

cedure in Jewish criminal jurisprudence.
8 Critically also this is of interest. The
first Purgation of the Temple is not re
lated by the Synoptists, but they here con
firm St. John's account of it. On the other
hand, S1j John's account of the Temple-
purgation confirms that of the Synoptists,
which St, John does not relate. And the
evidence is the stronger, that the two sets
of accounts are manifestly independent
of each other, and that of the Fourth Gos
pel younger than that of the Synoptists.

THE CHARGE BEFORE THE PROCURATOR.

559

in its grossly distorted form, and with more than Eastern exaggera
tion of partisanship it was actually brought forward as a criminal
charge !
Dexterously manipulated, the testimony of these witnesses might
lead up to two charges. It would show that Christ was a dangerous
seducer ofthe people, Whose claims might have led those who believed
them to lay violent hands on the Temple, while the supposed assertion,
that He would a or was able " to build the Temple again within three
days, might be made to imply Divine or magical pretensions.1 A
certain class of writers have ridiculed this part of the Sanhedrist plot
against Jesus. It is, indeed, true, that, viewed as a Jewish charge, it
might have been difficult, if not impossible, to construe a capital
crime out of such charges, although, to say the least, a strong popular
prejudice might thus have been raised against Jesus — and this, no
doubt, was one ofthe objects which Caiaphas had in view. But it
has been strangely forgotten that the purpose ofthe High-Priest was
not to formulate a capital charge in Jewish Law, since the assembled
Sanhedrists had no intention so to try Jesus, but to formulate a
charge which would tell before the Roman Procurator. And here
none other could be so effective as that of being a fanatical seducer of
the ignorant populace, who might lead them on to wild tumultuous
acts. Two similar instances, in which the Romans quenched Jewish
fanaticism in the blood of the pretenders and their deluded followers,
will readily recur to the mind.2 In any case, Caiaphas would
naturally seek to ground his accusation of Jesus before Pilate on
anything rather than His claims to Messiahship and the inheritance
of David. It would be a cruel irony if a Jewish High-Priest had to
expose the loftiest and holiest hope of Israel to the mockery of
a Pilate; and it might prove a dangerous proceeding, whether

CHAP. XIII

1 At the same time neither this, nor
even the later charge of 'blasphemy,'
would have made Jesus what was tech
nically called either a Massith, or a
Maddiach. The former is described as
an individual who privately seduces
private individuals into idolatry (Sanh.
vii. 10; Jer. Yeb. 15 d), it being added
that he speaks with a loud voice (in praise
of some false god) and uses the Holy
(Hebr.) language (Jer. Sanh. 25 d). On
the other hand, the Maddiach is one who
publicly seduces the people to idolatry,
using, as it is added, the language spoken
commonly by the people. The two Tal-
mudic stories, that witnesses had lain in
wait to hear and report the utterances
of Christ (Sanh. 67 a), and that forty

• St. Mark
>> St. Matt.

days before His execution heralds had
summoned any exculpatory evidence in
His favour (Sanh. 43 a), may be dismissed
without comment.
2 Besides other movements, we refer
here specially to that under Theudas,
who led out some 400 persons under
promise of dividing Jordan, when both
he and his adherents were cut down by
the Romans (Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 1). At a
later time an Egyptian Jew gathered
3,000 or 4,000 on the Mount of Olives,
promising to cast down the walls of
Jerusalem by the breath of his mouth
(u. s. xx. 8, 6). Another impostor of that
kind was Simon of Cyprus (u. s. xx. 1. 2),
and, of course, Bar Kokhabh.

560

"THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

' Deut.
xvii. 6
»Rosh
haSh. ii. 6

« St. Matt.
xxii. 41-46
a St. Luke
xxii. 67, 68;
the clause
• nor let Me
go ' is
spurious

as regarded the Roman Governor or the feelings of the Jewish
people. But this charge of being a seducer of the people also broke down,
through the disagreement of the two witnesses whom the Mosaic Law
required/ and who, according to Rabbinic ordinance, had to be
separately questioned." But the divergence of their testimony does
not exactly appear in the differences in the accounts of St. Matthew
and of St. Mark. If it be deemed necessary to harmonise these
two narratives, it would be better to regard both as relating the
testimony of these two witnesses. What St. Mark reported may have
been followed by what St. Matthew records, or vice versa, the one
being, so to speak, the basis of the other. But all this time
Jesus preserved the same majestic silence as before, nor could
the impatience of Caiaphas, who sprang from his seat to confront,
and, if possible, browbeat his Prisoner, extract from Him any reply.
Only one thing now remained. Jesus knew it well, and so did
Caiaphas. It was to put the question, which Jesus could not refuse
to answer, and which, once answered, must lead either to His acknow
ledgment or to His condemnation. In the brief historical summary
which St. Luke furnishes, there is an inversion of the sequence of
events, by which it might seem as if what he records had taken place
at the meeting ofthe Sanhedrists 1 on the next morning. But a careful
consideration of what passed there obliges us to regard the report of
St. Luke as referring to the night-meeting described by St. Matthew
and St. Mark. The motive for St. Luke's inversion of the sequence of
events may have been/ that he wished to group in a continuous
narrative Peter's threefold denial, the third of which occurred after
the night- sitting of the Sanhedrin, at which the final adjuration of
Caiaphas elicited the reply which St. Luke records, as well as the
other two Evangelists. Be this as it may, we owe to St. Luke another
trait in the drama of that night. As we suppose, the simple question
was first addressed to Jesus, whether He was the Messiah? to which
He replied by referring to the needlessness of such an enquiry, since
they had predetermined not to credit His claims, nay, had only a few
days before in the Temple refused" to discuss them/ It was upon this
that the High-Priest, in the most solemn manner, adjured the True
One by the Living God, Whose Son He was, to say it, whether He
were the Messiah and Divine — the two being so joined together, not

1 It seems, to say the least, strange to
explain the expression ' led Him into
their o-vviSpiov' as referring to the regu
lar Couneil-c/j«TO&er (St. Luke xxii. 66).
2 At the same time I confess myself in

no way anxious about an accord of
details and circumstances, when, ad
mittedly, the facts entirely agree — nay,
in such case, the accord of facts would
be only the more striking.

THE CONDEMNATION OF CHRIST. 561
in Jewish belief, but to express the claims of Jesus. No doubt or chap.
hesitation could here exist. Solemn, emphatic, calm, majestic, as xiii
before had been His silence, was now His speech. And His assertion '  <~ — '
of what He was, was conjoined with that of what God would show
Hint to be, in His Resurrection and Sitting at the Right Hand of the
Father, and of what they also would see, when He would come in
those clouds of heaven that would break over their city and polity in
the final storm of judgment.
They all heard it — and, as the Law directed when blasphemy was
spoken, the High Priest rent both his outer and inner garment, with
a rent that might never be repaired/ But the object was attained. »sann. vii.
Christ- would neither explain, modify, nor retract His claims. They Moedx.
had all heard it; what use was there of witnesses, He had spoken
Giddupha,1 'blaspheming.' Then, turning to those assembled, he
put to them the usual question which preceded 2 the formal sentence
of death. As given in the Rabbinical original, it is: 3 ' What think
ye, gentlemen? And they answered, if for life, "For life!" and if
for death, "For death." ' " But the formal sentence of death, which, b Tanohu-
ma Pio-
if it had been a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin, must now have qudey. ed.
, . . „ . . . Warsh. i. p.
been spoken by the President/ was not pronounced. 132 b
There is a curious Jewish conceit, that on the Day of Atonement °Sanch- m-
the golden band on the High Priest's mitre, with the graven words,
'Holiness unto Jehovah,' atoned for those who had blasphemed/ It "Jer. Yoma
stands out in terrible contrast to the figure of Caiaphas on that
awful night. Or did the unseen mitre on the True and Eternal
High-Priest's Brow, marking the consecration of His Humiliation to
Jehovah, plead for them who in that night were gathered there, the
blind leaders of the blind? Yet amidst so many most solemn
thoughts, some press prominently forward. On that night of terror,
when all the enmity of man and the power of hell were unchained,
even the falsehood of malevolence could not lay any crime to His
charge, .nor yet any accusation be brought against Him other
than the misrepresentation of His symbolic Words. What testimony
to Him this solitary false and ill-according witness! Again: 'They
all condemned Him to be worthy of death. ' Judaism itself would
not now re-echo this sentence of the Sanhedrists. And yet is it not
1 Other designations for it are Chillul Sanh. iii. 7.
haShem, and, euphemistically, Birkhath 3 Q^ro OX D^lttlX D!TI liltt *"DD
haShem. .nnOT DiVOT DN1 D"n?
2 But this does not seem to me to have 1 ' The President of the Judges said:
been the actual sentence. In regard to < guoh. an 0n6| thou ... art guilty '
the latter, see the formalities detailed in (Sanh. iii. 7).

44

562 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK after all true — that He was either the Christ, the Son of God, or a
V blasphemer? This Man, alone so calm and majestic among those
v— y — ' impassioned false judges and false witnesses; majestic in His
silence, majestic in His speech; unmoved by threats to speak, un
daunted by threats when He spoke; Who saw it all — the end from
the beginning; the Judge among His judges, the Witness before His
witnesses: which was He — the Christ or a blaspheming impostor?
Let history decide; let the heart and conscience of mankind give
answer. If He had been what Israel said, He deserved the death of
the Cross; if He is what the Christmas-bells of the Church, and the
chimes of the Resurrection-morning -ring out, then do Ave rightly
worship Him as the Son of the Living God, the Christ, the Saviour
of men. 5. It was after this meeting of the Sanhedrists had broken up,
that, as we learn from the Gospel of St. Luke, the revolting insults
and injuries were perpetrated on Him by the guards and servants of
Caiaphas. All now rose in combined rebellion against the Perfect
Man: the abject servility of the East, which delighted in insults on
One Whom it could never have vanquished, and had not even dared
to attack; that innate vulgarity, which loves to trample on fallen
greatness, and to deck out in its own manner a triumph where no vic
tory has been won; the brutality ofthe worse than animal in man (since
in him it is not under the guidance of Divine instinct), and which,
whe nunchained, seems to intensify in coarseness and ferocity; 1 and
the profanity and devilry which are wont to apply the wretched wit
ticisms of what is misnomered common sense and the blows of tyran
nical usurpation of power to all that is higher and better, to what
these men cannot grasp and dare not look up to, and before the shadows
of which, when cast by superstition, they cower and tremble in abject
fear! And yet these insults, taunts, and blows which fell upon that
lonely Sufferer, not defenceless, but undefending, not vanquished, but
uncontending, not helpless, but majestic in voluntary self-submission
for the highest purpose of love — have not only exhibited the curse of
humanity, but also removed it by letting it descend on Him, the Perfect
Man, the Christ, the Son of God. And ever since has every noble-
hearted sufferer been able on the strangely clouded day to look up, and
follow what, as it touches earth, is the black misty shadow, to where,
illumined by light from behind, it passes into the golden light — a
1 Have we advanced much beyond this, l'lnfame' — and, horrible to relate it,
when the Parisian democracy can inscribe teach its little children to bring to this
on its banners such words as ' Ecrasez its floral offerings?

THE SUFFERING CHRIST AND PETER'S DENIAL. 563
mantle of darkness as it enwraps us, merging in light up there where CHAP.
its folds seem held together by the Hand from heaven. XIII
This is our Sufferer — the Christ or a blasphemer; and in that '  <"*—•'
alternative which of us would not choose the part of the Accused
rather than of His judges? So far as recorded, not a word escaped
His Lips; not a complaint, nor murmur; nor utterance of indignant
rebuke, nor sharp cry of deeply sensitive, pained nature. He was
drinking, slowly, with the consciousness of willing self-surrender, the
Cup which His Father had given Him. And still His Father — and
this also specially in His Messianic relationship to man.
We have seen that, when Caiaphas and the Sanhedrists quitted
the audience-chamber, Jesus was left to the unrestrained licence of
the attendants. Even the Jewish Law had it, that no ' prolonged
death ' (Mithah Arikhta) might be inflicted, and that he who was
condemned to death was not to be previously scourged/ At last °Keth
they were weary of insult and smiting, and the Sufferer was left
alone, perhaps in the covered gallery, or at one of the windows that
overlooked the court below. About one hour had passed " since b st. Luke
Peter's second denial had, so to speak, been interrupted by the arrival
of the Sanhedrists. Since then the excitement of the mock-trial,
with witnesses coming and going, and, no doubt, in Eastern fashion
repeating what had passed to those gathered in the court around the
fire; then the departure ofthe Sanhedrists, and again the insults and
blows inflicted on the Sufferer, had diverted attention from Peter.
Now it turned once more upon him; and, in the circumstances,
naturally more intensely than before. The chattering of Peter, whom
conscience and consciousness made nervously garrulous, betrayed him.
This one also was with Jesus the Nazarene; truly, he was of them —
for he was also a Galilean! So spake the bystanders; while, accord
ing to St. John, a fellow-servant and kinsman of that Malchus, whose
ear Peter, in his zeal, had cut off in Gethsemane, asserted that he
actually recognised him. To one and all these declarations Peter
returned only a more vehement denial, accompanying it this time
with oaths to God and imprecations on himself.
The echo of his words had scarcely died out — their diastole had
scarcely returned them with gurgling noise upon his conscience—
when loud and shrill the second cock-crowing was heard. There was
that in its harsh persistence of sound that also wakened his memory.
He now remembered the words of warning prediction which the Lord
had spoken. He looked up; and as he looked, he saw, how up

564 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK there, just at that moment; the Lord turned round1 and looked upon
v him — yes, in all that assembly, upon Peter! His eyes spake His
v- — y — ' Words; nay, much more; they searched down to the innermost
depths of Peter's heart, and broke them open. They had pierced
through all self-delusion, false shame, and fear: they had reached the
man, the disciple, the lover of Jesus. Forth they burst, the waters of
conviction, of true shame, of heart-sorrow, of the agonies of self-
condemnation; and, bitterly weeping, he rushed from under those suns
that had melted the ice of death and burnt into his heart — out from
that cursed place of betrayal by Israel, by its High Priest — and even
by the representative Disciple.
Out he rushed into the night. Yet a night lit up by the stars of
promise — chiefest among them this, that the Christ up there — the
conquering Sufferer — had prayed for him. God grant us in the
night of our conscious self-condemnation the same star-light of His ¦
Promises, the same assurance of the intercession of the Christ, that
so, as Luther puts it, the particularness of the account of Peter's
denial, as compared with the briefness of that of Christ's Passion, may
carry to our hearts this lesson: ' The fruit and use of the sufferings
of Christ is this, that in them we have the forgiveness of our sins. '
1 There is not any indication in the the morning He was at all removed from
text that, as Commentators suppose, near the place where He had been
Christ was at that moment led bound examined.
across the Court; nor, indeed, that till

THE MORNING-SITTING OF THE SANHEDRISTS. 565

CHAPTER XIV.
THE MORNING OF GOOD FRIDAY.
(St. Matt, xxvii. 1, 2, 11-14 ; St. Mark xv. i-5 ; St. Luke xxiii. 1-5 ; St. John xviii. 28-
38 ; St. Luke xxiii. 6-12 ; St. Matt, xxvii. 3-10 ; St'. Matt, xxvii. 15-18 ; St. Mark
xv. 6-10; St. Luke xxiii. 13-17; St. John xviii. 39, 40; St. Matt, xxvii. 19; St.
Matt, xxvii. 20-31 ; St. Mark xv. 11-20 ; St. Luke xxiii. 18-25 ; St. John xix. 1-16.)
The pale grey light had passed into that of early morning, when the CHAP.
Sanhedrists once more assembled in the Palace of Caiaphas.1 A XIV
comparison with the terms in which they who had formed the gathering ' — "y"~—
of the previous night are described will convey the impression, that
the number of those present was now increased, and that they who
now came belonged to the wisest and most influential of the Council.
It is not unreasonable to suppose, that some who would not take
part in deliberations which were virtually a judicial murder might,
once the resolution was taken, feel in Jewish casuistry absolved from
guilt in. advising how the informal sentence might best be carried
into effect. It was this, and not the question of Christ's guilt, which
formed the subject of deliberation on that early morning. The
result of it was to ' bind ' Jesus and hand Him over as a malefactor
to Pilate, with the resolve, if possible, not to frame any definite
charge;" but, if this became necessary, to lay all the emphasis on »st. John
the purely political, not the religious aspect ofthe claims of Jesus/2 tst. Lu^e
To us it may seem strange, that they who, in the lowest view of xxm- 2
it, had committed so grossly unrighteous, and were now coming on
so cruel and bloody a deed, should have been prevented by religious
scruples from entering the ' Praatorium.' And yet the student of
Jewish casuistry will understand it; nay, alas, history and even
common observation furnish only too many parallel instances of
unscrupulous scrupulosity and unrighteous conscientiousness. Alike
conscience and religiousness are only moral tendencies natural to
man; whither they tend, must be decided by considerations outside
1 This is so expressly stated in St. John 2 Comp. St. Matt, xxvii. 1 with xxvi.
xviii. 28, that it is difficult to understand 59, where the words ' and elders ' must
whence the notion has been derived that be struck out; and St. Mark xv, 1 with
the Council assembled in their ordinary xiv. 55.
council-chamber.

566 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK of them: by enlightenment and truth.1 The ' Praetorium,' to which
V the Jewish leaders, or at least those of them who represented the
*— — y~— ' leaders — for neither Annas nor Caiaphas seems to have been per
sonally present — brought the bound Christ, was (as always in the
provinces) the quarters occupied by the Roman Governor. In
Caesarea this was the Palace of Herod, and there St. Paul was after
wards a prisoner. But in Jerusalem there were two such quarters:
the fortress Antonia, and the magnificent Palace of Herod at the
north-western angle of the Upper City. Although it is impossible
to speak with certainty, the balance of probability is entirely in
favour of the view that, when Pilate was in Jerusalem with his wife,
he occupied the truly royal abode of Herod, and not the fortified
barracks of Antonia.2 From the slope at the eastern angle, opposite
the Temple-Mount, where the Palace of Caiaphas stood, up the narrow
streets of the Upper City, the melancholy procession wound to the
portals of the grand Palace of Herod. It is recorded, that they
who brought Him would not themselves enter the portals of the
Palace, ' that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.'
Few expressions have given rise to more earnest controversy than
this. On two things at least we can speak with certainty. Entrance
into a heathen house did Levitically render impure for that day —
that is, till the evening.3 The fact of such defilement is clearly
1 These are the Urim and Thummim put by Kirchner and Wieseler. Putting
of the ' anima uaturaliter Christiana.' aside any argument from the supposed
2 This is, of course, not the traditional later date of the ' Priest-Codex,' as corn-
site, nor yet that which was formerly in pared with Deuter., and indeed the
favour. But as the Palace of Herod purely Biblical argument, since the
undoubtedly became (as all royal resi- question is as to the views entertained
dences) the property of the State, and as in the time of Christ, Schiirer argues: 1.
we have distinct evidence that Roman That the Chagigah was not designated
Procurators resided there, and took their by the term Pesach. 2. That the defile-
seat in front of that Palace ou a raised ment from entering a heathen house
pavement to pronounce judgment (Jos. would not have ceased in the evening (so
War ii. 14. 8; comp. Philo, adCaj. § 38), as to allow them to eat the Passover),
the inference is obvious, that Pilate, but have lasted for seven days, as being
especially as he was accompanied by his connected with the suspicion that an
wife, resided there also. abortus — i.e. a dead body — might be
3 The various reasons for this need not buried in the house. On the first point
here be discussed. As these pages are we refer to Note 1 on the next page,
passing through the press (for a second only adding that, with all his ingenuity,
edition)my attention has been called to Dr. Schiirer has not met all the passages
Schiirer's brochure (' Ueber cpayslv to adduced on the other side, and that the
icdcrxa,' Giessen, 1883), intended to con- view advocated in the text is that
trovert the interpretation of St. John xviii. adopted by many Jewish scholars.
28, given in the text. This is not the The argument on the second point is
place to enter on the subject at length, even more unsatisfactory. The defilement
But I venture to think that, with all his from entering the Pradorium, which the
learning, Dr. Schiirer has not quite met the Sanhedrists dreaded, might be — or rather,
case, nor fully answered the argument as in this case must have been — due to other

THE SANHEDRISTS' FEAR OF DEFILEMENT.

567

attested both in the New Testament " and in the Mishnah, though its
reasons might be various." A person who had so become Levitically
unclean was technically called Tebhul Yom ('bathed of the day').
The other point is, that, to have so become ' impure ' for the day,
would not have disqualified for eating the Paschal Lamb, since the
meal was partaken of after the evening, and when a new day had
begun. In fact, it is distinctly laid down c that the ' bathed of the
day, ' that is, he who had been impure for the day and had bathed in
the evening, did partake of the Paschal Supper, and an instance is
related/ when some soldiers who had guarded the gates of Jerusalem
'immersed,' and ate the Paschal Lamb. It follows that those Sanhe
drists could not have abstained from entering the Palace of Pilate
because by so doing they would have been disqualified for the Paschal
Supper. The point is of importance, because many writers have interpreted
the expression ' the Passover ' as referring to the Paschal Supper, and
have argued that, according to the Fourth Gospel, our Lord did not
on the previous evening partake of the Paschal Lamb, or else that in
this respect the account of the Fourth Gospel does not accord with
that of the Synoptists. But as, for the reason just stated, it is im
possible to refer the expression ' Passover ' to the Paschal Supper, we
have only to inquire whether the term is not also applied to other
offerings. And here both the Old Testament e and Jewish writings '

CHAP. xiv

causes than that the house might contain
an abortus or a dead body. And of such
many may be conceived, connected either
with the suspected presence of an idol in
the house or with contact with an idolater.
It is, indeed, true that Ohol. xviii. 7 refers
to the suspicion of a buried abortus as the
cause of regarding the houses of Gentiles
as defiled; but even so, it would be too
much to suppose that a bare suspicion of
this kind would make a man unclean for
seven days. For this it would ha ve been
necessary that the dead body was actually
within the house entered, or that what
contained it had been touched. But
there is another and weightier considera
tion. Ohol. xviii. 7 is not so indefinite as
Dr. Schiirer implies. It contains a most
important limitation. In order to make
a house thus defiled (from suspicion of
an abortus buried in it), it states that
the house must have been inhabited by the
heathen for forty days, and even so the
custody of a Jewish servant or maid
would have rendered needless a bediqah,
or investigation (to clear the house of

suspicion). Evidently, the Prmtorium
would not have fallen under the category
contemplated in Ohol. xviii. 7, even if
(which we are not prepared to admit) such
a case would have involved a defilement
of seven days. Thus Schiirer' s argument
falls to the ground. Lastly, although the
Chagigah could only be brought by the
offerer in person, the Paschal Lamb might
be brought for another person, and then
the tebhul yom partake of it. Thus, if
the Sanhedrists had been defiled in the
morning they might have eaten thePascha
at night. Dr. Schiirer in his brochure re
peatedly appeals to Delitzsch (Zeitschr. f.
Luther. Theol. 1874, pp. 1-4) ; but there
is nothing in the article of that eminent
scholar to bear out the special contention
of Schiirer, except that he traces the de
filement of heathen houses to the cause in
Ohal.xviii.7. Delitzsch concludes his paper
by pointing to this very case in evidence
that the N.T. documents date from the
first, and not the second century of our era.
1 The subject has been so fully dis
cussed, in Wieseler, Beitr., and in

d Jer. Pes.
36 b, lines
14 and 15
from bot
tom

• Deut.
xvi. 1-3; 2
Cliron. xxxv. 1, 2,
6,18

568 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK show, that the term Pesach, or ' Passover, ' was applied not only to the
V Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, especially to what
v-— >  ' was called the Chagigah, or festive offering (from Chag, or Chagag, to
bring the festive sacrifice usual at each ofthe three Great Feasts).'
According to the express rule (Chag. i. 3) the Chagigah was brought
on the first festive Paschal Day. ' It was offered immediately after
the morning-service, and eaten on that day — probably .some time
before the evening, when, as we shall by-and-by see, another ceremony
claimed public attention. We can therefore quite understand that,
not on the eve of the Passover, but on the first Paschal day, the San
hedrists would avoid incurring a defilement which, lasting till the
evening, would not only have involved them in the inconvenience of
Levitical defilement on the first festive day, but have actually pre
vented their offering on that day the Passover, festive sacrifice, or
Chagigah. For, we have these two express rules : that a person could
not in Levitical defilement offer the Chagigah; and that the Chagigah
could not be offered for a person by some one else who took his place
(Jer. Chag. 76 a, lines 16 to 14 from bottom). These considerations
and canons seem decisive as regards the views above expressed. There
would have been no reason to fear ' defilement ' on the morning of
the Paschal Sacrifice; but entrance into the Prcetorium on the morn
ing of the first Passover-day would have rendered it impossible for
them to offer the Chagigah, which is also designated by the term Pesach.
It may have been about seven in the morning, probably even
earlier,2 when Pilate went out to those who summoned him to dis
pense justice. The question which he addressed to them seems to
have startled and disconcerted them. Their procedure had been
private; it was of the very essence of proceedings at Roman Law
that they were in public. Again, the procedure before the San
hedrists had been in the form of a criminal investigation, while it
was of the essence of Roman procedure to enter only on definite
accusations.3 Accordingly, the first question of Pilate was, what
Kirchner, Jiid. Passahfeier, not to speak during the festive week, which in the
of many others, that it seems needless to Feast of Tabernacles was extended to
enter further on the question. No com- the Octave, and in that of Weeks (which
petent Jewish archaeologist would care lasted only one day) over a whole week
to deny that 'Pesach 'may refer to the (see Chag. 9 a; Jer. Chag. 76 c). The
' Chagigah,' while the motive assigned Chagigah could not, but the Paschal
to the Sanhedrists by St. John implies, Lamb might, be offered by a person on
that in this instance it must refer to this, behalf of another.
and not to the Paschal Lamb. - 2 Most commentators suppose it to
1 ~" T "1wN"i~ 21. C*\ But con- have been much earlier. I have followed
cession was made to those who had tbe view of Keim.
neglected it on the first day to bring it 3 Nocens, nisi accusatus fuerit, con-

THE DREAM OF PILATE'S WIFE.

569

accusation they brought against Jesus. The question would come
upon them the more unexpectedly, that Pilate must, on the previous
evening, have given his consent to the employment of the Roman
guard which effected the arrest of Jesus. Their answer displays
humiliation, ill-humour, and an attempt at evasion. If He had not
been ' a malefactor, ' they would not have ' delivered ' 1 Him up ! On
this vague charge Pilate, in whom we mark throughout a. strange
reluctance to proceed — perhaps from unwillingness to please the
Jews, perhaps from a desire to wound their feelings on the tenderest
point, perhaps because restrained by a Higher Hand — refused to
proceed. He proposed that the Sanhedrists should try Jesus accord
ing to Jewish Law. This is another important trait, as apparently
implying that Pilate had been previously aware both of the peculiar
claims of Jesus, and that the action of the Jewish authorities had
been determined by 'envy.'" But, under ordinary circumstances,
Pilate would not have wished to hand over a person accused of so
grave a charge as that of setting up Messianic claims to the Jewish
authorities, to try the ease as a merely religious question." Taking
this in connection with the other fact, apparently inconsistent with
it, that on the previous evening the Governor had given a Roman
guard for the arrest of the prisoner, and with this other fact of the
dream and warning of Pilate's wife, a peculiar impression is conveyed
to us. We can understand it all, if, on the previous evening, after
the Roman guard had been granted, Pilate had spoken of it to his
wife, whether because he knew her to be, or because she might be
interested in the matter. Tradition has given her the name Procula;"
an Apocryphal Gospel describes her as a convert to Judaism; a while
the Greek Church has actually placed her in the Catalogue of Saints.
What if the truth lay between these statements, and Procula had not
only been a proselyte, like the wife of a previous Roman Governor,2
but known about Jesus and spoken of Him to Pilate on that evening?
This would best explain his reluctance to condemn Jesus, as well as
her dream of Him.
As the Jewish authorities had to decline the Governor's offer to
proceed against Jesus before their own tribunal, on the avowed
ground that they had not power to pronounce capital sentence/ it

CHAP. XIV

» St. Matt.
xxvii. 18

b Acts. xxii.
39; xxiii.
28, 29 ; xxiv.
9, 18-20

0 Nicephorus,'
H.E. i. 30
<< Gospel
according to Nicod.
ch. ii.

demnari non potest. In regard to the
publicity of Roman procedure, comp.
Acts xvi. 19; xvii. 6; xviii. 12; xxv. 6;
Jos. War ii. 9. 3; 14. 8; 'maxima fre-
quentia amplissimorum ac sapientissi-
morum civium adstante ' (Cicero).

1 Significantly the word is the same
as that in reference to the betrayal of
Judas. 2 Saturninus (Jos. Ant. xviii. 3, 5).
3 The apparently strange statement,
St. John xviii. 32, affords another un-

570

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

now behoved them to formulate a capital charge. This is recorded
by St. Luke alone." It was, that Jesus had said, He Himself was
Christ a King. It will be noted, that in so saying they falsely im
puted to Jesus their own political expectations concerning the
Messiah. But even this is not all. They prefaced it by this, that
He perverted the nation and forbade to give tribute to Caesar. The
latter charge was so grossly unfounded, that we can only regard it as
in their mind a necessary inference 'from the premiss that He claimed
to be King. And, as telling most against Him, they put this first
and foremost, treating the inference as if it were a fact — a practice
this only too common in controversies, political, religious, or private.
This charge of the Sanhedrists explains what, according to all
the Evangelists, passed within the Prsetorium. We presume that
Christ was within, probably in charge of some guards. The words
of the Sanhedrists brought peculiar thoughts to Pilate. He now
called Jesus and asked Him: 'Thou art the King of the Jews?'
There is tbat mixture fff contempt, cynicism, and awe in this question
which we mark throughout in thc bearing and words of Pilate. It
was, as if two powers were contending for the mastery in his heart.
By the side of uniform contempt for all that was Jewish, and of that
general cynicism which could not believe in the existence of anything
higher, we mark a feeling of awe in regard to Christ, even though
the feeling may partly have been of superstition. Out of all that
the Sanhedrists had said, Pilate took only this, that Jesus claimed to
be a King. Christ, Who had not heard the charge of His accusers,
now ignored it, in His desire to stretch out salvation even to a Pilate.
Not heeding the implied irony, He first put it to Pilate, whether the
question — be it criminal charge or inquiry — was his own, or merely
the repetition of what His Jewish accusers had told Pilate of Him.
The Governor quickly disowned any personal inquiry. How could
he raise any such question? he was not a Jew, and the subject had
no general interest. Jesus' own nation and its leaders had handed
Him over as a criminal: what had He clone?
The answer of Pilate left nothing else for Him Who, even in
that supreme hour, thought only of others, not of Himself, but to
bring- before the Roman directly that truth for which his words had

designed confirmation of the Jewish
authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It seems
to imply, that, the Sanhedrin might have
found a mode of putting Jesus to death
in the same informal manner in which
Stephen was killed and they sought to

destroy Paul. The Jewish law recognised
a form of procedure, or jather a want of
procedure, when a person caught in
flagrante delicto of blasphemy might be
done to death without further inquiry.

THE QUESTION OF PILATE ABOUT THE KINGDOM. 571
given the opening. It was not, as Pilate had implied, a Jewish CHAP.
question: it was one of absolute truth; it concerned all men. The XIV
Kingdom of Christ was not of this world at all, either Jewish or "— — y— -'
Gentile. Had it been otherwise, He would have led His followers
to a contest for His claims and aims, and not have become a prisoner
of the Jews. One word only in all this struck Pilate. ' So then a
King art Thou! ' He was incapable of apprehending the higher
thought and truth. We mark in his words the same mixture of
scoffing and misgiving. Pilate was now in no doubt as to the nature
ofthe Eingdom; his exclamation and question applied to the Eing-
ship. That fact Christ would now emphasise in the glory of His
Humiliation. He accepted what Pilate said; He adopted his words.
But He added to them an appeal, or rather an explanation of His
claims, such as a heathen, and a Pilate, could understand. His
Kingdom was not of this world, but of that other world which He
had come to reveal, and to open to all believers. Here was the
truth! His Birth or Incarnation, as the Sent of the Father, and
His own voluntary Coming into this world — for both are referred to
in His words a — had it for their object to testify of the truth con- -st. .John
cerning that other world, of which was His Kingdom. This was no
Jewish-Messianic Kingdom, but one that appealed to all men. And
all who had moral affinity to ' the truth ' would listen to His testi
mony, and so come to own Him as ' King. '
But these words struck only a hollow void, as they fell on
Pilate. It was not merely cynicism, but utter despair of all that is
higher — a moral suicide — which appears in his question: ' What is
truth? ' He had understood Christ, but it was not in him to respond
to His appeal. He, whose heart and life had so little kinship to ' the
truth,' could not sympathise with, though he dimly perceived, the
grand aim of Jesus' Life and Work. But even the question of Pilate
seems an admission, an implied homage to Christ. Assuredly, he
would not have so opened his inner being to one of the priestly
accusers of Jesus.
That man was no rebel, no criminal! They who brought Him
were moved by the lowest passions. And so he told them, as he
went out, that he found no fault in Him. Then came from the
assembled Sanhedrists a perfect hailstorm of accusations. As we
picture it to ourselves, all this while the Christ stood near, perhaps
behind Pilate, just within the portals of the Prastorium. And to
all this clamour of charges He made no reply. It was as if the
surging of the> wild waves broke far beneath against the base of the

572

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• St. Luke
xxiii. 6-12

> St. Luke
Ix. 7-9

rock, which, untouched, reared its head far aloft to the heavens. But
as He stood in the calm silence of Majesty, Pilate greatly wondered.
Did this Man not even fear death; was He so conscious of innocence, so
infinitely superior to those around and against Him, or had He so far
conquered Death, that He would not condescend to their words? And
why then had He spoken to him of His Kingdom and of that truth?
Fain would he have withdrawn from it all; not that he was moved
for absolute truth or by the personal innocence of the Sufferer, but that
there was that in the Christ which, perhaps for the first time in his
life, had made him reluctant to be unrighteous and unjust. And so,
when, amidst these confused cries, he caught the name Galilee as the
scene of Jesus' labours, he gladly seized on what offered the prospect
of devolving the responsibility on another. Jesus was a Galilean,
and therefore belonged to the j urisdiction of King Herod. To Herod,
therefore, who had come for the Feast to Jerusalem, and there occupied
the old Maccabean Palace, close to that of the High-Priest, Jesus was
now sent/1
To St. Luke alone we owe the account of what passed there, as,
indeed, of so many traits in this last scene of the terrible drama.2
The opportunity now offered was welcome to Herod. It was a mark
of reconciliation (or might be viewed as such) between himself and
the Roman, and in a manner flattering to himself, since the first step
had been taken by the Governor, and that, by an almost ostentatious
acknowledgment of the rights of the Tetrarch, on which possibly
their former feud may have turned. Besides, Herod had long wished
to see Jesus, of Whom he had heard s*o many things." In that hour
coarse curiosity, a hope of seeing some magic performances, was the
only feeling that moved the Tetrarch. But in vain did he ply Christ
with questions. He was as silent to him as formerly against the
virulent charges of the Sanhedrists. But a Christ Who would or
could do no signs, nor even kindle into the same denunciations as the
Baptist, was, to the coarse realism of Antipas, only a helpless figure
that might be insulted and scoffed at, as did the Tetrarch and
his men of war/ And so Jesus was once more sent back to the
Prastorium.

1 dve7tepip£v. Meyer marks this as the
technical term in handing over a crimi
nal to the proper judicial authority.
2 It is worse than idle — it is trifling
to ask, whence the Evangelists derived
their accounts. As if those things had
been done in a corner, or none of those
who now were guilty had afterwards

become disciples!
3 It is impossible to say, whether ' the
gorgeous apparel' in which Herod
arrayed Christ was purple, or white.
Certainly it was not, as Bishop Haneberg
suggests (Relig. Alterth. p. 554), an old
high-priestly garment of the Macca
bees.

THE CHANGE OF MIND ON THE PART OF JUDAS. 573
It is in the interval during which Jesus was before Herod, or
probably soon afterwards, that we place the last weird scene in the life
of Judas, recorded by St. Matthew." We infer this from the circum
stance, that, on the return of Jesus from Herod, the Sanhedrists do
not seem to have been present, since Pilate had to call them together," i st Luke
presumably from the Temple. And here we recall that the Temple cmiip.'st.
was close to the Maccabean Palace. Lastly, the impression left on xxavh. 17
our minds is, that henceforth the principal part before Pilate was
sustained by ' the people, ' the Priests and Scribes rather instigating
them than conducting the case against Jesus. It may therefore
well have been, that, when the Sanhedrists went from the Alaccabean
Palace into the Temple, as might be expected on that day, only a
part of them returned to the Prastorium on the summons of Pilate.
But, however that may have been, sufficient had already passed
to convince Judas what the end would be. Indeed, it is difficult to
believe that he could have deceived himself on this point from the first,
however he had failed to realise the fact in its terrible import till after
his deed. The words which Jesus had spoken to him in the Garden
must have burnt into his soul. He was among the soldiery that fell
back at His look. Since then Jesus had been led bound to Annas, to
Caiaphas, to the Praetorium, to Herod. Even if Judas had not been
present at any of these occasions, and we do not suppose that his con
science had allowed this, all Jerusalem must by that time have been
full of the report, probably in even exaggerated form. One thing he
saw: that Jesus was condemned. Judas did not ' repent ' in the Scrip
tural sense; but ' a change of mind and feeling ' came over him. 1 Even
had Jesus been an ordinary man, and the relation to Him of Judas
been the ordinary one, we could understand his feelings, especially
considering his ardent temperament. The instant before and after sin
represents the difference of feeling as portrayed in the history of the
Fall of our first parents. With the commission of sin, all the bewitch
ing, intoxicating influence, which incited to it, has passed away, and
only the naked fact remains. All the glamour has been dispelled; all
the reality abideth. If we knew it, probably scarcely one out of many
criminals but would give all he has, nay, life itself, if he could recall
the deed done, or awake from it to find it only an evil dream. But it
cannot be; and the increasingly terrible is, that it is done, and done
for ever. Yet this is not ' repentance, ' or, at least, God alone knows
whether it is such; it may be, and in the case of Judas it only was,
1 The verb designating Scriptural re- jUErajueXojitai, as in St. Matt. xxi. 29,
pentance is/xETa-voeco; that here used is 32; 2 Cor. vii. 8; Heb. vii. 21. .

574 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK ' change of mind and feeling ' towards Jesus. Whether this might
v have passed into repentance, whether, if he had cast himself at the
^~~ "V^— ' Feet of Jesus, as undoubtedly he might have done, this would have
been so, we need not here ask. The mind and feelings of Judas, as
regarded the deed he had done, and as regarded Jesus, were now quite
other; they became increasingly so with ever-growing intensity. The
road, the streets, the people's faces — all seemed now to bear witness
against him and for Jesus. He read it everywhere; he felt it always;
he imagined it, till his whole being was on flame. What had been;
what was; what would be! Heaven and earth receded from him;
there were voices in the air, and pangs in the soul — and no escape,
help, counsel, or hope anywhere.
It was despair, and his a desperate resolve. He must get rid of
these thirty pieces of silver, which, like thirty serpents, coiled round
his soul with terrible hissing of death. Then at least his deed would
have nothing of the selfish in it: only a terrible error, a mistake,
to which he had been incited by these Sanhedrists. Back to them
with the money, and let them have it again! And so forward he
pressed amidst the wondering crowd, which would give way before
that haggard face with the wild eyes, that crime had made old in
those few hours, till he came upon that knot of priests and Sanhe
drists, perhaps at that very moment speaking of it all. A most
unwelcome sight and intrusion on them, this necessary but odious
figure in the drama — belonging to its past, and who should rest in its
obscurity. But he would be heard; nay, his words would cast the
burden on there to share it with him, as with hoarse cry he broke
into this : ' I have sinned — in that I have betrayed — innocent blood ! '
They turned from him with impatience, in contempt, as so often the
seducer turns from the seduced — and, God help such, with the same
fiendish guilt of hell: 'What is that to us? See thou to it!' And
presently they were again deep in conversation or consultation. For
a moment he stared wildly before him, the very thirty pieces of silver
that had been weighed to him, and which he had now brought back,
and would fain have given them, still clutched in his hand. For
a moment only, and then he wildly rushed forward, towards the
Sanctuary itself/ probably to where the Court of Israel bounded on
that of the Priests, where generally the penitents stood in waiting,
while in the Priests' Court the sacrifice was offered for them. He
bent forward, and with all his might hurled from him * those thirty
1 The expression vaoi is always used in fices were offered.
the N.T- of the Sanctuary itself, and not 2 I so understand the fafyaz of St.
of the outer courts ; but it would include Matt, xxvii. 5.
the Court of the Priests, where the sacri-

THE LAST SCENE IN THE 'POTTER'S FIELD.' 575
pieces of silver, so that each resounded as it fell on the marble CHAP.
pavement. XIV
Out he rushed from the Temple, out of Jerusalem, ' into soli '  <  '
tude.'1 Whither shall it be? Down into the horrible solitude of
the Valley of Hinnom, the ' Tophet ' of old, with its ghastly memo
ries, the Gehenna of the future, with its ghostly associations. But
it was not solitude, for it seemed now peopled with figures, faces,
sounds. Across the Valley, and up the steep sides of the mountain!
We are now on ' the potter's field ' of Jeremiah — somewhat to the west
above where the Kidron and Hinnom valleys merge. It is cold, soft
clayey soil, where the footsteps slip, or are held in clammy bonds.
Here jagged rocks rise perpendicularly: perhaps there was some
gnarled, bent, stunted tree.2 Up there he climbed to the top of that
rock. Now slowly and deliberately he unwound the long girdle that
held his garment. It was the girdle in which he had carried those
thirty pieces of silver. He was now quite calm and collected. With
that girdle he will hang himself 3 on that tree close by, and when he
has fastened it, he will throw himself off from that jagged rock.
It is done; but as, unconscious, not yet dead perhaps, he swung
heavily on that branch, under the unwonted burden the girdle gave
way, or perhaps the knot, which his trembling hands had made,
unloosed, and he fell heavily forward among the jagged rocks beneath,
and perished in the manner of which St. Peter reminded his fellow-
disciples in the days before Pentecost. * i But in the Temple the priests » Acts i. is,
knew not what to do with these thirty pieces of money. Their
unscrupulous scrupulosity came again upon them. It was not lawful
to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things,
money that had been unlawfully gained. In such cases the Jewish
Law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor, and,
if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it for
something for the public weal. This explains the apparent dis
crepancy between the accounts in the Book of Acts and by St.
Matthew. By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be
Judas', and to have been applied by him " in the purchase of the " Acts. i. is
well-known ' potter's field, ' for the charitable purpose of burying in
1 drsxebpTjcre. 4 As presented in the text, there is no
2 The topographical notice is based real divergence between the accounts of
on Bddeker-Socin's Palastina, pp. 114- St. Matthew and the Book of Acts.
116. Keim has formulated the supposed
3 This, not with any idea that his differences under five particulars, which
death would expiate for his sin. No are discussed seriatim by Nebe, Leidens-
such idea attached to suicide among the gesch. vol. ii. pp. 12. &c.
Jews.

576

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

b. Jer. xix.

it strangers/ But from henceforth the old name of ' potter's field,'
became popularly changed into that of ' field of blood ' (Haqal Dema).
And yet it was the act of Israel through its leaders : ' they took the
thirty pieces of silver — the price of him that was valued, whom they
ofthe children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's
field!' It was all theirs, though they would have fain made it all
Judas' : the valuing, thc selling, and the purchasing. And ' the potter's
field' — the very spot on which Jeremiah had been Divinely directed
to prophesy against Jerusalem and against Israel: " how was it now all
fulfilled in the light of the completed sin and apostasy of the people,
as prophetically described by Zechariah! This Tophet of Jeremiah,
now that they had valued and sold at thirty shekel Israel's Messiah-
Shepherd — truly a Tophet, and become a field of blood! Surely, not
an accidental coincidence this, that it should be the place of Jeremy's
announcement of judgment: not accidental, but veritably a fulfil
ment of his prophecy! And so St. Matthew, targuming this prophecy
in form 1 as in its spirit, and in true Jewish manner stringing to it
the prophetic description furnished by Zechariah, sets the event before
us as" the fulfilment of Jeremy's prophecy/
We are once more outside the Prastorium, to which Pilate had
summoned from the Temple Sanhedrists and people. The crowd was
momentarily increasing from the town.3 It was not only to see what
was about to happen, but to witness another spectacle, that of the
release of a prisoner. For it seems to have been the custom, that at
the Passover* the Roman Governor released to the Jewish populace
some notorious prisoner who lay condemned to death. A very signi
ficant custom of release this, for which they now began to clamour.
It may have been, that to this also they were incited by the
Sanhedrist who mingled among them. For if the stream of popular
sympathy might be diverted to Bar- Abbas, the doom of Jesus would
be the more securely fixed. On the present occasion it might be the
more easy to influence the people, since Bar-Abbas belonged to that

1 The alterations in the words quoted
are, as previously explained, a 'tar
guming ' of them.
2 Most Commentators, however, regard
the word ' Jeremy ' as a lapse of memory,
or an oversight by the Evangelist, or else
as a very early error of transcription.
Other explanations (more or less unsatis
factory) may be seen in the com
mentaries. Bold (Alttest. Cit. ,p. 78),
following Valckenar, thinks the mistake
arose from confounding Zpl™ (written

abbreviated) with I0"T^ But the whole
question is of no real importance.
3 According to the better reading of
St. Mark xv. 8 ' the multitude was going
up.' 4 How can they who regard the
Johannine account as implying that
Christ was crucified on the morning
before the Passover, explain the words of
St. John, ' Ye have a custom, that 1 should
release unto you one at the Passover ' ?

THE POPULAR CLAMOUR AGAINST CHRIST. 577
class, not uncommon at the time, which, under the colourable pre- CHAP.
tence of political aspirations, committed robbery and other crimes. XIV
But these movements had deeply struck root in popular sympathy. A v— ^y — ¦
strange name and figure, Bar- Abbas. That could scarcely have been
his real name. It means ' Son of the Father. ' 1 Was he a political
Anti-Christ? And why, if there had not been some conjunction be
tween them, should Pilate have proposed the alternative of Jesus or
Bar- Abbas, and not rather that of one of the two malefactors who
were actually crucified with Jesus?
But when the Governor, hoping to enlist some popular sympathy,
put this alternative to them — nay, urged it, on the ground that
neither he nor yet Herod had found any crime in Him, and would
even have appeased their thirst for vengeance by offering to submit
Jesus to the cruel punishment of scourging, it was in vain. It was
now that Pilate sat down on ' the judgment seat.' But ere he could
proceed, came that message from his wife about her dream, and the
warning entreaty to have nothing to do 'with that righteous man.'
An omen such as a dream, and an appeal connected with it, especially
in the circumstances of that trial, would powerfully impress a Roman.
And for a few moments it seemed as if the appeal to popular feeling
on behalf of Jesus might have been successful/ But once more the «st. Mark
xi 11
Sanhedrists prevailed. Apparently, all who had been followers of
Jesus had been scattered. None of them seem to have been there;
and if one or another feeble voice might have been raised for Him,
it was hushed in fear of the Sanhedrists. It was Bar-Abbas for
whom, incited by the priesthood, the populace now clamoured with
increasing vehemence. To the question — half bitter, half mocking
— what they wished him to do with Him Whom their own leaders
had in their accusation called ' King of the Jews, ' surged back, louder
and louder, the terrible cry: ' Crucify him! ' That such a cry should
have been raised, and raised by Jews, and before the Roman, and
against Jesus, are in themselves almost inconceivable facts, to which
the history of these eighteen centuries has made terrible echo. In
vain Pilate expostulated, reasoned, appealed. Popular frenzy only
grew as it was opposed.
All reasoning having failed, Pilate had recourse to one more
expedient, which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been
effective.'' When a Judge, after having declared the innocence of "st. Matt.
. ' . , , , . . xxvii. 2i, 25
the accused, actually rises trom the judgment-seat, and by a sym
bolic act pronounces the execution of the accused a judicial murder,
1 The ancient reading ' Jesus Bar- Abbas ' is not sufficiently attested to be adopted.

578

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

11 In the
LXX. ver
sion<¦ Sot. ix. 6

c Jos. War
11. 8, 9

from all participation in which he wishes solemnly to clear liimscli',
surely no jury would persist in demanding sentence of death. But
in the present instance there was even more. Although we find
allusions to some such custom among the heathen,1 that which hero
took place was an essentially Jewish rite, which must have appealed
the more forcibly to the Jews that it was done by Pilate. And, not
only the rite, but the very words were Jewish/ They -recall not merely
the rite prescribed in Deut. xxi. 6, &c, to mark the freedom from
guilt of the elders of a city where untracked murder had been
committed, but the very words of such Old Testament expressions
as in 2 Sam. iii. 28, and Ps. xxvi. 6, Ixxiii. 13," and, in later times,
in Sus. ver. 46. The Mishnah bears witness that this rite was con
tinued." As administering justice in Israel, Pilate must have been
aware of this rite/ It does not affect the question, whether or not
a judge could, especially in the circumstances recorded, free himself
from guilt. Certainly, he could not; but such conduct on the part of
a Pilate appears so utterly unusual, as, indeed, his whole bearing
towards Christ, that we can only account for it hy the deep impres
sion which Jesus had made upon him. All the more terrible would
be the guilt of Jewish resistance. There is something overawing
in Pilate's, ' See ye to it ' — a reply to the Sanhedrists' ' See thou to
it,' to Judas, and in the same words. It almost seems, as if the scene
of mutual imputation of guilt in the Garden of Eden were being re-
enacted. The Mishnah tells us, that, after the solemn washing of
hands of the elders and their disclaimer of guilt, priests responded
with this prayer: 'Forgive it to Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast
redeemed, 0 Lord, and lay not innocent blood upon Thy people
Israel ! ' But here, in answer to Pilate's words, came back that deep,
hoarse cry: 'His Blood be upon us,' and — God help us! — 'on our
children ! ' Some thirty years later, and on that very spot, was
judgment pronounced against some of the best in Jerusalem; and
among the 3,600 victims of the Governor's fury, of whom not a few
were scourged and crucified right over against the Prastorium, were
many of the noblest of the citizens of Jerusalem/ A few years more,
and hundreds of crosses bore Jewish mangled bodies within sight of
Jerusalem. And still have these wanderers seemed to bear, from
century to century, and from land to land, that burden of blood; and
still does it seem to weigh ' on us and our children. '
ad

1 See the quotations in Wetstein,
loc, and Nebe, u. s. p. 104.
2 dfiiiaoS d-rtb rov aifiaroS is a He-
braism=C*fJ3 "'PI.

3 The Evangelist put what he said
into the well-remembered Old Testament
words.

CHRIST SCOURGED. 579
The Evangelists have passed as rapidly as possible over the last CHAP.
scenes of indignity and horror, and we are too thankful to follow XIV
their example. Bar- Abbas was at once released. Jesus was handed "- — "> — -^
over to the soldiery to be scourged and crucified, although final and
formal judgment had not yet been pronounced/ Indeed, Pilate *st. John
seems to have hoped that the horrors of the scourging might still following
move the people to desist from the ferocious cry for the Cross." For »st. jotm
the same reason we may also hope, that the scourging was not following
inflicted with the same ferocity as in the case of Christian martyrs,
when, with the object of eliciting the incrimination of others, or
else recantation, the scourge of leather thongs was loaded with lead,
or armed with spikes and bones, which lacerated back, and chest, and
face, till the victim sometimes fell down before the judge a bleeding
mass of torn flesh. But, however modified, and without repeating
the harrowing realism of a Cicero, scourging was the terrible intro
duction to crucifixion — 'the intermediate death.' Stripped of His
clothes, His hands tied and back bent, the Victim would be bound
to a column or stake, in front of the Prastorium. The scourging
ended, the soldiery .would hastily cast upon Him His upper
garments, and lead Him back into the Praetorium. Here they
called the whole cohort together, and the silent, faint Sufferer
became the object of their ribald jesting. From His bleeding Body
they tore the clothes, and in mockery arrayed Him in scarlet or
purple.1 For crown they wound together thorns, and for sceptre
they placed in His Hand a reed. Then alternately, in mock procla
mation they hailed Him King, or worshipped Him as God, and
smote Him or heaped on Him other indignities.2
Such a spectacle might well have disarmed enmity, and for ever
allayed worldly fears. And so Pilate had hoped, when, at his bidding,
Jesus came forth from the Praetorium, arrayed as a mock-king, and
1 The Sagum, or short woollen military hostile to the Jews (Jos. Ant. xix. 9. 1 ;
cloak, scarlet or purple (the two colours War ii. 12, 1. 2; v. 11, 1 — there also
are often confounded, comp. Wetstein derision at execution). A strange illus-
ad loc), fastened by a clasp on the right tration of the scene is afforded by what
shoulder. It was also worn by Roman happened only a few years afterwards at
generals, and sometimes (in more costly Alexandria, when the people in derision
form and material) presented to foreign of King Agrippa I., arrayed a well-known
kings. maniac (Karabas) in a common door-
2 Origen already marks in thi3 a mat, put a papyrus crown on his bead,
notable breach of military discipline, and a reed in his hand, and saluted him
Keim (Jesu von Naz. iii. 2, pp. 393, &c.) ' Maris,' lord (Philo, In Flacc. ed. Mang.
gives a terribly graphic and realistic ii. 522; Wetstein, N.T, i. p. 535). On all
account of ths whole scene. The soldiers the classical illustrations and corrobora-
were, as mostly in the provinces, chiefly tions of the whole proceedings in every
provincials — in this case, probably detail, the reader should consult Wetstein,
Syrians. They were all the more bitterly ad loc.

580 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK the Governor presented Him to the populace in words which the
v Church has ever since treasured: ' Behold the Man! ' But, so far from
v-"> ' appeasing, the sight only incited to fury the ' chief priests ' and their
subordinates. This Man before them was the occasion, that on this
Paschal Day a heathen dared in Jerusalem itself insult their deepest
feelings, mock their most cherished Messianic hopes! 'Crucify!'
' Crucify ! ' resounded from all sides. Once more Pilate appealed to
them, when, unwittingly and unwillingly, it elicited this from the
people, that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God.
If nothing else, what light it casts on the mode in which Jesus
had borne Himself amidst those tortures and insults, that this state
ment of the Jews filled Pilate with fear, and led him to seek again
converse with Jesus within the Praetorium. The impression which
had been made at the first, and been deepened all along, had now
passed into the terror of superstition. His first question to Jesus
was, whence He was? And when, as was most fitting — since he
could not have understood it — Jesus returned no answer, the feelings
of the Romans became only the more intense. Would He not speak;
did He not know that he had absolute power ' to release or to
crucify ' Him? • Nay, not absolute power — all power came from
above; but the guilt in the abuse of power was far greater on the
part of apostate Israel audits leaders, who knew whence power came,
and to Whom they were responsible for its exercise.
So spake not an impostor; so spake not an ordinary man — after
such sufferings and in such circumstances — to one who, whencesoever
derived, had the power of life or death over Him. And Pilate felt
it — the more keenly, for his cynicism and disbelief of all that was
higher. And the more earnestly did he now seek to release Him.
But, proportionately, the louder and fiercer was the cry of the Jews
for His Blood, till they threatened to implicate in the charge of
rebellion against Caesar the Governor himself, if he persisted in
unwonted mercy.
Such danger a Pilate would never encounter. He sat down once
more in the judgment-seat, outside the Praetorium, in the place
called ' Pavement,' and, from its outlook over the City, ' Gabbatha,' 2
' the rounded height. ' So solemn is the transaction that the Evan
gelist pauses to note once more the day — nay, the very hour, when
1 This is the proper order of the to be rejected. Gabbath (n23) or Gab-
words. To 'release' is put first to in- . ., ,,,"..
duce Christ to speak betha means 'a rounded height.' It
2 The derivation of Wiinsche (^2~ 2.",) 2,ccurs *ls° as the name ot a t0WI1 (Jer-
'back of the Temple,' is on every ground n' >¦

CHRIST FINALLY DISOWNED BY ISRAEL. 581
the process had commenced. It had been the Friday in Passover- chap.
week,1 and between six and seven of the morning.2 And at the XIV
close Pilate once more in mockery presented to them Jesus: 'Behold v— - r-— '
your King! ' 3 Once more they called for His Crucifixion — and, when
again challenged, the chief priests burst into the cry, which pre
ceded Pilate's final sentence, to be presently executed: 'We have
no king but Caesar! '
With this cry Judaism was, in the person of its representatives,
guilty of denial of God, of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed
suicide; and, ever since, has its dead body been carried in show from
land to land, and from century to century: to be dead, and to
remain dead, till He come a second time, Who is the Resurrection
and the Life!
1 I have simply rendered the itapa- EKdBiosv in St. John xix. 13, has been
crKEvfj tov xdaxa by Friday in Pass- taken by some critics in the transitive
over-week. The evidence for regarding sense : ' Pilate . . . brought Jesus forth
¦rtapaaKEvrf, in the Gospels, as the and seated Him in the judgment-seat,'
terminus technicus for Friday, has been implying an act of mock-homage on the
often set forth. See Kirchner, D. jud. part of Pilate when, in presenting to the
Passahf. pp. 47. &c. Jews their King, he placed Him on the
2 The hour (' about the sixth ') could judgment-seat. Ingenious as the sug-
only refer to when the process was taken gestion is, and in some measure sup-
in hand. ported, it does not accord with the whole
3 I ought to mention that the verb tenour of the narrative.

532

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

CHAPTER XV.

BOOK V

• St. John
xix. 16

1 St. Mark
XV. 95

« St. John
xix. 25

'CRUCIFIED, DEAD, AND BURIED.
(St. Matt, xxvii. 31-43: St. Mark xv. 20-32"; St. Luke xxiii. 26-38; St. John xix.
16-24; St. Matt, xxviii. 44; St. Mark xv. 32 •>; St. Luke xxiii. 39-43; St. John
xix. 25-27 ; St. Matt, xxvii. 45-56 ; St. Mark xv. 33-41 ; St. Luke xxiii. 44-49 ;
St. John xix. 28-30; St. John xix. 31-37; St. Matt, xxvii. 57-61; St. Mark xv.
42-47 ; St. Luke xxiii. 50-56 ; St. John xix. 38-42 ; St. Matt, xxvii. 62-66.)
It matters little as regards their guilt, whether, pressing the language
of St. John," we are to understand that Pilate delivered Jesus to the
Jews to be crucified, or, as we rather infer, to his own soldiers. This
was the common practice, and it accords both with the Governor's
former taunt to the Jews," and with the after-notice ofthe Synoptists.
They, to whom He was ' delivered,' 'led Him away to be crucified: '
and they who so led Him forth ' compelled ' the Cyrenian Simon to
bear the Cross. We can scarcely imagine, that the Jews, still less
the Sanhedrists, would have done this. But whether formally or
not, the terrible crime of slaying, with wicked hands, their Messiah-
King rests, alas, on Israel.
Once more was He unrobed and robed. The purple robe was torn
from Hig Wounded Body, the crown of thorns from His Bleeding
Brow. Arrayed again in His own, now blood-stained, garments, He was
led forth to execution. Only about two hours and a half had passed c
since the time that He had first stood before Pilate (about half-past
six),d when the melancholy procession reached Golgotha (at nine
o'clock a.m.). In Rome an interval, ordinarily of two days, inter
vened between a sentence and its execution; but the rule does not
seem to have applied to the provinces,1 if, indeed, in this case the
formal rules of Roman procedure were at all observed.
The terrible preparations were soon made: the hammer, the
nails, the Cross, the very food for the soldiers who were to watch
under each Cross.2 Four soldiers would be detailed for each Cross,

1 The evidence is collected by Nebe,
u. s. vol. ii. p. 166, 167.
2 Eeim seems to imagine that, not in

deed the whole ' cohort, ' but a manipulus
of about 120, or a centuria of about 60
men, accompanied the procession. But

ON THE ROAD TO CALVARY. 583
the whole being under the command of a centurion. As always, the CHAP.
Cross was borne to thc execution by Him Who was to suffer on it — XV
perhaps His Arms bound to it with cords. But there is happily no - — y — '
evidence — rather, every indication to the contrary — that, according
to ancient custom, the neck of the Sufferer was fastened within the
patibulum, two horizontal pieces of wood, fastened at the end, to
which the hands were bound. Ordinarily, the procession was headed
by the centurion,1 or rather, preceded by one who proclaimed the
nature ofthe crime,2 and carried a white, wooden board, on which it
was written. Commonly, also, it took the longest road to the place
of execution, and through the most crowded streets, so as to attract
most public attention. But we would suggest, that alike this
long circuit and the proclamation of the herald were, in the present
instance, dispensed with. They are not hinted at in the text, and
seem incongruous to the festive season, and the other circumstances
ofthe history.
Discarding all later legendary embellishments," as only disturbing,
we shall try to realise the scene as described in the Gospels. Under
the leadership of the centurion, whether or not attended by one who
bore the board with the inscription, or only surrounded by the four
soldiers, of whom one might carry this tablet, Jesus came forth
bearing His Cross. He was followed by two malefactors — ' robbers '
— probably of the class then so numerous, that covered its crimes
by pretensions of political motives. These two, also, would bear
each his cross, and probably be attended each by four soldiers.
Crucifixion was not a Jewish mode of punishment, although the
Maccabee King Jannaeus had so far forgotten the claims of both
humanity and religion as on one occasion to crucify not less than 800
persons in Jerusalem itself/ But even Herod, with all his cruelty, did *;*?¦ Ant-
not resort to this mode of execution. Nor was it employed by the wan, k, e
Romans till after the time of Cassar, when, with the fast increasing
cruelty of punishments, it became fearfully common in the provinces.
Especially does it seem to characterise the domination of Rome in
Judaea under every Governor. During the last siege of Jerusalem
of this there is not evidence, and all in- the redaction of the Mishnah, been de
dications lead to a contrary inference. prived of the power of life and death,
1 Tradition calls him Longinus. such descriptions read very like ideal
2 This was the Jewish practice also arrangements. But the practice seems
(Sanh. vi. 2). At the same time it must also to have been Roman (' per pracouem
be remembered, that this was chiefly pronunciati ').
to elicit testimony in favour of the 3 Such as concerning Veronica and the
criminal, when the execution would be bearing of the Virgin-Mother (Acta Pilati,
immediately arrested; and also that, as vii. x. ; Mors Pilati [Tischendorf] 433).
the Sanhedrin had, for centuries before

584

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» With ap
plication of
Lev. xix.
26, Sanh.
63 a

b Sanh. vi.

' Sanh. vi.

hundreds of crosses daily arose, till there seemed not sufficient room
nor wood for them, and the soldiery diversified their horrible amuse
ment by new modes of crucifixion. So did the Jewish appeal to
Rome for the Crucifixion of Israel's King come back in hundredfold
echoes. But, better than such retribution, the Cross of the God-
Man hath put an end to the punishment of the cross, and instead,
made the Cross the symbol of humanity, civilisation, progress, peace,
and love.
As mostly all abominations of the ancient world, whether in
religion or life, crucifixion was of Phoenician origin, although Rome
adopted, and improved on it. The modes of execution among the
Jews were: strangulation, beheading, burning, and stoning. In all
ordinary circumstances the Rabbis were most reluctant to pronounce
sentence of death. This appears even from the injunction that the
Judges were to fast on the day of such a sentence/ Indeed, two of
the leading Rabbis record it, that no such sentence would ever have
been pronounced in a Sanhedrin of which they had been, members.
The indignity of hanging — and this only after the criminal had been
otherwise executed — was reserved for the crimes of idolatry and
blasphemy." The place where criminals were stoned (Beth haSeqilah)
was on an elevation about eleven feet high, from whence the criminal
was thrown down by the first witness. If he had not died by the fall,
the second witness would throw a large stone on his heart as he lay.
If not yet lifeless, the whole people would stone him.1 At a distance
of six feet from the place of execution the criminal was undressed,
only the covering absolutely necessary for decency being left/2 In
the case of Jesus we have reason to think that, while the mode of
punishment to which He was subjected was un-Jewish, every con
cession would be made to Jewish custom, and hence we thankfully
believe that on the Cross He was spared the indignity of exposure.
Such would have been truly un-Jewish.3
Three kinds of Cross were in use: the so-called St. Andrew's Cross
( x , the Crux decussata), the Cross in the form of a T (Crux Com-
missa) , and the ordinary Latin Cros s ( + , Crux immissa) . We believe
that Jesus bore the last of these. This would also most readily

1 This explains how ' the witnesses ' at
the stoning of St. Stephen laid down
their garments at the feet of Paul.
2 This opinion, however, was not
shared by the majority of Rabbis. But,
as already stated, all those notices are
rather ideal than real.
3 According to the Rabbis, when we

read, in Scripture generally of the pun
ishment of death, this refers to the
lightest, or strangulation (Sanh. 52 b).
Another mode of execution reads like
something between immuring alive and
starvation (Sanh. 81 b)— something like
the manner in which in the Middle Ages
people were starved to death.

THE SITE OF GOLGOTHA. 585
admit of affixing the board with the threefold inscription, which we CHAP.
know His Cross bore. Besides, the universal testimony of those who XV
lived nearest the time (Justin Martyr, Irenceus, and others), and who, ^- — v~— ¦ '
alas! had only too much occasion to learn what crucifixion meant, is
in favour of this view. This Cross, as St. John expressly states,
Jesus Himself bore at the outset. And so the procession moved on
towards Golgotha. Not only the location, but even the name of that
which appeals so strongly to every Christian heart, is matter of con
troversy. The name cannot have been derived from the skulls which
lay about, since such exposure would have been unlawful, and hence
must have been due to the skull-like shape and appearance of the
place. Accordingly, the name is commonly explained as the Greek
form of the Aramasan Gulgalta, or the Hebrew Gulgoleth, which
means a skull.
Such a description would fully correspond, not only to the require
ments of the narrative, but to the appearance of the place which, so
far as we can judge, represents Golgotha. We cannot here explain the
various reasons for which the traditional site must be abandoned. Cer
tain it is, that Golgotha was ' outside the gate,'" and ' near the City.' " »Heh. xm.
In all likelihood it was the usual place of execution. Lastly, we know * st. John
that it was situated near gardens, where there were tombs, and close
to the highway. The three last conditions point to the north of
Jerusalem. It must be remembered that the third wall, which after
wards surrounded Jerusalem, was not built till several years after the
Crucifixion. The new suburb of Bezetha extended at that time out
side the second wall. Here the great highway passed northwards;
close by, were villas and gardens; and here also rockhewn sepulchres
have been discovered, which date from that period. But this is not
all. The present Damascus Gate in the north of the city seems, in
most ancient tradition, to have borne the name of St. Stephen's Gate,
because the Proto-Martyr was believed to have passed through it to
his stoning. Close by, then,' must have been the place of execution.
And at least one Jewish tradition fixes upon this very spot, close by
what is known as the Grotto of Jeremiah, as the ancient 'place
of stoning 3 (Beth haSeqilah). And the description of the locality
answers all requirements. It is a weird, dreary place, two or three
minutes aside from the high road, with a high, rounded, skull-like
rocky plateau, and a sudden depression or hollow beneath, as if the
jaws of the skull had opened. Whether or not the ' tomb of the
Herodian period in the rocky knoll to the west of Jeremiah's Grotto '
was the most sacred spot upon earth — the 'Sepulchre in the

xix. 23

586

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ st. Lute-

Garden,' we dare not positively assert, though every probability
attaches to it.1
Thither, then, did that melancholy procession wind, between
eight and nine o'clock on that Friday in Passover week. From
the ancient Palace of Herod it descended, and probably passed
through the gate in the first wall, and so into the busy quarter of
Acra. As it proceeded, the numbers who followed from the Temple,
from the dense business-quarter through which it moved, increased.
Shops, bazaars, and markets were, indeed,closedonthe holy feast-day.
But quite a crowd of people would come out to line the streets and
to follow; and, especially, women, leaving their festive preparations,
raised loud laments, not in spiritual recognition of Christ's claims, but
in pity and sympathy/2 And who could have looked unmoved on
such a spectacle, unless fanatical hatred had burnt out of his bosom
all that was human? Since the Paschal Supper Jesus had not tasted
either food or drink. After the deep emotion of that Feast, with
all of holiest institution which it included; after the anticipated be
trayal of Judas, and after the farewell to His disciples, He had passed
into Gethsemane. There for hours, alone — since His nearest dis
ciples could not watch with Him even one hour — the deep waters had
rolled up to His soul. He had drunk of them, immersed, almost
perished in them. There had he agonised in mortal conflict, till the
great drops of blood forced themselves on His Brow. There had He
been delivered up, while they all had fled. To Annas, to Caiaphas,
to Pilate, to Herod, and again to Pilate; from indignity to indignit3r,
from torture to torture, had He been hurried all that livelong night,
all that morning. All throughout He had borne Himself with a
Divine Majesty, which had awakened alike the deeper feelings of
Pilate and the infuriated hatred of the Jews. But if His Divinity
gave its true meaning to His Humanity, that Humanity gave its
true meaning to His voluntary Sacrifice. So far, then, from seeking
to hide its manifestations, the Evangelists, not indeed needlessly
but unhesitatingly, put them forward.3 Unrefreshed by food or

1 This view was first propounded by
Thenius, and afterwards advocated by
Furrer (Wander, d. Palast, pp. 70, &c),
but afterwards given up by him. As to
the locality, comp. ' Quart. Statement of
Pal.Explor. Fund,' Oct 1881,pp.317-319;
Conder' s 'Handbook to the Bible.' pp.
355, 356, and for the description of Jere
miah's Grotto, Baedeker-Socin, u. s. p.
126. Of course, proof is in the nature of
things impossible; yet to me this seems
the most sacred and precious locality in

Jerusalem. 2 I cannot conceive any sufficient
ground, why Keim should deny the his
torical character of this trait. Surely, on
Keim's own principles, the circumstance,
that only St. Luke records it, would not
warrant this inference. On the other
hand, it may be characterised as perhaps
one of the most natural incidents in the
narrative. 3 I can only account for it by the pre
judices of party feeling, that one of such

THE CROSS LAID ON SIMON THE CYRENIAN. 587
sleep, after the terrible events of that night and morning, while His CHAP.
pallid Face bore the blood-marks from the crown of thorns, His XV
mangled Body was unable to bear the weight of the Cross. No v-— -r~— '
wonder the pity of the women of Jerusalem was stirred. But ours
is not pity, it is worship at the sight. For, underlying His Human
Weakness was the Divine Strength which led Him to this voluntary
self-surrender and self-exinanition. It was the Divine strength of
His pity and love which issued in His Human weakness.
Up to that last Gate which led from the ' Suburb ' towards the
place of execution did Jesus bear His Cross. Then, as we infer, His
strength gave way under it. A man was coming from the opposite
direction, one from that large colony of Jews which, as we know, had
settled in Cyrene.1 He would be specially noticed; for, few would at
that hour, on the festive day, come 'out of the country,'2 although
such was not contrary to the Law. So much has been made of this,
that it ought to be distinctly known that travelling, which was forbid
den on Sabbaths, was not prohibited on feast-days/ Besides, the place
whence he came — perhaps his home — might have been within the
ecclesiastical boundary of Jerusalem. At any rate, he seems to have
been well known, at least afterwards, in the Church — and his sons
Alexander and Rufus even better than he/ Thus much only can »st. Mark
xv. 21
we say with certainty; to identify them with persons of the same
name mentioned in other parts of the New Testament can only be
matter of speculation/ But we can scarcely repress the thought
that Simon the Cyrenian had not before that day been a disciple;
had only learned to follow Christ, when, on that day, as he came in
by the Gate, the soldiery laid hold on him, and against his will
forced him to bear the Cross after Christ. Yet another indication
of the need of such help comes to us from St. Mark," who uses an »xv. 22
expression 5 which conveys, though not necessarily that the Saviour
had to be borne, yet that He had to be supported to Golgotha from
the place where they met Simon.
Here, where, if the Saviour did not actually sink under His
fine and sympathetic tact as Keim should would scarcely return from labour in the
so strangely have missed this, and im- field at nine o'clock in the morning (St.
puted, especially to St. John, a desire of Mark xv. 25).
obscuring the element of weakness and 3 This is shown in Tosaph. to Chag.
forsakenness (u. s. p. 401). 17 b, and admitted by all Rabbinic
1 See vol. i. pp. 62, 63, 119. writers. (See Hoffmann, Abh. ii.d. Pentat.
2 Certainly not ' from the field.' The Ges. p. 66.)
original, it is now generally admitted, 4 Acts xiii. 1; Rom. xvi. 13.
does not mean this, and, as Wieseler a cpspovaiv.
aptly remarks (Beitr. p. 267), a person

588 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
burden, it yet required to be transferred to the Cyrenian, while Him
self henceforth needed bodily support, we place the next incident in
this history." While the Cross was laid on the unwilling Simon,
the women who had followed with the populace closed around the
Sufferer, raising their lamentations. 1 At His Entrance into Jerusalem,"
Jesus had wept over the daughters of Jerusalem; as He left it for
the last time, they wept over Him. But far different were the
reasons for His tears from theirs of mere pity. And, if proof were
required of His Divine strength, even in the utmost depth of His
Human weakness — how, conquered, He was Conqueror — it would
surely be found in the words in which He bade them turn their
thoughts of pity where pity would be called for, even to themselves
and their children in the near judgment upon Jerusalem. The time
« hos. ix. u would come, when the Old Testament curse of barrenness " would be
coveted as a blessing. To show the fulfilment of this prophetic lament
of Jesus, it is not necessary to recall the harrowing details recorded
awarvi. by Josephus,'1 when a frenzied mother roasted her own child, and in
the mockery of desperateness reserved the half of the horrible meal
for those murderers who daily broke in upon her to rob her of what
scanty food had been left her; nor yet other of those incidents,
too revolting for needless repetition, which the historian of the last
siege of Jerusalem chronicles. But how often, these many centuries,
must Israel's women have felt that terrible longing for childlessness,
and how often must the prayer of despair for the quick death of fall-
«eo8. *. 8 ing mountains and burying hills rather than prolonged torture e have
risen to the lips of Israel's sufferers ! And yet, even so, these words
'Rev. vi. 10 were also prophetic of a still more terrible future!' For, if Israel
had put such flame to its ' green tree ' how terribly would the Divine
judgment burn among the dry wood of an apostate and rebellious
people, that had so delivered up its Divine King, and pronounced
sentence upon itself by pronouncing it upon Him!
And yet natural, and, in some respects, genuine, as were the tears
of ' the daughters of Jerusalem, ' mere sympathy with Christ almost
involves guilt, since it implies a view of Him which is essentially the
opposite of that which His claims demand. These tears were the
emblem of that modern sentiment about the Christ which, in its
effusiveness, offers insult rather than homage, and implies rejection
rather than acknowledgment of Him. We shrink with horror from
1 ekoxtovto Kai tOpr/vovv avrov. ad gestus), ita 6pr/vEiv est oris et ocu-
Gerhard remarks: ' ut KOTtreo-Qai sive lorum (Bengel: ad, fletum et vocem
plangere est manuum (Bengel : pertinet flebilem).

THE CRUCIFIXION. 589
the assumption of a higher standpoint, implied in so much of the CHAP.
modern so-called criticism about the Christ. But even beyond this, all XV
mere sentimentalism is here the outcome of unconsciousness of our
real condition. When a sense of sin has been awakened in us, we
•shall mourn, not for what Christ has suffered, but for what He suffered
for us. The effusiveness of mere sentiment is impertinence or folly:
impertinence, if He was the Son of God; folly, if He was merely
Man. And, even from quite another point of view, there is here a
lesson to learn. It is the peculiarity of Romanism ever to present
the Christ in His Human weakness. It is that of an extreme section
on the opposite side, to view Him only in His Divinity. Be it ours
ever to keep before us, and to worship as we remember it, that the
Christ is the Saviour God-Man.
It was nine of the clock when the melancholy procession reached
Golgotha, and the yet more melancholy preparations for the Crucifixion
commenced. Avowedly, the punishment was invented to make death
as painful and as lingering as the power of human endurance. First, the
upright wood was planted in the ground. It was not high, and pro
bably the Feet of the Sufferer were not above one or two feet from the
ground. Thus could the communication described in the Gospels take
place between Him and others; thus, also, might His Sacred Lips be
moistened with the sponge attached to a short stalk of hyssop. Next,
the transverse wood (antenna) was placed on the ground, and the
Sufferer laid on it, when His Arms were extended, drawn up, and
bound to it. Then (this not in Egypt, but in Carthage and in Rome)
a strong, sharp nail was driven, first into the Right, then into the
Left Hand (the clavi tr abates). Next, the Sufferer was drawn up by
means of ropes, perhaps ladders ; ' the transverse either bound or nailed
to the upright, and a rest or support for the Body (the cornu or sedile)
fastened on it. Lastly, the Feet were extended, and either one nail
hammered into each, or a larger piece of iron through the two. We
have already expressed our belief that the indignity of exposure was
not offered at such a Jewish execution. And so might the crucified
hang for hours, even days, in the unutterable anguish of suffering, till
consciousness at last failed.
It was a merciful Jewish practice to give to those led to execution
a draught of strong wine mixed with myrrh so as to deaden con-
1 But Nebe denies the use of ladders, up to it, and, only after that, the nails
and, in general, tries to prove by numer- fastened into HisArms and Feet. Strange
ous quotations that the whole Cross was though it may seem, the question cannot
first erected, and then the Sufferer lifted be absolutely decided.

590 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK sciousness/ This charitable office was performed at the cost of, if
V not by, an association of women in Jerusalem." That draught was
*- — y — ' offered to Jesus when He reached Golgotha.1 But having tasted it,
• Mass am\ ascertained its character and object, He would not drink it. It
Sem. n. 9; ¦> '
Bemw. s. was \[]^e His former refusal of the pity of the ' daughters of Jeru-
i> sanh. 43 a salem. ' No man could take His Life from Him; He had power to lay
it down, and to take it up again. Nor would He here yield to the
ordinary weakness of our human nature; nor suffer and die as if it
had been a necessity, not a voluntary self-surrender. He would meet
Death, even in his sternest and fiercest mood, and conquer by sub
mitting to the full. A lesson this also, though one difficult, to the
Christian sufferer.
And so was He nailed to His Cross, which was placed between,
probably somewhat higher than, those of the two malefactors cruci
fied with Him.2 One thing only still remained: to affix to His Cross
the so-called ' title ' (titulus) , on which was inscribed the charge on
which He had been condemned. As already stated, it was customary
to carry this board before the prisoner, and there is no reason for
supposing any exception in this respect. Indeed, it seems implied in
the circumstance, that the ' title ' had evidently been drawn up under
the direction of Pilate. It was — as might have been expected,
and yet most significantly3 — trilingual: in Latin, Greek, and Ara
maean. We imagine, that it was written in that order,4 and that the
words were those recorded by the Evangelists (excepting St. Luke,5
who seems to give a modification ofthe original, or Aramasan, text).
The inscription given by St. Matthew exactly corresponds with that
which Eusebius ° records as the Latin titulus on the cross of one of
the early martyrs. We therefore conclude, that it represents the
Latin words. Again, it seems only natural, that the fullest, and to
the Jews most offensive, description should have been in Aramaean,
1 The two alleged discrepancies, be- words and their writing— Lebhonah,
between St. Matthew and St. Mark, 'myrrh,' Laanah, 'wormwood' — when
though, even if they did exist, scarcely n;iD-, may have passed into n:3,-,_tQe
worth mention, maybe thus explained: ^ into V
* \S» ™ew wr°te 'vinegar' (al- 2 g ' voL vi. 336 recalls the exe.
though the best M^b read ' wine '), he cution of Savonarola betWeen Fra
no doubt so translated literally the word silvestro and Fra Domenico, and the
Chomets(^.,n) which, though literally, taunt of his enemies : 'Now, brother!'
'vinegar, 'refers to an inferior kind of wine 3 Professor Westcott beautifully re-
which was often mixed (comp. Pes. 42 b). marks :These three languages gathered up
2. If our Greek text of St. Matthew speaks tfle result of the religious, the social, the
of 'wormwood' (as in the LXX.)— not intellectual preparation for Christ, and in
' gall '—and St. Mark of myrrh, we must eacb witness was given to His office.
remember, that both may have been i See next page, note 1.
regarded as stupefying, perhaps both 5 The , better reading there is, 6
used, and that possibly" the mistake may liaaiXsvi t&v 'lovSaioov oyroi.
have arisen from the similarity of the

« H.E. v. 1

THE TITLE ON THE CROSS. 591
which all could read. Very significantly this is given by St. John. CHAP.
It follows, that the inscription given by St. Mark must represent that XV
in Greek. Although'much less- comprehensive, it had the same number v— ~> — -
of words, and precisely the same number of letters, as that in Aramaean,
given by St. John.1
It seems probable, that the Sanhedrists had heard from some one,
who had watched the procession on its way to Golgotha, of the in
scription which Pilate had written on the 'titulus' — partly to avenge
himself on, and partly to deride, the Jews. It is not likely that they
would have asked Pilate to take it down after it had been affixed to
the Cross; and it seems scarcely credible, that they would have waited
outside the Praetorium till the melancholy procession commenced its
march. We suppose that, after the condemnation of Jesus, the
Sanhedrists had gone from the Praetorium into the Temple, to take
part in its services. When informed of the offensive tablet, they
hastened once more to the Praetorium, to induce Pilate not to allow
it to be put up. This explains the inversion in the order of the ac
count in the Gospel of St. John/ or rather, its location in that narra- *st John
1 ' ' . XJX. 21. ¦£!
tive in immediate connection with the notice, that the Sanhedrists
were afraid the Jews who passed by might be influenced by the inscrip
tion. We imagine, that the Sanhedrists had originally no intention
of doing anything so un-Jewish as not only to gaze at the sufferings
of the Crucified, but to even deride Him in His Agony — that, in fact,
they had not intended going to Golgotha at all. But when they
found that Pilate would not yield to their remonstrances, some of them
hastened to the place of Crucifixion, and, mingling with the crowd,
sought to incite their jeers, so as to prevent any deeper impression 2
which the significant words of the inscription might have pro
duced.3 Before nailing Him to the Cross, the soldiers parted among them.
the poor worldly inheritance of His raiment/ On this point there are
1 Probably it would read Jeshu han- would have placed the Latin in the
Notsri malka dihudaey HV"n ^ midale and not at the top. The Ara-
' • " . " niasan would stand last.
—or else ¦,"IX;n VW— "Xyiy^ X??E). 2 Comp. here the account of St.
Both have four words and, in all, Matt (xxvii. 39-43) and of the other
twenty letters. The Latin inscription (St. Synoptists.
Matthew) would be, Hie est Jesus Rex j Thus, the notice in St. John xix. 21,
Judawrum— five words and twenty-two 22, would be parenthetic, chronologically
letters. It will be seen how each would belonging to an earlier part, and inserted
fill a line of about the same length. The bere for the sake of historical connec-
notice ofthe three languages in St. Luke tl0.n- . „ . , , ,. , ...
is spurious We retain the textus 4 K is generally stated, that this was -
receptus of St. John xix. 19, as in any the common Roman custom. But of this
case it seems most unlikely that Pilate ffiere ls n0 evidence, and in later times

592 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK slight seeming differences J between the notices of the Synoptists and
V the more detailed account of the Fourth Gospel. Such differences, if
^ — ¦<  ' real, would afford only fresh evidence of the general trustworthiness
of the narrative. For, we bear in mind that, of all the disciples,
only St. John witnessed the last scenes, and that therefore the other
accounts of it.circulating in the early Church must have been derived,
so to speak, from second sources. This explains, why perhaps the
largest number of seeming discrepancies in the Gospels occurs in the
narrative of the closing hours in the Life of Christ, and how, contrary
to what otherwise we might have expected, the most detailed as well
as precise account of them comes to us from St. John. In the present
instance these slight seeming differences may be explained in the
following manner. Tliere was, as St. John states, first a division into
four parts — one to each of the soldiers — of such garments of the
Lord as were of nearly the same value. The head-gear, the outer
cloak-like garment, the girdle, and the sandals, would differ little in
cost. But the question, which of them was to belong to each of the
soldiers, would naturally be decided, as the Synoptists inform us, by lot.
But, besides these four articles of dress, there was the seamless
woven inner garment,2 by far the most valuable of all, and for which,
as it could not be partitioned without being destroyed, they would
specially cast lots3 (as St. John reports). Nothing in this world can
be accidental, since God is not far from any of us. But in the History
of the Christ the Divine purpose, which forms the subject of all
prophecy, must have been constantly realised; nay, this must have
forced itself on the mind of the observer, and the more irresistibly
when, as in the present instance, the outward circumstances were in
such sharp contrast to the higher reality. To St. John, the loving
and loved disciple, greater contrast could scarcely exist than between
this rough partition by lot among the soldiery, and the character and
claims of Him Whose garments they were thus apportioning, as if He
had been a helpless Victim in their hands. Only one explanation
it was expressly forbidden (Ulpianus, (Zehbach. -88 a), and especially so that of
Digest, xlviii. 20, 6). I cannot see how the High-Priest (Yoma 72 b). Accord-
Keim, and, after him, Nebe, should infer ing to tradition, during the seven days
from this as certain, that the law had of consecration, Moses ministered in a
formerly been the opposite. seamless white dress, woven throughout.
1 Strangely, I confess, to my think- (Taan. 11 b.)
ing, they seem to have been a source .of 3 It is impossible to determine in
anxiety and distress to St. Augustine, what manner this was done. The various
that he might find their true concilia- modes of casting the lot are described by
tion. Adam, Roman Antiq. pp. 397-399. Pos-
2 It is deeply significant that the dress sibly, however, it was much more simple
of the priests was not sewed but woven and rough than any of these.

THE FIRST 'UTTERANCE.' 593
could here suggest itself: that there was a special Divine meaning CHAP.
in the permission of such an event — that it was in fulfilment of XV
ancient prophecy. As he gazed on the terrible scene, the words of — ~*< 
the Psalm * 1 which portrayed the desertion, the sufferings, and the °8Pa- xxl1-
contempt even unto death of the Servant of the Lord, stood out in
the red light of the Sun setting in Blood. They flashed upon his
mind — for the first time he understood them; z and the flames which
played around the Sufferer were seen to be the sacrificial fire that con
sumed the Sacrifice which He offered. That this quotation is made
in the Fourth Gospel alone, proves that its writer was an eyewitness;
that it was made in the Fourth Gospel at all, that he was a Jew,
deeply imbued with Jewish modes of religious thinking. And the
evidence of both is the stronger, as we recall the comparative rareness,
and the peculiarly Judaic character of the Old Testament quotations
in the Fourth Gospel.3
It was when they thus nailed Him to the Cross, and parted His
raiment, that He spake the first of the so-called ' Seven Words ' :
' Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' * Even the
reference in this prayer to ' what they do ' (not in the past, nor
future) points to the soldiers as the primary, though certainly not the
sole object ofthe Saviour's prayer/5 But higher thoughts also come »comp.
to us. In the moment ofthe deepest abasement of Christ's Human icor. ii. s'
Nature, the Divine bursts forth most brightly. It is, as if the
Saviour would discard all that is merely human in His Sufferings,
just as before He had discarded the Cup of stupefying wine. These
soldiers were but the unconscious instruments: the form was nothing;
the contest was between the Kingdom of God and that of darkness,
between the Christ and Satan, and these sufferings were but the
necessary path "of obedience, and to victory and glory. When He is
most human (in the. moment of His being nailed to the Cross), then
is He most Divine, in the utter discarding of the human elements of
human instrumentality and of human suffering. Then also in the
1 Strauss calls Ps. xxii. ' the pro- truly Judaic.
gramme of the Passion of Christ.' We 4 The genuineness of these words has
may accept the description, though not been called in question. But alike ex-
in his sense. ternal and internal evidence demands
2 The Scripture quotation in the 1. r. their retention.
of St. Matthew, and, in all probability, 5 It would be presumptuous to seek to
that also in St. Mark, is spurious. determine how far that prayer extended.
3 Altogether there are fifteen such Generally— I agree with Nebe— to all
quotations in the Fourth Gospel. Of (Gentiles and Jews) who, in their par-
these at most only two (St. John vi. ticipation in the sufferings inflicted on
31 and vii. 38) could be described as Jesus, acted in ignorance.
Alexandrian in character, the rest are

594

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK utter self-forgetfulness of the God-Man — which is one of the aspects
V of the Incarnation — does He only remember Divine mercy, and pray
— ~y — ' for them who crucify Him; and thus also does the Conquered truly
conquer His conquerors by asking for them what their deed had for
feited. And lastly, in this, that alike the first and the last of His
"Utterances begin with ' Father,' does He show by the unbrokenness
of His faith and fellowship the real spiritual victory which He has
won. And He has won it, not only for the martyrs, who have learned
from Him to pray as He did, but for everyone who, in the midst of
all that seems most opposed to it, can rise, beyond mere forgetfulness
of what is around, to realising faith and fellowship with God as ' the
Father, ' — who through the dark curtain of cloud can discern the bright
sky, and can feel the unshaken confidence, if not the unbroken joy,
of absolute trust.
This was His first Utterance on the Cross — as regarded them;
as regarded Himself; and as regarded God. So, surely, suffered
not Man. Has this prayer of Christ been answered? We dare
not doubt it; nay, we perceive it in some measure in those drops of
blessing which have fallen upon heathen men, and have left to
Israel also, even in its ignorance, a remnant according to the election
of grace.1 And now began the real agonies of the Cross — physical, mental,
and spiritual. It was the weary, unrelieved waiting, as thickening
darkness gradually gathered around. Before sitting down to their
melancholy watch over the Crucified," the soldiers would refresh
themselves, after their exertion in nailing Jesus to the Cross, lifting
it up, and fixing it, by draughts of the cheap wine of the country.
As they quaffed it, they drank to Him in their coarse brutality, and
mockingly came to Him, asking Him to pledge them in response.
Their jests were, indeed, chiefly directed not against Jesus person
ally, but in His Representative capacity, and so against the hated,
despised Jews, whose King they now derisively challenged to save
" st. Luke Himself." Yet even so, it seems to us of deepest significance, that He
was so treated and derided in His Representative Capacity and as the
King of the Jews. It is the undesigned testimony of history, alike as
regarded the character of Jesus and the future of Israel. But what
from almost any point of view we find so difficult to understand is, the

• St. Mat
thew

1 In reference to this St. Augustine
writes : ' Sanguinem Christi, quem sa?-
vientes fuderunt, credentes biberunt.'
The question why Christ did not Him
self forgive, but appeal for it to the

Father, is best answered by the consid
eration, that it was really a crimen laisai
majestatis against the Father, and that
the vindication of the Son lay with God
the Father.

THE TAUNTING CHALLENGE. 595
unutterable abasement of the Leaders of Israel — their moral suicide chap.
as regarded Israel's hope and spiritual existence. There, on that xv
Cross, hung He, Who at least embodied that grand hope of the — -y—-'
nation; Who, even on their own showing, suffered to the extreme
for that idea, and yet renounced it not, but clung fast to it in un
shaken confidence; One, to Whose Life or even Teaching no objec
tion could be offered, save that of this grand idea. And yet, when
it came to them in the ribald mockery of this heathen soldiery, it
evoked no other or higher thoughts in them; and they had the
indescribable baseness of joining in the jeer at Israel's great hope,
and of leading the popular chorus in it!
For, we cannot doubt, that — perhaps also by way of turning aside
the point of the jeer from Israel — they took it up, and tried to direct
it against Jesus; and that they led the ignorant mob in the piteous
attempts at derision. And did none of those who so reviled Him in
all the chief aspects of His Work feel, that, as Judas had sold the
Master for nought and committed suicide, so they were doing in
regard to their Messianic hope? For, their jeers cast contempt on
the four great facts in the Life and Work of Jesus, which were also
the underlying ideas of the Messianic Kingdom : the new relationship
to Israel's religion and the Temple ( ' Thou that destroyest the Temple,
and buildest it in three days'); the new relationship to the Father
through the Messiah, the Son of God ('if Thou be the Son of God ');
the new all-sufficient help brought to body and soul in salvation ( ' He
saved others '); and, finally, the new relationship to Israel in the ful
filment and perfecting of its Mission through its King ( ' if He be the
King of Israel'). On all these, the taunting challenge of the San
hedrists, to come down from the Cross, and save Himself, if He would
claim the allegiance of their faith, cast what St. Matthew and St. Mark
characterise as the ' blaspheming ' ] of doubt. We compare with theirs
the account of St. Luke and of St. John. That of St. Luke reads like
the report of what had passed, given by one who throughout had been
quite close by, perhaps taken part in the Crucifixion2 — one might
almost venture to suggest, that it had been furnished by the Cen
turion.3 The narrative of St. John reads markedly like that of an
1 The two Evangelists designate by (ver. 34 a) ; the bearing of the soldiers
this very word the bearing of the passers- (vv. 36, 37); the conversion of the peni-
by rendered in the A.V. 'reviled' and tent thief; and the last words on the
'railed.' Cross (ver. 46).
2 The peculiarities in it are (besides 3 There is no evidence, that the Cen-
the titulus): what passed on the pro- turion was still present when the soldier
cession to Golgotha (St. Luke xxiii. 27- 'came' to pierce the Saviour's side (St.
31)- the prayer, when affixed to the Cross John xix. 31-37)

596

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ St. Matt.
xxvii. 42

eyewitness, and he a Judaean.1 And as we compare both the general
Juda?an cast and Old Testament quotations in this with the other parts
ofthe Fourth Gospel, we feel as if (as so often), under the influence
of the strongest emotions, the later development and peculiar thinking
of so many years afterwards had for the time been effaced from the
mind of St. John, or rather given place to the Jewish modes of con
ception and speech, familiar to him in earlier days. Lastly, the
account of St. Matthew seems as if written from the priestly point of
view, as if it had been furnished by one of the Priests or Sanhedrist-
party, present at the time.
Yet other inferences come to us. First, there is a remarkable
relationship between what St. Luke quotes as spoken by the soldiers:
' If Thou art the King of the Jews, save Thyself, ' and the report of
the words in St. Matthew/ 'He saved others — Himself He cannot
save. He 2 is the King of Israel ! Let Him now come down from
the Cross, and we will believe on Him ! ' These are the words of the
Sanhedrists, and they seem to respond to those of the soldiers, as
reported by St. Luke, and to carry them further. The 'if of the
soldiers: 'If Thou art the King ofthe Jews,' now becomes a direct
blasphemous challenge. As we think of it, they seem to re-echo, and
now with the laughter of hellish triumph, the former Jewish challenge
for an outward, infallible sign to demonstrate His Messiahship. But
they also take up, and re-echo, what Satan had set before Jesus in
the Temptation of the wilderness. At the beginning of His Work,
the Tempter had suggested that the Christ should achieve absolute
victory by an act of presumptuous self-assertion, utterly opposed to
the spirit of the Christ, but which Satan represented as an act of trust
in God, such as He would assuredly own. And now, at the close of
His Messianic Work, the Tempter suggested, in the challenge of the
Sanhedrists, that Jesus had suffered, absolute defeat, and that God
had publicly disowned the trust which the Christ had put in Him.
' He trusteth in God: let Him deliver Him now, if He will have Him.' 3
Here, as in the Temptation of the Wilderness, the words misapplied
were those of Holy Scripture — in the present instance those of
Ps. xxii. 8. And the quotation, as made by the Sanhedrists, is the
more remarkable, that, contrary to what is generally asserted by
writers, this Psalm" was Messianically applied by the ancient

1 So from the peculiar details ahdO.T.
quotations. 2 The word 'if [if He] in our A.V.
is spurious.

3 This is the literal rendering. The
' will have Him '= has pleasure in Him,
like the German : ' Wenn Er Ihn will.'

torn

FULFILMENT OF SCRIPTURE. 597
Synagogue.1 More especially was this verse," which precedes the chap.
mocking quotation of the Sanhedrists, expressly applied to the XV
sufferings and the derision which Messiah was to undergo from His "— — » 
enemies: 'All they that see Me laugh Me to scorn: they shoot out "Pa- xxil- 7.
the lip, they shake the head.' " 2 >¦ Yaikut on
The derision of the Sanhedrists under the Cross was, as previously ii.'p. 'in d,'
stated, not entirely spontaneous, but had a special motive. The place irom t>ot-
of Crucifixion was close to the great road which led from the North
to Jerusalem. On that Feast-day, when, as there was no law to limit,
as on the weekly day of rest, locomotion to a ' Sabbath day's journey,'
many would pass in and out of the City, and the crowd would natu
rally be arrested by the spectacle of the three Crosses. Equally
naturally would they have been impressed by the titulus over the
Cross of Christ. The words, describing the Sufferer as ' the King of
the Jews,' might, when taken in connection with what was known
of Jesus, have raised most dangerous questions. And this the
presence of the Sanhedrists was intended to prevent, by turning the
popular mind in a totally different direction. It was just such a
taunt and argumentation as would appeal to that coarse realism of
the common people, which is too often misnamed 'common sense.'
St. Luke significantly ascribes the derision of Jesus only to the
Rulers,3 and we repeat, that that of the passers by, recorded by St.
Matthew and St. Mark, was excited by them. Thus here also the
main guilt rested on the leaders of the people.*
One other trait comes to us from St. Luke, confirming our im
pression that his account was derived from one who had stood quite
close to the Cross, probably taken official part in the Crucifixion.
St. Matthew and St. Mark merely remark in general, that the deri
sion of the Sanhedrists and people was joined in by the thieves on
the Cross/ A trait this, which we feel to be not only psychologically
1 See Appendix IX. ('Ah') which occurs only here in the
2 Meyer actually commits himself to NT. It is evidently the Latin 'Yah,' an
the statement, that Ps. xxii. was not exclamation of ironical admiration. (See
Messianically applied by the Jews. Bengel and Nebe, ad loc.) The words
Other writers follow his lead. The ob- literally were : 'Ha! the downbreaker of
jection, that the Sanhedrists could not the sanctuary and upbuilding it in three
have quoted this verse, as it would have days, save Thyself.' Except the intro-
branded them as the wicked persons de- ductory particle and the order of the
scribed in the Psalm, has no force when words, the words are tlie same in St.
we remember the loose way in which the Matthew. The 6 KaraXvaov is used in the
Jews were in the habit of quoting the sense of a substantive (com]). Winer,
Old Testament Gram. p. 122, and especially p. 316).
2 The words, 'with them,' in St. Luke b The language of St. Matthew and
xxiii. 35, are spurious. St. Mark is quite general, and refers to
4 St. Mark introduces the mocking 'the thieves;' that of St. Luke is precise
speeches (xv. 29) by the particle ova and detailed. But I cannot agree with

598 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK true, but the more likely of occurrence, that any sympathy or pos-
v sible alleviation of their sufferings might best be secured by joining
v— - -v — in the scorn of the leaders, and concentrating popular indignation
upon Jesus. But St. Luke also records a vital difference between
the two 'robbers' on the Cross/ The impenitent thief takes up the
jeer of the Sanhedrists: 'Art Thou not the Christ?2 Save Thyself
and us ! ' The words are the more significant, alike in their bearing
on the majestic calm and pitying love of the Saviour on the Cross,
and on the utterance of the ' penitent thief, ' that — strange as it may
sound — it seems to have been a terrible phenomenon, noted by his
torians,3 that those on the cross were wont to utter insults and
imprecations on the onlookers, goaded nature perhaps seeking
relief in such outbursts. Not so when the heart was touched in true
repentance. If a more close study of the words of the 'penitent thief
may seem to diminish the fulness of meaning which the traditional
view attaches to them, they gain all the more as we perceive their
historic reality. His first words were of reproof to his comrade. In
that terrible hour, amidst the tortures of a slow death, did not the
fear of God creep over him — at least so far as to prevent his joining
in the vile jeers of those who insulted the dying agonies of the
Sufferer?* And this all the more, in the peculiar circumstances.
They were all three sufferers; but they two justly, while He Whom
he insulted had done nothing amiss. From this basis of fact, the
penitent rapidly rose to the height of faith. This is not uncommon,
when a mind is learning the lessons of truth in the school of grace.
Only, it stands out here the more sharply, because of the dark back
ground against which it is traced in such broad and brightly shining
those who, for the sake of 'harmony,' Sei>p very fancifully regards the penitent
represent the penitent thief as joining in thief as a Greek (Japhetisch), the im-
his comrade's blasphemy before turning penitent as a negro.
to Christ. I do not deny, that such a 2 So according to the right reading.
sudden change might have taken place ; 3 See the quotations in Nebe, ii. 258.
but there is no evidence for it in the * ' Dost not thou even fear God, see-
text, and the supposition of the penitent ing thou art in the same condemnation ? '
thief first blaspheming gives rise to Condemnation here means that to which
many incongruities, aud does not seem one is condemned: the sufferings of the
to fit into the text. cross; and the expostulation is: Suffering
1 Tradition names the impenitent thief as thou art like Him and me, canst thou
Geslas, which Keim identifies with join in the jeers of the crowd ? Dost
(Tr«^or7/oS,silenced,hardened — although thou not even fear God — should not fear
the derivation seems to me forced. The of Him now creep over thy soul, or at
penitent thiaf is called Dysmas, which I least prevent thee from insulting the
would propose to derive from dvapr/ in dying Sufferer? And this all the more,
the sense of 'the setting,' viz., of the since the circumstances are as imme-
sun : he who turns to the setting sun. dlately afterwards described.

THE PENITENT THIEF. 599
outlines. The hour of the deepest abasement of the Christ was, as CHAP.
all the moments of His greatest Humiliation, to be marked by a mani- XV
testation of His Glory and Divine Character — as it were, by God's x—" ~v — ^
testimony to Him in history, if not by the Voice of God from heaven.
And, as regarded the ' penitent ' himself, we notice the progression in
his soul. No one could have been ignorant — least of all those who
were led forth with Him to crucifixion, that Jesus did not suffer for
any- crime, nor for any political movement, but because He professed
to embody the great hope of Israel, and was rejected by its leaders.
And, if any had been ignorant, the ' title ' over the Cross and the
bitter enmity of the Sanhedrists, which followed Him with jeers
and jibes, where even ordinary humanity, and still more Jewish feel
ing, would have enjoined silence, if not pity, must have shown what
had been the motives of 'the condemnation' of Jesus. But, once the
mind was opened to perceive all these facts, the progress would be
rapid. In hours of extremity a man may deceive himself and fatally
mistake fear for the fear of God, and the remembrance of certain
external knowledge for spiritual experience. But, if a man really
learns in such seasons, the teaching of years may be compressed into
moments, and the dying thief on the Cross might outdistance the
knowledge gained by Apostles in their years of following Christ.
One thing stood out before the mind of the ' penitent thief, ' who
in that hour did fear God. Jesus had done nothing amiss. And
this surrounded with a halo of moral glory the inscription on the
Cross, long before its words acquired a new meaniag. But how did
this Innocent One bear Himself in suffering? Right royally — not
in an earthly sense, but in that in which alone He claimed the
Kingdom. He had so spoken to the women who had lamented Him,
as His faint form could no longer bear the burden of the Cross; and
He had so refused the draught that would have deadened conscious
ness and sensibility. Then, as they three were stretched on the
transverse beam, and, in the first and sharpest agony of pain, the
nails were driven with cruel stroke of hammer through the quivering
flesh, and, m the nameless agony that followed the first moments of
the Crucifixion, only a prayer for those who in ignorance, were the
instruments of His torture, had passed His lips. And yet He was
innocent, Who so cruelly suffered. All that followed must have only
deepened the impression. With what calm of endurance and majesty
of silence He had borne the insult and jeers of those who, even to
the spiritually unenlightened eye, must have seemed so infinitely far
beneath Him! This man did feel the ' fear ' of God, who now learned

600 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK the new lesson in which the fear of God was truly the beginning of
V wisdom. And, once he gave place to the moral element, when under
' — -i  ' the fear of God he reproved his comrade, this new moral decision
became to him, as so often, the beginning of spiritual life. Rapidly
he now passed into the light, and onwards and upwards: 'Lord, re
member me, when Thou comest in Thy Kingdom ! '
The familiar words of our Authorised Version — 'When Thou
comest into Thy Kingdom ' — convey the idea of what we might call a
more spiritual meaning of the petition. But we can scarcely believe,
that at that moment it implied either that Christ was then going into
His Kingdom, or that the ' penitent thief looked to Christ for ad
mission into the Heavenly Kingdom. The words are true to the
Jewish point of vision of the man. He recognised and owned Jesus
as the Messiah, and he did so, by a wonderful forthgoing of faith, even
in the utmost Humiliation of Christ. And this immediately passed
beyond the Jewish standpoint, for he expected Jesus soon to come
back in His Kingly might and power, when he asked to be remembered
by Him in mercy. And here we have again to bear in mind that,
during the Life' of Christ upon earth, and, indeed, before the out
pouring of the Holy Ghost, men always first learned to believe in the
Person of the Christ, and then to know His teaching and His Mission
in the forgiveness of sins. It was so in this case also. If the ' peni
tent thief had learned to know the Christ, and to ask for gracious
recognition in His coming Kingdom, the answering assurance of the
Lord conveyed not only the comfort that his prayer was answered,
but the teaching of spiritual things which he knew not yet, and so
much needed to know. The 'penitent' had spoken ofthe future,
Christ spoke of ' to-day ' ; the penitent had prayed about thai.
Messianic Kingdom which was to come, Christ assured him in regard
to the state of the disembodied spirits, and conveyed to him the
promise that he would be there in the abode of the blessed —
'Paradise' — and that through means of Himself as the Messiah:
'Amen, I say unto thee — To-day with Me shalt thou be in the
Paradise.' Thus did Christ give him that spiritual knowledge which
he did not yet possess — the teaching concerning the 'to-day,' the
need of gracious admission into Paradise, and that with and through
Himself — in other words, concerning the forgiveness of sins and the
opening of the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers. This, as the first
and foundation-creed of the soul, was the first and foundation-fact
concerning the Messiah.
This was the Second Utterance from the Cross. The first had
been of utter self-forgetfulness; the second of deepest, wisest, most

ST. JOHN UNDER THE CROSS. 601
gracious spiritual teaching. And, had He spoken none other than CHAP.
these, He would have been proved to be the Son of God.1 XV
Nothing more would require to be said to the ' penitent ' on the v-*~ "Y-— '
Cross. The events which followed, and the words which Jesus would
still speak, would teach him more fully than could otherwise have
been done. Some hours — probably two — had passed since Jesus had
been nailed to the Cross. We wonder how it came that St. John,
who tells us some of the incidents with such exceeding particu
larity, and relates all with the vivid realisation of a most deeply
interested eyewitness, should have been silent as to others — espe
cially as to those hours of derision, as well as to the conversion of the
penitent thief. His silence seems to us to have been due to absence
from the scene. We part company with him after his detailed
account ofthe last scene before Pilate." The final sentence pro- *st. John
xix. 2-16
nounced, we suppose him to have hurried into the City, and to have
acquainted such of the disciples as he might find — but especially
those faithful women and the Virgin-Mother — with the terrible scenes
that had passed since the previous evening. Thence he returned to
Golgotha, just in time to witness the Crucifixion, which he again
describes with peculiar fulness of details." When the Saviour was l>TVl7-24
nailed to the Cross, St. John seems once more to have returned to
the City — this time, to bring back with him those women, in company
of whom we now find him standing close to the Cross. A more
delicate, tender, loving service could not have been rendered than
this. Alone, of all the disciples, he is there — not afraid to be near
Christ, in the Palace of the High-Priest^ before Pilate, and now
under the Cross. And alone he renders to Christ this tender service
1 Fully to understand it, we ought to in the Jewish office for the dying, and
realise what would be the Jewish ideas the underlying dogma is firmly rooted
of the 'penitent thief,' and what his in Rabbinic belief. The words of our
understanding of the words of Christ. Lord, so far from encouraging this belief,
Broadly, one would say, that as a Jew would teach him that admission to
he would expect that his 'death would Paradise was to be granted by Christ.
be the expiation of his sins.' Thoughts It is scarcely necessary to add, that
of need of forgiveness through the Christ's words in no way encouraged
Messiah would not therefore come to the realistic conceptions which Judaism
him. But the words of Christ must have attached to Paradise (DTIB). In Bibli-
supplied all this. Again, when Christ cal Hebrew the word is used for a choice
spoke of 'Paradise,' His hearer would garden: in Ecci. ii. 5; Cant. iv. 13;
naturally understand that part of Hades Nehem. ii. 8. But in the LXX. and the
in which the spirits of the righteous Apocr. the word is already used in our
dwelt till the Resurrection. On both sense of Paradise. Lastly, nothing which
these points there are so many passages our Lord had said to the ' penitent
in Rabbinic writings that it is needless thief about being 'to-day' with Him
to quote (see for ex. Wetstein, ad loc, in Paradise, is in any way inconsistent
andourremarksontheParableofLazarus with, rather confirms, the doctrine of the
and Dives). Indeed, the prayer : let my Descent into Hades.
death be the expiation of my sins, is still

602

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

» St. John
xix. 25-27

b St. Matt.
xxvii. 55
¦ St. Mark
XV. 40, 41

> St. Mat
thew

f Hegesip-
pvs in
Euseb. H.E.
iii. 11 and
iv. 22

of bringing the women and Mary to the Cross, and to them the pro
tection of his guidance and company. He loved Jesus best; and it
was fitting that to his manliness and affection should be entrusted the
unspeakable privilege of Christ's dangerous inheritance/
The narrative a leaves the impression that with the beloved dis
ciple these four women were standing close to the Cross: the Mother
of Jesus, the Sister of His Mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and
Mary of Magdala. 2 A comparison with what is related by St. Matthew "
and St. Mark" supplies further important particulars. We read
tliere of only three women, the name of the Mother of our Lord
being omitted. But then it must be remembered that this refers to a
later period in the history of the Crucifixion. It seems as if John
had fulfilled to the letter the Lord's command: ' Behold thy mother,'
and literally ' from that very hour ' taken her to his own home. If
we are right in this supposition, then, in the absence of St. John —
who led away the Virgin-Mother from that scene of horror — the other
three women would withdraw to a distance, where we find them at
the end, not ' by the Cross, ' as in St. John xix. 25, but ' beholding
from afar,' and now joined by others also, who had loved and followed
Christ. We further notice that, the name of the Virgin-Mother being-
omitted, thc other three are the same as mentioned by St. John;
only, Mary of Clopas is now described as ' the mother of James and
Joses, ' 3 and Christ's ' Mother's Sister ' as ' Salome ' d and ' the mother
of Zebedee's children.'6 Thus Salome, the wife of Zebedee and St.
John's mother, was the sister ofthe Virgin, and the beloved disciple
the cousin (on the mother's side) of Jesus, and the nephew of the
Virgin. This also helps to explain why the care of the Mother had
been entrusted to him. Nor was Mary the wife of Clopas uncon
nected with Jesus. What we have every reason to regard as a trust
worthy account' describes Clopas as the brother of Joseph, the
husband of the Virgin. Thus, not only Salome as the sister of the
Virgin, but Mary also as the wife of Clopas, would, in a certain sense,

1 The first impression left is, of course,
that the ' brothers ' of Jesus were not yet,
at least in the full sense, believers. But
this does not by any means necessarily
follow, since both the presence of John
under the Cross, and even his outward
circumstances, might point him out as the
most fit custodian of the Virgin-Mother.
At the same time it seems the more likely
supposition, that the brothers of Jesus
were converted by the appearance to

James of the Risen One (1 Cor. xv. 7).
2 This view is now generally adopted.
3 There is, of course, the difficulty that
Judas (Lebbaeus) and Simon Zelotes are
not here mentioned as her sons. But
they may have been her stepsons, or there
may have been other reasons for the
omission. 'Judas of James' could
scarcely have been the son of James, and
Simon is expressly mentioned by Hege-
sippus as the son of Clopas.

THE THIRD 'UTTERANCE.' 603
have been His aunt, and her sons His cousins. And so we notice CHAP.
among the twelve Apostles five cousins of the Lord : the two sons of XV
Salome and Zebedee, and the three sons of Alphagus or Clopas * and '  •.  '
Mary: James, Judas surnamed Lebbaeus and Thaddseus, and Simon
surnamed Zelotes or Cananasan/
We can now in some measure realise events. When St. John had
seen the Saviour nailed to the Cross, he had gone to the City and
brought with him for a last mournful farewell the Virgin, accompanied
by those who, as most nearly connected with her, would naturally be
with her: her own sister Salome, the sister-in-law of Joseph and wife
(or more probably widow) of Clopas, and her who of all others had
experienced most of His blessed power to save — Mary of Magdala.
Once more we reverently mark His 'Divine calm of utter self-forget
fulness and His human thoughtfulness for others. As they stood
under the Cross, He committed His Mother to the disciple whom He
loved, and established a new human relationship between him and her
who was nearest to Himself. 3 And calmly, earnestly, and immediately
did that disciple undertake the sacred charge, and bring her — whose
soul the sword had pierced — away from the scene of unutterable woe
to the shelter of his home.4 And this temporary absence of John
from the Cross may account for the want of all detail in his narrative
till quite the closing scene/ "J£ ^°hn
Now at last all that concerned the earthward aspect of His
Mission — so far as it had to be done on the Cross — was ended. He
had prayed for those who had nailed Him to it, in ignorance of what
they did; He had given the comfort of assurance to the penitent, who
had owned His Glory in His Humiliation; and He had made the last
provision of love in regard to those nearest to Him. So to speak, the
relations of His Humanity — that which touched His Human Nature
in any direction — had been fully met. He had done with the Human
1 Alphaeus and Clopas are the same Hegesippus mentions him as the son of
name. The first occurs in the Babylon Clopas, it follows that the Simon son of
Talmud as Ilphai, or llpha (XZTX), Clopas was Simon Zelotes Levi Matthew
. -„ , -,, ,» i j a «, was, indeed, also a son of Alphasus, but
as in R. haSh. 17 6, and often; the we regard thls as another Clopas than
other in the Jerusalem Talmud as the husband of Mary.
Ohilphai ^LVn), as for ex. in Jer. B. 2 Incongruous though the interruption
Kama 7 a. he, we cannot help noticing that the in-
8 I regard the Simon Zelotes of the list troduction of such a scene seems incon-
of Apostles as the Simon son of Clopas, or sistent with the whole theory of an
Alphams, of Hegesippus— first, because Ephesian authorship of the Fourth
of his position in the lists of the Apostles Gospel. On the other hand, it displays
along with the two other sons of Alphseus ; evidence of the true human interest of an
secondly, because, as there were only two actor in the scene.
prominent Simons in the N.T. (the 4 Nothing is really known of the later
brother of the Lord, and Zelotes), and history of the Blessed Virgin.

604

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ St. Matt.
xxvii. 61

aspect of His Work and with earth. And, appropriately, Nature
seemed now to take sad farewell of Him, and mourned its departing
Lord, Who, by His Personal connection with it, had once more lifted
it from the abasement of the Fall into the region of the Divine,
making it the dwelling-place, the vehicle for the manifestation, and the
obedient messenger of the Divine.
For three hours had the Saviour hung on thc Cross. It was
midday. And now the Sun was craped in darkness from the sixth
to the ninth hour. No purpose can be served by attempting to
trace the source of this darkness. It could not have been an eclipse,
since it was the time of full moon; nor can we place reliance on the
later reports on this subject of ecclesiastical writers.1 It seems only
in accordance with the Evangelic narrative to regard the occurrence
of the event as supernatural, while the event itself might have been
brought about by natural causes; and among these we must call spe
cial attention to the earthquake in which this darkness terminated/
For, it is a well-known phenomenon that such darkness not unfre
quently precedes earthquakes. On the other hand, it must be freely
admitted, that the language of the Evangelists seems to imply that
this darkness extended, not only over the land of Israel, but over the
inhabited earth. The expression must, of course, not be pressed to
its full literality, but explained as meaning that it extended far beyond
Judasa and to other lands. No reasonable objection can be raised
from the circumstance, that neither the earthquake nor the preceding
darkness are mentioned by any profane writer whose works have been
preserved, since it would surely not be maintained that an historical
record must have been preserved of every earthquake that occurred,
and of every darkness that may have preceded it/ But the most
Nebe writes on this subject (vol. ii. p. 301),
and the illustrations of the popular use
of the word from Pliny and Plutarch,
deserve the most serious consideration.
But, I repeat, I cannot attach weight in
this argument to such testimonies, nor
yet to the sayings of Origen, Tertullian,
&c, nor to the Acta Pilati (the ecclesias
tical testimonies are discussed by Nebe,
u. s. p. 299).
¦ There are frequent notices in classical
writers of eclipses preceding disastrous
events or the death of great men, such
as of Caesar (Nebe, u. s. p. 300). But
these were, if correctly related, eclipses in
the true sense, and, as such, natural
events, having in no way a supernatural
bearing, and hence in no sense analogous
to this ' darkness ' at the Crucifixion.

1 I do not think the testimony of
Phlegon, as quoted by Eusebius, is avail
able (see the discussion in Wieseler's
Synopse, p. 387, note 1). Still, if the
astronomical calculations of Ideler and
Warm are correct, ' the eclipse ' recorded
by Phlegon [whether 'eclipse' in the
scientific sense, or 'darkness,'] would
have taken place in the very year of our
Lord's death, a.d. 29, but, as they reckon,
on November 24. I do not possess the
special knowledge requisite to verify
these calculations; but that it is de
scribed by Phlegon as an 'eclipse' —
which this could not have been — does
not necessarily invalidate the argu
ment, since he might have used the term
inaccurately. It is in this sense that St.
Luke (xxiii. 45) uses the verb — that is, if
we adopt the amended reading. What

THE DARKNESS.

605

unfair argument is that, which tries to establish the unhistorical
character of this narrative by an appeal to what are described as
Jewish sayings expressive of similar expectancy.1 It is quite true
that in old Testament prophecy — whether figuratively or really —
the darkening, though not only of the sun, but also of the moon and,
stars, is sometimes connected, not with the Coming of Messiah, still
less with His Death, but with the final Judgment/ But Jewish
tradition never speaks of such an event in connection with Messiah,
or even with the Messianic judgments, and the quotations from
Rabbinic writings made by negative critics must be characterised as
not only inapplicable but even unfair.3
But to return from this painful digression. The three hours'
darkness was such not only to Nature; Jesus, also, entered into
darkness: Body, Soul, and Spirit. It was now, not as before, a con
test — but suffering. Into this, to us, fathomless depth of the mystery
of His Sufferings, we dare not, as indeed we cannot, enter. It was
ofthe Body; yet not of the Body only, but of physical life. And it
1 So Strauss (after Wetstein) and even
Keim. Painful as controversy is in con
nection with the last hours of Jesus, I
would not have shrunk from contesting
the positions of Keim, if I had not felt
that every unprejudiced person must see,
that most of them are mere assertions,
without an attempt at anything like
historical evidence.
2 Strauss (ii. p. 556), and more fully
Keim (iii. p. 438, Note 3), quote Joel
ii. 10, 31; Amos viii. 9; Is. xiii. 10;
1. 3 ; Job ix. 7 ; Jer. xv. 9. Of these pas
sages some have no bearing, however
remote, on the subject, while the others
refer not to the Messiah but to the final
judgment. 8 To be quite fair, I will refer to all the
passages quoted in connection with the
darkening of the sun as a token of
mourning. The first (quoted by Wetstein)
is from the Midrash on Lament, iii. 28
(ed. Warsh. p. 72 a). But the passage,
evidently a highly figurative one, refers
to the destruction of Jerusalem and the
dispersion of Israel, and, besides the
darkening of the sun, moon, and stars
(not the sun only), refers to a realistic
fulfilment of Nah. i. 3 and Lament, iii.
28 in God's walking in dust and keeping
silence. The second quotation of Wet
stein, that when a great Rabbi dies it is
as portentous as if the sun went down
at midday — has manifestly no bearing
whatever on the matter in hand (though
Strauss adduces it). The last and only

CHAP. XV

quotation really worth mention is from
Sukk. 29 a. In a somewhat lengthened
statement there, the meaning of an obscu
ration of the sun or moon is discussed.
I have here to remark (1) that these
phenomena are regarded as ' signs ' in
the sense of betokening coming judg
ments, such as war, famine, <fcc, and that
these are supposed to affect various
nations according as the eclipse is to
wards the rising or setting of the sun.
The passage therefore can have no pos
sible connection with such a phenomenon
as the death of Messiah. (2) This is
further confirmed by the enumeration of
certain sins for which heavenly luminaries
are eclipsed. Some are not fit for men
tion, while others are such as false wit
ness-bearing, the needless cutting down
of fruit-trees, &c. (3) But the unfairness,
as well as the inaptitude, of the quota
tion appears from this, that only the
beginning of the passage is quoted
(Strauss and Keim) : ' At a time when
the sun is obscured, it is an evil sign to
all the world,' while what follows is
omitted: ' When the sun is obscured, it is
an evil sign to the nations of the world ;
when the moon is obscured, it is an evil
sign to Israel, because Israel reckons
according to the moon, the nations of the
world according to the sun.' And yet
Wiinsche (Erlauter. pp. 355, 356) quotes
both that which precedes and that which
follows this passage, but leaves out this
passage itself. (Comp. Mechilta, p. 3 b.)

606 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK was of the Soul and Spirit; yet not of them alone, but in their con-
V scious relation to man and to God. And it was not of the Human
"— ~'  only in Christ, but in its indissoluble connection with the Divine:
of the Human, where it reached the utmost verge of humiliation to
body, soul, and spirit — and in it of the Divine, to utmost self-exinani-
tion. The increasing, nameless agonies of the Crucifixion1 were
deepening into the bitterness of death. All nature shrinks from
death, and there is a physical horror of the separation between body
and soul which, as a purely natural phenomenon, is in every instance
only overcome, and that only by a higher principle. And we con
ceive that the purer the being the greater the violence of the
tearing asunder of the bond with which God Almighty originally
bound together body and soul. In the Perfect Man this must have
reached the highest degree. So, also, had in those dark hours the
sense of man-forsakenness and of His own isolation from man; so,
also, had the intense silence of God, the withdrawal of God, the sense
of His God-forsakenness and absolute loneliness. We dare not here
speak of punitive suffering, but of forsakenness and loneliness . And
yet as we ask ourselves how this forsakeness can be thought of as
so complete in view of His Divine consciousness, which at least could
not have been wholly extinguished by His Self-exinanition, we feel
that yet another element must be taken into account. Christ on the
Cross suffered for man; He offered Himself a sacrifice; He died for
our sins, that, as death was the wages of sin, so He died as the
Representative of man — for man and in room of man; He obtained
"aimi/mx for man 'eternal redemption,"1 having given His Life ' a ransom, b
Hehr.7x.' 12 for many. For, men were ' redeemed ' with the ' precious Blood of
* Kvrpov, st. Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot; 'c and Christ
Matt. xx. 28 ' f 7
• i pet. 1. 19 ' gave Himself for us, that He might ' ' redeem " us from all iniquity; ' d
aTit.ii.u He 'gave Himself "a ransom "for all;'" Christ died for all;''
'vIYp^YvtZv Him, Who knew no sin, God ' made sin for us; ' ' Christ redeemed
lTim. u. 6 ug from tne curse 0f the Law, having become a curse for us' — and
twv icor. this, with express reference to the Crucifixion/ This sacrificial,
i Gai. iii. 13 vicarious, expiatory, and redemptive character of His Death, if it
does not explain to us, yet helps us to understand, Christ's sense of
God-forsakenness in the supreme moment of the Cross; if one might
so word it — the passive character of His activeness through the
active character of His passiveness.
It was this combination of the Old Testament idea of sacrifice,
These are described with terrible realism by Keim.

ELI, ELI, LEMA SABACHTHANEI ">

007

and of the Old Testament ideal of willing suffering as the Servant of
Jehovah, now fulfilled in Christ, which found its fullest expression in
the language of the twenty-second Psalm. It was fitting — rather, it
was true — that the willing suffering of the true Sacrifice should now
find vent in its opening words: ' My God, My God, why hast Thou
forsaken Me? ' — Eli, Eli, lema sabachthaneif 1 These words, cried with
a loud voice" at the close of the period of extreme agony,3 marked
the climax and the end of this suffering of Christ, of which the utmost
compass was the withdrawal of God and the felt loneliness of the
Sufferer. But they that stood by the Cross, misinterpreting the
meaning, and mistaking the opening words for the name Ellas,
imagined that the Sufferer had called for Elias. We can scarcely
doubt, that these were the soldiers who stood by the Cross. They
were not necessarily Romans; on the contrary, as we have seen,
these Legions were generally recruited from . Provincials. On the
other hand, no Jew would have mistaken Eli for the name of Elijah,
not yet misinterpreted a quotation of Psalm xxii. 1 as a- call for that
prophet. And it must be remembered, that the words were not whis
pered, but cried. with a loud voice. But all entirely accords with the
misunderstanding of non-Jewish soldiers, who, as the whole history
shows, had learned from His accusers and the infuriated mob snatches
of a distorted story of the Christ.
And presently the Sufferer emerged on the other side. It can
scarcely have been a minute or two from the time that the cry from
the twenty-second Psalm marked the high-point of His Agony, when
the words ' I thirst ' a seem to indicate, by the prevalence of the
merely human aspect of the suffering, that the other and more ter
rible aspect of sin-bearing and God-forsakenness was past. To us,
therefore, this seems the beginning, if not of Victory, yet of Rest,
of the End. St. John alone records this Utterance, prefacing it with
this distinctive statement, that Jesus so surrendered Himself to the
human feeling, seeking the bodily relief by expressing His thirst:
' knowing that all things were now finished, that the Scripture might

CHAP. XV

' St. John
xix. 28

1 So in St. Matthew, according to the
best reading. In St. Mark, Eloi, Eloi
[apparently the Syriac form], lema
sabachthaneit Might it be that St. Mat
thew represents the current Judaean or
Galilean dialect, and St. Mark the Syrian,
and that this casts light alike on the
dialects in Palestine at the time of Christ,
and even, to some extent, on the com
position of the Gospels, and the land in
which they were written ? The Targum

renders Ps. xxii. 2 : Eh, Eli, metul mah
shebhaqtanit ('On account of what hast
Thou forsaken me ? ')
2 This in the extreme agony of soul,
not to mark His Divinity.
3 'About the ninth hour.' I cannot
bring myself here to discuss the supposed
analogous quotations of Ps. xxii. 1 in
Rabbinic writings. The comparison is
equally inapt and irreverent.

608

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

' St. Matt.
xxvii. 48,
49; St.
Mark xv. 36

be fulfilled.' ' In other words, the climax of Theanthropic Suffering
in His feeling of God-forsakenness, which had led to the utterance of
Psalm xxii. 1, was now, to His consciousness, the end of all which
in accordance with Scripture-prediction He had to bear. He now
could and did yield Himself to the mere physical wants of His
Body. It seems as if St. John, having perhaps just returned to the
scene, and standing with the women 'afar off,' beholding these
things," had hastened forward on the cry from Psalm xxii.,2 and
heard Him express the feeling of thirst, which immediately followed.
And so St. John alone supplies the link between that cry and the
movement on the part of the soldiers, which St. Matthew and St.
Mark, as well as St. John, report. For, it would be impossible to
understand why, on what the soldiers regarded as a call for Elijah,
one of them should have hastened to relieve His thirst, but for
the Utterance recorded in the Fourth Gospel. But we can quite
understand it, if the Utterance, ' I thirst, ' followed immediately on
the previous cry.
One of the soldiers — may we not be allowed to believe, one who
either had already learned from that Cross, or was about to learn, to
own Him Lord — moved by sympathy, now ran to offer some slight
refreshment to the Sufferer by filling a sponge with the rough wine of
the soldiers and putting it to His lips, having first fastened it to the
stem ('reed') ofthe caper (' hyssop '), which is said to grow to the
height of even two or three feet.3 But, even so, this act of humanity
was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the coarse jibes of the others,
who would bid him leave the relief of the Sufferer to the agency of
Elijah, which in their opinion He had invoked. Nor should we per
haps wonder at the weakness of that soldier himself, who, though he
would not be hindered in his good deed, yet averted the opposition of
the others by apparently joining in their mockery/
By accepting the physical refreshment offered Him, the Lord
There is, of course, a tertium quid, and

1 The words last quoted can, of course,
and have by most writers been connected
with the thirst of Christ, as the fulfil
ment of Ps. lxix. 21. But the structure
of the sentence leads rather to the punc
tuation adopted in the text, while I have
the greatest difficulty in applying Ps.
lxix. 21 in the manner proposed, and
still more grave objection to the idea that
Christ uttered the words in order to fulfil
the Psalm, although the word 'that'
must, as previously shown (p. 503), not
be taken in the sense of 'in order that'

the Evangelist may be supposed to have
expressed only his own sense that the
Scripture was fulfilled, when he saw the
thirst of the Saviour quenched in the
' vinegar ' of the soldiers. But in that
case we should expect the words ' that
the Scripture might be fulfilled,' placed
after the ' I thirst.'
2 Whether or not he heard the words
of the cry.
3 Comp. Tristram Nat. Hist, of the
Bible, p. 457.

XV.

'IT. IS FINISHED.' 609
once more indicated the completion of the work of His Passion. For, CHAP.
as He would not enter on it with His senses and physical conscious- XV
ness lulled by narcotised wine, so He would not pass out of it with ' — -> 
senses and physical consciousness dulled by the absolute failure of
life-power. Hence He took what for the moment restored the
physical balance, needful for thought and word. And so He imme
diately passed on to ' taste death for every man.' For, the two last
' sayings' ofthe Saviour now followed in rapid succession: first, that
with a loud voice, which expressed it, that the work given Him to do,
as far as concerned His Passion, was ' finished; ' a and then, that in "St. John
the words of Psalm xxxi. 5, in which He commended His Spirit into
the Hands of the Father." Attempts at comment could only weaken *st. Luke
the solemn thoughts which the words awaken. Yet some points
should be noted for our teaching. His last cry ' with a loud voice '
was not like that of one dying. St. Mark notes, that this made such
deep impression on the Centurion/ In the language of the early ^t-3Mark
Christian hymn, it was not Death which approached Christ, but Christ
Death: He died without death.1 Christ encountered Death, not as
conquered, but as the Conqueror. And this also was part of His work,
and for us: now the beginning of His Triumph. And with this
agrees the peculiar language of St. John, that He 'bowed the Head,
and gave up the Spirit '(to nvsvpa).
Nor should we fail to mark the peculiarities of His last Utter
ance. The ' My God ' of the fourth Utterance had again passed into
the ' Father ' of conscious fellowship. And yet neither in the Hebrew
original of this Psalm, nor in its Greek rendering by the LXX., does
the word ' Father ' occur. Again, in the LXX. translation of the
Hebrew text this word expressive of entrustment — the commending —
is in the future tense; on the lips of our Lord it is in the present
tense.2 And the word, in its New Testament sense, means not
merely commending: it is to deposit, to commit for safe keeping/
That in dying — or rather meeting and overcoming Death — He chose
and adapted these words, is matter for deepest thankfulness to the
Church. He spoke them for His people in a twofold sense: on their
behalf, that they might be able to speak them; and ' for them, ' that
henceforth they might speak them after Him. How many thousands
have pillowed their heads on them when going to rest! They were
i En pessima, non tu 2 So according to the better reading.
Pervenis ad Christum, sed Christus per- 3 Comp. the use of the verb Ttaparierjfii
venit ad te, in such passages as St. Luke xii. 48 ;
Cui licuit sine morte mori. Acts xiv. 23 ; xx. 32 ; 1 Tim. i. 18 ; 2 Tim.
Sedulius. ii. 2.

18, 19

610 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK the last words of a Polycarp, a Bernard, Huss, Luther, and
v Melanchthon. And to us also they may be the fittest and the softest
 ,  ' lullaby. And in ' the Spirit ' which He had committed to God did
He now descend into Hades, ' and preached unto the spirits in
i pet. in. prison.'0- But behind this great mystery have closed the two-
leaved gates of brass, which only the Hand of the Conqueror could
burst- open.
And now a shudder ran through Nature, as its Sun had set. We
dare not do more than follow the rapid outlines of the Evangelic
narrative. As the first token, it records the rending of the Temple-
Veil in two from the top downward to the bottom; as the second, the
quaking of the earth, the rending of the rocks and the opening of
the graves. Although most writers have regarded this as indicating
the strictly chronological succession, there is nothing in the text to
bind us to such a conclusion. Thus, while the rending of the Veil is
recorded first, as being the most significant token to Israel, it may
have been connected with the earthquake, although this alone might
scarcely account for the tearing of so heavy a Veil from the top to the
bottom. Even the latter circumstance has its significance. That
some great catastrophe, betokening the impending destruction of the
Temple, had occurred in the Sanctuary about this very time, is con
firmed by not less than four mutually independent testimonies: those
of Tacitus,1 of Josephus,2 of the Talmud,3 and of earliest Christian
tradition. * The most important of these are, of course, the Talmud
and Josephus. The latter speaks ofthe mysterious extinction of the
middle and chief light in the Golden Candlestick, forty years before
the destruction of the Temple; and both he and the Talmud refer to
a supernatural opening by themselves of the great Temple-gates that
had been previously closed, which was regarded as a portent of the
coming destruction of the Temple. We can scarcely doubt, that
some historical fact must underlie so peculiar and widespread a
tradition, and we cannot help feeling that it may be a distorted version
of the occurrence of the rending of the Temple- Veil (or of its report)
at the Crucifixion of Christ.5
1 Hist. v. 13. and it would seem an obvious inference
2 Jew. War vi. 5, 3. to connect again this breaking of the
1 Jer. Yoma 43 c; Yoma 39 b. lintel with an earthquake.
1 So in the Gospel according to the 5 A story is told in Jewish tradition
Hebrews, from which St. Jerome quotes (Gitt, 56 b, about the middle; Ber. R. 10;
(in Matt, xxvii. 51, and in a letter to Vayyik. R. 22, and in other places) to the
Hedibia) to the effect, that the huge effect that, among other vilenesses, ' Ti-
lintel of the Temple was broken and tus the wicked ' had penetrated into the
splintered, and fell. St. Jerome con- Sanctuary, and cut through the Veil of the
nects the rending of the Veil with this, Most Holy Place with his sword, when

THE RENDING OF THE TEMPLE VEIL.

611

But even if the rending of the Temple-Veil had commenced with
the earthquake, aud, according to the Gospel to the Hebrews, with the
breaking ofthe great lintel over the entrance, it could not be wholly
accounted for in this manner. According to Jewish tradition, there
were, indeed, two Veils before the entrance to the Most Holy Place."
The Talmud explains this on the ground that it was not known,
whether in the former Temple the Veil had hung inside or out
side the entrance and whether thc partition-wall had stood in the
Holy or Most Holy Place/ Hence (according to Maimonides)" there
was not any wall between the Holy and Most Holy Place, but thc
space of one cubit, assigned to it in the former Temple, was left
unoccupied, and one Veil hung on the side of the Holy, the other on
that of the Most Holy Place. According to an account dating from
Temple-times, there were altogether thirteen Veils used in various
parts of the Temple — two new ones being made every year." The
Veils before the Most Holy Place were 40 cubits (60 feet) long, and
20 (30 feet) wide, of the thickness of the palm of the hand, and
wrought in 72 squares, which were joined together; and these
Veils were so heavy, that, in the exaggerated language of the time,
it needed 300 priests to manipulate each. If the Veil was at all
such as is described in the Talmud, it could not have been rent in
twain by a mere earthquake or the fall of the lintel, although its
composition in squares fastened together might explain, how the
rent might be as described in the Gospel.
Indeed, everything seems to indicate that, although the earth
quake might furnish the physical basis, the rent of the Temple-Veil
was — with reverence be it said — really made by the Hand of God.
As we compute, it may just have been the time when, at the Evening-
Sacrifice, the officiating Priesthood entered the Holy Pla,ce, either to
burn the incense or to do other sacred service there. To sec before
them, not as the aged Zacharias at the beginning of this history
the Angel Gabriel, but the Veil of the Holy Place rent from top to
bottom — that beyond it they could scarcely have seen — and hanging in

blood dropped down. I mention the
legend to express my emphatic protest
against the manner in which Dr. Joel
(Bhcke in d. Religionsgesch. i. pp. 7, 8,
treating of the passage in the Midr. on
Lam. ii. 17) has made use of it. He re
presents it, as if the Veil had been rent
(Zerreissen des Vorhanges bei d. Tem-
pelzerstorung) — not cut through by
Titus, and on the basis of this misrepre
sentation has the boldness to set a

CHAP. XV

1 Yoma v. 1

lj Yoma 51 b
» Hilkh.
Beth ha-
Beoh, iv. 2,
ed. Amst.
vol. iii. p.
149 6

<i Yoma 54 a
Kethub.
106 a;
Sheqal. viii. 5.

legend about Titus side by side with the
Evangelic account of the rending of the
Temple- Veil ! I write thus strongly be
cause I am sorry to say that this is by
no means the only instance in which
Jewish writers adapt their quotations
to controversial purposes. Joel refers
to Dr. Sachs, Beitr. i. p. 29, but that
learned writer draws no such inference
from the passage in question.

612

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

11 Dent. xxi.
23 ; comp.
Jos. War.
iv. 5, 2

two parts from its fastenings above and at the side, was, indeed, a
terrible portent, which would soon become generally known, and
must, in some form or other, have been preserved in tradition. And
they all must have understood, that it meant that God's Own Hand had
rent the Veil, and for ever deserted and thrown open that Most Holy
Place where He had so long dwelt in the mysterious gloom, only lit
up once a year by the glow of the censer of him, who made atone
ment for the sins ofthe people.1
Other tokens were not wanting. In the earthquake the rocks
were rent, and their tombs opened. This, as Christ descended into
Hades. And when He ascended on the third day, it was with
victorious saints who had left those open graves. To many in the
Holy City on that ever-memorable first day, and in the week that
followed, appeared the bodies of many of those saints who had fallen
on sleep in the sweet hope of that which had now become reality/
But on those who stood under the Cross, and near it, did all that
was witnessed make the deepest and most lasting impression.
Among them we specially mark the Centurion under whose command
the soldiers had been. Many a scene of horror must he have wit
nessed in those sad times of the Crucifixion, but none like this. Only
one conclusion could force itself on his mind. It was that which, we
cannot doubt, had made its impression on his heart and conscience.
Jesus was not what the Jews, His infuriated enemies, had described
Him. He was what He professed to be, what His bearing on the
Cross and His Death attested Him to be: 'righteous,' and hence,
'the Son of God.' From this there was only, a step to personal
allegiance to Him, and, as previously suggested, we may possibly
owe to him some of those details which St. Luke alone has preserved.
The brief spring-day was verging towards the -evening ofthe
Sabbath.' In general, the Law ordered that the body of a criminal
should not be left hanging unburied over night." Perhaps in
ordinary circumstances the Jews might not have appealed so con
fidently to Pilate as actually to ask3 him to shorten the sufferings

1 May this phenomenon account for
the early conversion of so many priests
recorded in Acts vi. 7 ?
2 I dare express myself dogmatically
on the precise import of St Matt xxvii.
52, 53. Does it mean that they were
actually clothed with the Resurrection-
body, or with the body which they had
formerly borne, or that many saints from
out Hades appeared to those who loved
them, and with them had waited for the

Kingdom, in the forms which they had
known ? We know too little of the con
nection between the other world and
this, and the mode in which the departed
may communicate with those here, to-
venture on any decided statement, es
pecially as we take into account the
unique circumstances of the occasion.
:l ripdoTrjaav, they -asked.' St. John
xix. 31.

THE 'CRURIFRAGIUM.' 613
of those on the Cross, since the punishment of crucifixion often chap.
lasted not only for hours but days, ere death ensued. But here xv
was a special occasion. The Sabbath about to open was a ' high-day'  ? 
— it was both a Sabbath and the second Paschal Day, which was
regarded as in every respect equally sacred with the first — nay,
more so, since the so-called Wavesheaf was then offered to the Lord.
And what the Jews now proposed to Pilate was, indeed, a shorten
ing, but not in any sense a mitigation, of the punishment. Some
times there was added to the punishment of crucifixion that of
breaking the bones(crurifragium, <rKs\oK07tia)by means of a club or
hammer. This would not itself bring death, but the breaking of the
bones was always followed by a coup de grdce, by sword, lanee, or
stroke (the perforatio or percussio sub alas), which immediately put an
end to what remained of life.1 Thus the ' breaking ofthe bones ' was
a sort of increase of punishment, by way of compensation for its
shortening by the final stroke that followed.
It were unjust to suppose, that in their anxiety to fulfil the letter
of the Law as to burial on the eve of that high Sabbath, the Jews
had sought to intensify the sufferings of Jesus. The text gives no
indication of this; and they could not have asked for the final stroke
to be inflicted without the ' breaking of the bones, ' which always
preceded it. The irony of this punctilious care for the letter of the
Law about burial and the high Sabbath by those who had betrayed
and crucified their Messiah on the first Passover-day is sufficiently
great, and, let us add, terrible, without importing ficticious elements.
St. John, who, perhaps, immediately on the death of Christ, left the
Cross, alone reports the circumstance. Perhaps it was when he con
certed with Joseph of Arimathsea, with Nicodemus, or the two
Marys, measures for the burying of Christ, that he learned of the
Jewish deputation to Pilate, followed it to Praetorium, and then
watched how it was all carried out on Golgotha. He records, how
Pilate acceded to the Jewish demand, and gave directions for the
crurifragium, and permission for the after-removal of the dead
bodies, which otherwise might have been left to hang, till putrescence
or birds of prey had destroyed them. But St. John also tells us
what he evidently regards as so great a prodigy that he specially
vouches for it, pledging his own veracity, as an eyewitness, and
grounding on it an appeal to the faith of those to whom his Gospel
is addressed. It is, that certain 'things came to pass [not as in
1 Comp. Friedlieb, Archaeol. d. Leidensgesch. pp. 163-168; but especially Nebe,
u. s. ii. pp. 394, 395.

614

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

• Ex. xii.
46; Numb.
ix. 12
b Pa. xxxiv.
20

¦¦ Zech. xii.
lu

¦i Sukk. 52 a
" Rev. i. 7

' St. John
xx. 27

our A.V., 'were done'] that the Scripture should be fulfilled,' or,
to put it otherwise, by which the Scripture was fulfilled. These
things were two, to which a third phenomenon, not less remarkable,
must be added. For, first, when, in the crurifragium, the soldiers
had broken the bones of two malefactors, and then came to the
Cross of Jesus, they found that He was dead already, and so ' a bone
of Him' was 'not broken.' Had it been otherwise, the Scripture
concerning the Paschal Lamb," as well that concerning the Right
eous Suffering Servant of Jehovah," would have been broken. In
Christ alone these two ideas of the Paschal Lamb and the Righteous
Suffering Servant of Jehovah are combined into a unity and fulfilled
in their highest meaning. And when, by a strange concurrence of
circumstances, it ' came to pass ' that, contrary to what might have been
expected, ' a bone of Him ' was ' not broken, ' this outward fact served
as the finger to point to the predictions which were fulfilled in Him.
Not less remarkable is the second fact. If, on the Cross of
Christ, these two fundamental ideas in the prophetic description
ofthe work ofthe Messiah had been set forth: the fulfilment of the
Paschal Sacrifice, which, as that of the Covenant, underlay all sacri
fices, and the fulfilment of the ideal of the Righteous Servant of God,
suffering in a world that hated God, and yet proclaiming and realising
His Kingdom, a third truth remained to be exhibited. It was not in
regard to the character, but the effects, of the Work of Christ — its
reception, alike in the present and in the future. This had been
indicated in the prophecies of Zechariah," which foretold how, in the
day of Israel's final deliverance and national conversion, God would
pour out the spirit of grace and of supplication, and as ' they shall
look on Him Whom they pierced, ' the spirit of true repentance would
be granted them, alike nationally and individually. The application
of this to Christ is the more striking, that even the Talmud refers
the prophecy to the Messiah/ And as these two things really applied
to Christ, alike in His rejection and in His future return," so did the
strange historical occurrence at His Crucifixion once more point to
it as the fulfilment of Scripture prophecy. For, although the soldiers,
on finding Jesus dead, broke not one of His Bones, yet, as it was
necessary to make sure of His Death, one of them, with a lance,
' pierced His Side, with a wound so deep, that Thomas might after
wards have thrust his hand into His Side/
And with these two, as fulfilling Holy Scripture, yet a third
phenomenon was associated, symbolic of both. As the soldier pierced
the side of the Dead Christ, ' forthwith came thereout Blood and

'THE WATER AND THE BLOOD.' 615
Water.' It has been thought by some,1 that there was physical chap.
cause for this — that Christ had literally died of a broken heart, and xv
that, when the lance pierced first the lung filled with blood and  < — ~
then the pericardium filled with serous fluid,2 there flowed from the
wound this double stream.3 In such cases, the lesson would be that
reproach had literally broken His Heart/ But we can scarcely >ps. lxix.
believe that St. John could have wished to convey this without
clearly setting it forth — thus assuming on the part of his readers
knowledge of an obscure, and, it must be added, a scientifically doubtful
phenomenon. Accordingly, we rather believe that to St. John, as to
most of us, the significance of the fact lay in this, that out of the
Body of One dead had flowed Blood and Water — that corruption had
not fastened on Him. Then, there would be the symbolic meaning
conveyed by the Water (from the pericardium) and the Blood (from
the heart) — a symbolism most true, if corruption had no power nor
hold on Him — if in Death He was not dead, if He vanquished Death
and Corruption, and in this respect also fulfilled the prophetic ideal
of not seeing corruption/ To this symbolic bearing of the flowing bps.xvt io
of Water and Blood from His pierced side, on which the Evangelist
dwells in his Epistle," and to its eternal expression in the symbolism °i John v. 6
of the two Sacraments, we can only point the thoughtful Christian.
For, the two Sacraments mean that Christ had come; that over Him,
Who was crucified for us and loved us unto death with His broken
heart, Death and Corruption had no power; and that He liveth for
us with the pardoning and cleansing power of His offered Sacrifice.
Vet one other scene remains to be recorded. Whether before,
or, more probably, after the Jewish deputation to the Roman Governor,
another and a strange application came to Pilate. It was from one
apparently well known, a man not only of wealth and standing,11 but *st. Mat-
whose noble bearing4 corresponded to his social condition, and who
was known as a just and a good man/ Joseph of Arimathaea was °st. Luke
a Sanhedrist,5 but he had not consented either to the counsel or
1 So, with various- modifications, which physical explanation is that given by the
need not here be detailed, first, Dr. Rev. 5.. Haughton, M.D., arid reprinted
Gruner (Comment. Antiq. Med. de Jesu in the Speaker's Commentary on 1 John,
Christi Morte, Hal. 1805), who, however, pp. 349, 350. It demonstrates, that this
regarded Jesus as not quite dead when phenomenon would take place, but only
the lance pierced the heart, and, of late, if a person who was also being crucified
Dr. Stroud (The Physical Cause of the died of rupture of the heart.
Death of Christ, 1871), and many inter- 4 This seems implied in the expression
preters (see Nebe, u. s. pp. 400, 401). evo-xVVa}v (A-v- 'honourable'), St
2 But certainly not through a separa- Mark xv. 43.
tion of the serum and the cruor, which 5 Taken in connection with St. Luke
is the mark of beginning putrefaction. xxiii. 51, thi3 is probably the meaning of
3 The fullest and most satisfactory fiovXEvrgi. Otherwise we would have

616

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

* St. John

the deed 'of his colleagues. It must have been generally known,
that he was one of those 'which waited for the Kingdom of God/
But he had advanced beyond what that expression implies. Although
secretly, for fear of the Jews: " he was a disciple of Jesus. It is in
strange contrast to this ' fear,' that St. Mark tells us, that, 'having
dared,' 1 ' he went in unto Pilate and asked for the Body of Jesus.'
Thus, under circumstances the most unlikely and unfavourable,
were his fears converted into boldness, and he, whom fear of the
Jews had restrained from making open avowal of discipleship dur
ing the life-time of Jesus, not only professed such of the Crucified
Christ,2 but took the most bold and decided step before Jews and
Gentiles in connection with it. So does trial elicit faith, and the
wind, which quenches the feeble flame that plays around the outside,
fan into brightness the fire that burns deep within, though for a
time unseen. Joseph of Arimathasa, now no longer a secret disciple,
but bold in the avowal of his reverent love, would show to the
Dead Body of his Master all veneration. And the Divinely ordered
concurrence of circumstances not only helped his pious purpose, but
invested all with deepest symbolic significance. It was Friday
afternoon, and the Sabbath was drawing near/ No time therefore
was to be lost, if due honour were to be paid to the Sacred Body.
Pilate gave it to Joseph of Arimathsea. Such was within his power,
and a favour not unfrequently accorded in like circumstances/ But
two things must have powerfully impressed the Roman Governor,
and deepened his former thoughts about Jesus: first, that the death
on the Cross had taken place so rapidly, a circumstance on which he
personally questioned the Centurion," and then the bold appearance
and request of such a man as Joseph of Arimathsea/ Or did the
Centurion express to the Governor also some such feeling as that
which had found utterance under the Cross in the words: 'Truly
this Man was the Son of God ' ?

regarded him rather as a member of ' the
Council of Priests ' (Beth Din shel
Kohanim, Kethub. i. 5) which met in
what anciently was called the Lishkath
Bulvatin (Chamber of Councillors) in
the Temple (Jer. Yoma 38 c; Yoma 8 b).
The Greek work itself has passed into
Rabbinic language as Bulyutos, and in
other modifications of the word.
1 roXprjaai.
2 At the same time I feel, that this
might have been represented by the Jews
as not quite importing what it really
was — as rather an act of pietas towards

the Rabbi of Nazareth than of homage to
the Messiahship of Jesus.
3 The rjpipa TtapaaKEvfji in connec
tion with 'the Sabbath' (St Luke xxiii. 54)
shows, that the former expression refers
to ' the preparation ' for the Sabbath, or
the Friday.
* See the proof in Wetstein, ad loc.
6 The Arimathaea of Joseph is probably
the modern Er-Ram, two hours north of
Jerusalem, on a conical hill, somewhat
east of the road that leads from Jeru
salem to Nablus (Jos. Ant. viii. 12. 3)--
the Armathaim of the LXX. The ob-

THE ENTOMBMENT IN THE GARDEN.

617

The proximity of the holy. Sabbath, and the consequent need of chap.
haste, may have suggested or determined the proposal of Joseph XV
to lay the Body of Jesus in his own rock-hewn new tomb,1 wherein v— — v 
no one had yet been laid." The symbolic significance of this is the *st. Luke
more marked, that the symbolism was undesigned. These rock-
hewn sepulchres, and ¦ the mode of laying the dead in them, have
been very fully described in connection with the burying of Lazarus/
We may therefore wholly surrender ourselves to the sacred thoughts
that gather around us. The Cross was lowered and laid on the ground ;
the cruel nails drawn out, and the ropes unloosed. Joseph, with
those who attended him, ' wrapped ' the Sacred Body ' in a clean
linen cloth,' and rapidly carried It to the rock-hewn tomb in the
garden close by. Such a rock-hewn tomb or cave (Meartha) had
niches (Eukhin), where the dead were laid. It will be remembered,
that at the entrance to ' the tomb ' — and within ' the rock ' — there
was ' a court, ' nine feet square, where ordinarily the bier was de
posited, and its bearers gathered to do the last offices for the Dead.
Thither we suppose Joseph to have carried the Sacred Body, and
then the last scene to have taken place. For now another, kindred
to Joseph in spirit, history, and position, had come. The same spi
ritual Law, which had brought Joseph to open confession, also con
strained the profession of that other Sanhedrist, Nicodemus. We
remember, how at the first he had, from fear of detection, come to
Jesus by night, and with what bated breath he had pleaded with his
colleagues not so much the cause of Christ, as on His behalf that of
law and justice." He now came, bringing ' a roll ' of myrrh and ^Jonn
aloes, in the fragrant mixture well known to the Jews for purposes of
anointing or burying.
It was in ' the court ' of the tomb that the hasty embalmment — if
such it may be called— took place. None of Christ's former disciples
seem to have taken part in the burying. John may have withdrawn
to bring tidings to, and to comfort the Virgin-Mother; the others
jections of Keim (which it would take inconsistent with the notice in St. John
too long to discuss in a note) are of no xix. 42. I really cannot see any incon-
force (comp. his Jesu von Naz. iii. sistency, nor does his omission of the
p. 516). It is one of the undesigned fact that the tomb was Joseph's seem to
evidences of the accuracy of St. Luke, me fatal. The narrative of St. John
that he described it as belonging to is concentrated on the burying rather
Judaea. For, whereas Ramah in Mount than its accessories. Professor Westcott
Ephraim originally belonged to Samaria, thinks that St. John xix. 41, implies
it was afterwards separated from the 'that the sepulchre in which the Lord
latter and joined to the province of Judaea was laid was not chosen as His final
(comp. 1 Mace. x. 38; xi. 28, 34). resting-place.' But of this also I do not
J Meyer regards the statement of St. perceive evidence.
Matthew to that effect (xxvii. 60) as 2 See Book IV. ch. xxi.

618

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ St. Luke

« Sanh. 47 b
« Ohai. ii 4

also, that had ' stood afar off, beholding, ' appear to have left. Only
a few faithful ones," notably among them Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary, the mother of Joses, stood over against the tomb,
watching at some distance where and how the Body of Jesus was
laid. It would scarcely have been in accordance with Jewish
manners, if these women had mingled more closely with the two
Sanhedrists and their attendants. From where they stood they
could only have had a dim view of what passed within the court,
and this may explain how, on their return, they ' prepared spices and
ointments ' " for the more full honours which they hoped to pay the
Dead after the Sabbath was past.1 - For, it is of the greatest import
ance to remember, that haste characterised all that was done. It
seems as if the ' clean linen cloth ' in which the Body had been
wrapped, was now torn into ' cloths ' or swathes, into which the Body,
limb by limb, was now ' bound, ' 2 no doubt, between layers of myrrh
and aloes, the Head being wrapped in a napkin. And so they laid
Him to rest in the niche of the rock-hewn new tomb. And as they
went out, they rolled, as was the custom, a ' great stone ' — the Golel
— to close the entrance to the tomb," probably leaning against it for
support, as was the practice, a smaller stone— the so-called Dopheq.d
It would be where the one stone was laid against the other, that on
the next day, Sabbath though it was, the Jewish authorities would
have affixed the seal, so that the slightest disturbance might become
apparent/

' It was probably about the same time, that a noisy throng prepared
(at the burying of Lazarus). In later
times there was a regular rubric and
prayers with Kabbalistic symbolism (see
Perles, Leichenfeierlichk. p. 11, Note
12). No doubt, the wounds in the Sacred
Body of our Lord had been washed from
their gore.
2 The Synoptists record, that the Body
of Jesus was ' wrapped ' in a ' linen
cloth'; St. John tells us that it was
'bound' with the aloes and myrrh of
Nicodemus into 'swathes' or 'cloths,'
even as they were found afterwards in
the empty tomb, and by their side ' the
napkin,' or soudarion, for the head. I
have tried to combine the account of the
Synoptists and that of St. John into a
continuous narrative.
3 But it must be admitted, that there-
are difficulties on this particular. See
the remarks on this point at pp. 623 and
631, but especially pp, 636, 637.

1 St. John computes it at about 100
litras. As in "all likelihood this would
refer to Roman pounds, of about twelve
ounces each, the amount is large, but not
such as to warrant any reasonable ob
jection. A servant could easily carry it,
and it is not said that it was all used in
the burying. If it were possible to find any
similar use of the expression (Xirpai),
one might be tempted to regard the
litras as indicating not the weight, but
a coin. In that sense the word litra is
used, soriietimes as = 100 denars, in
which case 100 litras would be = about
250 Z.,but more frequently as=4 drachms,
in which case 100 litras would be=about '
121. (comp. Herzfeld, Handelsgesch. p.
181). But the linguistic difficulty seems
very great, while any possible objection
to the weight of the spices is really in
considerable. For the kind of spices
used in the burying, see Book IV. ch. xxi.

THE CUTTING OF THE 'WAVE-SHEAF.'

619

to follow delegates from the Sanhedrin to the ceremony of cutting chap.
the Passover-sheaf. The Law had it, "he shall bring a sheaf [lite- XV
rally, the Omer] with the first-fruits of your harvest, unto the ^-^y-^
priest; and he shall wave the Omer before Jehovah, to be accepted
for you." This Passover-sheaf was reaped in public the evening
before it was offered, and it was to witness this ceremony that the
crowd had gathered around the elders. Already on the 14th Nisan
the spot whence the first sheaf was to be reaped had been marked
out, by tying together in bundles, while still standing, the barley
that was to be cut down, according to custom, in the sheltered Ashes-
Valley across Kidron. When the time for cutting the sheaf had
arrived — that is, on the evening of the 15th Nisan, even though it
were a Sabbath, just as the sun went down, three men, each with a
sickle and basket, set to work. Clearly to bring out what was dis
tinctive in the ceremony, they first asked of the bystanders three
times each of these questions : " Has the sun gone down ? " " With this
sickle? " " Into this basket? " "On this Sabbath? (or first Passover-
day) " — and, lastly, ' ' Shall I reap? " Having each time been answered
in the affirmative, they cut down barley to the amount of one ephah,
or about three pecks and three pints of our English measure. This
is not the place to follow the ceremony farther — how the corn was
threshed out, parched, ground, and one omer of the flour, mixed
with oil and frankincense, waved before the Lord in the Temple on
the second Paschal day (or 16th of Nisan). But, as this festive
procession started, amidst loud demonstrations, a small band of
mourners turned from having laid their dead Master in His resting-
place. The contrast is as sad as it is suggestive. And yet, not in
the Temple, nor by the priest, but in the silence of that garden-
tomb, was the first Omer of the new Paschal flour to be waved before
the Lord.'1
' Now on the morrow, which is after the preparation [the Friday],
the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto
Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He
was yet alive, After three days I rise again. Command, therefore,
that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply His
disciples come and steal Him away, and say unto the people, He is
risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
Pilate said unto them, Take a guard, go your way, make it as sure as
1 See 'The Temple and its Services,' pp. 221-224.

620 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the
V stone, the guard being with them. '
But was there really need for it? Did they, who had spent what
remained of daylight to prepare spices wherewith to anoint the Dead
Christ, expect His Body to be removed, or did they expect — perhaps
in their sorrow even think of His word: ' I rise again ' ? But on that
holy Sabbath, when the Sanhedrists were thinking of how to make
sure of the Dead Christ, what were the thoughts of Joseph of
Arimathsea and Nicodemus, of Peter and John, of the other disciples,
and especially of the loving women who only waited for the first
streak of Easter-light to do their last service of love? What were
their thoughts of God — what of Christ — what of the Words He had
spoken, the Deeds He had wrought, the salvation He had come to
bring, and the Kingdom of Heaven which He was to open to all
believers? Behind Him had closed the gates of Hades; but upon them rather
than upon Him had fallen the shadows of death. Yet they still loved
Him — and stronger than death was love.

THE MIRACLE OF THE RESURRECTION. 621

CHAPTER XVI.
ON THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST FROM THE DEAD.
The history of the Life of Christ upon earth closes with a Miracle as chap.
great as that of its inception. It may be said that the one casts XVI
light upon the other. If He was what the Gospels represent Him, v— > —
He must have been born of a pure Virgin, without sin, and He must
have risen from the Dead. If the story of His Birth be true, we can
believe that of His Resurrection; if that of His Resurrection be true,
we can believe that of His Birth. In the nature of things, the latter
was incapable of strict historical proof; and, in the nature of things,
His Resurrection demanded and was capable of the fullest historical
evidence. If such exists, the keystone is given to the arch; the
miraculous Birth becomes almost a necessary postulate, and Jesus is
the Christ in the full sense of the Gospels. And yet we mark, as
another parallel point between the account of the miraculous Birth
and that of the Resurrection, the utter absence of details as regards
these events themselves. If this circumstance may tbe taken as in
direct evidence that they were not legendary, it also imposes on us
the duty of observing the reverent silence so well-befitting the case,
and not intruding beyond the path which the Evangelic narrative has
opened to us.
That path is sufficiently narrow, and in some respects difficult;
not, indeed, as to the great event itself, nor as to its leading features,
but as to the more minute details. And here, again, our difficulties
arise, not so much from any actual disagreement, as from the ab
sence of actual identity. Much of this is owing to the great compres
sion in the various narratives, due partly to the character of the
event narrated, partly to the incomplete information possessed by
the narrators — of whom only one was strictly an eyewitness, but
chiefly to this, that to the different narrators the central point of
interest lay in one or the other aspect of the circumstances connected
with the Resurrection. Not only St. Matthew,1 but also St. Luke, so
1 So Canon Westcott.

12

622 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK compresses the narrative that ' the distinction of points of time ' is
V almost effaced. St. Luke seems to crowd into the Easter Evening
-- — ->  ' what himself tells us occupied forty days/ His is, so to speak, the
« Acts. i. 3 pre-eminently Jerusalem account of the evidence of the Resurrec
tion; that of St. Matthew the pre-eminently Galilean account of it.
Yet each implies and corroborates the facts of the other.1 In general
we ought to remember, that the Evangelists, and afterwards St. Paul,
are not so much concerned to narrate the whole history of the Resur
rection as to furnish the evidence for it. And here what is distinc
tive in each is also characteristic of his special view-point. St.
Matthew describes the impression ofthe full evidence of that Easter
morning on friend and foe, and then hurries us from the Jerusalem
stained with Christ's Blood back to the sweet Lake and the blessed
Mount where first He spake. It is, as if he longed to realise the
Risen Christ in the scenes where he had learned to know Him. St.
Mark, who is much more brief, gives not only a mere summary,2 but,
if one might use the expression, tells it as from the bosom of the
Acta xii. Jerusalem family, from the house of his mother Mary." St. Luke
seems to have made most full inquiry as to all the facts of the Resur
rection, and his narrative might almost be inscribed: 'Easter Day
in Jerusalem.' St. John paints such scenes — during the whole forty
days, whether in Jerusalem or Galilee — as were most significant and
teachful of this threefold lesson of his Gospels: that Jesus was the
Christ, that He was the Son of God, and that, believing, we have life
in His Name. Lastly, St. Paul — as one born out of due time — pro
duces the testimony of the principal witnesses to the fact, in a kind
«i cor. xv. of ascending climax/ And this the more effectively, that he is evi
dently aware of the difficulties and the import of the question, and has
taken pains to make himself acquainted with all the facts of the case.
1 The reader who is desirous of further ness of these verses. The reader" may
studying this point is referred to the here be referred to Canon Cook's 'Revised
admirable analysis by Canon Westcott in Version of the first three Gospels,' pp.
his notes prefatory to St. John xx. At 120-125, but especially to the masterly
the same time I must respectfully express and exhaustive work by Dean Burgon
dissent from his arrangement of some of on ' The last twelve verses of , the Gospel
the events connected with the Resurrec- according to St Mark.' At the same
tion (u. s., p. 288 a). time I would venture to say, that Dean
2 I may here state that I accept the Burgon has not attached sufficient im-
genuineness of the concluding portion of portance to the adverse impression made
St. Mark (xvi. '9-20). If, on internal by the verses in question on the ground
grounds, it must be admitted that it of internal evidence (see his chapter on
reads like a postscript; on the other the subject, pp. 136-190). And it must
hand, without it the section would read be confessed, that, whichever view we-
like a mutilated document. This is not may ultimately adopt, the subject is beset
the place to discuss the grounds on with considerable difficulties.
which I have finally accepted the genuine-

4-8

THE EXPECTATION OF THE DISCIPLES. 623
The question is of such importance, alike in itself and as regards CHAP.
this whole history, that a discussion, however brief and even im- XVI
perfect,* preliminary to the consideration ofthe Evangelic narrations,  1  '
seems necessary. . .
What thoughts concerning the Dead Christ filled the minds of
Joseph of Arimathsea, of Nicodemus, and of the other disciples of
Jesus, aa well as of the Apostles and of the pious women? They
believed Him to be dead, and they did not expect Him to rise again
from the .dead — at least, in our accepted sense of it. Of this there
is abundant evidence from the, moment of His Death, in the burial-
spices brought by Nicodemus, in those prepared by the women (both
of which were intended as against corruption), in the sorrow of the
women at the empty tomb, in their supposition that the Body had
been removed, in the perplexity and bearing of the Apostles, in the
doubts of so many, and indeed in. the express statement: ' For as
yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the
dead." And the notice in St. Matthew's Gospel," that the Sanhe- j|Y°hn
drists had taken precautions against His Body being stolen, so as to » st. Matt.
give the appearance of fulfilment to His prediction that He would
rise again after three days2 — that, therefore, they knew of such a
prediction, and took it in the literal sense — would give only more
emphasis to the opposite bearing of the disciples and their manifest
non-expectancy of a literal Resurrection. What the disciples ex
pected, perhaps wished, was not Christ's return in glorified corporeity,
but His Second Coming in glory into His Kingdom.
But if they regarded Him as really dead and not to rise again in
the literal sense, this had evidently no practical effect, not only on
their former feelings towards Him, but even on their faith in Him as
the promised. Messiah/ This appears from the conduct of Joseph.
and Nicodemus, from the language of the women, and from the
whole bearing of the Apostles and disciples. All this must have
been very different, if they had regarded the Death of Christ, even
on the Cross, as having given the lie to His Messianic Claims/ On
1 I have purposely omitted detailed re- to Emmaus (St. Luke xxiv. 21): 'But
ferences to, and refutation of the argu- we trusted that it was He Which should
ments of opponents. redeem Israel,' refers only to the dis-
2 But it must be truthfully admitted appointment of their Jewish hopes of a
that there is force in some, though not in present Messianic Kingdom.
all, the objections urged against this * It can scarcely be supposed, that
incident by Meyer and others. It need their whole ideas of His Messiahship had
scarcely be said that this would in no in those few hours undergone a complete
way invalidate the truth of the narrative, change, and that in a philosophico-ration-
Further than this, which we unhesitat- alistic direction, such as would have been
ingly state, we cannot at present enter absolutely and wholly foreign to minds
on" the question. See pp. 636, 637. and training like theirs.
3 The statement ofthe two on the way

624

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

the contrary, the impression left on our minds is, that, although they
deeply grieved over the loss of their Master, and the seeming triumph
of His foes,* yet His Death came to them not unexpectedly, but
rather as of internal necessity and as the fulfilment of His often re
peated prediction. Nor can we wonder at this, since He had, ever
since the Transfiguration, laboured, against all their resistance and
reluctance, to impress on them the fact of His Betrayal and Death.
He had, indeed — although by no means so frequently or clearly — also
referred to His Resurrection. But of this they might, according to
their Jewish ideas, form a very different conception from that of a
literal Resurrection of that Crucified Body in a glorified state, and
yet capable of such terrestrial intercourse as the Risen Christ held
with them. And if it be objected that, in such case, Christ must
have clearly taught them all this, it is sufficient to answer, that there
was no need for such clear teaching on the point at that time; that
the event itself would soon and best teach them; that it would have
been impossible really, to teach it, except by the event; and that
any attempt at it would have involved a far fuller communication on
this mysterious subject than, to judge from what is told us in Scrip
ture, it was the purpose of Christ to impart in our present state of
faith and expectancy. Accordingly, from their point of view, the
prediction of Christ might have referred to the continuance of His
Work, to His Vindication, or to some apparition of Him, whether
from heaven or on earth — such as that of the saints in Jerusalem
after the Resurrection, or that of Elijah in Jewish belief — but espe
cially to His return in glory; certainly, not to the Resurrection as it
actually took place. The fact itself would be quite foreign to Jewish
ideas, which embraced the continuance of the soul after death and
the final resurrection of the body, but not a state of spiritual corpo
reity, far less, under conditions such as those described in the Gospels.1
Elijah, who is so constantly introduced in Jewish tradition, is never
represented as sharing in meals or offering his body for touch; nay,
the Angels who visited Abraham are represented as only making
show of, not really, eating.2 Clearly, the Apostles had not learned

1 But even if a belief in His Resurrec
tion had been a requirement in their
faith, as Keim rightly remarks, such
realistic demonstration of it would not
have been looked for. Herod Antipas
did not search the tomb of the Baptist
when he believed him risen from the
dead — how much more should the dis
ciples of Christ have been satisfied with
evidence far less realistic and frequent
than that described in the Gospels. This

consideration shows that there was no
motive for inventing the details con
nected with the history of the Resurrec
tion. 2 So Josephus (Ant. xi. 1. 2), and, to
show that this was not a rationalistic
view, Baba Mets. 65 6, Ber. R. 48. Later
tradition (Tos. to B. Mets. ; Bemidb. R.
10), indeed, seems to admit the literal
eating, but as representing travellers, and
in acknowledgment of Abraham's hos-

THE EVIDENCES OF THE RESURRECTION. 625
the Resurrection of Christ either from the Scriptures— and this CHAP.
proves that the narrative of it was not intended as a fulfilment of XVI
previous expectancy — nor yet from the predictions of Christ to that ' — - ~— '
effect; although without the one, and especially without the other,
the empty grave would scarcely have wrought in them the assured
conviction ofthe Resurrection of Christ.1
This brings us to the real question in hand. Since the Apostles
and others evidently believed Him to be dead, and expected not His
Resurrection, and since the fact of His Death was not to them a
formidable, if any, objection to His Messianic Character — such as
might have induced them to invent or imagine a Resurrection — how
are we to account for the history of the Resurrection with all its
details in all the four Gospels and by St. Paul? The details, or
' signs ' are clearly intended as evidences to all of the reality of the
Resurrection, without which it would not have been believed; and
their multiplication and variety must, therefore, be considered as
indicating what otherwise would have been not only numerous but
insuperable difficulties. Similarly, the language of St. Paul a implies »aai. lis
a careful and searching inquiry on his part; z .the more rational,
that, besides intrinsic difficulties and Jewish preconceptions against
it, the objections to the fact must have been so often and coarsely
obtruded on him, whether in disputation or by the jibes of the Greek
scholars and students who derided his preaching." ^2Aots xvli-
Hence, the question to be faced is this: Considering their
previous state of mind and the absence of any motive, how are we to
account for the change of mind on the part of the disciples in regard
to the Resurrection? There can at least be no question, that they
came to believe, and with the most absolute certitude, in the Resur
rection as an historical fact; nor yet, that it formed the basis and
substance of all their preaching of the Kingdom; nor yet, that St.
Paul, up to his conversion a bitter enemy of Christ, was fully per
suaded of it; nor — to go a step back — that Jesus Himself expected
it. Indeed, the world would not have been converted to a dead Jewish
Christ, however His intimate disciples might have continued to love
His memory. But they preached everywhere, first and foremost,
the Resurrection from the dead! In the language of St. Paul: 'If
Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith
also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God ... ye
pitality. Onkelos simply renders liter- ' This is well argued by Weiss, Leben
ally, but the Targum Pseudo-Jon. seema Jesu, vol. ii. p. 608.
purposely to leave the point undeter- 2 This is conveyed by the verb
mined. iaropim.

626 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK are yet in your sins. ' " We must here dismiss what probably under-
v lies the chief objection to the Resurrection: its miraculous character.
^- — '~~" The objection to Miracles, as such, proceeds on that false Supra-
u IsW' naturalism, which traces a Miracle to the immediate fiat of the
Almighty without any intervening links; : and, as already shown, it
involves a vicious petitio principii. But, after all, the Miraculous
is only the to us unprecedented and uncognisable — a very narrow
basis on which to refuse historical investigation. And the historian
has to account for the undoubted fact, that the Resurrection was the
fundamental personal conviction of the Apostles and disciples, the
basis of their preaching, and the final support of their martyrdom.
What explanation then can be offered of it?
1. We may here put aside two hypotheses, now universally dis
carded even in Germany, and which probably have never been
seriously entertained in this country. They are that of gross fraud
on the part of the disciples, who had stolen the Body of Jesus — as
to which even Strauss remarks, that such a falsehood is wholly
incompatible with their after-life, heroism, and martyrdom; — and
again this, that Christ had not been really dead when taken from
the Cross, and that He gradually revived again. Not to speak of
the many absurdities which this theory involves,2 it really shifts — if
we acquit the disciples of complicity — the fraud upon Christ Himself.
2. The only other explanation, worthy of attention, is the so-
called 'Vision-hypothesis:' that the Apostles really believed in the
Resurrection, but that mere visions of Christ had wrought in them
this belief. The hypothesis has been variously modified. According to
some, these visions were the outcome of an excited imagination, of a
morbid state of.the nervous system. To this there is, of course, the
preliminary objection, that such visions presuppose a previous ex
pectancy of the event, which, as we know, is the opposite of the fact.
Again, such a ' Vision-hypothesis ' in no way agrees with the many
details and circumstances narrated in connection with the Risen One,
Who is described as having appeared not only to one or another in
the retirement ofthe chamber, but to many, and in a manner and
circumstances which render the idea of a mere vision impossible.
Besides, the visions of an excited imagination would not have
endured and led to such results; most probably they would soon
have given place to corresponding depression.
- ] The whole subject of miracles requires 2 Such as this, how with pierced Feet
fuller and clearer treatment than it has He could have gone to Emmaus.
yet received.

' THE VISION-HYPOTHESIS.'

627

The ' Yision-hypothesis ' is not much improved, if we regard the
supposed vision as the result of reflection — that the disciples, con
vinced that the Messiah could not remain dead (and this again is con
trary to fact) had wrought themselves first into a persuasion that He
must rise, and then into visions of the Risen * One. Nor yet would
it commend itself more to our mind, if we were to assume that these
visions had been directly sent from God Himself,2 to attest the fact
that Christ lived. For, we have here to deal with a series of facts that
cannot be so explained, such as the showing them His Sacred Wounds;
the offer to touch them; the command to handle Him, so as to convince
themselves of His real corporeity; the eating with the disciples; the
appearance by the Lake of Galilee, and others. . Besides, the ' Vision-
hypothesis ' has to account for the events of the Easter-morning, and

CHAP. xvi

1 This argument might, of course, be
variously elaborated, and the account in
the Gospels represented as the form
which it afterwards took in the belief of
the Church. But (a) the whole ' Vision-
hypothesis ' is shadowy and unreal, and
the sacred writers themselves show that
they knew the distinction between visions
and real appearances; (6) it is impossible
to reconcile it with such occurrences as
that in St. Luke xxiv. 38-43 and St.
John xxi. 13, and, if possible, even more
so, to set aside all these details as the
outcome of later tradition, for which
there was no other basis than the desire
of vindicating a vision ; (c) it is incom
patible with the careful inquiry of St.
Paul, who, as on so many other occasions,
is here a most important witness, (d) The
theory involves the most arbitrary hand
ling of the Gospel-narratives, such as that
the Apostles had at once returned to
Galilee, where the sight of the familiar
scenes had kindled in them -this enthu
siasm; that all the notices about the
* third day ' are to be rejected, &c. (e).
What was so fundamental a belief as that
of the Resurrection could not have had
its origin in a delusive vision. This, as
Keimhas shown, would be incompatible
with the calm clearness of conviction and
strong purpose of action which were its
outcome. Besides, are we to believe tbat
theenthusiasm had first seized thewomen,
then the Apostles, and so on ? But how,
in that case, about the 500 of whom St.
Paul speaks? They could scarcely all
have been seized with the same mania.
(/) A mere vision is unthinkable under
such circumstances as the walk to Em-
mans, the conversation with Thomas,

with Peter, &c. Besides, it is incom
patible with the giving of such definite
promises by the Risen Christ as that of
the Holy Spirit, and of such detailed
directions as that of Evangelising the
world, (g) Lastly, as Keim points out,
it is incompatible with the fact that these
manifestations ceased with the Ascension.
We have eight or at most nine such mani
festations in the course of six weeks, and
then they suddenly and permanently
cease! This would not accord with the
theory of visions on the part of excited
enthusiasts. But were the Apostles
such ? Does not the perusal of the
Gospel-narratives leave on the impartial
reader exactly the opposite impression ?
2 'These two modes of accounting for
the narrative of the Resurrection: by
fraud, and that Christ's was not real death,
were already attempted by Celsus, 1700
years ago, and the first, by the Jews long
before tbat. Keim has subjected them,
as modified by different advocates, to a
searching criticism, and, with keen irony,
exhibited their utter absurdity. In re
gard to the supposition of fraud he says:
it shows that not even the faintest idea of
the holy conviction of the Apostles and
first Christians has penetrated hardened
spirits. The objection that the Risen One
had only manifested Himself to friends,
not before enemies, is also as old as
Celsus. It ignores that, throughout, the
revelation of Christ does not supersede,
but imply faith; that there is no such
thing in Christianity as forcing convic
tion, instead of eliciting faith ; and that
the purpose of the manifestations of the
Risen Christ was to confirm, to comfort,
and to teach His disciples. As for His

628

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

especially for the empty tomb from which the great stone had been
rolled, and in which the very cerements 1 of death were seen by those
who entered it. In fact, such a narrative as that recorded by St. Luke "
seems almost designed to render the ' Vision-hypothesis ' impossible.
We are expressly told, that the appearance of the Risen Christ, so far
from meeting their anticipations, had affrighted them, and that they
had thought it spectral, on which Christ had reassured them, and bidden
them handle Him, for ' a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me
having. ' Lastly, who removed the Body of Christ from the tomb ? Six
weeks afterwards, Peter preached the Resurrection of Christ in Jeru
salem. If Christ's enemies had removed the Body, they could easily
have silenced Peter; if His friends, they would have been guilty of
such fraud, as not even Strauss deems possible in the circumstances.
The theories of deception, delusion,2 and vision being thus impos
sible, and the a priori objection to the fact, as involving a Miracle,
being a petitio principii, the historical student is shut up to the
simple acceptance of the narrative. To this conclusion the unpre-
paredness of the disciples, their previous opinions, their new testi
mony unto martyrdom, the foundation of the Christian Church, the
testimony of so many, singly and in company, and the series of re
corded manifestations during forty days, and in such different cir
cumstances, where mistake was impossible, had already pointed with
unerring certainty/ And even if slight discrepancies, nay, some
not strictly historical details, which might have been the outcome of
earliest tradition in the Apostolic Church, could be shown in those
accounts which were not of eyewitnesses, it would assuredly not

enemies, the Lord had expressly declared
that they would not see Him again till
the judgment.
1 Exaggeration would, of course, be
here out of the question.
2 The most deeply painful, but also
interesting study is that of the conclusion
at which Keim ultimately arrives (Gesch.
Jesu v. Naz. iii. pp. 600-605). It has
already been stated with -what merciless
irony he exposes the fraud and the non-
death theory, as well as the arguments of
Strauss. The 'Vision-hypothesis' he
seems at first to advocate with consider
able ingenuity and rhetorical power. And
he succeeds in this the more easily, that,
alas, he surrenders — although most ar
bitrarily — almost every historical detail
in the narrative of the Resurrection ! And
yet what is the result at which he ulti
mately arrives t He shows, perhaps more
conclusively than any one else, that the
'vision-hypothesis' is also impossible!

Having done so, he virtually admits that
he cannot offer any explanation as to ' the
mysterious exit' of the life of Jesus.
Probably the visions of the Risen Christ
were granted directly by God Himself
and by the glorified Christ (p. 602).
' Nay, even the bodily appearance itself
may be conceded to those who without
it fear to lose all ' (p. 6031. But from
this there is but a very small step to the
teaching of .the Church. At any rate,
the greatest of negative critics has, by
the admission of his inability to explain
the Resurrection in a natural manner,
given the fullest confirmation to the fun
damental article of our Christian faith.
3 Reuss (Hist. Evang. p. 698) well re
marks, that if this fundamental dogma
of the Church had been the outcome of
invention, care would have been taken
that the accounts of it should be in the
strictest and most literal agreement.

'THE LORD IS RISEN INDEED.'

629

invalidate the great fact itself, which may unhesitatingly be pro- chap.
nounced that best established in history. At the same time we xvi
would carefully guard ourselves against the admission that those v— -^ 
hypothetical flaws really exist in the narratives. On the contrary,
we believe them capable of the most satisfactory arrangement, unless
under the strain of hypercriticism.
The importance of all this cannot be adequately expressed in
words. A dead Christ might have been a Teacher and Wonder
worker, and remembered and loved as such. But only a Risen and
Living Christ could be the Saviour, the Life, and the Life-Giver —
and as such preached to all men. And of this most blessed truth
we have the fullest and most unquestionable evidence. We can,
therefore, implicitly yield ourselves to the impression of these narra
tives, and, still more, to the realisation of that most sacred and
blessed fact. This is the foundation of the Church, the inscription
on the banner of her armies, the strength and comfort of every
Christian heart, and the grand hope of humanity:
'The Lord is risen indeed.' x
1 Godet aptly concludes his able dis- Christ's Resurrection, we may add, that
cussion of the subject by observing that, this faith of the Apostles would have
if Strauss admits that the Church would never arisen unless the Resurrection had
have never arisen if the Apostles had not been a true historical fact.
had unshaken faith in the reality of

630

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

> St. Luke
xxiv. 10
<> St. John
xx. 1

CHAPTER XVII.
'ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD; HE ASCENDED INTO
HEAVEN. '
(St. Matt, xxviii. 1-10; St. Mark xvi. 1-11; St. Luke xxiv. 1-12; St. John xx. 1-18;
St. Matt, xxviii. 11-15; St. Mark xvi. 12, 13; St. Luke xxiv. 13-35; 1 Cor. xv. 5;
St. Mark xvi. 14; St. Luke xxiv. 36-43; St. John xx. 19-25; St. John xx. 26-29;
St. Matt, xxviii. 16 ; St. John xxi. 1-24 ; St. Matt, xxviii. 17-20 ; St. Mark xvi.
15-18; 1 Cor. xv. 6; St. Luke xxiv. 44-53; St. Mark xvi. 19, 20; Acts i. 3-12.)
Grey dawn was streaking the sky, when they who had so lovingly
watched Him to His Burying were making their lonely way to the
rock-hewn Tomb in the Garden.1 Considerable as are the diffi
culties of exactly harmonising the details in the various narratives —
if, indeed, importance attaches to such attempts — we are thankful
to know that any hesitation only attaches to the arrangement of
minute particulars/ and not to the great facts of the case. And
even these minute details would, as we shall have occasion to show,
be harmonious, if only we knew all the circumstances.
The difference, if such it may be called, in the names of the
women, who at early morn went to the Tomb, scarce requires
elaborate discussion. It may have been, that there were two parties,
starting from different places to meet at the Tomb, and that this also
accounts for the slight difference in the details of what they saw and
heard at the Grave. At any rate, the mention of the two Marys and
Joanna is supplemented in St. Luke a by that of the ' other women
with them,' while, if St. John speaks only of Mary Magdalene," her
report to Peter and John: ' We know not where they have laid Him,'
implies, that she had not gone alone to the Tomb. It was the first
day of the week 3 — according to Jewish reckoning the third day from

1 I must remain uncertain, however
important, whether the oiph crafifidToav
refers to Saturday evening or early
Sunday morning.
2 The reader who is desirous of com
paring the different views about these
seeming or real small discrepancies is
referred to the various Commentaries.
On the strictly orthodox side the most

elaborate and learned attempt at concili
ation is that by Mr. McClellan (New Test,
Harmony of the Four Gospels, pp. 508-
538), although his ultimate scheme of
arrangement seems to me too composite.
3 pia a a/3 fidr ear, an expression which
exactly answers to the Rabbinic "inX
n3M.

of page
a Ber. E. 91

THE WOMEN AT THE SEPULCHRE. 631
His Death.1 The narrative leaves the impression that the Sabbath's chap.
rest had delayed their visit to the Tomb; but it is at least a curious xvii
coincidence that the relatives and friends of the deceased were in the '  ,  •
habit of going to the grave up to the third day (when presumably
corruption was supposed to begin), so as to make sure that those laid
there were really dead. a Commenting on this, that Abraham descried * Mass.
Mount Moriah on the third day," the Rabbis insist on the importance vuT^Md
of 'the third day' in various events connected with Israel, and *GenxxlL
specially speak of it in connection with the resurrection of the dead,
referring in proof to Hos. vi. 2/ In another place, appealing to the °Ber. k. se,
same prophetic saying, they infer from Gen. xiii. 17, that God never p?ioTm?p
leaves the just more than three days in anguish/ In mourning also
the third day formed a sort of period, because it was thought that the
soul hovered round the body till the third day, when it finally parted
from its earthly tabernacle/ -MoedK.
i 28 6 : Ber-
Although these things are here mentioned, we need scarcely say R- i°o
that no such thoughts were present with the holy mourners who, in
the grey of that Sunday-morning,2 went to the Tomb. Whether or
not there were two groups of women who started from different places
to meet at the Tomb, the most prominent figure among them was
Mary Magdalene3 — as prominent among the pious women as Peter
was among the Apostles. She seems to have first reached the Grave,2
and, seeing the great stone that had covered its entrance rolled away,
hastily judged that the Body of the Lord had been removed. With
out waiting for further inquiry, she ran back to inform Peter and John
of the fact. The Evangelist here explains, that there had been a
great earthquake, and that the Angel of the Lord, to human sight as
lightning and in brilliant white garment, had rolled back the stone,
and sat upon it, when the guard, affrighted by what they heard and
saw, and especially by the look and attitude of heavenly power in the
Angel, had been seized with mortal faintness. Remembering the
events connected with the Crucifixion, which had no doubt been talked
about among the soldiery, and bearing in mind the impression of such
a sight on such minds, we could readily understand the effect on the
two sentries who that long night had kept guard over the solitary
1 Friday, Saturday, Sunday. This may be held as evidence, that St.
2 I cannot believe that St. Matthew Matthew could not have meant that the
xxviii. 1 refers to a visit of the two Marys two Marys had visited the grave on the
on the Saturday evening, nor St. Mark previous evening (xxviii. 1). In such
xvi. 1 to a purchasing at that time of case they must have seen the guard.
spices. Nor could the women in that case have
3 The accounts imply, that the women wondered who would roll away the stone
knew nothing of the sealing of the stone for them.
and of the guard set over the Tomb.

632 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK Tomb. The event itself (we mean: as regards the rolling away
V ofthe stone), we suppose to have taken place after the Resurrection
 r- — of Christ, in the early dawn, while the holy women were on their
way to the Tomb. The earthquake cannot have been one in the
ordinary sense, but a shaking of the place, when the Lord of Life
burst the gates of Hades to re-tenant His Glorified Body, and the
lightning-like Angel descended from heaven to roll away the stone.
To have left it tliere, when the Tomb was empty, would have implied
what was no longer true. But there is a sublime irony in the contrast
between man's elaborate precautions and the ease with which the
Divine Hand can sweep them aside, and which, as throughout the
history of the Christ and of His Church, recalls the prophetic declara
tion: ' He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh at them.'
While the Magdalene hastened; probably by another road, to the
abode of Peter and John, the other women also had reached the
Tomb, either in one party, or, it may be, in two companies. They had
wondered and feared how they could accomplish their pious purpose —
for, who would roll away the stone for them? But, as so often, the
difficulty apprehended no longer existed. Perhaps they thought
that the now absent Mary Magdalene had obtained help for this. At
any rate, they now entered the vestibule of the Sepulchre. Here the
appearance of the Angel filled them with fear. But the heavenly
Messenger bade them dismiss apprehension; he told them that
Christ was not there, nor yet any longer dead, but risen, as, indeed,
He had foretold in Galilee to His disciples; finally, he bade them
hasten with the announcement to the disciples, and with this mes
sage, that, as Christ had directed them before, they were to meet
Him in Galilee. It was not only that this connected, so to speak,
the wondrous present with the familiar past, and helped them to
realise that it was their very Master; nor yet that in the retirement,
quiet, and security of Galilee, there would be best opportunity for
fullest manifestation, as to the five hundred, and for final conversation
and instruction. But the main reason, and that which explains the
otherwise strange, almost exclusive, prominence given at such a
moment to the direction to meet Him in Galilee, has already been in
dicated in a previous chapter.1 With the scattering of the Eleven in
Gethsemane on the night of Christ's betrayal, the Apostolic College
was temporarily broken up. They continued, indeed, still to meet
together as individual disciples, but the bond of the Apostolate was-
for the moment, dissolved. And the Apostolic circle was to be
1 See this Book, ch. xii.

PETER AND JOHN AT THE SEPULCHRE. 633
re-formed, and the Apostolic Commission renewed and enlarged, in chap.
Galilee; not, indeed, by its Lake, where only seven of the Eleven xvii
seem to have been present," but on the mountain where He had  ¦ 
directed them to meet Him." Thus was the end to be like the "St. John
, . . xxi. 2
beginning. Where He had first called, and directed them for their b St. Matt.
work, there would He again call them, give fullest directions, and XXTiii" 16
bestow new and amplest powers. His appearances in Jerusalem
were intended to prepare them for all this, to assure them completely
and joyously of the fact of His Resurrection — the full teaching
of which would be given in Galilee. And when the women, per
plexed and scarcely conscious, obeyed the command to go in and
examine for themselves the now empty niche in the Tomb, they saw
two Angels ' — probably as the Magdalene afterwards saw them — one
at the head, the other at the feet, where the Body of Jesus had lain.
They waited no longer, but hastened, without speaking to any one,
to carry to the disciples the tidings of which they could not even yet
grasp the full import/
2. But whatever unclearness of detail may rest on the narratives
ofthe Synoptists, owing to their great compression, all is distinct when
we follow the steps of the Magdalene, as these are traced in the
Fourth Gospel. Hastening from the Tomb, she ran to the lodging
of Peter and to that of John — the repetition of the preposition ' to '
probably marking, that the two occupied different, although perhaps
closely adjoining, quarters." Her startling tidings induced them to -soai-
go at once — 'and they went towards the sepulchre.' 'But they
began to run, the two together ' — probably so soon as they were
outside the town and near 'the Garden.' John, as the younger,
outran Peter/ Reaching the Sepulchre first, and stooping down, 'he
1 It may, however, have been that the dalene, recorded in St. John xx. 11-17,
appearance of the one Angel was to one and referred to in St. Mark xvi. 9 — the
company of women, that of two Angels more so as the words in St. Matt.
to another. xxviii. 9 ' as they went to tell His dis-
2 While I would speak very diffidently ciples ' are spurious, being probably in-
on the subject, it seems to me as if the tended for harmonistic purposes. But,
Evangelists had compressed the whole of while suggesting this view, I would by no
that morning's events into one narrative: means maintain it as one certain to my
' The Women at the Sepulchre.' It is own mind, although it would simplify
this compression which gives the appear- details otherwise very intricate.
ance of more events than really took place, 3 It may be regarded as a specimen
owing to the appearance of being divided of what one might designate as the
into scenes, and the circumstance that imputation of sinister motives to the
the different writers give prominence to Evangelists, when the most ' advanced '
different persons or else to different negative criticism describes this ' legend '
details in what is really one scene. Nay, as implying the contest between Jewish
I am disposed— though again with great and Gentile Christianity (Peter and
diffidence— to regard the appearance of John) in which the younger gains the
Jesus ' to the women ' (St. Matt, xxviii. race ! Similarly, we are informed that
9) as the same with that to Mary Mag- the penitent thief on the Cross is intended

634 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK seeth' 03ks7tsi) the linen clothes, but, from his position, not the
V napkin which lay apart by itself. If reverence and awe prevented
 -<  ' John from entering the Sepulchre, his impulsive companion, who
arrived immediately after him, thought of nothing else than the
immediate and full clearing up of the mystery. As he entered the
sepulchre, he ' steadfastly (intently) beholds ' (dsoopsi) in one place
the linen swathes that had bound the Sacred Limbs, and in another
the napkin that had been about His Head. There was no sign of
haste, but all was orderly, leaving the impression of One Who had
leisurely divested Himself of what no longer befitted Him. Soon
' the other disciple ' followed Peter. The effect of what he saw was,
that he now believed in his heart that the Master was risen — for till
then they had not yet derived from Holy Scripture the knowledge
that He must rise again. And this also is most instructive. It was
not the belief previously derived from Scripture, that the Christ was
to rise from the Dead, which led to expectancy of it, but the evidence
that He had risen which led them to the knowledge of what Scrip
ture taught on the subject.
3. Yet whatever light had risen in the inmost sanctuary of John's
heart, he spake not his thoughts to the Magdalene, whether she
had reached the Sepulchre ere the two left it, or met them by the
way. The two Apostles returned to their home, either feeling that
nothing more could be learned at the Tomb, or to wait for further
teaching and guidance. Or it might even have been partly due to a
desire not to draw needless attention to the empty Tomb. But the love
of the Magdalene could not rest satisfied, while doubt hung over the
fate of His Sacred Body. It must be remembered that she knew
only of the empty Tomb. For a time she gave way to the agony of
her sorrow; then, as she wiped away her tears, she stooped to take
one more look into the Tomb, which she thought empty, when, as
she 'intently gazed' (dswpsi), the Tomb seemed no longer empty.
At the head and feet, where the Sacred Body had lain, were seated
two Angels in white. Their question, so deeply true from their
knowledge that Christ had risen: 'Woman, why weepest thou?'
seems to have come upon the Magdalene with such overpowering
suddenness, that, without being able to realise — perhaps in the semi-
gloom — who it was that had asked it, she spake, bent only on ob
taining the information she sought: ' Because they have taken away
to indicate the Gentiles, the impenitent intended as covert attacks by certain
the Jews! But no language can be tendencies in the early Church against
too strong to repudiate the imputation, others — the Petrine and Jacobine against
that so many parts of the Gospels were the Johannine and Pauline directions.

THE MAGDALENE AT THE SEPULCHRE. 635
my Lord, and I know not1 where they have laid Him.' So is it chap.
often with us, that, weeping, we ask the question of doubt or fear, XVII
which, if we only knew, would never have risen to our lips; nay, ' — -^ 
that heaven's own ' Why? ' fails to impress us, even when the
Voice of its Messengers would gently recall us from the error of our
impatience. But already another answer was to be given to the Magdalene.
As she spake, she became conscious of another Presence close to her.
Quickly turning round, 'she gazed' (dsoopsi) on One Whom she
recognised not, but regarded as the gardener, from His presence there
and from His question: ' Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest
thou? ' The hope, that she might now learn what she sought, gave
wings to her words — intensity and pathos. If the supposed gardener
had borne to another place the Sacred Body, she would take It away,
if she only knew where It was laid. This depth and agony of love,
which made the Magdalene forget even the restraints of a Jewish
woman's intercourse with a stranger, was the key that opened the
Lips of Jesus. A moment's pause, and He spake her name in those
well-remembered accents, that had first unbound her from sevenfold
demoniac power and called her into a new life. It was as another
unbinding, another call into a new life. She had not known His
appearance, just as the others did not know Him at first, so unlike,
and yet so like, was the glorified Body to that which they had known.
But she could not mistake the Voice, especially when It spake to
her, and spake her name. So do we also often fail to recognise the
Lord when He comes to us ' in another form ' * than we had known. • st. Mart
xvi. 12
But we cannot fail to recognise Him when He speaks to us and speaks
our name.
Perhaps we may here be allowed to pause, and, from the non-
recognition of the Risen Lord till He spoke, ask this question: With
what body shall we rise? Like or unlike the past? Assuredly, most
like. Our bodies will then be true; for the soul will body itself
forth according to its past history — not only impress itself, as now
on the features, but express itself— so that a man may be known by
what he is, and as what he is. Thus, in this respect also, has the
Resurrection a moral aspect, and is the completion of the history of
1 When Meyer contends that the plural knowledge of it^-he must have over-
in St. John xx. 2, ' We know not where looked that, when alone, she repeats
they have laid Him,' does not refer to the same words in ver. 13, but markedly
the presence of other women with the uses the singular number: 'I know
Magdalene, but is a general expression not'
for: We, all His followers, have no

636 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK mankind and of each man. And the Christ also must have borne in
v His glorified Body all that He was, all that even His most intimate
v— ~r— - ' disciples had not known nor understood while He was with them,
which they now failed to recognise, but knew at once when He spake
to them. It was precisely this which now prompted the action of the Mag
dalene — prompted also, and explains, the answer of the Lord. As
in her name she recognised His Name, the rush of old feeling came
over her, and with the familiar ' Rabboni! ' 1 — my Master — she would
fain have grasped Him. Was it the unconscious impulse to take
hold on the precious treasure which she had thought for ever lost;
the unconscious attempt to make sure that it was not merely an
apparition of Jesus from heaven, but the real Christ in His corporeity
on earth; or a gesture of veneration, the beginning of such acts of
worship as her heart prompted? Probably all these; and yet prob
ably she was not at the moment distinctly conscious of either or of
any of these feelings. But to them all there was one answer, and in
it a higher direction, given by the words of the Lord: ' Touch Me not,
for I am not yet ascended to the Father. ' Not the Jesus appearing
from heaven — for He had not yet ascended to the Father; not the
former intercourse, not the former homage and worship. There was
yet a future of completion before Him in the Ascension, of which
Mary knew not. Between that future of completion and the past of
work, the present was a gap — belonging partly to the past and partly
to the future. The past cauld not be recalled, the future could not
be anticipated. The present was of reassurance, of consolation,
of preparation, of teaching. Let the Magdalene go and tell His
' brethren ' of the Ascension. So would she best and most truly tell
them that she had seen Him; so also would they best learn how the
Resurrection linked the past of His Work of love for them to the
future: ' I ascend unto My Father, and your Father, and to my God,
and your God. ' Thus, the fullest teaching of the past, the clearest
manifestation of the present, and the brightest teaching of the
future — all as gathered up in the Resurrection — came to the Apostles
through the mouth of love of her out of whom He had cast seven
devils. 4. Yet another scene on that Easter morning does St. Matthew
relate, in explanation of how the well-known Jewish calumny had
arisen that the disciples had stolen away the Body of Jesus. He
1 This may represent the Galilean form of the expression, and, if so, would be
all the more evidential.

THE FEELINGS OF THE DISCIPLES. 637
tells, how the guard had reported to the chief priests what had hap- chap.
pened, and how they in turn had bribed the guard to spread this XVII
rumor, at the same time promising that if the fictitious account '  > — -'
of their having slept while the disciples robbed the Sepulchre should
reach Pilate, they would intercede on their behalf. Whatever else
may be said, we know that from the time of Justin Martyr * 1 this 'Mai. u.
has been the Jewish explanation.2 Of late, however, it has, among x£nP;cviii.
thoughtful Jewish writers, given place to the so-called ' Vision-hypo
thesis, ' to which full reference has already been made.
5. It was the early afternoon of that spring-day perhaps soon after
the early meal, when two men from that circle of disciples left the
City. Their narrative affords deeply interesting glimpses into the
circle of the Church in those first days. The impression conveyed
to us is of utter bewilderment, in which only some things stood out
unshaken and firm: love to the Person of Jesus; love among the
brethren; mutual confidence and fellowship; together with a dim
hope of something yet to come — if not Christ in His Kingdom, yet
some manifestation of, or approach to it. The Apostolic College
seems broken up into units; even the two chief Apostles, Peter and
John, are only ' certain of them that were with us.' And no wonder;
for they are no longer ' Apostles ' — sent out. Who is to send them
forth? Not a dead Christ! And what would be their commission,
and to whom and whither? And above all rested a cloud of utter
uncertainty and perplexity. Jesus was a Prophet mighty in word
and deed before God and all the people. But their rulers had cruci
fied Him. What was to be their new relation to Jesus; what to
their rulers? And what of the great hope of the Kingdom, which
they had connected with Him?
Thus they were unclear on that very Easter Day even as to His
Mission and Work: unclear as to the past, the present, and the
future. What need for the Resurrection, and for the teaching which
the Risen One alone could bring! These two men had on that very
day been in communication with Peter and John. And it leaves
on us the impression, that, amidst the general confusion, all had
brought such tidings as they had, or had come to hear them, and
had tried but failed, to put it all into order or to see light around it.
' The women ' had come to tell of the empty Tomb and of their vision
of Angels, who said that He was alive. But as yet the Apostles had
1 In its coarsest form it is told in the Ignea Satanse.
so-called Toldoth Jeshu, which may be 2 So Gratz, and most of the modern
seen at the end of Wagenseil's Tela writers.

638

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

> St. Mark
xvi. 11

no explanation to offer. Peter and John had gone to see for them
selves. They had brought back confirmation of the report that the
Tomb was empty, but they had seen neither Angels nor Him Whom
they were said to have declared alive. And, although the two had
evidently left the circle of the disciples, if not Jerusalem, before the
Magdalene came, yet we know that even her account did not carry
conviction to the minds of those that heard it,"
Of the two, who on that early spring afternoon left the City in
company, we know that one bore the name of Cleopas.1 The other,
unnamed, has for that very reason, and because the narrative of that
work bears in its vividness the character of personal recollection, been
identified with St. Luke himself. If so, then, as has been finely re
marked,2 each ofthe Gospels would, like a picture, bear in some dim
corner the indication of its author: the first, that ofthe 'publican;'
that by St. Mark, that of the young man, who, in the night of the
Betrayal, had fled from his captors; that of St. Luke in the com
panion of Cleopas; and that of St. John, in the disciple whom Jesus
loved. Uncertainty, almost equal to that about the second traveller
to Emmaus, rests on the identification of that place.3 But such

1 This may be either a form of Alphseus,
or of Cleopatros.
2 By Godet.
3 Not less than four localities have been
identified with Emmaus. But some
preliminary difficulties must be cleared.
The name Emmaus is spelt in different
way3 in the Tulmud (comp. Neubauer,
Geogr. d. Talm. p. 100, Note 3). Josephus
(War iv. 1. 3 ; Ant. xviii. 2. 3) explains
the meaning ofthe name as 'warm baths,'
or thermal springs. We will not com
plicate the question by discussing the
derivation of Emmaus. In another place
(War vii. 6. 6) Josephus speaks of
Vespasian having settled in an Emmaus,
sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, a colony
of his soldiers. There can be little
doubt that the Emmaus of St. Luke and
that of Josephus are identical. Lastly,
we read in the Mishnah (Sukk. iv. 5) of a
Motsa whence they fetched the willow
branches with which the altar was
decorated at the Feast of Tabernacles,
and the Talmud explains this Moza as Ko-
lonieh, which again is identified by Chris
tian writers with Vespasian's colony of
Roman soldiers (Casparf, Chronol Geogr.
Einl. p. 207; Quart Rep. of the Pal.
Explor. Fund, July, 1881, p. 237 [not
without some slight inaccuracies]). But

an examination of the passage in the
Mishnah must lead us to dismiss this
part of the theory. No one could imagine
that the worshippers would walk sixty
stadia (seven or eight miles) for willow
branches to decorate the altar, while the
Mishnah, besides, describes this Moza as
below, or south of Jerusalem, whereas the
modern Kolonieh (which is identified
with the Colonia of Josephus) is north
west of Jerusalem. No doubt, the
Talmud, knowing that there was an
Emmaus which was a ' Colonia,' blunder
ingly identified with it the Moza of the
willow branches. This, however, it seems
lawful to infer from it, that the Emmaus
of Josephus bore popularly the name of
Kolonieh. We can now examine the
four proposed identifications of Emmaus.
The oldest and the youngest of these may
be briefly dismissed. The most common,
perhaps the earliest identification, was
with the ancient Nicopolis, the modern
Amwds, which in Rabbinic writings also
bears the name of Emmaus (Neubauer,
u. s.). But this is impossible, as Nicor
polis is twenty miles from Jerusalem^
The latest proposed identification is that
with Urtas, to the south of Bethlehem
(Mrs. Finn, Quart. Rep. of Pal. Exlor.
Fund, Jan. 1883, p. 53). It is impossible

THE WALK TO EMMAUS.
great probability attaches, if not to the exact spot, yet to the locality,
or rather the valley, that we may in imagination follow the two
companions on their road.
We leave the City by the Western Gate. A rapid progress for
about twenty-five minutes, and we have reached the edge of the
plateau. The blood-stained City, and the cloud-and-gloom-capped
trysting-place of the followers of Jesus, are behind us; and with
every step forward and upward the air seems fresher and freer, as if
we felt in it the scent of mountain, or even the far-off breezes of the
sea. Other twenty-five or thirty minutes— perhaps a little more,
passing here and there country-houses— and we pause to look back,
now on the wide prospect far as Bethlehem. Again we pursue our
way. We are now getting beyond the dreary, rocky region, and are
entering on a valley. To our right is the pleasant spot that marks
the ancient Nephtoah," on the border of Judah, now occupied by the
village of Lifta. A short quarter of an hour more, and we have
left the well-paved Roman road and are heading up a lovely valley.
The path gently climbs in a north-westerly direction, with the height
on which Emmaus stands prominently before us. About equidistant
are, on the right Lifta, on the left Kolonieh. The roads from these
two, describing almost a semicircle (the one to the north-west, the
other to the north-east), meet about a quarter of a mile to the south
of Emmaus (Hammoza, Beit Mizza). What an oasis this in a region
of hills ! Along the course of the stream, which babbles down, and
low in the valley is crossed by a bridge, are scented orange- and
lemon-gardens, olive-groves, luscious fruit trees, pleasant enclosures,
shady nooks, bright dwellings, and on the height lovely Emmaus.

639
CHAP. XVII

Josh. xv.

here to enter into the various reasons
urged by the talented and accomplished
proposer of this identification. Suffice it,
in refutation, to note, that, admittedly,
there were 'no natural hot-baths,' or
thermal springs, here, only 'artificial
Roman baths,' such as, no doubt, in
many other places, and that ' this Em
maus was Emmaus only at the particular
period when they (St. Luke and Jose
phus) were writing ' (u. s. p. 62). There
now only remain two localities, the
modern Kolonieh and Kubeibeh — for the
strange proposed identification by Lieut.
Conder in the Quarterly Rep. of the
Pal. Explor. Fund, Oct. 1876 (pp. 172-
175) seems now abandoned even by
its author. Kolonieh would, of course,
represent the Colonia of Josephus, accord

ing to the Talmud = Emmaus. But this
is only 45 furlongs from Jerusalem.
But at the head of the same valley, in
the Wady Buwai, and at a distance
of about three miles north, is Kubeibeh,
the Emmaus of the Crusaders, just
sixty furlongs from Jerusalem. Be
tween these places is Beit Mizza, or
Hammoza, which I regard as the real
Emmaus. It would be nearly 55 or
' about 60 furlongs ' (St. Luke) — sufficient
ly near to Kolonieh (Colonia) to account
for the name, since the ' colony ' would
extend up the valley, and sufficiently
near to Kubeibeh to account for the tra
dition. The Palestine Exploration Fund
has now apparently fixed on Kubeibeh as
the site (see Q. Report, July, 1881, p. 237,
and their N.T. map.

640 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK A sweet spot to which to wander on that spring afternoon;1 a most
v suitable place where to meet such companionship, and to find such
v— -y— -' teaching, as on that Easter Day.
It may have been where the two roads from Lifta and Kolo
nieh meet, that the mysterious Stranger, Whom they knew not, their
eyes being ' holden, ' joined the two friends. Yet all these six or seven
miles 2 their converse had been of Him, and even now their flushed
faces bore the marks of sadness 3 on account of those events of which
they had been speaking — disappointed hopes, all the more bitter for
the perplexing tidings about the empty Tomb and the absent Body
of the Christ. So is Christ often near to us when our eyes are holden,
and we know Him not; and so do ignorance and unbelief often fill
our hearts with sadness, even when truest joy would most become us.
To the question of the Stranger about the topics of a conversation
which had so visibly affected them,4 they replied in language which
shows that they were so absorbed by it themselves, as scarcely to
understand how even a festive pilgrim and stranger in Jerusalem
could have failed to know it, - or perceive its supreme importance.
Yet, strangely unsympathetic as from His question He might seem,
there was that in His Appearance -which unlocked their inmost
hearts. They told Him their thoughts about this Jesus; how He
had showed Himself a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God
and all the people;5 then, how their rulers had crucified Him; and,
lastly, how fresh perplexity had come to them from the tidings which
the women had brought, and which Peter and John had so far con
firmed, but were unable to explain. Their words were almost child
like in their simplicity, deeply truthful, and with a pathos and earnest
craving for guidance and comfort that goes straight to the heart.
To such souls it was, that the Risen Saviour would give His first
teaching. The very rebuke with which He opened it must have
brought its comfort. We also, in our weakness, are sometimes sore
distrest when we hear what, at the moment, seem to us insuperable
1 Even to this day this seems a unlike the rest. We can understand the
favourite resort of the inhabitants of question as in our A. V, but scarcely the
Jerusalem for an afternoon (comp. standing-still and looking sad on the
Conder's Tent- Work in Palestine, i. pp. question as in the R.V.
25-27). * Without this last clause we could
2 60 furlongs about = 7 J miles. hardly understand how a stranger would
i •• I cannot persuade myself that the accost them, and ask the subject of their
right reading of the close of ver. 17 conversation. '
(St Luke xxiv.) can be ' And they stood 5 Meyer's rendering of oi iyivsro in
still, looking sad.' Every reader will ver. 19 as implying: se prcestitil, se
.mark this as an incongruous, jejune prmbuit, is more correct than the ' which
break-up in the vivid narrative, quite was ' of both the A.V. and R.V.

THE SUPPER AT EMMAUS. 641
difficulties raised to any of the great truths of our holy faith; and, CHAP.
in perhaps equal weakness, feel comforted and strengthened, when XVII
some ' great one ' turns them aside, or avows himself in face of them v— ^ — -
a believing disciple of Christ. As if man's puny height could reach
up to heaven's mysteries, or any big infant's strength were needed
to steady the building which God has reared on that great Corner
stone! But Christ's rebuke was not of such kind. Their sorrow
arose from their folly in looking only at the things seen, and this,
from their slowness to believe what the prophets had spoken. Had
they attended to this, instead of allowing themselves to be swallowed
up by the outward, they would have understood it all. Did not the
Scriptures with one voice teach this twofold truth about the Mes
siah, that He was to suffer and to enter into His glory? Then why
wonder — why not rather expect, that He had suffered, and that
Angels had proclaimed Him alive again?
He spake it, and fresh hope sprang up in their hearts, new
thoughts rose in their minds. Their eager gaze was fastened on Him
as He now opened up, one by one, the Scriptures, from Moses and all
the prophets, and in each well-remembered passage interpreted to them
the things concerning Himself. Oh, that we had been there to hear
— though in the silence of our hearts also, if only we crave for it,
and if we walk with Him, He sometimes so opens from the Scriptures
— nay, from all the Scriptures, that which comes not to us by
critical study: 'the things concerning Himself.' All too quickly fled
the moments. The brief space was traversed, and the Stranger
seemed about to pass on from Emmaus — not feigning it, but really:
for, the Christ will only abide with us if our longing and loving con
strain Him. But they could not part with Him. ' They constrained
Him.' Love made them ingenious. It was toward evening; the day
was far spent; He must even abide with them. What a rush of
thought and feeling comes to us, as we think of it all, and try to
realise times, scenes, circumstances in our experience, that are blessedly
akin to it.
The Master allowed Himself to be constrained. He went in to be
their guest, as they thought, for the night. The simple evening-meal
was spread. He sat down with them to the frugal board. And now
He was no longer the Stranger; He was the Master. No one asked,
or questioned, as He took the bread and spake the words of blessing,
then, breaking, gave it to them. But that moment it was, as if an
unfelt Hand had been taken from their eyelids, as if suddenly the film
had been cleared from their sight. And as they knew Him, He

642 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK vanished from their view — for, that which He had come to do had been
v done. They were unspeakably rich and happy now. But, amidst it
— -y — all, one thing forced itself ever anew upon them, that, even while
their eyes had yet been holden, their hearts had burned within them,
while He spake to them and opened to them the Scriptures. So, then,
they had learned to the full the Resurrection-lesson — not only that
He was risen indeed, but that it needed not His seen Bodily Presence,
if only He opened up to the heart and mind all the Scriptures con
cerning Himself. And this, concerning those other words about
' holding ' and ' touching ' Him — about having converse and fellow
ship with Him as the Risen One, had been also the lesson taught the
Magdalene, when He would not sutler her loving, worshipful touch,
pointing her to the Ascension before Him. This is the great lesson
concerning the Risen One, which the Church fully learned in the Day
of Pentecost. 6. That same afternoon, in circumstances and manner to us un-
»icor. xv. known, the Lord had appeared to Peter." We may perhaps suggest,
that it was after His manifestation at Emmaus. This would complete
the cycle of mercy: first, to the loving sorrow ofthe woman; next,"to
the loving perplexity of the disciples; then, to the anxious heart of
the stricken Peter — last, in the circle of the Apostles, which was
again drawing together around the assured fact of His Resurrection.
7. These two in Emmaus could not have kept the good tidings to
themselves. Even if they had not remembered the sorrow and per
plexity in which they had left their fellow-disciples in Jerusalem that
forenoon, they could not have kept it to themselves, could not have
remained in Emmaus, but must have gone to their brethren in the
City. So they left the uneaten meal, and hastened back the road they
had travelled with the now well-known Stranger — but, ah, with what
lighter hearts and steps!
They knew well the trysting-place where to find ' the Twelve ' —
nay, not the Twelve now, but ' the Eleven' — and even thus their circle
was not complete, for, as already stated, it was broken up, and at least
Thomas was not with the others on that Easter-Evening of the first
"st Lute 'Lord's Day.' But, as St. Luke is careful to inform us/ with them
Xxiv. 33 ^ ' '
were the others who then associated with them. This is of extreme
importance, as marking that the words which the Risen Christ spake
on that occasion were addressed not to the Apostles as such — a thought
forbidden also by the absence of Thomas — but to the Church, although
it may be as personified and represented by such of the ' Twelve, ' or
rather ' Eleven, ' as were present on the occasion.

EVENING OF EASTER-DAY AT JERUSALEM. 643
When the two from Emmaus arrived, they found the little band chap.
as sheep sheltering within the fold from the storm. Whether they XVII
apprehended persecution simply as disciples, or because the tidings ' 
of the empty Tomb, which had reached the authorities, would stir
the fears of the Sanhedrists, special precautions had been taken.
The outer and inner doors were shut, alike to conceal their gather
ing and to prevent surprise. But those assembled were now sure
of at least one thing. Christ was risen. And when they from
Emmaus told their wondrous story, the others could antiphonally
reply by relating how He had appeared, not only to the Magdalene,
but also to Peter. And still they seem not yet to have under
stood His Resurrection; to have regarded it as rather an Ascension
to Heaven, from which He had made manifestation, than as the
reappearance of His real, though glorified Corporeity.
They were sitting at meat " — if we may infer from the notice of **f ]*ai*
St. Mark, and from what happened immediately afterwards, discussing,
not without considerable doubt and misgiving, the real import of these
appearances of Christ. That to the Magdalene seems to have been
put aside — at least, it is not mentioned, and, even in regard to the
others, they seem to have been considered, at any rate by some,
rather as what we might call spectral appearances. But all at once
He stood in the midst of them. The common salutation — on His
Lips not common, but a reality — fell on their hearts at first with
terror rather than joy. They had spoken of spectral appearances,
and now they believed they were ' gazing ' (dsoopsiv) on ' a spirit.'
This the Saviour first, and once for all, corrected, by the exhibition
of the glorified marks of His Sacred Wounds, and by bidding them
handle Him to convince themselves, that His was a real Body, and
what they saw not a disembodied spirit.1 The unbelief of doubt now
gave place to the not daring to believe all that it meant, for very
gladness, and for wondering whether there could now be any longer
fellowship or bond between this Risen Christ and them in their
bodies. It was to remove this also, which, though from another
aspect, was equally unbelief, that the Saviour now partook before
them of their supper of broiled fish,2 thus holding with them true
human fellowship as of old/
1 I cannot understand why Canon 2 The words ' and a honeycomb ' seem
Cook ('Speaker's Commentary ' ad loc.) spurious.
regards St Luke xxiv. 39 as belonging 3 Such seems to me the meaning of His
' to the appearance on the octave of the eating; any attempt at explaining, we
Resurrection.' It appears to me, on the willingly forego in our ignorance of the
contrary, to be strictly parallel to St. conditions of a glorified body, just as we
John xx. 20. refuse to discuss the manner in which

644 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK It was this lesson of His continuity — in the strictest sense — with
V the past, which was required in order that the Church might be, so
^ — y—' to speak, reconstituted now in the Name, Power, and Spirit of the
Risen One Who had lived and died. Once more He spake .the
' Peace be unto you! ' and now it was to them not occasion of doubt
or fear, but the well-known salutation of their old Lord and Master.
It was followed by the re-gathering and constituting of the Church as
that of Jesus Christ, the Risen One. The Church of the Risen One was
to be the Ambassador of Christ, as He had been the Delegate of the
Father. ' The Apostles were [say rather, ' the Church was '] com
missioned to carry on Christ's work, and not to begin a new one. ' 1 ' As
the Father has sent Me [in the past, for His Mission was completed],
even so send 2 I you [in the constant present, till His Coming again] . '
This marks the threefold relation of the Church to the Son, to the
Father, and to the world, and her position in it. In the same manner,
for the same purpose, nay, so far as possible, with the same qualifi
cation and the same authority as the Father had sent Christ, does He
commission His Church. And so it was that He made it a very real
commission when He breathed on them, not individually but as an
assembly, and said: ' Take ye the 3Holy Ghost; ' and this, manifestly
not in the absolute sense, since the Holy Ghost was not yet given,4
but as the connecting link with, and the qualification for, the authority
bestowed on the Church. Or, to set forth another aspect of it by
somewhat inverting the order of the words : Alike the Mission of the
Church and her authority to forgive or retain sins arc connected with
a personal qualification: ' Take ye the Holy Ghost; ' — in which the
word ' take ' should also be marked. This is the authority which the
Church possesses, not ex opere operato, but as connected with the
taking and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the Church.
He suddenly appeared in the room while nite purpose, while ne'/unao is sending in
the doors were shut. But I at least can- a general sense. See the learned and
not believe, that His body was then in a ingenious Note of Canon Westcott
' transition state, ' not perfected nor quite (Comm. on St. John, p. 298).
glorified till His Ascension. 3 In the original the definite article is
1 Westcott. omitted. But this, though significant,
' The words in the two clauses are can surely not be supposed to prove
different in regard to the sending of that the expression is equivalent to 'a
Christ (dTteaTaXKEv /j.e) and in regard to gift of the Holy Ghost' For, as Meyer
the Church (ice/j-Ttoo vpdi). No doubt, has pointed out, the word is used in other
there must be deeper meaning in this passages without the article, where the
distinction, yet both are used alike of Holy Ghost is referred to (comp. St.
Christ and of the disciples. It may be John i. 33; vii. 39; Acts i. 2, 5).
as (>eraer seems to hint (Bibl. Theol. Lex. 4 This alone would suffice to show
of the N.T. p. 529) that ditoo-reXXea, what misinterpretation is sometimes
from which ' apostle ' and 'apostolate' made, by friend and foe, of the use of
are derived, refers to a mission with a these words in the English Ordinal.
definite commission, or rather for a defi-

THE CHURCH'S POWER OF 'BINDING' AND 'LOOSING.' 645
It still remains to explain, so far as we can, these two points: -n CHAP.
what this power of forgiving and retaining sins consists, and in what xvn
manner it resides in the Church. In regard to the former we must v— - y — '
first inquire what idea it would convey to those to whom Christ spake
the words. It has already been explained," that the power of -Boot in.
' loosing ' and ' binding ' referred to the legislative authority claimed
by, and conceded to, the Rabbinic College. Similarly, as previously
stated, that here referred to applied to their juridical or judicial
power, according to which they pronounced a person either ' Zakkai, '
innocent or 'free'; 'absolved,' 'Patur'; or else 'liable, ' 'guilty,'
' Chayyabh ' (whether liable to punishment or sacrifice). In the true
sense, therefore, this is rather administrative, disciplinary power,
' the power of the keys ' — such as St. - Paul would have had the
Corinthian Church put in force — the power of admission and exclu
sion, of the authoritative declaration of the forgiveness of sins, in-
the exercise of which power (as it seems to the present writer) the
authority for the administration of the Holy Sacraments is also in
volved. And yet it is not, as is sometimes represented, ' absolution
from sin, ' which belongs only to God and to Christ ' as Head of the
Church, but absolution of the sinner, which He has delegated to His
Church: 'Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven.' These
words also teach us, that what the Rabbis claimed in virtue of their
office, that the Lord bestowed on His Church in virtue of her receiving,
and of the indwelling of, the Holy Ghost.
In answering the second question proposed, we must bear in mind
one important point. The power of ' binding ' and ' loosing ' had
been primarily committed to the Apostles," and exercised by them » st. Matt.
xvi 19 ¦
in connection with the Church/ On the other hand, that of for- xviii. is
giving and retaining sins, in the sense explained, was primarily ^eisxt"
bestowed on the Church, and exercised by her through her repre
sentatives, the Apostles, and those to whom they committed rule/ "icor. v.
Although, therefore, the Lord on that night committed this power to 2'cor, h. 6^
His Church, it was in the person of her representatives and rulers.
The Apostles alone could exercise legislative functions,1 but the
Church has to the end of time ' the power of the keys. '
8. There had been absent from the circle of disciples on that
Easter-Evening one of the Apostles, Thomas. Even when told of
the marvellous events at that gathering, he refused to believe, unless
he had personal and sensuous evidence of the truth of the report.
1 The decrees of the first Councils either as disciplinary, or else as explana-
should be regarded not as legislative, but tory of Apostolic teaching and legislation.

10

646

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

¦ St. John
i. 45-51

It can scarcely have been, that Thomas did not believe in the fact
that Christ's Body had quitted the Tomb, or that He had really
appeared. But he held fast by what we may term the Vision-
hypothesis, or, in this case, rather the spectral theory. But until
this Apostle also had come to conviction of the Resurrection in the
only real sense — of the identical though glorified Corporeity of the
Lord, and hence of the continuity of the past with the present and
future, it was impossible to re-form the Apostolic Circle, or to renew
the Apostolic commission, since its primal message was testimony
concerning the Risen One. This, if we may so suggest, seems the
reason why the Apostles still remained in Jerusalem, instead of
hastening, as directed, to meet the Master in Galilee.
A quiet week had passed, during which — and this also may be
for our twofold learning — the Apostles excluded not Thomas, 1 nor
yet Thomas withdrew from the Apostles. Once more the day of
days had come — the Octave of the Feast. From that Easter-Day
onwards the Church must, even without special institution, have
celebrated the weekly-recurring memorial of His Resurrection, as
that when He breathed on the Church the breath of a new life, and
consecrated it to be His Representative. Thus, it was not only the
memorial of His Resurrection, but the birthday of the Church, even
as Pentecost was her baptismal day. On that Octave, then, the
disciples were again gathered, under circumstances precisely similar to
those of Easter, but now Thomas was also with them. Once more —
and it is again specially marked: 'the doors being shut'2 — the
Risen Saviour appeared in the midst of the disciples with the well-
known salutation. He now offered to Thomas the demanded evidence ;
but it was no longer either needed or sought. With a full rush of
feeling he yielded himself to the blessed conviction, which, once
formed, must immediately have passed" into act of adoration: ' My
Lord and my God ! ' The fullest confession this hitherto made, and
which truly embraced the whole outcome of the new conviction
concerning the reality of Christ's Resurrection. We remember how,
under similar circumstances, Nathanael had been the first to utter
fullest confession/ We also remember the analogous reply of the
Saviour. As then, so now, He pointed to the higher: to a faith
which was not the outcome of sight, and therefore limited, and bounded

1 It must, however, be remembered
that Thomas did not deny that Christ
was risen — except as in the peculiar sense
of the Resurrection. Had he denied the
other, he would scarcely have continued

in the company of the Apostles.
2 Significantly, the expression ' for fear
of the Jews ' no longer occurs. That
apprehension had for the present passed
away.

BY THE LAKE OF GALILEE. 64T
by sight, whether of the senses or of perception by the intellect. As chap.
one has finely remarked: ' This last and greatest ofthe Beatitudes is XVH
the peculiar heritage of the later Church ' x — and thus most aptly v— -v^— -
comes as the consecration gift of that Church.
9. The next scene presented to us is once again by the Lake of
Galilee. The manifestation to Thomas, and, with it, the restoration
of unity in the Apostolic Circle, had originally concluded the Gospel
of St. John/ But the report which had spread in the early Church, 'St. John
, XX ¦ ou» -j I
that the Disciple whom Jesus loved was not to die, led him to add to
his Gospel, by way of Appendix, an account of the events with
which this expectancy had connected itself. It is most instructive
to the critic, when challenged at every step to explain why one or
another fact is not mentioned or mentioned only in one Gospel, to
find that, but for the correction of a possible misapprehension in
regard to the aged Apostle, the Fourth Gospel would have contained
no reference to the manifestation of Christ in Galilee, nay, to the
presence of the disciples there before the Ascension. Yet, for all
that, St. John had it in his mind. And should we not learn from
this, that what appear to us strange omissions, which, when held
by the side of the other Gospel-narratives, seem to involve discre
pancies, may be capable of the most satisfactory explanation, if we
only knew all the circumstances?
The history itself sparkles like a gem in its own peculiar setting.
It is of green Galilee, and of the blue Lake, and recalls the early
days and scenes of this history. As St. Matthew has it," ' the eleven "St. Matt.
disciples went away into Galilee ' — probably immediately after that ""'"' '
Octave of the Easter. 2 It can scarcely be doubted, that they made
known not only the fact of the Resurrection, but the try sting which
the Risen One had given them — perhaps at that Mountain where
He had spoken His first ' Sermon. ' And so it was, that ' some
doubted, ' ° and that He afterwards appeared to the five hundred at ^Maj*-
once/ But on that morning there were by the Lake of Tiberias only aicor. xv.
seven of the disciples. Five of them only are named. They are
those who most closely kept in company with Him — perhaps also
they who lived nearest the Lake.
The scene is introduced by Peter's proposal to go a-fishing. It
seems as if the old habits had come back to them with the old
associations. Peter's companions naturally proposed to join him/
1 Canon Westcott. occurred during all the forty days.
a The account of St Luke (xxiv. 44- 3 The word ' immediately ' in St. John
48) is a condensed narrative— without xxi. 3 is spurious.
distinction of time or place — of what

648

THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.

BOOK V

" St. Luke
V. 1. 11.

All that still, clear night they were on the Lake, but caught
nothing. Did not this recall to them the former event, when James
and John, and Peter and Andrew were called to be Apostles, and did
it not specially recall to Peter the searching and sounding of his
heart on the morning that followed? " But so utterly self-unconscious
were they, and, let us add, so far is this history from any trace of
legendary design, ' that not the slightest indication of this appears.
Early morning was breaking, and under the rosy glow above the
cool shadows were still lying on the pebbly 'beach.' There stood
the Figure of One Whom they recognised not — nay, not even when
He spake. Yet His Words were intended to bring them this know
ledge. The direction to cast the net to the right side of the ship
brought them, as He had said, the haul for which they had toiled
all night in vain. And more than this: such a multitude of fishes,
that they were not able to draw up the net into the ship. This was
enough for ' the disciple whom Jesus loved, ' and whose heart may
previously have misgiven him. He whispered it to Peter: ' It is
the Lord, ' and Simon, only reverently gathering about him his fisher's
upper garment,2 cast himself into the sea. Yet even so, except to be
sooner by the side of Christ, Peter seems to have gained nothing by
his haste. The others, leaving the ship, and transferring themselves
to a small boat, which must have been attached to it, followed,
rowing the short distance of about one hundred yards," and dragging
after them the net, weighted with the fishes.
They stepped on the beach, hallowed by His Presence, in silence,
as if they had entered Church or Temple. They dared not even
dispose of the netful of fishes which they had dragged on shore,
until He directed them what to do. This only they noticed, that
some unseen hand had prepared the morning meal, which, when
asked by the Master, they had admitted they had not of their own.
And now Jesus directed them to bring the fish they had caught.
When Peter dragged up the weighted net, it was found full of great
fishes, not less than a hundred and fifty-three in number. There is
no need to attach any symbolic import to that number, as the Fathers
and later writers have done. We can quite understand — nay, it
seems almost natural, that, in the peculiar circumstances, they should
have counted the large fishes in that miraculous draught that still

1 Yet St. John must have been ac
quainted with this narrative, recorded as
it is by all the three Synoptists.
2 This notice also seems specially in

dicative that the narrator is himself
from the Lake of Galilee.
3 About 200 cubits.

'LOVEST THOU ME?' 649
left the net unbroken.1 It may have been, that they were told to CHAP.
count the fishes — partly, also, to show the reality of what had taken XVH
place. But on the fire of coals there seems to have been only one v— ~y" — '
fish, and beside it only one bread/ To this meal He now bade them,
for they seem still to have hung back in reverent awe, nor durst they
ask Him, Who He was, well knowing it was the Lord. This, as
St. John notes, was the third appearance of Christ to the disciples as
a body/ 10. And still this morning of blessing was not ended. The
frugal meal was past, with all its significant teaching of just sufficient
provision for His Servants, and abundant supply in the unbroken net
beside them. But some special teaching was needed, more even
than that to Thomas, for him whose work was to be so prominent
among the Apostles, whose love was so ardent, and yet in its very
ardour so full of danger to himself. For, our dangers spring not
only from deficiency, but it may be from excess of feeling, when that
feeling is not commensurate with inward strength. Had Peter not
confessed, quite honestly, yet, as the event proved, mistakingly, that
his love to Christ would endure even an ordeal that would disperse
all the others ?" And had he not, almost immediately afterwards, »st. Matt.
and though prophetically warned of it, thrice denied his Lord? S?-J<*n
Jesus had, indeed, since then appeared specially to Peter as the
Risen One. But this threefold denial still stood, as it were, uncan
celled before the other disciples, nay, before Peter himself. It was to
this that the threefold question of the Risen Lord now referred.
Turning to Peter, with pointed though most gentle allusion to the
danger of self-confidence — a confidence springing from only a sense
of personal affection, even though genuine — He asked: 'Simon, son
of Jona ' — as it were with fullest reference to what he was naturally
— -' lovest thou Me more than these? ' Peter understood it all. No
longer with confidence in self, avoiding the former reference to the
others, and even with marked choice of a different word to express
his affection * from that which the Saviour had used, he replied, ap
pealing rather to his Lord's, than to his own consciousness: 'Yea,
Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee.' And even here the answer of
1 Canon Westcott gives, from St 2 This seems implied in the absence of
Augustine, the points of difference be- the article in St. John xxi. 9.
tween this and the miraculous draught 3 St. John could not have meant His
of fishes on the former occasion (St. third appearance in general, since him-
Luke v.). These are very interesting, self had recorded three previous mani-
Not so the fanciful speculations of the festations.
Fathers about the symbolic meaning of * Christ asks; ayattai pe, and Peter
the number 153. answers: crv oloai on <pXS> ere.

650 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK Christ is characteristic. It was to set him first the humblest work,
V that which needed most tender care and patience: ' Feed [provide with
v— -v— ¦ - food] My Lambs.'
Yet a second time came the same question, although now without
the reference to the others, and, with the same answer by Peter, the
now varied and enlarged commission: 'Feed [shepherd, noipaivs] My
Sheep. ' Yet a third time did Jesus repeat the same question, now
adopting in it the very word which Peter had used to express his
affection. Peter was grieved at this threefold repetition. It recalled
only too bitterly his threefold denial. And yet the Lord was not
doubtful of Peter's love, for each time He followed up His question
with a fresh Apostolic. commission; but now that He put it for the
third time, Peter would have the Lord send down the sounding-line
quite into" the lowest deep of his heart: ' Lord, Thou knowest all
things — Thou perceivest ' that I love Thee ! ' And now the Saviour
spake it: 'Feed [provide food for] My Sheep.' His Lambs, His
Sheep, to be provided for, to be tended as such! And only love can
do such service.
Yes, and Peter did love the Lord Jesus. He had loved Him when
he said it, only too confident in the strength of his feelings, tlrat he
would follow the Master even unto death. And Jesus saw it all —
yea, and how this love of the ardent temperament which had once
made him rove at wild liberty, would give place to patient work of
love, and be crowned with that martyrdom which, when the beloved
disciple wrote, was already matter of the past. And the very
manner of death by which he was to glorify God was indicated in
the words of Jesus.
As He spake them, He joined the symbolic action to His ' Follow
Me.' This command, and the encouragement of being in death
literally made like Him — following Him — were Peter's best strength.
He obeyed; but as he turned to do so, he saw another following.
As St. John himself puts it, it seems almost to convey that he had
longed to share Peter's call, with all that it implied. For, St. John
speaks of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, and he reminds us
that in that night of betrayal he had been specially a sharer with
Peter, nay, had spoken what the other had silently asked of him. Was
it impatience, was it a touch of the old Peter, or was it a simple
inquiry of brotherly interest which prompted the question, as he
pointed to John: ' Lord — and this man, what? ' Whatever had
been the motive, to him, as to us all, when, perplexed about those
1 yivrbo-KSiS.

THE OTHER MANIFESTATIONS OF THE RISEN CHRIST. 651
who seem to follow Christ, we ask it — sometimes in bigoted narrow- CHAP.
ness, sometimes in ignorance, folly, or jealousy — is this the answer: XVII
' What is that to thee? follow thou Me. ' For John also had his life- "- — >  '
work for Christ. It was to ' tarry ' while He was coming x — to tarry
those many years in patient labour, while Christ was coming.
But what did it mean? The saying went abroad among the
brethren that John was not to die, but to tarry till Jesus came again
to reign, when death would be swallowed up in victory. But Jesus
had not so said, only: 'If I will that he tarry while I am coming.'
What that ' Coming ' was, Jesus had not said, and John knew not.
So, then, there are things, and connected with His Coming, on which
Jesus has left the veil, only to be lifted by His own Hand — which He
means us not to know at present, and which we should be content to
leave as He has left them.
11. Beyond this narrative we have only briefest notices: by St.
Paul, of Christ manifesting Himself to James, which probably finally
decided him for Christ, and of His manifestation to the five hundred
at once; by St. Matthew, ofthe Eleven meeting Him at the mountain,
where He had appointed them; by St. Luke, of the teaching in the
Scriptures during the forty days of communication between the Risen
Christ and the disciples.
But this twofold testimony comes to us from St. Matthew and St.
Mark, that then the worshipping disciples were once more formed into
the Apostolic Circle— Apostles, now, of the Risen Christ. And this
was the warrant of their new commission: ' All power (authority)
has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.' And this was their
new commission: ' Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost.' And this was their work: ' Teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.' And this
is His final and sure promise: 'Andlo, I am with you alway, evei
unto the end of the world. '
12. We are once more in Jerusalem, whither He had bidden them
go to tarry for the fulfilment of the great promise. The Pentecost
was drawing nigh. And on that last day— the day of His Ascension
 He led them forth to the well-remembered Bethany. From where
He had made His last triumphal Entry into Jerusalem before His
Crucifixion, would He make His triumphant Entry visibly into
1 So Canon Westcott renders the mean- ment of the Church. The tradition that
ing. The 'coming' might refer to the St John only slept in his grave at Ephe-
second Coming, to the destruction of sus is mentioned even by St. Augustine.
Jerusalem, or even to the firm establish-

652 THE CROSS AND THE CROWN.
BOOK Heaven. Once more would they have asked Him about that which
V" seemed to them the final consummation — the restoration of the
>— "y^— - Kingdom to Israel. But such questions became them not. Theirs
was to be work, not rest; suffering, not triumph. The great promise
before them was of spiritual, not outward, power: of the Holy Ghost
— and their call not yet to reign with Him, but to bear witness for
Him. And, as He so spake, He lifted His Hands in blessing upon
them, and, as He was visibly taken up, a cloud received Him. And
still they gazed, with upturned faces, on that luminous cloud which
had received Him, and two Angels spake to them this last message
from Him, that He should so come in like manner — as they had
beheld Him going into heaven.
And so their last question to Him, ere He had parted from them,
was also answered, and with blessed assurance. Reverently they
worshipped Him; then, with great joy, returned to Jerusalem. So
it was all true, all real — and Christ ' sat down at the Right Hand of
God!' Henceforth, neither doubting, ashamed, nor yet afraid, they
' were continually in the Temple, blessing God. ' ' And they went
forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and con
firming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.'
Amen! It is so. Ring out the bells of heaven; sing forth the
Angelic welcome of worship; carry it to the utmost bounds of earth!
Shine forth from Bethany, Thou Sun of Righteousness, and chase
away earth's mist and darkness, for Heaven's golden day has
broken!

Easter Morning, 1883. — Our task is ended — and we also worship
and look up. And we go back from this sight into a hostile world,
to love, and to live, and to work for the Risen Christ. But as earth's
day is growing dim, and, with earth's gathering darkness, breaks over
it heaven's storm, we ring out — as of old they were wont, from church-
tower, to the mariners that hugged a rock-bound coast — our Easter-
bells to guide them who are belated, over the storm-tossed sea, beyond
the breakers, into the desired haven. Ring out, earth, all thy Easter-
chimes; bring your offerings, all ye people; worship in faith, for —
' This Jesus, Which was received up from you into heaven, shall
so come, in like manner as ye beheld Him going into heaven. ' ' Even
so, Lord Jesus, come quickly!'

APPENDICES.

655

APPENDIX I.
PSEDDEPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS.
(See vol. i. pp. 37, 38, and other places.) APP.
Only the briefest account of these can be given in this place ; barely more than an i
enumeration. . _
I. The Book of Enoch. — As the contents and the literature of this remarkable
book, which is quoted by St. Jude (vv. 14, 15), have been fully described in Dr.
Smith's and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography (vol. ii. pp. 124-128), we may
here refer to it the more shortly.
It comes to us from Palestine, but has only been preserved in an Ethiopic trans
lation (published by Archbishop Laurence [Oxford, 1838 ; in English transl. 3rd ed.
1821-1838; German transl. by A. G. Hoffmann], then from five different MSS. by
Professor Dillmann [Leipzig, 1851 ; in German transl. Leipzig, 1853]). But even
the Ethiopic translation is not from the original Hebrew or Aramaic, but from a
Greek version, of which a small fragment has been discovered (ch. Ixxxix. 42-49;
published by Cardinal Mai. Comp. also Oildemeister, Zeitschr. d. D. Morg. Ges. for
1855, pp. 621-624, and Gebhardt, Merx' Arch. ii. 1872, p. 243).
As regards the contents of the work: An Introduction of five brief chapters, and
the book (which, however, contains not a few spurious passages) consists of five
parts, followed by a suitable Epilogue. The mo3t interesting portions are those
which tell of the Fall of the Angels and its consequences, of Enoch's rapt journeys
through heaven and earth, and of what he saw and heard (ch. vi.-xxxvi.);
the Apocalyptic portions about the Kingdom of Heaven and the Advent of the
Messiah (Ixxxiii.-xci.) ; and, lastly, the hortatory discourses (xci.-cv.). When we
add, that it is pervaded by a tone of intense faith and earnestness about the
Messiah, 'the last things,' and other doctrines specially brought out in the New
Testament, its importance will be understood. Altogether the Book of Enoch con
tains 108 chapters.
From a literary point of view, it has been arranged (by Schiirer and others) into
three parts: — 1. The Original Work (Grundschrifl), ch. i.-xxxvi. ; lxxii.-cv.
This portion is supposed to date from about 175 e.o. 2. The Parables, ch. xxxvii.-
liv. 6; lv. 3-lix. ; lxi.-lxiv. ; lxix. 26-lxxi. This part also dates previous to the
Birth of Christ — perhaps from the time of Herod the Great. 3. The so-called
Noachian Sections, ch. liv. 7-lv. 2 ; lx. ; Ixv.-lxix. 25. To these must be added
ch. cvi., cvii., and the later conclusion in ch.-cviii. On the dates of all these
portions it is impossible to speak definitely.
II. Even greater, though a different interest, attaches to the Sibylline Oracles,
written in Greek hexameters.1 In their present form they consist of twelve books,
¦ We have in the main accepted the learned criticism ol Professor Friedlieb (Oracula
Sibyllina, 1852.

656 PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS.
APP. together with several fragments. Passing over two large fragments, which seem to
t have originally formed the chief part of the introduction to Book III., we have (1)
,^^^^_^ the two first Books. These contain part of an older and Hellenist Jewish Sibyl, as
well as of a poem by the Jewish Pseudo-Phocylides, in which heathen myths con
cerning the first ages of man are curiously welded with Old Testament views. The
rest of these two books was composed, and the whole put together, not earlier than
the close of the second century, perhaps by a Jewish Christian. (2) The third Book
is by far the most interesting. Besides the fragments already referred to, vv. 97-
807 are the work of a Hellenist Jew, deeply imbued with the Messianic hope. Tins
part dates from about 160 before our era, while vv. 49-96 seem to belong to the
year 31 b.c. The re3t (vv. 1-45, 818-828) dates from a later period. We must here
confine our attention to the most ancient portion of the work. For our present pur-
_ pose, we may arrange it into three parts. In the first, the ancient heathen theogony
is recast in a Jewish mould — Uranus becomes Noah; Shem, Ham, and Japheth are
Saturn, Titan, and Japetus, while the building of the Tower of Babylon is the rebel
lion of the Titans. Then the history of the world is told, the Kingdom of Israel and
of David forming the centre of all. What we have called the second is the most
curious part of the work. It embodies ancient heathen oracles, so to speak, in a
Jewish recension, and interwoven with Jewish elements. The third part may be
generally described as anti-heathen, polemical, and Apocalyptic. The Sibyl is
thoroughly Hellenistic in spirit. She is loud and earnest in her appeals, bold and
defiant in the tone of her Jewish pride, self-conscious and triumphant in her antici
pations. But the most remarkable circumstance is, that this Judaising and Jewish
Sibyl seems to have passed — though possibly only in parts — a3 the oracles of the
ancient Erythraean Sibyl, which had predicted to the Greeks the fall of Troy, and
those of the Sibyl of Cumae, which, in the infancy of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus had
deposited in the Capitol, and that as such it is quoted from by Virgil (in his 4th .
Eclogue) in his description of the Golden Age.
Of the other Sibylline Books little need be said. The 4th, 5th, 9th, and 12th
Books were written by Egyptian Jews at dates varying from the year 80 to the third
century of our era. Book VI. is of Christian origin, the work of a Judaising
Christian, about the second half of the second century. Book VIII., which em
bodies Jewish portions, is also of Christian authorship, and so are Books X. and XI.
III. The collection of eighteen hymns, which in their Greek version bear the
name of the Psalter of Solomon, must originally have been written in Hebrew, and
dates from more than half a century before our era. They are the outcome of a
soul intensely earnest, although we not unfrequently meet expressions of Pharisaic
self-righteousness.1 It is a time of national sorrow in which the poet sings, and it
almost seems as if these 'Psalms' had been intended to take up one or another
of the leading thoughts in the corresponding Davidic Psalms, and to make, as it
were, application of them to the existing circumstances.2 Though somewhat
Hellenistic in its cast, the collection breathes ardent Messianic expectancy, and firm
faith in the resurrection, and eternal reward and punishment (iii. 16 ; xiii. 9, 10 ; xiv.
2, 6, 7 ; xv. 11 to the end).
IV. Another work of that class— 'Little Genesis,' or ' The Book of Jubilees'—
1 Comp. for example, ix. 7, 9. first three with the three opening Psalms in
2 This view which, so far as I know, has the Davidic Psalter). Is our ¦ Psalter of Solo-
not been suggested by critics, will be con- mon,' as it were, an historical commentary
Drmed by an attentive perusal of almost by the typical • sage ? ' And Is our collection
every • Psalm ' in the collection (comp. the only a fragment ?

PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS. 657
has been preserved to us in its Ethiopic translation (though a Latin version of part ^PP.
of it has lately been discovered) and is a Haggadic Commentary on Genesis. Pro- j
fessing to be a revelation to Moses during the forty days on Mount Sinai, it seeks to
fill lacunas in the sacred history, specially in reference to its chronology. Its cha
racter is hortatory and warning, and it breathes a strong anti-Roman spirit. It
was written by a Palestinian in Hebrew, or rather Aramaean, probably about the
time of Christ. The name, ' Book of Jubilees,' is derived from the circumstance that
the Scripture-chronology is arranged according to Jubilee periods of forty-nine
years, fifty of these (or 2,450 years) being counted from the Creation to the
entrance into Canaan.
V. Among the Pseudepigraphic Writings we also include the ith Book of
Esdras, which appears among our Apocrypha as 2 Esdras ch. iii.-xiv. (the two first
and the two last chapters being spurious additions). The work, originally written
in Greek, has only been preserved in translation into five different languages (Latin,
Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian). It was composed probably about the
end of the first century after Christ From this circumstance, and the influence of
Christianity on the mind of the writer, who, however, is an earnest Jew, its interest
and importance can be scarcely exaggerated. The name of Ezra was probably
assumed, because the writer wished to treat mainly of the mystery of Israel's fall
and restoration.
The other Pseudepigraphic Writings are: —
VI. The Ascension (ch. i.-v.) and Vision (ch. vi.-xi.) of Isaiah, which describes
the martyrdom of the prophet (with a Christian interpolation [ch. iii. 14-iv. 22]
ascribing his death to prophecy of Christ, and containing Apocalyptic portions), and
then what he saw in heaven. The book is probably based on an older Jewish
account, but is chiefly of Christian heretical authorship. It exists only in transla
tions, of which that in Ethiopic (with Latin and English versions) has been edited
by Archibishop Laurence.
VH. The Assumption of Moses (probably quoted in St. Jude ver. 9) also exists
only in translation, and is really a fragment. It consists of twelve chapters. After
an Introduction (ch. i.), containing an address of Moses to Joshua, the former, pro
fessedly, opens to Joshua the future of Israel to the time of Varus. This is followed
by an Apocalyptic portion, beginning at ch. vii. and ending with ch. x. The two con
cluding chapters are dialogues between Joshua and Moses. The book dates probably
from about the year 2 B.C., or shortly afterwards. Besides the Apocalyptic portions
the interest lies chiefly in the fact that the writer seems to belong to the Nationalist
party, and that we gain some glimpses of the Apocalyptic views and hopes— the highest
spiritual tendency— of that deeply interesting movement Most markedly, this Book
at least is strongly anti-Pharisaic, especially in its opposition to their purifications
(ch. vii.). We would here specially note a remarkable resemblance between
2 Tim. iii. 1-5 and this in Assump. Mos. vii. 3-10 : (3) ' Et regnabunt de his
homines pestilentiosi et impii, dicentes se esse iustos, (4) et hi suscitabunt iram
aniriiorum suorum, qui erunt homines dolosi, sibi placentes, ficti in omnibus suis et
omni hora diei amantes convivia, devoratores gulas (5) . . . (6) [paupe] rum
bonorum comestores, dicentes se haec facere propter misericordiam eorum, (7)
sed et exterminatores, queruli et fallaces, celantes se ne possint cognosci, impii in
scelere, pleni et iniquitate ab oriente usque ad occidentem, (8) dicentes: habebimus
discubitiones et luxuriam edentes et bibentes, et potabimus nos, tamquam principes
erimus. (9) Et manus eorum et dentes inmunda tractabunt, et os eorum loquetur

658 PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS.
APP. ingentia, et superdicent: (10) noli [tu me] taugere, ne inquines me . . ' But it
I is very significant, that instead of the denunciation of the Pharisees in w. 9, 10 of
v^__ _^^_, the Assumptio, we have in 2 Tim. iii. 5. the words ' having the form of godliness,
but denying the power thereof.'
VIII. The Apocalypse of Baruch. — This also exists only in Syriac translation,
and is apparently fragmentary, since the vision promised in ch. lxxvi. 3 is not re
ported, while the Epistle of Baruch to the two and a half tribes in Babylon, referred
to in lxxvii. 19, is also missing. The book has been divided into seven sections
(i.-xii. ; xiii. -xx. ; xxi.-xxxiv. ; xxxv.-xlvi. ; xlvii.-lii. ; liii. -lxxvi. ; lxxvii.-
lxxxvii.). The whole is in a form of revelation to Baruch, and of his replies, and
questions, or of notices about his bearing, fast, prayers, &c. The most interesting
parts are in sections v. and vi. In the former we mark (ch. xlviii. 31-41) the
reference to the consequence of the sin of our first parents (ver. 42 ; comp. al30
xvii. 3; xxiii. 4; liv. 15, 19), and in ch. xlix. the discussion and information:
with what body and in what form the dead shall rise, which is answered, not as
by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. — though the question raised (1 Cor. xv. 35) is precisely the
same — but in the strictly Rabbinic manner, described by us in vol. ii. pp. 398, 399.
In section vi. we specially mark (ch. lxix.-lxxiv.) the Apocalyptic descriptions of
the Last Days, and of the Reign and Judgment of Messiah. In general, the figura
tive language in that Book is instructive in regard to the phraseology used in the
Apocalyptic portions of the New Testament. Lastly, we mark that the views on
the consequences of the Fall are much more limited than those expressed in 4 Esdras.
Indeed, they do not go beyond physical death as the consequence of the sin of our
first parents (see especially liv. 19 : Non est ergo Adam causa, nisi animas suae
tantum ; nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam). At the same time, it seems
to us, as if perhaps the reasoning rather than the language of the writer indicated
hesitation on his part (liv. 14-19 ; comp. also first clause of xlviii. 43). It almost
seems as if liv. 14-19 were intended as against the reasoning of St. Paul, Rom. v.
12 to the end. In this respect the passage in Baruch is most interesting, not only in
itself (see for ex. ver. 16: Certo enim qui credit recipiet mercedem), but in re
ference to the teaching of 4 Esdras, which, as regards original sin, takes another
direction than Baruch. But I have little doubt that both allude to the — to them —
novel teaching of St. Paul on that doctrine. Lastly, as regards the question when
this remarkable work was written, we would place its composition after the de
struction of Jerusalem. Most writers date it before the publication of 4 Esdras,
Even the appearance of a Pseudo-Baruch and Pseudo-Esdras are significant of the
political circumstances and the religious hopes of the nation.
For criticism and fragments of other Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, comp.
Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test, 2 vols. (ed. 2, 1722). The Psalter
of Sol., IV. Esdr. (or, as he puts it, IV. and V. Esd.), the Apocal of Baruch, and the
Assumption of Mos., have been edited by Fritzsche (Lips. 1871); other Jewish
(Hebrew) 0. T. Pseudepigraphs— though of a later date— in Jellinek's Beth
haMidrash (6 vols.), passim. A critical review of the literature of the subject
would here be out of place.

PALESTINIAN AND ALEXANDRIAN EXEGESIS. 659

APPENDIX II.
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA AND RABBINIC THEOLOGY.
(See vol. i. pp. 42, 45, 47, 53).
(Ar. vol. i. p. 42, note 4.) In comparing the allegorical Canons of Philo with .pp
those of Jewish traditionalism, we think first of all of the seven exegetical canons „
which are ascribed to Hillel. These bear chiefly the character of logical deductions,
and as such were largely applied in the Halakhah. These seven canons were next ^~~~y
expanded by R. Ishmael (in the first century) into thirteen, by the analysis of one of
them (the 5th) into six, and the addition of this sound exegetical rule, that where
two verses seem to be contradictory, their conciliation must be sought in a third
passage. The real rules for the Haggadah — if such there were — were the thirty-
two canons of R. Jose the Galilean (in the second century). It is here that we
meet so much that is kindred in form to the allegorical canons of Philo.1 Only
they are not rationalising, and far more brilliant in their application. Most taking
results — at least to a certain class of minds — might be reached by finding in each
consonant of a word the initial letter of another (Notariqon). Thus, the word
MiSBe&CH (altar) was resolved into these four words, beginning respectively with
M, S, B, CH: Forgiveness, Merit, Blessing, Life. Then there was Gematria, by
which every letter in a word was resolved into its arithmetical equivalent. Thus,
the two words, Gog and Magog = 70, which was the supposed number of all the
heathen nations. Again, in Athbash the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were
transposed (the first for the last of the alphabet, and so on), so that SlleSHaKH (Jer.
xxv. 26 ; li. 41) became 2Ja.BeL, while in Albam, the twenty-two Hebrew letters
were divided into two rows, which might be exchanged (L for A, M for B, &c).
In other respects also the Palestinian had the advantage of the Alexandrian
mode of interpretation. There was at least ingenuity, if not always truth, in ex
plaining a word by resolving it into two others,2 or in discussing the import of
exclusive particles (such as 'only,' 'but,' 'from,'), and inclusives (such as 'also,'
' with, ' all '), or in discovering shades of meaning from the derivation of a word,
as in the eight synonyms for ' poor ' — of which one (Ant), indicated simply ' the
poor'; another (Ebhyon, from abhah), one who felt both need and desire; a
third (misken), one humiliated; a fourth (rash from rush), one who had been
emptied of his property; a fifth (dal), one whose property had become exhausted;
a sixth (dakh), one who felt broken down ; a seventh (makh), one who had come
down; and the eighth (chelekh), one who was wretched— or in discussing such dif-
i The reader who wUl take our outline of Aa-y?)?, pp. 67 to 88), will convince himself of
Thllo's views to pieces, and compare it with the truth of this.
the 'XXV Theses de modis et formulis 2 As, for example, Malqosh, the latter rain
¦quibus pr. Hebr. doctores SS. interpretari etc. = Mal-Qash, fill the stubble.
soliti fuerunt ' (in Swenhimus' BipAo! Kara*.-

660 THE TERMS 'YEQARA,' 'SHEKHINAH,' AND 'MEMRA.'
APP. ferences as between amar, to speak gently, and dabhar, to speak strongly — and
II many others.1 Here intimate knowledge of the language and tradition might be of
s_--_^^_, real use. At other times striking thoughts were suggested, as when it was pointed
out that all mankind was made to spring from one man, in order to show the power of
God, since all coins struck from the same machine were precisely the same, while in
man, whatever the resemblance, there was still a difference in each.
2. (Ad vol. i. p. 45, and note 3.) The distinction between the unapproachable
God and God as manifest and manifesting Himself, which lies at the foundation of so
much in the theology of Philo in regard to the ' intermediary beings ' — ' Potencies '
— and the Logos, occurs equally in Rabbinic theology,2 though there it is probably
derived from a different source. Indeed, we regard this as explaining the marked
and striking avoidance of all anthropomorphisms in the Targumim. It also accounts
for the designation of God by two classes of terms, of which in our view, the first
expresses the idea of God as revealed, the other that of God as revealing Himself;
or, to put it otherwise, which indicate, the one a state, the other an act on the part
of God. The first of these classes of designations embraces two terms : Yeqara, the
excellent glory, and Shekhinah, or Shekhintha, the abiding Presence.3 On the other
hand, God, as in the act of revealing himself, is described by the term Memra, the
'Logos,' 'the Word.' A distinction of ideas also obtains between the terms
Yeqara and Shekhinah. The former indicates, as we think, the inward and up
ward, the latter the outward and downward, aspect of the revealed God. This
distinction will appear by comparing the use of the two words in the Targumim,
and even by the consideration of passages in which the two are placed side by
side (as for ex., in the Targum Onkelos on Ex. xvii. 16; Numb. xiv. 14; in Pseudo-
Jonathan, Gen. xvi. 13, 14; in the Jerusalem Targum, Ex. xix. 18; and in the
Targum Jonathan, Is. vi. 1, 3 ; Hagg. i. 8). Thus, also, the allusion in 2 Pet i.
17, to ' the voice from the excellent glory ' (rfji p.EyaXoitpEitov'i ookr)%) must have
been to the Yeqara.* The varied use of the terms Shekhinah and Yeqara, and then
Memra, in the Targum of Is. vi., is very remarkable. In ver. 1 it is the Yeqara
and its train — the heavenward glory — which fills the Heavenly Temple. In ver. 3
1 Comp. generally. Hamburger, vol. ii. pp. u. Anthropopathien ber Onkelos) affords" a
181-212, and the • History of the Jewish curious instance of modern Jewish criticism.
Nation," pp. 667-580, where the Eabbinic With much learning and not a little Inge-
Bxegesis is fully explained. nuityhe tries to prove by a detaUed analysis,
2 Besides the designations of God to which that the three terms Memra, Shekhinali, and
reference is made in the text, Philo also Yeqara have not the meaning above ex-
applies to Him that of toti-os, • place,' in pre- plained ! The force of ' tendency-argumen-
cisely the same manner as the later Eabbia tation " could scarcely go farther than his
(and especially the Kabbalah) use the word essay.
a«,pJ2- To PhUo it implies that God is ex- * Not as Grimm (Clavis N.T. p. 107 a)
T would have It, the Sliekhinah, though he
tramundane. He sees this taught in Gen. rightly regards the N.T. 66£a, in this signi-
xxii. 3, 4, where Abraham -came 'unto the flcation of the word, as the equivalent of the
place of which God had told him ; but, when Old Testament "" "1 V^3- Clear notions on
he 'lifted up his eyes,' 'saw the place afaroff.' the subject are so Important that we give a
Similarly, the Rabbis when commenting on list of the chief passages in which the two
Gen. xxviii. 11, assign this as the reason terms are used 'in the Targum Onkelos, viz.
why God is designated Qfe^, that He is ex- Yeqara: Gen. xvll. 22; xviii. 33; xxviii.
' T 13; xxxv. 13; Ex. 111. 1, 6; xvi. 7, 10;
tramundane; the discussion being whether xvii. 16; xvlll. 6: xx. 17, 18; xxiv. 10, 11,
God is the place of His World or the reverse, 17; xxix. 43; xxxiii. 18, 22, 23,; xl. 34, 38;
and the decision in favour of the former— Gen. Lev. ix. 4, 6, 23; Numb. x. 36: xll. 8; xiv.
xxviii. 11 being explained by Ex. xxxiii. 21, 14, 22. Shekhinah: Gen. ix. 27; Ex. xvii.
and Deut. xxxiii. 27 by Ps. xc. 1 (Ber. R. 68, 7, 16; xx. 21: xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46;
ed. Warsh. p. 125 V). xxxUl. 3, 5, 14-16, 20; xxxiv. 6, 9; Numb.
'¦> I think it is Kdsler (Trinitatslehre vor v. 3; vi. 25; xi. 20;. xiv. 14, 42; xxiii.
Christo) who distinguishes the two as God's 21; xxxv. 34; Deut. 1. 42; iii. 24; iv. 39;
Presence within and without the congrega- vi. 15; vii. 21; xii. 5, .11, 21; xiv. 23, 24;
tion. In general his brochure is of little real xvi. 2, 6. 11, xxiii. 16; xxvi. 2; xxxii. 10;
value. Dr. S. Maybaum (Anthropomorphien xxxiii. 26.

THE 'MEMRA' OR 'LOGOS' OF ONKELOS. 661
we hear the Trishagion in connection with the dwelling of His Shekhintha, while ^PP.
the splendour (Ziv) of His Yeqara fills the earth — as it were, flows down to it. In jj
ver. 5 the prophet dreads, because he had seen the Yeqara of the Shekhinah,
while in ver. 6 the coal is taken from before the Shekhintha (which is) upon the
throne of the Yeqara (a remarkable expression, which occurs often ; so especially in
Ex. xvii. 16). Finally, in ver. 8, the prophet hears the voice of the Memra of Jeho
vah speaking the words of vv. 9, 10. It is intensely interesting to notice that in
St John xii. 40, these words are prophetically applied in connection with Christ.
Thus St. John applies to the Logos what the Targum understands of the Memra of
Jehovah. But, theologically, by far the most interesting and important point, with refer
ence not only to the Logos of Philo, but to the term Logos as employed in the
Fourth Gospel, is to ascertain the precise import of the equivalent expression
Memra in the Targumim. As stated in the text of this book (vol. i. p. 47), the
term Memra as applied to God, occurs 176 times in the Targum Onkelos, 99 times
in the Jerusalem Targum, and 321 times in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. We
subjoin the list of these passages, arranged in three classes. Those in Class I. mark
where the term does not apply to this, or where it is at least doubtful; those in
Class II, where the fair interpretation of a passage shows ; and Class III. where
it is undoubted and unquestionable, that the expression Memra refers to God as
revealing Himself, that is, the Logos.
Classified List of all the Passages in which the term ' Memra '
occurs in the Targum Onkelos.
(The term occurs 176 times. Class HI., which consists of those passages in which
the term Memra bears undoubted application to the Divine Personality as re
vealing Himself, comprises 79 passages.) l
Class I. Inapplicable or Doubtful: Gen. xxvi. 5; Ex. ii. 25; v. 2; vi. 8; xv. 8,
10, 26 ; xvi. 8 ; xvii. 1 ; xxiii. 21, 22 ; xxv. 22 ; xxxii. 13 ; Lev. xviii. 30 ; xxii. 9 ;
xxvi. 14, 18, 21, 27; Num. iii. 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20 (bis),
23 quat. ; x. 13; xiii. 3; xiv. 11, 22, 30, 35; xx. 12, 24; xxiii. 19; xxiv. 4, 16;
xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2, 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26; iv. 30; viii. 3, 20; xiii. 5, 19 (in
our Version 4, 18) ; xv. 5 ; xxvi. 15, 18 ; xxvii. 10 ; xxviii. 1, 2, 15, 45, 62 ; xxx. 2,
8, 10, 20.
An examination of these passages would show that, for caution's sake, we have
sometimes put down as ' inapplicable ' or ' doubtful ' what, viewed in connection with
other passages in which the word is used, appears scarcely doubtful. It would take
too much space to explain why some passages are put in the next class, although the
term Memra seems to be used in a manner parallel to that in Class I. Lastly, the
reason why some passages appear in Class III., when others, somewhat similar, are
1 As these sheets are passing through the historical, exegetical, and critical, and treat-
press for a second edition, the classic edition ing them with equal learning and breadth
of the Targum Onkelos bvDr. Berliner (in 2 and sobriety of judgment. On comparing our
vols Berlin, 1884) has reached me. Vol. 1. ordinary text with that published by Dr.
gives the text after the editio Sabioneta (of Berliner I find that in the three passages
the year 1557). Vol. ii. adds critical notes to italicised (Gen. vii. 16, vi. 6, once, and xxviii.
the text (pp. 1-70), which are followed by 21) the ed. Sabion. has not the word Memra.
very interesting Prolegomena, entering fully This is specially noteworthy as regards the
on all questions connected with this Targum, very important passage, Gen. xxviii. 21.

662 THE MEMRA IN THE TARGUMIM.
^pp. placed in Class II., must be sought in the context and connection of a verse. We
U must ask the reader to believe that each passage has been carefully studied by itself,
^^^^s and that our conclusions have been determined by careful consideration, and by the
fair meaning to be put on the language of Onkelos.
Class II. Fair: Gen. vii. 16; xx. 3; xxxi. 3, 24; Ex. xix. 5; Lev. viii. 35;
xxvi. 23; Numb. xi. 20, 23; xiv. 41; xxii. 9, 18, 20; xxiii. 3, 4, 16; xxvii. 21;
xxxvi. 2; Deut. i. 32; iv. 24, 33, 36; v. 24, 25, 26; ix. 23 (bis); xxxi. 23;
xxxiv. 5.
Class III. Undoubted: Gen. iii. 8, 10; vi. 6 (bis), 7; viii. 21; ix. 12, 13, 15,
16, 17; xv. 1, 6; xvii. 2, 1, 10, 11; xxi. 20, 22, 23; xxii. 16; xxiv. 3; xxvi. 3,
24, 28; xxviii. 15, 20, 21; xxxi. 49, 50; xxxv. 3; xxxix, 2, 3, 21, 23; xlviii. 21;
xlix. 24, 25; Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15; x. 10; xiv. 31; xv. 2; xviii. 19; xix. 17;
xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxiii. 22; Lev. xx. 23; xxiv. 12; xxvi. 9,
11, 30. 46; Numb. xiv. 9 (bis), 43; xvii. 19 (in our Version v. 4); xxi. 5; xxiii. 21;
Deut. i. 30; ii. 7; iii. 22; iv. 37; v. 5; ix. 3; xviii. 16, 19; xx. 1; xxiii. 15; xxxi.
6, 8 ; xxxii. 51 ; xxxiii. 3, 27.
Of most special interest is the rendering of Onkelos of Deut. xxxiii. 27, where
instead of 'underneath are the everlasting arms,' Onkelos has it: -And by His
Memra was the world made,' exactly as in St. John i. 10. This divergence of
Onkelos from the Hebrew text is utterly unaccountable, nor has any explanation
of it, as far as I know, been attempted. Winer, whose inaugural dissertation ' De
Onkeloso ejusque Paraphrasi Chaldaica ' (Lips. 1820), most modern writers have
simply followed (with some amplifications, chiefly from Luzatto's 'Philoxenus,'
Ijn ITfX makes no reference to this passage, nor do his successors, so far as I
know. It is curious that, as our present Hebrew text has three words, so has the
rendering of Onkelos, and that both end with the same word.
In classifying the passages in which the word Memra occurs in the Jerusalem
Targum aud the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, we have reversed the previous order,
and Class I. represents the passages in which the term undoubtedly applies to the
Personal manifestation of God; Class II., in which this is the fair interpretation;
Class III., in which such application is, to say the most, doubtful.

Classified List of Passages (according to the above scheme) in which
the term 'Memra' occurs in the Targum Jerushalmi on the
Pentateuch.
Class I. Of undoubted application to a Personal Manifestation of God: Gen. i.
27; iii. 9, 22; v. 24; vi.- 3; vii. 16; xv. 1; xvi. 3; xix. 24; xxi. 33; xxii 8,
14; xxviii. 10; xxx. 22 (bis; xxxi. 9; xxxv. 9 (quat); xxxviii. 25; xl. 23; Exod.
iii. 14; vi. 3; xii. 42 (quat); xiii. 18; xiv. 15, 24, 25; xv. 12, 25 (bis); xix. 5, 7,
8, 9 (bis); xx. 1, 24; Lev. i. 1; Numb. ix. 8; x. 35, 36; xiv. 20; xxi. 6; xxiii.
8 (bis); xxiv. 6, 23; xxv. 4; xxvii. 16; Deut i. 1; iii. 2; iv. 34; xxvi. 3, 14, 17,
18; xxviii. 27, 68; xxxii. 15, 39, 51; xxxiii. 2, 7; xxxiv. 9, 10, 11.
Class II. Where such application is fair: Gen. v. 24; xxi. 33; Ex. vi. 3; xv.
1; Lev. i. 1; Numb, xxiii. 15, 21; xxiv. 4, 16; Deut. xxxii. 1, 40.
Class III. Where such application is doubtful: Gen. vi. 6; xviii. 1, 17; xxii.
14 (bis) ; xxx. 22 ; xl. 23 ; xlix. 18 ; Ex. xiii. 19 ; xv. 2, 26 ; xvii. 16 ; xix. 3 ; Deut.
i. 1; xxxii. 18; xxxiv. 4, 5.

AN EXAMPLE OF PHILO'S METHOD OF EXEGESIS.

663

Classified List of Passages in which the term 'Memra ' occurs in the
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch.
Class I. Undoubted: Gen. ii. 8; iii. 8, 10, 24; iv. 26; v. 2; vii. 16; ix. 12
13, 15, 16, 17; xi. 8; xii. 17; xv. 1; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xviii. 5 ; xix. 24 (bis)
xx. 6, 18; xxi. 20, 22, 23, 33; xxii. 1; xxiv. 1, 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxvii. 28, 31
xxviii. 10, 15, 20 ; xxix. 12 ; xxxi. 3, 50 ; xxxv. 3, 9 ; xxxix. 2, 3, 21, 23 ; xii. 1
xlvi. 4; xlviii. 9, 21; xlix. 25; 1. 20; Exod. i. 21; ii. 5; iii. 12; vii. 25; x. 10
xii. 23, 29; xiii. 8, 15, 17; xiv. 25, 31; xv. 25; xvii. 13, 15, 16 (bis); xviii. 19
xx. 7; xxvi. 28; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6, 36; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxii. 35; xxxiii. 9, 19
xxxiv. 5; xxxvi. 33; Lev. i. I (bis); vi. 2; viii. 35; ix. 23; xx. 23; xxiv. 12
(bis); xxvi. 11, 12, 30, 44, 46; Numb. iii. 16, 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18
(bis), 19, 20 (bis), 23 (ter); x. 13, 35, 36; xiv. 9, 41, 43; xvi. 11, 26; xvii. 4;
xxi. 5, 6, 8, 9, 34; xxii. 18, 19, 28; xxiii. 3, 4, 8 (bis), 16, 20, 21; xxiv. 13;
xxvii. 16; xxxi. 8; xxxiii. 4; Deut. i. 10, 30, 43; ii. 7, 21; iii. 22; iv. 3, 7 (bis),
20, 24, 33, 36; v. 5 (bis), 11, 22, 23, 24 (bis), 25, 26; vi. 13, 21, 22; ix. 3; xi. 23;
xii. 5, 11 ; xviii. 19 ; xx. 1 ; xxi. 20 ; xxiv. 18, 19 ; xxvi. 5, 14, 18 ; xxviii. 7, 9,
11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 35, 48, 49, 59, 61, 63, 68; xxix. 2, 4; xxx. 3, 4, 5,
7; xxxi. 5, 8, 23; xxxii. 6, 9, 12, 36; xxxiii. 29; xxxiv. 1, 5, 10, 11.
Class H. Fair: Gen. v. 24; xv. 6; xvi. 1, 13; xviii. 17; xxii. 16; xxix. 31
xxx. 22; xlvi. 4; Ex. ii. 23; iii. 8, 17, 19; iv. 12; vi. 8; xii. 27; xiii. 5, 17
xxxii. 13; xxxiii. 12, 22; Lev. xxvi. 44; Numb. xiv. 30; xx. 12, 21; xxii. 9, 20
xxiv. 4, 16, 23; Deut. viii. 3; xi. 12; xxix. 23; xxxi. 2, 7; xxxii. 18, 23, 26, 38,
39, 43, 48, 50, 51; xxxiii. 3, 27; xxxiv. 6.
Class HI. Doubtful: Gen. vi. 3, 6 (bis), 7 (bis); viii. 1, 21; xxii. 18; xxvi. 5
(bis) ; Ex. iv. 15 ; v. 2 ; ix. 20, 21 ; x. 29 ; xiv. 7 ; xv. 2, 8 ; xvi. 3, 8 ; xix. 5 ; xxv. 22
Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 40; Numb. vi. 27; ix. 8; xii. 6; xiv. 11, 22, 35
xv. 34; xx. 24; xxiii. 19; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2. 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26, 32
iv. 30; v. 5; viii. 20; ix. 23; xi. 1; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 15; xxv. 18; xxvi. 17
xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 9, 10; xxxi. 12; xxxiii. 9.
(Ad vol. i. p. 53, note 4.) Only one illustration of Philo's peculiar method of
interpreting the Old Testament can here be given. It will at the same time show
how he found confirmation for his philosophical speculations in the Old Testament,
and further illustrate his system of moral theology in its most interesting, but also
most difficult point. The question is, how the soul was to pass from its state of sensu-
ousness and sin to one of devotion to reason, which was religion and righteousness.
It will be remarked that the change from the one state to the other is said to be
accomplished in one of three ways: by study, by practice, or through a good
natural disposition (pdBT/azi, acrKycris, Evcpvia) exactly as Aristotle put it. But
Philo found a symbol for each, and for a preparatory stage in each, in Scripture.
The three Patriarchs represented this threefold mode of reaching the supersensu-
ous: Abraham, study; Jacob, practice; Isaac, a good disposition; while Enos,
Enoch, and Noah, represented the respective preparatory stages. Enos (hope), the
first real ancestor of our race, represented the mind awakening to the existence of
a better life. Abraham (study) received command to leave ' the land ' (sensuous-
ness). But all study was threefold. It was, first, physical — Abram in the land of
Ur, contemplating the starry sky, but not knowing God. Next to the physical was
that ' intermediate' (pe'o-rf) study, which embraced the ordinary ' cycle of know
ledge' (iyKVKXioi TtaiSs'ia). This was Abram after he leftHaran, and that know-

APP. n

664 PHILO AND GRECIAN PHILOSOPHY.
APP. ledge was symbolised by his union with Hagar, who tarried (intermediately)
II between Kadesh and Bered. But this stage also was insufficient, and the soul must
reach the third and highest stage, that of Divine philosophy (truly, the love of
wisdom, (piXoaocpia) where eternal truth was the subject of contemplation. Ac
cordingly, Abram left Lot, he became Abraham, and he was truly united to Sarah,
no longer Sarai. Onwards and ever upwards would the soul now rise to the
knowledge of virtue, of heavenly realities, nay, of the nature of God Himself.
But there was yet another method than 'study,' by which the soul might rise
— that of askesis, discipline, practice, of which Scripture speaks in Enoch and
Jacob. Enoch — whom 'God took, and he was not' (Gen. v. 24) — meant the soul
turning from the lower to the higher, so that it was no longer found in its former
place of evil. From Enoch, as the preparatory stage, we advance to Jacob, first
merely fleeing from sensuous entanglements (from Laban), then con tending with the
affections, ridding himself of five of the seventy-five souls with which he had entered
Egypt (Deut. x. 22, comp. with Gen. xlvi. 27), often nearly misled by the Sophists
(Dinah and Hamor), often nearly failing and faint in the conflict (Jacob's wrest
ling), but holpen by God, and finally victorious, when Jacob became Israel.
But the highest of all was that spiritual life which came neither from study
nor discipline, but through a good natural disposition. Here we have, first of all,
Noah, who symbolises only the commencement of virtue, since we read not of any
special virtue in him. Rather is he rest — as the name implies — good, relatively to
those around. It was otherwise with Isaac, who was perfect before his birth
(and hence chosen), even as Rebekah meant constancy in virtue. In that state
the soul enjoyed true rest (the Sabbath, Jerusalem) and joy, which Isaac's name
implied. But true virtue, which was also true wisdom, was Paradise, whence
issued the one stream (goodness), which again divided into four branches (the four
Stoic virtues) : — Pison, 'prudence' (cppovrjaii); Gihon, ' fortitude ' (dvSpia) ; Tigris,
'desire' (iitiBvpia), and Euphrates, 'justice ' (SiKaioo-uvrf). And yet, though these
be the Stoic virtues, they all spring from Paradise, the Garden of God — and all that
is good, and all help to it, comes to us ultimately from God Himself, and is in
God.

RABBINIC VIEWS ON IMAGES. 665

APPENDIX III.
RABBINIC VIEWS AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF IMAGES, PICTORIAL
REPRESENTATIONS ON COINS, ETC.
(See vol. i. p. 89, note 3.)
On this point, especially as regarded images, statues, and coins, the views of the APP
Rabbis underwent (as stated in the text) changes and modifications according to the m
outward circumstances of the people. The earlier and strictest opinions, which ab
solutely forbade any representation, were relaxed in the Mishnah, and still further
in the Talmud.
In tracing this development, we mark as a first stage that a distinction was
made between having such pictorial representations and making use of them, in
the sense of selling or bartering them ; and again between making and finding them.
The Mishnah forbids only such representations of human beings as carry in their
hand some symbol of power, such as a staff, bird, globe, or, as the Talmud adds, a
sword, or even a signet-ring (Ab. Z. iii. 1). The Commentaries explain that this
must refer to the making use of them, since their possession was, at any rate, pro
hibited. The Talmud adds (Ab. Z. 40 b, 41 a) that these were generally representa
tions of kings, that they were used for purposes of worship, and that their prohibi
tion applied only to villages, not to towns, where they were used for ornament.
Similarly the Mishnah directs that everything bearing a representation of sun or
moon, or of a dragon, was to be thrown into the Dead Sea (Ab. Z. iii. 3). On the
other hand, the Talmud quotes (Ab. Z. 42 b) a proposition (Boraita), to the effect
that all representations of the planets were allowed, except those of the sun and
moon,1 likewise all statues except those of man, and all pictures except those of a
dragon, the discussion leading to the conclusion that in two, if not in all the cases
mentioned, the Talmudic directions refer to finding, not making such. So stringent,
indeed, was the law as regarded signet-rings, that it was forbidden to have raised
work on them, and only such figures were allowed as were sunk beneath the surface,
although even then they were not to be used for sealing (Ab. Z. 43 b). But this
already marks a concession, accorded apparently to a celebrated Rabbi, who had
such a ring. Still further in the same direction is the excuse, framed at a later
period, for the Rabbis who worshipped in a Synagogue that had a statue of a king,
to the effect that they could not be suspected of idolatory, since the place, and hence
their conduct, was under the inspection of all men. This more liberal tendency
had, indeed, appeared at a much earlier period, in the case of the Nasi Gamaliel H.,
who made use of a public bath at Acco in which there was a statue of Aphrodite.
1 The Nasi R. Gamaliel made use of re- the new moon) the beginning of the month.
presentations of the moon in questioning But this must be regarded as a necessary
ignorant witnesses with a view to fixing (by exception to the Mishnic rule.

666

THE USE OF STATUES AND OTHER REPRESENTATIONS.

APP. The Mishnah (Ab. Z. iii. 4) puts this twofold plea into his mouth, that he had not
jjj gone into the domain of the idol, but the idol came into his, and that the statue was
^^^^ there for ornament, not for worship. " The Talmud endorses, indeed, these argu
ments, but in a manner showing that the conduct of the great Gamaliel was not
really approved of (Ab. Z. 44 b). But a statue used for idolatrous purposes was
not only to be pulverized, but the dust cast to the winds or into the sea, lest it
• might possibly serve as manure to the soil ! (Ab. Z. iii. 3.) This may explain how
Josephus ventured even to blame King Solomon for the figures on the brazen sea
and on his throne (Ant. viii. 7. 5), and how he could excite a fanatical rabble at
Tiberias, to destroy the palace of Herod Antipas because it contained ' figures of
living creatures' (Life 12). 1

1 Following the insufficient reasoning of
Ewald (Gesch. d. Voltes Isr. vol. v. p. 83),
Schiirer represents the non-issue of coins with
the image of Herod as a concession to Jewish
prejudices, and argues that the coins of the
Emperors struck in Palestine bore no effigy.
The assertion is, however, unsupported, and
St. Matt. xxii. 20 proves that coins with an
image of Csesar were in general circulation.
Wieseler (Beitr. pp. 83-87 had shown that
the absence of Herod's effigy on coins proves
his inferior position relatively to Home, and
as this has an important bearing on the
question of a Roman census during his reign,
it was scarcely fair to simply ignore it. The
Tulmud (Baba K. 97 h) speaks of coins bear
ing on one side David and Solomon ( ? their
effigies or their names), and on the other
'Jerusalem, the holy City.' But if it be
doubtful whether these coins had respectively
the effigies of David or of Solomon, there can
be no doubt about the coins ascribed in Ber.
R. (Par. 39, ed. Warshau, p. 71 b) to Abra

ham, Joshua, David, and Mordecai — that of
Abraham being described as bearing on one
side the figures of an old man and an old
woman (Abraham and Sarah), and on the
other those of a young man and a young
woman (Isaac and Rebekah). The coins of
Joshua are stated to have borne c n one side
a bullock, on the other a ram, according to
Deut; xxxiii. 17. There could, therefore,
have been no such abhorrence of such coins,
and if there had been: Herod was scarcely the
man to be deterred by it. On these supposed
coins of David, &c., see the very curious
remarks of Wagenseil, Sota, pp. 574, and fol
lowing. The fullest and most accurate in
formation on all connected with the coins of
the Jews is contained in the large and learned
work of Mr. Madden, 'Coins of the Jews'
(vol. ii. of 'The International Numismata
Orientalia,' 1881). Comp. also the Review of
this book in the Journal of the Royal
Archaeological Inst, for 1882, vol. xxxix. pp.
203-206.

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE JEWS. ;.667

APPENDIX IV.
AN ABSTRACT OF JEWISH HISTORY FROM THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER
THE GREAT TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD.
(See Book I. ch. viii.)
The political connection of Israel with the Grecian world, and, with it, the conflict APP
with Hellenism, may be said to have commenced with the victorious progress of jy
• Alexander the Great through the then known world (333 b.c.).1 It was not ouly
that his destruction of the Persian empire put an end to the easy and peaceful
allegiance which Judsea had owned to it for about two centuries, but that the es
tablishment of such a vast Hellenic empire, as was the aim of Alexander, intro
duced a new element into the old world of Asia. Everywhere the old civilisation
gave way before the new. So early as the commencement of the second century
before Christ, Palestine was already surrounded, north, east, and west, with a
girdle of Hellenic cities, while in the interior of the land itself Grecianism had its
foothold in Galilee and was dominant in Samaria. But this is not all. After
continuing the frequent object of contention between the rulers of Egypt and Syria,
Palestine ultimately passed from Egyptian to Syrian domination during the reign
of Seleucus IV. (187-175 b.c). His successor was that Antiochus IV., Epiphanes
(175-164), whose reckless determination to exterminate Judaism, and in its place
to substitute Hellenism, led to the Maccabean rising. Mad as this attempt seems,
it could scarcely have been made had there not been in Palestine itself a party to
favour his plans. In truth, Grecianism, in its worst form, had long before made its
way, slowly but surely, into the highest quarters. For the proper understanding of
this history its progress must be briefly indicated.
After the death of Alexander, Palestine passed first under Egyptian domina
tion. Although the Ptolemies were generally favourable to the Jews (at least of
their own country), those of Palestine at times felt the heavy band of the conqueror
(Jos. Ant. xii. 1. 1). Then followed the contests between Syria and Egypt for its
possession, in which the country must have severely suffered. As Josephus aptly
remarks (Ant. xii. 3. 3), whichever party gained, Palestine was ' like a ship in a
storm which is tossed by the waves on both sides.' Otherwise it was a happy
time, because one of comparative independence. The secular and spiritual power
was vested in the hereditary High-Priests, who paid for their appointment (prob
ably annually) the sum of twenty (presumably Syrian) talents, amounting to five
ordinary talents, or rather less than 1,200Z.2 Besides this personal, the country
i We do not here discuss tlie question, Impression which Ms appearance had made,
whether or not Alexander really entered and the permanent results which followed
Jerusalem. Jewish legend has much to tell from it.
of him, and reports many supposed inquiries 2 Comp. HerzfeW,, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr,
on his part or discussions between him and vol. ii. passim, but specially pp. 181 and
the Rabbis, that prove at least the deep 211.

6$8 JEWISH HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER.
paid a general tribute, its revenues being let to the highest bidder. The sum levied
on Judaea itself has been computed at 81,900?. (350 ordinary talents). Although
this tribute appears by no means excessive, bearing in mind that in later times the
dues from the balsam-district around Jericho were reckoned at upwards of 46,800?.
(200 talents), the hardship lay in the mode of levying it by strangers, often unjustly,
and always harshly, and in the charges connected with its collection. This cause
of complaint was, indeed, removed in the course of time, but only by that which
led to far more serious evils.
The succession of the High-Priests, as given in Nehem. xii. 10, 11, 22, furnishes
the following names: Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan,1 Jonathan, and
Jaddua, who was the contemporary of Alexander the Great. After the death of
Jaddua, we have the following list : '* Onias I. (Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 7), Simon I. the
Just3 (Ant. xii. 2. 5), Eleazar, Manasseh (Ant. xii. 4. 1), Onias II., Simon II.
(Ant. xii. 4. 10), Onias III., Jason (Ant. xii. 5. 1), Menelaus, and Alcimus (Ant.
xii. 9. 7), with whom the series of the Pontiffs is brought down to the time of the
Maccabees. Internal peace and happiness ceased after the death of Simon the.
Just (in the beginning of the third century b.c), one of the last links in that some
what mysterious chain of personages, to which tradition has given the name of
' the Great Assemblage,' or ' Great Synagogue.' 4
Jewish legend has much that is miraculous to tell of Simon the Just, aud con
nects him alike with events both long anterior and long posterior to his Pontificate.
Many of these traditions read like the outcome of loving, longing remembrance of
a happy past which was never to return. Such a venerable form would never again
be seen in the Sanctuary (Ecclus. 1. 1^), nor would such miraculous attestation be
given to any other ministrations5 (Yoma 39 a and 6; Jer. Yoma v. 2; vi. 3). All
this seems to point to the close of a period when the High-Priesthood was purely
Jewish in spirit, just as the hints about dissensions among his sons (Jer. Yoma 43
d, at top) sound like faint reminiscences of the family — and public troubles which
followed. In point of fact he was succeeded not by his son Onias,6 who was under
age, but by his brother Eleazar, and he, after a Pontificate of twenty years, by his
brother Manasseh. It was only twenty-seven years later, after the death of
Manasseh, that Onias II. became High-Priest. If Eleazar, and especially Manasseh,
owed their position, or at least strengthened it, by courting the favour of the ruler
of Egypt, it was almost natural that Ouias should have taken the opposite or
Syrian part. His refusal to pay the High-Priestly tribute to Egypt could scarcely
have been wholly due to avarice, as Josephus suggests. The anger and threats of
1 I have placed Johanan (Neh. xii. 22) i. 2, 3 is worth setting against the express
before Jonathan, in accordance with the in- statement of Josephus. Besides, Zunz has
genious reasoning of Herzfeld, ii. p. 372. The rightly shown that the expression Qibbel
chronology of their Pontificates is almost in- must not be too closely pressed, as indeed its
extricably involved. In other respects also use throughout the Perek seems to indicate
there are not a few difficulties. See Zunz, (Gottesd. Vortr. p. 37, Note).
Gottesd. Vortr. p. 27, and the elaborate dis- .¦» Of this more in the sequel. He is called :
cussions of Herzfeld. whose work, however, rnnjn HDjD '""ir, which however does
is very faulty in arrangement. not seem necessarily to imply that he was
2 Happily no divergence exists as to their actually a member of it.
succession. » it deserves notice that in these same
3 Some Christian and all Jewish writers Talmudic passages reference is also made to
assign the designation of ' The Just ' to the later entire cessation of the same mira-
Simnn II. This is directly contrary to the cles, as indicating the coming destruction of
express statement of Josephus. Herzfeld the Temple.
(i. 377) appeals to Abhoth i. 2, 3, Men. 109 b, « Or as he is designated in the Talmud ;
and Jer. Yoma vi. 3, but immediately re- Chonyi, Nechunyah, and even Nechunyon.
linquishes the two latter references as other- Onias is a Grecianised form— itself a signifi-
wise historically untenable. But surely no cant fact.
historical inference — for such it is — from Ab.

TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD. 669
the king were appeased by the High-Priest's nephew Joseph, who claimed descent . pp
from the line of David. He knew how to ingratiate himself at the court of py '
Alexandria, and obtained the lease of the taxes of Ccele-Syria (which included ^__^^,
Judaea), by offering for it double the sum previously paid. The removal of the
foreign tax-gatherer was very grateful to the Jews, but the authority obtained by
Joseph became a new source of danger, especially in the hands of his ambitious
son, Hyrcanus. Thus we already mark the existence of three parties: the
Egyptian, the Syrian, and that of the ' sons of Tobias ' (Ant. xii. 5. 1), as the
adherents of Joseph were called, after his father. If the Egyptian party ceased
when Palestine passed under Syrian rule in the reign of Antiochus III. the Great
(223-187 b.c), and ultimately became wholly subject to it under Seleucus IV.
(187-173), the Syrian, and especially the Tobias-party, had already become Gre-
cianised. In truth, the contest now became one for power and wealth in which each
sought to outbid the other by bribery and subserviency to the foreigner. As the
submission of the people could only be secured by the virtual extinction of Judaism,
this aim was steadily kept in view by the degenerate priesthood.
The storm did not, indeed, break under the Pontificate of Simon II., the son
and successor of Onias II., but the times were becoming more and more troublous.
Although the Syrian rulers occasionally showed favour to the Jews, Palestine was
now covered with a network of Syrian officials, into whose hands the temporal
power mainly passed. ¦ The taxation also sensibly increased, and, besides crown-
money, consisted of a poll-tax, the third of the field-crop3, the half of the produce
of trees, a royal monopoly of salt and of the forests, and even a tax on the Levitical
tithes and on all revenues of the Temple.1 Matters became much worse under the
Pontificate of Onias HI., the son and successor of Simon II. A dispute between
him and one Simon, a priest, and captain of the temple-guard,2 apparently provoked
by the unprincipled covetousness of the latter, induced Simon to appeal to the
cupidity of the Syrians by referring to the untold treasures which he described as
deposited in the Temple. His motive may have been partly a desire for revenge,
partly the hope of attaining the office of Onias. It was ascribed to a super
natural apparition, but probably it was only superstition which arrested the Syrian
general at that time. But a dangerous lesson had been learned alike by Jew and
Gentile. Seleucus IV. was succeeded by his brother Antiochus IV., Epiphanes (175-164).
Whatever psychological explanation may be offered of his bearing — whether his
conduct was that of a madman, or of a despot intoxicated to absolute forgetfulness
of every consideration beyond his own caprice by the fancied possession of power
uncontrolled and unlimited— cruelty and recklessness of tyranny were as promi
nently his characteristics as revengefulness and unbounded devotion to superstition.
Under such a reign the precedent which Simon, the Captain of the Temple, had
set, was successfully followed up by no less a person than the brother of the
High-Priest himself. The promise of a yearly increase of 360 talents in the taxes
of the country, besides a payment of 80 talents from another revenue (2 Mace. iv.
8, 9), purchased the deposition of Onias III. — the first event of that kind recorded
in Jewish history — and the substitution of his brother Joshua, Jesus, or Jason (as
i In 1 Mace x. 29-33; Jos. Ant. xii. 3. 3; xiii. ation, seems strange indeed. Schurer (u. s. p.
•2 3 In view of these express testimonies 71) passes rather lightly over the troubles in
the statement of Ewald (Gesch. d. V. Isr. vol. Judasa before Antiochus Epiphanes.
iv p 373) to the effect that Palestine, or at i Herzfeld rightly corrects ' Benjamin ' in
least Jerusalem, enjoyed immunity from tax- 2 Mace. iii. 4. Comp. u. s. p. 218.

670 JEWISH HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER.
APP. he loved to Grecianise his name), in the Pontificate.1 But this was not all. The
iy necessities, if not the inclinations, of the new High-Priest, and his relations to the
._^_ _,__ . Syrian king, prescribed a Grecian policy at home. It seems, almost incredible, and
yet it is quite in accordance with the circumstances, that Jason should have actually
paid to Antiochus a sum of 150 talents for, permission to erect a Gymnasium in
Jerusalem, that he entered citizens of Antioch on the registers of Jerusalem, and
that on one occasion he went so far as to send a deputation to attend the games at
Tyre, with money for purchasing offerings to Heracles! And in Jerusalem, and
throughout the land, there was a strong and increasing party to support Jason in
his plans, and to follow his lead (2 Mace. iv. 9, 19). Thus far had Grecianism
already swept over the country, as not only to threaten the introduction of views,
manners, and institutions wholly incompatible with the religion of the Old Testa
ment, but even the abolition of the bodily mark which distinguished its professors
(1 Mace. i. 15; Jos. Ant. xii. 5. 1).
But the favour which Antiochus showed Jason was not of long duration. One
even more unscrupulous than he, Menelaus (or, according to his Jewish name,
Onias), the brother of that Simon who had first excited the Syrian cupidity about
the Temple treasure, outbade Jason with Antiochus by a promise of 300 talent3 in
addition to the tribute which Jason had paid. Accordingly, Menelaus was appointed
High-Priest. In the expressive language of the time : ' he came, bringing nothing
. worthy of the High-Priesthood, but having the fury of a, cruel tyrant and the rage
of a savage beast ' (2 Mace. iv. 25). In the conflict for the Pontificate, which now
ensued, Menelaus conquered by the help of the Syrians. A terrible period of
internal misrule and external troubles followed. Menelaus and his associates cast
off every restraint, and even plundered the Temple of some of its precious vessels.
Antiochus, who had regarded the resistance to his nominee as rebellion against
himself, took fearful vengeance by slaughter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and
pillage of the Temple. But this was not all. When checked in his advance
against Egypt, by the peremptory mandate of Rome, Antiochus made up for his
disappointment by an expedition against Judasa, of which the avowed object was
to crush the people and to sweep away Judaism. The horrors which now ensued
are equally recorded in the Books of the Maccabees, by Josephus, and in Jewish
tradition.2 All sacrifices, the service of the Temple, and the observance of the
Sabbath and of feast-days were prohibited; the Temple at Jerusalem was dedicated
to Jupiter Olympius; the Holy Scriptures were searched for and destroyed ; the Jews
forced to take part in heathen rites; a small heathen altar was reared on the great
altar of burnt-offering— in short, every insult was heaped on the religion of the
Jews, and its every trace was to be swept away. The date of the final profanation
of the Temple was the 25th Chislev (corresponding to our December)— the same
on which, after its purification by Judas Maccabee,3 its services were restored, the
same on which the Christian Church celebrates the dedication of a better Temple,
that of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
1 The notice In Jos. Ant. xii. 5. 1 must on the 28th of Adar is at least open to con-
be corrected by the account in 2 Mace. Comp. troversy.
Herzfeld, u. s. a The designation ¦ Maccabee ' was origin-
2 Besides Talmudic and Midrashic notices, ally given to Judas (1 Mace. ii. 4, 6'6 ; iii 1 •
we here refer to that most interesting and v. 24, 34). The name was, like that of Charles
ancient Megillath Taanith, or ' Rolls of Fasts,' Martel, probably derived from 1^^, or in
of which a translation is given in Appendix Chaldee S3P?;. a hammer. Comp'. "josippon
V. The passages bearing on this period are ben Gorion, '.iii. 9. 7 (ed. Breithcmpt, p. 200)—
collected in Derenbourg, Hist, de la Palestine, only that he writes the name with a 3 and
pp. 59-63, although his reference to that not a p.

TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD. Gil
But the relentless persecution, which searched for its victims in every part of APP.
the land, also called forth a deliverer in the person of Mattathias. The story of the py
glorious rising and final deliverance of the country under the Maccabees or ._,.-».
Asmonaians, as they are always called in Jewish writings,1 is sufficiently known.
Only the briefest outline of it can here be attempted. Mattathias died before it
came to any actual engagement with the Syrians, but victory after victory attended
the arms of his son, Judas the Maccabee, till at last the Temple could be purified
and its services restored, exactly three years after its desecration (25 Chislev, 165
b.c). The rule of the Jewish hero lasted other five years, which can scarcely be
described as equally successful with the beginning of his administration. The first
two years were occupied in fortifying strong positions and chastising those hostile
heathen border-tribes which harassed Judaaa. Towards the close of the year 164
Antiochus Epiphanes died. But his successor, or rather Lysias, who administered
the kingdom during his minority, was not content to surrender Palestine without
a further contest. No deeds of heroism, however great, could compensate for the
inferiority of the forces under Judas' command.2 The prospect was becoming hope
less, when troubles at home recalled the Syrian army, and led to a treaty of peace
in which the Jews acknowledged Syrian supremacy, but were secured liberty of con
science and worship.
But the truce was of short duration. As we have seen, there were already in
Palestine two parties — that which, from its character and aims, may generally be
designated as the Grecian, and the Ghasidim (Assideans). There can be little doubt
that the latter name originated in the designation Chasidim, applied to the pious in
Israel in such passages as Ps. xxx. 5 (4 in our A.V.); xxxi. 23 (A.V. 24; xxxvii. 28).
Jewish tradition distinguishes between the 'earlier' and the 'later' Chasidim
(Ber. v. 1 and 32 b; Men. 40 b). The descriptions ofthe former are of so late a
date, that the characteristics of the party are given in accordance with views and
practices which belong to a much further development of Rabbinical piety. Their
fundamental views may, however, be gathered from the four opening sentences of
the Mishnic Tractate 'Abhoth,' 3 of which the last are ascribed to Jose the son of
Joezer, and Jose the son of Jochanan, who, as we know, still belonged to the ' earlier
Chasidim.' These flourished about 140 b.c, and later. This date throws consider
able light upon the relation between the ' earlier ' and ' later ' Chasidim, and the
origin of the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Comparing the sentences of the
earlier Chasidim (Ab. i. 2-4) with those which follow, we notice a marked sim
plicity about them, while the others either indicate a rapid development of Rab
binism, or are echoes of the political relations subsisting, or else seem to allude to
present difficulties or controversies. We infer that the 'earlier' Chasidim repre
sented the ' pious ' in Israel — of course, according to the then standpoint — who, in
opposition to the Grecian party, rallied around Judas Maccabee and his successor,
Jonathan. The assumption of the High-Priestly dignity by Jonathan the Maccabee,
on the nomination of the Syrian king (about 152), was a step which the ultra-
orthodox party never forgave the Asmonaeans. From that period, therefore, we
date the alienation of the Chasidim— or rather the cessation of the ' earlier ' Chasidim.
i n'XS'Offin- Josephus (Ant. xii. 6. 1) to 100,000 footmen, 20.000 horsemen, and 32
derives the word from Asmoneeus, the great- war-elephants (1 Mace. % i. 30).
grandfather of Mattathias. Others derive it » We regard the opening sentence of Abhoth
from the word C^jtt'Cn ('princes 'in A.V. as marking out the general principles and
Ps. lxviii. 31). aims of the so-called 'Great Assembly.'
2 The Syrian force is said to have amounted

672 JEWISH -HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER.
App Henceforth the party, as such, degenerated, or, to speak more correctly, ran into
jy extreme religious views, which made them the most advanced section of the Phari
sees.1 The latter and the Sadducees henceforth represented the people in its twofold
religious direction. With this view agrees the statement of Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5. 9),
who first mentions the existence of Pharisees and Sadducees in the time of Jonathan,
and even the confused notice in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 5, which ascribes the origin
of the Sadducees to the first or second generation of Zadok's disciples, himself
a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, which would bring the date to nearly the same
time as Josephus.
From this digression, necessary for the proper understanding of the internal
relations in Judasa, we return to the political history. There was another change
on the throne of Syria. Demetrius, the new king, readily listened to the complaints
of a Jewish deputation, and appointed their leader, Alcimus (Jakim or Eljakim)
High-Priest. At first the Chasidim were disposed to support him, as having
formerly filled a high post in the priesthood, and as the nephew of Jose the son of
Jazer, one of their leaders. But they suffered terribly for their rashness. Aided
by the Syrians, Alcimus seized the Pontificate. But Judas once more raised the
national standard against the intruder and his allies. At first victory seemed to
incline to the national side, and the day of the final defeat and slaughter of the
Syrian army and of Nicanor their general was enrolled tin the Jewish Calendar as
one on which fasting and mourning were prohibited (the 13th Adar, or March).
Still, the prospect was far from reassuring, the more so as division had already
appeared in the ranks of the Jews. In these circumstances Judas directed his ej'es
towards that new Western power which was beginning to overshadow the East. It
was a fatal step — the beginning of all future troubles — and, even politically, a
grave mistake, to enter into a defensive and offensive alliance with Rome. But
before even temporary advantage could be derived from this measure, Judas the
Maccabee had already succumbed to superior numbers, and heroically fallen in
battle against the Syrians.
The war of liberation had lasted seven years, and yet when the small remnant
of the Asmonasan party chose Jonathan, the youngest brother of Judas, as his suc
cessor, their cause seemed more hopeless than almost at any previous period. The
Grecian party were dominant in Judaea, the Syrian host occupied the land, and
Jonathan and his adherents were obliged to retire to the other side Jordan. The
only hope, if such it may be called, lay in the circumstance that after the death of
Alcimus the Pontificate was not filled by another Syrian nominee, but remained
vacant for two years. During this time the nationalists must have gained strength,
since the Grecian party now once more sought and obtained Syrian help against
them. But the almost passive resistance which Jonathan successfully offered
wearied out the Syrian general and led to a treaty of peace (1 Mace. ix. 58-73).
In the period which followed, the Asmonasan party steadily increased, so that when
a rival king claimed the Syrian crown, both pretenders bade for the support of
Jonathan. He took the side of the new monarch, Alexander Balas, who sent him
a crown of gold and a purple mantle, and appointed him High-Priest, a dignity
which Jonathan at once accepted.2 The Jewish Pontiff was faithful to his patron
1 A somewhat analogous change, at least of political partisans or else into extreme
theological opinions, distinguishes the later sectaries, as either one or the other of their
frrm tlie earlier ¦ Puritans.' Theological rationes Vivendi ceases.
schools which are partly political In their = The Pharisees never forgave this. It is
early history often degenerate either into quite true that this plea for their opposition to

TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD. 673
even against a new claimant to the crown of Syria.' And such was his influence, ^PP
that the latter, on gaining possession of the throne, not only forgave the resistance jy
of Jonathan, but confirmed him in the Pontificate, and even remitted the taxation
of Palestine on a tribute (probably annual) of 300 talents. But the faithlessness ' ""'
and ingratitude of the Syrian king led Jonathan soon afterwards to take the side
of another Syrian pretender, an infant, whose claims were ostensibly defended by
his general Trypho. In the end, however, Jonathan's resistance to Trypho's schemes
for obtaining the crown for himself led to the murder of the Jewish High-Priest by
treachery. The government of Judasa could not, in these difficult times, have devolved upon
one more fitted for it than Simon, an elder brother of Judas Maccabee. His father
had-, when making his dying disposition, already designated him ' as the man of
counsel ' among his sons (1 Mace. ii. 65). Simon's policy lay chiefly in turning to
good account the disputes in Syria, and in consolidating such rule as he had acquired
(143-135 B.C.). After the murder of his brother by Trypho, he took the part of
the Syrian claimant (Demetrius) to whom Trypho was opposed. Demetrius was
glad to purchase his support by a remission of all taxation for all time to come.
This was the first great success, and the Jews perpetuated its memory by enrolling
its anniversary (the 27th Iyar, or May) in their Calendar. An even more important
date, alike in the ' Calendar ' (Meg. Taan. Per. 2) and in Jewish history (1 Mace. xiii.
51), was the 23rd Iyar, when the work of clearing the country of the foreigner was
completed by the Jewish occupation of the Acra, or fortress of Jerusalem, hitherto
occupied by the Syrian party. The next measures of Simon were directed to the
suppression of the Grecian party in Judaea, and the establishment of peace and
security to his own adherents. To the popular mind this ' Golden Age,' described
in glowing language in 1 Mace. xiv. .8-14, seemed to culminate in an event by
which the national vanity was gratified and the future safety of their country appa
rently ensured. This was the arrival of a Roman embassy in Judasa to renew the
league which had already been made both by Judas Maccabee and by Jonathan.
Simon replied by sending a Jewish embassy to Rome, which brought a valuable
shield of gold in token of gratitude. In their intoxication the Jews passed a decree,
and engraved it on tables of brass, making Simon ' their High-Priest and Governor
for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet ; ' in other words, appointing
him to the twofold office of spiritual and secular chief, and declaring it hereditary
(1 Mace. xiv. 41-45). The fact that he should have been appointed to dignities
which both he and his predecessor had already held, and that offices which in them
selves were hereditary should now be declared such in the family of Simon, as well
as the significant limitation: 'until there should arise a faithful prophet,' suffi
ciently indicate that there were dissensions among the people and opposition to the
Asmonaeans. In truth, as the Chasidim had been alienated, so there was a growing
party among the Pharisees, their successors, whose hostility to the Asmonaeans in
creased till it developed into positive hatred. This antagonism was, however, not
grounded on their possession of the secular power, but on their occupancy of the Pon
tificate, perhaps on their combination of the two offices. How far their enmity went,
the Asmonseans is for the first time reported Josephus (Ant. xiii. 4. 3). I have followed the
during a later reign — that of John Hyrcanus account in 1 Mace, which is generally re-
I. — and that it was then ostensibly based on garded as the more trustworthy, though I
the ground of Hyrcanus' mother having been am not without misgivings, since Josephus
a captive of war. But see our remarks on this evidently had the Book of Maccabees before
point further on. him.
i The story, however, differently told by

674 JEWISH HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER
App will appear in the sequel. For a time it was repressed by the critical state of
IY affairs. For, the contest with the Syrians had to be once more renewed, and although
^_^ ______^ Simon, or rather his sons, obtained the victory, the aged High-Priest and two of
his sons, Mattathias and Judas, fell by the treachery of Ptolomasus, Simon's son-
in-law. The Pontificate and the government now devolved upon the only one of Simon's
sons still left, known as John Hyrcanus I. (Jochanan Horkenos,1 Jannai2), 135-
105 b.c His first desire naturally was to set free his mother, who was still in the
power of Ptolomaeus, and to chastise him tor his crimes. But in this he failed.
Ptolemy purchased immunity by threatening to kill his captive, and afterwards
treacherously slew her. Soon after this a Syrian army besieged Jerusalem. The
City was reduced to great straits. But when at the Feast of Tabernacles the Syrian
king not only granted a truce to the besieged, but actually provided them with
what was needed for the services of the Temple, Hyrcanus sought and obtained
peace, although the Syrian councillors urged their king to use. the opportunity for
exterminating Judaism. The conditions, though hard, were not unreasonable in
the circumstances. But fresh troubles in Syria gave a more favourable turn to
affairs in Judasa. First, Hyrcanus subjected Samaria, and then conquered Idumasa,
whose inhabitants he made proselytes by giving them the alternative of circum
cision or exile. Next, the treaty with the Romans was renewed, and finally Hyr
canus availed himself of the rapid decay of the Syrian monarchy to throw off his
allegiance to the foreigner. Jewish exclusiveness was further gratified by the utter
destruction of Samaria, of which the memorial-day (the 25th Marcheshvan, Novem
ber) was inserted in the festive ' Calendar ' (Meg. Taan. Per. 8).3 Nor was this the
only date which his successors added to the calendar of national feasts.4
But his reign is of the deepest importance in our history as marking the first
public contest between the two great parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and
also as the turning-point in the history of the Maccabees. Even the coins of that
period are instructive. They bear the inscription : ' Jochanan, the High-Priest, and
the Chebher of the Jews ; ' or else, ' Jochanan the High-Prie3t, Chief, and the Chebher
of the Jews.' 5 The term Chebher, which on the coins occurs only in connection with
' High-Prie3t,' unquestionably refers, not to the Jewish people generally, but to
them in their ecclesiastical organisation, and points therefore to the acknowledg
ment of an 'Eldership,' or representative ecclesiastical body, which presided over
affairs along with and under the ' High-Priest ' as ' Chief.' 6 In this respect the
presence or absence of the word ' Chebher, ' or even of mention of the Jews, might
afford hints as to the relationship of a Maccabee chief to the ecclesiastical leaders
1 The derivation of the name Hyrcanus, or 33 a, a ¦ Bath Qol,' or Heavenly Voice,
in Rabbinical writings Horqenos, proposed by issuing from the Most Holy Place, had
Grulz (Gesch. d. Juden. vol. iii. p. 55), and announced to Hyrcanus, while officiating in
supported by Hamburger (Real. Encycl. far the Temple, the victory of his sons at Samaria.
Bibel u. Talmud, sect. ii. p. 421, note 15) is Josephus (Ant. xiii. 10. 7), assigns on this
untenable, in view of the fact, that not a few ground to Hyrcanus the prophetic, as well as
Rabbinical authorities bore the same name the priestly and royal, title.
(comp. Ab. ii. 8; Sanh 68 a). It could not, * These are the 15th and 16th Sivan, the
therefore, have been an appellation derived 16th Adar, and the 7th Iyar. Comp. the
from the victory of Hyrcanus ' over Cm- Meg. Taan.
debcew, the Hyrcanian.' = Schiirer (Neutest. Zeitg. p. 113) does not
- The name Janwii is supposed to have give this inscription correctly. Comp. Levy,
been an abbreviation of Jochanan. Many Gesch. d. Jud. M'.nzen, pp. 52, 53. See
Rabbinic teachers of that name are men- especially Madden. ' Coins of the Jews,' pp.
tioned. Deren'ourfi (Hist.de la Palest, p 95) 74-81, where all the varieties of inscription
regards it as an abbreviation of Jonathan, are given.
but his reasoning is not convincing. "We dismiss the fanciful readings and
3 According to Jer. Sotah ix. 13, and Sot. explanations of the word -Qn by De Saulcy

TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD. 6? 5
of the people. It has already been explained that the Chasidim, viewed as the APP.
National party, had ceased, and that the leaders were now divided into Pharisees jy
and Sadducees. By tradition and necessity Hyrcanus belonged to the former, by
tendency aud, probably, inclination to the latter. His interference in religious ^"~~y~~—
affairs was by no means to the liking of the Pharisees, still less to that of their
extreme sectaries, the Chasidim. Tradition ascribes to Hyrcanus no less than nine
innovations, of which oniy five were afterwards continued as legal ordinances.
First, the payment of tithes (both of the Levitical and the so-called ' poor's tithe ')
was declared no longer obligatory on a seller, if he were one of the Am ha-Arets,
or country people, but on the buyer.1 Complaints had long been made that this
heavy impost was not paid by the . majority of the common people, and it was
deemed better to devolve the responsibility on the buyer, unless the seller were what
was called 'neeman,' trusted; i.e., one who had solemnly bound himself to pay
tithes. In connection with this, secondly, the declaration ordered in Deut. xxvi.
3-10 was abrogated as no longer applicable. Thirdly, all work that caused noise
was forbidden during the days intermediate between the first and the last great
festive days of the Passover and of the Feast of Tabernacles. Fourthly, the formula:
'Awake, why sleepest Thou, OLord' (Ps. xliv. 23), with which, since the Syrian
persecution, the morning service in the Temple had commenced, was abolished.
Fifthly, the cruel custom of wounding the sacrificial animals on the head was pro
hibited and rings fastened in the pavement to which the animals were attached
(Jer. Maas. Sh. v. 9; Jer. Sot. ix. 11; Tos. Sot. 13; Sotah 48 a). The four ordin
ances of Hyrcanus which were abolished referred to the introduction in official doc
uments, after the title of the High-Priest, of the expression ' El Elyon ' — the Most
High God; to the attempt to declare the Syrian and Samaritan towns liable to tithes
(implying their virtual incorporation) while, according to an old principle, this obli
gation only applied when a place could be reached from Judasa without passing
over heathen soil ; to the abrogation by Hyrcanus of a former enactment by Jose
ben Joezer, which discouraged emigration by declaring all heathen soil defiled,
and which rendered social intercourse with Gentiles impossible by declaring vessels
of glas3 capable of contracting Levitical defilement (Jer. Shabb. 1. 4; Shabb. 14 b) —
and which was re-enacted; and, lastly, to the easy terms on which the King had ad
mitted the Idumasans into the Jewish community.
From all this it is not difficult to form an idea of the relations between Hyrcanus
and the Pharisees. If Hyrcanus had not otherwise known of the growing aversion .
of the Pharisees, a Sadducean friend and councillor kept him informed, and turned
it to account for his party. The story of the public breach between Hyrcanus and
the Pharisees is told by Josephus (Ant. xiii. 10. 5, 6), and in the Talmud (Kidd.
66 a), with only variations of names and details. Whether from a challenge thrown
out to the Pharisees (according to the Talmud), or in answer to a somewhat strange
request by Hyrcanus, to point out any part of his conduct which was not in accord
ance with the law (so Josephus), one of the extreme section of the Pharisees,2 at a
feast given to the party, called upon Hyrcanus to be content with secular power,
and to resign the Pontificate, on the ground that he was disqualified for it, because
and Bwald. But I cannot agree with Schiirer ' Comp. • Sketches of Jewish Social Life in
in applying it to the people as a whole. Even the Time of Christ,' pp. 233, 234.
the passage which he quotes (Ber. iv 7, with " Josephus calls him Eleazar, but the Tal-
which the corresponding Gemara should be mud (Kidd. 66 a) Jehudahben Gedidim, for
compared), proves that the -word is not used which Hamhurqer would read Nedidim, the
looselyfor the people, but with reference to s'ectof ' the solitaries,' which he regards as an-
their ecclesiastical nexus. Comp. also Meg. other designation for the extreme Chasidim.
27 b.

676 JEWISH HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER
APP. nls mother had been a captive of war. Even the Talmud admits that this report was
P7 calumnious, while it offered a gratuitous insult to the memory of a really noble,
^_,^ heroic woman, all the more unwarrantable that the Pontificate had, by public decree,
been made hereditary in the family of Simon, the father of Hyrcanus, which could
not have been the case if the charge now brought had been other than a pretext to
cover the hostility of the Chasidim. The rash avowal was avenged on the whole
party. In the opinion of Hyrcanus they all proved themselves accomplices, when,
on being questioned, they declared the offender only guilty of ' stripes and bonds.'
Hyrcanus now joined the Sadducees, and, although the statement of the Talmud
about the slaughter of the leading Pharisees is incorrect, there can be no doubt that
they were removed from power and exposed to persecution. The Talmud adds
this, which, although chronologically incorrect, is significant, ' Jochanan the High-
Priest served in the Pontificate eighty years, and at the end of them he became a
Sadducee.' But this was only the beginning of troubles to the Pharisaic party,
which revenged itself by most bitter hatred — the beginning, also, of the decline
of the Maccabees.
Hyrcanus left five sons. To the oldest of them, Aristobulus (in Hebrew Jehudah),
he bequeathed the Pontificate, but appointed his own widow to succeed him in the
secular government. But Aristobulus cast his mother into prison, where she soon
afterwards perished — as the story went, by hunger. The only one of his brothers
whom he had left at large, and who, indeed, was his favourite, soon fell also a
victim to his jealous suspicions. Happily his reign lasted only one year (105-104
b.c). He is described as openly favouring the Grecian party, although, on con
quering Iturasa, a district east of the Lake of Galilee,1 he obliged its inhabitants to
submit to circumcision.
On the death of Aristobulus I., his widow, Alexandra Salome, released his
brothers from prison, and apparently married the eldest of them, Alexander Jannaeus
(or in Hebrew Jonathan), who succeeded both to the Pontificate and the secular
government. The three periods of his reign (104-78 b.c) seem indicated in the
varying inscriptions on his coins.2 The first period, which lasted eight or ten years,
was that in which Jannai was engaged in those wars of conquest, which added the
cities on the maritime coast to his possessions.3 During that time Salome seems to
have managed internal affairs. As she was devoted to the Pharisaic party — indeed
one of their leaders, Simeon ben Shetach, is said to have been her brother (Ber. 48 a)
— this was the time of their ascendency. Accordingly, the coins of that period
bear the inscription, ' Jonathan the High-Priest and the Chebher of the Jews.' But
on his return to Jerusalem he found the arrogance of the Pharisaic party ill
accordant with his own views and tastes. The king now joined the Sadducees, and
Simeon ben Shetach had to seek safety in flight (Jer. Ber. vii. 2 p. 11 6). But
others of his party met a worse fate. A terrible tragedy was enacted in the
Temple itself. At the Feast of Tabernacles Jannai, officiating as High-Priest, set
the Pharisaic custom at open defiance by pouring the water out of the sacred
vessel on the ground instead of upon the altar. Such a high-handed breach of
1 By a curious mistake, Schiirer locates u. s. pp. 83-90. I have, however, arranged
Iturasa north instead of east of the Lake of them somewhat differently.
Galilee, and speaks of ' Jewish tradition ' as 5 Accordingly, on the second series of coins,
drawing such a dark picture of Aristobulus. which date from his return to Jerusalem, and
Dr. S. must refer to Josephus, since Jewish breach with the Pharisees, we have on the
tradition never named Aristobulus (Neutest. reverse the device of an anchor with two
Zeitg. p. 118). cross-bars.
2 For the coins of that reign comp. Madden,

TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD. 611
what was regarded as most sacred, excited the feelings of the worshippers to the APP.
highest pitch of frenzy. They pelted him with the festive Ethrogs (citrons), which py
they carried in their hands, and loudly reproached him with his descent from ' a . _j -._ .
captive.' The king called in his foreign mercenaries, and no fewer than 6,000 of
the people fell under their swords. This was an injury which could neither be
forgiven nor atoned for by conquests. One insurrection followed after the other,
and 5,000 of the people are said to have fallen in these contests. Weary of the
strife, Jannai asked the Pharisaic party to name their conditions of peace, to which
they caustically replied, 'Thy death' (Jos. Ant. xiii. 13. 5). Indeed, such was the
embitterment that they actually called in, and joined the Syrians against him. But
the success of the foreigner produced a popular revulsion in his favour, of which
Jannai profited to take terrible vengeance on his opponents. No fewer than 800
of them were nailed to the cross, their sufferings being intensified by seeing their
wives and children butchered before their eyes, while the degenerate Pontiff lay
feasting with abandoned women. A general flight of the Pharisees ensued. This
closes the second period of his reign, marked on the coin by the significant absence
of the words 'Chebher of the Jews,' the words being on one side in Hebrew,
' Jonathan the king,' and on the other in Greek, • Alexander the king.'
The third period i3 marked by coins which bear the inscription ' Jehonathan
the High-Priest and the Jews.' It was a period of outward military success, and
of reconciliation with the Pharisees, or at least of their recall — notably of Simeon
ben Shetach, and then of his friends — probably at the instigation of the queen
(Ber. 48 a; Jer. Ber. vii. 2). Jannai died in his fiftieth year, after a reign of
twenty-seven years, bequeathing the government to his wife Salome. On his death
bed he is said to have advised her to promote the Pharisees, or rather such of them
as made not their religiousness a mere pretext for intrigue: 'Be not afraid of the
Pharisees, nor of those who are not Pharisees, but beware of the painted ones,
whose deeds are like those of Zimri, and who seek the reward of Phinehas ' (Sot.
22 b). But of chief interest to us is, that this period of the recall of the Pharisees
marks a great internal change, indicated even in the coins. For the first time we
now meet the designation ' Sanhedrin.' The Chebher, or eldership, had ceased as a
ruling power, and become transformed into a Sanhedrin, or ecclesiastical authority,
although the latter endeavoured, with more or less success, to arrogate to itself
civil jurisdiction, at least in ecclesiastical matters.1
The nine years of Queen Alexandra's (in Hebrew Salome) reign were the
Golden Age of the Pharisees, when heaven itself smiled on a land that was wholly
subject to their religious sway. In the extravagant language of the Talmud (Taan.
23 a, second line from top) : ' In the days of Simeon ben Shetach, the rains came
down in the nights of fourth days,2 and on those of the Sabbaths, so that the grains
of corn became like kidneys, those of barley like the stones of olives, and lentils
like gold dinars, and they preserved a specimen (dogma) of them for future genera
tions to show them what disastrous results may follow upon sin.' That period of
1 Jewish tradition, of course, vindicates a Warsh. p. 54 a; in Siphre, ed. Friedmann, p.
much earlier origin for the Sanhedrin, and 80 a; also in Siphra, ed. Weiss, p. 110 d, where
assumes its existence not only in the time of the whole connection is very much as in
Moses, David, and Solomon, but even in that Vayy. R.] Yet the words are, in one sense,
of Mordecai ! (Comp. Bvxtorf, Lex. Chald. most significant, since these fertilising rains,
Talmud, col. 1514.) descending on these two nights when it was
2 In quoting this passage, Derenbourg (u. s. specially forbidden to go out, since on them
p. Ill) and Schiirer leave out these words. innumerable demons haunted the air (Pes.
[They are omitted in the corresponding 112 b, line 10 from the bottom), indicated an
account of this story in Vayy. R. 36, ed. exceptional blessing. The reason why these

678 JEWISH HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER
APP. miraculous blessing was compared to the equally miraculous dispensation of heaven
xy during the time that the Temple of Herod was building, when rain only fell at
,_^_ ^_, night, while the morning wind and heat dried all, so that the builders could
continue their work without delay.1 Queen Salome had appointed her eldest son,
Hyrcanus II., a weak prince, to the Pontificate. But, as Josephus puts it
(Ant. xiii. 16. 2), although Salome had the title, the Pharisees held the real rule of
the country, and they administered it with the harshness, insolence, and recklessness
of a fanatical religious party which suddenly obtains unlimited power. The lead
was, of course, taken by Simeon ben Shetach, whom even the Talmud characterises
as having ' hot hands ' (Jer. Sanh. vi. 5,2 p. 23 b). First, all who were suspected of
Sadducean leanings were removed by intrigue or violence from the Sanhedrin. Next,
previous ordinances differing from Pharisaical views were abrogated, and others
breathing their spirit substituted. So sweeping and thorough was the change
wrought, that the Sadducees never recovered the blow, and whatever they might
teach, yet those in office were obliged in all time coming to conform to Pharisaic
practice (Jos. Ant. xviii. 1. 4; Tos. Yoma 1. 8).
But the Pharisaic party were not content with dogmatical victories, even though
they celebrated each of them by the insertion in the Calendar of a commemorative
feast-day. Partly ' to discourage the Sadducees,' partly from the supposed ' neces
sities of the time, and to teach others' (to make an example; Siphre on Deut.),
they carried their principles even beyond their utmost inferences, and were guilty
of such injustice and cruelty, that, according to tradition, Simeon even con
demned his own innocent son to death, for the sake of logical consistency.3 On
the other hand, the Pharisaic party knew how to flatter the queen, by intro
ducing a series of ordinances which protected the rights of married women and
rendered divorce more difficult.* The only ordinance of Simeon ben Shetach, which
deserves permanent record, is that which enjoined regular school attendance by all
children, although it may have been primarily intended to place the education of
the country in the hands of the Pharisees. The general discontent caused by the
tyranny of the Pharisees must have rallied most of the higher classes to the party
of the Sadducees. It led at last to remonstrance with the queen, and was probably
the first occasion of that revolt of Aristobulus, the younger son of Salome, which
darkened the last days of her reign.
Salome died (in the beginning of 69 b.c) before the measures proposed against
Aristobulus could be carried out. Although Hyrcanus II. now united the royal
office with the Pontificate, his claims were disputed by his brother Aristobulus II.,
who conquered, and obliged his brother to abdicate in his favour hi3 twofold dignity.
To cement their reconciliation, Alexander the son of Aristobulus married Alexan
dra the daughter of Hyrcanus. They little thought how ill-fated that union would
prove. For already another power was intriguing to interpose in Jewish affairs,
two nights are singled out as dangerous is, Taan. 6 a, viz. as the ordinary time of rain
that Chanina b. Dosa, of whom Rabbinic Why the night before Wednesday and Friday
tradition has so many miracles to relate, night are represented as left in the power of
conceded them to the hurtful sway of hurtful demons might open an interesting
Afjratk bath Macklath and her 18 myriads of field for speculation.
Angels. See App. xiii. In view of this, i This notice is followed by the somewhat
M. Derenbourg's explanatory note would seem blasphemous story of the achievements of
to require to be modified. But, in general, Choni ( Onias) liammmggel, to which reference
rain even on the night before the Sabbath will be made in the sequel.
was regarded as a curse (Vayy. R. 35), and - Chammumoth.
it has been ingeniously suggested that the :1 Comp. also Sanh. 46 a.
n'T'SI in the Midrash must be taken in the * Comp. Berenbourg, pp. 108, 109.
sense jn which that word is explained in

TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD. 6T9
with which it was henceforth to be identified. Alexander Jannai had appointed APP.
one Antipas, or Antipater — of whose origin the most divergent accounts are given ' jv
— to the governorship qf Idumaea. He was succeeded by a son of the same name.
The dissension between the two Asmonaeans seemed to offer the opportunity for
realising his ambitious schemes. Of course, he took the part of the weak Hyrcanus
as against the warlike Aristobulus, aud persuaded the former that he was in danger
of his life. Ultimately he prevailed on him to fly to Aretas, King of Arabia, who,
in consideration of liberal promises, undertook to reinstate Hyrcanus in the govern
ment. The Arab army proved successful, and was joined by a large proportion of
the troops of Aristobulus, who was not shut up within the fortified Temple-build
ings. To add to the horrors of war, a, long famine desolated the land. It was
during its prevalence that Onias, reputed for his omnipotence in prayer, achieved
what procured for him the designation ' hammeaggel' — the 'circle drawer.'2
When his prayer for rain remained unanswered, he drew a circle around him, de
claring his determination not to leave it till the Almighty had granted rain, and
that not in drops, nor yet in desolating floods (which successively happened), but
in copious, refreshing showers. It could serve no good purpose to reproduce the
realistic manner in which this supposed power of the Rabbi with God is described
(Taan. 23 a). But it were difficult to say whether this is more repugnant to feelings
of reverence, or the reported reproof of Simeon ben Shetach, who forbore to
pronounce the ban upon him because he was like a spoilt child who might ask
anything of his father, and would obtain it. But this supposed power ultimately
proved fatal to Onias during the siege of Jerusalem by Hyrcanus and Aretas. 3
Refusing to intercede either for one or the other of the rival brothers, he was
stoned to death (Ant. xiv. 2. 1).
But already another power had appeared on the scene. Pompey was on his
victorious march through Asia when both parties appealed to him for help. Scaurus,
whom Pompey detached to Syria, was, indeed, bought by Aristobulus, and Aretas
was ordered to raise the siege of Jerusalem. But Pompey quickly discovered
that Hyrcanus might, under the tutelage of the cunning Idumaean, Antipater, prove
an instrument more likely to serve his ulterior purposes than Aristobulus. Three
deputations appeared before Pompey at Damascus — those of the two brothers, and
one independent of both, which craved the abolition of the Asmourean rule and the
restoration of the former mode of government, as we understand it, by the ' Chebher '
or Eldership under the presidency of the High-Priest. It need scarcely be said
that such a demand would find no response. The consideration of the rival claims
of the Asmonaeans Pompey postponed. The conduct of Aristobulus not only con
firmed the unfavourable impression which the insolent bearing of his deputies had
made on Pompey, but sealed his own fate and that of the Jewish people. Pompey
laid siege to Jerusalem. The adherents of Hyrcanus surrendered the City, but
those of Aristobulus retired into the Temple. At last the sacred precincts were
taken by storm amidst fearful carnage. The priests, who were engaged in their
1 According to some (Ant. xiv. 1. 3), he it, whether or not he would comply with the
was of noble Jewish, according to others, of demand of the Romans.
heathen and slave descent. The truth lies 3 Both Josephus and the Talmud (Sotah
probably between these extremes. 49 b) give an account, though in different
2 It almost seems as if this repugnant story version, of the manner in which the besieged
were a sort of Jewish imitation of the circle sought a supply of sacrifices from the be-
which Popilius LsBnas drew around Antiochus siegers.
Epiphanes, bidding him decide, ere he left

680 JEWISH HISTORY FROM ALEXANDER
APP. sacred functions,1 and who continued them during this terrible scene, were cut
jy down at the altar. No fewer than 12,000 Jews are said to have perished.
,____ ^^__, With the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey (63 b.c.) the history of the Macca
bees as a reigning family, and, indeed, that of the real independence of Palestine,
came to an end. So truly did Jewish tradition realise this, that it has left us not
a single notice either of this capture of Jerusalem or of all the subsequent sad events
to the time of Herod. It is as if their silence meant that for them Judasa, in its
then state, had no further history. Still, the Roman conquerer had as yet dealt
gently with his prostrate victim. Pompey had, indeed, penetrated into the Most
Holy Place in contemptuous outrage of the most sacred feelings of Israel ; but he
left the treasures of the Temple untouched, and even made provision for the con
tinuance of its services. Those who had caused the resistance of Jerusalem were
executed, and the country made tributary to Rome. But Judasa not only became
subject to the Roman Governor of Syria, its boundaries were also narrowed. All
the Grecian cities had their independence restored; Samaria was freed from Jewish
supremacy ; and the districts comprised within the so-called Decapolis (or ' ten
cities ' ) again obtained self-government. It was a sadly curtailed land over which
Hyrcanus II., as High-Priest, was left Governor, without being allowed to wear the
diadem (Ant. xx. 10). Aristobulus II. had to adorn as captive the triumphal
entry of the conquerer into Rome. l
The civil rule of Hyrcanus as Ethnarch must from the first have been very
limited. It was still more contracted when, during the Proconsulate of Gabinius
(57-55 b.c.),3 Alexander, a son of Aristobulus, who had escaped from captivity,
tried to possess himself of the government of Judaea (Ant. xiv. 5. 2-4). The office
of Hyrcanus was now limited to the Temple, and the Jewish territory, divided into
five districts, was apportioned among five principal cities, ruled by a council of local
notables (a pio-roi). Thus, for a short time, monarchical gave place to aristocratic
government in Palestine. The renewed attempts of Aristobulus or of his family
to recover power only led to fresh troubles, which were sadly diversified by the
rapacity and severity of the Romans. The Triumvir Crassus, who succeeded
Gabinius (55-53 b.c), plundered the Temple not only of its treasures but of its
precious vessels. A new but not much happier era began with Julius CaBsar. If
Aristobulus and his son Alexander had not fallen victims to the party of Pompey,
the prospects of Hyrcanus and Antipater might now have been very unpromising.
But their death and that of Pompey (whom they had supported) changed the aspect
of matters. Antipater not only espoused the cause of the victor of Pharsalus, but
made himself eminently useful to Caesar. In reward, Hyrcanus was confirmed as
Pontiff and Ethnarch of Judaea, while Antipater was made a Roman citizen and
nominated Epitrophos, or (Roman) administrator of the country. Of course, the
real power was in the hands of the Idumasan, who continued to hold it, despite
the attempts of Antigonus, the only surviving son of Aristobulus. And from hence
forth Caesar made it part of his policy to favour the Jews (comp. the decrees in then-
favour, Ant. xiv. 10).
Meantime Antipater had, in pursuance of his ambitious plans, appointed his
son Phasael Governor of Jerusalem, and Herod Governor of Galilee. The latter.
1 According to Josephus, it was on the Day sold as slaves became the nucleus of the
of Atonement; according to Dio Cassius, Jewish community in the imperial city
apparently on a Sabbath. Comp. the remarks = Comp. the masterly survey of the state of
of Berenbourg on these conflicting statements matters in Syria and Judeea in Marquardt
(u. s. p. 117, note). Handb. d. Rfim. Alterth., vol. iv. pp. 247-260. '
2 The captives then brought to Rome and

TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD. 681
although only twenty-five years of age, soon displayed the vigour and sternness APP.
which characterised his after-career. He quelled what probably was a 'nation- py
alist' rising in Galilee, in the blood of Ezekias, its leader, and of his chief . ^_ .
associates. This indeed secured him the favour of Sextus Cassar, the Governor of
Syria, a relative of the great Imperator. But in Jerusalem, and among the extreme
Pharisaic party, it excited the utmost indignation. They foresaw the advent
of a foe most dangerous to their interests and liberty, and vainly sought to rid
themselves of him. It was argued that the government of the country was in the
hands of the High-Priest, and that Herod, as Governor of Galilee, appointed by a
foreign administrator, had no right to pronounce capital punishment without a
sentence of the Sanhedrin. Hyrcanus yielded to the clamour; but Herod appeared
before the Sanhedrin, not as a criminal, but arrayed in purple, surrounded by a
body-guard, and supported by the express command of Sextus Cassar to acquit
him. The story which is related, though in different version, and with different
names), in the Talmud (Sanh. 19 a), and by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 9. 3-5), presents a
vivid picture of what passed in the Sanhedrin. The appearance of Herod had
so terrified that learned body that none ventured to speak, till their president,
Shemajah (Sameas), by his bold speech, rallied their courage. Most truly did he
foretell the fate which overtook them ten years later, when Herod ruled in the Holy
City. But Hyrcanus adjourned the meeting of the Sanhedrin, and persuaded Herod
to withdraw from Jerusalem. His was, however, only a temporary humiliation. Sex
tus Caesar named Herod Governor of Ccele-Syria, and he soon appeared with an army
before Jerusalem, to take vengeance on Hyrcanus and the Sanhedrin. The entreaties
of his father and brother induced him, indeed, to desist for the time, but ten years
later, alike Hyrcanus and the members of the Sanhedrin fell victims to his revenge.
Another turn of affairs seemed imminent when Caesar fell under the daggers of
the conspirators (15 March, 44), and Cassius occupied Syria. But Antipater and
Herod proved as willing and able to serve him as formerly Caesar. Antipater, in
deed, perished through a court- or perhaps a ' Nationalist ' plot, but his murderers
soon experienced the same fate at the hands of those whom Herod had hired for
the purpose. And still the star of Herod seemed in the ascendant. Not only did
he repel attempted inroads by Antigonus, but when Antonius and Octavianus (in 42
b.c) took the place of Brutus and Cassius, he succeeded once more in ingratiating
himself with the former, on whom the government of Asia devolved. The accusa
tions made by Jewish deputations had no influence on Antony. Indeed, he went
beyond his predecessors in appointing Phasael and Herod tetrarchs of Judaea.
Thus the civil power was now nominally as well as really in their hands. But
the restless Antigonus was determined not to forego his claim. When the power
of Antony was fast waning, in consequence of his reckless indulgences, Antigonus
seized the opportunity of the incursion of the Parthians into Asia Minor to attend
the great object of his ambition. In Jerusalem the adherents of the two parties
were engaged in daily conflicts, when a Parthian division appeared. By treachery
Phasael and Hyrcanus were lured into the Parthian camp, and finally handed over
to Antigonus. Herod, warned in time, had escaped from Jerusalem with his
family and armed adherents. Of his other opponents Antigonus made sure. To
unfit Hyrcanus for the Pontificate his ears were cut off, while Phasael destroyed
himself in his prison. Antigonus was now undisputed High-Priest and king. His
brief reign of three years (40-37 b.c) is marked by coins which bear in Hebrew
the device: Matthatjah the High-Priest, and in Greek: King Antigonus.

082 FROM ALEXANDER TO HEROD.
The only hope of Herod lay in Roman help. He found Antony in Rome.
What difficulties there were, were removed by gold, and when Octavian gave his
consent, a decree of the Senate declared Antigonus the enemy of Rome, and at the
same time appointed Herod King of Judaea (40 b.c). Early in the year 39 b.c
Herod was in Palestine to conquer his new kingdom by help of the Romans. But
their aid was at first tardy and reluctant, aud it was 38, or more probably 37,
before Herod could gain possession of Jerusalem itself. Before that he had wedded
the beautiful and unhappy Mariamme, the daughter of Alexander and grand
daughter of Hyrcanus, to whom he had been betrothed five years before. His
conquered capital was desolate indeed, and its people impoverished by exactions.
But Herod had reached the goal of his ambition. All opposition was put down,
all rivalry rendered impossible. Antigonus was beheaded, as Herod had wished;
the feeble and aged Hyrcanus was permanently disqualified for the Pontificate;
and any youthful descendants of the Maccabees left were absolutely in the
conqueror's power. The long struggle for power had ended, and the Asmonaean
family was virtually destroyed. Their sway had lasted about 130 years.
Looking back on the rapid rise and decline of the Maccabees, on their speedy
degeneration, on the deeds of cruelty with which their history soon became
stained, on the selfishness and reckless ambition which characterised them, and
especially on the profoundly anti-nationalist and anti-Pharisaic, we had almost said
anti-Jewish, tendency which marked their sway, we can understand the bitter
hatred with which Jewish tradition had followed their memory. The mention of
them is of the scantiest. No universal acclamation glorifies even the deeds of Judas
the Maccabee ; no Talmudic tractate is devoted to that ' feast of the dedication '
which celebrated the purging of the Temple and the restoration of Jewish worship.
In fact such was the feeling, that the priestly course of Joiarib — to which the
Asmonasans belonged — is said to have been on service when the first and the second
Temple were destroyed, because ' guilt was to be punished on the guilty.' More
than that, ' R. Levi saith : Yehoyaribh [" Jehovah will contend "], the man [ the name
ofthe man or family]; Meron ["rebellion,'' evidently a play upon Modin, the
birthplace of the Maccabees], the town; Mesarbey [" the rebels," evidently a play
upon Makkabey] — (masar beitha) He hath given up the Temple to the enemies.'
Rabbi Berachjah saith: ' Yah heribh [Jehoiarib], God contended with His children,
because they revolted and rebelled against Him ' (Jer. Taan. iv. 8, p. 68 d, line 35
from bottom).1 Indeed, the opprobrious designation of rebellion, and Sarbaney
El, rebels against God, became in course of time so identified with the Maccabees.
that it was used when its meaning was no longer understood. Thus Origen (Euseb.
Hist. Ecci. vi. 25) speaks of the (Apocryphal) books of the Maccabees as ' inscribed
Sarbeth Sarbane El' (= ?X *j2~D rOlD), the disobedience, or rebellion (resistance)
of the disobedient, or rebels, against God.2 So thoroughly had these terms become
identified in popular parlance, that even the tyranny and cruelty of a Herod could
not procure a milder judgment on the sway of the Asmonaeans.
1 Comp. Geiger, TJrschrlft, p. 204; Deren- of Grimm, Ewald, and others, in Grimm's
bourg, p. 119, note. Exeget. Handb. zu d. Apokryphen, 3te Lief.
2 Comp. Geiger, u. s. p. 205, Note, Ham- p. xvii. Berenbourg (Hist, de la Palest, pp.
burger, u. s. p. 367. Various strange and 460-452) regards o-apSjjS as a corruption for
most unsatisfactory explanations have been <m<(>apgijS, and would render the whole by
proposed of these mysterious words, which ' Book of the family of the Chief (")"£) of the
yet, on consideration, seem so easy of under- people of God.'
standing. Comp. the curious explanations

CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE HALAKHOTH. 683

APPENDIX V.
RABBINIC THEOLOGY AND LITERATURE.
(Vol. i. Book I. ch. viii.)
1. The Traditional Law.— The brief account given in vol. i. p. 100, of the char- APP.
acter and authority claimed for the traditional law may here be supplemented by a V
chronological arrangement of the Halakhoth in the order of their supposed intro- w-y— .
duction or promulgation.
In the first class, or 'Halakhoth of Moses from Sinai,' tradition enumerates
fifty-five1 which maybe thus designated: religio-agrarian, four;2 ritual, includ
ing questions about 'clean and unclean,' twenty-three;5 concerning women and
intercourse between the sexes, three ; * concerning formalities to be observed in
the copying, fastening, &c, of the Law and the phylacteries, eighteen;5 exegetical,
' four ; s purely superstitious, one ; 7 not otherwise included, two.8 Eighteen ordinances
are ascribed to Joshua, of which only one is ritual, the other seventeen being agra
rian and police regulations.9 The other traditions can only be briefly noted. Boaz,
or else ' the tribunal of Samuel,' fixed, that Deut. xxiii. 3 did not apply to alliances
with Ammonite and Moabite women. Two ordinances are ascribed to David, two
to Solomon, one to Jehoshaphat, and one to Jehoiada. The period of Isaiah and
of Hezekiah is described as of immense Rabbinic activity. To the prophets at
Jerusalem three ritual ordinances are ascribed. Daniel is represented as having
prohibited the bread, wine, and oil of the heathen (Dan. i. 5). Two ritual deter
minations are ascribed to the prophets of the Exile.
1 The numbers given by Maimonides, in as about the pouring out of the water, &c.
his Preface to the Mishnah, and their ar- * Ab. Z. 36 b ; Niddah 45 a. 72 b.
rangement, are somewhat different, but I 5 Jer. Meg. i. 9; Shabb. 28 6; Men. 32 a; 35 a.
prefer the more critical (sometimes even hy- » Ned. 37 b. These four Halakhoth are : as
percritical) enumeration of Herzfeld. They to the authoritative pronunciation of certain
are also enumerated in Peiser's Nachlath words in the Bible; as to the Iltur Sopherim,
Shimoni, Part I. pp. 47-49 b. or syntactic and stylistic emendation in the
2 Peah ii. 6; Yad. iv. 3; Tos. Peah iii. 2; following five passages: Gen. xviii. 5, xxiv.
Orlah iii. 9. 55 ; Numb. xxxi. 2 ; Ps. lxviii. 22 (A.V. 21) ;
3 Erub. 4 a; Nidd. 72 b; Ker. 6 b; Ab. d. xxxvi. 7 (A.V. 6); about the Qeri veto
R.N. 19, 25; Tos. Chall. i. 6; Shabb 70 a; Kethibh, words readout not written in the text;
Bekh. 16 a; Naz. 28 b; Chull. 27 a, 28 a; and the Kethibh veto Qeri, words written but
42 a, 43 a; Moed Q. 3 b. Of these, the most not read in the text.
interesting to the Christian reader are about 7 Pes. 110 b. Not to eat two pieces (even
the 11 ingredients of the sacred incense (Ker. numbers) of an egg, a nut, or cucumber, &c.
6 b); about the 26 kinds of work prohibited on s Eduy. viii. 7; Tanch. 60 a. The first of
the Sabbath (Shabb. 70 a) ; that the father, these Halakhoth speaks of the activity of
but not the mother, might dedicate a child Elijah in preparation for the coming of the
under age to the Nazirate (Naz. 28 b); the Messiah (Mai. iii. 23, 24, A.V. iv. 6, 6), as
7 rules as to slaughtering animals ; to cut the directed to restore those of pure Israelitish
neck ; to cut through the trachea, and, in the descent who had been improperly extruded,
case of four-footed animals, also through the and to extrude those who had been improp-
gullet; not to pause while slaughtering; to erly admitted.
use a knife perfectly free of all notches, and » Baba K. 81 a; Tos. Baba M. 11; Jer.
quite sharp; not to strike with the knife; not Baba K. ill. 2. Among the police regulations
to cut too near the head ; and not to stick the is this curious one, that all were allowed to
knife into the throat; certain determina- fish in the Lake of Galilee, but not to lay
tions about the Feast of Tabernacles, such down nets, so as not to impede the navigation.

684 THE CANON OF .SCRIPTURE.
APP. After the return from Babylon traditionalism rapidly expanded, and its peculiar
y character more and more clearly developed. No fewer than twelve traditions are
v_— ^ ^_ traced back to the three prophets who flourished at that period, while four other
important legal determinations are attributed to the prophet Haggai individually.
It will readily be understood that Ezra occupied a high place in tradition. Fifteen
ordinances are ascribed to him, of which some are ritual. Three of his supposed
ordinances have a general interest. They enjoin the general education of childreu,
and the exclusion of Samaritans from admission into the Synagogue and from social
intercourse. If only one legal determination is assigned to Nehemiah, ' the men of
the Great Synagogue ' are credited with fifteen, of which six bear on important
critical and exegetical points connected with the text of the Scriptures, the others
chiefly on questions connected with ritual and worship. Among the ' pairs ' (Zug-
oth) which succeeded the 'Great Synagogue,' three ' alleviating ' ordinances (of a
very punctilious character) are ascribed to Jose, the son of Joezer,1 and two, intended
to render all contact with heathens impossible, to him and his colleague. Under
the Maccabees the feast of the dedication of the Temple was introduced. To Joshua
the son of Perachya, one punctilious legal determination is ascribed. Of the decrees
of the Maccabean High-Priest Jochanan we have already spoken in another place;
similarly, of those of Simon the son of Shetach and of his learned colleague. Four
legal determinations of their successors Shemayah and Abhtalion are mentioned.
Next in order comes the prohibition of Greek during the war between the Macca
bean brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. This brings us to the time of Hillel and
Shammai, that is, to the period of Jesus, to which further reference will have to be
made in another place.
2. The Canon of Scripture. — Reference has been made in the text (vol. i. p. 107)
to the position taken by Traditionalism in reference to the written as compared
with what was regarded as the oral Revelation. Still, nominally, the Scriptures
were appealed to by the Palestinians as of supreme authority. The views which
Josephus expresses in this respect, although in a popular and Grecianised form,
were substantially those entertained by the Rabbis and by his countrymen gene
rally (comp. Ag. Apion, i. 7, 8).2 A sharp distinction was made between canonical
and non-canonical books. The test of the former was inspiration, which had ceased
in the time of Artaxerxes, that is, with the prophet Malachi. Accordingly, the
work of the elder Jesus the son of Sirach (Jeshua ben Sira, ben Eliezer) was ex
cluded from the Canon, although it i3 not unfrequently referred to by Rabbinic
authorities in terms with which ordinarily only Biblical quotations are introduced.3
According to the view propounded by Josephus, not only were the very words in
spired in which a prediction was uttered, but the prophets were unconscious and
passive vehicles of the Divine message (Ant. iv. 6. 5 ; comp. generally, Ant. ii. 8. 1 ;
vi. 8, 2 ; viii. 13, 3 ; ix. 3, 2 ; 8, 6 ; x. 2, 2 ; 4, 3). Although pre-eminence in this respect
was assigned to Moses (Ant. iv. 8, 49), yet Divine authority equally attached to the
1 According to tradition (Sot. 47 a and b) take leave to refer to my article in ¦ Smith's
the Eshkoloth, or ' bunches of grapes,' ceased Dictionary of Christian Biography,' vol. iii
with JosS. The expression refers to the pp. 453, 454.
Rabbis, and Herzfeld ingeniously suggests <> Comp. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. pp. 101,
this explanation of the designation, that after 102, and C. Seligmann, d. Buch d. Welsh, d
Jose they were no longer undivided like Jesus Sirach. The Talmudic quotations
bunches of grapes, but divided in their from the work of the elder Jesus have been
opinions. For, other explanations comp. repeatedly collated. I may here take leave
Derenbourg, u. s. pp. 88, 456-458. to refer to my collection and translation of
2 For a detailed account of the views of them in Append. II. to the ' History of the
Josephus on the Canon and on InspiratUm, I Jewish Nation.'

INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 685
sayings of the prophets, and even, though perhaps in a still inferior degree, to the APP.
' Hymns,' as the Hagiographa generally were called from the circumstance that the y
Psalter stood at the head of them (comp. Philo, De Vita contempt., ed. Mangey, . _^_ ,
voi. ii. p. 475 ; St. Luke xxiv. 44). Thus the division of the Bible into three sections
— the Law, the Prophets, and the other ' Writings ' — which already occurs in the
prologue to the work of Jesus the son of Sirach,1 seems to have been current at the
time. And here it is of great interest, in connection with modern controversies,
that Josephus seems to attach special importance to the prophecies of Daniel as still
awaiting fulfilment (Ant. x. 10. 4; 11. 7).
That the" Rabbis entertained the same views of inspiration, appears not only
from the distinctive name of 'Holy Writings' given to the Scriptures, but also
from the directions that their touch defiled the hands,2 and that it was duty on the
Sabbath to save them from conflagration, and to gather them up if accidentally
scattered, and that it was not lawful for heirs to make division of a sacred roll
(comp. Shabb. xvi-. 1 ; Erub. x. 3 ; Kel. xv. 6 ; Yad. iii. 2-5 ; iv. 5 [where special
reference i3 made to Daniel] 6). From what we know of the state of feeling, we
might have inferred, even if direct evidence had not existed, that a distinctive and
superior place would be ascribed to the Books of Moses. In point of fact, the
other books of Scripture, alike the Prophets and the Hagiographa,3 are only
designated as Qabbalah (' received,' handed down, tradition), which is also the name
given to oral tradition.4 It was said that the Torah was given to Moses (Jer.
Sheq. vi. 1) 'in (letters of) white fire graven upon black fire,' although it was
matter of dispute whether he received it volume by volume or complete as a whole
(Gitt. 60 a). But on the question of its inspiration not the smallest doubt could
be tolerated. Thus, to admit generally, that 'the Torah as a whole was from
heaven, except this (one) verse, which the Holy One, blessed be He, did not speak,
but Moses of himself was to become an infidel and a, blasphemer (Sanh. 99 a).5
Even the concluding verses in Deuteronomy had been dictated by God to Moses,
and he wrote them down — not repeating them, however, as before, but weeping as
he wrote. It will readily be understood in what extravagant terms Moses himself
was spoken of. It is not only that the expression ' man of God ' was supposed to
imply, that while as regarded the lower part of his nature Moses was man, as
regarded the higher he was Divine, but that his glorification and exaltation amount
i Comp. also 2 Mace. ii. 13, 14. (Ohel. xv. 6). The explanation offered to the
2 The general statement that this decree Sadducees by R. Jochanan b. Zakkai is
was intended to prevent a common or profane evidently intended to mislead (Yad. iv. 6),
use of the Scripture does not explain its Comp. Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb. vol. ii. pp. 163,
origin. The latter seems to have been as 164.
follows : At first the priests in the Temple 8 The difference in the degree of inspiration
were wont to deposit the Terumah near the between the Prophetic and the Hagiographic
copy of the Law there kept (Shabb. 14 a). books is not accurately defined. Later Jewish
But as mice were thereby attracted, and theologians rather evade it by describing the
damage to the Sacred Roll was apprehended, former as given by ¦ the spirit of prophecy,'
it was enacted that the Sacred Roll in the the latter 'by the Holy Spirit.' It must,
Temple rendered all meat that touched it however, be admitted that in Jewish writings
unclean. This decree gave rise to another, ' the Holy Spirit ' is not only not a Person-
by way of further precaution, that even the ality, but an influence very inferior to what
hands which touched the Sacred Roll, or any we associate with the designation.
other part of the Bible, became unclean (sp 4 The proof-passages are quoted in Zma,
that, having touched the latter, they could u. s. p. 44 note, also in J. Belitzsch, De Inspir.
not touch the Terumah). Then followed (in Script. S. pp. 7, 8.
the course of development) a third decree, 5 At the same time, in Meg. 31 b the
that such touch defiled also outside the formulation of the curses by Moses in Lev.
Temple. Finally, the first decree was modified xxvi. is said to have been mi23n ""CM (from
to the effect that the Sacred Roll in the God directly),' while that in Deut. xxviii.
Temple did not defile the hands, while all was I^JJJJJ "CB (from Moses himself).
other Scriptures (anywhere else) defiled them

686 THE PENTATEUCH AND THE PROPHETS.
APP. t0 blasphemy.1 So far as inspiration or 'revelation ' is concerned, it was said that
V Moses ' saw in a clear glass, the prophets in a dark one ' — or, to put it otherwise :
^__^  ¦ he saw through one glass, they through seven.' Indeed, although the opening
words of Ps. lxxv. showed, that the Psalms were as much revelation as the Law,
yet, ' if Israel had not sinned, they would have only received the Pentateuch, and
the Book of Joshua,' and, in the time to come, of all Scripture the Pentateuch alone
would retain its place. It was somewhat contemptuously remarked, that the
Prophets uttered nothing as regarded practice that had not already been told in the
Pentateuch (Taan. 9 a). It was but natural for Rabbinism to declare that the
Law alone fully explained its meaning (at least according to their interpretation
of it), while the Prophets left much in obscurity.2 To mark the distinction, it
was forbidden to put the Law in the same wrapper with the Prophets, so as not
to place perhaps the latter on the top of the former (Tos. Meg. iv. 20). Among the
Prophets themselves there was a considerable difference, not only in style and
training but even in substance (Sanh. 89 a), although all of them had certain com
mon qualifications (comp. Ab. de R. Nathan, 37). Of all the prophets Isaiah was
greatest, and stood next to Moses. Ezekiel saw all that Isaiah saw — but the former
was like a villager, the latter like a townsman who saw the king (Chag. 13 b).
Jeremiah and Amos were, so to speak, scolding, owing to -the violence of their
temperament, while Isaiah's was the book of consolation, especially in response to
Jeremiah. The Hagiographa or ' Kethubhim ' also bear in the Talmud the general desig
nation of ' Chokhmah,' wisdom. It has been asserted that, as the Prophetic Books,
so the Hagiographa, were distinguished into ' anterior ' (Psalms, Proverbs, Job)
and 'posterior,' or else into 'great' and 'small.' But the statement rests on quite
insufficient evidence.3 Certain, however, it is, that the Hagiographa, as we possess
them, formed part of the Canon in the time of Jesus the son of Sirach — that is,
even on the latest computation of his authorship,4 about the year 130 b.c5 Even
so, it would not be easy to vindicate, on historical grounds, the so-called Maccabean
authorship of the Book of Daniel, which would fix its date about 105 b.c
For, if other considerations did not interfere, few students of Jewish history would
be disposed to assert that a book, which dated from 105 b.c, could have found a
place in the Jewish Canon.6 But, as explained in vol. i. p. 26, we would assign a
much earlier date to the Book of Sirach. The whole question in its bearing on the
New Testament is so important, that one or two further remarks may be allowed.
Leaving aside most serious critical objections, and the unquestionable fact, that
1 A more terribly repulsive instance of this torical basis— sometimes on no basis at all.
can scarcely be conceived than in Debar. R. * Which in another place we have shown to
11, of which the worst parts are reproduced be erroneous.
in Yaikut 304 a, b, c. s parst. p. 56. See also Reuss, Gesch. d. Hell.
2 Comp. generally Hamburger's Real. Encycl. Schr. A.T. (p. 550), who gives its date as 132.
vols. i. and ii. See also Delitzsch's work « Furst, who holds the Maccabean origin of
already quoted, and Fiirst, Kanon d. Alton the Book of Daniel, is so frequently inconsist-
Test. nach Talmud u. Midrasch. ent with himself in the course of his re-
3 First, u. s. pp. 57-59, quotes Ber. 57 b and marks on the subject, that it is sometimes
Sot. 7 b, Ab. de R. Nathan 40. But no one who difficult to understand him. Occasionally,
reads either Ber. 57 b, or Ab. de R. Nathan 40, when argument is wanting, he asserts that a
would feel inclined to draw from passages so thing is self-evident (es versteht sich von
strange and repulsive any serious inference, selbst). Such a ¦ self-evident ' assertion, for
while Sot. 7 b is far too vague to serve as a which, however, no historical evidence is
basis. In general, this is one of the many offered— which, indeed, runs in the opposite
instances in which Furst, as, indeed, many direction— is summarised on page 100 But
modern Jewish writers, propounds as mat- the word ¦ self-evident ' has no place in his-
ters of undoubted fact, what, on critical ex- torical discussions, where only that is ex
amination, is seen to rest on no certain his- dent which rests on historical grounds.

DATE OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 687
no amount of ingenuity can conciliate the Maccabean application of Dan. ix. 24-27 APP.
with the chronology of that period,1 while the Messianic interpretation fits in with y
it,2 other, and seemingly insuperable difficulties are in the way of the theory ^_^ _^
impugned. It implies, that the Book of Daniel was not only an Apocryphal, but
a Pseudepigraphic work; that of all such works it alone has come down to us in
its Hebrew or Chaldee original ; that a Pseudepigraphic work, nearly contemporary
with the oldest portion of the Book of Enoch, should not only be so different from
it, but that it should find admission into the Canon, while Enoch was excluded;
that a Pseudepigraphon younger than Jesus the Son of Sirach should have been
one of the Khethubhim ; and, finally, that it should have passed the repeated revision
of different Rabbinic ' Colleges ' — and that at times of considerable theological
activity — without the suspicion being even raised that its authorship dated from
so late a period as a century and a half before Christ. And we have evidence
that since the Babylonish exile, at least four revisions of the Canon took place
within periods sufficiently distant from each other.
The question hitherto treated has been exclusively of the date of the com
position of the Book of Daniel, without reference to who may have been its author,
whether its present is exactly the same as its original form, and, finally, whether
it ever belonged to those books whose right to canonicity, though not their age,
was in controversy, that is, whether it belonged, so to speak, to the Old Testament
avTiXsyopEva. As this is not the place for a detailed discussion of the canonicity
of the Book of Daniel — or, indeed, of any other in the Old Testament canon — we
shall only add, to prevent misunderstanding, that no opinion is here expressed as to
possible, greater or less, interpolations in the Book of Daniel, or in any other part
of the Old Testament. We must here bear in mind that the moral view taken
of such interpolations, as we would call them, was entirely different in those times
from ours; and it may perhaps be an historically and critically not unwarranted
proposition, that such interpolations were, to speak moderately, not at all unusual
in ancient documents. In each case the question must be separately critically
examined in the light of internal and (if possible) external evidence. But it
would be a very different thing to suggest that there may be an interpolation, or,
it may be, a re-arrangement in a document (although at present we make no
assertions on the subject, one way or the other), and to pronounce a whole
document a fabrication dating from a much later period. The one would, at
any rate, be quite in the spirit of those times; the other implies, besides in
superable critical difficulties, a deliberate religious fraud, to which no unprejudiced
student could seriously regard the so-called Pseudepigrapha ¦ as forming any real
analogon. But as regards the Book of Daniel, it is an important fact that the right of the
Book of Daniel to canonicity was never called in question in the ancient Synagogue.
The fact that it was distinguished as ' visions ' (Chezyonoth) from the other
' prophecies ' has, of course, no bearing on the question, any more than the circum
stance that later Rabbinism, which, naturally enough, could not find its way through
the Messianic prophecies of the book, declared that even Daniel was mistaken in,
and could not make anything of the predictions concerning the 'latter days'
' This is admitted even by Mr. Drummond scholar of the Maccabean theory of the
(' Jewish Messiah,' pp. 246, 254-257, 260). authorship of Daniel.
Mr. Brummond's book is quoted as represent- - Bruimmond, u. s. p. 261.
ing the advocacy by a distinguished English

688 OBJECTIONS TO THE CANONICITY OF CERTAIN BOOKS.
APP. (Ber- R- 98)-1 0" tne other hand, Daniel was elevated to almost the same pinnacle
y as Moses, while it was said that, as compared with heathen sages, if they were all
placed in one scale, and Daniel in the other, he would outweigh them all. We can
readily understand that, in times of national sorrow or excitement, these prophecies
would be eagerly resorted to, as pointing to a glorious future.
But although the Book of Daniel wa3 not among the Antilegomena, doubts
were raised, not indeed about the age, but about the right to canonicity of certain
other portions of the Bible. Thus, certain expressions in the prophecies of Ezekiel
were questioned as apparently incompatible with statements in the Pentateuch -
(Men. 45 a), and although a celebrated Rabbi, Chananyah, the son of Chizkiyah,
the son of Garon (about the time of Christ), with immense labour, sought to con
ciliate them, and thus preserved the Book of Ezekiel (or, at least, part of it) from
being relegated among the Apocrypha, it was deemed safest to leave the final
exposition of the meaning of Ezekiel 'till Elijah come,' as the restorer of all
things. The other objections to canonicity apply exclusively to the third division of the
Old Testament, the Kethubhim or Hagiographa. Here even the Book of Proverbs
seems at one time to have been called in question (Ab. de R. Nathan 1), partly on
the ground of its secular contents, and partly as containing ' supposed contradictory
statements ' 3 (Shabb. 30 b). Very strong doubts were raised on the Book of Eccle
siastes (Yad. iii. 5 ; Eduy. v. 3), first, on the ground of its contradiction of some of
the Psalms4 (Shabb. 30 a); secondly, on that of its inconsistencies6 (Shabb. 30 b);
and, thirdly, because it seemed to countenance the denial of another life, and, as
in Ecci. xi. 1, 3, 9, other heretical views (Vayyikra R. 28, at the beginning).6 But
these objections were finally answered by great ingenuity, while an appeal to
Ecci. xii. 12, 13, was regarded as removing the difficulty about another life and
future rewards and punishments. And as the contradictions in Ecclesiastes had
been conciliated, it was hopefully argued that deeper study would equally remove
those in the Book of Proverbs (Shabb. 30 &).' Still, the controversy about the
canonicity of Ecclesiastes continued so late as the second century of our era (comp.
Yad. iii. 5). That grave doubts also existed about the Song of Solomon, appears
even from the terms in which its canonicity is insisted upon (Yad. u. s.), not to
speak of express statements in opposition to it (Ab. de R. Nathan 1). Even when
by an allegorical interpretation it was shown to be the 'wisdom of all wi3dom,'
the most precious gem, the holy of holies, tradition still ascribed its composition to
the early years of Solomon (Shir haSh. R. 1). It had been his first work, and was
followed by Proverbs, and finally by Ecclesiastes.8 But perhaps the greatest objec-
1 And yet there are frequent indications might perform sacrificial service, while Ezek.
that Rabbinism sought guidance on these xiv. 18 appeared to enjoin a sacrifice nowhere
very subjects in the prophecies of Daniel. mentioned in the Pentateuch.
Thus, in the Pirqe de R. Eliezer there are 3 j>or ex. Prov. xxvi. 4, 5.
repeated references to the four monarchies— 4 As for ex. Ps. oxv. 17 compared with
the Persian, Median, Macedonian. and Roman Ecci. iv. 2 and ix. 4.
—when, in the time of the fifth monarchy, 5 For ex. Ecci. ii. 2 comp. with vii. 3; and
that of the children of Ishmael — after a terri- again, viii. 15, or iv. 2 comp. with ix. 4.
ble war against Rome, the Messiah would G The school of Shammai was against, that
come (comp. Pirqe de R. El. 19, and especially of Hillel in favour of the Canonicity of
28, 30, and 48). Ecclesiastes (Eduy. v. 3). In Tos. Yad. ii.
2 Among them the following may be Ecclesiastes is said to be uninspired, and to
mentioned (Chull. 37 b): Ezek. iv. 14 &c, and contain only the wisdom of Solomon.
(Men. 45 a), Ezek. xliv. 31 were regarded as 7 But it must be admitted that some of
suggesting that these prohibitions applied these conciliations are sufficiently curious.
only to priests; (Moed. K. 5 a) Ezek. xliv. 19. 8 But on this subject opinions differ very
seemed to imply that an ordinary Israelite widely (see Shir haSh. R. 1, ed. Warshau. pp.

CRITICAL REVISION OF THE TEXT. 689
tions were those taken to the Book of Esther (Meg. 7 a). It excited the enmity APP.
of other nations against Israel, and it was outside the canon. Grave doubts y
prevailed whether it was canonical or inspired by the Holy Spirit (Meg. u. s. ; . _j-.
Yoma 29 a). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were anciently regarded as
one — the name of the latter author being kept back on. account of his tendency
to self-exaltation (Sanh. 93 6). Lastly, the genealogical parts of the Book
of Chronicles were made the subject of very elaborate secret commentation
(Pes. 62 6).
Two points still require brief mention. Even from a comparison of the LXX.
Version with our Hebrew text, it is evident that there were not only many varia
tions, but that spurious additions (as in Daniel) were eliminated. This critical
activity, which commenced with Ezra, whose copy of the Peutateuch was, accord
ing to tradition, placed in the Temple, that the people might correct their copies by
it, must have continued for many centuries.1 There is abundant evidence of fre
quent divergences — though perhaps minute — and although later Rabbinism laid
down the most painfully minute directions about the mode of writing and copying
the rolls of the Law, there is such discrepancy, even where least it might be ex
pected,2 as to show that the purification of the text was by no means settled. Con
sidering the want of exegetical knowledge and historical conscientiousness, and
keeping in view how often the Rabbis, for Haggadic purposes, alter letters, and thus
change the meaning of words, we may well doubt the satisfactory character of their
critical labours. Lastly, as certain omissions were made, and as the Canon under
went (as will be shown) repeated revision, it may have been that certain portions
were added as well as left out, aud words changed as well as restored.
For, ancient tradition ascribes a peculiar activity to certain ' Colleges ' — as they
are termed — in regard to the Canon. In general, the well-known Baraita (Baba
B. 14 b, 15 a) bears, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the book (Prophecies ?) of
Balaam, and Job; Joshua the work that bears his name, and the last eight verses
of Deuteronomy ; b Samuel the corresponding books, Judges and Ruth; David
with the 'ten Elders,' Adam, Melchisedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun,
Asaph, and the three sous of Korah, the Psalter; Jeremiah wrote his prophecies,
Lamentations, and Kings ; King Hezekiah and his Sanhedrin compiled, or edited,
the Prophecies of Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song, and Ecclesiastes; and the men of
the 'Great Synagogue ' the Prophecies of Ezekiel, of the twelve Minor Prophets,
and the books of Daniel and Esther ; Ezra wrote his own book and Chronicles, the
work being completed by Nehemiah, the son of Chakaliah. The last verse ol
Joshua were written by Eleazar and Phinehas ; the last chapters of Samuel by Gad
and Nathan.4
Loose and uncritical as these statements may appear, they so far help our in-
3 b and 4 a) the only point on which all are number of its sections and chapters (Kidd.
agreed being that he wrote Ecclesiastes last 30 a; Yaikut i. §855). But the sum total of
 Rabbi Jonathan irreverently remarking verses in the Bible (23,199) differs by 99 from
that when a man is old he utters dibhrS hab- that in our present text. Similarly, one of
halim — vain words! the most learned Rabbinic critics of the
' In Jer. Taan. 68 a we read of three codices third century declares himself at a loss about
of the Pentateuch, respectively named after the exact medial letter, word, and verse of
one word in each codex, the reading of which the Pentateuch, while in Palestine the Penta-
was either rejected or adopted on comparison teuch seems to have been arranged into
with the others. 1,085, in Babalonia into 378 chapters (comp.
2 Thus, we have different notices about the Furst, Kultur-u. Liter. Gesch. p. 62).
number of verses in the Bible, the arrange- 3 But comp. an opinion, previously quoted,
ment of the Psalter, the medial letter and about the last verses in Deut.
medial - word in the Pentateuch, and the * ¦ History of the Jewish Nation,' p. 418.

690 THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
APP. vestigations as to show that, according to tradition, certain portions of Scripture
y were compiled or edited by one or another Rabbinic ' College,' and that there were
^___ __^ several ' Colleges ' which successively busied themselves with the codification and
revision of the Canon. By these 'Colleges,' we are not to understand gatherings
of certain members, who'discussed and decided a question at one or more of their
meetings. They rather indipate the learned activity of the authorities during a cer
tain period, which are respectively designated" by the generic names of ' the Sanhe
drin of Hezekiah,' 'The Men of the Synagogue,' the 'Legal Court of the Macca
bees,' and finally, ' Chananyah and his College.' We have thus somewhat firmer
historical ground. If in Prov. xxv. 1, we read of the activity about the Canon of
' the Men of Hezekiah,' aud bear in mind the Scriptural account of the religious re
vival of that reign (for ex. 2 Chron. xxix. 25-30 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 1), we scarcely re
quire the frequent and elaborate glorification of tradition to lead us to infer that,
if the collection of the Book of Proverbs was due to their activity, they must have
equally collated the other portions of Scripture then existing, and fixed the Canon
as at their time. Again, if we are to credit the statement that they equally col
lected and edited the Prophecies of Isaiah, we are obliged to infer that the continu
ance of that College was not limited to the life of Hezekiah, since the latter died
before Isaiah (Tos. Baba Bathra; Yeb. 49 6).
What has just been indicated is fully confirmed by what we know of the
activity of Ezra (Ezra vii. 6, 10), and of his successors in the Great Synagogue.
If we are to attach credit to the notice in 2 Mace. ii. 13, : it points to such literary
activity as tradition indicates. That the revision and determination of the Canon
must have been among the main occupations of Ezra and his successors of ' the
Great Synagogue ' — whatever precise meaning may be attached to that institution
— seems scarcely to require proof. The same remark applies to another period of
religious reformation, that of the so-called Asmonaean College. Even if we had not
the evidence of their exclusion of such works as those of Ben Sirach and others,
there could be no rational doubt that in their time the Canon, as presently exist
ing, was firmly fixed, and that no work of comparatively late date could have
found admission into it. The period of their activity is sufficiently known, and too
near what may be called the historical times of Rabbinism, for any attempt in that
direction, without leaving traces of it. Lastly, we come to the indications of a
critical revision of the text by 'Chananyah and his College,'2 shortly before the
time of our Lord. Thus we have, in all, a record of four critical revisions of the
Canon up to the time of Christ.
3. Any attempt to set forth in this place a detailed exposition of the Exegetical
Canons of the Rabbis, or of their application, would manifestly be impossible. It
would require almost a treatise of its own ; and a cursory survey would neither be
satisfactory to the writer nor instructive to the general reader. Besides, on all
subjects connected with Rabbinic exegesis, a sufficient number of learned treatises
exists, which are easily accessible to students, while the general reader can only be
interested in such general results as have been frequently indicated throughout
these volumes. Lastly, the treatment of certain branches of the subject, such as a
criticism of the Targumim, really belongs to what is known as the science of ' In
troduction,' either to the Old or the New Testament, in manuals of which, as well
i The expression ' the epistles of the kings to the Temple, &c.
concerning the holy gifts ' must refer to the - Shabb. 13-6; Chag. 13 a; Men. 45 a.
official Persian documents concerning gifts

THE KABBALAH. 691
as iu special treatises, all such subjects are fully discussed. Besides these the APP.
student may be referred, for a general summary, to the labours of Dr. Hamburger y
(Real-Encycl.). Special works on various branches of the subject cannot here be
named, since this would involve an analysis and critical disquisition. But for a
knowledge of the Rabbinic statements in regard to the Codices and the text of the
Old Testament, reference may here be made to the short but masterly analysis of
Professor Strack (Prolegomena Critica). in which, first, the various codices of the
Old Testament, and then the text as existing in Talmudical times, are discussed, and
the literature of the subject fully and critically given. The various passages are
also mentioned in which the Biblical quotations in the Mishnah and Gemara differ
from our present text.1 Most of them are, however, of no exegetical importance.
On the exegesis of the Rabbis generally, I would take leave to refer to the sketch
of it given in the ¦ History of the Jewish Nation,' ch. xi., and especially in App. V.,
on ' Rabbinical Exegesis,' where all its canons are enumerated. Some brief notices
connected with Rabbinic Commentaries quoted in this work will be found at the
beginning of vol. i.
4. Somewhat similar observations must be made in regard to the mystical The
ology of the Synagogue, or the so-called Kabbalah. Its commencement must
certainly be traced to, and before, the times described in these volumes. For a
discussion of its origin and doctrines I must once more take leave to refer to the
account given in the ' History of the Jewish Nation ' (pp. 435, &c). The whole
modem literature of the subject, besides much illustrative matter, is given in the
Italian text annexed to David Castelli's edition of Sabbatai Donnolo's Hebrew Com
mentary on the Book Yetsirah, or the Book of Creation. For, the Kabbalah busies
itself with these two subjects: the History of the Creation (Yetsirah, perhaps rather
'formation' than Creation), and the ' Merkabhah,' or the Divine apparition as
described by Ezekiel. Both refer to the great question, underlying all theosophic
speculation: that of God's connection with His creatures. They treat of the
mystery of Nature and of Providence, with especial bearing on Revelation ; and the
question, how the Infinite God can have any connection or intercourse with finite
creatures, is attempted to be answered. Of the two points raised, that of Creation
is of course the first iu the order of thinking as well as of time — and the book
Yetsirah is the oldest Kabbalistic document,
' The Sepher Yetsirah is properly a monologue on the part of Abraham, in
which, by the contemplation of all that is around him, he ultimately arrives at the
conviction of the Unity of God.
' We distinguish the substance and the form of creation ; that which is, and the
mode in which it is. We have already indicated that the original of all that exists
i There are in the Mishnah sixteen varia- xxxviii. 16; xiii, 5; lviii. 7; Jer. ii. 22;
tions- Lev. xi. 33; xxv. 36; Numb, xxviii. xxix. 11; Ezek. xl. 48; xliv. 9; xlvii. 1;
5- xxxii 22;. Deut. xxiv. 19; Josh. viii. 33; Hos. iv. 11; Amos. iv. 6; viii. 11; ix. 14;
2'sam.xv. 6; Is. x. 13; Ezek. xlvi. 21; Amos Hag. ii. 8; Mich. iv. 2; Zech. xii. 10; Mai.
ix 14- Mai. iii. 16, 23 (A.V. iv. 6); Ps. lxviii. ii. 12; Ps. v. 5; xvi. 10 (where the difference
27- Job i. 1; Prov. xxii. 28; 2 Chron. xxviii. is important); xxvi. 6, 6; xxxvii. 32; lvi.
15.' In the Talmud 105 such variations occur, 11; Ixii. 12; lxviii. 21; xcv. 6; xcvii. 7;
viz Gen vii. 8,23; xv. 2; xxv. 6; xxxv. cxxvii. 5; cxxxix. 5; Prov. vm. 13; xi. 17,
18- Ex. xii. 3, 6; xiii. 16; xxiv. 5; xxv. 25; xv. 1; Job ii. 6, 6, 8; xiii. 4; xiv. 16;
13 xxxi 1- Lev iv. 25, 30,34; x. 12; xv. xxxvi. 6, 11; Ruth, iii. 15; iv. 11; Ecci. ix.
10- xviii. 18; Numb. v. 19; xviii. 16; Deut. 14, 15; x. 5; Dan. ii. 29; iv. 14; vi. 18;
vi 7 9 20- xxiii. 1; xxv. 7; xxxiii. 27; x. 13; Ezr. iv. 3; Neh. iv. 16 ; viii. 8 (bis),
xxxiv 6- Josh. iii. 17; x. 11; xiv. 7, 10; 15, 17; 1 Chron. iii. 17; iv. 10; v. 24; xvi.
xvi 6- xxiii 16- Judg. xv. 20; xvi. 31; 5; xvii. 9; xxvi. 8, 23; xxvii. 34; 2 Chron.
1 Sam. ii 24; 2 Sam. iii. 25; xxiv. 15; xxvi. 2; xxxi. 5, 13.
2 Kings xvii. 31; xxiii. 17; Is. ii. 3;

692 THE BOOK YETSIRAH.
BOOK ia Divine. 1st, We have God; 2nd, God manifest, or the Divine entering into form;
y 3rd, That Divine in its form, from which in turn all original realities are afterwards
vj_^^__^ derived. In the Sepher Yetsirah, these Divine realities (the substance) are repre
sented by the ten numerals, and their form by the twenty-two letters which consti
tute the Hebrew alphabet — language being viewed as the medium of connection
between the spiritual and the material; as the form in which the spiritual appears.
At the same time, number and language indicate also the arrangement and the
mode of creation, and, in general, its boundaries. "By thirty-two wonderful
paths," so begins the Sepher Yetsirah, "the Eternal, the Lord of Hosts, the God
of Israel, the Living God, the King of the World, the merciful and gracious God,
the glorious One, He that inhabiteth eternity, Whose Name is high and holy, has
created the world." But these ten numerals are in reality the ten Sephiroth, or
Divine emanations, arranged in triads, each triad consisting of two opposites
(flowing or emanating from a superior triad until the Divine Unity is reached), and
being reconciled in a middle point of connection. These ten Sephiroth, in the
above arrangement, recur everywhere, and the sacred number ten is that of perfec
tion. Each of these Sephiroth flows from its predecessor, and in this manner the
Divine gradually evolves. This emanation of the ten Sephiroth then constitutes the
substance of the world ; we may add, it constitutes everything else. In God, in the
world, in man, everywhere we meet these ten Sephiroth, at the head of which is
God manifest, or the Memra (Logos, the Word). If the ten Sephiroth give the
substance, the twenty-two letters are the form of creation and of revelation. "By
giving them form and shape, and by interchanging them, God has made the soul of
everything that has been made, or shall be made." "Upon those letters, also, has
the Holy One, Whose Name be praised, founded His holy and glorious Name."
These letters are next subdivided, and their application in all the departments of
nature is shown. In the unit creation, the triad: world, time and man are found.
Above all these is the Lord. Such is a very brief outline of the rational exposition
of the Creation, attempted by the Sepher Yetsirah.' 1
We subjoin a translation of the book Yetsirah, only adding that much, not only
as regards the meaning of the expressions but even their translation, is in contro
versy. Hence, not unfrequently, our rendering must be regarded rather as our in
terpretation of the mysterious original.
THE BOOK YETSIRAH.
Pereq. I.
Mishnah 1. In thirty-two wonderful paths of wisdom, Jah, Jehovah Tsebhaoth,.
the God of Israel, the Living God, and King of the World, God merciful and gra
cious, High and Exalted, Who dwelleth to Eternity, high and holy is His Name, hath
ordered [established, created?] (the world) by three Sepharim [books] : by Sepher
[the written Word], Sephar [number, numeral] and Sippur [spoken word]. Others,
pointing the words differently, render these mysterious terms: Number, Word,
Writing; others, Number, Numberer, Numbered; while still others see in it a refer
ence to the threefold division of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, of which more
afterwards. 1 'History of the Jewish Nation,' pp. 435, 436.

TRANSLATION OF THE BOOK YETSIRAH. 693
Mishnah 2. Ten Sephiroth [emanations] belimah ' [without anything, i.e. before APP

these, the sole elements out of which all else evolved], twenty-two letters of founda
tion (these constitute the Hebrew Alphabet, and the meaning seems that the
Sephiroth manifest themselves in that which is uttered) : three mothers (Aleph, the
first letter of Avveyr, air; Mem, the first letter of Mayim, water; andShin, the last
letter of Esh, fire — although this may represent only one mystical aspect of the
meaning of the term 'mothers,' as applied to these letters), seven duplex'1 (pro
nounced 'soft' or 'hard,' viz. Beth, Gimel, Daleth, Kaph, Pe, Resh, Tau, which
are, or were, in Hebrew capable of modification by a Dagesh — but this also must
be mystically understood) and twelve simple ones 3 (the simple letters of the Hebrew
Alphabet). Mishnah 3. Ten Sephiroth belimah (the analogy is now further traced in God
and in man), the number of the ten lingers, five against five, and the covenant ofthe
One Only (God) placed between them (the covenant relationship between God and
man in the midst, even as it is symbolised in the person of man which is between
the twice five fingers) by the word of the tongue (this, the relation Godward) and by
the word of sexualness [nuditas] (the relation earthwards — the one has become dual.)
Mishnah 4. Ten Sephiroth belimah — ten and not nine, ten and not eleven — be
informed in wisdom, and be un'se in information; examine in them, search out
from them, and put the thing in its reality (certitude, proper state? ), and place
again the Creator in His place.
Mishnah 5. Ten Sephiroth belimah — their measurement ten, which have no end
(limitation) : depth of beginning (past) and depth of ending (future), depth of good
and depth of evil, depth of height and depth of profundity (ox, above and beneath),
depth of east and depth of west, depth of north anddepth of south — One only Lord,
God, the true (approved) King, Who reigneth over all from His holy dwelling and
unto all eternity.
Mishnah 6. Ten Sephiroth belimah — their appearance like the sheen of lightning
(reference here to Ezek. i. 14), and their outgoings (goal) that they have no end, His
word is in them (the Logos manifest in the Sephiroth), in running and in returning,
and at His word like storm-wind they pursue (follow), and before His throne they
bend (in worship).
Mishnah 7. Ten Sephiroth belimah — their end is joined to their beginning, like
the flame that is bound up with the coal, for the Lord is One only, and there is no
second to Him, and before One what couniest thou?
Mishnah 8. Ten Sephiroth belimah — shut thy mouth, that it speak not, and thy
heart, that it think not, and if thy heart run away, bring it back to its place, for on
this account is it said (Ezek. i. 14) ' they run and return,' and on this condition has
the Covenant been made.
Mishnah 9 and 10. Ten Sephiroth belimah — One: the Spirit of the living God,
blessed and again blessed be the Name of Him Who liveth for ever — Voice and
Spirit and Word, and this is the Holy Ghost.
Two: Wind (air, spirit? )from (out of) Spirit — thereby ordered and hewed He
the twenty-two letters of foundation, three mothers, and 7 duplicate, and 12 simple
ones, and one Spirit from (among) them. Throe: Water from breath (wind), He
designed and hewed in them tohu vavohu, slime and dung — designed them like a bed
i The expression occurs already in Job 3 Mark also the symbolical significance of
xxvi. 7. the numbers 3, 7, 12 as the manifestation of
2 Probably ' twofold ' might best express God— the Archetype of all else.
the meaning.

V

694 TRANSLATION OF YETSIRAH.
APP. (a S'ar(Jen bed), hewed them like a wall, covered them like pavement. Four: Fire
y from water, He designed it and hewed in it the throne of glory, the Ophanim and
 ^ Seraphim, the sacred living creatures, and the angels of service, and of these three
He founded His dwelling place, as it is said, Hemaketh His angels breaths (winds),
and His ministers a flaming fire.
Mishnah 11. Five: Three letters from out the simple ones: He sealed spirit on
the three, and fastened them in His Great Name 1iT (Jehovah, of which these three
letters are the abbreviation; what follows shows how the permutation of these
three letters marks the varied relationship of God to creation in time and space,
and at the same time, so to speak, the immanence of His manifestation in it). And
He sealed with them six outgoings (ends, terminations): He turned upwards, and
He sealed it toith "in\ Six: He sealed below, turned downwards, and sealed it
with flT. Seven: He sealed eastward, He turned in front of Him, and sealed it
with T7\. Eight: He sealed westward, and turned behind, and sealed it with 'in.
Nine: He sealed southward, and turned to His right, and sealed it with iVl. Ten:
He sealed northward, and turned to His left, and sealed it with 'ffi.
Mishnah 12. These are the Sephiroth belimah — one: Spirit of the -living God,
and wind (air, spirit? the word ruach means all these), water, and fire; and height
above and below, east and west, north and south.
Pereq II.
Mishnah 1. Twenty-and-two letters of foundation: three mothers, seven duplex,
and twelve simple ones — three mothers VOX, their foundation the scale of merit and
the scale of guilt, and the tongue of statute trembling (deciding) between them.
(This, to be mystically carried out, in its development, and application to all
things: the elements, man, &c.)
Mishnah 2. Twenty-two letters of foundation: He drew them, hewed them,
weighed them, and interchanged them, melted them together (showing how in the
permutation of letters all words — viewed mystically as the designation of things —
arose), He formed by them the nephesh of all that is formed (created.), and the
nephesh of everything that is to be formed (created).
Mishnah 3. Two-and-twenty letters of foundation: drawn in the voice, hewn in
the wind (air, ' spirit?) fastened on the mouth in five places: JJHnN (the gutturals
among the Hebrew letters), •"]?5'I3 (the labials), pD'J (the palatals), nSyai (the
Unguals), Y^I'i'CT (the dentals).
Mishnah 4. Twenty-two letters of foundation, fastened in a circle in 231 gates
(marking how these letters are capable of forming, by the permutation of two of
them, in all 231 permutations); and the circle turns forwards and backwards, and
this is the indication of the matter: as regards what is good, there is nothing higher
than Xj) (oneg), 'delight,' and nothing lower than rUj (negah), 'plague' (stroke). In
such manner He weighed them and combined them, X with them all, and them all
with X D with them all, and them all with 2, and thus the rest, so that it is found
that all that is formed and all that is spoken proceeds from one Name (the name
of God being, as it were, the fundamental origin of everything).
Mishnah 5. He formed from Tohu that which has substance, and made that which
is not into being, and hewed great pillars from the air, which can not be handled; and
this is the indication: beholding and speaking He made all that is formed and all
words by one Name — and the indication of the matter: twenty-two numbers and one
body.

THE BOOK YETSIRAH. 695
Pereq IH. APP.
Mishnah 1. Three mothers — WiX : their foundation, the scale of guilt and the V
scale of merit, and the tongue of the statute trembling (deciding) between them. ¦^»-r— ~-^
Mishnah 2. Three mothers — B??3X — a great mystery, marvellous and hidden, and
sealed with six signets, and from them go forth fire and water, and divide themselves
into male and female. Three mothers, 2?72X their foundation, and from them were
born the fathers (rerum naturae semina), from which everything is created (fire is
regarded as the male principle, water as the female principle, and air as combining
the two : N is the first letter of the Hebrew word for air, S for that of water,
w the last for that of fire).
Mishnah 3. Three letters, TtiX — in the world: air, water, fire; the heavens were
created in the beginning from fire, and the earth was created from water, and the
air trembles (the same word as that in regard to the tongue between the scales of the
balance, indicating the- intermediate, inclining to the one or the other) between the
flre and the water.
Mishnah 4. Three mothers, W2H — in the year: flre, and water, and wind. Heat
is created from flre, cold from water, and the moderate from the wind (air) that is
intermediate between them. Three mothers, 1272X — in the nephesh: fire, water, and
wind. The head was created from fire, and the belly from water, and the body from
wind that is intermediate between them.
Mishnah 5. Tliree mothers, 27MK — He drew them., and hewed them, and melted
them together, and sealed with them the three mothers in the world, the three mothers
in the year, and the three mothers in the nephesh — male and female.
(Now follows a further mystical development and application.) The letter
X He made King in the Spirit, and bound upon him the crown (this refers to farther
mystical signs indicated in the Kabbalistic figure drawn on p. 438 of the ' History
of the Jewish Nation '), and melted them one with the other, and sealed with them:
in the world the air, in the soul life, and in the nephesh (living thing) body — the male
with OTX, the female with WUX. Ii He made King in the waters, and bound on it
the crown, and melted them one with the other, and sealed: in the world earth, and in
the year cold, and in the nephesh the belly — male and female, male in ZXfi, and
female in N2?B. 2? He made King in the fire, and bound on it the crown, and melted
them one with the other, and sealed with it: in the upper world the heavens, in the
year heat, in the nephesh the head — male and female.
Pereq IV.
Mishnah 1. Seven duplex letters, m£3 "02 (it will here be noticed that we
now proceed from the numeral 3 to the further mystic numeral 7), accustomed
(habituated, adapted, fitted) for two languages (correlate ideas); life, and peace,
and wisdom, and riches, grace, and seed, and government (the mystic number 7 will
here be noted), and accustomed (fitted) for two tongues (modes of pronunciation)
'nn "P 'ED '33 "n "3 '2D, — the formation of soft and hard, the formation of strong
and weak (the dual principle will here be observed) ; duplicate, because they are
opposites: the opposites — life and death; the opposites — peace and evil; the opposites
— wisdom and folly; the opposites — riches and poverty; the opposites — grace and
ugliness; the opposites— fertility and desolation; the opposites — rule and servitude.
Mishnah 2. Seven duplex letters, TTEO 132; corresponding to the seven out
goings; from them seven outgoings: above and below, east and west, north and south,
and the holy Temple in the middle, and it'upbears the whole.

696 THE BOOK YETSIRAH.
APP. Mishnah 3. Seven duplex, m£3 132 ; He drew them, and hewed them, and
y melted them, and formed from them, in the world the stars (the planets), in the year
^^^—^, the days, in the nephesh the issues, and with them He drew seven firmaments, and
seven earths, and seven Sabbaths, therefore He loves the seventh under all heavens.
Mishnah 4. Two letters build two houses (here the number of possible permuta
tions are indicated). Three letters build six houses, four build twenty-four houses,
five build 120 houses, six build120 houses, and from thence go onward and think what
the mouth is notable to speak, and the ear not able to hear. And these are the stars
in the world — seven: the Sun, Venus, Mercury, the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars.
And these are the days in the year; the seven days of creation; and the seven gates
of issue in the nephesh: two eyes, two ears, and a mouth, and the two nostrils. And
with them were drawn the seven firmaments, and the seven earths, and the seven times;
therefore loved He the seventh above all that is of delight under the heavens.
Pereq V.
Mishnah 1. The properties of the twelve simple letters (or their attributes) —
p!Jj>Q ]'? "Winn — their foundation: sight, hearing, smell, speech, eating, concubitus,
working, walking, anger, laughter, thinking, sleep. Their measurements twelve
boundaries in the hypothenuse (points in transverse lines); the boundary N.E., the
boundary S.E., the boundary E. upwards, the boundary E. downwards, the
boundary N. upwards, the boundary N. downwards, the boundary S.W., the
boundary N. W., the boundary W. upwards, the boundary W. downwards, the
boundary S. upwards, the boundary S. downwards, and they extend and go on
into the eternal (boundless space), and they are the arms of the world.
(Mishnah 2. Twelve simple letters, p2J 20 "p hi5n Tin. He drew them, and melted
them, and formed of them the twelve constellations in the world (signs of the
Zodiac): Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius,
Capricornus, Aquarius, Pisces (these are expressed in the original in an abbre
viated, contracted form). These are the twelve months of the year: Nisan, Iyar,
Sivan, Tammuz, Abh, Elul, Tishri, Marcheshvan, Kislev, Tebheth, Shebhat, Adar
(thus the number twelve is marked, first in the functions of man, then in the points
of the compass, then in the starry skies, and then in the year). And these are the
twelve leaders in nephesh (living beings) : two hands, and two feet, and two kid
neys, the spleen, the liver, the gall, the intestine, the upper stomach, the lower
stomach (perhaps gullet, stomach, and intestine — at any rate, three organs connected
with deglutition and digestion). He made them like a land (province), and set them
in order like war, and also — this as against that, ordered God. Three mothers,
which are three fathers, because from them issue Ure, wind, and water. Three
mothers, and seven duplicate, and twelve simple ones.
Mishnah 3. These are the twenty-two letters with lohich the Holy One has founded
(all), blessed be He, Jah, Jehovah Tsebhaoth, the Living God, the God of Israel, high
and lifted up, dwelling eternally, and holy is His Name, exalted and holy is lie.
Pereq VI.
Mishnah 1. Three fathers and their generations, seven subduers and their hosts
(planets?), seven boundaries of hypothenuse — and the proof of the matter: faithful
witnesses are the world, the year, and the nephesh. The law (statute, settled order)
of the twelve, and of the seven, and of the three, and they are appointed over the
heavenly dragon, and the cycle, and the'heart. Three: fire, and water, and wind

THE BOOK YETSIRAH. 691
air); the flre above, the water below, and the wind (air) the statute intermediate be- APP.
tween them. And the demonstration ofthe matter: the fire bears the water, 73 is y
silent, 2? hisses, and X is the statute intermediate between them (all these have fur
ther mystic meaning and application in connection with words and ideas).
Mishnah 2. The dragon is in the world like a king on his throne; the cycle is in
the year like a king in his land; the heart is in the nephesh like a king in war.
Also in all that is pursued God has made the one against the other (opposite poles
and their reconciliation): the good against the evil; good from good, and evil from
evil; thegood trying the evil, and the evil trying the good; the good is kept for the
good, and the evil is kept for the evil.
Mishnah 3. Three are one, that standeth alone; seven are divided, three as
against three, and the statute intermediate between them. Twelve are in war:
three loving, three hating, three giving life, three giving death. The three loving
ones: the heart, the ears, and the mouth ; the three hating ones: the liver, the gall, and
the tongue — and God a faithful king reigning over all: one (is) over three, three over
seven, seven over twelve, and they are all, joined together, the one with the other.
Mishnah 4. And when Abraham our father had beheld, and considered, and
seen, and drawn, and hewn, and obtainedit, then the Lord of all revealed Himself
to Mm, and called him His friend, and made a covenant with him and with his seed:
and he believed in Jehovah, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Hemade
with him a covenant between the ten toes, and that is circumcision; between the ten
fingers of his hand, and that is the tongue; and He bound two-and-twenty letters
on his tongue, and showed him their foundation. He drew them with water, He
kindled them with fire, He breathed them with wind (air); He burnt them in seven;
He poured them forth in the twelve constellations.
The views expressed in the Book Yetsirah are repeatedly referred to in the
Mishnah and in other of the most ancient Jewish writings. They represent, as
stated at the outset, a direction long anterior to the Mishnah, and of which the first
beginnings and ultimate principles are of deepest interest to the Christian student.
The reader who wishes to see the application to Christian metaphysics and theo
logy of the Kabbalah, of which Yetsirah is but the first word, is referred to a
deeply interesting and profound work, strangely unknown to English scholars:
Molitor, Philosophie d. Gesch. oder iiber d. Tradition, 4 vols. English readers
will find much to interest them in the now somewhat rare work of the Rev. John
Oxley: The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity aud Incarnation (London, 1815,
2 vols.). The principles laid down in the Book Yetsirah are further carried out and
receive their fullest (often most remarkable) development and application in the
book Zohar ('Splendour' — the edition used by us is the 8vo. edition, Amsterdam,
1805, in 3 vols., with the Amsterdam edition of the Tikkune Zohar; other Kabba-
listic books used by us need not here be mentioned). The main portion of the Zohar
is in the form of a Commentary on the Pentateuch, but other tractates are inter
spersed throughout the volumes.
5. Dogmatic Theology. — Thi3 is fully treated of iu the text of these volumes.
6. Historic Theology. — To describe and criticise the various works which come
under this designation would require the expansion of this Appendix into a Trac
tate. Some of these compositions have been referred to in the text of these
volumes. For a general account and criticism of them I must again refer to the
' History of the Jewish Nation ' (see especially the chapters on ' The Progress of

698 TRANSLATION OF THE MEGILLATH TAANITH.
APP. ¦A-rts ancl Sciences among the Jews,' and 'Theological Science and Religious Belief
y in Palestine '). For the historical and critical account of Rabbinic historical works
v- _^,^_, the student is referred to Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Juden, ch. viii. The only thing
which we shall here attempt is a translation of the so-called Megillath Taanith, or
' Roll of Fasts ' ; rather, a Calendar of the days on which fasting and mourning was
prohibited. The oldest part of the document (referred to in the Mishnah, Taan. ii. 8)
dates from the beginning of the second century of our era, and contains elements of
even much greater antiquity. That which has come down of it is here given in
translation : x — MEGILLATH TAANITH, OR ROLL OF FASTS.
These are the days on which it is not lawful to fast, and during some of them
mourning must also be intermitted. I. Nisan.
1. From the. 1st day of the month Nisan, and to the 8th of it, it was settled
about the daily sacrifice (that it should be paid out of the Temple-treasury) — mourn
ing is prohibited.
2. And from the 8th to the end of the Feast (the 27th) the Feast of Weeks was
re-establisbed— mourning is interdicted. II. Iyar.
1. On the 7th Iyar the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem — mourning is pro
hibited. 2. On the 14th is the day of the sacrifice of the little (the second) Passover —
mourning is prohibited.
3. On the 23rd the sons of Acra 2 issued from Jerusalem.
4. On the 27th the imposts were removed from Judsea and Jerusalem.
III. SlVAN.
1. On the 17th Sivan the tower of Zur was taken.
2. On the 15th and 16th the men of Bethshean and of the plain were exiled.
3. On the 25th the tax-gatherers were withdrawn from Judah and Jerusalem.
IV. Tamiuuz.
1.. On the 14th Tammuz the Book of Decisions (' aggravating ordinances ') was
abrogated — mourning is prohibited. V. Abh.
1. On the 15th Abh the season of wood-offerings (for the Temple use) of priests
(comp. Jos. War ii. 17. 6) — mourning is prohibited.
2. On the 24th we returned to our Law.
i All the glosses on and in the text have orated in the Megillath Taanith, and the
been omitted. The edition of the Tractate in events to which they refer. Comp. also Wol-
its present form used by us is that of Warshau, fius, Biblioth. Rabb. vol. i. p. 385, vol. ii. p.
1874, and consists (with comments) of 20 1325, vol. iii. p. 1196. My edition of Woljius
octavo (double) pages. For the criticism of has the great advantage of the marginal
the work see specially Gratz, Gesch. d. Juden, notes and corrections by the great Jewish
vol. iii. pp. 415-428, and Derenbourq, Hist, de historian, the late Dr. Jost, who, many years
la Palest, pp. 439-446. A special tractate on ago, gave me his copy.
the subject is Schmilg's inaugural disserta- - We abstain from giving historical notes.
tion, Leipzig. 1874. It need scarcely be said For the different explanations of the com-
that these writers entertain different views meliorative dates the reader is referred to
as to the historical dates specially commem- the books already mentioned.

TRANSLATION OF THE MEGILLATH TAANITH. 699
VI. Elul. APP. y
1. On the 7th of Elul the day of the Dedication of Jerusalem — mourning pro
hibited. V^—y— w-.
2. On the 17th the Romans withdrew from Judasa and Jerusalem.
3. On the 22nd we returned to kill the apostates.
VII. Tishri.
1. On the 3rd Tishri the mention of the Divine Name was removed from public
deeds. VIII. Marcheshvan. |
1 On the 23rd Marcheshvan the Sorigah (a partition-wall in the Temple, sup
posed to have been erected by the heathen, comp. 1 Mace. iv. 43-46) was removed
from the Temple-court.
2. On the 25th the wall of Samaria was taken.
3. On the 27th the meat offering- was again brought on the altar.
IX. Kislev.
1. On the 3rd the Simavatha (another heathen structure) was removed from
the court o. the Temple,
2. On the 7 th is a feast day.
3. On the 21st is the day of Mount Garizim — mourning is prohibited.
4. On the 25th the eight days of the Feast of Lights (Chanukah) begin — mourn
ing is prohibited. X. Tebheth.
1. On the 28th the congregation was re-established according to the Law. (This
seems to refer to the restoration of the Sanhedrin after the Sadducean members
were removed, under the rule of Queen Salome. See the historical notices in
Appendix IV.) XI. Shebhat.
1. On the 2nd a feast day J — mourning is prohibited.
2. On the 22nd the work, of which the enemy said that it was to be in the
Temple, was destroyed — mourning is interdicted. (This seems to refer to the time
of Caligula, when, on the resistance of the Jews, the statue of the Emperor was at
last not allowed to be in the Temple.)
3. On the 28th King Antiochus was removed from Jerusalem (supposed to refer
to the day of the death of Antiochus, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, in his expedition
against the Parthians). XII. Adar.
1. On the 8th and the 9th, days of joy on account of rain-fall.
2. On the 12th is the day of Trajan.
3. On the 13th is the day of Nicanor (his defeat).
i This feast seems to refer to the death of King Herod ; that on the 7th Kislev to the death
of King Jannasus.

700 TRANSLATION OF THE MEGILLATH TAANITH.
App. 4. On the 14th and on the 15th are the days of Purim (Feast of Esther) —
y mourning is prohibited.
. _,_ _^_ . 5. On the 16th was begun the building of the wall of Jerusalem — mourning is
prohibited. 6. On the 17th rose the heathens against the remnant of the Scribes in the
country of Chalcis and of the Zabedseans, and Israel was delivered.
7. On the 20th the people fasted for rain, and it was granted to them.
8. On the 28th the Jew3 received good tidings that they would no longer be
hindered from the sayings of the Law — mourning is prohibited.
On these days every one who has before made a vow of fasting is to give himself
to prayer. (In extenuation of the apparent harshness and literality of our renderings, it
should be stated, that both the Sepher Yetsirah and the Megillath Taanith are here
for the first time translated into English.)

701

APPENDIX VI.

LIST OF THE MACCABEES, OF THE FAMILY OF HEROD, OF THE HIGH
PRIESTS, THE ROMAN PROCURATORS OF JUDAEA, AND ROMAN
GOVERNORS OF SYRIA. (See vol. i. Bk. II. ch. ii.)
I. THE MACCABEAN FAMILY.

Mattathias 1

John

Simon 1

Judas Eleazar Jonathan

1
Mattathias

1
Judas

1
John Hyrcanus 1

Aristobulus I.

1
Antigo
Aristobu

1
uus Alexander Janmeus, m. Alexandra
1

Hyrcanus II. Aristobulus II.
1 1

1 1 1
Alexandra, m. Alexander Antigonus
1
lus III. Mariamme
APP. VI.
H. HERODIAN FAMILY.
Antlpas I
Phasaelus Herod I.
Antipater,m. Kypros I
Joseph,
m. Salome
Joseph
Phasaelus, 1st Doris 2nd Mariamme I. 3rd Mariamme II. 4th Malthake 5th Cleopatra
m. Salampso I
Kypros, in. Agrippa I.
Salome, m. 1st Joseph
2nd CostobartLS
3rd Alexas |
Berenice,
w. Aristobulus
I "~T~ III III
Antipater; Alexander Aristobulus Salampso Kypros ; Herod Philip; Archelaus Antlpas; Philip
ra. Glaphyra m. Berenice in. Phasaelus m. Herodias m. Glaphyra m. m. Saiomt
| | Herodias
[ j | Salome
Herod of Chalcis Agrippa I. Herodias _ m. Philip
m. Berenice
m. Kypros m. 1st Herod Philip
2nd Antipas
Agrippa II. Berenice Drusilla
m. 1st Herod of Chalcis m. 1st Azizus
2nd Polemon of Cilicia 2nd Felix
702

APP. HI. LIST OF HIGH-PRIESTS FROM THE ACCESSION OF HEROD THE
VI GREAT TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

Appointed by
Herod the Great
ArchelausQuiriniusValerius Gratus .
VitelliusAgrippa I.
Herod of Chalcis
Agrippa II.

1. Ananel.
2. Aristobulus.
3. Jesus, son of Phabes.
4. Simon, son of Boethos.
5. Matthias, son of Theopbilos.
6. Joazar, son of Boethos.
7. Eleazar, son of Boethos.
8. Jesus, son of Sie.
9. Ananos (Annas).
10. Ishmael, son of Phabi.
11. Eleazar, son of Ananos.
12. Simon, son of Camithos.
. 13. Joseph (Caiaphas).
14. Jonathan, son of Ananos.
15. Theopbilos, son of Ananos.
r 16. Simon Cantheras, son of Boethos.
. J 17. Matthias, son of Ananos.
] 18. Elionaios, son of Cantheras.
19. Joseph, son of Camithos.
20. Ananias, son of Nedebaios.
r 21. Ishmael, son of Phabi.
22. Joseph Cabi, son of Simon.
23. Ananos, son of Ananos.
24. Jesus, son of Damnaios.
25. Jesus, son of Gamaliel.
26. Matthias, son of Theophilos.
The People during the last war 27. Phannias, son of Samuel.

3 B.C. to 66 A.D.

IV. LIST OF PROCURATORS OF JUDAEA.

1. Ethnarch Archelaus.
2. Coponius.
3. M. Ambivius.
4. Annius Rufus.
5. Valerius Gratus.
6. Pontius Pilate.
7. Marcellus.
8. King Agrippa.
9. Cuspius Fadus.
10. Tiberius Alexander.
11. Ventidius Cumanus.
12. Antonius Felix.
13. Porcius Festus.
14. Albinus.
15. Gessius Florus.

703

V. LIST OF ROMAN GOVERNORS OF SYRIA.

6 B.C. tO 69 A.D.

10.11.12. 13.14.15.16.17.18. 19.

P. Quinctilius Varus.
M. Lollius:
C. Marcius Censorinus (?)
L. Volusius Saturninus.
P. Sulpic. Quirinius.
Qu. Cascilius Creticus Silanus.
Cn. Calpurn. Piso.
Cn. Sent. Saturninus (?)
Aelius Lamia.
L. Pompon. Flaccus.
L. Vitellius.
P. Petronius.
C. Vibius Marsus.
C. Cass. Longinus.
C. U. Quadratus.
Domitius Corbulo.
C. Itius (conjoined).
Cestius Gallus.
C. Lie. Mucianus.

APP. VI

704 THE DATE OF THE NATIVITY.

APPENDIX VII.
ON THE DATE OF THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD.
(Vol. i. Book II. ch. iii. and other passages.)
APP. So much, that is generally accessible, has of late been written on this subject, and
VII such accord exists on the general question, that only the briefest statement seems
_ -y-^ requisite in this place, the space at our command being necessarily reserved for
subjects which have either not been treated of by previous writers, or in a manner
or form that seemed to make a fresh investigation desirable.
At the outset it must be admitted, that absolute certainty is impossible as to the
exact date of Christ's Nativity — the precise year even, and still more the month
and the day. But in regard to the year, we possess such data as to invest it with
such probabilit}7, as almost to amount to certainty.
1. The first and most certain date is that of the death of Herod the Great.
Our Lord was born before the death of Herod, and, as we judge from the
Gospel-history, very shortly before that event. Now the year of Herod's death has
been ascertained with, we may say, absolute certainty, as shortly before the
Passover of the year 750 a.u.c, which corresponds to about the 12th of April of
the year 4 before Christ, according to our common reckoning, More particularly,
shortly before the death of Herod there was a lunar eclipse (Jos. Ant. xvii. 6. 4),
which, it is astronomically ascertained, occurred on the night from the 12th to the
13th of March of the year 4 before Christ. Thus the death of Herod must have
taken place between the 12th of March and the 12th of April — or, say, about the
end of March (comp. Ant. xvii. 8. 1). Again, the Gospel-history necessitates an
interval of, at the least, seven or eight weeks before that date for the birth of
Christ (we have to insert the purification of the Virgin — at the earliest, six weeks
after the Birth — The Visit of the Magi, and the murder of the children at Bethle
hem, and, at any rate, some days more before the death of Herod). Thus the birth
of Christ could not have possibly occurred after the beginning of Febuary 4 b.c,
and most likely several weeks earlier. This brings us close to the ecclesiastical
date, the 25th of December, in confirmation of which we refer to what has been
stated in vol. i. p. 187, see especially note 3. At any rate, the often repeated, but
very superficial objection, as to the impossibility of shepherds tending flocks in the
open at that season, must now be dismissed as utterly untenable, not only for the
reasons stated in vol. i. p. 187, but even for this, that if the question is to be
decided on the ground of rain-fall, the probabilities are in favour of December as
compared with February — later than which it is impossible to place the birth of
Christ. 2. No certain inference can, of course, be drawn from the appearance of < the
star ' that guided the Magi. That, and on what grounds, our investigations have

THE DATE OF THE NATIVITY. 705
pointed to a confirmation of the date of the Nativity, as given above, has been APP.
fully explained in vol. i. ch. viii. (see specially p. 213). yjT
3. On the taxing of Quirinius, see vol. i. pp. 181, 182.
4. The next historical datum furnished by the Gospels is that of the beginning
of St. John the Baptist's ministry, which, according to St. Luke, was in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius, and when Jesus was ' about thirty years old ' (St. Luke
iii. 23). The accord of this with our reckoning of the date of the Nativity has been
shown in vol. i. p. 264.
5. A similar conclusion would be reached by following the somewhat vague and
general indication furnished in St. John ii. 20.
6. Lastly, we reach the same goal if we follow the historically somewhat
uncertain guidance of the date of the Birth of the Baptist, as furnished in this
notice (St. Luke i. 5) of his annunciation to his father, that Zacharias officiated in
the Temple as one of 'the course of Abia' (see here vol. i. p. 135). In Taan. 29 a
we have the notice, with which that of Josephus agrees (War vi. 4, 1, 5), that at
the time of the destruction of the Temple ' the course of Jehoiarib,' which was the
first of the priestly courses, was on duty. That was on the 9-10 Ab • of the year
823 a.u.c, or the 5th August of the year 70 of our era. If this calculation be
correct (of which, however, we cannot feel quite sure), then counting ' the courses '
of priests backwards, the course of Abia would, in the year 748 a.u.c (the year
before the birth of Christ) have been on duty from the 2nd to the 9th of October.
This also would place the birth of Christ in the end of December of the following
year (749), taking the expression ' sixth month ' in St. Luke i. 26, 36, in the sense of
the running month (from the 5th to the 6th month, comp. St. Luke i. 24). But we
repeat that absolute reliance cannot be placed on such calculations, at least so
far as regards month and day. (Comp. here generally Wieseler, Synopse, and his
Beitrage.)

706 RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT ELIJAH.

APPENDIX VIII.
RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT ELIJAH, THE FORERUNNER OF THE MESSIAH.
(Vol. i. Book II. ch. iii. p. 143.)
App. To complete the evidence, presented in the text, as to the essential difference be-
VIII tween the teaching of the ancient Synagogue about ' the Forerunner of the Messiah '
and the history and mission of John the Baptist, as described in the New Testa
ment, we subjoin p, full, though condensed, account of the earlier Rabbinic tra
ditions about Elijah.
Opinions differ as to the descent and birthplace of Elijah. According to some,
he was from the land of Gilead (Bemid. R. 14), and of the tribe of Gad (Tanch.
on Gen. xlix. 19). Others describe him as a Benjamite, from Jerusalem, one of
those ' who sat in the Hall of Hewn Stones ' (Tanch. on Ex. xxxi. 2), or. else as
paternally descended from Gad and maternally from Benjamin.1 Yet a third
opinion, and to which apparently most weight attaches, represents him as a Levite,
and a Priest — nay, as the great High-Priest of Messianic days. This is expressly
stated in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. on Ex. xl. 10, where it also seems implied that
he was to anoint the Messiah with the sacred oil, the composition of which was
among the things unknown in the second Temple, but to be restored by Elijah
(Tanch. on Ex. xxiii. 20, ed. Warsh. p. 91 a, lines 4 and 5 from the top). Another
curious tradition identifies Elijah with Phinehas (Targum Pseudo-Jon. on Ex. vi. 18).
The same expression as in the Targum ( ' Phinehas — that is Elijah ' ) occurs in that
great storehouse of Rabbinic tradition, Yaikut (vol. i. p. 245 b, last two lines, and
col. c). From the pointed manner in which reference is made to the parallelism
between the zeal of Phinehas and that of Elijah, and between their work in recon
ciling God and Israel, and bringing the latter to repentance, we may gather alike
the origin of this tradition and its deeper meaning.2
For (as fully explained in Book II. ch. v.) it is one of the principles frequently
expressed by the ancient Synagogue, in its deeper perception of the unity and import
of the Old Testament, that the miraculous events and Divine interpositions of
Israel's earlier history would be re-enacted, only with wider application, in
Messianic days. If this idea underlay the parallelism between Phinehas and Elijah,
it is still more fully carried out in that between Elijah and Moses. On comparing
the Scriptural account of these two messengers of God we are struck with the close
correspondence between the details of their history. The Synagogue is careful to
trace this analogy step by step (Yaikut, vol. ii. p. 32 d) to the final deliverance of
1 This question is fully discussed in Ber. B. tions of this passage offered by Castelli (II
fl towards the close. Comp. also Shem. It. 40. Messia. p. 199), whose citation is scarcely
For fuller details we refer to our remarks as accurate as usually. The passage quoted
on Gen. xlix. la in Appendix IX. is in the Par. Pinchas, opening lines.
* I cannot agree with either of the explana-

RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT ELIJAH. 707
Israel, marking that, as that by Moses had for ever freed his people from the APP.
domination of Egypt, so would the final deliverance by Elijah for ever break the vm
yoke of all foreign rule. The allusion here is to the part which Elijah was ^-_^_^,.
expected to take in the future ' wars of Gog and Magog ' (Seder Olam R. c. xvii.).
Indeed, this parallelism is carried so far, that tradition has it, that, when Moses was
commissioned by God to go to Pharaoh, he pleaded that God should rather send
by him whom He designed to send for the far greater deliverance in the latter
days. On this it was told him that Elijah's mission would be to Israel, while he
(Moses) was sent to Pharaoh (Pirqe de R. Eliez. 40).1 Similarly, it is asserted
that the cave from which Moses beheld the Divine Presence passing before him
(Ex. xxxiii. 22) was the same as that in which Elijah stood under similar circum
stances — that cave having been created, not with the rest of the world, but specially
on the eve of the world's first Sabbath (Siphre on Deut, ed. Friedmann, p. 147 a,
last line). Considering this parallelism between them, the occurrence of the some
what difficult expression will scarcely surprise us, that in the days of the Messiah
Moses and Elijah would come together — ' as one ' (Debar. R. 3, at the end).2
It has been noted in the text that the activity of Elijah, from the time of his
appearance in the days of Ahab to that of his return as the forerunner of the
Messiah, is represented in Jewish tradition as continuous, and that he is almost con
stantly introduced on the scene, either as in converse with some Rabbi, or else as
busy about Israel's welfare, and connected with it. Thus Elijah chronicles in
heaven the deeds of man (Seder Olam R. xvii.), or else he writes down the
observance of the commandments by men, and then the Messiah and God seal it
(Midrash on Ruth ii. 14, last line, ed. Warsh. p. 43 b). In general, he is ever ¦
interested in all that concerns Israel's present state or their future deliverance
(Sanh. 98 a). Indeed, he is connected with the initiatory rite of the covenant, in
acknowledgment of his zeal 3 in the restoration of circumcision, when, according to
tradition, it had been abrogated by the ten tribes after their separation from Judah.
God accordingly had declared: 'Israel shall not make the covenant of circumcision,
but thou shalt see it,' and the sages decreed that (at circumcision) a seat of honour
shall be placed for the Angel of the Covenant (Mai. iii. 2 ; Pirqe de R. Eliez. 29,
end). Tradition goes even further. Not only was he the only ambassador to
whom God had delegated His three special ' keys ': of birth, of the rainfall, and of
waking the dead (Yaikut, vol. ii. 32 c), but his working was almost Divine (Tanch.
Bereshith 7 ; ed. Warsh. p. 6 6, last line, and 7 a).
We purposely pass over the activity of Elijah in connection with Israel, and
especially its Rabbis and saints, during the interval between the Prophet's death
and his return as the Forerunner of the Messiah, such as Jewish legend describes it.
1 CasteM writes ; Lo Prega a mandare in much later, probably Christian, authorship.
luogo suo Elia, gia esistente almeno in ispirito; Gfrorer thinks that 4 Esdras v. (2 Esdras vii.
e Bio risponde, die e predestinato non a q'tella, 28) refers to Jeremiah and Isaiah (Urchrist
ma alia finale redenzione. But there are three vol. ii. p. 230). But I cannot draw the same
Inaccuracies here, for (1) Moses does not inference from it. On the other hand, there
name Elijah; (2) there is not a hint that isa remarkable passage in Mechilta on Ex.
Elijah was pre-existing in spirit; while (3) xvi. 33 (ed. Weiss, p. 59 6), which not only
God's reply to Moses is as in our text. seems to conjoin Jeremiah with the Messiah
2 The question has been raised whether (though the inaccurate rendering of Wetstein,
Jeremiah (or even Isaiah) was also to appear Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 430 conveys an exag-
in Messianic days. In favour of this view gerated and wrong impression of this), but
2 Mace. ii. 1-8 and xv. 14-16 afford, to say reminds us of 2 Mace. ii. 1-8.
the least, presumptive evidence. We do not 3 In this passage also reference is made to
refer to 4 Esdras ii. 18, because the two first the zeal of Phinehas as corresponding to that
and the two last chapters of that book in our of Elijah.
Apocrypha (2 Esdras) are spurious, being of

708 RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT ELIJAH.
App. No good purpose could be served by repeating what so frequently sounds not only
yni utterly foolish and superstitious, but profane. In Jewish legend Elijah is always
v_-^^^, introduced as the guardian of the interests of Israel, whether theologically or per
sonally — as it were the constant living medium between God and his people, the
link that binds the Israel of the present— with its pursuits, wants, difficulties and
interests— to the bright Messianic future of which he is the harbinger. This prob
ably is the idea underlying the many, often grotesque, legends about his sayings
and doings. Sometimes he is represented as, in his well-meant zeal, going so far
as to bear false witness in order to free Rabbis from danger and difficulty (Berach.
58 a). In general, he is always ready to instruct, to comfort, or to heal, conde
scending even to so slight a malady as the toothache (Ber. R. 96, end). But most
frequently is he the adviser and friend of the Rabbis, in whose meetings and studies
he delighteth. Thus he was a frequent attendant in Rabh's Academy — aud his in
discretion in divulging to his friends the secrets of heaven had once procured for
him in heaven the punishment of fiery stripes (Babha Mets. 85 b). But it is useless
to do more than indicate all this. Our object is to describe the activity of Elijah in
connection with the coming of the Messiah. .
When, at length, the time of Israel's redemption arrived — then would Elijah
return. Of two things only are we sure in connection with it. Elijah will not
' come yesterday ' — that is, he will be revealed the same day that he comes — and
be will not come on the eve of either a Sabbath or feast-day, in order not to inter
rupt the festive rest, nor to break the festive laws (Erub. 43 b, Shabb. 33 a).
Whether he came one day (Er. 43 b) or three days before the Messiah (Yaikut, vol.
• ii. p. 53 c, about the middle) his advent would be close to that of the Messiah (Yai
kut, vol. i. p. 310 a, line 21 from bottom).1 The account given of the three days
between the advent of Elijah and of the Messiah is peculiar (Yaikut, vol. ii. p.
53 c). Commenting on Is. Iii. 7, it is explained, that on the first of those three days
Elijah would stand on the mountains of Israel, lamenting the desolateness of the
land, his voice being heard from one end of the world to the other, after which he
would proclaim: 'Peace' cometh to the world; 'peace' cometh to the world!
Similarly on the second day he would proclaim, 'Good' cometh to the world;
'good' cometh to the world! Lastly, on the third day, he would, in the same man
ner as the two previous days, make proclamation : 'Jeshuah 2 (salvation) cometh to
the world; Jeshuah (salvation) cometh to the world,' which, in order to mark the
difference between Israel and the Gentiles, would be further explained by this addi
tion : ' Saying unto Zion — Thy King cometh! '
The period of Elijah's advent would, according to one opinion (Pirqe de R.
Eliez. 43), be a time of genuine repentance by Israel, although it is not stated that
this change would be brought about by his ministry. On the other hand, his
peculiar activity would consist in settling ceremonial and ritual questions, doubts,
and difficulties, in making peace, in restoring those who by violence had been
wrongfully excluded from the congregation and excluding those who by violence
had been wrongfully introduced (Bab. Mets. i. 8; ii. 8; iii. 4, 5; Eduy. vii. 7).
He would also restore to Israel these three things which had been lost : the golden
1 Schiittgen (Horse Hebr. tomus ii. p. 534) 2 Of course this is the Hebrew word used
has not correctly apprehended the meaning in Is. Hi. 7 ('that publisheth salvation.').
of this passage. It is not ' statim cum ipso None the less significant, however, in this
Messiss adventu,' but prope or proxime connection, is the fact that the word is pro-

(~N"'Dt *]"i?2D' Schottgen writes inaccurately,

nounced like the Name of Jesus.

JEWISH VIEWS OF THE FORERUNNER OF MESSIAH.

T09

pot of Manna (Ex. xvi. 33), the vessel containing the anointing oil, and that with
the waters of purification — according to some, also Aaron's rod that budded and
bore fruit.1 Again, his activity is likened to that of the Angel whom God had
sent before Israel to drive out and to vanquish the hostile nations (Tanch. on Ex.
xxiii. 20, § 18 at the close; ed. Warsh. p. 106 b). For. Elijah was to appear, then
to disappear, and to appear again in the wars of Gog and Magog '2 (Seder Olam R.
xvii.). But after that time general peace and happiness would prevail, when Elijah
would discharge his peculiar functions. Finally, to the ministry of Elijah some also
ascribed the office of raising the dead (Sotah ix. 15, closing words).3
Such is a summary of ancient Jewish tradition concerning Elijah as the fore
runner of the Messiah. Comparing it with the New Testament description of John
the Baptist, it will at least be admitted that, from whatever source the sketch of the
activity and mission of the Baptist be derived, it cannot have been from the ideal
of the ancient Synagogue, nor yet from popularly current Jewish views. And,
indeed — could there be a greater contrast than between the Jewish forerunner of
the Messiah and him of the New Testament?

APP. YIII

1 The reader -will find, in our remarks on Ps.
ex. 2 in Append. IX. the curious traditions
about this rod of Aaron, as given in Bemid. R.
18 and Yaikut on Ps. ex. 2. The story of the
wonder-working rod is told somewhat differ
ently in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. on Ex. ii.
20, 21 and iv. 20; and again, with other varia
tions, in Pirke de R. Eliez. 40. In the latter
passage we are told, that this rod had passed
from the possession of Joseph (after his death)
into the palace of Pharaoh. Thence Jethro,
who was one of the magicians of Egypt, had
removed it to his own home. The ability of
Moses to read the writing on the rod — accord
ing to other traditions, to uproot it out of the
garden — indicated him to Jethro as the future
deliverer of Israel, and determined him to
give to Moses Zipporah for his wife (in
preference to all other suitors). According to
other traditions, Moses had been for many
years imprisoned, and ministered to by
Zipporah, who loved him. It may he added,
that, according to very ancient tradition, the
rod of Aaron was one of the things created

on the eve of the world's first Sabbath (Siphre,
ed. Friedmann, p. 147 a, last line).
- We have purposely omitted all reference
to the connection between Elijah and the
* second * Messiah, the son of Ephraim,
because that line of tradition belongs to a
later period than that of Christ.
a The view of the Apocrypha on the Mission
of Elijah may be gathered from Ecclus.
xlviii. 1-12. Some additional Talmudic no
tices about Elijah will be found at the close of
Append. IX. The Sepher Eliyahu (Apocalypse
of Elijah), published in Jellinek's Beth ha-
Midr. part ii. pp. 65-68, adds nothing to our
knowledge. It professes to be a revelation by
the Angel Michael to Elijah of the end and
the last days, at the close of the fourth mon
archy. As it is simply an Apocalyptic ac
count of the events of those days, it cannot
here find a place, however interesting the
Tractate. I have purposely not referred to
the abominable story about Elijah told in
Yoma 19 b, last lines.

710 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES

APPENDIX IX.
LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN
ANCIENT RABBINIC WRITINGS.
(Vol. i. Book II. ch. v.)
The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the
Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount
in all to 456, thus distributed . 75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets,
and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quota
tions from Rabbinic writings. Despite all labour and care, it can scarcely be hoped
that the list is quite complete, although, it is hoped, no important passage has been
omitted. The Rabbinic references might have been considerably increased, but it
seemed useless to quote the same application of a passage in many different books.
Similarly, for the sake of space, only the most important Rabbinic quotations have
been translated in extenso. The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been
made are : the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and ttie most ancient Midrashim, but
neither the Zohar (as the date of its composition is in dispute), nor any other
Kabbalistic work, nor yet the younger Midrashim, nor, of course, the writings of
later Rabbis. I have, however, frequently quoted from the well-known work
Yaikut, because, although of comparatively late date, it is really, as its name
implies, a collection and selection from more than fifty older and accredited writ-'
ings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us. And I have the
more readily availed myself of it, as I have been reluctantly forced to the con
clusion that even the Midrashim preserved to us have occasionally been tampered
with for controversial purposes. I have quoted from the best edition of Yaikut
(Frankfort a. M., 1687), but in the case of the other Midrashim I have been obliged
to content myself with such more recent reprints as I possessed, instead of the older
and more expensive editions. In quoting from the Midrashim, not only the
Parashah, but mostly also the folio, the page, and frequently even the lines are
referred to. Lastly, it only remains to acknowledge in general that, so far as pos
sible, I have availed myself of the labours of my predecessors— specially of those of
Schiittgen. Yet, even so, I may, in a sense, claim these references also as the result
of my own labours, since I have, not availed myself of quotations without compar
ing them with the works from which they were adduced— a process in which not a
few passages quoted had to be rejected. And if any student should arrive at a
different conclusion from mine in regard to any of the passages hereafter quoted, I
can at least assure him that mine is the result of the most careful and candid study
1 could give to the consideration of each passage. With these prefatory remarks I
proceed to give the list of Old Testament passages Messianically applied in ancient
Rabbinic writings.
In Oen. i. 2, the expression, 'Spirit of God,' is explained of 'the Spirit of the
King Messiah, ' with reference to Is, xi, 3, and the ' moving on the face of the deep '

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 711
of ' repentance,' according to Lam. ii. 19. So in Ber. R. 3, and in regard to the
first point also in Ber. R. 8, in Vayyik. R. 14, and in other places.
Gen. ii. 4 : ' These are the generations— nn?1TI— of the heavens and of the
earth. ' taken in connection with Gen. iii. 15 and Ruth iv. 18. Here we note one of the
most curious Messianic interpretations in Ber. R. 12 (ed. Warsh. p. 24 b). It is
noted that the word ' generations ' (nTPlTI) is always written in the Bible without
the 1. which is the equivalent for the numeral 6, except in Gen. ii. 4 and Ruth iv.
18. This to indicate that subsequent to Gen. ii. 4 the Pall took place, in which
Adam lost 1 — six— things : his glorious sheen (Job xiv. 20) ; life (Gen. iii. 19) ; his
stature (Gen. iii. 8— either by 100, by 200, by 300, or even by 900 cubits) ; the fruit
of the ground ; the fruits of the trees (Gen. iii. 17) ; and the heavenly lights. We
have now seen why in Gen. ii. 4 — that is, previous to the Pall — the 1 is still in
nTPirv since at that time these six things were not yet lost. But the 1 reappears
in the word n'"Din in Ruth iv. 18, because these six things are to be restored to
man by ' the son of Pharez ' — or the Messiah (comp. for each of these six things :
Judg. v. 31 b ; Is. lxviii. 22 ; Lev. xxvi. 13 ; Zech. viii. 12 ; Is. xxx. 26). It is
added that although — according to the literal rendering of Ps. xlix. 12 (in Heb. ver.
13) — man did not remain unfallen one single night, yet, for the sake of the Sabbath,
the heavenly lights were not extinguished till after the close of the Sabbath.
When Adam saw the darkness, it is added, he was greatly afraid, saying : Perhaps
he, of whom it is written, ' he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel,'
cometh to molest and attack me, and he said, ' Surely the darkness shall cover me.'
This curious extract at least shows in what context the Synagogue applied Gen. iii.
15. The same occurs substantially in Shem. R. 30.
Gen. iii. 15. This well-known passage is paraphrased, with express reference to
the Messiah, in the Targum Pseudo Jonathan and the so-called Jerusalem Targum.
Schotfgen conjectures that the Talmudic designation of ' heels of the Messiah ' (Sot.
49 b, line 2 from top) in reference to the near Advent of the Messiah in the de
scription of the troubles of those days (comp. St. Matt. x. 35, 36) may have been
chosen partly with a view to this passage.
Gen. iv. 25. The language of Eve at the birth of Seth : ' another seed,' is
explained as meaning ' seed which comes from another place,' and referred to the
Messiah in Ber. R. 23 (ed. Warsh. p. 45 b, lines 8, 7 from the bottom). The same
explanation occurs twice in the Midrash on Ruth iv. 19 (in the genealogy of David,
ed. Warsh. p. 46 b), the second time in connection with Ps. xl. 8 (' in the volume
of the book it is written of me ' — bim'gillath sepher — Ruth belonging to the class
rbya)- In connection with Gen. v. 1 it is noted in Ber. R. 24, that King Messiah will
not come till all souls predestined for it have appeared in human bodies on earth.
In Gen. viii. 11 the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan notes that the olive-leaf, brought
by the dove, was taken from the Mount of the Messiah.
Gen. ix. 27. The promise, that Japhet shall dwell in the tents of Shem, is
paraphrased in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. as meaning, that his descendants should
become proselytes, and dwell in the schools of Shem — which seems to refer to
Messianic times.
In connection with Gen. xiv. 1, we are reminded in Ber. R. 42, that when we
see the nations warring together, we may expect the coming of the Messiah.
The promise in Gen. xv. 18 is expected to be finally fulfilled in the time of
Messiah, in Ber. R. 44.
In connection with Gen. xviii. 4, 5 it is noted (Ber. R. 48, ed. Warsh. p- 87 b)

712 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
^pp_ that the words of Abraham to his Angelic guests were to be returned in blessing to
jX Abraham's descendants, in the wilderness, in the land of Canaan, and in the latter
___^__ (Messianic) days. Referring only to this last point, the words ' let a little water
be fetched,' is paralleled with the ' living waters ' in Zech. xiv. 8; ' wash your feet,'
with Is. iv. 4 (the washing away of the filth of the daughters of Zion) ; ' rest
under the tree,' with Is. iv. 6 : ' there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the
daytime from the heat ;' 'I will fetch a morsel of bread,' with the provision,
Ps. lxxii. 16 : 'there shall be a handful of corn in the earth,' &c. So also the
words : ' Abraham ran unto the herd, ' are paralleled with Is. vii. 21 (which is most
significantly here applied to Messianic times) ; and lastly, the words, ' he stood by
them,' with Mic. ii. 13 : ' the breaker is come up before them.' ' The same inter
pretation occurs in Bemid. R. 14 (ed. Warsh. p. 55 a), the references to Messianic
days there being to Is. xiv. 2 ; xxx. 25 ; xii. 18 ; iv. 4 ; and iv. 6.
The last clause of Gen. xix. 32 is interpreted (Ber. R. 51, ed. Warsh. p. 95 a),
as referring, like the words of Eve about Seth, to the Messiah — the sin of the
daughters of Lot being explained on the ground of their believing that all man
kind had been destroyed in the judgment that overthrew Sodom.
The promise in Gen. xxii. 18 is also explained Messianically in Bemid. R. 2
(ed. W. p. 5 b), in connection with Num. ii. 32, where it is somewhat curiously
shown in what sense Israel is to be like the sand of the sea.
Gen. xxxiii. 1. The Midrash conjoins this with Is. lxvi. 7, and notes that, before
the first oppressor was born, the last Redeemer was already born.
In Gen. xxxv. 21 the Targum Pseudo-Jon. paraphrases 'the tower of Eder'
(at Bethlehem) as the place whence the Messiah would be revealed.
On Gen. xxxviii. 1, 2 there are very remarkable Messianic comments in Ber. R.85.
Gen. xlix. 1. The Targum Pseudo-Jon. notes, that the end for which the
Messiah would come was not revealed to Jacob. A similar statement is found in
the Midrash on the passage (Ber. R. 98, ed. Warsh. p. 173 a), where it is said of
Jacob and Daniel that they saw the end, and yet it was afterwards hid from them.
The passage quoted in the case of Daniel is Dan. xii. 4.
Gen. xlix. 9. The expression 'lion's whelp,' is explained of the Messiah in
Yaikut 160 (vol. i. p. 49 e), no less than five times ; while the term ' he couched,'
is referred to the Messiah in Ber. R. 98.
Gen xlix. 10. This well-known prediction (on which see the full and interesting
discussion in Raym. Martini, Pugio Pidei) is in Yaikut, u. s., applied to the
Messiah, with a quotation of Ps. ii. 9. The expression ' Shiloh ' is also applied to
the Messiah, with the curious addition, that in the latter days all nations would
bring gifts to Him. Alike the Targum Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and the
Jerusalem Targum, as well as Sanh. 98 b, the Midrash on the passage, and that
on Prov. xix. 21, and on Lam. i. 16, where it is rendered shelo, ' whose it is,' refer
the expression ' Shiloh,' and, indeed, the whole passage, to the Messiah ; the
Midrash Ber. R. (99, ed. Warsh. p. 178 b) with special reference to Is. xi. 10, while
the promise with reference to the ass's colt is brought into connection with Zech.
ix. 9, the fulfilment of this prophecy being expected along with that in Ezek.
xxxvi. 25 (' I will sprinkle clean water'). Another remarkable statement occurs
in the Midrash on the passage (Ber. R. 98, ed. Warsh. p. 174 b), which applies the
verse to the coming of Him of Whom it is written, Zech. ix. 9. Then He would
1 Indeed, this Parashah in Ber. R. contains other similar parallelisms between Gen. xvii.
and Messianic times.

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 713
wash his garment in wine (Gen. xlix. 11), which is explained as meaning the teaching APP.
of the Law to Israel, and His clothes in the blood of grapes, which is explained as jx
meaning that He would bring them back from their errors. One of the Rabbis, v___^_
however, remarks that Israel would not require to be taught by the King Messiah
in the latter days, since it was written (Is. xi. 10), 'to it shall the Gentiles seek.'
If so, then why should the Messiah come, and what will He do to the congregation
of Israel ? He will redeem Israel, and give them thirty commandments, according
to Zech. xi. 12. The Targum Pseudo-Jon. and the Jer. Targum also apply verse 11
to the Messiah. Indeed, so general was this interpretation, that, according to
popular opinion, to see a palm-tree in one's dreams was to see the days of the
Messiah (Berach. 57 a).
Gen. xlix. 12 is also applied to the Messiah in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. and the
Jerusalem Targum. So also is verse 18, although not in express words.
In Gen. xlix. 17, last clause, in its connection with ver. 18, the Midrash (Ber.
R. 98) sees a reference to the disappointment of Jacob in mistaking Samson for
the Messiah.
In the prophecy of Gad in Gen. xlix. 19 there is an allusion to Messianic days,
as Elijah was to be of the tribe of Gad (Ber. R. 99, ed. Warsh. p. 179 a). There
is, however, in Ber. R. 71, towards the close, a dispute whether he was of the tribe
of Gad, or of the tribe of Benjamin, at the close of which Elijah appears, and settles
the dispute in a rather summary manner.
On Gen. I. 10 the Midrash, at the close of Ber. R., remarks that as they "had
mourned, so in Messianic days God would turn their mourning into joy, quoting
Jer. xxxi. 13 and Is. Ii. 3.
Ex. iv. 22 is referred to the Messiah in the Midr. on Ps. ii. 7.
On Exod. xii. 2, 'let this be the beginning of months,' it is remarked in Shem.
R. 15 (ed. Warsh. p. 24 b) tljat God would make new ten things in the latter days,
these being marked by the following passages : Is. Ix. 19 ; Ezek. xlvii. 9 ; xlvii. 12 ;
Ezek. xvi. 55 ; Is. liv. 11 ; Is. xi. 7 ; Hos. ii. 20 ; Is. lxv. 19 ; Is. xxv. 8 ; Is.
xxxv. 10. Similarly on Num. xii. 1 we have, in Shem. R. 51, a parallelism between
Old Testament times and their institutions and those of the latter days, to which
Is. xlix. 12 and lx. 8 are supposed to apply.
OnExod. xii. 42 the Jerus. Targum notes that there were 4 remarkable nights:
those of creation, of the covenant with Abraham, of the first Passover, and of the
redemption of the world ; and that as Moses came out of the desert, so would the
Messiah come out of Rome.
Exod. xv. 1. It is noted in Mekhilta (ed. Weiss, p. 41 a) that this song would
be taken up in Messianic days, only with far wider reach, as explained in Is. lx. 5 ;
lviii. 8 ; xxxv. 5, 6 ; Jer. xxxi. 13 ; and Ps. cxxvi. 2.
Ex. xvi. 25 is applied to the Messiah, it being said that, if Israel only kept one
Sabbath according' to the commandment, the Messiah would immediately come
(Jer. Taan. 64 a).
Ex. xvi. 33. This manna, it is noted in Mechil. ed. Weiss, p. 59 b, was to be
preserved for the days of the Messiah. Is. xxx. 15 is similarly explained in Jer.
Taan. i. 1.
Ex. xvii. 16 the Targum Pseudo- Jonathan refers to Messianic times.
Exod. xxi. 1. Shem. R. 30, ed. Warsh. p. 44 b, 45 a, notes on the word
'judgments' a number of things connected with judgment, showing how Balaam
could not have wished the advent of the future deliverance (Numb. xxiv. 17),
since he was to perish in it ; but that Israel should cleave to the great hope

714 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
pressed in Gen. xlix. 18 ; Is. Ivi. 1 ; lix. 16 ; and especially Zech. ix. 9, of which a
different rendering is proposed.
On Exod. xl. 9, 11 there is in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. distinct reference to the
King Messiah, on whose account the anointing oil was to be used.
The promise (Lev. xxvi. 12) is also referred to the latter, or Messianic, days in
Yaikut 62 (vol. i. p. 17 b).
Lev. xxvi. 13 is applied to Messianic times. See our remarks on Gen. ii. 4.
The promise of peace in the Aaronic benediction Num. vi. 26 is referred to
the peace of the Kingdom of David, in accordance with Is. ix. 7 (Siphre on Num.
par. 42, ed. Friedmann, p. 12 b).
Num. vii. 12. In connection with this it is marked that the six blessings which
were lost by the Pall are to be restored by the son of Nahshon, i.e. the Messiah
(Bern. R. 13, ed. W. p. 51 a).
In the Jerusalem Targum on Num. xi. 26 the prophecy of Eldad and Medad is
supposed to have been with regard to the wars ofthe latter days against Jerusalem,
and to the defeat of Gog and Magog by the Messiah.
In Num. xxiii. 21 the term ' King ' is expressly referred to the Messiah in
Targum Pseudo-Jon. So also Num. xxiv. 7 in the Jer. Targum.
In Num. xxiv. 17 Balaam's prediction of the Star and Sceptre is referred to the
Messiah in the Targum Onkelos and the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as in
Jer. Taan. iv. 8 ; Deb. R. 1 ; Midr. on Lament, ii. 2. Similarly, verses 20 and 24
of that prophecy are ascribed in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. to the Messiah.
Num. xxvii. 16. In connection with this verse it is noticed that His one Spirit
is worth as much as all other spirits, according to Is. xi. 1 (Yaikut, vol. i. p. 247 a).
Deut. i. 8 is applied to the days of the Messiah in Siphre, 67 a.
In the comments of Tanchuma on Deut. viii. 1. (ed. Warsh. p. 104 b, 105 a)
there are several allusions to Messianic days.
Deut. xi. 21 is applied in Siphre, Par. 47 (ed. Friedmann, p. 83 a) to the days
of the Messiah.
In Deut. xvi. 3 the record of the deliverance from Egypt is supposed to be car
ried on to the days of the Messiah, in Siphre, Par. 130 (ed. Friedmann, p. 101 a).
See, also, Ber. i. 5.
On Deut. xix. 8, 9 it is noted, in Siphre on Deut., Par. 185 (ed. Friedm. p. 108 b),
that as three of these cities were in territory never possessed by Israel, this was to
be fulfilled in Messianic times. See also Jer. Mace. ii. 7.
In Tanchuma on Deut. xx. 10 (Par. 19, ed. Warsh. p. 1 14 b) the offer of peace
to a hostile city is applied to the future action of Messiah to the Gentiles, in accord
ance with Zech. ix. 10 ; Is. ii. 4 ; and Ps. lxviii. 32 ; while, on the other hand, the
resistance of a city to the offer of peace is likened to rebellion against the Messiah,
and consequent judgment, according to Is. xi. 4.
Deut. xxiii. 11 is typically applied to the evening of time, when God would
wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion (Is. iv. 4) ; and the words : ' when the
sun is down ' to when King Messiah would come (Tanchuma on Par. Ki Thetse 3,
ed. Warsh. p. 115 b).
Deut. xxv. 19 and Deut. xxx. 4 are referred by the Targum Pseudo-Jon. to
Messianic times. In the latter passage the gathering of dispersed Israel by Elijah,
and their being brought back by Messiah, are spoken of. Comp. also Bern. R.,
last three lines.
On Deut. xxxii. 7 Siphre (Par. 210, ed. Friedm. p. 134 a) makes the beautiful
observation, that in all Israel's afflictions they were to remember the good and

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 715
comfortable things which God had promised them for the future world, and in APP.
connection with this there is special reference to the time of the Messiah. IX
On Deut. xxxii. 30 Siphre (p. 138 a) marks its fulfilment in the days of the .^_^^_,
Messiah. On Deut. xxxiii. 5 the Jer. Targum speaks of a king whom the tribes of Israel
shall obey, this being evidently the King Messiah.
Deut. xxxiii. 17. Tanchuma on Gen. i. Par. 1 (ed. Warsh. p. 4 a) applies this
to the Messiah. So also in Bemidb: R. 14.
Deut. xxxiii. 12. The expression, 'he shall cover him,' is referred to this
world; ' all the day long,' to the days of the Messiah; and ' he shall dwell between
his shoulders,' to the world to come (Sebach. 118 b).
Judg. v.Zl: ' let them that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his
might,' is applied to Messianic times in Ber. R. 12. See our remarks on Gen. ii. 4.
On Ruth ii. 14: 'come hither at the time of meat,' the Midr. R. Ruth 5 (ed.
Warsh. p. 43 a and b), has a very remarkable interpretation. Besides the appli
cation of the word 'eat,' as beyond this present time, to the days of the Messiah,
and again to the world to come, which is to follow these days, the Midrash applies
the whole of it mystically to the Messiah, viz. 'Come hither,' that is, draw near
to the Kingdom, ' and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of royalty, ' and dip
thy morsel in vinegar ' — these are the sufferings, as it is written in Is. liii. 5, ' He
was wounded for our transgressions.' 'And she sat beside the reapers ' — because
His Kingdom would in the future be put aside from Him for a short time, accord
ing to Zech. xiv. 2; ' and he reached her parched corn ' — because He will restore it
to Him, according to Is. xi. 4. R. Berachiah, in the name of R. Levi, adds, that
the second Redeemer should be like the first. As the first Redeemer (Moses) ap
peared, and disappeared, and reappeared after three months, so the second Redeemer
would also appear, and disappear, and again become manifest, Dan. xii. 11, 12
being brought into connection with it. Comp. Midr. on Cant. ii. 9 ; Pesik. 49 a, b.
Again, the words, 'she ate, and was sufficed, and left,' are thus interpreted in
Shabb. 113 b : she ate — in this world ; and was sufficed — in the days of the
Messiah ; and left— rfor the world to come.
Again, the Targum on Ruth i. 1 speaks of the Messiah ; and again on Ruth iii.
15 paraphrases the six measures of barley as referring to six righteous ones, of
which the last was the Messiah, and who were each to have six special blessings.
Ruth iv. 18. The Messiah is called ' the son of Pharez,' who restores what had
been lost to humanity through the fall of Adam. See our remarks on Gen. ii. 4.
The Messianic interpretation of Ruth iv. 20 has already been given under Gen.
iv. 25.
1 Sam. ii. 10. The latter clause of this promise is understood by the Targum
(and also in some of the Midrashim) as applying to the Kingdom of the Messiah.
2 Sam. xxii. 28. In a Talmudic passage (Sanh. 98 a, line 19, &C, from the
bottom), which.contains many references to the coming of the Messiah, His advent
is predicted in connection with this passage.
2 Sam. xxiii. 1 is applied by the Targum to the prophecy of David concerning
the latter Messianic days.
2 Sam. xxiii. 3. The ' ruling in the fear of God ' is referred in the Targum to
the future raising up of the Messiah.
In 2 Sam. xxiii. 4 the morning light at sunrise is explained in the Midrash on the
passage (par. 29, ed. Lemberg, p. 56 b, lines 7-9 from the top), as applying_to the
appearance of the Messiah.

716 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
The expression, 1 Kings iv. 33, that Solomon spoke of trees, is referred in the
Targum to his prophecy concerning kings that were to reign in this age, and in that
of the Messiah.
On the name 'Anani,' in 1 Ghr. iii. 24, the Targum remarks that this is the
Messiah, the interpretation being that the word Anani is connected with the word
similarly written (not punctuated) in Dan. vii. 13, and there translated ' clouds,' of
which the explanation is given in Tanchuma (Par. Toledoth 14, p. 37 b).
Ps. ii., as might be expected, is treated as full of Messianic references. To begin
with, Ps. ii. 1 is applied to the wars of Gog and Magog in the Talmud (Berach. 7 b,
and Abhod. Zarah 3 b), and also in the Midrash on Ps. ii. Similarly, verse 2 is
applied to the Messiah in Abhod. Zarah, u. s., in the Midrash on Ps. xcii. 11 (ed.
Warsh. p. 70 b, line 8 from the top); in Pirque" de R. Eliez. c. 28 (ed. Lemberg,
p. 33 b, line 9 from top). In Yaikut (vol. ii. par. 620, p. 90 a, line 12 from the
bottom), we have the following remarkable simile on the words, ' against God, and
His Messiah,' likening them to a robber who stands defiantly behind the palace
of the king, and says, If I shall find the son of the king, I shall lay hold on him,
and crucify him, and kill him with a cruel death. But the Holy Spirit mocks at
him, 'He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh.' On the same verse the Mid
rash on Ps. ii. has a curious conceit, intended to show that each who rose against
God and His people thought he was wiser than he who had preceded him. If Cain
had killed his brother while his father was alive, forgetful that there would be
other sons, Esau proposed to wait till after his father's death. Pharaoh, again,
blamed Esau for his folly in forgetting that in the meantime Jacob would have
children, and hence proposed to kill all the male children, while Hainan, ridiculing
Pharaoh's folly in forgetting that there were daughters, set himself to destroy the
whole people ; and, in turn, Gog aud Magog, ridiculing the shortsightedness of all,
who had preceded them, in taking counsel against Israel so long as they had a
Patron in heaven, resolved first to attack their heavenly Patron, and after that
Israel. To which apply the words, ' against the Lord, and against His Anointed.'
But to return. Ps. ii. 4 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Abhod. Z. u. s.).
Ps. ii. 6 is applied to the Messiah in the Midrash on 1 Samuel xvi. 1 (Par. 19, ed.
Lemberg, p. 45 a and b), where it is said that of the three measures of sufferings '
one goes to the King Messiah, of whom it is written (Is. liii.) ' He was wounded
for our transgressions.' They say to the King Messiah: Where dost Thou seek to
dwell ? He answers : Is this question also necessary ? In Sion My holy hill
(Ps. ii. 6). (Comp. also Yaikut ii. p. 53 c.)
Ps. ii. 7 is quoted as Messianic in the Talmud, among a number of other
Messianic quotations (Sukk. 52 a). There is a very remarkable passage in the
Midrash on Ps. ii. 7 (ed. Warsh. p. 5 a), in which the unity of Israel and the
Messiah in prophetic vision seems clearly indicated. Tracing the ' decree ' through
the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, the first passage quoted is Exod. iv.
22 : 'Israel is My first-born son ; ' the second, from the Prophets, -Is. Iii. 13: 'Be
hold My servant shall deal prudently,' and Is. xiii. 1 : ' Behold My servant, whom
I uphold; ' the third, from the Hagiographa, Ps. ex. 1: ' The Lord said unto my
Lord,' and again, Ps. ii. 7: 'The Lord said unto Me, Thou art My Son,' and yet
this other saying (Dan. vii. 13): ' Behold, one like the Son of Man came with the
clouds of heaven. ' Five lines further down, the same Midrash, in reference to the
words 'Thou art My Son,' observes that, when that hour comes, God speaks to
1 As to these three measures of sufferings, and the share falling to the age of the Messiah, see
also the Midrash on Ps. ii. 7.

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 717
Him to make a new covenant, and thus He speaks : ' This day have I begotten APP.
Thee' — this is the hour in which He becomes His Son. ix
Ps. ii. 8 is applied in Ber. R. 44 (ed. Warsh. p. 80 a) and in the Midrash on the .  , .
passage, to the Messiah, with the curious remark that there were three of whom it
was said ' Ask of Me ' — Solomon, Ahaz, ' and the Messiah. In the Talmud (Sukk.
52 a) the same passage is very curiously applied, it being suggested that, when the
Messiah, the Son of David, saw that the Messiah, the Son of Joseph,2 would be
killed, He said to the Almighty, I seek nothing of Thee except life. To which the
reply was : Life before Thou hadst spoken, as David Thy father prophesied of Thee,
Ps. xxi. 4.
Ps. ii. 9 will be referred to in our remarks on Ps. cxx.
Ps. xvi. 5 is discussed in Ber. R. 88, in connection with the cup which Pharaoh's
butler saw in his dream. Prom this the Midrash proceeds to speak of the four
cups appointed for the Passover night, and to explain their meaning in various
manners, among others, contrasting the four cups of fury, which God would make
the nations drink, with the four cups of salvation which He would give Israel in
the latter days, viz. Ps. xvi. 5 ; Ps. cxvi. 13 ; Ps. xxiii. 5. The expression, Ps.
exvi. 13, rendered in. our A.V. ' the cup of salvation,' is in the original, ' the cup of
salvations ' — and is explained as implying one for the days of the Messiah, and the
other for the days of Gog.
On verse 9, the Midrash on the passage says : ' My glory shall rejoice in the
King Messiah, Who in the future shall come forth from me, as it is written in
Is. iv. 5 : "upon all the glory a covering." ' " And the Midrash continues ' my flesh
also shall dwell in safety ' — i.e. after death, to teach us that corruption and the
worm shall not rule over it.
Ps. xviii. 31 (in the Heb. verse 32). The Targum explains this in reference to
the works and miracles of the Messiah.
Ps. xviii. 50 is referred in the Jer. Talmud (Ber. ii. 4, p. 5 a, line 11 from the
top), and in the Midr. on Lam. i. 16, to the Messiah, with this curious remark,
implying the doubt whether He was alive or dead : ' The King Messiah, whether He
belong to the living or the dead, His Name is to be David, according to Ps. xviii. 50.'
Ps. xxi. 1 (2 in the Hebrew) — the King there spoken of is explained by the
Targum to be the King Messiah. The Midrash on the passage identifies him with
Is. xi. 10, on which Rabbi Chanina adds that the object of the Messiah is to give
certain commandments to the Gentiles (not to Israel, who are to learn from God
Himself), according to the passage in Isaiah above quoted, adding that the words
' his rest shall be glorious ' mean that God gives to King Messiah from the glory
above, as it is said : 'In Thy strength shall the king rejoice,' which strength is a
little afterwards explained as the Kingdom (ed. Warsh. p. 30 a and b).
Verse 3 is Messianically applied in the Midrash on the passage.
Ps. xxi. 3 (4 in the Hebrew). Only a few lines farther down in the same
Midrash, among remarkable Messianic applications, is that of this verse to the
Messiah, where also the expressions 'Jehovah is a man of war,' and 'Jehovah
Zidkenu,' are applied to the Messiah.3 Comp. also Shemoth R. 8, where it is noted
that God will crown Him with His own crown.
1 The Midrash gives two very curious expla- clumsy emendation, since what follows evidently
nations of his name. applies to the Son of David.
2 On the twofold Messiah, or rather the device s The idea of an organic connection between
of the Jews on this subject, see in the text of the Israel and the Messiah seems also to underlie this
chapter. I cannot but suspect that the words passage.
' Son of Joseph ' in the Talmud are a later and

718 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
APP Verse 4 is Messianically applied in Sukk. 52 a.
jX Ps- xxi. 5 (6 in the Hebrew). The first clause of this verse Yaikut on Num.
xxvii. 20 (vol. i. p. 248 a, line 10 from the bottom) applies to the glory of the King
Messiah, immediately quoting the second clause in proof of its Messianic applica
tion. This is also done in the Midrash on the passage. But perhaps one of the
most remarkable applications of it is in Bemidbar R. 15, p. 63 b, where this pas
sage is applied to the Messiah.
Finally in Ps. xxi. 7 (8 in the Hebrew), the expression 'king' is applied in the
Targum to the Messiah.
On the whole, then, it may be remarked that Ps. xxi. was throughout regarded
as Messianic. On Ps. xxii. 7 (8 in the Hebrew) a remarkable comment appears in Yaikut on
Is. lx., applying this passage to the Messiah (the second, or son of Ephraim), and
using almost the same words in which the Evangelists describe the mocking be
haviour of the Jews at the Cross.
Ps. xxii. 15 (16 in the Hebrew). There is a similarly remarkable application to
the Messiah of this verse in Yaikut.
The promise in Ps. xxiii. 5 is referred in Bemid. R. 21 to the spreading of the
great feast before Israel in the latter days.
Ps. xxxi. 19 (20 in the Hebrew) is in the Midrash applied to the reward that
in the latter days Israel would receive for their faithfulness. Also in Pesiqta,
p. 149 b, to the joy of Israel in the presence of the Messiah.
The expression in Ps. xxxvi. 9, 'In Thy light shall we see light,' is applied to
the Messiah in Yaikut on Isaiah lx. (vol. ii. p. 56 c, line 22 from the bottom).
The application of Ps. xl. 7 to the Messiah has already been noted in our
remarks on Gen. iv. 25.
Ps xiv. is throughout regarded as Messianic. To begin with, the Targum
renders verse 2 (3 in the Hebrew) : ' Thy beauty, 0 King Messiah, is greater than
that of the sons of men.'
Verse 3 (4 in the Hebrew) is applied in the Talmud (Shabb 63 a) to the
Messiah, although other interpretations of that verse immediately follow.
The application of verse 6 (7 in the Hebrew), to the Messiah in a MS. copy of the
Targum has already been referred to in another part of this book, while the words,
' Thy throne is for ever and ever ' are brought into connection with the promise
that the sceptre would not depart from Judah in Ber. R. 99, ed. Warsh. p. 178 b,
line 9 from the bottom.
On verse 7 the Targum, though not in the Venice edition (1568), has : ' Thou,
O King Messiah, because Thou lovest righteousness,' &c. Comp. Levy, Targum.
Worterb. vol. ii. p. 41 a.
The Midrash on the Psalm deals exclusively with the inscription (of which it
has several and significant interpretations) with the opening words of the Psalm,
and with the words (ver. 16), ' Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, 'but at the
same time it clearly indicates that the Psalm applies to the latter, or Messianic, days.
On Ps. I. 2 Siphre (p. 143 a) notes that four times God would appear, the last
being in the days of King Messiah.
Ps. lx. 7. Bemidbar R. on Num. vii. 48, Parash. 14 (ed. Warsh. p. 54 a) con
tains some very curious Haggadic discussions on this verse. But it also broaches
the opinion of its reference to the Messiah.
Ps. Ixi. 6 (7 in the Hebrew). ' Thou shalt add days to the days of the king,' is
rendered by the Targum : 'Thou shalt add days to the days of King Messiah.'

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 719
There is a curious gloss on this in Pirqe d. R. Eliez. c. 19 (ed. Lemberg, p. 24 b), APP.
in which Adam is supposed to have taken 70 of his years, and added them to jx
those of King David. According to another tradition, this accounts for Adam . _
living 930 years, that is, 70 less than 1,000, which constitute before God one day,
and so the threatening had been literally fulfilled : In the day thou eatest thereof,
thou shalt die.
Ps. Ixi. 8 (9 in the Hebrew). The expression, ' that I may daily perform my
vows,' is applied in the Targum to the day in which the Messiah is anointed King.
Ps. lxviii. 31 (32 in the Hebrew). On the words ' Princes shall come out of Egypt, '
there is a very remarkable comment in the Talmud (Pes. 118 b) and in Shemoth
R. on Ex. xxvi. 15, &c. (ed. Warsh. p. 50 b), in which we are told that in the latter
days all nations would bring gifts to the King Messiah, beginning with Egypt.
' And lest it be thought that He (Messiah) would not accept it from them, the
Holy One says to the Messiah : Accept from them hospitable entertainment,' or it
might be rendered, 'Accept it from them ; they have given hospitable entertainment
to My son.'
Ps. Ixxii. This Psalm also was viewed by the ancient Synagogue as throughout
Messianic, as indicated by the fact that the Targum renders the very first verse :
' Give the sentence of Thy judgment to the King Messiah, and Thy justice to the
Son of David the King,' which is re-echoed by the Midrash on the passage (ed.
Warsh. p. 55 b) which applies it explicitly to the Messiah, with reference to Is. xi.
1. Similarly, the Talmud applies ver. 16 to Messianic times (in a very hyperbolical
passage, Shabb. 30 b, line 4 from the bottom). The last clause of verse 16 is
applied, in Keth. Ill b, line 21 from top, and again in the Midr. on Ecci. i. 9, to
the Messiah sending down manna like Moses.1
Verse 17. In Sanh. 98 b ; Pes. 54 a ; Ned. 39 b, the various names of the Messiah
are discussed, and also in Ber. R. 1 ; in Midr. on Lam. i. 16, and in Pirqe de R.
Eliez. c. 3. One of these is stated to be Jinnon, according to Ps. Ixxii. 17.
Verse 8 is applied in Pirqe de R. El. c. 11, to the Messiah. Yaikut (vol. ii.)
on Is. Iv. 8 (p. 54 c), speaks of the ' other Redeemer ' as the Messiah, applying to
him Ps. Ixxii. 8.
In commenting on the meeting of Jacob and Esau, the Midr. Ber. R. (78, ed.
Warsh. p. 141 b) remarks that all the gifts which Jacob gave to Esau, the nations
of the world would return to the King Messiah— proving it by a reference to Ps.
Ixxii. 10 ; while in Midrash Bemidbar R. 13 it is remarked that as the nations
brought gifts to Solomon, so they would bring them to the King Messiah.
In the same place, a little higher up, Solomon and the Messiah are likened as
reigning over the whole world, the proof passages being, besides others, Ps. Ixxii. 8,
Daniel vii. 13, and ii. 35.
On the application to the Messiah of verse 16 we have already spoken, as also
on that of verse 17.
Ps. Ixxx. 17 (in the Hebrew 18). The Targum paraphrases ' the Son of Man '
by ' King Messiah.'
Ps. Ixxxix. 22-25 (23-26 in the Hebrew). In Yaikut on Is. lx. 1 (vol. ii. p. 56 c)
this promise is referred to the future deliverance of Israel by the Messiah.
Again, verse27(28 in the Hebrew) is applied in Shemoth R. 19, towards the end,
to the Messiah, special reference being made to Ex. iv. 22, ' Israel is My first-born son. '
Verse 51 (52 in the Hebrew). There is a remarkable comment on this in the
Midrash on the inscription of Ps. xviii. (ed. Warsh. p. 24 a, line 2 from the bottom),
i See the passage in Sanh. 96 b &c. given at the close of this Appendix.

720 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
APP. ,n which it is set forth that as Israel and David did not sing till the hour of perse-
JX cution and reproach, so when the Messiah shall come—' speedily, in our days ' —
. , the. song will not be raised until the Messiah is put to reproach, according to Ps.
lxxxix. 52 (51), and till there shall fall before Him the wicked idolaters referred
to in Dan. ii. 42, and the four kingdoms referred to in Zech. xiv. 2. In that hour
shall the song be raised, as it is written Ps. xcviii. 1.
In the Midr. on Cant. ii. 13 it is said : If you see one generation after another
blaspheming, expect the feet of the King Messiah, as it is written, Ps. lxxxix. 53.
Ps. xc. 15. The Midr. (ed. Warsh. p. 67 b) remarks : The days wherein Thou-
hast afflicted us — that is, the days of the Messiah. Upon which follows a discus
sion upon the length of days of the Messiah, R. Eliezer holding that they are 1,000
years, quoting the words 'as yesterday,' one day being 1,000 years. R. Joshua
holds that they were 2,000 years, the words ' the days ' implying that there were
two days. R. Berachiah holds that they were 600 years, appealing to Is. lxv. 22,
because the root of the tree perishes in the earth in 600 years. R. Jose thinks that
they are 60 years, according to Ps. Ixxii. 5, the words ' throughout all generations '
(dor dorim) being interpreted : Dor = 20 years ; Dorim = 40 years : 20 + 40 = 60.
R. Akiba says : 40 years, according to the years in the wilderness. The Rabbis say:
354 years, according to the days in the lunar year. R. Abahu thinks 7,000 years,
reckoning the 7 according to the days of the bridegroom.
On Ps. xc. the Midrash concludes by drawing a contrast between the Temple
which men built, and which was destroyed, and the Temple of the latter or Messi
anic days, which God would build, and which would not be destroyed.
Ps. xcii., verses 8, 11, and 13 (7, 10, and 12 in our A. V.), are Messianically in
terpreted in Pirqe de R. El. c. 19. In the Midrash on verse 13 (12 in our A. V.),
among other beautiful applications of the figure of the Psalm, is that to the Messiah
the Son of David. The note of the Midrash on the expression ' like a cedar of
Lebanon,' as applied to Israel, is very beautiful, likening it to the cedar, which,
although driven and bent by all the winds of heaven, cannot be rooted up from its
place. Ps. xcv. 7, last clause. In Shem. R. 25 and in the Midrash on Cant. v. 2 (ed.
Warsh. p. 26 a), it is noted that, if Israel did penitence only one day [or else pro
perly observed even one Sabbath], the Messiah the Son of David would imme
diately come. [The whole passage from which this reference is taken is exceedingly
interesting. It introduces God as saying to Israel : My son, open to Me a door
of penitence only as small as a needle's eye, and I will open to you doors through
which carriages and waggons shall come in. It almost seems a counterpart of the
Saviour's words (Rev. iii. 20) : ' Behold, I stand at the door and knock ; if any
man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in to him.'] Substantially the
same view is taken in Sanh. 98 a, where the tokens of 'the coming of the Messiah
are described— and also in Jer. Taan. 64 a.
Ps. cii. 16 (17 in the Hebrew) is applied in Bereshith R. 56 (ed. Warsh. p. 104 b)
to Messianic times.
Ps. cvi. 44. On this there is in the Midrash a long Messianic discussion, setting
forth the five grounds on which Israel is redeemed : through the sorrows of Israel
through prayer, through the merits of the patriarchs, through repentance towards
God, and in the time of ' the end. '
Ps. ex. is throughout applied to the Messiah. To begin with, it evidently under
lies the Targumic rendering of ver. 4. Similarly, it is propounded in the Midr. on

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 721
Ps. ii. (although there the chief application of it is to Abraham). But in the
Midrash onPs. xviii. 36(35 in our A. V.), Ps. ex. verse 1,'Sit thou at Myrighthand'
is specifically applied to the Messiah, while Abraham is said to be seated at the left.
Verse 2, ' The rod of Thy strength.' In a very curious mystic interpretation of
the pledges which Tamar had, by the Holy Ghost, asked of Judah, the seal is inter
preted as signifying the kingdom, the bracelet as the Sanhedrin, and the staff as
the King Messiah, with special reference to Is. xi. and Ps. ex. 2 (Beresh. R.
85, ed. Warsh. p. 153 a). Similarly in Bemid. R. 18, last line, the staff of Aaron,
which is said to have been in. the hands of every king till the Temple was
destroyed, and since then to have been hid, is to be restored to King Messiah,
according to this verse .; and in Yaikut on this Psalm (vol. ii. Par. 869, p. 124 c)
this staff is supposed to be the same as that of Jacob with which he crossed Jordan,
and of Judah, and of Moses, and of Aaron, and the same which David had in his
hand when he slew Goliath, it being also the same which will be restored to
the Messiah.
Verse 7 is also applied in Yaikut (u. s. col. d) to Messianic times, when
streams of the blood of the wicked should flow out, and birds come to drink of that
flood. Ps. cxvi. 9 is in Ber. R. 96 supposed to indicate that the dead of Palestine
would live first in the days of the Messiah.
Ps. cxvi. 13 has been already commented upon.
On Ps. cxix. 33 the Midrash remarks that there were three who asked wisdom
of God : David, Solomon, and the King Messiah, the latter according to Ps.
Ixxii. 1.
Ps. cxx. 7 is applied to the Messiah in the Midrash (p. 91 a, ed. Warsh.), the
first clause being brought into connection with Is. lvii. 19, with reference to the
Messiah's dealings with the Gentiles, the resistance being described in the second
clause, and the result in Ps. ii. 9.
Ps. exxi. 1 is applied in Tanchuma (Par. Toledoth 14, ed. Warsh. p. 376. See
also Yaikut, vol. ii. 878, p. 127 c) to the Messiah, with special reference to Zech.
iv. 7 and Is. Iii. 7.
Ps. exxvi. 2. In Tanchuma on Ex. xv. i. (ed. Warsh. p. 87 a) this verse is
applied to Messianic times in a rapt description, in which successively Is. lx. 5,
Is. lviii. 8, Is. xxxv. 5, 6, Jer. xxxi. 13, and Ps. exxvi. 2, are grouped together as
all applying to these latter days.
The promise in Ps. exxxii. 18 is applied in Pirke de R. El. c. 28 to Messianic
times, and verse 14 in Ber. R. 56.
So is Ps. exxxiii. 3 in Ber. R. 65 (p. 122 a), closing lines.
The words in Ps. cxlii. 5 are applied in Ber. R. 74 to the resurrection of Israel
in Palestine in the days of Messiah.
The words, ' When thou awakest,' in Prov. vi. 22 are Messianically applied in
Siphre on Deut. (ed. Friedmann, p. 74 b).
In Midr. on Ecci. i. 9 it is shown at great length that the Messiah would re-enact
all the miracles of the past.
The last clause of Ecci. i. 11 is applied to the days of the Messiah in the
Targum. Ecci. vii. 24 is thus paraphrased in the Targum : ' Behold, it is remote from
the sons of men that they should know what was done from the beginning of the
VOL. II. 3 A

722 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
APP world, but a mystery is the day of death — and the day when shall come King
IX Messiah, who can find it out by his wisdom ?'
^_^^_^ In the Midr. on Ecci. xi. 8 it is noted that, however many years a man
might study, his learning would be empty before the teaching of Messiah. In the
Midr. on Eecl. xii. 1 it is noted that the evil days are those of the woes of
Messiah. Canticles. Here we have first the Talmudic passage (Sheb. 35 b) in which the
principle is laid down, that whenever throughout that book Solomon is named,
except in chap. viii. 12, it applies, not to Solomon, but to Him Who was His peace
(there is here a play on these words, and on the name Solomon).
To Cant. i. 8 the Targum makes this addition : ' They shall be nourished in the
captivity, until the time that I shall send to them the King Messiah, Who will
feed them in quietness.'
So also on verse 17 the Targum contrasts the Temple built by Solomon with the
far superior Temple to be built in the days of the Messiah, of which the beams were
to be made of the cedars of Paradise.
Cant. ii. 8, although applied by most authorities to Moses, is by others referred
to the Messiah (Shir haShirim R., ed. Warsh., p. 15 a, about the middle ; Pesiqta,
ed. Buber, p. 47 b). Cant. ii. 9 is Messianically applied in Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p.
49, a and b.
The same may be said of verse 10 ; while in connection with verse 12, in similar
application, Is. Iii. 7 is quoted.
In connection with verse 13, in the same Midrash (p. 17 a), Rabbi Chija bar Abba
speaks of a great matter as happening close to the days of the Messiah, viz., that
the wicked should be destroyed, quoting in regard to it Is. iv. 3.
Cant. iii. 11, ' the day of his espousals.' In Yaikut on the passage (vol. ii.
p. 178 d ) this is explained : ' the day of the Messiah, because the Holy One, blessed
be His Name, is likened to a bridegroom ; "as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the
bride " ' — and ' the day of the gladness of his heart,' as the day when the Sanctuary
is rebuilt, and Jerusalem is redeemed.
On Cant. iv. 5 the Targum again introduces the twofold Messiah, the one the son
of David, and the other the son of Ephraim.
Cant. iv. 16. According to one opinion in the Midrash (p. 25 b, line 13 from the
bottom) this applies to the Messiah, Who comes from the north, and builds the
Temple, which is in the south. See also Bemidbar R. 13, p. 48 b.
On Cant. v. 10 Yaikut remarks that He is white to Israel, and red to the
Gentiles, according to Isaiah lxiii. 2.
On Cant. vi. 10 Yaikut (vol. ii. p. 184 b) has some beautiful observations, first,
likening Israel in the wilderness, and God's mighty deeds there, to the morning ;
and then adding that, according to another view, this morning-light is the redemp
tion of the Messiah : For as, when the morning rises, the darkness flees before it,
so shall darkness fall upon the kingdoms of this world when the Messiah comes.
And yet again, as the sun and moon appear, so will the Kingdom of the Messiah
also appear — the commentation going on to trace farther illustrations.
Cant. vii. 6. The Midrash thus comments on it (among other explanations):
How fair in the world to come, how pleasant in the days of the Messiah !
On Cant. vii. 13, the Targum has it : ' When it shall please God to deliver His
people from captivity, then shall it be said to the Messiah : The time of captivity
is past, and the merit of the just shall be sweet before Me like the odour of balsam,'

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 723
Similarly on Cant. viii.X, the Targum has it : ' And at that time shall the King APP
Messiah be revealed to the congregation of Israel, and the children of Israel shall jx
say to Him, Come and be as a brother to us, and let us go up to Jerusalem, and .
there suck with thee the meaning of the Law, as an infant its mother's breast.'
On Cant. viii. 2 the Targum has it : ' I will take Thee, 0 King Messiah, and make
thee go up into my Temple, there Thou shalt teach me to tremble before the Lord,
and to walk in His ways. There we shall hold the feast of leviathan, and drink the
old wine, which has been kept in its grapes from the day the world was created,
and of the pomegranates and of the fruits which are prepared for the just in the
Garden of Eden.'
On verse 4 the Targum says : ' The King Messiah shall say ¦ I adjure you, My
people, house of Israel, why should you rise against the Gentiles, to go out of
captivity, and why should you rebel against the might of Gog and Magog ? Wait a
little, till those nations are consumed which go up to fight against Jerusalem, and
then shall the Lord of the world remember you, and it shall be His good will to set
you free.'
Chap. viii. 11 is applied Messianically in the Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b), and so is
verse 12 in the Targum.
(It should, however, be remarked that there are many other Messianic references
in the comments on the Song of Solomon.)
Is. i. 25, 26, is thus explained in the Talmud (Sanh. 98 a) : ' The Son of David
shall not come till all the judges and rulers in Israel shall have ceased.'
Similarly Is. ii. 4 is Messianically interpreted in Shabb. 63 a.
Is. iv. 2 the Targum distinctly applies to the times of the Messiah.
Is. iv. 4 has been already commented upon in our remarks on Gen. xviii. 4, 5,
and again on Deut. xxiii. 11.
Verses 5 and 6 are brought into connection with Israel's former service in con
tributing to, and making the Tabernacle in the wilderness, and it is remarked that
in the latter days God would return it to them by covering them with a cloud of
glory. This, in Yaikut (vol. i. p. 99 c), and in the Midrash on Ps. xiii., as also in
that on Ps. xvi. 9.
Is. vi. 13 is referred in the Talmud (Keth. 112 b) to Messianic times.
The reference of Is. vii. 21 to Messianic times has already been discussed in our
notes on Gen. xviii. 7.
Is. viii. 14 is also Messianically applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 38 a).
Is. ix. 6 is expressly applied to the Messiah in the Targum, and there is a very
curious comment in Debarim R. 1 (ed. Warsh. , p. 4 a) in connection with a Hag-
gadic discussion of Gen. xliii. 14, which, however fanciful, makes a Messianic appli
cation of this passage — also in Bemidbar R. 11.
Verse 7, ' Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end,'
has already been referred to in our comments on Num. vi. 26.
Is. x. 27 is in the Targum applied to the destruction of the Gentiles before the
Messiah. Is. x. 34, is quoted in the Midrash on Lam. i. 16, in evidence that some
how the birth of the Messiah was to be connected with the destruction of the Temple.
Is. xi., as will readily be believed, is Messianically interpreted in Jewish
writings. Thus, to begin with, in the Targum on verses 1 and 6 ; in the Talmud
(Jer. Berach. 5 a and Sanh. 93 b) ; and in a number of passages in the Midrashim. -
Thus, verse 1 in Bereshith R. 85 on Gen. xxxviii. 18, where also Ps. ex. 2 is quoted,
and in Ber, R. 99, ed, Warsh., p. 178 6, In Ysdkut (vol, i. p. 247 d, near the top),
3a3

724 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
APP. where it is described how God had shown Moses all the spirits of the rulers and
IX prophets in Israel, from that time forward to the Resurrection, it is said that all
^__v_^_ these had one knowledge and one spirit, but that the Messiah had one spirit which
was equal to all the others put together, according to Is. xi. 1.
On the 2nd verse see our remarks on Gen. i. 2, while in Yaikut on Prov. iii.
19, 20 (vol. ii. p. 133 a) the verse is quoted in connection with Messianic times,
when by wisdom, understanding, and knowledge the Temple will be built again.
On that verse see also Pirq. d. R. El. 3.
On Is. xi. 3 the Talmud (Sanh. 93 b, lines 21 &c. from the top) has a curious
explanation. After quoting ch. xi. 2 as Messianic, it makes a play on the words,
' of quick understanding,' or ' scent,' as it might be rendered, and suggests that this
word ippin'1 is intended to teach us that God has laden Him with commandments '
and sufferings like millstones (c^rmD)- Immediately afterwards, from the expres
sion ' He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, but reprove with equity for the
meek of the earth,' it is inferred that the Messiah knew the thoughts of the heart,
and it is added that, as Bar Kokhabh was unable to do this, he was killed.
Verse 4, ' he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, ' is Messianically
applied in the Midrash on Ps. ii. 2, and in that on Ruth ii. 14: — also in Yaikut on
Is. lx. Verse 7 has been already noticed in connection with Ex. xii. 2.
On verse 10 see our remarks on Gen. xlix. 10 and Ps. xxi. 1.
Verse 11 is Messianically applied in Yaikut (vol. i. p. 31 b and vol. ii. 38 a), as
also in the Midrash on Ps. cvii. 2.
Verse 12 is Messianically applied in that curious passage in the Midrash on
Lamentations i. 2, where it is indicated that, as the children of Israel sinned from x
to n> so God would in the latter days comfort them from X to II (i.e. through the
whole alphabet), Scripture passages being in each case quoted.
The Messianic application of Is. xii. 3 is sufficiently established by the ancient
symbolic practice of pouring out the water on the Feast of Tabernacles.
In connection with Is. xii. 5 the Midrash on Ps. cxviii. 23 first speaks of the
wonderment of the Egyptians when they saw the change in Israel from servitude to
glory on their Exodus, and then adds, that the words were intended by the Holy
Ghost to apply to the wonders of the latter days (ed. Warsh. p. 85 b).
On Is. xiv. 2, see our comments on Gen. xviii. 4, 5.
Is. xiv. 29, xv. 2, xvi. 1, and xvi. 5 are Messianically applied in the Targum.
Is. xviii. 5 is similarly applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 98 a) ; and Is. xxiii. 15 in
Sanh. 99 a.
Is. xxi. 11, 12 is in Jer. Taan. 64 a, and in Shem. R. 18, applied to the mani
festation of the Messiah.
In Is. xxiii. 8 the Midr. on Ecci. i. 7 sees a curious reference to the return of
this world's wealth to Israel in Messianic days.
Is. xxiii. 15 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 99 a) where the
expression ' a king ' is explained as referring to the Messiah.
Is. xxiv. 23 is Messianically applied in the curious passage in Bemidbar R.
quoted under Gen. xxii. 18 ; also in Bemidbar R. 13 (ed. Warsh. p. 51 a).
The remarkable promise in Is. xxv. 8 is applied to the times of the Messiah in
the Talmud (Moed Q. 28 b), and in that most ancient commentary Siphra.
(Yaikut i. p. 190 d applies the passage to the world to come). But the most remark
able interpretation is that which occurs in connection with Is. lx. 1 (Yaikut ii. 56 c

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 725
line 16 from the bottom), where the passage (Is. xxv. 8) is, after an expostulation APP.
on the part of Satan with regard to the Messiah, applied to the casting into Gehenna tx
of Satan and of the Gentiles. See also our remarks on Ex. xii. 2. In Debar. .,..,.
R. 2, Isaiah xxv. 8 is applied to the destruction of the Jetser ha-Ra and the abolish
ing of death in Messianic days ; in Shem. R. 30 to the time of the Messiah.
Verse 9. Tanchuma on Deuteronomy opens with a record of how God would
work all the miracles, which He had shown in the wilderness, in a fuller manner
for Zion in the latter days, the last passage quoted in that section being Is. xxv. 9.
(Tanchuma on Deut. ed. Warsh. p. 99 a, line 5 from the bottom).
Of Is. xxvi. 19 there is Messianic application in the Midrash on Ecclesiastes i. 7.
On Is. xxvii. 10 Shem. R. 1, and Tanchuma on Exod. ii. 5 (ed. Warsh. p. 64 J)
remark that, like Moses, the Messiah, Who would deliver His own from the
worshippers of false gods, should be brought up with the latter in the land.
Verse 13 is quoted in the Talmud (Rosh. haSh. 11 b) in connection with the
future deliverance. So also in Yaikut i. p. 217 d, and Pirqe de R. El. c. 31.
Is. xxviii. 5 is thus paraphrased in the Targum : ' At that time shall the
Messiah of the Lord of hosts be a crown of joy.'
Is. xxviii. 16 the Targum apparently applies to the Messiah. At least, so
Rashi (on the passage) understands it.
Is. xxx. 18 is Messianically applied in Sanh. 97 b ; verse 15 in Jer. Taan. i. 1.
The expression in Is. xxx. 19, 'he shall be very gracious unto thee,' is applied
to the merits of the Messiah in Yaikut on Zeph. iii. 8 (p. 84 c).
On verse 25 see our remarks on Gen. xviii. 4.
Verse 26 is applied to Messianic times in the Talmud (Pes. 68 a, and Sanh. 91 b),
and similarly in Pirqe de R. El. 51, and Shemoth R. 50. So also in Ber. R. 12.
See our remarks on Gen. ii. 4.
Is. xxxii. 14, 15. On this passage the Midrash on Lam. iii; 49 significantly
remarks that it is one of the three passages in which mention of the Holy Ghost
follows upon mention of redemption, the other two passages being Is. lx. 22,
followed by Ixi. 1, and Lam. iii. 49.
Is. xxxii. 20. The first clause is explained by Tanchuma (Par. 1, ed. Warsh.
p. 4 a, first three lines) to apply to the study of the Law, and the second to the
two Messiahs, the son of Joseph being likened to the ox, and the son of David to
the ass, according to Zech. ix. 9 ; and similarly the verse is Messianically referred
to in Deb. R. 6 (ed. Warsh. vol. iii. p. 15 5), in a very curious play on the words in
Deut. xxii. 6, 7, where the observance of that commandment is supposed to hasten
the coming of King Messiah.
Is. xxxv. 1. This is one of the passages quoted in Tanchuma on Deut. i. 1 (ed.
Warsh. p. 99 a) as among the miracles which God would do to redeem Zion in
the latter days. So also is verse 2 in this chapter.
Is. xxxv. 5, 6 is repeatedly applied to Messianic times. Thus, in Yaikut, i. 78 c,
and 157 a ; in Ber. R. 95 ; and in the Midrash on Ps. cxlvi. 8.
Verse 10 is equally applied to Messianic times in the Midrash on Ps. cvii. 1,
while at the same time it is noted that this deliverance will be accomplished by
God Himself, and not either by Elijah, nor by the King Messiah. 1 A similar refer-
•Signor GasteUi remarks in his learned God, but carried out by the Messiah, while,
treatise (II Messia, p. 164) that redemption on the other hand, Rabbinic writings f re-
is always ascribed to God, and not to the quently refer Israel's deliverance to the agency
Messiah. But the distinction is of no import- of the Messiah.
ance, seeing that this is indeed the work of

726 LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
ence occurs in Yaikut (vol. ii. p. 162 d), at the close of the Commentary on the Book
of Chronicles, where it is remarked that in this world the deliverance of Israel was
accomplished by man, and was followed by fresh captivities, but in the latter or
Messianic days their deliverance would be accomplished by God, and would no
more be followed by captivity. See also Shemoth R. 15 and 23.
Is. xl. 1 is one of the passages referred to in our note on Is. xi. 12, and also on
Is. xxxv. 1.
The same remark applies to verses 2 and 3.
Verse 5 is also Messianically applied in Vayyikra R. 1 ; Yalk. ii. 77 b about the
middle. On verse 10 Yaikut, in discussing Ex. xxxii. 6 (vol. i. p. 108 c) broaches the
opinion, that in the days of the Messiah Israel would have a double reward, on
account of the calamities which they had suffered, quoting Is. xl. 10.
Is. xii. 18 has been already noted in our remarks on Gen. xviii. 4, 5.
Verse 25 is Messianically applied in Bern. R. 13, p. 48 b.
The expression ' The first,' in eh. xii. 27, is generally applied to the Messiah ;
in the Targum, according to Rashi ; in Bereshith R. 63 ; in Vayyikra R. 30 ; and
in the Talmud (Pes. 5 a) ; so also in Pesiqta (ed. Buber) p. 185 b.
Is. xiii. 1 is applied in the Targum to the Messiah, as also in the Midrash on
Ps. ii. ; and in Yaikut ii. p. 104 d. See also our comments on Ps. ii. 7.
On Is. xliii. 10, the Targum renders 'My servant' by 'My servant the
Messiah.' The promise in Is. xiv. 22 is also among the future things mentioned in the
Midrash on Lamentations, to which we have referred in our remarks on Is. xi. 12.
7s. xlix. 8. There is a remarkable comment on this in Yaikut on the passage,
to the effect that the Messiah suffers in every age for the sins of that generation,
but that God would in the day of redemption repair it all (Yalk. ii. p. 52 b).
Is. xlix. 9 is quoted as the words of the Messiah in Yaikut (vol. ii. p. 52 b).
Verse 10 is one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations,
quoted in connection with Is. xi. 12.
Verse 12 has already been noticed in our remarks on Ex. xii. 2.
From the expression ' comfort ' in verse 13, the Messianic title ' Menachem ' is
derived. Comp. the Midrash on Prov. xix. 21.
Verse 14 is Messianically applied in Yaikut ii. p. 52 c.
Verse 21 is also one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations,
quoted under Ps. xi. 12.
On verse 23 it is remarked in Vayyikra R. 27 (ed. Warsh. p. 42 a), that Messi
anic blessings were generally prefigured by similar events, as, for example, the
passage here quoted in the case of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel.
A Messianic application of the same passage also occurs in Par. 33 and 36, as a
contrast to the contempt that Israel experiences in this world.
The second clause of verse 23 is applied to the Messiah in the Midrash on Ps.
ii. 2, as to be fulfilled when the Gentiles shall see the terrible judgments.
Verse 26 is similarly applied to the destruction of the Gentiles in Vayyikra R.
33 (end). Is. Ii. 12 is one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations,
quoted in our comments on Is. xi. 12.
Is. Ii. 12 and 17 are among the passages referred to in our remarks on Is. xxv. 9.
Is. Iii. 3 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 97 b), while the last

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 727
clause of verse 2 is one of the passages quoted in the Midrash on Lamentations (see
Is. xi. 12).
The well-known Evangelic declaration in Is. Hi. 7 is thus commented upon in
Yaikut (vol. ii. p. 53 c) : In the hour when the Holy One, blessed be His Name,
redeems Israel, three days before Messiah comes Elijah, and stands upon the
mountains of Israel, and weeps and mourns for them, and says to them : Behold
the land of Israel, how long shall you stand in a dry and desolate land? And his
voice is heard from the world's end to the world's end, and after that it is said to
them: Peace has come to the world, peace has come to the world, as it is said:
How beautiful upon the mountains, &c. And when the wicked hear it, they re
joice, and they say one to the other: Peace has come to us. On the second day
he shall stand upon the mountains of Israel, and shall say : Good has come to the
world, good has come to the world, as it is written : That bringeth good tidings
of good. On the third day he shall come and stand upon the mountains of Israel,
and say: Salvation has come to the world, salvation has come to the world, as it
is written: That publishetb. salvation.
Similarly, this passage is quoted in Yaikut on Ps. cxxi. 1. See also our remarks
on Cant. ii. 13.
Verse 8 is one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations
quoted above, and frequently in other places as Messianic.
Verse 12 is Messianically applied in Shemoth R. 15 and 19.
Verse 13 is applied in the Targum expressly to the Messiah. On the words
' He shall be exalted and extolled ' we read in Yaikut ii. (Par. 338, p. 53 e, lines
7 &c. from the bottom) : He shall be higher than Abraham, to whom applies
Gen. xiv. 22; higher than Moses, of whom Num. xi. 12 is predicated; higher than
the ministering angels, of whom Ezek. i. 18 is said. But to Him there applies this in
Zech. iv. 7: ' Who art thou, O great mountain?' ' And He was wounded for our
transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our peace was
upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed.' R. Huna says, in the name of
R. Acha: All sufferings are divided into three parts; one part goes to David and
the Patriarchs, another to the generation of the rebellion (rebellious Israel), and
the third to the King Messiah, as it is written (Ps. ii. 7), ' Yet have I set My King
upon My holy hill of Zion.' Then follows a curious quotation from the Midrash on
v Samuel, in which the Messiah indicates that His dwelling is on Mount Zion, and
that guilt is connected with the destruction of its walls.
In regard to Is. liii. we remember, that the Messianic name of 'Leprous'
(Sanh. 98 6) is expressly based upon it. Is. liii. 10 is applied in the Targum on the
passage to the Kingdom of the Messiah.
Verse 5 is Messianically interpreted in the Midrash on Samuel (ed. Lemberg,
p. 45 a, last line), where it is said that all sufferings are divided into three parts,
one of which the Messiah bore — a remark which is brought into connection with
Ruth ii. 14. (See our comments on that passage.)
Is. liv. 3 is expected to be fulfilled in Messianic times (Vayyikra R. 10).
Is. liv. 5. In Shemoth R. 15 this is expressly applied to Messianic days.
Is. liv. 11 is repeatedly applied to the Messianic glory, as, for example, in
Shemoth R. 15. (See our comments on Ex. xii. 2.)
So is verse 13, as in Yaikut (vol. i. p.- 78 c); in the Midrash on Ps. xxi. 1; and
in other passages.
Is. Iv. 12 is referred to Messianic times, as in the Midrash on Ps. xiii.

728 LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
Is. Ivi. 1. See our comments on Exod. xxi. 1.
Verse 7 is one of the passages in the Midrash on Lamentations which we have
quoted under Is. xi. 12.
On Is. Mi. 14 Bemidbar R. 15 (ed. Warsh. p. 64 a) expresses a curious idea
about the stumbling-block, as mystically the evil inclination, and adds that the
promise applies to God's removal of it in the world to come, or else it may be in
Messianic days.
Verse 16 receives in the Talmud (Yeb. 62 a and 63 b) and in the Midr. on Ecci. i. 6
the following curious comment: ' The Son of David shall not come till all the souls
are completed which are in the Guph ' — (i.e. the pre-existence of souls is taught,
and that they are kept in heaven till one after another appears in human form,
and that the Messiah is kept back till all these shall have appeared), proof of this
being derived from Is. Ivii. 16.
Similarly chap. lix. 15 is applied to Messianic times in Sanh. 97 a, and Midr.
on Cant. ii. 13; and verse 19 in Sanh. 98 a.
Verse 17 is applied to Messianic times in Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 149 a.
Verse 20 is one of the passages mentioned in the Midrash on Lamentations
quoted above. (See Is. xi. 12.)
Is. lix. 19, 20, is applied to Messianic times in Sanh. 98 a. In Pesiqta 166 b it
is similarly applied, the peculiar form (plene) in which the word Goel (Redeemer)
is written being taken to indicate the Messiah as the Redeemer in the full sense.
Is. lx. 1. This is applied in the Targum to Messianic times. Similarly, it is
explained in Ber. R. i. with reference to Dan. ii. 2; in Ber. R. 2; and also in Bemid
bar R. 15 and 21. In Yaikut we have some very interesting remarks on the
subject. Thus (vol. i. Par. 363, p. 99 c), commenting on Exod. xxv. 3 &c, in a very
curious description of how God would in the world to come return to Israel the
various things which they had offered for the Tabernacle, the oil is brought into
connection with the Messiah, with reference to Ps. cxxxii. 17 and Is. lx. 1. Again,
on p. 215 c (at the commencement of the Parashah Behaalothekha) we have, first, a
very curious comparison between the work of the Tabernacle and that of the
six days of Creation, after which the question is put: Why Moses made seven
lights, and Solomon seventy? To this the reply is given, that Moses rooted up
seven nations before Israel, while Solomon reigned over all the seventy nations
which, according to Jewish ideas, constitute the world. Upon this it is added,
that God had promised, that as Israel had lighted for His glory the lights in the
Sanctuary, so would He in the latter days fill Jerusalem with His glory, according
to the promise in Is. lx. 1, and also set up in the midst of it lights, according to
Zeph. i. 12. Still more clearly is the Messianic interpretation of Is. lx. brought out
in the comments in Yaikut on that chapter. One' part of it is so curious that it may
here find a place. After explaining that this light for which Israel is looking is
the light of the Messiah, and that Gen. i. 4 really referred to it, it is added that this
is intended to teach us that God looked forward to the age of the Messiah and His
works before the Creation of the world, and that He hid that light for the Messiah
and His generation under His throne of glory. On Satan's questioning Him for
whom that light was destined, the answer is: For Him Who in the latter days
will conquer thee, and cover thy face with shame. On which Satan requests to
see Him, and when he is shown Him, faslls on his face and says: I confess that
this is the Messiah Who will in the latter days be able to cast me, and all the
Gentiles, into Gehenna, according to Is. xxv. 8. In that hour all the nations will

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBlNlC WRITINGS. 729
tremble, and say before God : Who is this into Whose hand we fall, what is His APP.
Name, and what is His purpose ? On which God replies : This is Ephraim, the> jx
Messiah [the second Messiah, the son of Joseph]; My Righteousness is His Name.' . _,- , ¦
And so the commentation goes on to touch on Ps. lxxxix. 23, 24, and 26, in a manner
most deeply interesting, but which it would be impossible here fully to give (Yaikut,
vol. ii. Par. 359, p. 56 c). In col. d there are farther remarkable discussions about
the Messiah, in connection with the wars in the days when Messiah should be
revealed, and about Israel's final safety. But the most remarkable passage of all,
reminding us almost of the history of the Temptation, is that which reads as follows.
(line 22 &c. from the top): It is a tradition from our Rabbis that, in the hour when.
King Messiah comes, He stands on the roof of the Temple, and proclaims to them,
that the hour of their deliverance has come, and that if they believed they would
rejoice in the light that had risen upon them, as it is written (Is. lx. 1), ' Arise,
shine, for thy light is come.' This light would be for them alone, as it is written
(ver. 2), ' For darkness shall cover the earth.' In that hour also would God take
the light of the Messiah and of Israel, and all should walk in the light of Messiah
and of Israel, as it is written (ver. 3), ' The Gentiles shall come to thy light, and
kings to the brightness of thy rising.' And the kings of the nations should lick
the dust from under the feet of the Messiah, and should all fall on their faces
before Him and before Israel, and say : Let us be servants to Thee and to
Israel. And so the passage goes on to describe the glory of the latter days. In
deed, the whole of this chapter may be said to be full of Messianic interpretations.
After this it will scarcely be necessary to say that verses 2, 3, and 4 are
similarly applied in the Midrashim. But it is interesting to notice that verse 2 is
specifically applied to Messianic times in the Talmud (Sanh. 99 a), in answer to
the question when the Messiah should come.
On verse 4 the Midrash on Cant. i. 4, on the words ' we will be glad and rejoice
in thee,' has the following beautiful illustration. A Queen is introduced whose
husband and sons and sons-in-law go to a distant country. Tidings are brought
to her : Thy sons are come back. On which she says : Cause for gladness have I,
my daughters-in-law will rejoice. Next, tidings are brought her that her sons-
in-law are coming, and she is glad that her daughters will rejoice. Lastly,
•tidings are brought: The king, thy husband, comes. On which she replies: This
is indeed perfect joy, joy upon joy. So in the latter days would the prophets come,
and say to Jerusalem: ' Thy sons shall come from far' (verse 4), and she will say:
What gladness is this to me! — ' and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side,' and
again she will say: What gladness is this to me! But when they shall say to her
(Zech. ix. 9): 'Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salva
tion,' then shall Zion say: This indeed is perfect joy, as it is written (Zech. ix. 9),
' Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion,' and again (Zech. ii. 10), ' Sing and rejoice,
0 daughter of Zion.' In that hour she will say (Is. Ixi. 10) : 'I will greatly rejoice
in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God.'
Verse 7 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Abod. Sar. 24 a).
Verse 8 is Messianically applied in the Midrash on Ps. xlviii. 13.
In connection with verse 19 we read in Yaikut (vol. i. p. 103 b) that God said
to Israel : In this world you are engaged (or busied) with the light for the Sanc
tuary, but in the world to come, for the merit of this light, I send you the King
Messiah, Who is likened to a light, according to Ps. cxxxii. 17 and Is. lx. 19, ' the
Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light.'

730 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
App, Verse 21 is thus alluded to in the Talmud (Sanh. 98 a): 'Rabbi Jochanan
jX ' 'said, The Son of David shall not come, until all be either just or all be unjust : '
^____, the former according to Is. lx. 21, the latter according to Is. lix. 16.
Verse 22 is also Messianically applied in the Talmudie passage above cited.
Is. Ixi. 1 has already been mentioned in our remarks on Is. xxxii. 14, 15.
On verse 5 there is a curious story related (Yaikut, vol. i. Par. 212, p. 64 a,
lines 23-17 from the bottom) in which, in answer to a question, what was to be
come of the nations in the days of the Messiah, the reply is given that every nation
and kingdom that had persecuted and mocked Israel would see, and be confounded,
and have no share in life; but that every nation and kingdom which had not so
dealt with Israel would come and be husbandmen and vinedressers to Israel in the
days of the Messiah. A similar statement to this is found in the Midrash on
Ecci. ii. 7.
Verse 9 is also applied to Messianic times.
Verse 10 is one of the passages referred to in Tanchuma on Deut. i. 1 quoted
under Is. xxv. 9. In Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 149 a, the verse is explained as apply
ing to the glory of Messiah's appearance.
Is. Ixii. 10 has already been referred to in our remarks on Is. lvii. 14.
Is. Ixiii. is applied to the Messiah, Who comes to the land after having seen
the destruction of the Gentiles, in Pirqe de R. Eliez. c. 30.
Verse 2 has been referred to in our comments on Cant. v. 10. It is also quoted
in reference to Messianic days in Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 149 a.
Verse 4 is explained as pointing to the days of the Messiah, which are supposed to
be 365 years, according to the number of the solar days (Sanh. 99 a) ; while in
other passages of the Midrashim, the destruction of Rome and the coming of the
Messiah are conjoined with the day of vengeance. See also the Midr. on Ecci . xii. 10.
Is. Ixiv. 4 (3 in the Hebrew). In Yaikut on Is. lx. (vol. ii. p. 56 d, line 6, &c,
from the bottom) Messianic application is made of this passage in a legendary
account of the seven tabernacles which God would make for the Messiah, out of
each of which proceed four streams of wine, milk, honey, and pure balsam. Then'
God is represented as speaking of the sufferings which Messiah was to undergo,
after which the verse in question is quoted.
Is. Ixv. 17 is quoted in the Midrash on Lamentations, referred to in our remarks'
on Is. xi. 12.
Verse 19 is one of the passages referred to in Tanchuma on Deut. i. 1. See
Isaiah xxv. 9.
To verse 25 we have the following curious illustrative reference in Ber.
R. 20 (ed. Warsh. p. 38 b, line 6 from the bottom) in connection with the Fall:
In the latter days everything shall be healed again (restored again) except the
serpent (Is. Ixv. 25) and the Gibeonites (Ezek. xlviii. 19). But a still more strange
application of the verse occurs in the same Midrash (Par. 95, ed. Warsh. p. 170 a),
where the opening clauses of it are quoted with this remark: Come and see all
that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, has smitten in this world, He will heal in
the latter days. Upon which a curious disquisition follows, to prove that every
man would appear after death exactly as he had been in life, whether blind,
dumb, or halting, nay, even in the same dress, as in the case of Samuel when Saul
saw him — but that afterwards God would heal the diseased.
Is. Ixvi. 7 is applied to Messianic times in Vayyikra R. 14 (last line), and so are
gome of the following verses in the Midrashim, notably on Gen. xxxiii. 1,

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 731
Is. lxviii. 22 is applied to Messianic times in Ber. R. 12. See our remarks on APP.
Gen. ii. 4. jX
Jer. iii. 17 is applied to Messianic days in Yaikut on Joshua iii. 9 &c. (vol. ii. . _
p. 3 c, line 17 from the top), and so is verse 18 in the commentation on the words
in Cant. i. 16 'our bed is green,' the expression being understood of the ten tribes,
who had been led captive beyond the river Sabbatyon ; but when Judah's deliver
ance came, Judah and Benjamin would go to them and bring them back, that they
might be worthy of the days of the Messiah (vol. ii. p. 176 d, line 9 &c. from the
bottom.) Jer. v. 19 is mentioned in the In trod, to Echa R. as one of three passages by
which to infer from the apostasy of Israel the near advent of Messiah.
The expression ' speckled bird ' in Jer. xii. 9 is applied to the Messiah in Pirqe
de R. Eliez. c. 28.
The last word in Jer. xvi. 13 is made the basis of the name Chaninah, given to
the Messiah in the Talmud (Sanh. 98 b), and in the Midr. on Lam. i. 16.
On verse 14 Mechilta has it, that in the latter days the Exodus would no more
be mentioned on account of the greater wonders then experienced.
On Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, the Targum has it : ' And I will raise up for David the
Messiah the Just.' This is one of the passages from which, according to Rabbinic
views, one of the Names of the Messiah is derived, viz. : Jehovah our Righteous
ness. So in the Talmud (Babha Bathra 75 b), in the Midrash on Ps. xxi. 1, Prov.
xix. 21, and in that on Lamentations i. 16.
On verse 7 see our remarks on Jer. xvi. 14. In the Talmud (Ber. 12 V) this
verse is distinctly applied to Messianic days.
Jer. xxx. 9 is Messianically applied in the Targum on the passage.
Jer. xxx. 21 is applied to the Messiah in the Targum, and also in the Midrash
on Ps. xxi. 7.
On Jer. xxxi. 8, 'Ard clause, Yaikut has a Messianic interpretation, although
extremely far-fetched. In general, the following verses are Messianically inter
preted in the Midrashim.
Verse 20 is Messianically applied in Yaikut (ii. p. 66 c, end), where it is supposed
to refer to the Messiah when imprisoned, when all the nations mock and shake
their heads at Him. A more remarkable interpretation still occurs in the passage
on Is. lx. 1, to which we have already referred. Some farther extracts from it
may be interesting. Thus, when the enemies of the Messiah flee before Him, God
is supposed to make an agreement with the Messiah to this effect : The sins of
those who are hidden with Thee will cause Thee to be put under an iron yoke, and
they will do with Thee as with this calf, whose eyes are covered, and they will choke
Thy spirit under the yoke, and on account of their sins Thy tongue shall cleave to
Thy mouth. On which the Messiah inquires whether these troubles are to last for
many years, and the Holy One replies that He has decreed a week, but that if His
soul were in sorrow, He would immediately dispel these sorrows. On this the
Messiah says : Lord of the world, with gladness and joy of heart I take it upon
Me, on condition that not one of Israel should perish, and that not only those
alone should be saved who are in My days, but also those who are hid in the dust;
and that not only the dead should be saved who are in My days, but also those
who have died from the days of the first Adam till now ; and not only those, but
also those who have been prematurely born. And not only these, but also those
who have come into Thy knowledge to create them, but have not yet been created.
Thus I agree, and thus I take all upon Me. In the hebdomad when the Son of

732 LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
» pp David comes, they shall bring beams of iron, and shall make them a yoke to His
jx neck, until His stature is bent down. But He cries and weeps, and lifts up His
v  '  , voice on high, and says before Him : Lord of the world, what is My strength, My
spirit, and My soul, and My members ? Am I not flesh and blood 1 In that hour
David (the Son of David) weeps, and says : ' My strength is dried up like a potsherd. '
In that hour the Holy One, blessed be His Name, says : Ephraim the Messiah, My
righteous one, Thou hast already taken this upon Thee before the six days of the
world, now Thy anguish shall be like My anguish ; for from the time that Nebu
chadnezzar, the wicked one, has come up and destroyed My house, and burned My
Sanctuary, and I have sent into captivity My children among the children of the
Gentiles, by My life, and by the life of Thy head, I have not sat down on My
throne. And if Thou wilt not believe Me, see the dew which is on My head, as it
is said (Cant. v. 2) 'My head is filled with dew.' In that hour the Messiah
answers Him : Lord of the world, now I am quieted, for it is enough for the
servant that he is as his Master (this reminding us of our Lord's saying, St. Matt.
x. 25). R. Isaac then remarks that in the year' when the King Messiah shall be
revealed, all nations shall rise up against each other (we have already quoted this
passage in another place, as also that about the Messiah standing upon the roof of
the Temple). Then follows this as a tradition of the Rabbis : In the latter days
the Fathers shall stand up in the month of Nisan, and say to Him . Ephraim,
the Messiah, our Righteousness, though we are Thy Fathers, yet Thou art better
than we, because Thou hast borne all the sins of our sons, and hard and evil
measure has passed upon Thee, such as has not been passed either upon those
before or upon those after. And Thou hast been for laughter and derision to the
nations for the sake of Israel, and Thou hast dwelt in darkness and in mist, and
Thine eyes have not seen light, and Thy light clung to Thee alone, and Thy body
was dried up like wood, and Thine eyes were darkened through fasting, and Thy
strength was dried up like a potsherd. And all this on account of the sins of our
children. Is it Thy pleasure that our sons should enjoy the good thing which God
had displayed to Israel ? Or perhaps on account of the anguish which Thou hast
suffered for them, because they have bound Thee in the prison-house, wilt Thou
not give unto them thereof ? He says to them : Fathers of the world, what
ever I have done I have only done for your sakes, and for the sake of your
children, that they may enjoy that goodness which the Holy One, blessed be He,
has displayed to Israel. Then say to Him the Fathers of the world : Ephraim,
Messiah, our Righteousness, be Thou reconciled to us, because Thou hast reconciled
Thy Maker and us. R. Simeon, the son of Pasi, said : In that hour the Holy One,
blessed be His Name, exalts the Messiah to the heaven of heavens, and spreads over
Him the splendour of His glory, because of the nations of the world, and because of
the wicked Persians. Then the Fathers of the world say to Him : Ephraim, Messiah,
our Righteousness, be Thou their judge, and do to them what Thy soul desireth.
For unless mercies had been multiplied on Thee, they would long ago have exter
minated Thee suddenly from the world, as it is written (Jer. xxxi. 20) ' Is Ephraim
My dear son ? ' And why is the expression : ' I will surely have mercy ' [in the
Hebrew reduplicated : ' having mercy I will have mercy '], but that the first expres
sion ' mercy ' refers to the hour when He was bound in prison, when day by day they
gnashed with their teeth, and winked with their eyes, and nodded with their heads,
and wide-opened their mouths, as it is written in Ps. xxii. 7 [8 in Hebrew] ; while
the second expression ' I will have mercy ' refers to the hour when He came out

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 733
of the prison-house, when not only one kingdom, nor two, came against Him, but APP.
140 kingdoms came round about Him, and the Holy One, blessed be His Name, jx
says to Him: Ephraim, Messiah, My righteous one, be not afraid, for all these shall . ... - -
perish by the breath of Thy mouth, as it is written (Is. xi. 4). Long as this
quotation may be, its interest seems sufficient to warrant its insertion.
Jer. xxxi. 81, 33, and 34 are applied to Messianic times in Yaikut (vol. i.
p. 196 c ; 78 c ; and in vol. ii. p. 54 b, and p. 66 d).
Jer. xxxiii. 13. The close of the verse is thus paraphrased in the Targum: ' The
people shall yet learn by the hands of the Messiah,' while in Yaikut (vol. i. p. 105 d)
mention is made of a tenfold gathering together of Israel, the last — in connection
with this verse — in the latter days.
On Lam. i. 16 there is in the Midrash R. (ed. Warsh. p. 64 b) the curious story
about the birth of the Messiah in the royal palace of Bethlehem, which also occurs
in the Jer. Talmud.
Lam. ii. 22, first clause. The Targum here remarks: Thou wilt proclaim liberty
to Thy people, the house of Israel, by the hand of the Messiah.
Lam. iv. 22, first clause. The Targum here remarks : And after these things
thy iniquity shall cease, and thou shalt be set free by the hands of the Messiah
and by the hands of Elijah the Priest.
Ezek. xi. 19 is applied to the great spiritual change that was to take place in
Messianic days, when the evil desire would be taken out of the heart (Deb. R. 6,
at the end ; and also in other Midrashic passages).
Ezek. xvi. 55 is referred to among the ten things which God would renew in
Messianic days — the rebuilding of ruined cities, inclusive of Sodom and Gomorrah,
being the fourth (Shem. R. 15, ed. Warsh. p. 24 J).
Ezek. xvii. 22 and 23 is distinctly and very beautifully referred to the Messiah
in the Targum.
Ezek xxv. 14 is applied to the destruction of all the nations by Israel in the
days of the Messiah in Bemidbar R. on Num. ii. 32 (Par. 2, ed. Warsh. p. 5 b).
Ezek. xxix. 21 is among the passages applied to the time when the Messiah
should come, in Sanh. 98 a.
So is Ezek. xxxii. 14.
Ezek. xxxvi. 25 is applied to Messianic times alike in the Targum and in Yaikut
(vol. i. p. 235 a), as also in the Talmud (Kidd. 72 b).
On verse 27 see our remarks on chap. xi. 19.
Ezek. xxxix. 2 is Messianically applied in Bemidbar R. 13, ed. Warsh. p. 48 b.
Ezek. xlvii. 9 and 12 are quoted as the second and the third things which God
wo dd renew in the latter days (Shem. R. 15)— the second being, that living waters
should go forth out of Jerusalem, and the third, that trees should bear fruit every
month, and the sick be healed by them.
On Ezek. xlviii. 19 the Talmud (Baba B. 122 a) has the following curious
comment, that the land of Israel would be divided into thirteen tribes, the thirteenth
belonging to the Prince, and this verse is quoted as proof.
Dan. ii. 22 is Messianically applied in Ber. R. 1, and in the Midr. on Lament, i.
16, where it gives rise to another name of the Messiah: the Lightgiver.
Verse 35 is similarly applied in the Pirqe" de R. Eliez. c. 11, and verse 44 in c. 30.
Dan. vii. 9. This passage was interpreted by R. Akiba as implying that one
throne was set for God, and the other for the Messiah (Chag. 14 a).
Dan. vii. 13 is curiously explained in the Talmud (Sanh. 98 a), where it is said

734 LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
that, if Israel behaved worthily, the Messiah would come in the clouds of heaven;
if otherwise, humble, and riding upon an ass.
Dan. vii. 27 is applied to Messianic times in Bern. R. 11.
Dan. viii. 13, 14. By a very curious combination these verses are brought into
connection with Gen. iii. 22 (' man has become like one of us '), and it is argued,
that in Messianic days man's primeval innocence and glory would be restored to him,
and he become like one of the heavenly beings, Ber. R. 21 (ed. Warsh. p. 41 a).
Dan. ix. 24. In Naz. 32 b it is noted that this referred to the time when the
second Temple was to be destroyed. So also in Yaikut, vol. ii. p. 79 d, lines 16 &c.
from the bottom.
Dan. xii. 3 is applied to Messianic times in a beautiful passage in Shem. R. 15
(at the end).
Dan. xii. 11, 13. These two verses receive a peculiar Messianic interpretation,
and that by the authority of the Rabbis. For it is argued that, as Moses, the first
Redeemer, appeared, and was. withdrawn for a time, and then reappeared, so would
the second Redeemer ; and the interval between His disappearance and reappear
ance is calculated at 45 days, arrived at by deducting the 1,290 days of the
cessation of the sacrifice (Dan. xii. 11) from the 1,335 days of Dan. xii. 12 (Midr.
on Ruth ii. 14, ed. Warsh. p. 43 b).
Hos. ii. 2 is explained in the Midr. on Ps. xiv. 1 as implying that Israel's
redemption would be when they were at the lowest.
Hos. ii. 13 is one of the three passages referred to on Jer. v. 19.
Hos. ii. 18 is quoted in Shem. R. 15 (on Ex. xii. 2) as the seventh of the ten
things which God would make new in Messianic days.
Hos. iii. 5 is applied to the Messiah in the Targum, and from it the Jer. Talm.
(Ber. 5 a) derives the name David as one of those given to the Messiah.
Hos. vi. 2 is Messianically applied in the Targum.
Hos. xiii. 14 is applied to the deliverance by the Messiah of those of Israel who
are in Gehinnom, whom he sets free;— the term Zion being understood of Paradise.
See Yalk. on Is. Par. 269, comp. Maas. de R. Joshua in Jellinek's Beth ha-Midr. ii.
p. 50. Hos. xiv. 7 is Messianically applied in the Targum.
Joel ii. 28 is explained in the Midrashim as referring to the latter days, when
all Israel will be prophets (Bemidbar R. 15; Yaikut i. p. 220 c, and other places).
Joel iii. 18 is similarly applied in the Midrashim, as in that on Ps. xiii. and
in others. The last clause of this verse is explained in the Midr. on Ecci. i. 9 to imply
that the Messiah would cause a fountain miraculously to spring up, as Moses did in
the wilderness.
Amos iv. 7 is in Midr. on Cant. ii. 13 applied to the first of the seven years
before Messiah come.
Amos v. 18 is one of the passages adduced in the Talmud (Sanh. 98 b) to
explain why certain Rabbis did not wish to see the day of the Messiah.
Amos viii. 11 is applied to Messianic times in Ber. R. 25.
Amos ix. 11 is a notable Messianic passage. Thus, in the Talmud (Sanh. 96 b)
where the Messiah is called the 'Son of the Fallen,' the name is explained by a
reference to this passage. Again, in Ber. R. 88, last three lines (ed. Warsh.
p. 157 a), after enumerating the unexpected deliverances which Israel had formerly
experienced, it is added : Who could have expected that the fallen tabernacle of
David should be raised up by God, as it is written (Amos ix. 11) and who should

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED ltt RABBINIC WRITINGS. 735
have expected that the whole world should become one bundle (be gathered into APP.
one Church)? Yet it is written Zeph. iii. 9. Comp. also the long discussion in jx
Yaikut on this passage (vol. ii. p. 80 a and b). .
Obadiah verses 18 and 21 are applied to the Kingdom and time of the Messiah
in Deb. R. 1.
Micah ii. 13. See our remarks on Gen. xviii. 4, 5. The passage is also
Messianically quoted in the Midrash on Prov. vi. (ed. Lemberg, p. 5 a, first two lines).
The promise in Micah iv. 3 is applied to the times of the Messiah in the Talmud
(Shabb. 63 a).
So is the prediction in verse 5 in Shemoth R. 15 ; while verse 8 is thus com
mented upon in the Targum : ' And thou Messiah of Israel, Who shalt be hidden on
account of the sins of Zion, to thee shall the Kingdom come.'
The well-known passage Micah v. 2, is admittedly Messianic. So in the
Targum, in the Pirqe de R. Eliez. c. 3, and by later Rabbis.
Verse 3 is applied in the Talmud to the fact that the Messiah was not to come
till the hostile kingdom had spread for nine months over the whole world
(Yoma 10 a), or else, over the whole land of Israel (Sanh. 98 b).
Similarly Micah vii. 6 is applied to Messianic times in Sanh. 97 a, and in Sotah
49 b ; also in the Midr. on Cant. ii. 13. And so is verse 15 in Yaikut (vol. ii.
p. 112 6.)
In Micah vii. 8, the expression, Jehovah shall be light to me, is referred to the
days of the Messiah in Deb. R. 11, ed. Warsh. vol. v. p. 22 a.
Nahum ii. 1. See our remarks on Is. Iii. 7.
Habakkuk ii. 3. This is applied to Messianic times in a remarkable passage in
Sanh. 97 b, which will be quoted in full at the close of this Appendix ; also in Yaikut,
vol. ii. p. 83 b.
Habakkuk iii. 18 is applied to Messianic times in the Targum.
Zephaniah iii. 8. The words rendered in our A.V. ' the day that I rise up to the
prey ' are translated ' for testimony ' and applied to God's bearing testimony for the
Messiah (Yaikut, vol. ii. p. 84 c, line 6 from the top).
Verse 9 is applied to the voluntary conversion of the Gentiles in the days of the
Messiah in the Talmud (Abhod. Zarah, 24 a); and in Ber. R. 88; and verse 11 in
Sanh. 98 a.
Haggai ii. 6 is expressly applied to the coming redemption in Deb. R. 1 (ed.
Warsh. p. 4 b, line 15 from the top).
Zech. i. 20. The four carpenters there spoken of are variously interpreted in the
Talmud (Sukk. 52 b), and in the Midrash (Bemidbar R. 14). But both agree that
one of them refers to the Messiah.
Zech. ii. 10 is one of the Messianic passages to which we have referred in our
remarks on Is. lx. 4. It has also a Messianic cast in the Targum.
Zech. iii. 8. The designation 'Branch ' is expressly applied to King Messiah in
the Targum. Indeed, this is one of the Messiah's peculiar names.
Verse 10 is quoted in the Midrash on Ps. Ixxii. (ed. Warsh. p. 56 a, at the top)
in a description of the future time of universal peace.
Zech. iv. 7 is generally applied to the Messiah, expressly in the Targum, and also
in several of the Midrashim. Thus, as regards both clauses of it, in Tanchuma (Par.
Toledbth 14, ed. Warsh. p. 37 b and 38 a).
Verse 10 is Messianically explained in -Tanchuma (u. s.).
Zech. vi. 12 is universally admitted to be Messianic. So in the Targum, the
Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. 5 a), in the Pirqe de R. Eliez. c. 48, and in the Midrashim.

736 LIST OP OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
APP. Zech. vii. 13 is one of the three passages supposed to mark the near advent of
IX Messiah. See our remarks on Jer. v. 19.
.«_«_..  . Zech. viii. 12 is applied to Messianic times in Ber. R. 12. See our remarks on
Gen. ii. 4.
Zech. viii. 23 is one of the predictions expected to be fulfilled in Messianic
days, it being however noted that it refers to instruction in the Law in that
remarkable passage on Is. lx. 1 in Yaikut ii. p. 56 d, to which we have already
referred. In Zech. ix. 1 the name 'Chadrakh ' is mystically separated into ' Chad,' sharp,
and ' rakh,'- gentle, the Messiah being the one to the Gentiles and the other to the
Jews (Siphre' on Deut. p. 65 a, Yaikut i. p. 258 b).
Verse 9. The Messianic application of this verse in all its parts has already
repeatedly been indicated. We may here add that there are many traditions about
this ass on which the Messiah is to ride ; and so firm was the belief in it, that,
according to the Talmud, ' if anyone saw an ass in his dreams, he will see salvation '
(Ber. 56 b). The verse is also Messianically quoted in Sanh. 98 a, in Pirqe de R.
Eliez. c. 31, and in several of the Midrashim.
On verse 10 see our remarks on Deut. xx. 10.
Zech. x. 4 is Messianically applied in the Targum.
Zech. xi. 12 is Messianically explained in Ber. R. 98, but with this remark, that
the 30 pieces of silver apply to 30 precepts, which the Messiah is to give to Israel.
Zech. xii. 10 is applied to the Messiah the Son of Joseph in the Talmud (Sukk.
52 a), and so is verse 12, there being, however, a, difference of opinion whether
the mourning is caused by the death of the Messiah the Son of Joseph, or else on
account of the evil concupiscence (Yetser haRa).
Zech. xiv. 2 will be readily understood to have been applied to the wars of
Messianic times, and this in many passages of the Midrashim, as, indeed, are verses
3, 4, 5, and 6.
Verse 7. The following interesting remark occurs in Yaikut on Ps. cxxxix. 16,
17 (vol. ii. p. 129 d) on the words 'none of them.' This world is to last 6,000
years ; 2,000 years it was waste and desolate, 2,000 years mark the period under
the Law, 2,000 years that under the Messiah. And because our sins are increased,
they are prolonged. As they are prolonged, and as we make one year in seven a
Sabbatic year, so will God in the latter days make one day a Sabbatic year, which
day is 1,000 years— to which applies the verse in Zechariah just quoted. See also
Pirqe de R. Eliez. c. 28.
Verse 8 is Messianically applied in Ber. R. 48. See our remarks on Gen.
xviii. 4, 5.
Verse 9 is, of course, applied to Messianic times, as in Yaikut i. p. 76 c, 266 a,
and vol. ii. p. 33 c, Midr. on Cant. ii. 13, and in other passages.
Malachi iii. 1 is applied to Elijah as forerunner of the Messiah in Pirqe de R.
Eliez. c. 29.
Verse 4. In Bemidbar R. 17, a little before the close (ed. Warsh. p. 69 a), this
verse seems to be applied to acceptable sacrifices in Messianic days.
On verse 16 Vayyikra R. 34 (ed. Warsh. p. 51 b, line 4 from the bottom) has the
following curious remark : If any one in former times did the Commandment, the
prophets wrote it down. But now when a man observes the Commandment, who
writes it down ? Elijah and the King Messiah and the Holy One, blessed be His
Name, seal it at their hands, and a memorial book is written, as it is written
Mai. iii. 16.

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN RABBINIC WRITINGS. 737

The promise in verse 17 is extended to Messianic days in Shemoth R. 18.
On Mai. iv. 1 (in Hebrew iii. 19) the following curious comment occurs in Bere-
shith R. 6 (p. 14 b, lines 15 &c. from the bottom): ' The globe of the sun is en
cased, as it is said, He maketh a, tabernacle for the sun (Ps. xix.). And a pool of
water is before it. When the sun comes out, God cools its heat in the water lest
it should burn up the world. But in the latter days the Holy One takes it out of
its sheath, and with it burns up the wicked, as it is written Mai. iv. 1.'
Verse 2 (iii. 20 in Hebrew) is in Shemoth R. 31 quoted in connection with
Ex. xxii. 26, and explained ' till the Messiah comes.'
Verse 5 is, of course, applied to the forerunner of the Messiah. So in many
places, as in the Pirqe de R. Eliez. c. 40 ; Debarim R. 3 ; in the Midrash on
Cant. i. 1 ; in the Talmud, and in Yaikut repeatedly.1
To the above passages we add some from the Apocryphal Books, partly as in
dicating the views concerning the Messiah which the Jews had derived from the
Old Testament, and partly because of their agreement with Jewish traditionalism
as already expounded by us. These passages must therefore be judged in connec
tion with the Rabbinical ideas of the Messiah and of Messianic days. It is in this
sense that we read, for example, the address to Jerusalem, Tobit xiii. 9 to the end.
Comp. here, for. example, our quotations on Amos ix. 11.
Similarly Tobit xiv. 5-7 may be compared with our quotations on Ps. xc,
Is. lx. 3, and especially on Zech. viii. 33, also on Gen. xlix. 11.
Wisdom of Solomon iii. 7, 8 may be compared with our remarks on Is. Ixi. 1.
Ecclus. xliv. 31 &c. and xlvii. 11 may be compared with our quotations on
Ps. lxxxix. 22-25 ; Ps. cxxxii. 18 ; Ezek. xxix. 21.
Ecclus. xlviii. 10, 11. See the comments on Is. Iii. 7, also our references on
Mai. iii. 1 ; Mai. iv. 5 ; Deut. xxv. 19 and xxx. 4 ; Lam. ii. 22. In Sotah ix. 15
Elijah is represented as raising the dead.
Baruch ii. 34, 35 ; iv. 29 &c. ; and ch. v. are so thoroughly in accordance with
Rabbinic, and, indeed, with Scriptural views, that it is almost impossible to
enumerate special references.
The same may be said of 1 Mace. ii. 57 ; while such passages as iv. 46 and
xiv. 41 point forward to the ministry of Elijah as resolving doubts, as this is fre
quently described in the Talmud (Shekalim ii. 5 ; Men. 45 a, Pes. 13 a ; and in
other places).
Lastly, 2 Mace. ii. 18 is fully enlarged on in the Rabbinic descriptions of the
gathering of Israel.
Perhaps it may be as well here to add the Messianic discussion in the Talmud,
to which such frequent reference has been made (Sanhedrin, beginning at the two last
lines of p. 96 b, and ending at p. 99 a). The first question is that asked by one
Rabbi of the other, whether he knew when the Son of the Fallen would come ?
Upon which follows an explanation of that designation, based on Amosix. 11, after
which it is added that it would be a generation in which the disciples of the sages
would be diminished, and the rest of men consume their eyes for sorrow, and
terrible sorrows so follow each other, that one had not ceased before the other
began. Then a description is given of what was to happen during the hebdomad
when the Son of David would come. In the first year it would be according to Amos
iv. 7 ; in the second year there would be darts of famine ; in the third year great
1 From the above review of Old Testament the doctrine of the vicariousness and atoning
passages, all reference to sacrifices has been character of these sacrifices, no mention occurs
omitted, because, although the Synagogue held of the Messiah in connection with them.
VOL. II. 3 B

APP. IX

738 TALMUDIC DISCUSSION ON THE MESSIAH.
APP. famine and terrible mortality, in consequence of which the Law would be forgotten
IX by those who studied it. In the fourth year there would be abundance, and yet
¦ _ no abundance ; in the fifth year great abundance and great joy, and return to the
study of the Law ; in the sixth year voices (announcements) ; in the seventh wars,
and at the end of the seventh the Son of David would come. Then follows some
discussion about the order of the sixth and seventh year, when Ps. lxxxix. 51 is
referred to. Next we have a description of the general state during those days.
Sacred places (Academies) would be used for the vilest purposes, Galilee be desolated,
Gablan laid waste, and the men of Gebul wander from city to city, aud not find
mercy. And the wisdom of the scribes would be corrupted, and they who fear sin
be abhorred, and the face of that generation would be like that of a dog, and truth
should fail, according to Is. lix. 15. (Here a side issue is raised.) The Talmud
then continues in much the same terms to describe the Messianic age as one, in
which children would rebel against their parents, and as one of general lawlessness,
when Sadduceeism should universally prevail, apostasy increase, study of the Law
decrease ; and, generally, universal poverty and despair of redemption prevail — the
growing disregard of the Law being pointed out as specially characterising the
last days. R. Kattina said : The world is to last 6,000 years, and during one mil
lennium it is to lie desolate, according to Is. ii. 17. R. Abayi held that this state
would last 2,000 years, according to Hosea vi. 3. The opinion of R. Kattina was,
however, regarded as supported by this, that in each period of seven there is a
Sabbatic year — the day here = 1,000 years of desolateness and rest — the appeal
being to Is. ii. 17 ; Ps. xcii. 1, and xc. 4. According to another tradition the
world was to last 6,000 years : 3,000 in a state of chaos, 2,000 under the Law,
and 2,000 being the Messianic age. But on account of Israel's sins those years
were to be deducted which had already passed. On the authority of Elijah it was
stated that the world would not last less than eighty-five jubilees, and that in the
last jubilee the Son of David would come. When Elijah was asked whether at the
beginning or at the end of it, he replied that he did not know. Being further
asked whether the whole of that period would first elapse or not, he similarly re
plied, his meaning being supposed to be that until that term people were not to
hope for the Advent of Messiah, but after that term they were to look for it. A
story is related of a man being met who had in his hands a writing in square
Hebrew characters, and in Hebrew, which he professed to have got from the
Persian archives, and in which it was written that after 4,290 years from the
Creation the world would come to an end. And then, would be the wars of the
great sea-monsters, and those of Gog and Magog, and the rest of the time would be
the times of the Messiah, and that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, would only
renew His world after the 7,000 years ; to which, however, one Rabbi objects,
making it 5,000 years. Rabbi Nathan speaks of Habakkuk ii. 3 as a passage so
deep as to go down to the abyss, reproving the opinion of the Rabbis who sought
out the meaning of Daniel vii. 25, and of Rabbi Samlai, who similarly busied him
self with Ps. Ixxx. 5, and of Rabbi Akiba, who dwelt upon Haggai ii. 6. But the
first kingdom (Babylonian ?) was to last seventy years ; the second (Asmonsean ?).
fifty-two years ; and the rule of the son of Kozebhah (Bar Kokhabh, the false
Messiah) two and a half years. According to Rabbi Samuel, speaking in the name
of Rabbi Jonathan : Let the bones of those be broken who calculate the end, because
they say, The end has come, and the Messiah has not come, therefore He will not
come at all. But still expect Him, as it is said (Hab. ii. 3), ' Though it tarry, wait
for it' Perhaps thou wilt say : We wait for Him, but He does not wait for it. On

TALMUDIC DISCUSSION ON THE MESSIAH. 739
this point read Is. xxx. 18. But if so, what hinders it ? The quality of judgment. APP.
But in that case, why should we wait ? In order to receive the reward, according jx
to the last clause of Is. xxx. 18. On which follows a further discussion. Again, ^^^^,
Rabh maintains that all the limits of time as regards the Messiah are past, and that
it now only depends on repentance and good works when He shall come. To this
Rabbi Samuel objected, but Rabh's view was supported by Rabbi Eliezer, who said
that if Israel repented they would be redeemed, but if not they would not be re
deemed . To which Rabbi Joshua added, that in the latter case God would raise
over them a King whose decrees would be hard like those of Haman, when Israel
would repent. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer was further supported by Jer. iii. 22,
to which Rabbi Joshua objected by quoting Is. Iii. 3, which seemed to imply that
Israel's redemption was not dependent on their repentance and good works. On
this Rabbi Eliezer retorted by quoting Mai. iii. 7, to which again Rabbi Joshua
replied by quoting Jer. iii. 14, and Rabbi Eliezer by quoting Is. xxx. 15. To this
Rabbi Joshua replied from Is. xlix. 7. Rabbi Eliezer then urged Jer. iv. 1, upon
which Rabbi Joshua retorted from Dan. xii. 7, and so effectually silenced Rabbi
Eliezer. On this Rabbi Abba propounded that there was not a clearer mark ofthe
Messianic term than that in Is. xxxvi. 8. To which Rabbi Eliezer added Zech.
viii. 10. On this the question is raised as to the meaning of the word ' neither
was there any peace to him that went out or came in.' To this Rabh gave answer
that it applied to the disciples of the sages, according to Ps. cxix. 165. On which
Rabbi Samuel replied that at that time all the entrances would be equal (i.e. that
all should be on the same footing of danger). Rabbi Chanina remarked that the
Son of David would not come till after fish had been sought for for the sick and
not found, according to Ezek. xxxii. 14 in connection with Ezek. xxix. 21. Rabbi
Chamma, the son of Rabbi Chanina, said that the Son of David would not come
until the vile dominion over Israel had ceased, appealing to Is. xviii. 5, 7. R. Seira
said that Rabbi Chanina said : The Son of David would not come till the proud
had ceased in Israel, according toZeph. iii. 11, 12. Rabbi Samlffi, in the name of
Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Simeon, said that the Son of David would not come
till all judges and rulers had ceased in Israel, according to Is. i. 26. Ula said •
Jerusalem is not to be redeemed, except by righteousness, according to Is. i. 27.
We pass over the remarks of Rabbi Papa, as not adding to the subject. Rabbi
Jochanan said : If thou seest a generation that increasingly diminishes, expect Him,
according to 2 Sam. xxii. 28. He also added : If thou seest a generation upon
which many sorrows come like a stream, expect Him, according to Is. lix. 19, 20.
He also added : The Son of David does not come except in a generation where all
are either righteous, or all guilty — the former idea being based on Is. lx. 21, the
latter on Is. lix. 16 and xlviii. 11. Rabbi Alexander said, that Rabbi Joshua the
son of Levi referred to the contradiction in Is. lx. 22 between the words ' in his
time ' and again ' I will hasten it,' and explained it thus : If they are worthy, I will
hasten it, and if not, in His time. Another similar contradiction between Dan.
vii. 13 and Zech. ix. 9 is thus reconciled : If Israel deserve it, He will come in the
clouds of heaven ; if they are not deserving, He will come poor, and riding upon an
ass. Upon this it is remarked that Sabor the King sneered at Samuel, saying : You
say that the Messiah is to come upon an ass : I will send Him my splendid horse.
To which the Rabbi replied : Is it of a hundred colours, like His ass ? Rabbi
Joshua, the son of Levi, saw Elijah, who stood at the door of Paradise. He
said to him : When shall the Messiah come ? He replied : When the Lord shall
3b2

740 TALMUDIC DISCUSSION ON THE MESSIAH.
APP. come (meaning God). Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi, said : I saw two [himself
IX and Elijah], and I heard the voice of three [besides the former two the Voice of
^__^^, God]. Again he met Elijah standing at the door of the cave of Rabbi Simon
the son of Jochai, and said to him : Shall I attain the world to come ? Elijah re
plied : If it pleaseth to this Lord. Upon which follows the same remark : I have
seen two, and I have heard the voice of three. Then the Rabbi asks Elijah : When
shall the Messiah come ? To which the answer is : Go and ask Him thyself. And
where does He abide ? At the gate of the city (Rome). And what is His sign ?
He abides among the poor, the sick, the stricken. And all unbind, and bind up
again the wounds at the same time, but He undoes (viz. the bandage) and rebinds
each separately, so that if they call for Him they may not find Him engaged.1 He
went to meet Him and said : Peace be to Thee, my Rabbi and my Lord. He
replied to him : Peace be to thee, thou son of Levi. He said to Him : When wilt
Thou come, my Lord? He replied to him : To-day. Then he turned to Elijah, who
said to him : What has He said to thee ? He said to me : Son of Levi, peace be to
thee. Elijah said to him : He has assured thee and thy father of the world to come.
He said to him : But He has deceived me in that He said : I come to-day, and He
has not come. He said to him that by the words ' to-day ' He meant : To-day
if ye will hear My voice (Ps. xcv. 7). Rabbi Jose was asked by his disciples :
When will the Son of David come ? To this he replied : I am afraid you will ask
me also for a sign. Upon which they assured him they would not. On this he
replied : When this gate (viz. of Rome) shall fall, and be built, and again fall, and
they shall not have time to rebuild it till the Son of David comes. They said to him :
Rabbi, give us a sign. He said to them : Have ye not promised me that ye would
not seek a sign ? They said to him : Notwithstanding do it. He said to them :
If so, the waters from the cave of Pamias (one of the sources of the Jordan) shall
be changed into blood. In that moment they were changed into blood. Then the
Rabbi goes on to predict that the land would be overrun by enemies, every stable
being filled with their horses. Rabh said that the Son of David would not come
till the kingdom (i.e. foreign domination) should extend over Israel for nine months,
according to Micah v. 3. Ula said : Let Him come, but may I not see Him, and so
said Raba. Rabbi Joseph said : Let Him come, and may I be found worthy to stand
in the shadow of the dung of His ass (according to some : the tail of his ass).
Abayi said to Raba : Why has this been the bearing of your words ? If on account
of the sorrows of the Messiah, we have the tradition that Rabbi Eliezer was asked
by his disciples, what a man should do to be freed from the sorrows of the Messiah ;
on which they were told : By busying yourselves with the Torah, and with good
works. And you are a master of the Torah, and you have good works. He
answered : Perhaps sin might lead to occasion of danger. To this comforting re
plies are given from Scripture, such as Gen. xxviii. 15, and other passages, some of
them being subjected to detailed commentation.
Rabbi Jochanan expressed a similar dislike of seeing the days ofthe Messiah, on
which Resh Lakish suggested that it might be on the ground of Amos v. 19, or
rather on that of Jer. xxx. 6. Upon this, such fear before God is accounted for by
the consideration that what is called service above is not like what is called service
below (the family above is not like the family below), so that one kind may out
weigh the other. Rabbi Giddel said, that Rabh said, that Israel would rejoice in
the years of the Messiah. Rabbi Joseph said : Surely, who else would rejoice in
them ? Chillak and Billak ? (two imaginary names, meaning no one). This, to
1 The Vienna edition of the Talmud has several lacunae on this page (98 a).

TALMUDIC DISCUSSION ON THE MESSIAH. 741
exclude the words of Rabbi Hillel, who said : There is no more Messiah for Israel, APP.
seeing they have had Him in the time of Hezekiah. Rabh said : The world was jx
only created for David ; Samuel, for Moses ; and Rabbi Jochanan, for the Messiah.
What is His name ? The school of Rabbi Shila said : Shiloh is His Name, according
to Gen. xlix. 10. The school of Rabbi Jannai said : Jinnon, according to Ps. Ixxii. 17.
The school of Rabbi Chanina said : Chaninah, according to Jer. xvi. 13. And some
say : Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, according to Lam. i. 16. And our Rabbis say :
The Leprous One of the house of Rabbi is His Name, as it is written Is. liii. 4. Rabbi
Nachman said: If He is among the living, He is like me, according to Jer. xxx. 21.
Rabh said: If He is among the living, He is like Rabbi Jehudah the Holy, and if
among the dead He is like Daniel, the man greatly beloved. Rabbi Jehudah said, Rabh
said : God will raise up to them another David, according to Jer. xxx. 9, a passage
whichevidently pointsto the future. Rabbi Papa said to Abaji : But we have this other
Scripture Ezek. xxxvii. 25, and the two terms (Messiah and David) stand related like
Augustus and Csesar. Rabbi Samlai illus rated Amos v. 18, by a parable of the cock
and the bat which were looking for the light. The cock said to the bat : I look for the
light, but of what use is the light to thee? So it happened to a Sadducee who said to
Rabbi Abahu : When will the Messiah come ? He answered him : When darkness
covers this people. He said to him : Dost thou intend to curse me ? He replied : It is
said in Scripture Is. lx. 3. Rabbi Eliezer taught: The days of the .Messiah are forty
years, according to Ps. xcv. 10. Rabbi Eleazar, the son of Asariah, said: Seventy
years, according to Is. xxiii. 15, * according to the days of a King,' the King there
spoken of being the unique king, the Messiah. Rabbi said : Three generations,
according to Ps. Ixxii. 5. Rabbi Hillel said: Israel shall have no more Messiah, for
they have had Him in the days of Hezekiah. Rabbi Joseph said : May God forgive
Rabbi Hillel : when did Hezekiah live ? During the first Temple. And Zechariah
prophesied during the second Temple, and said Zech. ix. 9. We have the tradition
that Rabbi Eliezer said : The days of the Messiah are forty years. It is written
Deut. viii. 3, 4, and again in Ps. xc. 15 (showing that the days of rejoicing must be
like those of affliction in the wilderness). Rabbi Dosa said : Four hundred years,
quoting Gen. xv. 13 in connection with the same Psalm. Rabbi thought it was 365
years, according to the solar year, quoting Is. lxiii. 4. He asked the meaning of the
words : ' The day of vengeance is in My heart, ' Rabbi Jochanan explained them : I
have manifested it to My heart, but not to My members, and Rabbi Simon ben
Lakish : To My heart, and not to the ministering angels. Abimi taught that the
days of the Messiah were to last for Israel 7,000 years (a Divine marriage-week),
according to Is. Ixii. 5. Rabbi Jehudah said, that Rabbi Samuel said, that the days
of the Messiah were to be as from the day that the world was created until now,
according to Deut. xi. 21. Rabbi Nachman said: As from the days of Noah till now,
according to Is. liv. 9. Rabbi Chija said, that Rabbi Jochanan said : All the
prophets have only prophesied in regard to the days of the Messiah ; but in regard
to the world to come, eye has not seen, O God, beside Thee, what He hath prepared
for him that waiteth for Him (Is. lxiv. 4). And this is opposed to what Rabbi
Samuel said, that there was no difference between this world and the days of the
Messiah, except that foreign domination would cease. Upon which the Talmud goes
off to discourse upon repentance, and its relation to perfect righteousness.
Lengthy as this extract may be, it will at least show the infinite difference be
tween the Rabbinic expeetation of the Messiah, and the picture of Him presented
in the New Testament. Surely the Messianic idea, as realised in Christ, could not
have beero derived from the views current in those times !

742 THE SUPPOSED TEMPLE-SYNAGOGUE.

APPENDIX X.
ON THE SUPPOSED TEMPLE-SYNAGOGUE.
(Vol. i. Book II. ch. x. p. 346.)
APP. Putting aside, as quite untenable, the idea of a regular Beth ha-Midrash in the
X Temple (though advocated even by Wunsche), we have here to inquire whether
— r— - any historical evidence can be adduced for the existence of a Synagogue within the
bounds of the Temple-buildings. The notice (Sot. vii. 8) that on every Sabbatic
year lection of certain portions was made to the people in the 'Court,' and that
a service was conducted there during public fasts on account of dry weather (Taan.
ii. 5), can, of course, not be adduced as proving the existence of a regular Temple-
Synagogue. On the other hand, it is expressly said in Sanh. 88 b, lines 19, 20 •
from top, that on the Sabbaths and feast-days the members of the Sanhedrin went
out upon the Chel or Terrace of the Temple, when questions were asked of them
and answered. It is quite true that in Tos. Sanh. vii. (p. 158, col. d) we have an
inaccurate statement about the second of the Temple-Sanhedrin as sitting on the
Chel (instead of at the entrance to the Priests' Court, as in Sanh. 88 b), and that
there the Sabbath and festive discourses are loosely designated as a ' Beth ha
Midrash' which was on 'the Temple-Mount." But since exactly the same de
scription — indeed, in the same words — of what took place is given in the Tosephta
as in the Talmud itself, the former must be corrected by the latter, or rather the
term ' Beth ha-Midrash ' must be taken in the wider and more general sense as the
' place of Rabbinic exposition,' and not as indicating any permanent Academy. But
even if the words in the Tosephta were to be taken in preference to those in the
Talmud itself, they contain no mention of any Temple-Synagogue.
Equally inappropriate are the other arguments in favour of this supposed
Temple-Synagogue. The first of them is derived from a notice in Tos. Sukkah.
iv. 4, in which R. Joshua explains how, during the first night of the Feast
of Tabernacles, the pious never ' saw sleep,' since they went, first 'to the Morning
Sacrifice, thence to the Synagogue, thence to the Beth ha-Midrash, thence to the
festive sacrifices, thence to eat and to drink, thence again to the Beth ha-Midrash,
thence to the Evening Sacrifice, and thence to the "joy of the house of water-
drawing " ' (the night-feast and services in the Temple-Courts). The only other
argument is that from Yoma vii. 1, 2, where we read that while the bullock and
the goat were burned the High-Priest read to the -people certain portions of the
Law, the roll of which was handed by the Chazzan of the Synagogue (it is not said
which Synagogue) to the head of the Synagogue, by him to the Sagan, and by the
Sagan to the High-Priest." How utterly inconclusive inferences from these notices
1 So also by Maimonides, Tad ha-Chas. the Law by the kings of Israel to the people,
vol. iv. p. 241 a (Hilc. Sanh. ch. ill.). according to Deut. xxxi. 10. Will it be
3 A similar arrangement is described in argued from this that there was a Synagogue
Sot. vii. 8 as connected with the reading of in the Temple in the early days of the kings ?

THE SUPPOSED TEMPLES-SYNAGOGUE. 743
are, need not be pointed out. More than this — the existence of a Temple-Synagogue APP.
seems entirely incompatible with the remark in Yoma vii. 2, that it was impossible x
ior anyone present at the reading of the High-Priest to witness the burning of the
bullock and goat — and that, not because the former took place in a regular Temple-
Synagogue, but ' because the way was far and the two services were exactly at the
same time.' Such, so far as I know, are all the Talmudical passages from which
the existence of a regular Temple-Synagogue has been inferred, and with what
reason, the reader may judge for himself.
It is indeed easy to understand that Rabbinism and later Judaism should have
wished to locate a Synagogue and a Beth ha-Midrash within the sacred precincts of
the Temple itself. But it is difficult to account for the circumstance th&t such
Christian scholars as Reland, Carpzov, and Lightfoot should have been content to
repeat the statement without subjecting its grounds to personal examination.
Vitringa (Synag. p. 30) almost grows indignant at the possibility of any doubt —
and that, although he himself quotes passages from Maimonides to the effect that
the reading of the Law by the High-Priest on the Day of Atonement took place in
the Court of the Women, and hence not in any supposed Synagogue. Yet commen
tators generally, and writers on the Life of Christ have located the sitting of our
Lord among the Doctors in the Temple in this supposed Temple-Synagogue ! '
1 In a former book (' Sketches of Jewish Life which, after all, stood as substitute for the Tem-
in the Time of our Lord ') I had expressed hesi- pie and its Services — within the precincts of the
tation and misgivings on the subject. These (as Temple ; or how could the respective services be
explained in the text), a fuller study has con- so arranged as not to clash ; or, lastly, have not
verted into absolute certitude against the popu- the prayers of the Synagogue, admittedly, taken
larly accepted hypothesis. And what, indeed, the place of the Services and Sacrifices of the
could have been the meaning of a Synagogue — Temple S

744 THB PROPHECY, IS. XL. 3.

APPENDIX XI.
ON THE PROPHECY, IS. XL. 3.
(See vol. i. Book II. ch. xi. p. 260, Note 2.)
According to the Synoptic Gospels, the public appearance and preaching of John
was the fulfilment of the prediction with which the second part of the prophecies
of Isaiah opens, called by the Rabbis, 'the book of consolations.' After a brief
general preface (Is. xl. 1, 2), the words occur which are quoted by St. Matthew and
St. Mark (Is. xl. 3), and more fully by St. Luke (Is. xl. 3-5). A more appropriate
beginning of 'the book of consolations ' could scarcely be conceived.
The quotation of Is. xl. 3 is made according to the LXX., the only difference
being the change of 'the paths of our God' into 'His paths.' The divergences
between the LXX. and our Hebrew text of Is. xl. 4, 5 are somewhat more
numerous, but equally unimportant — the main difference from the Hebrew original
lying in this, that, instead of rendering ' all flesh shall see it together,' we have in
the LXX. and the New Testament, ' all flesh shall see the salvation of God.' As
it can scarcely be supposed that the LXX. read lj?^ for nrp, we must regard their
rendering as Targumic. Lastly, although according to the accents in the Hebrew
Bible we should read, ' The Voice of one crying : In the wilderness prepare,' &c,
yet, as like the LXX., the Targum, and the Synoptists render, ' The Voice of one
crying in the wilderness : Prepare,' their testimony must be regarded as outweigh
ing the authority of the accents, which are of so much later date.
But the main question is, whether Is. xl. 3, &c, refers to Messianic times or
not. Most modern interpreters regard it as applying to the return of the exiles
from Babylon. This is not the place to enter on a critical discussion of the
passage ; but it may be remarked that the insertion of the word ' salvation ' in v. 5
by the LXX. seems to imply that they had viewed it is Messianic. It is, at any
rate, certain that the Synoptists so understood the rendering of the LXX. But this
is not all. The quotation from Is. xl. was regarded by the Evangelists as fulfilled,
when John the Baptist announced the coming Kingdom of God. We have proof
positive that, on the supposition of the correctness of the announcement made by
John, they only took the view of their contemporaries in applying Is. lx. 3, &c, to
the preaching of the Baptist. The evidence here seems to be indisputable, for
the Targum render* the close of v. 9 (' say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your
God ! ') by the words : ' Say to the cities ofthe House of Judah, the Kingdom of your
God shall be manifested.'
In fact, according to the Targum, 'the good tidings ' are not brought by Zion
nor by Jerusalem, but to Zion and to Jerusalem.

THE BAPTISM OP PROSELYTES. 745

APPENDIX XII.
ON THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES.
(See vol. i. Book II. ch. xi. p. 273.)
Only those who have made study of it can have any idea how large, and some- APP
times bewildering, is the literature on the subject of Jewish Proselytes and their xn
Baptism. Our present remarks will be confined to the Baptism of Proselytes.
• 1. Generally, as regards proselytes (Gerim) we have to distinguish between the
Ger ha-Shaar (proselyte of the gate) and Ger Toshabh (' sojourner,' settled among
Israel), and again the Ger hatstsedeq (proselyte of righteousness) and Ger habbtrith,
{proselyte of the covenant). The former are referred to by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 7. 2),
and frequently in the New Testament, in the Authorised Version under the desig
nation of those who 'fear God,' Acts xiii. 16, 26; are 'religious,' Acts xiii. 43;
' devout,' Acts xiii. 50 ; xvii. 4, 17 ; ' worship God,' Acts xvi. 14 ; xviii. 7.
Whether the expression ' devout ' and ' feared God ' in Acts x. 2, 7 refers to pro
selytes of the gate is doubtful. As the ' proselytes of the gate ' only professed their
faith in the God of Israel, and merely bound themselves to the observance of the
so-called seven Noachic commandments (on which in another place), the question
of ' baptism ' need not be discussed in connection with them, since they did not
•even undergo circumcision.
2. It was otherwise with ' the proselytes of righteousness,' who became 'chil
dren of the covenant,' ' perfect Israelites,' Israelites in every respect, both as re
garded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were
required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism
(Tebhilah), and a Sacrifice (Qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) —
the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of
young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). After the destruction of the
Temple promise had to be made of such a sacrifice when the services of the
Sanctuary were restored. On this and the ordinances about circumcision it is not
necessary to enter further. That baptism was absolutely necessary to make a
proselyte is so frequently stated as not to be disputed (See Maimonides, u. s. ; the
tractate Massekheth Gerim in Kirchheim's Septem Libri Talm. Parvi, pp. 38-44
[which, however, adds little to our knowledge]; Targum on Ex. xii. 44; Ber. 47 b;
Kerith, 9 a; Jer. Yebam. p. 8 d; Yebam. 45 b, 46 a and b, 48 b, 76 as; Ab. Sar. 57 a,
59 a, and other passages). There was, indeed, a difference between Rabbis Joshua
and Eliezer, the former maintaining that baptism alone without circumcision, the
latter that circumcision alone without baptism, sufficed to make a proselyte, but
the sages decided in favour of the necessity of both rites (Yebam. 46 a and b).
The baptism was to be performed in the presence of three witnesses, ordinarily
Sanhedrists (Yebam. 47 6), but in case of necessity others might act. The person
to be baptized, having cut his hair and nails, undressed completely, made fresh pro-

746 THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES.
APP. fession of his faith before what were designated ' the fathers of the baptism ' (our
Xll' Godfathers, Kethub. 11 a; Erub. 15 a), and then immersed completely, so that
,^_^_^ every part of the body was touched by the water. The rite would, of course, be-
accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides, Hilkh. Milah iii. 4;
Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiv. 6). Baptism was not to be administered at night, nor
on a Sabbath or feast-day (Yebam. 46 o). Women were attended by those of
their own sex, the Rabbis standing at the door outside. Yet unborn children of
proselytes did not require to be baptized, because they were born ' in holiness '
(Yebam. 78 a). In regard to the little children of proselytes opinions differed. A
person under age was indeed received, but not regarded as properly an Israelite
till he had attained majority. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought
a child, was not acknowledged. In general, the statements of a proselyte about
his baptism required attestation by witnesses. But the children of a Jewess or
of a proselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was
doubtful. It was indeed a great thing when, in the words of Maimonides, a stranger
sought shelter under the wings of the Shekhinah, and the change of condition
which he underwent was regarded as complete. The waters of baptism were to
him in very truth, though in a far different from the Christian sense, the ' bath of
regeneration ' (Titus iii. 5). As he stepped out of these waters he was considered
as ' born anew ' — in the language of the Rabbis, as if he were ' a little child just
born ' (Yeb. 22 a ; 48 b; 97 b), as ' a child of one day ' (Mass. Ger. c. ii.). But this
new birth was not ' a birth from above ' in the sense of moral or spiritual renova
tion, but only as implying a new relationship to God, to Israel, and to his own past,
present, and future. It was expressly enjoined that all the difficulties of his new
citizenship should first be set before him, and if, after that, he took upon himself
the yoke of the law, he should be told how all those sorrows and persecutions were
intended to convey a greater blessing, and all those commandments to redound to
greater merit. More especially was he to regard himself as a new man in reference
to his past. Country, home, habits, friends, and relations were all changed. The
past, with all that had belonged to it, was past, and he was a new man— the old,
with its defilements, was buried in the waters of baptism. This was carried out
with such pitiless logic as not only to determine such questions as those of inherit
ance, but that it was declared that, except for the sake of not bringing proselytism
into contempt, a proselyte might have wedded his own mother or sister (comp. Yeb.
22 a; Sanh. 58 b). It is a curious circumstance that marriage with a female pro
selyte was apparently very popular (Horay. 13 a, line 5 from bottom ; see also
Shem. R. 27), and the Talmud names at least three celebrated doctors who were
the offspring of such unions (comp. Derenbourg, Hist, de la Palest., p. 223, note 2).
The praises of proselytes and proselytism are also sung in Vayy. R. 1.
If anything could have further enhanced the value of such proselytism, it would
have been its supposed antiquity. Tradition traced it up to Abraham and Sarah,
and the expression (Gen. xii. 5) ' the souls that they had gotten ' was explained as
referring to their proselytes, since ' every one that makes a proselyte is as if he
made (created) him ' (Ber. R. 39, comp. also the Targums Pseudo-Jon. and Jerus.
and Midr. on Cant. i. 3). The Talmud, differing in this from the Targumim, finds
in Exod. ii. 5 a reference to the baptism of Pharaoh's daughter (Sotah 12 b,
line 3; Megill. 13 a, line 11). In Shem. R. 27 Jethro is proved to have been a
convert, from the circumstance that his original name had been Jether (Exod.

THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES. 747
iv. 18), an additional letter (Jethro), as in the case of Abraham, having been APP.
added to his name when he became a proselyte (comp. also Zebhaeh. 116 a and xii
Targum Ps.-Jon. on Exod. xviii. 6, 27, Numb. xxiv. 21. To pass over other
instances, we are pointed to Ruth (Targum on Ruth i. 10, 15), and to Nebuzaradan
— who is also described as a proselyte (Sanh. 96 b, line 19 from the bottom). But
it is said that in the days of David, and Solomon proselytes were not admitted by
the Sanhedrin because their motives were suspected (Yeb. 76 a), or that at least
they were closely watched.
But although the baptism of proselytes seems thus far beyond doubt, Christian
theologians have discussed the question, whether the rite was practised at the time
of Christ, or only introduced after the destruc ion of the Temple and its Services,
to take the place of the Sacrifice previously offered. The controversy, which owed
its origin chiefly to dogmatic prejudices on the part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and
Baptists, has since been continued on historical or quasi-historical grounds. The
silence of Josephus and Philo can scarcely be quoted in favour of the later origin
of the rite. On the other hand, it may be urged that, as Baptism did not take the
place of sacrifices in any other instance, it would be difficult to account for the
origin of such a rite in connection with the admission of proselytes.
Again, if a Jew who had become Levitically defiled, required immersion, it is
difficult to suppose that a heathen would have been admitted to all the services of
the Sanctuary without a similar purification. But we have also positive testimony
(which the objections of Winer, Keil, and Leyrer, in my opinion do not invalidate),
that the baptism of proselytes existed in the time of Hillel and Shammai. For,
whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte who was cir
cumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake after baptism of the Passover, ' the
school of Hillel forbade it. This controversy must be regarded as proving that at
that time (previous to Christ) the baptism of proselytes was customary 2 (Pes. viii. 8,
Eduy. v. 2).
1 The case supposed by the school of Shammai God, and so to come to baptism. For that the
would, however, have been impossible, since, ac- baptizing would be acceptable to Him, if they
cording to Rabbinic directions; a certain time made use of it, not for the putting away (remis-
must nave elapsed between circumcision and sion) of some sins, but for the purification of the
baptism. bodv, after that the soul had been previously
" ' The following notice from Josephus (Ant. cleansed by righteousness. And when others had
xviii. 5, 2) is not only interesting in itself, but come in crowds, for they were exceedingly moved
for the view which it presents of baptism. It by hearing these words, Herod, fearing lest such
shows what views rationalising Jews took of the influence of his over the people might lead to
work of the Baptist, and how little such were some rebellion, for they seemed ready to do any-
able to enter into the real meaning of his baptism. thing by his council, deemed it best, before any-
'But to some of the Jews it appeared, that the thing new should happen through him, to put
destruction of Herod's army came from God, him to death, rather than that, when a change
and, indeed, as a righteous punishment on ac- Bhould arise in affairs, he might have to repent,'

count of what had been done to John, who was &c. On the credibility of this testimony see the
surnamed tine Baptist. For Herod ordered him Article on Josephus, in Smith's ' Dictionary of
to be killed, a good man, and who commanded
the JewB to exercise virtue, both as to righteous
ness towards one another, and piety towards

to be killed, a good man, and who commanded Christian Biography,' vol. iii. pp. 441-460 (see
the JewB to exercise virtue, both as to righteous- especially pp. 458, 459).

748 JEWISH ANGELOLOGY.

APPENDIX XIII.
JEWISH ANGELOLOGY AND DEMONOLOGY. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS.
(See vol. i. Book III. ch. i. p. 306.)
APP. Without here entering on a discussion of the doctrine of Angels and devils as
XIII presented in Holy Scripture, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha, it will be
v admitted that considerable progression may be marked as we advance from even
the latest Canonical to Apocryphal, and again from these to the Pseudepigraphic
Writings. The same remark applies even more strongly to a comparison of the
latter with Rabbinic literature. There we have comparatively little of the
Biblical in its purity. But, added to it, we now find much that is the outcome of
Eastern or of prurient imagination, of national conceit, of ignorant superstition,
and of foreign, especially Persian, elements. In this latter respect it is true — not,
indeed, as regards the doctrine of good and evil Angels, but much of its Rabbinic
elaboration — that ' the names of the Angels (and of the months) were brought
from Babylon' (Jer. Rosh. haSh. 56 d ; Ber. R. 48), and with the 'names,' not a
few of the notions regarding them. At the same time, it would be unjust to deny
that much of the symbolism which it is evidently intended to convey is singularly
beautiful. I. ANGELOLOGY.
1. Creation, Number, Duration, and Location of the Angels. We are now con
sidering, not the Angel-Princes but that vast unnumbered ' Host ' generally desig
nated as ' the ministering Angels ' (nYiTi "OX??!)- Opinions differ (Ber. R. 3)
whether they were created on the second day as being ' spirits,' ' winds ' (Ps. civ. 4),
or on the fifth day (Is. vi. 2) in accordance with the works of Creation on those
days. Viewed in reference to God's Service and Praise, they are ' a flaming fire ' :
in regard to their office, winged messengers (Pirqe de R. El. 4). But not only so:
every day ministering Angels are created, whose apparent destiny is only to raise
the praises of God, after which they pass away into the fiery stream (Nahar de-
Nur) whence they originally issued ' (Chag. 14 a ; Ber. R. 78). More than this —
a new Angel is created to execute every behest of God, and then passeth away
(Chag. u. s.). This continual new creation of Angels, which is partly a beautiful
allegory, partly savours of the doctrine of ' emanation,' is Biblically supported by
an appeal to Lament, iii. 23. Thus it may be said that daily a Kath, or company,
of Angels is created for the daily service of God, and that every word which pro-
ceedeth from His mouth becomes an ' Angel ' [Messenger — mark here the ideal
unity of Word and Deed], (Chag. 14 a).
The vast number of that Angelic Host, and the consequent safety of Israel as
1 This stream issues from under the throne of tares ' in their awe at the glory of God (Ber. R.
God, and is really the sweat of the ' living crea- 78).

JEWISH ANGELOLOGY. 74.9
against its enemies, was described in the most hyperbolic language. There were APP
12 Mazzaloth (signs of the Zodiac), each having 30 chiefs of armies, each chief XIII
with 30 legions, each legion with 30 leaders, each leader with 30 captains, each
captain with 30 under him, and each of these with 365,000 stars — and all were
created for the sake of Israel! (Ber. 32 b). Similarly, when Nebuchadnezzar
proposed to ascend into heaven, and to exalt his throne above the stars, and be like
the Most High, the Bath Qol replied to this grandson of Nimrod that man's age was
70, or at most 80 years, while the way from earth to the firmament occupied 500
years, the thickness of the firmament was 500 years," from one firmament to the * In Jer.
other occupied other 500 years, the feet of the living creatures were equal to all soyears! 8
that had preceded, and the joints of their feet to as many as had preceded them,
and so on increasingly through all their members up to their horns, after which
came the Throne of Glory, the feet of which again equalled all that had preceded,
and so on (Chag. 13 af.1 In connection with this we read in Chag. 12 b that there "Seeaiso
are seven heavens : the Vilon, in which there is the sun ; Reqia, in which the sun es'
shines, and the moon, stars, and planets are fixed ; Shechaqim, in which are the
millstones to make the manna for the pious; Zebhul, in which the Upper Jerusalem,
and the Temple and the Altar are, and in which Michael, the chief Angel-Prince,
offers sacrifices ; Maon, in which the Angels of the Ministry are, who sing by night
and are silent by day for the sake of the honour of Israel (who now have their ser
vices) ; Machon, in which are the treasuries of snow, hail, the chambers of noxious
dews, and of the receptacles of water, the chamber of the wind, and the cave of
mist, and their doors are of fire; lastly, Araboth, wherein Justice, Judgment, and
Righteousness are, the treasures of Life, of Peace, and of Blessing, the souls of the
righteous, and the spirits and souls of those who are to be born in the future, and
the dew by which the dead are to be raised. There also are the Ophanim, and the
Seraphim, and the living creatures, and the ministering Angels, and the Throne
of Glory, and over them is enthroned the Great King. [For a description of this
Throne and of' the Appearance of its King, see Pirqe de R. Eliez. 4.] On the
¦other hand, sometimes every power and phenomenon in Nature is hypostatised into
an Angel — such as hail, rain, wind, sea, &c. ; similarly, every occurrence, such as
life, death, nourishment, poverty, nay, as it is expressed : ' there is not a stalk of
grass upon earth but it has its Angel in heaven ' (Ber. R. 10). This seems to
approximate the views of Alexandrian Mysticism. So also, perhaps, the idea that
•certain Biblical heroes became after death Angels. But as this may be regarded
.as implying their service as messengers of God, we leave it for the present.
2. The Angel-Princes, their location, names, and offices. Any limitation, as to
•duration or otherwise, of the Ministering Angels does not apply either to the
1 Ophanim (or wheel-angels), the Seraphim, the Chayoth (or living creatures), nor to
the Angel-Princes (Ber. R. 78). a In Chag. 13 a, b the name Chashmal is given
to the 'living creatures.' The word is explained as composed of two others which
mean silence and speech — it being beautifully explained, that they keep silence
when the Word proceeds out of the mouth of God, and speak when He has ceased.
It would be difficult exactly to state the number of the Angel-Princes. The
70 nations, of which the world is composed, had each their Angel-Prince (Targ.
Jer. on Gen. xi. 7, 8; comp. Ber. R. 56 ; Shem. R. 21 ; Vayyi. R. 29; Ruth R.
¦ed. Warsh. p. 36 b), who plead their cause with God. Hence, these Angels are
1 Some add the Cherubim as another and the living creatures was to an extent of 515 years'
separate class. journey, which is proved from the numerical
"According to Jer. Ber. ix. 1, the abode of value of the word m2P 'straight' (Ezek. i. 7).

750 THE ANGEL-PRINCES.
APP. really hostile to Israel, and may be regarded as not quite good Angels, and are cast
XIII down when the nationality which they represent is destroyed. It may have been.
v__^_^ as a reflection on Christian teaching that Israel was described as not requiring any
representative with God, like the Gentiles. For, as will soon appear, this was not
the general view entertained. Besides these Gentile Angel-Princes there were
other chiefs, whose office will be explained in the sequel. Of these 5 are specially
mentioned, of whom four surround the Throne of God: Michael, Gabriel, Rephael,
and Uriel. But the greatest of all is Metatron, who is under the Throne, and
before it. These Angels are privileged to be within the Pargod, or cloudy veil,
while the others only hear the Divine commands or counsels outside this curtain
(Chag. 16 a, Pirqe d. R. El. iv.). It is a slight variation when the Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv. 6 enumerates the following as the 6 principal Angels :
Michael, Gabriel, Metatron, Yophiel, Uriel, and Yophyophyah. Th&Bookof Enoch
(eh. xx. ) speaks also of 6 principal Angels, while Pirqe d. R. Eliez. iv. mentions-
seven. In that very curious passage (Berakhoth 51 a) we read of three directions
given by Suriel, Prince of the Face, to preserve the Rabbis from the Techaspith
(company of Evil Angels), or, according to others, from Istalganith (another
company of Evil Angels). In Chag. 13 b we read of an Angel called Sandalpon,
who stands upon the earth, while his head reaches 500 years' way beyond the
living creatures. He is supposed to stand behind the Merkabah (the throne-
chariot), and make crowns for the Creator, which rise of their own accord. W&
also read of Sagsagel, who taught Moses the sacred Name of God, and was present
at his death. But, confining ourselves to the five principal Angel-chiefs, we have,
a. Metatron, ] who appears most closely to correspond to the Angel of the Face,
or the Logos. He is the representative of God. In the Talmud (Sanh. 38 b) a.
Christian is introduced as clumsily starting a controversy on this point, that,
according to the Jewish contention, Exod. xxiv. 1 should have read, 'Come up to>
Me.' On this R. Idith explained that the expression referred to the Metatron
(Exod. xxxiii. 21), but denied the inference that Metatron was either to be adored,
or had power to forgive sins, or that he was to be regarded as a Mediator. In
continuation of this controversy we are told (Chag. 15 a, b) that, when an apostate^
Rabbi had seen Metatron sitting in heaven, and would have inferred from it that
there were two supreme powers, Metatron received from another Angel 60 fiery
stripes so as to prove his inferiority! In Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Gen. v. 24 he is callecL
the Great Scribe, and also the Prince of this world. He is also designated as ' the
Youth,' and in the Kabbalah as 'the Little God,' who had 7 names like the-
Almighty, and shared His Majesty. He is also called the 'Prince of the Face,'
and described as the Angel who sits in the innermost chamber (Chag. 5 b), while
the other Angels hear their commands outside the Veil (Chag. 16 a). He is repre
sented as showing the unseen to Moses (Siphre, p. 141 a), and as instructing infants-
who have died without receiving knowledge (Abhod. Zar. 3 b). In the Introduction
to the Midrash on Lamentations there is a revolting story in which Metatron is re
presented as proposing to shed tears in order that God might not have to weep over
the destruction of Jerusalem, to which, however, the Almighty is made to refuse
His assent. We hesitate to quote further from the passage. In Siphre on Deut.
(ed. Friedm. p. 141 a) Metatron is said to have shown Moses the whole of Pales
tine. He is also said to have gone before Israel in the wilderness.
1 On the controversy on the meaning of the Metator, divider, arranger, representative, we
name Metatron, whether it means under the will not enter.
throne, or behind the throne, or is the same as

THE ANGEL-PRINCES. 751
b. Michael (' who is like God ? '), or the Great Prince (Chag. 12 b). He stands APP.
at the right hand of the throne of God. According to Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Exod. XIII
xxiv. 1, he is the Prince of Wisdom. According to the Targum on Ps. cxxxvii. v__Y__>
7, 8, the Prince of Jerusalem, the representative of Israel. According to Sebach.
62 a he offers upon the heavenly Altar ; according to some, the souls of the pious ;
according to others, lambs of fire. Put, although Michael is the Prince of Israel,
he is not to be invoked by them (Jer. Ber. ix. 13 a). In Yoma 77 a we have an
instance of his ineffectual advocacy for Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem.
The origin of his name as connected with the Song of Moses at the Red Sea is
explained in Bemidb. R. 2. Many instances of his activity are related. Thus, he
delivered Abraham from the fiery oven of Ninirod, and afterwards, also, the Three
Children out of the fiery furnace. He was the principal or middle Angel of the
three who came to announce to Abraham the birth of Isaac, Gabriel being at his
right, and Rephael at his left. Michael also saved Lot. Michael and Gabriel
wrote down that the primogeniture belonged to Jacob, and God confirmed it.
Michael and Gabriel acted as ' friends of the bridegroom ' in the nuptials of Adam.
Yet they could not bear to look upon the glory of Moses. Michael is also supposed
to have been the Angel in the bush (according to others, Gabriel). At the death
of Moses, Michael prepared his bier, Gabriel spread a cloth over the head of Moses,
and Sagsagel over his feet. In the world to come Michael would pronounce the
blessing over the fruits of Eden, then hand them to Gabriel, who would give them
to the patriarchs, and so on to David. The superiority of Michael over Gabriel is
asserted in Ber. 4 b, where, by an ingenious combination with Dan. x. 13, it is
shown that Is. vi. 6 applies to him (both having the word "inX, one). It is added
that Michael flies in one flight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and the Angel of
Death in eight flights (no doubt to give time for repentance).
c. Gabriel ('the Hero of God') represents rather judgment, while Michael
represents mercy. Thus he destroyed Sodom (Bab. Mez. 86 b, and other places).
He restored to Tamar the pledges of Judah, which Sammael had taken away
(Sot. 10 5). He struck the servants of the Egyptian princess, who would have
kept their mistress from taking Moses out of the water (Sot. 12 b) ; also Moses,
that he might cry and so awaken pity. According to some, it was he who
delivered the Three Children ; but all are agreed that he killed the men that were
standing outside the furnace. He also smote the army of Sennacherib. The
passage in Ezek. x. 2, 7 was applied to Gabriel, who had received from the Cherub
two coals, which, however, he retained for six years, in the hope that Israel might
repent." He is supposed to be referred to in Ezek. ix. 4 as affixing the mark on the . (3^,.;^
forehead which is a !"!. drawn, in the case of the wicked, in blood (Shabb. 55 a), was also
We are also told that he had instructed Moses about making the Candlestick, on itmon. be-
which occasion he had put on an apron, like a goldsmith ; and that he had disputed 5^™™ ^B
with Michael about the meaning of a word. To his activity the bringing of fruits sins of Is-
to maturity is ascribed — perhaps because he was regarded as made of fire, while 45 j).
Michael was made of snow (Deb. R. 5). These Angels are supposed to stand
beside each other, without the fire of the one injuring the snow of the other. The
curious legend is connected with him (Shabb. 56 b, Sanh. 21 b), that, when
Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, Gabriel descended into the sea, and fixed
a reed in it, around which a mudbank gathered, on which a forest sprang up. On
this site imperial Rome was built. The meaning of the legend — or perhaps rather
allegory — seems (as explained in other parts of this book) that, when Israel began
to decline from God, the punishment through its enemies was prepared, which

752 THE MINISTERING ANGELS.-
APP. culminated in the dominion of Rome. In the future age Gabriel would hunt and
XTtt suly Leviathan. This also may be a parabolic repres.entation of the destruction of
. _ , , . Israel's enemies.
d. Of Uriel (' God is my light ') and Rephael (' God heals ') it need only be said,
that the one stands at the left side of the Throne of glory, the other behind it.1
3. The Ministering Angels and their Ministry. The ministry of the Angels
mav be divided into two parts, that of praising God, and that of executing His
behests. In regard to the former, there are 694,000 myriads who daily praise the
Name of God. Prom sunrise to sundown they say : Holy, holy, holy, and from
sundown to sunrise : Blessed be the Glory of God from its place. In connection
with this we may mention the beautiful allegory (Shem. R. 21) that the Angel of
praver weaves crowns for God out of the prayers of Israel. As to the execution
of the Divine commands by the Angels, it is suggested (Aboth d. R. Nathan 8)
that their general designation as ministering Angels might have led to jealousy
among them. Accordingly, their names were always a composition of that of
God with the special commission entrusted to them (Shem. R. 29), so that the
name of each Angel depended on his message, and might vary with it (Ber. R. 78).
This is beautifully explained in Yaikut (vol. ii. Par. 797), where we are told that
eaeli Angel has a tablet on his heart, in which the Name of God and that of the
Angel is combined. This change of names explained the answer of the Angel to
Manoah (Bemidb. R. 10). It is impossible to enumerate all the instances of
Angelic activity recorded in Talmudic writings. Angels had performed the music
at the first sacrifice of Adam ; they had announced the consequences of his
punishment ; they had cut off the hands and feet of the serpent ; they had ap
peared to Abraham in the form of a baker, a sailor, and an Arab. 120,000 of
them had danced before Jacob when he left Laban ; 4,000 myriads of them were
ready to fight for him against Esau ; 22,000 of them descended on Sinai and stood
beside Israel when, in their terror at the Voice of God, they fled for twelve miles.
Angels were directed to close the gates of heaven when the prayer of Moses with
the All-powerful, Ineffable Name in it, which he had learnt from Sagsagel, would
have prevented his death. Finally, as they were pledged to help Israel, so would
they also punish every apostate Israelite. Especially would they execute that
most terrible punishment of throwing souls to each other from one world to
another. By the side of these debasing superstitions we come upon beautiful
allegories, such as that a good and an evil Angel always accompanied man, but
especially on the eve of the Sabbath when he returned from the Synagogue, and
that for every precept he observed God sent him a protecting Angel. This idea is
Tealistically developed in Pirke d. R. El. 15, where the various modes and times in .
which the good Angels keep man from destruction are set forth.
It is quite in accordance with what we know of the system of Rabbinism,
that the heavenly host should be represented as forming a sort of consultative San
hedrin. Since God never did anything without first taking counsel with the family
above (Sanh. 38 b),' it had been so when He resolved- to create man. After
wards the Angels had interceded for Adam, and, when God pointed to his dis
obedience, they had urged that thus death would also come upon Moses and Aaron,
who were sinless, since one fate must come to the just and the unjust. Similarly,
1 The names of the four Angel-Princes— takes away, not when He giveth (Job i. 21) — and
Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael — are ex- it is argued that, wherever the expression 'and
plained iu Bemid. R. 2. Jehovah ' occurs, as in the last clause of 1 Kings
2 According to Jer. Ber. ix. 7 (p. 14 S), God xxii. 23, it means God and His Sanhedrin.
only takes counsel with His Sanhedrin when He

LIMITATION TO TEE POWERS OF ANGELS. "753
they had interceded for Isaac, when Abraham was about to offer him, and finally APP-
dropped three tears on the sacrificial knife, by which its edge became blunted. XHI
And so through the rest of Israel's history, where on all critical occasions Jewish . _^. .
legend introduces the Angels on the scene.
4. Limitation of the power of the Angels. According to Jewish ideas, the
faculties, the powers, and even the knowledge of Angels were limited. They are,
indeed, pure spiritual beings (Vayyikra R. 24), without sensuous requirements
(Yoma 75 6), without hatred, envy, or jealousy (Chag. 14), and without sin
(Pirqe d. R. El. 46). They know much, notably the future (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37),
and have part in the Divine Light. They live on the beams of the Divine Glory
(Bern. R. 21), are not subject to our limitations as to movement, see but are not seen
(Ab. d. R. Nath. u. s.), can turn their face to any side (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and
only appear to share in our ways, such as in eating (Ber. R. 48). Still, in many
respects they are inferior to Israel, and had been employed in ministry (Ber. R. 75).
They were unable to give names to the animals, which Adam did (Pirqe d. R. El. 13).
Jacob had wrestled with the Angel and prevailed over him when the Angel wept
(Chull. 92 a). Thus it was rather their nature than their powers or dignity which
distinguished them from man. No Angel could do two messages at the same time
(Ber. R. 50). In general they are merely instruments blindly to do a certain
work, not even beholding the Throne of Glory (Bemidb. R. 14), but needed mutual
assistance (Vayyikra R. 31). They are also liable to punishments(Chag. 16 a).
Thus, they were banished from their station for 138 years, because they had told
Lot that God would destroy Sodom, while the Angel-Princes of the Gentiles were
kept in chains till the days of Jeremiah. As regards their limited knowledge, with
the exception of Gabriel, they do not understand Chaldee or Syriac (Sot. 33 a).
The realistic application of their supposed ignorance on this score need not here be
' repeated (see Shabb. 12 b). As the Angels are inferior to the righteous, it follows
that they are so to Israel, God had informed the Angels that the creation
of man was superior to theirs, and it had excited their envy. Adam attained a
place much nearer to God than they, and God loved Israel more than the Angels,
And God had left all the ministering Angels in order to come to Moses, and
when He communicated with him it was directly, and the Angels standing be
tween them did not hear what passed. In connection with this ministry of the
Angels on behalf of Biblical heroes a curious legend may here find its place.
From a combination of Ex. xviii. 4 with Ex. ii. 15 the strange inference was made
that Moses had actually been seized by Pharaoh. Two different accounts of how
he escaped from his power are given. According to the one, the sword with which
he was to be executed rebounded from the neck of Moses, and was broken, to
which Cant. vii. 5 was supposed to refer, it being added that the rebound killed
the would-be executioner. According to another account, an Angel took the place
of Moses, and thus enabled him to fly, his flight being facilitated by the circum
stance that all the attendants of the king were miraculously rendered either dumb,
deaf, or blind, so that they could not execute the behests of their master. Of this
miraculous interposition Moses is supposed to have been reminded in Ex. iv. 11,
for his encouragement in undertaking his mission to Pharoah. In the exaggeration
of Jewish boastfulness in the Law, it was said that the Angels had wished to
receive the Law, but that they had not been granted this privilege (Job xxviii. 21).
And sixty myriads of Angels had crowned with two crowns every Israelite who
at Mount Sinai had taken upon himself the Law (Shabb. 88 a). In view of all

754 THE ANGELS NOT ABSOLUTELY GOOD.
APP. tnis we need scarcely mention the Rabbinic prohibition to address to the Angels
XIII prayers, even although they bore them to heaven (Jer. Ber. ix. 1), or to make
pictorial representations of them (Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Ex. xx. 23; Mechilta on the
passage, ed. Weiss, p. 80 a).
5. The Angels are not absolutely good. Strange as it may seem, this is really
the view expressed by the Rabbis. Thus it is said that, when God consulted the
Angels, they opposed the creation of man, and that, for this reason, God had con
cealed from them that man would sin. But more than this — the Angels had
actually conspired for the fall of man (the whole of this is also related in Pirqe d.
R. El. 13). Nor had their jealousy and envy been confined to that occasion.
They bad accused Abraham, that, when he gave a great feast at the weaning of Isaac,
but did not even offer to God a bullock or a goat. Similarly, they had laid charges
against Ishmael, in the hope that he might be left to perish of thirst. They had
expostulated with Jacob, because he went to sleep at Bethel. But especially had
they, from envy, opposed Moses' ascension into heaven ; they had objected to his being
allowed to write down the Law, falsely urging that Moses would claim the glory
of it for himself, and they are represented, in a strangely blasphemous manner, as
having been with difficulty appeased by God. In Shabb. 88 b we have an account
of how Moses pacified the Angels, by showing that the Law was not suitable for
them, since they were not subject to sinful desires, upon which they becane
the friends of Moses, and each taught him some secret, among others the Angel of
death how to arrest the pestilence. Again, it is said, that the Angels were wont
to bring charges against Israel, and that, when Manasseh wished to repent, the
Angels shut the entrance to heaven, so that his prayer might not penetrate into
the presence of God.
Equally profane, though in another direction, is the notion that Angels might
be employed for magical purposes. This had happened at the siege of Jerusalem
under Nebuchadnezzar, when, after the death of that mighty hero Abika, the son
of Gaphteri, Chananeel, the uncle of Jeremiah, had conjured up ministering Angels,
who affrighted the Chaldees into flight. On this God had changed their names,
when Chananeel, unable any longer to command their services, had summoned up
the Prince of the World by using the Ineffable Name, and lifted Jerusalem into
the air, but God had trodden it down again, to all which Lam. ii. 1 referred (Yalk.
vol. ii. p. 166 c and d, Par. 1001). The same story is repeated in another place
(p. 167, last line of col. c, and col. d), with the addition that the leading inhabitants
of Jerusalem had proposed to defend the city by conjuring up the Angels of Water
and Fire, and surrounding their city with walls of water, of fire, or of iron ; but
their hopes were disappointed when God assigned to the Angels names different
from those which they had previously possessed, so that when called upon they
were unable to do what was expected of them.
6. The Names of the Angels. Besides those already enumerated, we may here
mention,1 the Sar ha-Olam, or ' Prince of the World ' (Yeb. 16 b); the Prince ofthe
Sea, whose name is supposed to have been Rahab, and whom God destroyed be
cause he had refused to receive the waters which had covered the world, and the
smell of whose dead body would kill every one if it were not covered by water.
Dumah is the Angel of the realm of the dead (Ber. 18 b). When the soul of the
righteous leaves the body, the ministering Angels announce it before God, Who
deputes them to meet it. Three hosts of Angels then proceed on this errand,
1 Ahhtariel — perhaps ' the crown of God ' — seems to be a name given to the Deity (Ber. 7 a).

NAMES AND OFFICES OF ANGELS.

755

-each quoting successively one clause of Is. lvii. 2. On the other hand, when the
-wicked leave the body, they are met by three hosts of destroying Angels, one of
¦which repeats Is. xlviii. 22, another Is. 1. 11, and the third Ezek. xxxii. 19 (Keth.
104 a). Then the souls of all the dead, good or bad, are handed over to Dumah.
Yorqemi is the Prince of hail. He had proposed to cool the fiery furnace into
¦which the Three Children were cast, but Gabriel had objected that this might seem
a deliverance by natural means, and being himself the Prince of the lire, had pro
posed, instead of this, to make the furnace cold within and hot without, in order
both to deliver the Three Children and to destroy those who watched outside (Pes.
118 a and ft).1 Ridya, or Radya is the Angel of rain. One of the Rabbis pro
fessed to describe him from actual vision as like a calf whose lips were open, stand
ing between the Upper and the Lower Deep, and saying to the Upper Deep, Let
jour waters run down, and to the Lower, Let your waters spring up. The repre
sentation of this Angel as a calf may be due to the connection between rain and
ploughing, and in connection with this it may be noticed that Ridya means both a
plough and ploughing (Taan. 25 b). Of other Angels we will only name the Ruach
Pisqonith, or Spirit of Decision, who is supposed to have made most daring objec
tion to what God had said, Ezek. xvi. 3, in which he is defended by the Rabbis,
since his activity had been on behalf of Israel (Sanh. 44 b) ; Naqid, The Angel of
Food; Nabhel, the Angel of Poverty; the two Angels of Healing; the Angel of
Dreams, Lailah; and even the Angel of Lust.*
It is, of course, not asserted that all these grossly materialistic superstitions and
profane views were entertained in Palestine, or at the time of our Lord, still less
that they are shared by educated Jews in the West. But they certainly date from
Talmudic times ; they embody the only teaching of Rabbinic writings about the
Angels which we possess, and hence, whencesoever introduced, or however de
veloped, their roots must be traced back to far earlier times than those when they
were propounded in Rabbinic Academies. All the more that modern Judaism
would indignantly repudiate them, do they bear testimony against Rabbinic teaching.
And one thing at least must be evident, for the sake of which we have under
taken the task of recording at such length views and statements repugnant to all
reverent feeling. The contention of certain modern writers that the teaching about
Angels in the New Testament is derived from, and represents Jewish notions, must
be perceived to be absolutely groundless and contrary to fact. In truth, the
teaching of the New Testament on the subject of Angels represents, as compared
with that of the Rabbis, not only a return to the purity of Old Testament teaching,
but, we might almost say, a new revelation.
II. Satanology and Fall of the Angels.
The difference between the Satanology of the Rabbis and of the New Testa
ment is, if possible, even more marked than that in their Angelology. In general
we note that, with the exception of the word Satan, none of the names given to the
great enemy in the New Testament occurs in Rabbinic writings. More important
still, the latter contain no mention of a Kingdom of Satan. In other words, the
power of evil is not contrasted with that of good, nor Satan with God. The

APP. XIII

• See also
the names
of the five
angels of
destructionof whom
Moses was
afraid on
his descent
from the
Mount.
Against three of
them the
three Patri
archs were
to fight,
God Him
self being
asked, or
else pro
posing, to
combat along with
Moses against the
other two
(Shem. R.
11; 44)

i It is said that Gabriel had proposed in
this manner to deliver Abraham when In sim
ilar danger at the hands of Nlmrod. And,
although God had by His own Hand deliver

ed the patriarch, yet Gabriel had obtained
this as the reward of his proposal, that He
was allowed to deliver the Three Children from
the fiery furnace.

756 THE FALL OF SATAN.
APP. devil is presented rather as the enemy of man, than of God and of good. This
Xni marks a fundamental difference. The New Testament sets before us two opposing
. _^_ _i_. kingdoms, or principles, which exercise absolute sway over man. Christ is ' the
Stronger one ' who overcometh ' the strong man armed,' and taketh from him not
only his spoils, but his armour (St. Luke xi. 21, 22). It is a moral contest in which
Satan is vanquished, and the liberation of his subjects is the consequence of his own
subdual. This implies the deliverance of man from the power of the enemy, not
only externally but internally, and the substitution of a new principle of spiritual
life for the old one. It introduces a moral element, both as the ground and as the
result of the contest. From this point of view the difference between the new
Testament and Rabbinism cannot be too much emphasised, and it is no exaggeration
to say that this alone — the question here being one of principle not of details —
would mark the doctrine of Christ as fundamentally divergent from, and incom
parably superior to, that of Rabbinism. ' Whence hath this Man this wisdom ? '
Assuredly, it may be answered, not from His contemporaries.
Since Rabbinism viewed the ' great enemy ' only as the envious and malicious
opponent of man, the spiritual element was entirely eliminated.1 Instead of the
personified principle of Evil, to which there is response in us, and of which all have
some experience, we have only a clumsy and — to speak plainly — often a stupid
hater. This holds equally true in regard to the threefold aspect under which
Rabbinism presents the devil; as Satan (also called Sammael); as the Yetser haRa,
or even impulse personified ; and as the Angel of Death — in other words, as the
Accuser, Tempter, and Punisher. Before explaining the Rabbinic views on each of
these points, it is necessary to indicate them in regard to —
1. The Fall of Satan and of his Angels. This took place, not antecedently, but
subsequently to the creation of man. As related in Pirqe de R. Eliezer, ch. 13, the
primary cause of it was jealousy and envy on the part of the Angels.2 Their oppo
sition to man's creation is also described in Ber. R. 8, although there the fall of man
is not traced to Satanic agency. But we have (as before stated) a somewhat blas
phemous account of the discussions in the heavenly Sanhedrin, whether or not man
should be created. While the dispute was still proceeding God actually created
man, and then addressed the ministering Angels: ' Why dispute any longer? Man
is already created.' In the Pirqe de R. Eliezer, we are only told that the Angels
had in vain attempted to oppose the creation of man. The circumstance that his
superiority was evidenced by his ability to give names to all creatures, induced them
to 'lay a plot against Adam,' so that by his fall they might obtain supremacy.
Now of all Angel-Princes in heaven Sammael was the first — distinguished above
the Seraphim and living creatures by having double their number of wings.
i An analogous remark would apply to Jew- tering spirit to the race of mankind which
ish teaching about the good angels, who are he had seen newly created, which appeared
rather Jewish elves than the high spiritual so feeble, mean, and despicable, so vastly
beings of the Bible. inferior not only to him, the prince of the
2 As a curious illustration how extremes angels, and head of the created universe, but
meet, we subjoin the following from Jonathan also to the inferior angels, and that he must
Edwards. After describing how ¦ Satan, before be subject to one of that race which should
His fall, was the chief of all the angels . . . hereafter be born, he could not bear it. This'
nay . . . the Messiah or Christ (!), as he was occasioned his fall.' (Tractate on ' The Fall
the Anointed, so that in this respect, Jesus of the Angels,' Works, vol. ii. pp. 607, 609. 610.V
Christ is exalted unto His place in heaven' ; Could Jonathan Edwards have heard of the
and that 'Lucifer or Satan, while a holy Rabbinic legends, or is this only a strange
angel . . . was a type of Christ,' the great coincidence-? The curious reader will find-
American divine explains his fall as follows : much quaint information, though, I fear,
'But when it was revealed to him, high and little help, in Prof. W. Scoffs vol. * The Exis-
glorious as he was, that he must be a minis- tence ot Evil Spirits,' London, 1848.

JEWISH SATANOLOGY. 757
Taking the company of Angels subject to him, he came down upon. earth, and APP.
selected as the only fit instrument for his designs the serpent, which at that time had xiii
not only speech, but hands and feet, and was in stature and appearance like the Vj^^«_,
camel. In the language of the Pirqe de R. Eliezer, Sammael took complete pos
session of the serpent, even as demoniacs act under the absolute control of evil
spirits. Then Sammael, in the serpent, first deceived the woman, and next imposed
onher by touching the tree of life (although the tree cried out), saying, that he had
actually ' touched ' the tree, of which he pretended the touch had been forbidden on
pain of death (Gen. iii. 3)1 — and yet he had not died! Upon this Eve followed his
example, and touched the tree when she immediately saw the Angel of Death
coming against her. Afraid that she would die and God give another wife to Adam,
she led her husband into the sin of disobedience. The story of the Fall is some
what differently related iu Ber. R. 18, 19.. No mention is there made either of
Sammael or of his agency, and the serpent is represented as beguiling Eve from a
wish to marry her, and for that purpose to compass the death of Adam.
Critical ingenuity may attempt to find a symbolic meaning in many of the de
tails of the Jewish legend of the Fall, although, to use moderate language, they
seem equally profane and repulsive. But this will surely be admitted by all, that
the Rabbinic account of the fall of the Angels, as connected with the fall of man,
equally contrasts with the reverent reticence of the Old Testament narrative and
the sublime teaching of the New Testament about sin and evil.
2. Satan, or Sammael, as the accuser of man. And clumsy, indeed, are his ac
cusations. Thus the statement (Gen. xxii. 1) that ' God tempted Abraham ' is, in
Jewish legend, transformed (Sanh. 89 b) into a scene, where, in the great upper
Sanhedrin (Ber. R. 56), Satan brings accusation against the Patriarch.2 All his
previous piety had been merely interested; and now when, at the age of one
hundred, God had given him a son, he had made a great feast and not offered aught
to the Almighty. On this God is represented as answering, that Abraham was
ready to sacrifice not only an animal but his own son ; and this had been the occa
sion of the temptation of- Abraham. Tbat this legend is very ancient, indeed, pre-
Christian (a circumstance of considerable importance to the student of this history)
appears from its occurrence, though in more general form, in the Book of Jubilees,
ch. xvii. In Ber. R. 55 and in Tanchuma (ed. Warsh. p. 29 a and b), the legend is
connected with a dispute between Isaac and Ishmael as to their respective merits,
when the former declares himself ready to offer up even his life unto God. In
Tanchuma (u. s.) we are told that this was one of the great merits of man, to which
the Almighty had pointed when the Angels made objection to his creation.
3. Satan, or Sammael, as the seducer of man. The statement in Baba B. 16 a
which identifies Satan with the Yetser haRa, or evil impulse in man, must be regarded
as a rationalistic attempt to gloss over the older teaching about Sammael, by repre
senting him as a personification ofthe evil inclination within us. For, the Talmud
not only distinguishes between a personal Satan without, and evil inclination within
man, but expressly ascribes to God the creation of the Yetser haRa in man
as he was before tlie Fall, the occurrence of two "• "' in the word "S^l (' and He
formed,' Gen. ii. 7) being supposed to indicate the existence of two impulses in
1 The Rabbis point out, how Eve had added the first sin, with all the terrible consequen-
to the words of God. He had only com- ces connected with it.
manded them not to eat of the tree, while Eve - In Ber. R. 56 the accusation is stated to
added to it, that they were" not to touch it. have been brought by the ministering angels.
Thus adding to the words of God had led to ,

'758 JEWISH SATANOLOGY.
APP. us— the Yetser Tobh and the Yetser haRa (Ber. 61 a). And it is stated that thiri
XHI existence of evil in man's original nature was of infinite comfort in the fear
.[jm_ __ . which would otherwise beset us in trouble (Ber. R. 14). More, than this (as will
presently be shown), the existence of this evil principle within us was declared to
be absolutely necessary for the continuance of the world (Yoma 69 6, Sanh.
64 a). Satan, or Sammael, is introduced as the seducer of man in all the great events
of Israel's history. With varying legendary additions the story of Satan's attempts
to prevent the obedience of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac is told in Sanh.
89 b, Ber. R. 56,- and Tanchuma, p. 30 a and b. Yet there is nothing even astute,
only a coarse realism, about the description of the clumsy attempts of Satan to turn
Abraham from, or to hinder him in, his purpose; to influence Isaac; or to frighten
Sarah. Nor are the other personages in the legend more successfully sketched.
There is a want of all higher conception in the references to the Almighty, a pain
ful amount of downright untruthfulness about Abraham, lamentable boastfulness
and petty spite about Isaac, while the Sarah of the Jewish legend is rather a
weak old Eastern woman than the mother in Israel. To hold such perversions of
the Old Testament by the side of the New Testament conception of the motives
and lives of the heroes of old, or the doctrinal inferences and teaching of the Rabbis
by those of Christ and His Apostles, were to compare darkness with light.
The same remarks apply to the other legends in which Satan is introduced as
seducer. Anything more childish could scarcely be invented than this, that, when
Sammael could not otherwise persuade Israel that Moses would not return from
Mount Sinai, he at last made his bier appear before them in the clouds (Shab. 89 a),
unless it be this story, that when Satan would seduce David he assumed the form
Of a bird, and that, when David shot at it, Bath-Sheba suddenly looked up, thus
gaining the king by her beauty (Sanh. 107 a). In both these instances the obvious
purpose is to palliate the guilt whether of Israel or of David, which, indeed, is in
other places entirely explained away as not due to disobedience or to lust (comp.
Ab. Zar. i b, 5 a).
4. As the Enemy of man,. Satan seeks to hurt and destroy him ; and he is
the Angel of Death. Thus, when Satan had failed in shaking the constancy of
Abraham and Isaac, he attacked Sarah (Yaikut, i. Par. 98, last lines p. 28 6). To
his suggestions, or rather false reports, her death had been due, either from fright
at being told that Isaac had been offered (Pirqe de R. El. 32, and Targum Ps.-
Jou.), or else from the shock, when after all she learned that Isaac was not
dead (Ber. R. 58). Similarly, Satan had sought, to take from Tamar the pledges
which Judah had given her. He appeared as an old man to show Nimrod how to have
Abraham cast into the fiery oven, at the same time persuading Abraham not to
resist it, &c. Equally puerile are the representations of Satan as the Angel of
Death. According to Abod. Zar. 20 b, the dying sees his enemy with a drawn
sword, on the point of which a drop of gall trembles. In his fright he opens his
mouth and swallows this drop, which accounts for the pallor of the face and the
corruption that follows. According to another Rabbi, the Angel of Death really
uses his sword, although, on account of the dignity of humanity, the wound which
he inflicts is not allowed to be visible. It is difficult to imagine a narrative more
repulsive than that of the death of Moses according to Deb. R. 11. Beginning
with the triumph of Sammael over Michael at the expected event, it tells how Moses
had entreated rather to be changed into a beast or a bird than to die; how Gabriel

EVIL SPIRITS. 759
and Michael had successively refused to bring the soul of Moses; how Moses, know- API'
ing that Sammael was coming for the purpose, had armed himself with the Ineffable xill
Name ; how Moses had in boastfulness recounted to Sammael all his achievements,
real and legendary ; and how at last Moses had pursued the Enemy with the In
effable Name, aud in his anger taken off one of his horns of glory and blinded
Satan in one eye. We must be excused from further following this story through
its revolting details.
But, whether as the Angel of Death or as the seducer of man, Sammael has not
absolute power. When Israel took the Law upon themselves at Mount Sinai, they
became entirely free from his sway, and would have remained so, but for the sin of
the Golden Calf. Similarly, in the time of Ezra, the object of Israel's prayer (Neh.
viii. 6) was to have Satan delivered to them. After a three days' fast it wa3 granted,
and the Yetser haRa of idolatry, iu the shape of a young lion, was delivered up to
them. It would serve no good purpose to repeat the story of what was done with
the bound enemy, or how his cries were rendered inaudible in heaven. Suffice it
that, in view of the requirements of the present world, Israel liberated him from
the ephah covered with lead (Zech. v. 8), under which, by advice of the prophet
Zechariah, they had confined him, although for precaution they first put out his eyes
(Yoma, 69 b). And yet, in view, or probably, rather, in ignorance, of such teach
ing, modern criticism would derive the Satanology of- the New Testament and the
history of the Temptation from Jewish sources!
Over these six persons — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam,
with whom some apparently rank Benjamin — the Angel of Death had no power
(Baba B. 17 a). Benjamin, Amram, Jesse, and Chileb (the son of David) are said
to have died (only) through 'the sin of the serpent.' In other cases, also, Sammaei
may not be able to exercise his sway till, for example, he has by some ruse diverted
a theologian from his sacred study. Thus he interrupted the pious meditations of
David by going up into a tree and shaking it, when, as David went to examine it,
a rung of the ladder, on which he stood, broke, and so interrupted David's holy
thoughts. Similarly, Rabbi Chasda, by occupation with sacred study, warded off'
the Angel of Death till the crackling of a beam diverted his attention. Instances
of the awkwardness of the Enemy are related (Kethub. 77 b), and one Rabbi —
Joshua — actually took away his sword, only returning it by direct command of
God. Where, such views of Satan could even find temporary expression, super
stitious fears may have been excited; but the thought of moral evil and of a moral
combat .with it could never have found lodgment.
TIT. Evil Spirits (Shedim, Ruchin, Ruchoth, Lilin).
Here also, as throughout, we mark the presence of Parsee elements of super
stition. In general, these spirits resemble the gnomes, hobgoblins, elves, and sprites of
our fairy tales. They are cunning and malicious, and contact with them is dangerous ;
but they can scarcely be described as absolutely evil. Indeed, they often prove kind
and useful ; and may at all times be rendered innocuous, and even made serviceable.
1. Their origin, nature, and numbers. Opinions differ as to their origin, in fact,
they variously originated. According to Ab. 12 b, Ber. R. 7, they were created on
the eve of the first Sabbath. But since that time their numbers have greatly in
creased. For, according to Erub. 18 b. Ber. R. 20 (ed. Warsh. p. 40 b), multitudes of
them were the offspring of Eve and of male spirits, and of Adam with female spirits.

760 EVIL SPIRITS.
App. or with Lilith (the queen of the female spirits), during the 130 years that Adam
Xin had been under the ban, and before Seth was born (Gen. v. 3): l comp. Erub. 18 b.
Again, their number can scarcely be limited, since they propagate themselves
V~"""Y~"~'' (Chag. 16 a), resembling men in this as well as in their taking of nourishment and
dying. On the other hand, like the Angels they have wings, pass unhindered
through space, and know the future. Still further, they are produced by a process
of transformation from vipers, which, in the course of four times seven years, succes
sively pass through the forms of vampires, thistles and thorns, into Shedim (Bab. K.
16 a)— perhaps a parabolic form of indicating the origination of Shedim through the
fall of man. Another parabolic idea may be implied in the saying that Shedim
spring from the backbone of those who have not bent in worship (u. s.).
Although Shedim bear, when they appear, the form of human beings, they may
assume any other form. Those of their number who are identified with dirty
places are represented as themselves black (Kidd. 72 a). But the reflection of their
likeness is not the same as that of man. When conjured up, their position (whether
with the head or the feet uppermost) depends on the mode of conjuring. Some of
the Shedim have defects. Thus, those of them who lodge in the caper bushes are
blind, and an instance is related when one of their number, in pursuit of a Rabbi,
fell over the root of a tree and perished (Pes. Ill b). Trees, gardens, vineyards, and
also ruined and desolate houses, but especially dirty places, were their favourite
habitation, and the night-time, or before cock-crowing, their special time of appear
ance.2 Hence the danger of going alone into such places (Ber. 3 a, b; 62 a). A
company of two escaped the danger, while before three the Shed did not even
appear (Ber. 43 b). For the same reason it was dangerous to sleep alone in a house
(Shabb. 151 b), while the man who went out before cock-crow, without at least
carrying for protection a burning torch (though moonlight was far safer) had his
blood on his own head. If you greeted anyone in the dark you might unawares
bid Godspeed to a Shed (Sanh. 44 a). Nor was the danger of this inconsiderable,
since one of the worst of these Shedim, especially hurtful to Rabbis, was like a.
dragon with seven heads, each of which dropped off with every successive lowly
bending during Rabbi Acha's devotions (Kidd. 29 b). Specially dangerous times
were the eves of Wednesday and of the Sabbath. But it was » comfort to know-
that the Shedim could not create or produce anything; nor had they power over
that which had been counted, measured, tied up and sealed (Chull. 105 b); they
could be conquered by the ' Ineffable Name ; ' and they might be banished by the
use of certain formulas, which, when written and worn, served as amulets. .
The number of these spirits was like the earth that is thrown up around a bed
that is sown. Indeed, no one would survive it, if he saw their number. A thou
sand at your right hand and ten thousand at your left, such crowding in the
Academy or by the side of a bride; such weariness and faintness through their
malignant touch, which rent the very dress of the wearers! (Ber. C a.) The
queen of the female spirits had no less » following than 180,000 (Pes. 112 b).
Little as we imagine it, these spirits lurk everywhere around us: in the erumbs on
i From the expression 'a son in his own at night when he was confronted by the Prince
likeness,' &c, it is inferred that his previous of the Buchin with the quotation Deut. xix. 34
offspring during the 138 years was not in his ('Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's
likeness. landmark'), which seemed.to give the ' spirit '
2 The following Haggadah will illustrate a warrant for attacking him. But when the
both the power of the evil spirits at night Rabbi replied by quoting Prov. xxi. 14 ('a gift
and how amenable they are to reasoning. A in secret appeaseth wrath'), the ' spirit ' floe I
Rabbi was distributing his gifts to the poor in confusion (Jer; Peah viii. 9, p. 21 b).

ASHMEDAI. 761
the floor, in the oil in the vessels, in the water which we would drink, in the APP
diseases which attack us, in the even-numbered cups of our drinking, in the air, in xiH
the room, by day and by night.
2. Their arrangement. Generally, they may be arranged into male and female
spirits, the former under their king Ashmedai, the latter under their queen Lilith,
probably the same as Agrath bath Machlath — only that the latter may more fully pre
sent the hurtful aspect of the demoness. The hurtful spirits are specially designated
as Ruchin, Mazziqin (harmers), Malakhey Chabbalah (angels of damage), &c. From
another aspect they are arranged into four classes (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Numb.
vi. 24): the Tsaphrire, or morning spirits (Targ. on Ps. cxxi. 6; Targ. Cant. iv. 6);
the Tihare, or midday spirits (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Deut. xxxii 24; Targ. Cant.
iv. 6) ; the Telane, or evening spirits (Targ. Cant. iii. 8 ; iv. 6 ; Targ. Eccles. ii. 5) ;
and the Lilin, or night spirits (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Deut. xxxii. 34 ; Targ. Is.
xxxiv. 14). [According to 2 Targ. Esther ii. 1, 3, Solomon had such power over
them, that at his bidding they executed dances before him.]
a. Ashmedai (perhaps a Parsee name), Ashmodi, Ashmedon, or Shamdon, the
king ofthe demons (Gitt. 68 a, b; Pes. 110 a). It deserves notice, that this name
does not occur in the Jerusalem Talmud nor in older Palestinian sources.1 He is
represented as of immense size and strength, as cunning, malignant, and dissolute.
At times, however, he is known also to do works of kindness — such as to lead the
blind, or to show the road to a drunken man. Of course, he foreknows the future,
can do magic, but may be rendered serviceable by the use of the ' Ineffable Name, '
and especially by the signet of King Solomon, on which it was graven. The story
of Solomon's power over him is well known, and can here only be referred to in
briefest outline. It is said, that as no iron was to be used in the construction of
the Temple, Solomon was anxious to secure the services of the worm Shamir, which
possessed the power of cutting stones (see abou him Ab. Z. 12 a; Sot. 48 6; Gitt.
68 a, b). By advice of the Sanhedrin, Solomon conjured up for this purpose a
male and a female Shed, who directed him to Ashmedai. The latter lived at the
bottom of a deep cistern on a high mountain. Every morning on leaving it to go
into heaven and hear the decrees of the Upper Sanhedrin, he covered the cistern
with a stone, and sealed it. On this Benayah, armed with a chain, and Solomon's
signet with the Ineffable Name, went and filled the cistern with wine, which
Ashmedai, as all other spirits, hated. But as he could not otherwise quench his
thirst, Ashmedai became drunk, when it was easy, by means of the magical signet,
to. secure the chain around him. Without entering on the story of his exploits, or
how he indicated the custody of Shamir, and how ultimately the worm (which
was in the custody of the moor-cock 2) was secured, it appears that, by his cunning,
Ashmedai finally got released, when he immediately hurled Solomon to a great
distance, assumed his form, and reigned in his stead; till at last, after a series of
adventures, Solomon recovered his signet, which Ashmedai had flung away, and a
fish swallowed. Solomon was recognised by the Sanhedrin and Ashmedai fled at
sight of his signet. [Possibly the whole of this is only a parabolic form for the
story of Solomon's spiritual declension, and final repentance.]
b. Lilith, the queen of female spirits— to be distinguished from the Lilin or
' Hamburger ascribes this to the anxiety .of 2 The Tarnegol Bera — a. mythical animal
the Palestinians to guard Judaism from reaching from earth to heaven (Targ. on Ps.
Gnostic elements. We are, however, willing 1. 11)— also called Naggar Tura (Gitt. 68 b) from
to recognise in it an indirect influence of his activity in cleaving mountains.
Christianity.

762 THE SHEDIM.
App. night-spirits, and from Lela or Lailah, an Angel who accompanied Abraham on his
Xin expedition against Chedorlaomer (Sanh. 96 a). Here we recognise still more dis-
 , tinctly the Parsee elements. Lilith is 'the queen of Zemargad' (Targ. on Job
i. 15) — ' Zemargad ' representing all green crystals, malachite, and emerald — and the
land of Zemargad being ' Sheba.' Lilith is described as the mother of Hormiz or
Hormuz ' (Baba B. 73 a). Sometimes she is represented as a very fair woman,
but mostly with long, wild-flowing hair, and winged (Nidd. 24 6; Erub. 100 6).
In Pes. Ill a we have a formula for exorcising Lilith. In Pes. 112 6 (towards the
end) we are told how Agrath bath Machlath (probably the Zend word Agra—
' smiting, very wicked '—bath Machlath ' the dancer ') threatened Rabbi Chanina
with serious mischief, had it not been that his greatness had been [proclaimed in
heaven, on which the Rabbi would have shown his power by banning her from all
inhabited places, but finally gave her liberty on the eve of the fourth day and of
the Sabbath, which nights accordingly are the most dangerous seasons.
3. Character and habits of the Shedim. As many of the Angels, so many of
the Shedim, are only personifications. Thus, as diseases were often ascribed to their
agency, there were Shedim of certain diseases, as of asthma, croup, canine rabies,
madness, stomachic diseases, &c. Again, there were local Shedim, as of Samaria,
Tiberias, &c. On the other hand, Shedim might be employed in the magic cure of
diseases (Shabb. 67 a). In fact, to conjure up and make use of demons was con
sidered lawful, although dangerous (Sanh. 101 a), while a little knowledge of the
subject would enable a person to avoid any danger from them. Thus, although
Chamath, the demon of oil, brings eruptions on the face, yet the danger is avoided
if the oil is used out of the hollow of the hand, and not out of a vessel. Simi
larly, there are formulas by which the power of the demons can be counteracted.
In these formulas, where they are not Biblical verses, the names of the demons are
inserted. This subject will be further treated in another Appendix.
In general, we may expect to find demons on water, oil, or anything else that
has stood uncovered all night; on the hands before they have been washed for
religious purposes, and on the water in which they have been washed ; and on the
breadcrumbs on the floor. Demons may imitate or perform all that the prophets
or great men of old had wrought. The magicians of Egypt had imitated the
miracles of Moses by demoniacal power (Shem. R. 9). So general at the time of
our Lord was the belief in demons and in the power of employing them, that even
Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, 5) contended that the power of conjuring up, and driving out
demons, and of magical cures had been derived from King Hezekiah, to whom God
had given it. Josephus declares himself to have been an eye-witness of s.uch a
wonderful cure by the repetition of a magical formula. This illustrates the conten
tion of the Scribes that the miraculous cures of bur Lord were due to demoniac
agency. Legions of demons lay in waiting for any error or failing on the part of man.
Their power extended over all even numbers.2 Hence, care must be had not to
drink an even number of cups (Ber. 51 6), except on the Passover night, when the
demons have no power over Israel (Pes. 109 6). On the other hand, there are
demons who might almost be designated as familiar spirits, who taught the Rabbis,
1 Hamburger renders it Ahriman, but it seems notice of a controversy with a Mage.
rather like Hormuzd. Perhaps the Rabbis 2 The superstition 'There's luck in odd
wished to combine both. Ahriman is written numbers ' has passed to all nations.
Ahurmin, Sanh. 39 a, in that very curious

THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF ANGELS AND DEVILS. 763
Shed Joseph (Pes. liO a) and the Shed Jonathan (Yeb. 122 a). Rabbi Papa had a APP
young Shed to wait upon him (Chull. 105 6). There can, however, be no difficulty xni
in making sure of their real existence. As Shedim have cock's feet, nothing more
is required than to strew ashes by the side of one's bed, when in the morning their
marks will be perceived (Ber. 6 a ; Gitt. 68 b). It was by the shape of his feet
that the Sanhedrin hoped to recognise, whether Ashmedai was really Solomon, or
not, but it was found that he never appeared with his feet uncovered. The Talmud
(Ber. 6 a) describes the following as an infallible means for actually seeing these
spirits: Take the afterbirth of a black cat which is the daughter of a black cat —
both mother and daughter being firstborn — burn it in the fire, and put some of the
ashes in your eyes. Before using them, the ashes must be put into an iron tube,
and sealed with an iron signet. It is added, thai Rabbi Bibi successfully tried this
experiment, but was hurt by the demons, on which he was restored to health by
the prayers of the Rabbis.1
Other and kindred questions, such as those of amulets, &c, will be treated
under demoniac possessions. But may we not here once more and confidently
appeal to impartial students whether, in view of this sketch of Jewish Angelology
and Satanology, the contention can be sustained that the teaching of Christ on
this subject has been derived from Jewish sources?
1 Dr. Kohut's comparison of Rabbinic Angel- ments derived from Jewish Angelology and
ology and Demonology with Parseeism (Ueber Satanology by the author of 'Supernatural
d. jud. Angelol. u. Damonol. in ihrer Abhang. Religion' are based on inaccurate and un-
vom Parsismus) is extremely interesting, critical information, and do not require de-
although not complete and its conclusions tailed discussion.
sometimes strained. The negative argu-

764 THE LAW IN MESSIANIC TIMES.

APPENDIX XIV.
THE LAW IN MESSIANIC TIMES.
(See vol. i. Book 111. ch. iii. p. 341.)
APP. The question as to the Rabbinic views in' regard to the binding character of the
XIV Law, and its imposition on the Gentiles, in Messianic times, although, strictly
^—^^ speaking, not forming part of this history, is of such vital importance in con
nection with recent controversies as to demand special consideration. In the text
to which this Appendix refers it has been indicated, that a new legislation was
expected in Messianic days. The ultimate basis of this expectancy must be sought
in the Old Testament itself — not merely in such allusions as to the intrinsic
worthlessness of sacrifices, but in such passages as Deut. xviii. 15, 18, and its
prophetic commentary in Jer. xxxi. 31, &c. It was with a view to this that the
Jewish deputation inquired whether John the Baptist was 'that Prophet' For, as
has been shown, Rabbinism associated certain reformatory and legislative functions
with the appearance of the Forerunner of the Messiah (Eduy. viii. 7).
There were, indeed, in this, as in most respects, diverging opinions according to
the different standpoints of the Rabbis, and, as we infer, not without controversial
bearing on the teaching of Christianity. The strictest tendency may be charac
terised as that which denied the possibility of any change in the ceremonial Law,
as well as the abrogation of festivals in the future. Even the destruction of the
Temple, and with it the necessary cessation of sacrifices — if, indeed, which is a
moot question, all sacrifices did at once and absolutely cease — only caused a gap ;
just as exile from the land could only free from such laws as attached to the soil
of Israel.1 The reading of the sacrificial sections in the Law (Meg. 31 6; Ber. R.
44)— at any rate, in conjunction with prayers (Ber. 2 6), but especially study of
the Law (Men. 110 a), took in the meantime the place of the sacrifices. And as
regarded the most sacred of all sacrifices, that of the Day of Atonement, it was
explained that the day rather than the sacrifices brought reconciliation (Sifra c. 8).
This party held the principle that not only those Divine, but even those Rabbinic,
ordinances, which apparently had been intended only for a, certain time or for a
certain purpose, were of eternal duration (Bezah 5 6). ' The law is never to cease;
there are the commandments — since there is no prophet who may change a word
in them.'2
1 In the Book Cusari (iii. 49, ed. Cassel, Schrift des Lebens, i. pp. 319-336 (ch. on ' The
p. 274) an inference somewhat inconvenient Messiah'), to the article on the Messiah in
to Rabbinism is drawn from this. If, as it Hamburger's Real-Encycl. ii. pp. 747, 748, and
asserts, Levitical uncleanness and holiness especially to that most interesting brochure
are correlative terms, the one implying the of Rabbi Holdheim, Das Ceremonialges. im
other, would it not follow that with thecessa- Messias-Reich. I have not read a more clear
tion of the Jewish economy the whole cere- demonstration of the impossibility of Rabbin-
monial Law would also cease? See Cassel's ism, nor— strange as it may sound — a fuller
note. vindication of the fundamental positions of
2 For further particulars I refer to Stein, Christianity.

THE LAW IN MESSIANIC TIMES. 7,55
So far were these views carried, that it was asserted: 'Israel needs not the APP
teaching of the King Messiah,' but that ' He only comes to gather the dispersed, and xiY
to give to the Gentiles thirty commandments, as it is written (Zechar. xi. 12),
" they weighed me my price, thirty pieces of silver ' ' (Ber. R. 98). But even these
extreme statements seem to imply that keen controversy had raged on the subject.
Besides, the most zealous defenders of the Law admitted that the Gentiles were to
receive laws in Messianic times. The smallest and most extreme section held that,
the laws, as Israel observed them, would be imposed on the Gentiles (Chull. 92 a) ;
others that only thirty commandments, the original Noachic ordinances, supposed to be
enumerated in Lev. xix., would become obligatory,1 while some held, that only
three ordinances would be binding on the new converts : two connected with the Feast
of Tabernacles, the third, that of the phylacteries (Midr. on Ps. xxxi. 1, ed. Warsh.,
p. 30 6). On the other hand, we have the most clear testimony that the prevailing
tendency of teaching was in a different direction. In a very curious passage
(Yaikut ii. 296, p. 46 a), in which the final restitution of 'the sinners of Israel and
of the righteous of the Gentiles ' who are all in Gehinnom, is taught in very
figurative language, we are told of a 'new Law which God will give by the
Messiah' in the age to come — thanksgiving for which calls forth that universal
Amen, not only on earth but in Gehinnom, which leads to the deliverance of those
who are in the latter. But as this may refer to the time of the final consummation,
we turn to other passages. The Midrash on Song ii. 13, applying the passage in
conjunction with Jer. xxxi. 31, expressly states that the Messiah would give Israel
'anew law, and the Targum, on Is. xii., 3, although perhaps not quite so clearly,
also speaks of a 'new instruction.' It is needless to multiply proofs (such as
Vayyikra R. 13). But the Talmud goes even further, and lays down the two
principles, that in the ' age to come ' the whole ceremonial Law and all the feasts
were to cease.2 And although this may be regarded as merely a general statement,
it is definitely applied to the effect, that all sacrifices except the thank-offering, and
all fasts and feasts except the Day of Atonement, or else the Feast of Esther, were
to come to an end — nay (in the Midr. on the words ' the Lord looseth the bound,'
Ps. cxlvi. 7), that what had formerly been ' bound ' or forbidden would be ' loosed '
or allowed, notably that the distinctions between clean and unclean animals would
be removed. There is the less need of apology for any digression here, that, besides the
intrinsic interest of the question, it casts light on two most important sub
jects. For, first, it illustrates the attempt of the narrowest Judaic party in the
Church to force on Gentile believers the yoke of the whole Law ; the bearing of
St. Paul in this respect; his relation to St. Peter; the conduct of the latter; and
the proceedings of the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem (Acts xv.). St. Paul, in his
opposition to that party, stood even on Orthodox Jewish ground. But when he
asserted, not only a new ' law of liberty,' but the typical and preparatory character
of the whole Law, and its fulfilment in Christ, he went far beyond the' Jewish
standpoint. Further, the favourite modern theory as to fundamental opposition in
principle between Pauline and Petrine theology in this respect, has, like many kindred
theories, no support in the Jewish views on that subject, unless we suppose that
Peter had belonged to the narrowest Jewish school, which his whole history seems
to forbid. We can also understand, how the Divinely granted vision of the
abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Acts x. 9-16)
1 Stein, u. s. pp. 327, 328. ¦ Comp, on this Holdheim, Das Ceremonialges, p. 46.

766 THE LAW IN MESSIANIC TIMES.
APP. "lay, though coming'as a surprise, have had a natural basis in Jewish expectancy,1
Xiv an(J *t explains how the Apostolic Synod, when settling the question,2 ultimately
^^  , fell back on the so-called Noachic commandments, though with very wider-reaching
principles underlying their decision (Acts xv. 13-21). Lastly, it seems to cast even
some light on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel; for, the question about 'that
prophet' evidently referring to the possible alteration of the Law in Messianic
times, which is reported only in the Fourth Gospel, shows such close acquaintance
with the details of Jewish ideas on this subject, as seems to us utterly incompatible
with its supposed origination as ' The Ephesian Gospel ' towards the end of the
second century, the outcome of Ephesian Church-teaching — an ' esoteric and eclec
tic ' book, designed to modify ' the impressions produced by the tradition previously
recorded by the Synoptists.'
1 The learned reader will find a very curious 2 Yaikut 1. 15, p. 4, d, towards the middle. A
illustration of this in that strange Haggadah considerable part of vol. iii. of 'Supernatural
about the envy of the serpent being excited Religion' is devoted to argumentation on this
on seeing Adam fed with meat from heaven — subject. But here also the information of
where another equally curious Haggadah is the writer on the subject is neither accurate
related to show that 'nothing is unclean nor critical, and hence his reasoning and
which cometh down from heaven.' conclusions are vitiated.

LOCATION OF SYCHAR. 767

APPENDIX XV.
THE LOCATION OF SYCHAR, AND THE DATE OF OUR LORD'S VISIT TO SAMARIA.
(See vol. i. Book III. ch. viii.)
I. The Location op Sychak.
Although modern writers are now mostly agreed on this subject, it may be well APP.
briefly to put before our readers the facts of the case. XV
Till comparatively lately, the Sychar of St. John iv. was generally regarded as ¦ _j- -»
representing the ancient Shechem. The first difficulty here was the name, since "
Shechem, or even Sichem, could scarcely be identified with Sychar, which is un
doubtedly the correct reading. Accordingly, the latter term was represented as
one of opprobrium, and derived from ' Shekhar ' (in Aramaean Shikhra), as it were,
'drunken town,' or else from 'Sheqer' (in Aramaean Shiqra), 'lying town.' But,
not to mention other objections, there is no trace of such an alteration of the name
Sychar in Jewish writings, while its employment would seem wholly incongruous
in such a narrative as St. John iv. Moreover, all the earliest writers distinguished
Sychar from Shechem. Lastly, in the Talmud the name Sokher, also written Sik'ira,
frequently occurs, and that not only as distinct from Shechem, but in a connection
which renders the hypothesis of an opprobrious by-name impossible. Professor
Delitzch (Zeitschrift fur Luther. Theol. for 1856, ii. pp. 242, 243) has collected
seven passages from the Babylon Talmud to that effect, in five of which Sichra is
mentioned as the birthplace of celebrated Rabbis — the town having at a later period
apparently been left by the Samaritans, and occupied by Jews (Baba Mez. 42 a,
83 a, Pes. 31 6, Nidd. 36 a, Chull. 18 6, and, without mention of Rabbis, Baba K.
82 6, Menach. 64 6. See also Men. x. 2, and Jer. Sheq. p. 48 d). If further proof
were required, it would be sufficient to say that a woman would scarcely have gone
a mile and a half from Shechem to Jacob's well to fetch water, when there are so
many springs about the former city. In these circumstances, later writers have
generally fixed upon the village of 'Askar, half a mile from Jacob's Well, and
within sight of it, as the Sychar of the New Testament, one of the earliest to advo
cate this view having been the late learned Canon Williams. Little more than a
third of a mile from 'Askar is the reputed tomb of Joseph. The transformation of
the name Sychar into 'Askar is explained, either by a contraction of 'Ain 'Askar,
'the well of Sychar,' or else by the fact that in the Samaritan Chronicle the place
is called Iskar, which seems to have been the vulgar pronunciation of Sychar. A
full description of the place is given by Captain Conder (Tent-Work in Palestine,
vol. i. pp. 71 <fec, especially pp. 75 and 76), and by M. Guerin, 'La Samarie,' vol. i.
p. 371, although the latter writer, who almost always absolutely follows tradition,
denies the identity of Sychar and 'Askar (pp. 401, 402). ;

768 DATE OF CHRIST'S VISIT TO SYCHAR.
APP. H- Time op ouk Lord's Visit to Sychar.
XV This question, which is of such importance not only for the chronology of this
~"^~— "^ period, but. in regard to the unnamed Feast at Jerusalem to which Jesus went up
(St. John v. 1), has been discussed most fully and satisfactorily by Canon Westcott
(Speaker's Commentary, vol. ii. of the New Testament, p. 93). The following data
will assist our inquiries.
1. Jesus spent some time after the Feast of Passover (St. John ii. 23) in the
province of Juda?a. But it can scarcely be supposed that this was a long
period, for —
2ndly, in St. John iv. 45 the Galileans have evidently a fresh remembrance of
what had taken place at the Passover in Jerusalem, ; which would scarcely have
been the case if a long period and other festivals had intervened. Similarly, the
' King's Officer ' (St. John iv. 47) seems also to act upon a recent report.
3rdly, the unnamed Feast of St. John v. 1 forms an important element in our
computations. Some months of Galilean ministry must have intervened between
it and the return of Jesus to Galilee. Hence it could not have been Pentecost.
Nor could it have been the Feast of Tabernacles, which was in autumn, nor yet the
Feast of the Dedication, which took place in winter, since both are expressly men
tioned by their names (St. John vii. 2, x. 22). The only other Feasts were : the
Feast of Wood-Offering (comp. 'The Temple,' &c, p. 295), the Feast of Trumpets,
or New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Esther, or Purim.
To begin with the latter, since of late it has found most favour. The reasons
against Christ's attendance in Jerusalem at Purim seem to me irresistible. Canon
Westcott urges that the discourse of Christ at the unnamed Feast has not, as is
generally the case, any connection with the thoughts of that festival. To this I
would add, that I can scarcely conceive our Lord going up to a feast observed with
such boisterous merriment as Purim was, while the season of the year in which it
falls would scarcely tally with the statement of St. John v. 3, that a great
multitude of sick people were laid down in the porches of Bethesda.1
But if the unnamed Feast was not Purim, it must have been one of these three,
the Feast of the Ingathering of Wood, the Feast of Trumpets, or the Day of Atone
ment. In other words, it must have taken place late in summer, or in the very
beginning of autumn. But if so, then the Galilean ministry intervening between
the visit to Samaria and this Feast leads to the necessary inference that the visit to
Sychar had taken place in early summer, probably about the middle or end of
May. This would allow ample time for Christ's stay at Jerusalem during the
Passover and for His Judffian ministry.
As we are discussing the. date of the unnamed Feast, it may be as well to bring
the subject here to a close. We have seen that the only three Feasts to which
reference could have been made are the Feast of Wood Offering, the Feast of
Trumpets, and the Day of Atonement. But the last of these could not be meant,
since it is designated, not only by Philo, but in acts xxvii. 9, as ' the fast,' not the
feast vr)o-rsia, not iopr?7(comp. LXX., Lev. xiv. 29 &c, xxiii. 27 &c). As between
the Feast of the Wood Offering and that of Trumpets I feel at considerable loss,
Canon Westcott has urged on behalf of the latter reasons which I confess are very
1 I must here correct the view expressed in course, if the latter had implied that Jesus
my book on 'The Temple,' p. 291, due to a was at Sychar in December, the unnamed
misunderstanding of St. John iv. 35. Of feast must have been Purim.

DATE OF CHRIST'S VISIT TO SYCHAR. 769
weighty. On the other hand, the Feast of Trumpets was not one of those on APP.
which people generally resorted to Jerusalem, and as it took place on the 1st of xv
Tishri (about the middle of September), it is difficult to believe that anyone going
up to it would not rather have chosen, or at least remained over, the Day of Atone
ment and the Feast of Tabernacles, which followed respectively, on the 10th and
15th days of that month. Lastly, the Feast of Wood Offering, which took place
on the 15th Ab (in August), was a popular and joyous festival, when the wood
needed for the altar was brought up from all parts of the country (comp. on that
feast 'The Temple and its Services,' &c, pp. 295, 296). As between these two
feasts, we must leave the question undecided, only noting that barely six weeks in
tervened between the one and the other feast.

770 JEWISH VIEWS ABOUT THE DEMONISED.

APPENDIX XVI.
ON THE JEWISH VIEWS ABOUT ' DEMONS' AND ' THE DEMONISED, ' TOGETHER
WITH SOME NOTES ON THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JEWS AND JEWISH
CHRISTIANS IN THE FIRST CENTURIES.
(See vol. i. Book III. ch. xiv.)
^yDp It is not, of course, our purpose here to attempt an exhaustive account of the Jewish
Xyj views on -demons' and 'the demonised.' A few preliminary strictures are, how
ever, necessary on a work upon which writers on this subject have too implicitly
relied. I refer to Gfrorer's Jahrhundert des Heils (especially vol. i. pp. 378 —
+24). Gfrorer sets out by quoting a passage in the Book of Enoch on which he
lays great stress, but which the critical inquiries of Dillmann and other scholars
have shown to be of no value in the argument. This disposes of many pages of
negative criticism on the New Testament which Gfrorer founds on this quotation.
Similarly, 4 Esdras would not in our days be adduced in evidence of pre-Christian
teaching. As regards Rabbinic passages, Gfrorer uncritically quotes from Kab-
balistic works which he mixes up with quotations from the Talmud and from
writings of a, later date. Again, as regards the two quotations of Gfrorer from
the Mishnah (Erub. iv. 1; Gitt. vii. 1), it has already been stated (vol. i. p. 481,
note 4) that neither of these passages bears any reference to demoniac possessions.
Further, Gfrorer appeals to two passages in Sifre which may here be given in
exienso. The first of these (ed. Friedmann, p. 107 b) is on Deut. xviii. 12, and
reads thus: 'He who joins himself (cleaves) to uncleanness, on him rests the spirit
of uncleanness; but he who cleaves to the Shechinah, it is meet that the Holy
Spirit should rest on him.' The second occurs in explanation of Deut. xxxii. 16,
and reads as follows (u. s. p. 136 6): 'What is the way of a "demon" (Shed)'!
He enters into a man and subjects him.' It will be observed that in both these
quotations reference is made to certain moral, not to physical effects, such as in the
case of the demonised. Lastly, although one passage from the Talmud which
Gfrorer adduces (though not quite exactly) applies, indeed, to demouiacal posses
sions, but is given in an exaggerated and embellished form.
If from these incorrect references we turn to what Jewish authorities really state
on the subject, we have: —
1. To deal with the Writings of Josephus. In Autiq. vi. 8. 2, Josephus ascribes
Saul's disorder to demoniac influence, which ' brought upon him such suffocations
as were ready to choke him.' In Antiq. vi. 8. 2, the demon-spirit is said to enter
into Saul, and to disorder him. In Antiq. viii. 2. 5, Josephus describes the wisdom,
learning, and achievements of Solomon, referring specially to his skill in expelling
demons who caused various diseases. According to Josephus, Solomon had exer
cised this power by incantations, his formulas and words of exorcism being still

RABBINIC VIEWS ABOUT THE DEMONISED. 771
known in Josephus's days. Iu such manner a certain Eleazar had healed a ' demo- API'.
niac ' in the presence of Vespasian, his officers, and troops, by putting to his nos- xvi
trils a ring ' that held a root of one of those mentioned by Solomon,' by which the v_-^s_«^
demon was drawn out amidst convulsions of the demoniac, when the demon was
further adjured not to return by frequent mention of the name of Solomon, and by
' incantations which he [Solomon] had composed.' To show the reality of this, a,
vessel with water had been placed at a little distance, and the demon had, in com
ing out, overturned it. It is probably to this ' root ' that Josephus refers in War.
vii. 6. 3, where he names it Baaras, which I conjecture to be the equivalent of
the form NT3)j2> boara, ' the burning,' since he describes it as of colour like a flame,
and as emitting at even a ray like lightning, and which it would cost a man's life
to take up otherwise than by certain magical means which Josephus specifies.
From all this we infer that Josephus occupied the later Talmudical standpoint, alike
as regards exorcism, magical cures, and magical preventions. This is of great im
portance as showing that these views prevailed in New Testament times. But when
Josephus adds, that the demons expelled by Baaras were ' the spirits of the wicked,'
he represents a superstition which i3 not shared by the earlier Rabbis, and may
possibly be due to a rationalising attempt to account for the phenomenon. It is, in
deed, true that the same view occurs in comparatively late Jewish writings, and
that in Yaikut on Is. 46 6 there appears to be a reference to it, at least in connec
tion with the spirits of those who had perished in the flood ; but this seems to be
long to a different cycle of legends.
2. Rabbinic views.1 Probably the nearest approach to the idea of Josephus
that ' demons ' were the souls of the wicked, is the (perhaps allegorical) statement
that the backbone of a person who did not bow down to worship God became a
Shed, or demon (Baba K. 16 a; Jer. Shabb. 3 6). The ordinary names for demons
are ' evil spirits,' or ' unclean spirits ' (ruach raah,2 ruach tumeah), Seirim (lit. goats).
Shedim (Sheyda, a demon, male or female, either because their chief habitation is in
desolate places, or from the word 'to fly about,' or else from ' to rebel'), and Mazzikin
(the hurtful ones). A demoniac is called Gebher Shediyin (Ber. R. 65). Even this,
that demons are supposed to eat and drink, to propagate themselves, and to die. dis
tinguishes them from the ' demons ' of the New Testament. The food of demons con
sists of certain elements in fire and water, and of certain odours. Hence the mode of
incantation by incense made of certain ingredients. Of their origin, number, habita
tion, aud general influence, sufficient has been said in the Appendix on Demonology.
It is more important here to notice these two Jewish ideas: that demons entered
into, or took possession of, men ; and that many diseases were due to their agency.
The former is frequently expressed. The ' evil spirit ' constrains a man to do certain
things, such as to pass beyond the Sabbath-boundary (Erub. 41 b), to eat the
Passover-bread, &c. (Rosh ha-Sh. 28 a). But it reads more like a caustic than a
serious remark when we are informed that these three things deprive a man of his
free will and make him transgress: the Cutlueans, an evil spirit, and poverty (Erub.
u.s.). Diseases— such as rabies, angina, asthma, or accidents— such as an encounter
with a wild bull, are due to their agency, which, happily, is not unlimited. As
stated in App. Xin. the most dangerous demons are those of dirty (secret) places
(Shabb. 67 a). Even numbers (2, 4, 6, &c.) are always dangerous, so is anything
that comes from unwashen hands. For such, or similar oversights, a whole legion
i I would here generally acknowledge my = Erub. 41 b ; Pes. 112 a. The more common
abligations to Dr! Brecher's tractate on the designation is r. tumeah ; but there are others.
subject.

772 JEWISH VIEWS ABOUT MAGIC.
APP. of demons is on the watch (Ber. 51 a). On the evening of the Passover the demons
XVI are bound, and, in general, their power has now been restricted, chiefly to the
^^^^ eves of Wednesday and of the Sabbath (Pes. 109 b to 112 b, passim). Yet there
are, as we shall see, circumstances in which it would be foolhardiness to risk their
encounter. Without here entering on the views expressed in the Talmud about
prophecy, visions, and dreams, we turn to the questions germane to our subject.
A. Magic and Magicians. We must here bear in mind that the practice of
magic was strictly prohibited to Israelites, and that — as a, matter of principle at
least-— witchcraft, or magic, was supposed to have no power over Israel,, if they
owned and served their God (Chull. 7 6 ; Nedar. 32 a). But in this matter also
— as will presently appear — theory and practice did not accord. Thus, under certain
circumstances, the repetition of magical formulas was declared lawful even on the
Sabbath (Sanh. 101 a). Egypt was regarded as the home of magic (Kidd. 49 b;
Shabb. 75 a). In connection with this, it deserves notice that the Talmud ascribes
the miracles of Jesus to magic, which He had learned during His stay in Egypt,
having taken care, when He left, to insert under His skin its rules and formulas,
since every traveller, on quitting the country, was searched, lest he should take to
other lands the mysteries of magic (Shabb. 104 b).
Here it may be interesting to refer to some of the strange ideas which
Rabbinism attached to the early Christians, as showing both the intercourse be
tween the two parties, and that the Jew3 did not deny the gift of miracles in the
Church, only ascribing its exercise to magic. Of the existence of such intercourse
with Jewish Christians there is abundant evidence. Thus, R. Joshua, the son of
Levi (at the end of the second century), was so hard pressed by their quotations
from the Bible that, unable to answer, he pronounced a curse on them, which, how
ever, did not come. We gather, that in the first century Christianity had widely
spread among the Jews, and R. Ishmael, the son of Elisha, the grandson of that
High-Priest who was executed by the Romans (Josephus, War i. 2, 2), seems in
vain to have contended against the advance of Christianity. At last he agreed
with R. Tarphon that nothing else remained but to burn their writings. It was
this R. Ishmael who prevented his nephew Ben Dama from being cured of the bite
of a serpent by a Christian, preferring that he should die rather than be healed by
such means (Abod. Zar. 27 6, about the middle). Similarly, the great R. Eliezer
ben Hyrcanus, also in the first century, was so suspected of the prevailing heresy
that he was actually taken up as a Christian in the persecution of the latter.
Though he cleared himself of the suspicion, yet his contemporaries regarded him
for a time doubtfully, and all agreed that the troubles which befell him were in
punishment for having listened with pleasure to the teaching of the heretics (Ab.
Z. 16 6, 17 a.1 The following may be mentioned as instances of the magic
practiced by these heretics. In Jer. Sanh. 25 d, we are told about two great
Rabbis who were banned by a heretic to the beam of a bath. In return the Rabbis,
by similar means, fastened the heretic to the door of the bath. Having mutually-
agreed to set each other free, the same parties next met on board a ship. Here the
heretic by magical means clave the sea, by way of imitating Moses. On this the
Rabbis called upon him to walk through the sea, like Moses, when he was immedi
ately overwhelmed through the ban of R. Joshua ! Other stories of a similar and
even more absurd character might be quoted. But if such, opinions were enter
tained of Jewish Christians, we can scarcely wonder that all their books were
1 See more on this subject in vol. il. pp. 193, 191.

JEWISH VIEWS ABOUT MAGIC. 770;
Ordered to be burnt (Bemid. R. 9), that even a roll of the Law written by a heretic APP
was to be destroyed (Gitt 45 6), and that Jewish Christians were consigned to xvi
eternal punishment in Gehinnom (Rosh. haSh. 17 a), from which even the token of
circumcision should not deliver them since an Angel would convert it into uncir-
cumcision (Shem R. 191).
But to return. Talmudic writings distinguish several classes of magicians^ The
Baal Obh, or conjuror of the dead, evoked a voice from under the armpit, or from
other members of the dead body, the arms or other members being struck together,
for the purpose of eliciting the sound. Necromancy might be practised in two
different ways. The dead might be called up (by a method which scarcely bears
description), in which case they would appear with the feet upwards. But this
must not be practised on the Sabbath. Or again, a skull might, by magical
means, be made to answer. This might be done on the Sabbath also (Sanh. 65 a
and 6). Or a demon might be conjured up by a certain kind of incense, and then
employed in magic. A second class of magicians (called Yideoni) uttered oracles
by putting a certain bone into their mouth. Thirdly, there was the Chabar, or
serpent charmer, a distinction being made between a great and a small Chabar,
according as larger or smaller serpents were charmed. Fourthly, we have the
Meonen, who could indicate what days or hours were lucky and unlucky. Fifthly,
there was the ' searcher after the dead,' who remained fasting on graves in order to
communicate with an unclean spirit; and, lastly, the Menachesh, who knew what
omens were lucky and what unlucky (Sanh. 66 a). And if they were treated
only as signs and not as omens, the practice was declared lawful (Chull. 95 6).
In general the black art might be practised either through demons, or else by
the employment of magical means. Among the latter we reckon, not only incan
tations, but magic by means of the thumb, by a knife with a black handle, or by a
glass cup (Sanh. 67 6), or by a cup of incantation (Baba Mets. 29 6). But there was
danger here, since, if all proper rules and cautions were not observed the magician
might be hurt by the demon. Such an instance is related, although the Rabbi in
question was mercifully preserved by being swallowed by a cedar, which after
wards burst and set him free (Sanh. 101 a). Women were specially suspected of
witchcraft (Jer. Sanh. vii. 25 d), and great caution was accordingly enjoined.
Thus, it might even be dangerous to lift up loaves of bread (though not broken
pieces) lest they should be bewitched (Erub. 64 6). A number of instances are
related in which persons were in imminent danger from magic, in some of which they
suffered not only damage but death, while in others the Rabbis knew how to turn
the impending danger against their would-be assailants. (Comp. for example Pes.
110 6; Sot. 22 a) Gitt. 45 a; Sanh. 67 6). A very peculiar idea is that about the
Teraphim of Scripture. It occurs already in the Targum Ps.-Jon. on Gen. xxxi. 19,
and is found also in the Pirqe de R. Eliez. c. 36. It is statea that the Teraphim
were made in the following manner: a first-born was killed, his head cut off, and
prepared with salt and spices, after which a gold plate, upon which magical formulas
had been graven, was placed under his tongue, when the head was supposed to give
answer to whatever questions might be addressed to it.
B. After this we can scarcely wonder, that so many diseases should have been
1 We have here only been able to indicate between Jews and Christians. Nay, the prac-
this most interesting subject. Much more tice of some early Christians to make them-
reulfeins to be said concerning Eliezer b. Hyr- selves eunuchs Is alluded to in the Talmud
canus, and others. There seem even to have (Shabb. 152 a).
been regular meeting-places for discussion

774 DISEASES CAUSED BY DEMONIAC AGENCY.
APp. imputed to magical or else to demoniac influences, and cured either by magical
XVI means or by exorcism. For our present purpose we leave aside not only the ques-
.. jr_ _^, tion, whether and what diseases were regarded as the punishment of certain sins,
but also all questions as to their magical causes and means of cure. We confine our
remarks to the supposed power of evil spirits in the production of diseases. Four
things are mentioned as dangerous on account of demons, of which we shall only
mention three : To walk between two palm-trees,1 if the space is wider than four
cubits; to borrow drinking-water; and to walk over water that has been poured
out, unless it have been covered with earth, or spat upon, or you have taken off your
shoes (Pes. Ill a). Similarly, the shadow of the moon, of certain trees, and of other
objects, is dangerous, because demons -love to hide there. Much caution must also
be observed in regard to the water with which the hands are washed in the morn
ing, as well as in regard to oil for anointing, which must never be taken from a
strange vessel which might have been bewitched.
Many diseases are caused by direct demoniac agency. Thus, leprosy (Horay.
10 a), rabies (Yoma 83 6), heart-disease (Gitt. 67 b), madness, asthma (Bechor.
44 b), croup (Yoma 77 6; Taan. 20 6), and other diseases, are ascribed to special
demons. And although I cannot find any notices of demoniac possession in the
sense of permanent indwelling, yet an evil spirit may seize and influence a person.
The nearest approach to demoniac possession is in a legend of two Rabbis who
went to Rome to procure the repeal of a persecuting edict, when they were met on
board ship by a demon, Ben Temalion, whose offer of company they accepted, in
hope of being able to do some miracle through him. Arrived in Rome, the demon
took possession of the daughter of Cassar. On this he was exorcised by the Rabbis
('Ben Temalion, come out! Ben Temalion, come out!'), when they were rewarded
by the offer of anything they might choose from the Imperial Treasury, on which
they removed from it the hostile decree (Meilah 17 6, about the middle).
As against this one instance, many are related of cures by magical means. By
the latter we mean- the superstitious and irrational application of means which
could in no way affect any disease, although they might sometimes be combined
with what might be called domestic remedies. Thus, for a bad cold in the head this
remedy is proposed: Pour slowly a quart of the milk of a white goat over three
¦cabbage stalks, keep the pot boiling and stir with a piece of ' Marmehon-wood '
{Gitt, 69 a, b). The other remedy proposed is the excrement of a white dog mixed
with balsam. It need scarcely be said, that the more intractable the disease, the
more irrational are the remedies proposed. Thus against blindness by day it is
proposed to take of the spleen of seven calves and put it on the basin used by
surgeons for bleeding. Next, some one outside the door is to ask the blind man to
give him something to eat, when he is to reply: How can I open the door— come in
and «at— on which the latter obeys, taking care, however, to break the basin, as
else the blindness might strike him. We have here an indication of one of 'the
favourite modes of healing disease— that by its transference to another. But if
the loss of the power of vision is greater at night than by day, a cord is to be
made of the hair of some animal, one end of which is to be tied to the foot of the
patient, the other to that of a dog. The children are to strike together pieces of
crockery behind the dog, while the patient repeats these words: 'The dog is old
and the cock is foolish.' Next seven pieces of meat are to be taken from seven
1 In general palm-trees and their fruit are dangerous, and you should alwavs wash ™„
hands after eating dates. . - . 'uur

MAGICAL CURES. ,775
different houses, and hung up on the doorposts, and the dog must afterwards eat APP
the m'eaton a dunghill in an open place. Lastly, the cord is to be untied when xvi
one is to repeat: ' Let the blindness of M. the son of N. leave M. the son of N.
and pierce the eyeballs of the dog! ' (Gitt, 69 a). ' ~'~ r
We have next to refer to strictly magical cures. These were performed by
amulets— either preventive, or curative of disease— or else by exorcism. An
amulet was regarded as probate, if three cures had been performed by it. In
such case it might be put 011 even on the Sabbath. It consisted either of a
piece of parchment (the Pithqa, Sanh. 78 6), on which certain magical words were
written, or of small bundles of certain plants or herbs (also designated a3 Qemia,
an amulet, Shabb. 61 a; Kidd. 73 6). However, even probate amulets might
fail, owing to the adverse constellation under which a person was. In any
case the names and numbers of the demons, whose power it was wished
to counteract, required to be expressly stated. Sometimes the amulet con
tained also a verse from the Bible. It need scarcely be said, that the other
words written on the amulet had — at least, in their connection — little, if any
sensible meaning. But those learned in these arts and the Rabbis had the
secret of discovering them, so that there was at least no mystery about them,
and the formulas used were well known. If the mischief to be counteracted
was due to demoniac agency, it might be prevented or removed by a kind of
incantation, or by incantation along with other means, or in difficult cases by
exorcism. As instances of the first we may quote the following. To ward off
¦any danger from drinking water on a Wednesday or Sabbath-Evening, when" evil
spirits may rest on it, it is advised either to repeat a passage of Scripture in
which the word Qol (' Voice ') occurs seven times (Ps. xxix. 3-9), or else to say
this; 'Lul, Shaphan, Anigron, Anirdaphin — between the stars I sit, betwixt the
lean and the fat I walk!' (Pes. 112 a). Against flatulence, certain remedies are
recommended (3uch as drinking warm water), but they are to be accompanied by
the following formula: ' Qapa, Qapa, I think of thee, and of thy seven daughters,
and eight daughters-in-law ! ' (Pes. 116 a). Many similar prescriptions might
be quoted. As the remedy against blindness has been adduced to point the
contrast to the Saviour's mode of treatment, it may be mentioned that quite a
number of remedies are suggested for the cure of a bloody flux — of which per
haps wine in whieh Persian onions, or anise and saffron, or other plants have been
boiled, seem the most rational — the medicament being, however, in each case
accompanied by this formula: ' Be cured of thy flux ! '
Lastly, as regards incantation and exorcism, the formulas to be used for the
purpose are enumerated. These mostly consist of words which have little if any
meaning (so far as we know), but which form a rhyme or alliteration when a
syllable is either omitted or added in successive words. The following, for example,
is the formula of incantation against boils: 'Baz, Baziyah, Mas, Masiya, Kas,
Kasiyah, Sharlai and Amarlai — ye Angels that come from the land of Sodom
to heal painful boils ! Let the colour not become more red, let it not farther
spread, let its seed be absorbed in the belly. As a mule does not propagate itself,
so let not this evil propagate itself in the body of M. the son of M.' (Shabb, 67 a).
In other formulas the demons are not invoked for the cure, but threatened. We
have the following as against another cutaneous disease : ' A sword drawn, and a
sling outstretched ! His name is not Yokhabh, and the disease stand still ! ' Against
danger from the demon of foul places we have the following: 'On the head of the

776 JEWISH EXORCISM.
App. cast him into a bed of cresses, and beat him with the jawbone of an ass' (Shabb.
XVT 6? a)- On the other hand, it is recommended as a precaution against the evil eye
to put one's right thumb into the left hand and one's left thumb into the right
hand, and to say: 'I, M. N. belong to the house of Joseph over whom the evil
eye has no power ' (Ber. 55 b). A certain Rabbi gave thi3 as information derived
from one of the chief of the witches, by which witchcraft might be rendered harm
less. The person in danger should thus address the witches: 'Hot filth into your
mouths from baskets with holes, ye witching women! Let your head become
bald, and the wind scatter your breadcrumbs. Let it carry away your spices, let
the fresh saffron which you carry in your hands be scattered. Ye witches, so long
as I had grace and was careful, I did not come among you, and now I have come,
and you are not favourable to me' (Pes. 110 a, b). To avoid the danger of two or
more persons being separated by a dog, a palm-tree, a woman, or a pig, we are
advised to repeat a verse from the Bible which begins and ends with the word
El (Almighty). Or in passing between women suspected of witchcraft it may be'
well to repeat this formula: 'Agrath, Azelath, Asiya, Belusiya are already killed
- by arrows.' Lastly, the following may be quoted as a form of exorcism of demons:
'Burst, curst, dashed, banned be Bar-Tit, Bar-Tema, Bar-Tena, Chashmagoz,
Merigoz, and Isteaham!'
It has been a weary and unpleasant task to record such abject superstitions,
mostly the outcome of contact with Parsee or other heathen elements. Brief
though our sketch has been, we have felt as if it should have been even more
curtailed. But it seemed necessary to furnish these unwelcome details in order to
remove the possibility of comparing what is reported in the New Testament about
the ' demonised ' and ' demons ' with Jewish notions on such subjects. Greater con
trast could scarcely be conceived than between what we read in the New Testa
ment and the views and practices mentioned in Rabbinic writings — and if this,
as it is hoped, has been firmly established, even the ungrateful labour bestowed on
collecting these unsavoury notices will have been sufficiently repaid.

THE TALMTJDIC SABBATH-LAW.

nf

APP.

APPENDIX XVII.
THE ORDINANCES AND LAW OF THE SABBATH AS LAID DOWN IN THE
MISHNAH AND THE JERUSALEM TALMUD.
(See Book III. ch. xxxv. in vol. ii. p. 52.)
The terribly exaggerated views of the Rabbis, and their endless, burdensome rules
about the Sabbath may best be learned from a' brief analysis of the Mishnah, as XVH
further explained and enlarged in the Jerusalem Talmud.1 For this purpose a
brief analysis of what is, confessedly, one of the most difficult tractates may here
be given- The Mishnic tractate Sabbath stands at the head of twelve tractates which
together form the second of the six sections into which the Mishnah is divided,
:and which treats of Festive Seasons (Seder Moed). Properly to understand the
Sabbath regulations, it is, however, necessary also to take into account the second
tractate in that section, which treats of what are called ' commixtures ' or ' con
nections ' (Erubin). Its object is to make the Sabbath Laws more bearable. For
this purpose, it is explained how places, beyond which it would otherwise have been
¦unlawful to carry things, may be connected together, so as, by a legal fiction, to con
cert them into a sort of private dwelling. Thus, supposing a number of small private
bouses to open into a common court, it would have been unlawful on the Sabbath
to carry anything from one of these houses into the other. This difficulty is removed
if all the families deposit before the Sabbath some food in the common court, when
' a connection ' is established between the various houses, which makes them one
dwelling. This was called the 'Erubh of Courts.' Similarly, an extension of what
was allowed as a 'Sabbath journey ' might be secured by another ' commixture,' the
'Erubh' or 'connection of boundaries.' An ordinary Sabbath day's journey
extended 2,000 cubits beyond one's dwelling.'2 But if at the boundary of that
'journey' a man deposited on the Friday food for two meals, he thereby consti
tuted it his dwelling, and hence might go on for other 2,000 cubits. Lastly, there
was another 'Erubh,' when narrow streets or blind alleys were connected into 'a
private dwelling ' by laying a beam over the entrance, or extending a wire or rope
along such streets and alleys. This, by a legal fiction, made them 'a private
dwelling,' so that everything was lawful there which a man might do on the
Sabbath in his own house.
Without discussing the possible and impossible questions about these Erubin
raised by the most ingenious casuistry, let us see how Rabbinism taught Israel to
1 The Jerusalem Talmud is not only the 2 On the Sabbath-journey, and the reason
older and the shorter of the two Gemaras, for fixing it at a distance of 2,000 cubits, see
but would represent most fully the Pales- Kitto'e Cyclop (last ed.) 'Sabbath-way,' and
tinian ideas. 'The Temple and its Services,' p. 148.

778 THE TALMUDIC SABBATH^LAW:
App. observe its Sabbath. In not less than twenty-four chapters, ' matters are1 seriously
XVII discussed as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine »
sane intellect would seriously entertain. Through 64J folio columns in the
Jerusalem, and 156 double pages of folio in the Babylon Talmud does the enu
meration and discussion of possible cases, drag on, almost unrelieved even by
Haggadah.2 The Talmud itself bears witness to this, when it speaks (no doubt
exaggeratedly) of a certain Rabbi who had spent no less than two and a half years
in the study of only one of those twenty-four chapters ! And it further bears
testimony to the unprofitableness of these endless discussions and determinations.
The occasion of this is so curious and characteristic, that it might here find mention.
The discussion was concerning a beast of burden. An ass might not be led out on the
road with its covering on, unless such had been put on the animal previous to the
Sabbath, but it was lawful to lead the animal about in this fashion in one's court
yard.3 The same rule applied to apacksaddle, provided it were not fastened on by
girth and back-strap. Upon this one of the Rabbis is reported as bursting into the-
declaration that this formed part of those Sabbath Laws (comp. Chag. i. 8) which
were like mountains suspended by a hair ! (Jer. Shabb. p. 7, col. 6, last lines). Aud
yet in all these wearisome details there is not a single trace of anything spiritual —
not a word even to suggest higher thoughts of God's holy day and its observance,
The tractate on the Sabbath begins with regulations extending its provisions to
the close of the Friday afternoon, so as to prevent the possibility of infringing the
Sabbath itself, which commenced on the Friday evening. As the most common
kind of labour would be that of carrying, this is the first point discussed. The
Biblical Law forbade, such labour in simple terms (Ex. xxxvi. 6; comp. Jer. xvii. 22).
But Rabbinism developed the prohibition into eight special ordinance's,1 by first
dividing ' the bearing of a burden ' into two separate acts — lifting it up and putting-
it down — and than arguing, that it might be lifted up or put down from two
different places, from a public into a private, or from a private into a public place.
Here, of course, there are discussions as to what constituted a ' private place ''
(TiTYl mffil); ' a public place ' (D'Oin ffiEn); ' a wide space,' which belongs neither
to a special individual nor to a community, such as the sea, a deep wide valley; or else
the corner of a property leading out on the road or fields— and, lastly, a ' legally free-
place.'4 Again, a 'burden' meant, as the lowest standard of it, the weight of 'a
dried fig.' But if ' half a fig ' were carried at two different times— lifted or deposited
from a private into a public place, or vice versa — were these two actions to*be com
bined into one so as to constitute the sin of Sabbath desecration ? And if so,
under what conditions as to state of mind, locality, &c. ? And, lastly, how many
different sins might one such act involve ? To give an instance of the kind of
questions that were generally discussed. The standard measure for forbidden food
was the size of an olive, just as that for carrying burdens was the weight of a fie.
If a man had swallowed forbidden food of the size of half an olive, rejected it, and
i In- the Jerusalem Talmud a Gemara is mination would apply. The 'wide space' is-
attached only to the first twenty chapters of
the Mishnic tractate Shabbath ; in the Babylon called Karmelith (n",?^"lf). The Mishnah,
Talmud to all the twenty-four chapters. however, expressly mentions only the ' pri-
- I have counted about thirty-three Hag- Tate ' an|l the • public ' place (or ' enclosed '
gadic pieces In the tractate. and ' open '), although the Karmelith is im-
3 In the former case it might be a burden plied in x. 2 ; xi. 4, 5. The Karmelith was
or lead to work, while in the latter case the ln certain circumstances treated as 'public,'
covering was presumably for warmth. ln others as ¦ private ' property. The expla-
* Such a free place (IV^C CW") must nation of the terms and legal definitions is in
cover less than four square cubits-tf'or ex., a Jer. Shabb. 12 d; iaa;. Shabb. 6, a, 6; Toseft.
pillar would be such. To this no legal deter- Shabb. 1.

THE TALMUDIC SABBATH-LAW.

119

again eaten of the size of half an olive, he would be guilty, because the palate had APP
altogether tasted food to the size of a whole olive; but, if one had deposited in XVII
another locality a burden of the weight of half a tig, and removed it again, it in
volved no guilt, because the burden was altogether only of half a flg, nor even if V~" ""^^
the first half fig's burden had been burnt and then a second half fig introduced.
Similarly, if an object that was intended to be worn or carried in front had slipped
behind it involved -no guilt, but if it had been intended to be worn or carried
behind, and it slipped forward, this involved guilt, as involving labour.
Similar difficulties were discussed as to the guilt in case an object were thrown
from a private into a public place, or the reverse. Whether, if an object was
thrown into the air with the left, and caught again in the right hand, this involved /
sin, was a nice question, though there could be no doubt a man incurred guilt if he
caught it with the same hand with which it had been thrown, but he was not
guilty if he caught it in his mouth, since, after being eaten, the object no longer
existed, and hence catching with the mouth was as if it had been done by a
second person. Again, if it rained, and the water which fell from the sky were
carried, there was no sin in it; but if the rain had run down from a wall it would
involve sin. If a person were in one place, and his hand filled with fruit stretched
into another, and the Sabbath overtook him in this attitude, he would have to drop
the fruit, since if he withdrew his full hand from one locality into another, he
would be carrying a burden on the Sabbath.
It is needless to continue the analysis, of this casuistry. All the discussions to
which we have referred turn only on the first of the legal canons in- the tractate
' Sabbath.' They will show what a complicated machinery of merely external
ordinances traditionalism set in motion ; how utterly unspiritual the whole system
was, and how it required no small amount of learning and ingenuity to avoid
committing grievous sin. In what follows we shall only attempt to indicate the
leading points in the Sabbath-legislation of the Rabbis.
Shortly before the commencement of the Sabbath (late on Friday afternoon)
nothing new was to be begun; ] the tailor might no longer go out with his needle,
nor the scribe with his pen; nor were clothes to be examined by lamp-light. A
teacher might not allow his pupils to read, if he himself looked on the book. All
these are pracautionary measures. The tailor or scribe carrying his ordinary means
of employment, might forget the advent of the holy day ; the person examining a
dress might kill insects,2 which is strictly forbidden on 'the Sabbath, and the
teacher might move the lamp to see better, while the pupils were not supposed to
be so zealous as to do this.
These latter rules, we are reminded, were passed at a certain celebrated dis
cussion between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, when the latter were in the
majority. On that occasion also opposition to the Gentiles was carried to its farthest
length, and their food, their language, their testimony, their presence, their inter
course, in short, all connection with them denounced. The school of Shammai
also forbade to make any mixture, the ingredients of which would not be wholly
dissolved and assimilated before the Sabbath. Nay, the Sabbath law was declared
to apply even to lifeless objects. Thus, wool might not be dyed if the process was
1 Here such questions are raised as what Rules are given how to dispose of such in-
constitutes the beginning, for ex., of shaving sects. On the same occasion some curious
or of a bath. ideas are broached as to the transformation
2 To kill such vermin is, of course, strictly of animals, one into another.
forbidden (to kill a flea is like killing a camel).

780 THE TALMUDIC SABBATH-LAW.
APP. n°t completed before the Sabbath. Nor was it even lawful to sell anything to a
XVH heathen unless the object would reach its destination before the Sabbath, nor to
. ^_ . give to a heathen workman anything to do which might involve him in Sabbath
work. Thus, Rabbi Gamaliel was careful to send his linen to be washed three days
before the Sabbath. But it was lawful to leave olives or grapes in the olive or
wine-press. Both schools were agreed that, in roasting or baking, a crust must
have been formed before the Sabbath, except in case of the Passover lamb. The
Jerusalem Talmud, however, modifies certain of these rules. Thus the prohibition
of work to a heathen only implies, if they work in the house of the Jew, or at least
in the same town with him. The school of Shammai, however, went so far as to
forbid sending a letter by a heathen, not only on a Friday or on a Thursday, but
even on a Wednesday, or to embark on the sea on these days.
It being assumed that the lighting of the Sabbath lamp was a law given to
Moses on Mount Sinai, the Mishnah proceeds, in the second chapter of the tractate
on the Sabbath, to discuss the substances of which respectively the wick and the
oil may be composed, provided always that the oil which feeds the wick is not put
in a separate vessel, since the removal of that vessel would cause the extinction of
the lamp, which would involve a breach of the Sabbath law. But if the light were
extinguished from fear of the Gentiles, of robbers, or of an evil spirit, or in order
that one dangerously ill might go to sleep, it involved no guilt. Here, many points
in casuistry are discussed, such as whether twofold guilt is incurred if in blowing
out a candle its flame lights another. The Mishnah here diverges to discuss the
other commandments, which, like that of lighting the Sabbath lamp, specially
devolve on women, on which occasion the Talmud broaches some curious statements
about the heavenly Sanhedrin and Satan, such as that it is in moments of danger
that the Great Enemy brings accusations against us, in order to ensure our ruin;
or this, that on three occasions he specially lies in ambush: when one travels alone,
when one sleeps alone in a dark house, and when one crosses the sea. In regard to
the latter we may note as illustrative of St. Paul's warning not to travel after the
fast (Day of Atonement), that the Jewish proverb had it: 'When you bind your
Lulabh 1 (at the Feast of Tabernacles) bind also your feet ' — a3 regards a sea-voyage
(Jer. Shabb. 5 6, Ber. R. 6).
The next two chapters in the tractate on the Sabbath discuss the manner in
which food may be kept warm for the Sabbath,. since no fire might be lighted. If
the food had been partially cooked, or was such as would improve by increased
heat, there would be temptation to attend to the fire, and this must be avoided.
Hence the oven was immediately before the Sabbath only to be heated with straw
or chaff' ; if otherwise, the coals were to be removed or covered with ashes. Clothes
ought not to be dried by the hot air of a stove. At any rate, care must be taken
that the neighbours do not see it. An egg may not be boiled by putting it near a
hot kettle, nor in a cloth, nor in sand heated by the sun. Cold water might be
poured on warm, but not the reverse (at least such was the opinion of the school of
Shammai), nor was it lawful to prepare either cold or warm compresses. ' Nay, n
Rabbi went so far as to forbid throwing hot water over one's self, for fear of spread
ing the vapour, or of cleaning the floor thereby! A vessel might be put under a
lamp to catch the falling sparks, but no water might be put into it, because it was
1 The Lulabh O'i'p) consisted of a palm the Feast of Tabernacles ('Temple and its
with myrtle and willow branch lied on either Services," p. 238).
side of it, which every worshipper carried on

THE TALMUDIC SABBATH-LAW.

781

not lawful to extinguish a light. Nor would it have been allowed on the Sabbath to APP
sput a vessel to receive the drops of oil that might fall from the lamp. Among many xVH
other questions raised was this: whether a parent might take his child in his arms. , _
Happily Rabbinic literality went so far as not only to allow this, but even in the ^~^
supposed case that the child might happen to have a stone in its hands, although
this would involve the labour of carrying that stone ! Similarly, it was declared
lawful to lift seats, provided they had not, as it were, four steps, when they must
be considered as ladders. But it was not allowed to draw along chairs, as this
might produce a rut or cavity, although a little carriage might be moved, since
the wheels would only compress the soil but not produce a cavity (comp. in the
Bab. Talmud, Shabb. 22 a ; 46 ; and Bets. 23 6).
Again, the question is-discussed, whether it is lawful to keep the food warm by
wrapping'around a vessel certain substances. Here the general canon is, that all
must be avoided which would increase the heat: since this would be to produce
some outward effect, which would be equivalent to work.
In the fifth chapter of the tractate we are supposed to begin the Sabbath
morning. Ordinarily, the first business of the morning would, of course, have been
to take out the cattle. -Accordingly, the laws are now laid down for ensuring
Sabbath rest to the animals. The principle underlying these is, that only what
serves as ornament, or is absolutely necessary for leading Out or bringing back
animals, or for safety, may be worn by them ; all else is regarded as a, burden.
Even such things as might be put on to prevent the rubbing of a wound, or
other possible harm, or to distinguish an animal, must be' left aside on the day
of rest. Next, certain regulations are laid down to guide the Jew when dressing on the
Sabbath morning, so as to prevent his breaking its rest. Hence he must be care
ful not to put on any dress which might become burdensome, nor to wear any
•ornament which he might put off and carry in his hand, for this would be a
, 'burden.' A woman must not wear such headgear as would require unloosing
before taking a bath, nor go out with such ornaments as could be taken off in the
street, such as a frontlet, unless it is attached to the cap, nor with a gold crown,
nor with a necklace or nose-ring, nor with rings, nor have a pin 1 in her dress. The
reason for this prohibition of ornaments was, that in their vanity women might
take them off to show them to their companions, and then, forgetful of the day,
•carry them, which would be a ' burden.' Women are also forbidden to look in the
glass on the Sabbath, because they might discover a white hair and attempt to
pull it out, which would be a grievous sin; but men ought not to use looking-
glasses even on weekdays, because this was undignified. A woman may walk
about her own court, but not in the street, with false hair. Similarly, a man was
forbidden to wear on the Sabbath wooden shoes studded with nails, or only one
shoe, as this would involve labour; nor was he to wear phylacteries nor amulets,
unless, indeed, they had been made by competent persons (since they might lift
them off in order to show the novelty). Similarly, it was forbidden to wear any
part of a suit of armour. It was not lawful to scrape shoes, except perhaps with
the back of a knife, but they might be touched with oil or water. Nor should
sandals be softened with oil, because that would improve them. It was a very
1 Literally, a needle which has not an Law — to carry a stick or a pencil on the
«yelet. Of course, it would not be lawful for • Sabbath, to drive, or even to smoke.
b. modern Jew— if he observe the Rabbinic

782 THE TALMUDIC SABBATH-LAW.
APP. serious question, which led to much discussion, what should be done if the tie of a
XVII sandal had broken on the Sabbath. A plaster might be worn, provided its object'
_ __ , was to prevent the wound from getting worse, not to heal it, for tliat would have
been a work. Ornaments which could not easily be taken off' might be worn in
one's courtyard. Similarly, a person might go about with wadding in his ear, but
not with false teeth nor with a gold plug in the tooth. If the wadding fell out of
the ear, it could not be replaced. Some, indeed, thought that its healing virtues
lay in the oil in which it had been soaked, and which had dried up, but others
ascribed them to the warmth of the wadding itself. In either case there was
danger of healing — of doing anything for the purpose of a cure — and hence wad
ding might not be put into the ear on the Sabbath, although if worn before it
might be continued. Again, as regarded false teeth : they might fall out, and the
wearer might then lift and carry them, which would be sinful on the Sabbath. But
anything which formed part of the ordinary dress of a person might be worn also
on the Sabbath, and children whose ears were being bored might have a plug put
into the hole. It was also allowed to go about on crutches, or with a wooden leg,
and children might have bells on their dresses; but it was prohibited to walk on
stilts, or to carry any heathen amulet.
The seventh chapter of the tractate contains the most important part of the
.whole. It opens by laying down the principle that, if a person has either not
known, or forgotten, the whole Sabbath law, all the breaches of it which he has
committed during ever so many weeks are to be considered as only one error or
one sin. If he has broken the Sabbath law by mistaking the day, every Sabbath
thus profaned must be atoned for; but if he has broken the law because he thought
that wh^t he did was permissible, "then every separate infringement constitutes a.
separate sin, although labours which stand related as species to the genus are re
garded as only one work. It follows, that guilt attaches to the state of mind rather
than to the outward deed. Next, forty less one chief or ' fathers ' of work (Aboth),
are enumerated, all of which are supposed to be forbidden in the Bible. They are:
sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, sifting (selects
ng), grinding, sifting in a sieve, kneading, baking; shearing the wool, washing it,
beating it, dyeing it, spinning, putting it on the weaver's beam, making two
thrum threads, weaving two threads, separating two threads, making a knot, un
doing a knot, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches ; catching-
deer, killing, skinning, salting it, preparing its skin, scraping off its hair, cutting it
up, writing two letters, scraping in order to write two letters ; building, pulling
down, extinguishing fire, lighting fire, beating with the hammer, and carrying from
one possession into the other.
The number thirty-nine is said to represent the number of times that the word
' labour ' occurs in the Biblical text, and all these Aboth or ' fathers ' of work are
supposed to be connected with some work that had been done about the Tabernacle,
or to be kindred to such work. Again, each of these principal works involved the
prohibition of a number of others which were derived from them, and hence called
their ' descendants ' (toledoth). The thirty-nine principal works have been arranged
in four groups: the first (1-11) referring to the preparation of bread; the second
(12-24) to all connected with dress; the third (25-33) to all connected with
writing; and the last (34-39) to all the work necessary for a private house. An
other Rabbi derives the number thirty:nine (of these Aboth) from the numerical
value of the initial word in Exod. xxxv. 1, although in so doing he has to change.

THE TALMUDIC SABBATH-LAW.

T83

the last letter (HN?, the n must be changed into a n to make thirty-nine).1 APP
Further explanations must here be added. If you scatter two seeds, you have XVII
been sowing. In general, the principle is laid down, that anything by which
the ground may be benefited is to be considered a 'work' or 'labour,' even if
it were to sweep away or to break up a clod of earth. Nay, to pluck a blade of
grass was a sin. Similarly, it was sinful labour to do anything that would pro
mote the ripening of fruits, such as to water, or even to remove a withered leaf.
To pick fruit, or even to lift it from the ground, would be like reaping. If, for
example, » mushroom were cut, there would be a twofold sin, since by the act of
cutting, a new one would spring in its place. According to the Rabbis of Caesarea,
fishing, and all that put an end to life, must be ranked with harvesting. In
connection with the conduct of the disciples in rubbing the ears of corn on the
Sabbath, it is interesting to know that all work connected with food would be
classed as one of the toledoth, of binding into sheaves. If a woman were to roll
wheat to take away the husks, she would be guilty of sifting with a sieve. If she
were rubbing the ends of the stalks, she would be guilty of threshing. If she were
cleaning what adheres to the side of a stalk, she would be guilty of sifting. If she
were bruising the stalk, she would be guilty of grinding. If she were throwing it
up in her hands, she would be guilty of winnowing. Distinctions like the following
are made: A radish may be dipped into salt, but not left in it too long, since
this would be to make pickle. A new dress might be put on, irrespective of the
danger that in so doing it might be torn. Mud on the dress might be crushed in
the hand and shaken off, but the dress must not be rubbed (for fear of affecting the
material). If a person took a bath, opinions are divided, whether the whole body
should be dried at once, or limb after limb. If water had fallen on the dress,
some allowed the dress to be shaken but not wrung; others, to be wrung but not
shaken. One Rabbi allowed to spit into the handkerchief, and that although
it may necessitate the compressing of what had been wetted ; but there is a grave
discussion whether it was lawful 'to spit on the ground, and then to rub it with the
foot, because thereby the earth may be scratched. It may, however, be done on
stones. In the labour of grinding would be included such an act as crushing salt.
To sweep, or to water the ground, would involve the same sin as beating out the
corn. To lay on a plaster would be a grievous sin ; to scratch out a big letter,
leaving room for two small ones, would be a sin, but to write one big letter occupy
ing the room of two small letters was no sin. To change one letter into another
might imply a double sin. And so on through endless details!
The Mishnah continues to explain that, in order to involve guilt, the thing
carried from one locality to another must be sufficient to be entrusted for safe
keeping. The quantity is regulated: as regards the food of animals, to the
capacity of their mouth; as regards man, a dried flg is the standard. As regards
fluids, the measure is as much wine as is used for one cup, that is — the measure
ofthe cup being a quarter of a log, and wine being mixed with water in the propor
tion of three parts water to one of wine — one-sixteenth of a log.2 As regards milk,
a mouthful; of honey, sufficient to lay on a wound; of oil, sufficient to anoint the
smallest member; of water, sufficient to wet eyesalve; and of all other fluids, a
quarter of a log.
1 The Kabbis contend for the lawfullness into COI^in ln Lev- xix- 24)-
of changing the ~ into a n for the sake of 2 It has been calculated by Herzfeld that a.
an interpretation. So expressly here (Jer. log = 0-36 of a litre ; ' six hen's eggs."
Shabb. 9 b) and in Jer. Peah 20 6 (a'^'^H

784 THE TALMUDIC SABBATH-LAW.
APP. -A-3 regarded other substances, the standard as to what constituted a burden was
XVII whether the thing could be turned to any practical use, .however trifling. Thus,
^^.^^_, two horse's hairs might be made into a birdtrap ; a scrap of clean paper into a
custom-house notice ; a small piece of paper written upon might be converted into
a wrapper for a small flagon. In all these cases, therefore, transport would involve
sin. Similarly, ink sufficient to write two letters, wax enough to fill up a small
hole, even a pebble with which you might aim at a little bird, or a small piece of
broken earthenware with which you might stir the coals, would be ' burdens! '
Passing to another aspect of the subject, the Mishnah lays it down that, in order
to constitute sin, a thing must have been carried from one locality into another en
tirely and immediately, and that it must have been done in the way in which things
are ordinarily carried. If an object which one person could carry is carried by two,
they are not guilty. Finally, like all labour on the Sabbath, that of cutting one's
nails or hair involves mortal sin, but only if it is done in the ordinary way, other
wise only the lesser sin of the breach of the Sabbath rest. A very interesting
notice in connection with St. John v., is that in which it is explained how it would
not involve sin to carry a living person on a pallet, the pallet being regarded only
as an accessory to the man ; while to carry a dead body in such manner, or even the
smallest part of a dead body, would involve guilt.
From this the Mishnah proceeds to discuss what is analogous to carrying, such
as drawing or throwing. Other ' labours ' are similarly made the subject of inquiry,
and it is shown how any approach to them involves guilt. • The rule here is, that
anything that might prove of lasting character must not be done on the Sabbath. '
The same rule applies to what might prove the beginning of work, such as letting
the hammer fall on the anvil; or to anything that might contribute to improve a
place, to gathering as much wood as would boil an egg, to uprooting weeds, to
writing two letters of a word — in short, to anything that might be helpful in, or
contribute towards, some future work.
The Mishnah next passes to such work in which not quantity, but quality, is in
question — such as catching deer. Here it is explained that anytbing by which an
animal might be caught is included in the prohibition. So far is this carried that,
if a deer had run into a house, and the door were shut upon it, it would involve
guilt, and this, even if, without closing. the door, persons seated themselves at the
entry to prevent the exit of the animal.
Passing over the other chapters, which similarly illustrate what are supposed
to be Biblical prohibitions of labour as defined in the thirty-nine Aboth and their
toledoth, we come, in the sixteenth chapter of the tractate, to one of the most in
teresting parts, containing such Sabbath laws as, by their own admission, were
imposed only by the Rabbis. These embrace : 1. Things forbidden, because they
might lead to a transgression of the Biblical command; 2. Such as are like the
kinds of labour supposed to be forbidden in the Bible ; 3. Such as are regarded as
incompatible with the honour due to the Sabbath. In the first class are included
a number of regulations in case of a fire. All portions of Holy Scripture, whether
in the original or translated, aud the case in which they are laid; the phylacteries
and their case, might be rescued from the flames. Of food or drink only what was
needful for the Sabbath might be rescued; but if the food were in a cupboard or
basket the whole might be carried out. Similarly, all utensils needed for the Sabbath
meal, but of dress only what was absolutely necessary, might be saved, it being,
however, provided, that a person might put on a dress, save it, go back and put on

THE TALMUDIC SABBATH-LAW.
another, and so on. Again, anything in the house might be covered with a skin so
as to save it from the flames, or the spread of the flames might be arrested by piling
up vessels. It was not lawful to ask a Gentile to extinguish the flame, but not duty
to hinder him, if he did so. It was lawful to put a vessel over a lamp, to prevent
the ceiling from catching fire; similarly, to throw a vessel over a scorpion, although
on that point there is doubt. On the other hand, it is allowed, if a Gentile has
lighted a lamp on the Sabbath, to make use of it, the fiction being, however, kept
up that he did it for himself, and not for Jhe Jew. By the same fiction the cattle
may be watered, or, in fact, any other use made of his services.
Before passing from this, we should point out that it was directtd that the
Hagiographa should not be read except in the evening, since the daytime was to be'
devoted to more doctrinal studies. In the same connection it is added, that the
study ofthe Mishnah is more important than that of the Bible, that of the Talmud
being considered the most meritorious of all, as enabling one to understand all
questions of right and wrong. Liturgical pieces, though containing the Name of
God, might not be rescued frbrn the flames. The Gospels and the writings of
Christians, or of heretics, might not be rescued. If it be asked what should be done
with them on weekdays, the answer'is, that the Names of God which they contain
ought to be cut out, and then the books themselves burned. One of the Rabbis,
however, would have had them burnt at once, indeed, he would rather have fled
into an idolatrous temple than into a Christian church : ' for the idolaters deny God
because they have not known Him, but the apostates are worse.' To them applied
Ps. cxxxix. 21, and, if it was lawful to wash out in the waters of jealousy the Divine
Name in order to restore peace, much more would it be lawful to burn such books,
even though they contained the Divine Name, because they led to enmity between
Israel and their Heavenly Father.
Another chapter of the tractate deals with the question of the various pieces of
furniture — how far they may be moved and used. Thus, curtains, or a lid, may be
regarded as furniture, and hence used. More interesting is the next chapter (xviii.),
which deals with things forbidden by the Rabbis because they resemble those kinds
of labour supposed to be interdicted in the Bible. Here it is declared lawful, for
example, to remove quantities of straw or corn in order to make room for guests,
or for an assembly of students, but the whole barn must not be emptied, because
in so doing the floor might be injured. Again, as regards animals, some assistance
might be given, if an animal was about to have its young, though not to the same
amount as to a woman in childbirth, for whose sake the Sabbath might be desecrated.
Lastly, all might be done on the holy day needful for circumcision. At the same
time, every preparation possible for the service should be made the day before. The
Mishnah proceeds to enter here on details not necessarily connected with the
Sabbath law.
In the following chapter (xx.)the tractate goes on to indicate such things as
are only allowed on the Sabbath on condition that they are done differently from
ordinary days. Thus, for example, certain solutions ordinarily made in water
should be made in vinegar. The food for horses or cattle must not be taken out of
the manger, unless it is immediately given to some other animal. The bedding
straw must not be turned with the hand, but with other parts of the body. A
press in which linen is smoothed may be opened to take out napkins, but must not
be screwed down again, &c.
The next chapter proceeds upon the principle that, although everything is to be

785

APP. XVII

786 THB TALMUDIC SABBATH-LAW.
App avoided which resembles the labours referred to in the Bible, the same prohibition
XVII a-oes not ^fiy t0 sucn labours as resemble those interdicted by the Rabbis. The
application of this principle is not, however, of interest to general readers.
In the twenty-second chapter the Mishnah proceeds to show that all the pre
cautions of the Rabbis had only this object: to prevent an ultimate breach of a
Biblical prohibition. Hence, where such was not to be feared, an act might be done.
For example, a person might bathe in' mineral waters, but not carry home the
linen with which he had dried himsejf. He might anoint and rub the body, but
not to the degree of making himself tired; but he rffight not use any artificial
remedial measures, such as taking a shower-bath. Bones might not be set, nor
emetics given, nor any medical or surgical operation performed.
In the last two chapters the Mishnah points out those things which are
unlawful as derogatory to the dignity of the Sabbath. Certain things are here of
interest as bearing on the question of purchasing things for the feast-day. Thus,
it is expressly allowed to borrow wine, or oil, or bread on the Sabbath, and to
leave one's upper garment in pledge, though one should not express it in such
manner as to imply it was a loan. Moreover, it is expressly added that if the
day before the Passover falls on a Sabbath, one may in this manner purchase a
Paschal lamb, and, presumably, all else that is needful for the feast. This shows
how Judas might have been sent on the eve of the Passover to purchase what was
needful, for the law applying to a feast-day was much less strict than that of the
Sabbath. Again, to avoid the possibility of effacing anything written, it was for
bidden to read from a tablet the names of one's guests, or the menu. It was
lawful for children to cast lots for thein portions at table, but not with strangers,
for this might lead to a breach of the Sabbath, and to games of chance. Similarly,
it was improper on the Sabbath to engage workmen for the following week, nor
should one be on the watch for the close of that day to begin one's ordinary work.
It was otherwise if religious obligations awaited one at the close of the Sabbath,
such as attending to a bride, or making preparations for a funeral.1 On the
Sabbath itself it was lawful to do all that was absolutely necessary connected with
the dead, such as to anoint or wash the body, although without . moving the limbs,
nor might the eyes of the dying be closed — a practice which, indeed, was generally
denounced. ¦
In the last chapter of the tractate the Mishnah returns to the discussion of
punctilious details. Supposing a traveller to arrive in a place just as the Sabbath
commenced, he must only take from his beast of burden such objects as are allowed
to be handled on the Sabbath. As for the rest, he may loosen the ropes and let
them fall down of themselves. Further, it is declared lawful to unloose bundles
of straw, or to rub up what can only be eaten in that condition ; but care must be
taken that nothing is done which is not absolutely necessary. On the other hand,
cooking would not be allowed — in short, nothing must be done but what was abso
lutely necessary to satisfy the cravings of hunger or thirst. Finally, it was declared
lawful on the Sabbath to absolve from vows, and to attend to similar religious
calls. Detailed as this analysis of the Sabbath law is, we have not by any means
exhausted the subject. Thus, one of the most curious provisions of the Sabbath law
1 It is curious as bearing upon a recent coffin and grave originally destined for a
controversy, to note that on this occasion it is Gentile, but not vice versd.
said that an Israelite may be buried in the

, THE TALMUDIC SABBATH'-LAW. Y8T
was, that oh the Sabbath only such things were to be touched or eaten as had been APP
expressly prepared on a weekday with a view to the Sabbath (Bez. 2 6).1 Any- XVH
thing not so destined was forbidden, as the expression is 'on account of Muqtsah '
.(I"Kp*?I), i.e. as not having been the 'intention.' Jewish dogmatists enumerate
nearly fifty cases in which that theological term finds its application. Thus, if a
hen had laid on the Sabbath, the egg was forbidden, because, evidently, it could not
have been destined on a weekday for eating, since it was not yet laid, and did not
exist; while if the hen hid been kept, not for laying but for fattening, the egg might
be eaten as forming a p*t.of the hen that had fallen off' ! But when the principle
of Muqtsah is applied to the touching of things which are not used because they
have become ugly (and hence are not in one's mind), so that, for example, an old
lamp may uot be touched, or raisins during the process of drying them (because they
are not eatable then), it will be seen ho'w complicated such a law must have been.
Chiefly from other tractates of the Talmud the following may here be added.
It would break the Sabbath rest to climb a tree, to ride, to swim, to clap one's
hands, to strike one's side, or to dance. All judicial acts, vows, and tilling were
.also prohibited on that day (Bez. v. 2). It has already been noted that aid might
be given or promised for a woman in her bed. But the Law went further. While
it prohibited' the application or use on the Sabbath of any remedies that would
bring improvement or cure to the sick, ' all actual danger to life,' (!TE,*c; pCD ?3
.rG'&'n J"IX nmi, Yoma viii. 6) superseded the Sabbath law, but nothing short of
that. Thus, to state an extreme case, if on the Sabbath a wall had fallen on a
person, and it were doubtful whether he was under the ruins or not, whether he was
alive or dead, a Jew or Gentile, it would be duty to clear away the rubbish suf
ficiently to find the body. If life were not extinct the labour would /have to be
continued; but if the person were dead nothing further should be done to extricate
the body. Similarly, a Rabbi allowed the use of remedies on the Sabbath in throat
diseases, on the express ground that he regarded them as endangering life. On a
similar principle a woman with child or a sick person was allowed to break even the
fast of the Day of Atonement, while one who had a maniacal attack of morbid
-craving for food (U\12Ti'2)=/3ovXi/io? might on that sacred day have even unlawful
food (Yoma viii. 5, 6),
Such are the leading provisions by which Rabbinism enlarged the simple
Sabbath-law as expressed in the Bible,2 and, in its anxiety to ensure its most
exact observance, changed the spiritual import of its rest into a complicated code
-of external and burdensome ordinances. Shall we then wonder at Christ's oppo
sition to the Sabbath-ordinances of the Synagogue, or, on the other hand, at the
enmity of its leaders? and can greater contrast be imagined than between the
teaching of Christ on this subject, and that of his most learned and mo3t advanced
-contemporaries? And whence this difference unless Christ was the ' Teacher come
.from God,' Who spake as never before man had spoken?
1 This destination or preparation is called Hachanah.
1 Ex. xx. 8-11; xxiii. 12; xxxi. 12-17; xxxiv. 21; xxxv. 1-3; Deut. v. 12-15.

788 JEWISH LEGEND ABOUT ST. PETER.

APPENDIX XVIII.
HAGGADAH ABOUT SIMEON KEPHA (LEGEND OP SIMON PETER.)
<xb"o prcsn xrrax)
(Vol. ii. Book III. ch. xxxviii.)
i
«pp This Haggadah exists in four different Recensions (comp. Jellinek, Beth ha-Mid-
XVin rash, Pt. V. and Pt. VI., pp. ix., x). The first of these, reproduced by Jellinek
(u. s. Pt. V. p. xxvi. &c, and pp. 60-62) was first published by Wagenseil in his
"""* * collection of Antichristian writings, the Tela Ignea Satance, at the close of that
blasphemous production, the Sepher Toledoth Jeshu (pp. 19-24). The second
Recension is that by Huldrich (Leyden, 1705); the third has been printed, as is
inferred, at Breslau in 1824; while the fourth exists only in MS. Dr. Jellinek has
substantially reproduced (without the closing sentences) the text of Wagenseil's
(u. s. Pt. V.), and also Recensions III. and IV. (u. s. Pt. VI.). He regards Recen
sion IV. as the oldest; but we infer from its plea against the abduction of Jewish
children by Christians and against forced baptisms, as well as from the use of cer
tain expressions, that Recension TV. is younger than the text of Wagenseil, which
seems to present the legend in its most primitive form. Even this, however,
appears a mixture of several legends; or perhaps the original may afterwards have
been interpolated. It were impossible to fix even approximately the age of this
oldest Recension, but in its present form it must date after the establishment of
Christianity in Rome, and that of the Papacy, though it seems to contain older
elements. It may be regarded as embodying certain ancient legends among the
Jews about St. Peter, but adapted to later times, and cast in an apologetic form.
A brief criticism of the document will best follow an abstract of the text, according
to the first or earlier Recension.
The text begins by a notice that the strife between the Nazarenes and the Jews
had grown to such proportions that they separated, since any Nazarene who saw a
Jew would kill him. Such became the misery for thirty years, that the Nazarenes
increased to thousands and myriads, and prevented the Jews from going up to the
feasts of Jerusalem. . And the distress was as great as at the time of the Golden
Calf. And still the opposing faith increased, and twelve wicked men went out, who
traversed the twelve kingdoms. And they prophesied false prophecies in the camp,
and they misled Israel, and they were men of reputation, and strengthened the
faith of Jesus, for they said that they were the Apostles of the Crucified. And
they drew to themselves a large number from among the children of Israel. On
this the text describes, how the sages in Israel were afflicted and humbled themselves,
each confessing to his neighbour the sins which had brought this evil, and earnestly
asking of God to give them direction how to arrest the advance of Nazarene
doctrine and persecution. As they finished their prayer, up rose an elder from their

JEWISH LEGEND ABOUT ST. PETER.

789

midst, whose name was Simeon Kepha, who had formerly put into requisition the APP
Bath Kol and said: 'Hearken to me, my brethren and my people! If my words XVITT
are good in your sight, I will separate those sinners from the congregation of the
children of Israel, and they shall have neither part nor inheritance in the midst of
Israel, if only you take upon you the sin. And they all answered and said: We
will take upon us the sin, if only thou wilt do what thou hast said.' Upon this,
the narrative proceeds, Peter went into the Sanctuary, wrote the Ineffable Name,
and inserted it in his flesh. Having learnt the Ineffable Name, he went to the
metropolis (' metropolin ') of the Nazarenes, and proclaimed that every believer in
Christ should come to him, since he was an Apostle. The multitudes required that
he should prove his claim by a sign (' oth ') such as Jesus had done while He was
alive, when Peter, through the power of the Ineffable Name, restored a leper, by
laying on of hands, and raised the dead. When the Nazarenes saw this, they fell
on their faces, and acknowledged his Apostolate. Then Peter delivered this as his
message, first bidding them swear to do as he would command : ' Know (said he)
that the Crucified hated Israel and their law, as Isaiah prophesied: "Your new
moons and your feasts my soul hateth ; " know also, that he delighteth not in Israel,
as Hosea prophesied: "You are not my people." And although it is in His
power to extirpate them from the world in a moment, from out of every place, yet
He does not purpose to destroy them, but intends to leave them, in order that they
be in memory of His Crucifixion and lapidation to all generations. Besides, know
that He bore all those great sufferings and afflictions to redeem you from Gehenna.
And now He admonishes and commands you, that you should do no evil to the
Jews: and if a Jew says to a Nazarene, "Go with me one parasang " (Persian mile
about three English miles), let him go with him two parasangs. And if a Jew
smites him on the left cheek, let him present to him also the right cheek, in order
that they may have their reward in this world, while in the next they will be
punished in Gehenna. And if you do thus, you will deserve to sit with Him in
His portion. And behold, what He commands you is, that ye shall not observe the
Feast of the Passover, but observe the day of His death. And instead of the Feast
of Pentecost observe forty days from the time that He was slain to when He went
up into heaven. And instead of the Feast of Tabernacles observe the day of
His birth, and on the eighth day after His birth observe that on which He was
circumcised.' To these commands all agreed, on condition that Peter should remain with
them. This he consented to do, on the understanding that he would not eat any
thing except bread of misery and water of affliction — presumably not only to avoid
forbidden food, but in expiatory suffering for his sin— and that they should build
him a tower in the midst of the city, in which he would remain unto the day of
his death, all which provisions were duly carried out. It is added, that in this
tower he served the God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. What is still
stranger, it is added, that he wrote many Piutim—a, certain class of liturgical poems
which form part of the Synagogue service — and that he sent these throughout all
Israel to be in perpetual memory of him, and especially that he despatched them
to the Rabbis. The remark is the more noteworthy, as other Jewish writers also
describe the Apostle Peter as the author of several liturgical poems, of which one
is still repeated in the Synagogue on Sabbaths and Feast-days (comp. Jellinek,
Beth ha-Midr., part v., p. 61, note). But to return. Peter is said to have re
mained in that tower for six years, when he died, and by his direction was buried

790 JEWISH LEGEND ABOUT ST. PETER.
App within the tower. But the Nazarenes raised there a great fabric, 'and this tower
XVIII may oe seen i11 R°me. aud they call it Peter, which is the word for a stone, because
^^^^_s lie sat on a stone till the day of his death. But after his death another person
named Elijah came, in the wickedness and cunning of his heart to mislead them.
And he said to them that Simon had deceived them, for that Jesus had com
manded him to tell them: it had not come into His heart to despise the Law of
Moses ; that if any one wished to circumcise, he should circumcise ; but if any one
did not wish to be circumcised, let him be immersed in foul waters. And even if
he were not immersed, he would not thereby be in danger in the world. And
he commanded that they should not observe the seventh day, but only the first
day, because on it were created the heavens and the earth. And he made to them
many statutes which were not good. But the people asked him : Give us a true
sign that Jesus hath sent thee. And he said to them : What is the sign that you
seek? And the word had not been out of his mouth when a great stone of
immense weight fell and crushed his head. So perish all Thine enemies, 0 God,
but let them that love Thee be as the sun when he goeth forth in his strength! '
Thus far what we regard as the oldest Recension. The chief variations between
this and the others are, that in the third Recension the opponent of Peter is called
Abba Shaul (St. John also is mentioned; Jellinek, u.s. part vi., p. 156), while in
the fourth Recension (in MS.), which consists of nineteen chapters, this opponent
is called Elijah. In the latter Recension there is mention of Antioch and Tiberias,
and other places connected with the lives of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the early
history of the Church. But the occurrence of certain Romanic words, such as
Papa, Vescova, &c, shows its later date. Again, we mark that, according to
Recensions III. and IV., Peter sent his liturgical pieces to Babylon, which may
either indicate that at the time of the document ' Babylon ' was the centre of the
Jewish population, or else be a legendary reminiscence of St. Peter's labours in
' the Church that is in Babylon ' (1 Pet. v. 13). In view of modern controversies
it is of special interest that, according to the Jewish legend, Peter, secretly a Jew,
advised the Christians to throw off completely the law of Moses, while Paul, in op
position to him, stands up for Israel and the Law, and insists that either circum
cision or baptism may be practised. It will be further noted, that the object of
the document seems to be : 1st, to serve as an ' apology ' for Judaism, by explain
ing how it came that so many' Jews, under the leadership of Apostles, embraced
the new faith. This seems to be traced to the continued observance of Jewish
legal practices by the Christians. Simon Peter is supposed to have arrested the
progress of Christianity by separating the Church from the Synagogue, which he
did by proclaiming that Israel were rejected, and the Law of Moses abolished. On
the other hand, St. Paul is represented as the friend of the Jews, and as proclaim
ing that the question of circumcision or baptism, of legal observances or Christian
practices, was a matter of indifference. This attempt to heal the breach between
the Church and- the Synagogue had been the cause of Divine judgment on him.
2ndly, The legend is intended as an apology for the Jews, with a view to ward off
persecution. 3rdly, It is intended to show that the leaders of the Christians
remained in heart Jews. It will perhaps not be difficult— at least, hypothetically
—to separate the various legends mixed up, or perhaps interpolated in the tractate.
From the mention of the Piutim and the ignorance as to their origin, we might be
disposed to assign the composition of the legend in its present form to about the
eighth century of our era.

ON ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

191

APPENDIX XIX.
ON ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, ACCORDING TO THE RABBIS AND
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
(See vol. ii. Book V. ch. vi.)
The Parables of the ' Ten Virgins ' and of the ' Unfaithful Servant ' close with a APP.
Discourse on 'the Last Things,' the final Judgment, and the fate of those at Christ's xix
Right Hand and at His Left (St. Matt. xxv. 31^6). This final Judgment by our
Lord forms a fundamental article in the Creed of the Church. It is the Christ Who
comes, accompanied by the Angelic Host, and sits down on the throne of His
Glory, when all nations are gathered before Him. Then the final separation is
made, and joy or sorrow awarded in accordance with the past of each man's his
tory. And that past, as in relationship to the Christ — whether it have been ' with '
Him or ' not with ' Him, which latter is now shown to be equivalent to an ' against '
Him. And while, in the deep sense of a love to Christ which is utterly self-
forgetful in its service and utterly humble in its realisation of Him to Whom no
real service can be done by man, to their blessed surprise, those on • the Right '
find work and acknowledgment where they had never thought of its possibility,
every ministry of their life, however small, is now owned of Him as rendered to
Himself — partly, because the new direction, from which all such ministry sprang,
was of ' Christ in ' them, and partly, because of the identification of Christ with
His people. On the other hand, as the lowest service of him who has the new
inner direction is ChrisLward, so does ignorance, or else ignoration, of Christ
(' When saw we Thee. ...?') issue in neglect of service and labour of love, and
neglect of service proceed from neglect and rejection of Christ. And so is life
either ' to ' Christ or ' not to ' Christ, and necessarily ends in ' the Kingdom prepared
from the foundation of the world ' or in ' the eternal fire which is prepared for the
Devil and his angels.'
Thus far the meaning of the Lord's Words, which could only be impaired by
any attempt at commentation. But they also raise questions of the deepest im
portance, in which not only the head, but perhaps much more the heart, is inter
ested, as regards the precise meaning of the term ' everlasting ' and ' eternal ' in
this and other connections, so far as those on the Left Hand of Christ are con
cerned. The subject has of late attracted renewed attention. The doctrine of the
Eternity of Punishments, with the proper explanations and limitations given to it
in the teaching of the Church, has been set forth by Dr. Pusey in his Treatise:
'What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment?' before adverting, however
briefly, to the New Testament teaching, it seems desirable with some fulness to
set forth the Jewish views on this subject. For the views held at the time of

792 JEWISH VIEWS ON ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
App. Christ, whatever they were, must have been those which the hearers of Christ
Xix entertained; and whatever these views, Christ did not, at least directly, contradict
^__^^_^ or, so far as we can infer, intend to correct them.1 And here we have happily
sufficient materials for a history of Jewish opiuions at different periods on the
Eternity of Punishments ; and it seems the more desirable carefully to set it forth,
as statements both inaccurate and incomplete have been put forward on the
subject. Leaving aside the teaching of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphic Writings (to
which Dr. Pusey has sufficiently referred), the first Rabbinic utterances come to
us from the time immediately before that of Christ, from the Schools of Shammai
and Hillel (Rosh haSh. 16 b last four lines, and 17 a).'' The former arranged all
mankind into three classes : the perfectly righteous, who are ' immediately written and
sealed to eternal life;' the perfectly wicked, who are ' immediately written and
sealed to Gehenna;' and an intermediate class, 'who go down to Gehinnom, and
moan, and come up again,' according to Zech. xiii. 9, and which seemed also indi
cated in certain words in the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 6) The careful reader
will notice that this statement implies belief in Eternal Punishment on the part of
the School of Shammai. For (1) The perfectly wicked are spoken of as ' written
and sealed unto Gehenna ' ; (2) The School of Shammai expressly quotes, in support
of what it teaches about these wicked, Dan. xii. 2, a passage which undoubtedly
refers to the final judgment after the Resurrection; (3) The perfectly wicked, so
punished, are expressly distinguished from the third, or intermediate class, who
merely 'go down to Gehinnom,' but are not 'written and sealed,' and 'come up
again. Substantially the same, as regards Eternity of Punishment, is the view of the
School of Hillel (u. s. 17 a). In regard to sinners of Israel and of the Gentiles it
teaches, indeed, that they are tormented in Gehenna for twelve months, after which
their bodies and souls are burnt up and scattered as dust under the feet of the
righteous; but it significantly excepts from this number certain classes of trans
gressors ' who go down to Gehinnom and are punished there to ages of ages.' That
the Niphal form of the verb used, yy,Tl ; must mean ' punished ' and not 'judged,'
appears, not only from the context, but from the use of the same word and form in
the same tractate (Rosh haSh. 12 a, lines 7 Ac. from top), when it is said of the
generation of the Flood that 'they were punished' surely not 'judged' — by 'hot
water.' However, therefore, the School of Hillel might accentuate the mercy of
God, or limit the number of those who would suffer Eternal Punishment, it did
teach Eternal Punishment iu the case of some. And this is the point in question.
But, since the Schools of Shammai and Hillel represented the theological teach
ing in the time of Christ and His Apostles, it follows, that the doctrine of Eternal
Punishment was that held in the days of our Lord, however it may afterwards have
been modified. Here, so far as this book is concerned, we might rest the case. * But
for completeness' sake it will be better to follow the historical development of Jew
ish theological teaching, at least a certain distance.
The doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments seems to have been held by the
Synagogue throughout the whole first century of our era. This will appear from
the sayings of the Teachers who flourished during its course. The Jewish Parable
1 Of course, we mean their general direc- terpretations given of Kosh haSh. 16 l>, 17 a
tion, not the details. I must call special attention to this locus
- In view of the strange renderings and in- clmsicus.

JEWISH VIEWS ON ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 793
of the fate of those who had not kept their festive garments in readiness or apeared APP
in such as were not clean (Shabb. 152 6, 153 a) has been already quoted in our ex- xiX
position . of the Parables of the Man without the Wedding-garment and of the Ten
Virgins. But we have more than this. We are told (Ber. 28 6) that, when that ~"~1'~*"_
great Rabbinic authority of the first century, Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai— 'the
light of Israel, the right hand pillar, the mighty hammer ' — lay a dying and wept,
he accounted for his tears by fear as to his fate in judgment, illustrating the danger
by the contrast of punishment by an earthlyking ' whose bonds are not eternal
bonds nor his death eternal death,' while as regarded God and His judgment: 'if
He is angry with me, His Wrath is an Eternal Wrath, if He binds me in fetters, His
fetters are Eternal fetters, and if He kills me, His death is an Eternal Death.' In
the same direction is this saying of another great Rabbi of the first century,
Elieser (Shabb, 152 b, about the middle), to the effect that 'the souls of the right
eous are hidden under the throne of glory,' while those of the wicked were to be
bound and in unrest (nwim HMU), one Angel hurling them to another from one
end of the world to the other — of which latter strange idea he saw confirmation in 1
Sam. xxv. 29. To the fate of the righteous applied, among other beautiful
passages, Is. Ivii. 2, to that of the wicked Is. lvii. 21. Evidently, the views of the
Rabbis of the first century were in strict accordance with those of Shammai and
Hillel. In the second century of our era, we mark a decided difference in Rabbinic
opinion. Although it was said that, after the death of Rabbi Meir, the ascent of
smoke from the grave of his apostate teacher had indicated that the Rabbi's
prayers for the deliverance of his master from Gehenna had been answered (Chag.
15 6), most of the eminent teachers of that period propounded the idea, that in the
last day the sheath would be removed which now covered the sun, when its fiery
heat would burn up the wicked (Ber. R. 6). Nay, one Rabbi maintained that there
was no hell at all, but that that day would consume the wicked, and yet another,
that even this was not so, but that the wicked would be consumed by a sort of in
ternal conflagration.
In the third century of our era we have once more a reaction, and a return to
the former views. Thus (Kethub. 104 a, about the middle) Rabbi Eleasar speaks of
the three bands of Angels, which successively go forth to meet the righteous, each
with a, welcome of their own, and of the three bands of Angels of sorrow,
which similarly receive the wicked in their death — and this, in terms which leave
no doubt as to the expected fate of the wicked. And here Rabbi Jose informs us
(Tos. Ber. vi. 15), that 'the fire of Gehenna which was created on the second
day is not extinguished for ever.' With this view accord the seven designations
which, according to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, attach to Gehenna (Erub. 19 a, line
11, &c, from bottom — but the whole page bears on the subject). This doctrine
was only modified, when Ben Lakish maintained; that the fire of Gehenna did not
hurt sinners from among the Jews (Kethub. u. s.). Nor does even this other say
ing of his (Nedar. 8 6, last' four lines) necessarily imply that he denied the eternity
of punishment: ' There is no Gehinnom in the world to come ' — since it is qualified
by the expectation that the wicked would be punished fpiYTJ), not annihilated,
by the heat of the sun, which would be felt as healing by the righteous. Lastly, if
not universal beatification, yet a kind of universal moral restoration seems implied
in the teaching of Rabbi Jehudah to the effect that in the saeculum futurum God
would destroy the Yetser haRa.

794 THE QUESTION OP ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
APP. Tempting as the subject is, we must here break off this historical review, lui
Xix want of space, not of material. Dr. Pusey has shown that the Targumim also
. _>_ , teach the doctrine of Eternal Punishment — though their date is matter of discus
sion — and to the passages quoted by him in evidence others might be added. And
if on the other side the saying of Rabbi Akiba should be quoted (Eduy. ii. 10) to
the effect that the judgment of the wicked in Gehenna was one of the five things
that lasted for twelve months, it must be. remembered that, even if this be taken
seriously (for it is really only a.jeu d' esprit), it does not necessarily imply more than
the teaching of Hillel concerning that intermediate class of sinners who were in
Gehenna for a year — while there was another class the duration of whose punish
ment would be for ages of ages. Even more palpably inapt is the quotation from
Baba Mez. 58 6 (lines 5, &c, from the bottom). For, if that passage declares that
all are destined to come up again from Gehenna, it expressly excepts from this these
three classes of persons: adulterers, those who put their fellow-men publicly to
shame, and those who apply an evil name to their neighbors.
But there can at least be no question, that the passage which has been quoted at
the outset of these remarks (Rosh haSh. 16 6, 17 a), proves beyond the possibility
of gainsaying that both the Great Schools, into which Rabbinic teaching at the
time of Christ was divided, held the doctrine of Eternal Punishments. This, of
course, entirely apart from the question who — how many, or rather, how few —
were to suffer this terrible fate. And here the cautions and limitations, with
which Dr. Pusey has shown that the Church has surrounded her teaching, cannot
be too often or earnestly repeated. It does, indeed, seem painfully strange
that, if the meaning of it be at all realised, some should seem so anxious to con
tend for the extension to so many of a misery from which our thoughts shrink in
awe. Yet of this we are well assured, that the Judge of all the Earth will judge,
not only righteously, but mercifully. He alone knows all the secrets of heart
and life, and He alone can apportion to each the due meed. And in this assured
conviction may the mind trustfully rest as regards those who have been dear
to us. But if on such grounds we shrink from narrow and harsh dogmatism, there are
certain questions which we cannot quite evade, even although we may answer them
generally rather than specifically. We put aside, as an unhealthy and threatening
sign of certain religious movements, the theory, lately broached, of a so-called
' Conditional Immortality.' So far as the reading of the present writer extends,
it is based on bad philosophy and even worse exegesis. But the question itself,
to which this ' rough-and-ready ' kind of answer has been attempted, is one of the
most serious. In our view, an impartial study of the Words of the Lord, recorded
in the Gospels — as repeatedly indicated in the text of these volumes — leads to the
impression that His teaching in regard to reward and punishment should be taken
in the ordinary and obvious sense, and not in that suggested by some. And this
is confirmed by what is now quite clear to us, that the Jews, to whom He spoke,
believed in Eternal Punishment, however few they might consign to it. And yet
we feel that this line of argument is not quite convincing. For might not our
Lord, as in regard to the period of His Second Coming, in this also have intended
to leave His hearers in incertitude? And, indeed, is it really necessary to be quite
sure of this aspect of eternity?
And here the question arises about the precise meaning of the words which
Christ used. It is, indeed, maintained that the terms atcbvioi and kindred expres-

THE QUESTION OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
sions always refer to eternity in the strict sense. But of this I cannot express my
self convinced (see ad voc. Schleusner, Lex., who, however, goes a little too far;
Wahl, Clavis N.T. ; and Grimm, Clavis N.T.), although the balance of evidence is
in favour of such meaning. But it is at least conceivable that the expressions
might refer to the end of all time, and the merging of the ' mediatorial regency '
(1 Cor. xv. 24) in the absolute kingship of God.
In further thinking on this most solemn subject, it seems to the present writer
that exaggerations have been made in the argument. It. has been said that, the
hypothesis of annihilation being set aside, we are practically shut up to what is
called Universal ism. And again, that Universalism implies, not only the final re
storation of all the wicked, but even of Satan and his angels. And further, it has
been argued that the metaphysical difficulties of the question ultimately resolve
themselves into this: why the God of all foreknowledge had created beings  be
they men or fallen angels — who, as He foreknew, would ultimately sin? Now
this argument has evidently no force as against absolute Universalism. But even
otherwise, it is rather specious than convincing. For we only possess data for
reasoning in regard to . the sphere which falls within our cognition, which the abso
lutely Divine — the pre-human and the pre-created — does not, except so far as it
has been the subject of Revelation. This limitation excludes from the sphere of
our possible comprehension all questions connected with the Divine foreknowledge,
and its compatibility with that which we know to be the fundamental law of
created intelligences, and the very condition of their moral being: personal freedom
and choice. To quarrel with this limitation of our sphere of reasoning, were to
rebel against the conditions of human existence. But if so, then the question of
Divine foreknowledge must not be raised at all, and the question of the fall of
angels and of the sin of man must be left on the (to us) alone intelligible basis:
that of personal choice and absolute moral freedom.
Again — it seems at least an exaggeration to put the alternatives thus : absolute
eternity of punishment — and, with it, of the state of rebellion which it implies, since
it is unthinkable that rebellion should absolutely cease, and yet punishment con
tinue; annihilation; or else universal restoration. Something else is at least think
able, that may not lie within these hard and fast lines of demarcation. It is at
least conceivable that there may be a quartum quid — that there may be a purifica
tion or transformation (sit venia verbis) of all who are capable of such — or, if it is
preferred, an unfolding of the germ of grace, present before death, invisible though
it may have been to other men, and that in the end of what we call time or ' dis
pensation,' only that which is morally incapable of transformation — be it men or
devils — shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev. xx. 10, 14, 15 ; xxi.
8). And here, if, perhaps just, exception is taken to the terms ' purification ' or
' transformation ' (perhaps spiritual development), I would refer in explanation to
what Dr. Pusey has so beautifully written— although my reference is only to this
point, not to others on which he touches (Pusey, What is of Faith, &c, pp. 116-
122). And, in connection with this, we note that there is quite a series of
Scripture-statements, which teach alike the final reign of God (' that God may be
all in all'), and the final putting of all things under Christ — and all this in con
nection with the blessed fact that Christ has 'tasted death for every man,' 'that
the world through Him might be saved,' and, in consequence, to 'draw all' unto
Himself, comp. Col. i. 19, 20 (comp. St. John iii. 17; xii. 32; Rom. v. 18-24;
1 Cor. xv. 20-28 ; Eph. i. 10 ; Col. i. 19, 20 ; 1 Tim. ii. 4, 6 ; iv. 10 ; Heb. ii. 9 ;

795

APP. XIX

796 THE QUESTION OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
APP. * J°uu ii. 2; iv. 14 — all which passages must, however, be studied in their con-
Xix nection). Thus far it has been the sole aim of the present writer to set before the reader,
so far as he can, all the elements to be taken into consideration. He has pro
nounced no definite conclusion, and he neither wishes nor purposes to do so. This
only he will repeat, that to his mind the Words of our Lord, as recorded in the
Gospels, convey this impression, that there is an eternity of punishment; and
further, that this was. the accepted belief of the Jewish schools in the time of
Christ. But of these things does he feel fully assured: that we may absolutely
trust in the loving-kindness of our God ; that the work of Christ is for all and of
infinite value, and that its outcome must correspond to its character; and, lastly,
for practical purposes, that in regard to those who have departed (whether or not
we know of grace in them) our views and our hopes should be the widest (con
sistent with Scripture teaching), and that as regards ourselves, personally and in
dividually, our views as to the need of absolute and immediate faith in Christ as
the Saviour, of holiness of life, and of service of the Lord Jesus, should be the
closest and most rigidly fixed.

INDEX I.
OF SUBJECTS.

[The Roman Numeral refers to the Volume, the ordinary Numeral to the page. The Index does not
extend either to the Notes or to the Appendix.]

Abraham, transcending merits of,i. 271,
272. See Gehenna
Abtalion, saying of, i. 128
Academies, subjects of study in, i. 232 ;
classes of lectures in, and students,
247
Acco, or Ptolemais, fair at, i. 117
Acher. See Elislia ben Abuyah
Acra. Fort, i. 113
Adam, Fall of, to what ascribed, i. 165;
things lost through it, 166
Aegina, Jewish inscriptions at, i. 70
Aenon, near Salim, site of, i. 393, 657,
658
Agrippa 1., money dealings with Alex
andrian Jews, i. 63
Agrippeion, built, i. 120
Akiba, R., i. 15 ; vindicates canonicity
of Canticles, 35
Akylas, or Aquila, version of, i. 30
Alexandra, the Asmonsean, sends por
traits to Antony, i. 89, 90; a devotee
toPharsaism, 97, descent, and chil
dren of, 124; her intrigues, 125; mur
der of, 126
Alexander, the Great, division of his
empire, i. 121
Alexander, son of Herod, history of, i.
126, 127
Alexandreion, built, i. 120
Alexandria, Jewish students in, i'. 24 ;
Sanhedrin of, 20, 61; position, har
bour and buildings of, 58, 59 ; trade
and luxury in, 00, 61 ; Canobus, 61 ;
Lake Mareotis, 61 ; privileges enjoyed
by Jews in, 61 ; their Synagogue, til ;
ethnarch and alabarch, 63 ; rich Jew
ish firms in, 63 ; gifts to the Temple,
63, 64 ; hatred of Alexandrians to
wards the Jews, 64 ; Jewish homes
in, 250
Alexandrianism. See Hellenists
Am ha-arets, contempt for, i. 85 ; who
reckoned such, 230

Ananias, high-priest, Palace of, i.
112
Ananos, or Annas, appointed high-
priest, i. 242; character of his house,
263; President of the Sanhedri:, 264;
bazaars of his sons, 371, 372 ; their
conduct, 372, ii. 547 ; Christ before
him, ii. 546-548
Andrew, first call of, i. 345, 346 ; calls
Peter, 347, 348 ; final call of, 474-47?;
tells Christ about the inquiring
Greeks, ii. 390
Angels, one appears to Zacharias, i. 138-
140 ; their names, whence derived,
141, 142 ; N.T. angelology not from
Jewish sources, 142 ; Fall of man
ascribed to their envy, 165, 292 ;
appear to shepherds of Bethlehem,
187, 188 ; minister to Christ after
Temptation. 306 ; Essene intercourse
with, 330 ; reference to in Pseudepi
grapha, 330, 331 ; derivation of doc
trine of, 331, 332 ; Christ's teaching
about the Angels in heaven, ii. 1^2 ,
Christ strengthened by one in Geth
semane, 540
Anna, meets Holy Family in Temple,
i. 200, 201
Annius Rufus, the Procurator, i. 242
Antigonus, of Socho, sayings of, i. 95,
315
Antigonus, the Maccabee, made high-
priest by Parthians, i. 124; executed,
124
Antigonus, the Syrian, conquers Sa
maria, i. 397
Antioch, Jews in, their rights and Syna
gogue, control ersies with Christians
in, i. 74
Antiochus III. (Great), ruler of Samaria,
i. 397
Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes), persecutions
of, i. 4, 5, 95, 121
Antipater, history of, i. 122, 123

798

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Antipater, son of Herod, history of, i.
126, 127, 219 ; executed, 218
Antipatris, built, i. 119
Antonia, ancient Baris, i, 112, 113, 118,
244
Antony, gives Judsea to Herod, i. 124 ;
summons him, 125
Anxur, Synagogue at, i. 70
Apion, incites Alexandrians against the
Jews, i. 64, 65
Apocryphal Literature, origin of, i. 81;
influence of, 33
Apostles, the Twelve, calling of, i. 521-
523 ; mission of, 640 ; Christ's dis
course to them on it, 640-653 ; eat
the ears of corn on the Sabbath, ii.
53-56 , their question about feeding
the 4000, 66 ; the miraculous always
new to them, 66, 67 ; the leaven of
the Pharisees and Sadducees, 70, 71 ;
effect on them of the challenge of a
sign, 76, 77 ; Christ's question to
them at Caesarea Philippi, 78-80 ; His
teaching as to His death, 86, 92, 110,
111, 345 ; the high point in theiriaith,
91, 92; fail to cure the lunatic, 106,
109 ; dispute, on the way to Ca
pernaum, and Christ's teaching there
on, 115-125 ; the betrayal would not
finally break up their circle, 504 ;
the question as to the betrayer, 505 ;
persecutions predicted, 524 ; per
plexity about Christ's departure and
coming again, 526-528 ; Christ's
prayer for them, 529-532 ; breaking
up and reforming of tbeir circle, 534,
535 ; they flee on Christ s arrest, 544 ;
power delegated to them, 645 ; Christ's
last commission, 651 ; they witness
the Ascension, 651,652
Arabia, Jews in, i. 13
Aramman, language spoken, i. 10, 130
Archelaus, son of Herod, i. 126 ; acces
sion of, 219 ; mission to Rome, 220 ;
made ethnarch, 220 ; banished to
Gaul, 220, 236 ; wealth confiscated,
236 ; changes high priests, 240
Archisynagogos, i. 63
Aristea*, letter of, i. 25 ; symbolism in,
34, 36
Aristobulus, of Alexandria, comment
ary of, i. 36
Aristobulus 11. , disputes of, with Hyr
canus, i. 123
Aristobulus, brother of Mariamme, i.
124 ; made high-priest, and murdered,
125
Aristobulus, son of Herod, history of, i.
126, 127
Artapanus, i. 36
Arzareth, i. 14

Ascension of Christ, ii. 651, 652
Asia Minor, privileges of Jews in, i. 73
Astrology among the Jews, i. 209-211
Athens, Jewish inscriptions at, i. 70
Atonement, Day of, i. 229
Amora. See Emora.
Baba ben Buta, advises Herod, i. 120 ;
brings sacrificial animals into the
Temple. 370, 372
Babas, sons of, murdered, i. 126
Babylonian Jews, how esteemed, i. 7, 9;
seats of, 7, 8 ; genealogies, 9 ; -rela
tions to Palest nians, 10-12 ; acade
mies of, 12; trade and commerce of,
13, 14
Bankers, Jewish and Roman, ii. 463;
interest charged by, 463, 464
Baptism, difference between the Bap
tist's and Christian, i. 272; Levitical
and proselyte baptism, 273; the Bap
tist's rite, 274; the Baptism of Christ,
283, 281; not expected for Messiah in
Rabbinic writings, 285
Bar-Abbas, released, ii. 576, 577, 579
BarEokhabh, coinage of, ii. 385
Bar-Timaeus, healing of, ii. 355, 356
Baruch, Apocalypse of, i. 31 ; age and
contents of, 81, 82; the Messiah in,
175
Bath-Qol, declares for Hillel, i. 128 ;
was such at Christ's Baptism ? 285,
286 ; declares for Eliezer, ii. 69
Batlanim. See Synagogues
Beelsebul and Beelzibbul, i. 648
Bel and the Dragon, i. 31
Ben Dama, i. 22
Ben-Lakish, saying of, i. 141, 142
Bethabara or Bethany, i. 264; John the
Baptist at, 278
Bethany, Christ at, ii. 144-147 ; jour
neys to rais=e Lazarus, 314, 315 ;
leaves it, 326 ; the journey and sup
per there, 357, 358 ; Mary anoints
Christ. 358-360 ; Christ leaves it for
Jerusalem, 364 ; returns at night, 373;
leaves it next morning, 374; ecclesi
astically included in Jerusalem, 480 ,
place of Christ's Ascension, 651
Bethesda, Pool of, name, i. 462 ; the
troubling of the water, 463, 464; the
miracle there, 467-469
Beth ha Midrash, i. 23
Bethlehem, Messiah's birthplace, i. 181,
206 ; description of place, 184 ; the
Birth in the stable, 185 ; the shep
herds in the plains, 186, 187 ; the
adoration of the shepherds, 189
Bethphage, identification of. ii. 364; the
colt loosed at, 365 ; ecclesiastically
included in Jerusalem, 480

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

799

Bethsaida, of Galilee, probable situation
of, ii. 3, house of Peter and Andrew,
4 ; Christ lands there, 6 , woe on,
138, 139
Bethsaida-Tulias. built, i. 88, 262, 676 ;
the feeding of the 5000 there, 677-
685 ; the multitude sent away, 687 ,
healing of one blind at, ii. 47, 48
Betrothal. See Marriage
liikkurim, i. 9
Binding and Loosing, power of, ii. 84,
85; Church's power of, 645
Boraithtis, i. 103 ; in the Babylon Tal
mud, 104, 105
Botnah, fair at, i. 117
Brethren of the Lord, question concern
ing the, i. 251, 364; live in Caper
naum, 364 ; their visit to Christ, 576,
577 ; challenge Him to show Himself,
ii. 129, 13n.
Burial, orations at, i. 555; the mourn
ers, 555; ii. 317, 318; coffins and biers.
i. 555, 556 ; ii. 317 ; procession to the
grave, i. 556, 557 ; duties connected
with, ii. 133; time of burying, ii. 315;
cemeteries and tombs, 316-320;
mourning of relatives, 3i0, 321; visit
ing the grave, 323; Jewish ideas
about corruption, 324 ; Christ's woe
on hypocrisy in whitening tombs,
413 ; burial and grave of Christ, 617,
618.
Cossar, tribute to, the question of, ii.
383-386
Cmsarea, i. 88, 119; residence of Roman
Procurator, 236
Cmsarea Philippi, built, i. 88, 262 ;
Christ journeys to, ii. 70-74; descrip
tion of locality, 74 ; Christ's question
and Peter's confession there, 78-85 ;
the teaching and temptation by Peter
there, 86-88 ; Christ leaves it, 110
Caiaphas, appointed high priest, i. 242;
character and policy of, 262, 263, ii.
546; his unconscious prophecy, ii.
326 ; Christ before him : the private
interview., 549-553 ; the trial before
the Sanhedrists,557-561; the condem
nation, 561
Calirrhoe, baths of, i. 217
Cana of Galilee, marriage in, 344; site
of town, 355, 356; home of Nathanael,
356, 423; the first miracle in, 357-363;
the second miracle in, 423-429
Canon, Old Testament, i. 27, 35
Caper naum,hom e of Christ, His Mother,
and brethren, i. 364, 457; site of town,
365, 366; Synagogue at, 366; cure of
court-officer's son at, 424-429 ; centre
for preaching, 458, 460 ; cure of the

demonised in the Synagogue at, 479-
485; cure of Peter's wife's mother and
of sick at, 485-488; Christ heals the
paralytic at, 502-506 ; curp of cen
turion's servant there,544-549; raising
of Jairus' daughter at, 616-634; heal
ing of the woman with the bloody
flux, 620, Christ leaves it, 635;
teaches near it, 654 ; His discourses
on His return there, ii. 4-26 ; His
teaching in the Synagogue there, 27
-35; deserted by some disciples there,
36; He leaves Capernaum, 37, 75;
teaching on his return to Capernaum,
115-125; Christ's woe on, 139
Capua, Jewish tombstones at, i. 70
Carmel, view of, i, 146
Census, that of Cyrenius, i. 181-183 • ex
citement consequent on, 236, 237, 241
Chaber. See Pharisees
Chanina ben Dosa, cure by, i. 424, 425;
ii. 116
Chasidim, rule of, i. 96; distinguished
from Pharisees, 323
Chazzan, generally also teacher, i. 231 ;
his part in the Synagogue services,
438, 443
Cheber, under the Maccabees, i. 97
Chija, R., restores the Law, i. 12
Children, how regarded by th" Jews, i.
227, 252 ; what they see before being
born, ii. 325.
Ghilsonim, their Sepharim, or outside
books, i. 33 ; probably the Essenes,
331-333; books denounced by Rabbis,
333, 334
Choi ha Moed, ii 148, 156
Chorazin, Christ's woe on, ii. 138, 139
Church, the, disputes in early, i. 7;
foundation laid on 'the Petrine,' ii. 82-
85, discipline to offenders iu, 123, 124;
authority bestowed by Christ on, 140-
142; its union, communion, and dis
union, 519-524; rule and ordination
in the early Church, 555; its com
mission and power given by the Risen
Christ, 644, 645
Clement of Alexandria, on Aristobulus,
i. 36
Coponius, Procurator of Syria, i. 242
Coxt'ibarus, Governor of Idumaaa mur
dered, i. 126
Cras^us, spoils Temple Treasury, i. 369
Crucifixion of Christ, preparations for.
and pro ession to, ii. 582-586; Simon
the Cyrenian bears the Cross, 587 ;
Christ and the women of Jerusalem,
5:8, 589 ; the crucifying, 589; the
draught refused, 590; the titulus, 590,
591; the lots for the garments, 591-
593 ; the Utterances of Christ, and the

800

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

mocking, 593-G09; his death, 609, 610;
the rending of the veil and the earth
quake, &c, 610-612; the crurifragium
613; Christ's side pierced, 614, 615
Cyrene, Jews in, i. 62, 63, 119; Simon
of, ii. 587
Cy renins, notices of, in St. Luke, i. 181,
182; orders a census, 236; Governor
of Syria, 242
Dalmanutha, probable derivation of
name, ii 67, 68; its site, 72; the chal
lenge of the sign from heaven at, 68-
70; its effect on the disciples, 71, 79
Darshan, studies of, i. 11
Dead, the offices for, i. 554, 555. See
Death and Burial
Death. Jewish ideas of its cause, i. 166;
the Gan Eden and Gehinnom after, ii.
280-281, invocation of Abraham after.
ii. 280, 281, 282
Debtors, bonds or writings of, ii. 268,
271, 272, various kinds of such legal
documents, 272, 273
Decapolis, cities of the, i. 87; Christ
heals one deaf and dumb there, ii. 44-
47; Sabbnth controversies in, 53-62;
feeding of 4000 in, 63-67; Christ
journeys through it towards Jerusa
lem, 132; certain there who would
follow Him, 132-134
Dedication of the Temple, Feast of, i. 121;
how celebrated, 229; ii. 227. 228;
names for it, ii. 226, 227; Christ's
teaching at, 229-232
Defilement, Rabbinic, degrees of, i. 493,
494 ; from entering a heathen house,
ii. 566, 567
Demetrius, Hellenist historian, i, 36
Demetrius Phalereus, i. 24, 25
Demonised, in N.T., i. 479; views of
Christ and of His contemporaries on,
480; character and probable rationale
of the phenomenon, 480-485, 607-612;
Jewish remedies for, 482 ; cure of the
demonised at Capernaum, 484-485; at
Gerasa, 607-614
Demonology of N.T., whence derived 1
i. 142; Jewish idea of Beelzebul, ii.
201
Derush, i. 21
Dispersion, the, union with Jerusalem
in worship and hope, i. 5, 6, 77. 78,
82. 88; in all lands, 70; persecutions
suffered by them of the, 75, places of
worship, 76 ; Palestinian views of
their present and future, 78-82
Dispersion, Eastern , orTr&ns-Euphr&tic,
nations of, i. 6; political and religious
standing, 7-12
Dispersion, Western, See Hellenists

Divorce, Christ's teaching to the Phari
sees on. ii. 331, 332, 334-336 ; Rabbi
nic views on the subject, 332-334
Dorshe Reshumoth, allegoric interpreta
tions of the, i. 35
Dreams, how regarded, i. 155
Dress, etiquette in, i. 620 ; articles of
clothing, 621-623 ; probable dress oE
Christ, 624-626 ; byssus and purple,
ii. 278
Eden, Gan, ii. 280, 281. See Death
Egypt, Holy Family in. i. 214, 215, 217
Eleazar, h gh-priest, letter to, i, 25 ;
Aristeas' account of, 34, 35
Eleazar, son of Boethos, High-Priest, i.
241
Eleazar, son of Judas the Nationalist,
i. 241 , 242
Eleazar the Mede, i. 12
Eliezer ben Hyrcanos, R., i. 15; his stone,
107 ; sighs in confirmation of his
teaching, ii. 69; questioned as to the
shepherd and sheep, 193, 194
Elijah, Jewish ideas concerning, i. 142,
143 ; at the Transfiguration, ii. 97, 98;
the disciples' question about his com
ing, 104, 105
Elisabeth, character and home of, i. 135-
137; her retirement, 143; greets the
Virgin, 152, 153; gives the name John,
158
Elisha ben Abuyah, R., the apostate, i,
22, 23
Emmaus, Moza, or Colonin, ii. 157; the
walk to Emmaus on Easter Day, 637-
642
Emora, part of, in Synagogue services,
i. 445, 449, 450
Enoch, Book of, date and character, i.
38; restoration of Israel according to,
79 ; presentation of Messiah in, 173 ;
angelology of, 330
En-Soph, tee Kabbalah.
Ephraim, city of, ii. 127 ; Christ there,
326, 327
Esdras, Fourth, age and character of, i.
80, 81 ; Messiah in. 175
Esebonitis, built, i. 88, 120
Essenes, dress of, i. 119; manner of life,
237; number and separation of, 324,
325, 32s, 329 ; was John the Baptist
one? 325, 834; customs and grades in
the order, 326-328; angelology of,
330 ; derivation of the name Essene,
332-333 ; Rabbinic views of the sect,
334
Eupolemus, i. 36
Excommunication, Jewish kinds of, ii,
183, 184; what involved in. 184
Execution, Jewish modes of, ii. 584

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

801

.-J*, rising of, i. 238, 241
Ezekiel. Hellenist poet, i. 36
Ezra, return under, i. 8 ; activity of 9
10, 12 y ' '
Fasting, Jewish views on, i. 662 603 -
days of, ii 291
Fathers, Jewish, duties of, i. 230
Feasts, attendance at, when obligatory,
i 235
Fig-tree, value of, ii. 210, 247; parable
of, 246-248; Christ curses the barren
tree, 374-377
Flocks at Bethlehem, for what purpose
there, i. 187
Gaba, i. 88
Gabinius. rebuilds Samaria, i. 398
Gabriel, angel, how regarded by the
Jews, i. 142; sent to Nazareth, 150, &c.
Galileans, character and dialect of, i
225 ; despised by Rabbis, 225, 226 ;
slaughter of some by Pilate, ii. 221
Galilee, country of, exports and charac
ter of, i. 117, 223, 224; the stronghold
of the Nationalists, 238 ; Christ with
draws there, 393 ; His first ministry
there, 422, 423, 458, 459 ; His second
journey through Galilee, 490 , once
more there ¦ heals two blind men, ii.
49, 50 ; returns there from Caesarea
Philippi, 110 ; last commission to
apostles there, 651
Galilee, Lake of, i. 225 ; the call of
disciples by, 472-476 ; fishing in the
Lake, 473, 474; calming the storm on
it, 599-605; walking on the waters of,
687-095; Christ's appearance after the
Resurrection by it, ii. 647-651
Gamaliel I, i. 22; healing of his son, i.
424
Gamaliel II., knowledge of Greek of, i.
22; his arguments about the Resur
rection, i. 315, 316, ii. 402, 403
Gaza, fair at, i. 117
Gehenna, Jewish ideas of, i . 271, 550, ii.
280, 281, 440; children of, i. 551, ii.
440
Gennesaret, Land of, beauty of, ii. 5
Gentiles, how regarded by Jews, i. 90-92,
547, ii. 15; their future according to
the Rabbis, i. 271, ii. 440, 441
Genusim, Sepharim, i. 88. See Apoc
rypha
Gerasa, i. 606, 607; healing of the de
monised at, 607-615
Gethsemane, site and name of, ii. 533,
534; Christ's agony in, 538-541
Golah. See Dispersion
Golgotha, site and name of, ii. 585, 586
Gospels, order of, and presentation of
Christ in, i. 54, 55
"VOL. II.

Grecian philosophy, influence on Jews
of, i. 22, 23, 31; views on immor
tality by, 257
Greek language, influence on Palestin
ian, i. 22 ; price of Greek MSS., 24 ;
not the language of Christ, 130 ;
understood by Him, 253

Haggadah, character of, i. 11, 12, 35, 94,
102 ; occurrence of in Mishnah, 103 ;
authority of, and contrast to Christ's
teaching, 105, 106.
Halakhah, authority of, i. 11, 94.99-102;
growth and object of, 97, &c. ; con
trast to the teaching of Christ and of
Scripture, 105, 106, ii. 17
Hallel, the, i. 230; at Feast of Taber
nacles, ii. 159; after Paschal Supper,
533
Hebrew, by whom spoken, i. 10, 130;
price of MSS., 23, 24; spoken by
Christ, 252
Hellenic cities of Palestine, i. 87-89
Hellenism, character of, ;. 31-34; modes
of interpreting Scripture of, 34-36;
Philo's exposition of these methods,
40, &c. ; completion of Hellenism in
him, 57
Hellenists, or Grecian Je.ws, character
of, i. 6, 7, 18-22; origin of name, 17;
religious views of, j8, 19; studies of,
20-23; those in Egypt, 62
Heretics, how regarded, i. 91
Hermon. distant view of, i. 146: descrip
tion of ascent to, ii. 93-95 ; the Trans
figuration on, 96-98 ; the descent from,
102-104 ; healing of the lunatic be
low, 106-109
Herod I (Great), orders genealogies to
be burnt, i. 9 ; architectural works of,
88, 90, 118-120, 127 ; conduct towards
the priesthood and Sanhedrin, 120,
123, 238, 240 ; political history of. 123-
125 ; murders by and family troubles
of, 124-127 ; his death, 137, 217, 218:
hatred of the people for him, 127 ; his
attitude towards Judaibm, 127 ; con
duct towards the Magi, 204-207 ; mur
der of the Innocents by, 214 ; will of
Herod, 219 ; bis opposition to Nation
alism, 240
Herod II. (Antipas). political history of,
i. 126, 219, 220, 673 ; his character,
261, 393, 391 ; builds Tiberias, 261 ;
probable alliance with the Pharisees
of, 393, 658 ; residence in Peraea. 657 ;
imprisons and murders the Bartist,
656-674 ; his marriage with Herodias,
673 ; desires to see Christ, 675, ii. 75
his threat to kill Christ, ii. 301, 302,
3F

802

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

384 ; Christ before him in Jerusalem,
572
Herod Philip, i. 219 ; marries Herodias,
672, 678
Herodeion, built, i. 120 ; burial of Herod
I. at, 218
Herodias, her hatred of the Baptist, i.
658, 672 ; history of, 673
Herodians, or Boethusians, character and
views of, i. 237-240, ii. 384 ; seek a
sign from Christ, ii. 67-70 ; their
question about tribute, 384
High-priests at the time of Christ, cha
racter of, i. 263
Hillel, activity of. i. 12, 95 ; life of, 116,
12K, 129 ; how he attained authority,
248, ii. 381 ; character and tendency
of his school, i. 238-240 ; many of
his school murdered by Shammaites,
233, ii. 13, 14 , the eighteen decrees,
ii. 14 ; his teaching on divorce, 333,
334 ; character of ordinances imposed
by his school, 407
Holy Spirit, the, descent of, at Christ s
Baptism, i. 284-287 ; blasphemy
against, ii. 199 ; the promised Fara-
clete, 515-518, 525, 526
Homeros, Siphre, i. 23
Homes, Jewish, character of, i. 227, 252
Houses, Jewish, large snd small, i. 501,
502
Hyrcania, built, i. 120
Hyrcanus I, breaks with Pharisees, i.
97 ; conquers Idumsea, 122 ; destroys
Samaritan Temple, 398
Hyrcanus II, history of, i. 122-126
Idumrna (S. Palestine), conquered, i. 122
Incensing, ceremonial of, i. 137, 138
India, Jews in, i. 13
Inheritance, Jewish law of, ii. 243, 259 ;
gifts, and testaments, 259
Innocents, murder of the, i. 214-216
Ishmael, son of Elisha, vision by, i. 138
Israel, unity of, i. 3 ; merits of, 84, 86 ;
their sufferings, to what ascribed. 167,
168 ; conditions of their deliverance
by Messiah, 169, 170 , future of, 271
Italy, Jewish settlements in, i. 70
Jairus, raising of his daughter by
Christ, i. 617-634
James, son of Alphseus, call of, i. 521 ;
a cousin of Christ, ii. 603
James, brother of Christ, character of,
i. 251, 254 ; Christ's appearance to
him after the Resurrection, ii. 651
Jam.es, son of Zebedee, first call of, i.
347, 348 ; final call of. 474-477 ; wit
nesses raising of Jdrus' daughter,
629 ; sees the Transfiguration, ii. 93-

98 ; his request to Christ, 346, 347 ,
taken into Gethsemane, 538
Jason, or Joshua, the high-priest, un-
Jewish conduct ivf, i. 118, 121
Jehudah the Holy, R., collates the Mish
nah, i. 102 ; views on the Samaritans
of, 401
Jehudah ben Tabbai, i. 96
Jericho, imprisonment of principal Jews
by Herod in, i. 218, 219 ; site, history,
and commerce of, ii. 349, 351 ; Christ
stays with Zacchifius in, 352-355 ;
heals two blind men at, 355, 356
Jerusalem, description of, in time of
Herod, i. 111-113 ; shops and markets
in, 115, 117, 118 ; cost of living and
population in, 116 ; Synagogues and
academies of, 119 ; magistrates in,
129 ; Grecianism in, 129 ; character
and morals of the people in, 130-132 ;
the dialect, 130 ; houses, letters, and
newspapers in, 131 ; Christ's last
three visits to Jerusalem, ii. 126, 127 ;
His entry into the city, 363-373 ;
Jewish ideas as to the Jerusalem of
the future. 437.
Jesus Christ, annunciation of, i. 150-
152 ; His Name. 155 ; His Nativity,
185-189 ; His Divinity, why kept a
mystery, 192 ; His circumcision and
redemption, 193-197 ; Simeon and
Anna, 198-200 ; adored by Magi, 207,
213 ; the flight into Egypt, 214. 215 ;
home at Nazareth, 221 ; the ' Naza
rene,' 222, 223 ; His child life.
226-234 ; first attendance in the
Temple, 236-249; His youth and
early manhood, 252-254 ; His Bap
tism, 278-287 ; Temptation, 291-
307 ; Christ the Lamb of God, U2-
344. first week of His Ministry, 344,
345, first call of disciples and return
to Galilee. 345-350: the first Miracle
at Cana, 356-363 ; His home at Ca
pernaum, 366 ; the first Passover in
His Ministry, 866; purification ol the
Temple, 372-374; the sign asked, 874-
378; the signs done at the Passover,
378-380; Christ's teaching to Nico
demus, 381-389; Christ's teaching and
His disciples' bapi ism in Judsea, 890,
393; Christ at Jacob's Well at Sychar-
the teaching of the woman, 395-420;
the two days in Sampria, 420-422; the
cure of the court officer's son at Ca
pernaum, 424-429 ; Christ at Nazareth ,
430, 431, 451-459; at thc UnknowD
Feast, 460-471 ; end of first, stage of
Christ's Ministry; final call of disci
ples, and miraculous draught of fishes,
472-477 ; heals the demonised at Ca-

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

803

pernaum, 48 4,485 ; cures Peter's wife's
mother and other sick, 485-488;
second Galilean journey, 490, 491;
heals the leper. 491-498; tracked by
Scribes and Pharisees, 498, 499, 574,
ii. 51 ; heals the paralytic at Caper
naum, i. 502-506; calls Matthew,
513-521, calls the twelve. 522, 523,
the Sermon on the Mount, 524-541 ;
in Capernaum- visit of His friends,
542, 543, the charge that He had a
devil and Satanic power, 543. 575,
576, 609, ii. 8, 197, 198; heals the cen
turion's servant, 544-551 ; raises the
young man at Nain, 552-562; chro
nology of this period, 561, 562, 570,
pardons the woman which was a
sinner, 563-569; the women who
ministered to Him, 570-573 ; heals two
blind men and one demonised dumb
on way to Capernaum, 573, the visit
of His mother and brethren, 576, 577,
His teaching by parables, 578-586;
the first series, 585-598; stills the
storm on the Lake of Galilee, 599-605 ,
heals the demonised at Gerasa, 606-
615; raises Jairus' daughter, and heals
the woman who touched Him, 616-
634; Christ's personal appearance,
620-626; His second visit to Nazareth,
635, 640; sends forth the twelve, 640-
653, withdraws from Galilee, 654,
655, answers the Baptist's disciples
as to prayer and fasting, 662-665,
answers the Baptist's message, 668,
669 , Christ's testimony to the Baptist,
669-671; feeds 5u00at Bethsaida, 677-
685, will not be made King, 686;
walks on the sea and stills the storm
on the lake, 687-695, at Gennesaret.
ii. 5; returns to Capernaum. 4-7, dis
courses by the way, 9-24, the crisis in
popularf eeling concerning Christ, 25,
26, 35, 36, the teaching in the Syna
gogue at Capernaum. 27-35; defection
among His disciples, and answer of
Peter, 36; heals thc Syro-Phoenician's
daughter in the borders of Tyre and
Sidon, 37-43; cures one deaf and
dumb in the Decapolis, 44-47; heals
one blind at Bethsaida-Julias, 47, 48;
heals two blind men, 48-50, Christ's
teaching as to the Sabbath, 52-58,
303 : heals the man with the withered
hand, 59-62, feeds 4000 in the De
capolis, 63-67; Christ in the parts of
Dalmanutha.: the sign asked, 67-70;
teaches His uisciples concerning the
leaven of the Pharisees, 70, 71 ; end
of Christ's Galilean ministry, 75, 76;
effect of the challenge of a sign

on the disciples and Judas, 76-78;
Peter's confusion and Christ's declar
ation and teaching thereon, 78-86;
Peter's temptation of Christ, 86, 87;
Christ's teaching about His death,
86, &c, 110, 111, 345, 391, 392, 469,
471; the Transfiguration, 93-103; He
heals the lunatic, 105-109; Peter
and the tribute-money, 112-114; dis
course to the disciples, 117-125, chro
nology of last part of Gospel narra
tives, 126-129; Christ journeys to the
Feast of Tabernacles . the challenge
of His brethren, 129, 130; the Sa
maritans will not receive Him, 131,
132, those who were hindered from
following Him, 132-134; the mission
and return of the Seventy, 135-142,
the woes on Chorazin and Bethsaida,
138, 139; Christ's yoke, 142-144; the
inquiry of the lawyer, 144; Christ at
Bethany, 144-147; teaches in the
Temple at Feast of Tabernacles, 150-
155 ; plots of His enemies, 155 ; teaches
on the great day of the Feast, 160-
162; discourse in the Treasury, 164,
166-176, Christ as Shomroni, 174-
176; heals the man born blind, 178-
187; the allegory of the Good Shep
herd, 188-193; in Peraea, teaches the
disciples to pray, 195-197 dis
courses in Peraea to disciples and
people, 199-203; the teaching at
the morning meal in the Pharisee's
house, 205-213, His discourses to
the disciples and multitude, 214-
221 . teaching concerning the slaugh
tered Galileans, 221 222; heals
a woman in a Peraean Synagogue,
223-225, teaches in the Temple
at the Feast of Dedication, 228-
232, Ihe Peraean parables, 234-297;
the Peraean discourses, 298-307;
Christ's answer to Herod's message,
301, 302, the raising of Lazarus, 308-
326; the plots ofthe Sanhedrists, 326.
Christ at Ephraim, 326, 327 ; He pre
pares for His last journey to Jerusa
lem, 327, 328 ; heals ten lepers, 328-
331 ; His teaching on divorce, 331-
336 ; He bli'sses little children, 336,
337 ; His answer to the young ruler,
and teaching on riches, 338-343 ;
answers the request of the mother of
Zebedee's children, 346-318 : at
Jericho with Zaccheus, 349-355 ;
He heals two blind men there, 355,
356 ; Ihe supper at Bethany and the
anointing there, 357-360 ; Christ's
entry into Jerusalem, 363-373 ; He
returns to Bethany, 373 ; the cursing
3 F 2

804

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

of the barren figtree, 374-377 : the
final cleansing of the Temple, 377,
378 ; the children's Hosanna, 378,
379 , He ;eaches on the third day in
Passion Week, 380-383 ; tribute to
Cossar, 383-386 ; the widow's two
mites, 387-889 ; teaches the Greeks
who would see Him, 389-391 ; the
voice from Heaven, 392 ; Christ's
last appeal in the Temple, 393-3115 ;
controversy with the Sadducees
about the Resurrection, 396-403 ;
the Scribes' question of the greatest
commandment, 403-405 ; David's Son
and Lord, 405—106 , final woes against
Pharisaism, 4"6-414 ; Christ finally
quits the Temple, 414 ; the last para
bles. 415-430, 453-467 ; Christ's dis
course on the Last Things, 431-452 ;
He rests before His Passion, 468, 469 ;
He is sold by Judas, 475-477 ; He
sends His disciples to prepare for the
Passover, 480-485 ; His probable
host, 485 ; Christ enters Jerusalem,
488, 489; the Sacraments which
opened and closed His ministry, 491,
492 , the Paschal Supper, 492-507 ;
Judas goes out, 507, 508 , theinstitu
tion of the Lord's Supper, 609-512 ;
Christ's last Discourses, 513-528 ;
the Lord's own prayer, 528-532 , on
the way to Gethsemane, 533-534 .
Christ's supplication for, and warn
ing to Peter, 535-538 ; His agony in
Gethsemane, 538-541 ; His betrayal
and arrest, 541-545 ; Christ before
Annas, 546-548 , before Caiaphas,
and before the Sanhedrists, 549-561 ;
Christ is condemned and insulted,
561-563 ; He looks on Peter, 564 ; the
morning meeting of the Sanhedrists,
565 ; Christ before Pilate, 565-578 ;
Christ sent to Herod, 572 ; He is
scourged, 579 , He is sentenced by
Pilate, 580, 581 . Christ is crucified,
582-609 , He dies and descends into
Hades, 610 , the rent veil aud earth
quake, 610-612; the centurion's testi
mony, 612, His side is pierced, 613-
615 ; His entombment, 615-618 ; the
guard set, 619, 6^0 ; His Resurrection,
630, &c. ; appearances after, 034-6ol .
His Ascension, 651 , 652
Jesus, son of Sie, high priest, i. 241
Jems, their resistance to Rome, i. 257 ;
their condition under Augustus and
Tiberius, 262 ; history of their progres
sive re-istance to Christ, ii. 393-395
Jezreel, Plain of, i. 145
Joanna, wife of Chuza, ministers to
Christ, i. 572, 573

Joazar, high priest, quiets the people as
to the census, i. 237, 241 ; political
history and views of, 240-242
Jochanan ben Zakkai, R., saying of, i.
168 ; his conduct during the last war,
238, 239 ; restoration of his child, ii.
116 ; parable spoken by, 425, 426
John the Baptist, annunciation of, i.
139 ; his birth and circumcision, 157,
158 ; parallelism with Elijah, 255,
264 ; his early years, 260 ; first pub
lic appearance and preaching, 264-
276 , his personal appearance, 277 ;
he baptizes Christ, 278-284 ; his testi
mony to the deputation from Jerusa
lem, 308-310, 338-341 ; character of
his preaching, 336-338 , his tempta
tion, 339, 340 ; his testimony to the
Lamb of God, 342-345 ; his two dis
ciples follow Christ, 345, 346 ; the
disputes at iEnon between his. dis
ciples and a Jew, 391-393 ; he is im
prisoned by Antipas, 656-666 , the
questions of the Baptist's disciples as
to fasting and prayer, 662-665 ; his
embassy to Christ, 661, 667-669 ;
Christ's testimony to the Baptist,
669-671 . the beheading of John,
671-674.
J,,hn the Evangelist, object and style
of his Gospel, i. 55, 56 : his view of
the Logos, 56 , first call of the
Apostle, 345-348 . his retro pect on
the visit of Nicodemus, 389 . arrange
ment of his Gospel in cycles, 407,
408 ; nnal call of John, 474-477 . in
ternal evidences of his Gospel, 499 ;
witnesses the raising cf Jairus's
daughter, 629 : sees the Transfigura
tion, ii. 93-98; forbids a man who
did not follow Christ, 117-120 ; the
parts of Christ s History which are
viewed in his Gospel, 126-129 , his re
quest, with his mother and brother,
846-347 ; his question at the Paschal
Supper, 506 ; with Christ in Gethse
mane, 538 ; in the Palace of Caia
phas, 550, 551 , under the Cross, 601-
603 ; at the Sepulchre on Easter Day.
633, 634; by the Lake of Galilee: why
he recorded this narrative, 647-651
Jonathan, the Maccabee, history of, i.
96, 113
Joppa, harbour of, i. 117
Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary,
his genealogy, i. 149 . the dream and
vision of, 154, 155; marries JViary,
155, 156; journeys to Bethlehem, lb3,
<fec. , flees into Egypt, 214, returns to
Nazareth, 221 ; his search for Jesus at
Christ's first visit to Jerusalem, 248

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

805

Joseph of Arimatliea, the request of, ii.
615, 617
Joseph, uncle of Herod, murdered by
him, i. 125
Joseph, brother of Herod, i. 124
Josephus, Grecian thought in, i. 32
Joses, brother of Christ, i. 251
Joshua, R., anecdote of, i. 107
Joshua, son of Gamla, establishes
schools, i. 231
Jubilees, Book of, its language and char
acter, i. 38; the restoration of the
Jews iu, 80; angelology of, 330, 331
Judma, home of Rabbinism, i. 148, 223,
224; the Roman rule of, 260
Judan, R., discovered the Messiah, i.
175
Judas, R., executed by Herod, i. 217,
218
Judas, son of Ezekias, revolt of, i. 241
Judas Iscariot, a Judaean, i. 522; begin
ning of his apostasy, ii. 36, history of
his gradual alienation, 77, 78, 471-
475; murmurs at Mary's anointing of
Christ, 359, 360, sells Christ to the
Sanhedrists, 475-477; his bearing at
the Paschal Supper, 495 - 507; he
leaves the table, 507; his character,
535, 536; he betrays Christ, 541-543,
his change of mind, 477, 478, 573,
574; brings back the money and
hangs himself, 478, 574, 575; the
potter's field, 575, 576.
¦Judas Lebbmus, why so called, i. 522.
his question after the Paschal Supper.
ii. 417; a cousin of Christ, 603
Jude, brother of Christ, character of, i.
251, 254
Judges, in Jerusalem, classes of, ii 286,
287
Julias, city in Peraea, built, i. 88; palace
of Antipas there, 657
Kabbalah, the, i. 44; En-Soph in, 45;
Sephiroth in, 45; what so called, 102
Kal va Chomer, argument by, ii; 285,
286
Khan, or caravansary, i. 117
Kingdom of God, its history and mean
ing in O. andN. T.,i. 160, 161. 265,
266, 269, 270, 275, 276; announced
by John the Baptist, 265, 291 , Rab
binic views of the Kingdom, 266-268;
the yoke of the Kingdom, 267, 268;
ii 142-144; it was the common hope
of Israel, i. 275. 276; the Baptist's
position in regard to the King
dom, 283 ; Christ's consecration
to it 300; He teaches concern
ing entrance into it, 385-388, ii. 299,
300 ; the Kingdom portrayed in the

Sermon on the Mount, i. 529-531 ; who
are worthy of it, 549; its mysteries in
parables, 583-586, 092-596 ; the new
and old as regards the Kingdom, 665;
Christ's teaching as to greatness and
servicein it, ii. 120, 141, 410, forgive
ness in the Kingdom, 123-125; in
auguration feast in it, 300; the King
dom compatible with state rule, 386;
the great paradox concerning it, 391
Kypros built, i. 119
Lamps, of the Ten Virgins, ii. 455-458
Last Things, Christ's Discourse on, ii.
431-452 ; the views of the disciples on,
432, 433; Jewish views on the sorrows
of, at Advent of Messiah, 433, 440; on
final judgment, eternal punishment,
and the world to come, 440-442; the
Pseudepigrapha and Philo on the last
things, 442-445 ; Christ's warnings to
individuals and to the Church, 446-
450; what is to be the Church's at
titude, 450-452
Latin, possibly understood by Christ, i.
253
Lazarus of Bethany, sickness, death,
and raising of, ii. 312-325 ; is present
at the feast of Bethany, 358
Leases and contracts, terms and modes
of, ii. 272, 273, 423
Leonlopolis, temple of. i. 62
Leper, healed by Christ, i. 491-497 ;
Rabbinic precautions regarding, 492-
494, how morally viewed by Jews,
494, 495; Christ heals ten lepers, ii
329-331
Lord's Supper, the accounts of its insti
tution. ii 509, 510 ; the words, 510 ;
probable time of the Paschal Supper,
511
Luke, St., Gospel by, its character, i,
54, 55; the Prologue, 202, narrative
peculiar to it, ii 126-128; was he one
who went to Emmaus? 638
Lysanias, governor of Abilene, i. 261
Maccabee, Judas, political history of, i
5, 121, 122
Maccabees, or Asmonaeans, the rising
and government of. i. 96, 97, 121-123 ;
the Palace of the Maccabees, 112,
118 ; supposed derivation of their
name, 237; the coinage of, ii. 385
Maccabees, Fourth Book of, i, 32
Machmrus, built, i. 120; description of
the site, 658-661
Magadan, bord rs of. See Dalmanutha
Magi, the meaning of the designation, i.
203 ; their home, 208, 204 ; their mis-

806

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

sion, 204-207 ; their adoration and
gifts, 207-214
Magdala, i. 571, ii. 5; its dyeworks, i.
572
Malchus, smitten in Gethsemane, ii. 544
Mamon, ii. 266, 269
Manahem, son of Judas the Nationalist,
fate of, i. 241
Manasseh, priest at Samaria, i. 396
Manna, to "be brought down by Messiah ,
i. 176
Marcus Ambivius, Procurator, i. 242
Mark, St., character of his Gospel, i. 54,
499, 500 ; presentation of Christ in it,
ii. 127, 128; probably was the young
man in Gethsemane, 545
Mariamme!., wife of Herod, history of,
i. 124-126
Marriage and betrothal, in Judaea andin
Galilee, i. 148 ; groomsmen, 148, 663,
664 ; betrothal of Joseph and Mary,
148-150 ; Jewish views on betrothal,
352-354 ; the marriage ceremony. 354,
355 ; marriage processions, ii. 455
Martha of Bethany, Christ in her house,
ii. 145-147 ; herbearingatthetime of
the death and raising of Lazarus, 312,
313, 321, 322-324 ; serves at the feast
in Bethany, 358
Mary of Bethany, sits at Christ's feet, ii.
145-147 ; her bearing at the time of
the death and raising of Lazarus, 312,
313, 322-323; she anoints Christ's
feet, 3,8-360
Mary, wife of Clopas, ii. 602, 603, 618
Mary Magdalene, i. 570, 571 ; under the
Cross, ii. 602 ; watches the burying,
618 ; at the empty tomb on Easter
Day, i. 572, ii. 631 ; tells Peter and
John, ii. 633 ; sees the Angels and
Christ, 634,636
Mary the Virgin, her descent, i. 149,
betrothal, 149, 150 ; the annunciation
to, 150-152 ; visits Elizabeth, 152 ;
Mary's hymn, 153 ; is married to
Joseph, 154-156 ; journeys to Beth
lehem, 183, 184; birth of Christ there,
185 ; her inner history and develop
ment, 191-193. 249, 250 ; her Purifica
tion, 197 ; flees into Egypt, 214; re
turns to Nazareth, 221; her conduct at
Christ's first visit to Jerusalem, 236,
248 ; her request at the marriage of
Cana, 359-362 ; lives at Capernaum,
364; her visit to Christ, 576,577; under
the Cross is entrusted to St. John, ii.
601-603
Masada, i. 120, 124 ; last siege of, 242
Matthew, St. , character of his Gospel, i.
54 ; presentation of Messiah in it, 54,
ii. 127, 128; Old Testament quotations

in, i. 206, 458, 459 ; Christ calls him,
514-519 ; he makes a feast for Christ,
519-521, 663
Matthias R., executed by Herod, i. 217,
218
Meals among the Jews, attitud e at, i. 564 ;
the principal meal, ii. 205, 206 ; food
of the Babylonian and Palestin an
Jews, 206 , the benedictions, 206; the
morning meal, 206, 207; position of
guests at, 207, 208 ; wines and articles
of diet at, 208, 209; etiquette at, 209,
210 .
Measures, kinds of, i. 593, 594, ii. 268 ;
dry measure, ii. 269
Meir, R., treatment of lepers by, i. 495
Memra, the, in the Targumim, i. 47, 48
Menelaus, High-Priest, i. 121
Messiah, the, fiction of the two Messiahs,
i. 78-80, ii. 434, 435 ; names of the
Messiah, i. 151, 154, 155, 175 ; O. and
N.T view of Him, 160-162, O. T. pas
sages Messianically applied by the
Synagogue,163;Rabbinic ideal of Him,
164,165; the sufferings and woes of
Messiah, 165, 205 ;ii. 433, 434; noioom
for His priestly office in Rabbinism. i.
167, the signs, time, and expectation
of His coming, 168-171, 293. 308; ii. 68,
69, 154, 433, 434 ; Jewish views of the
nature, premundane existence.power,
and position of Messiah, i. 171,173,175-
179 ; views of Messiah,in the Pseudepi
grapha and Targumim, 172-175; Jew
ish views as to His birth and birth
place, 175, 178, 180, 181 ; the star of
Messiah, 211, 212 ; Messiah abides for
ever, ii. 393 ; His descent, 405, 406 ; the
davs of Messiah wars and conquests
in,"i 292, 293 ; ii. 436, 437 ; meaning of
the term ' Kingdom of the Messiah ' as
distinguished from the ' future age '
and 'age to come,' i. 267 ; ii. 435, 441;
the feast in Messianic days,i 549, 550 ;
the teaching, law and ritual then, ii.
33, 437, 438 ; the Resurrection by Him
436 ; Jerusalem and Palestine in His
days, 437-439 ; the Gentiles in the
days of Messiah, 439, 440 • death then
abolished, 439
Mesusah, the, i. 76, 228
Metatron, the, i. 47
Methurgeman, duties of the, i. 10, 11,
436, 444, 445.
Michael, the angel, how regarded, i. 142
Midrash, the, origin of, i. 11, 21 ; subject
of, 94, 102
Migdal Eder, prophecy concerning, i.
186, 187
Minim, Siphrey, i. 23, 33
Miracles of Christ : the wine at Cana, i.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

807

351-363 ; cure of nobleman's son at
Capernaum. 422-429 ; the impotent
man at Bethesda, 462-471 ; the
draught of .fishes, 476, 477 ; the de
monised in Synagogue at Caper
naum, 484, 485 ; Peter's wife's
mother and many sick, 485-488; the
leper, 491-498 ; the paralytic, 499-
500; the centurion's servant, 544-551;
raises the young man at' Nain, 552-
560; heals two blind men and one de
monised dumb, 578 ; stills the storm on
the Lake, 599-605 ; heals the denJon-
ised at Gerasa, 606. 615; heals the wo
man who touched Him and raises
Jairus's daughter, 617-634 ; feeds
5000 at Bethsaida, 676-685; walks on
the Lake and stills the storm, 687-
695 ; heals the Syrophcenician's
daughter, ii. 38-43 ; one deaf and
dumb, 45-47; one blind at Bethsaida-
Julius, 47, 48; two blind men, 48-50;
the man with the withered hand, 59-
62; He feeds 4000, 63-67; heals the
lunatic, 106-109; the stater for the
tribute-money, 113-115; He heals the
man born blind, 177-187; heals one
blind, dumb, and demonised, in Per
aea, 197; the woman with the spirit
of infirmity, 224-225; He raisPs Laz
arus, 308-325; heals ten lepers, 328-
331; two blind men at Jericho, 355,
356; curses the fig-tree, and it withers,
374-377 ; the last draught of fishes,
648, 649 ; grounds for rejecting the
miraculous, i. 558-560 ; evidences
for the miraculous, 602-605; ii. 30 1-
312 ; the miracles of Christ, how
viewed by the Jewish authorities, i.
575, 576; when not expected by the
disciples, 689, 690, ii. 66, 67
Mishnah, the, origin of, i. 11; contents
and order of, 101, 102; its language,
102, 1H3
Money, drachm, ii. 257; staler, 114; sela,
258 ; t dent, 294, 459 ; perutah, 388 ;
mina, 466
Morning Sacrifice, i. 133, 134
Moses, at the Transfiguration, ii. 97, 98
Mothers in Israel, i. 22st, 230
NoKBman. See Pharisees
Nain, description of locality, i. 553 ;
Christ raises the young man at, 554-
560
Nard, price of, ii. 358
Nathanael, or Bartholomew, call of, i.
348-350
Nationalists. See Zealots
Nazareth, description of, i. 144-148; the
Holy Family return there, 221 ; no

learned Rabbis there, 233; can any
good come out of Nazareth? b49, 350;
Christ's first visit there, 430-458 ; He
is cast out of the city, 456, 457 ;
Christ's second visit to the place, 635-
640; He lea\ es it for ever, 640
Nehardaa, Jews of, i. 7, 8, 14
Nestorians, the, i. 15
New Year's Day, i. 229
Nicodemus, Christ's teaching to, i. 381-
388 ; St. John's retrospect on the in-
terview,389; Nicodemus remonstrates
with the Sanhedrists at the FgjisL of
Tabernacles, ii. 162. 163 ; brings
spices to embalm Christ, 617
Nisibis, i. 8
Oil, value of, ii. 268, 269
Olives, Mount of, Christ's last discourse
on, ii. 431, 432
Onkelos, the proselyte, repelled by
Shammaites, i. 239
Ophel, i. Ill ; ii. 157
Ordination among the Rabbis, ii. 381,
382
Orpheus, spurious citations from, i. 36
Palestine, 'the land,' i. 7 ; its bound
aries, and gradations of sanctity, 84-
86, 87 ; Hellenic and Herodi an cities
in, 87, 88 ; political government of,
at time of Christ, 87, 88, 236, 237 ;
the ideal state in Messianic days, ii.
438, 439
Parables of Christ, characteristics of,
and reasons for, i. 579-586 , meaning
of the term, 580 ; the sower, 586-588,
594, 595 ; the seed growing secretly,
588, 589; the tares, 589-592; the
mustard-seed and leaven, 592-594;
the treasure hid and pearl of great
price, 595, 596 ; the drawnet, 596,
597; the watching servants, ii. 218,
219 ; the good Samaritan, 234-239 ;
the importunate neighbor, 239-242 ;
the foolish rich man, 243-246 ; the
barren fig tree, 246-248 ; the great
supper, 248-252 ; the lost sheep, 254-
256 ; the lost drachm, 256, 257 , the
lost son, 257-263; the unjust stew
ard, 266-274 ; Dives and Lazarus,
275-283 ; the unjust judge, 284-289 ;
the Pharisee anil the Publican, 289-
298 ; the unmerciful servant, 293-
297 ; the laborers in the vineyard,
415-421: the two sons, 421, 422; the
evil husbandmen, 422-425 ; the mar
riage-feast and wedding-garment,
425-430 ; the ten virgins, 458-459 ;
the talents, 459-465 ; the minas, 465-
467 ; the three series of Parables, i.

808

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

579-580 ; character of first and sec
ond series, ii. 233, 234.
Paracletes, the two, ii. 515-513. See
also Holy Spirit
Parashah, i. 29
Passover, Fea>tof, pilgrims at, i. 229,242-
243 ; the two first days of the Feast,
246 ; the first Passover in Christ's
Ministry, 366, 367, 378 ; Christ's last
Passover, ii. 479 ; the preparations for
the Feast, 479, 4S0; the Paschal meal-
the benedictions, 496, 49 1 ; the first
cup- and the handwashing, 497; the
ritual at table, 504, 505 ; the sop, 506,
507 ; time of the Paschal Supper, 507 ;
the midnight preparation in the Tem
ple, 508;end of thePaschal meal, 511-
513; what rendered unfit to eat the
Passover, 566-568 ; the Chagigah as
Pesach, 568 ; the ceremony of the
wavesh' af and second Paschal day,
613, 618, 619
Patrm, Jewish inscriptions at, i. 70
Paul, St. , in Arabia, i. 14 ; his journey
to Rome, 6 i , ?0
Percea, seat of Herod's government, i.
395 ; Christ's Minis' ry there, ii. 127,
128 ; time and character of it, 195,
190 ; Christ's miraculous power there,
197, 228-225 ; He is warned to leave
Persea, 301 ; Christ's final journey
through it, 328
Peshat.A. 21, 41
Peter, Simon, in Babylonia, i. 14 ; first
call of, 347, 348 ; final call of, 474-
477 ; Christ cures his wife's mother,
485, 486 : Peter sees the raising of
Jairus's daughter, 629 ; he walks on
the water, 693, 694 ; is taught con
cerning clean and unclean, ii. 23, 24 ;
his dispute with St. Paul, 24 ; his tes
timony at Capernaum, 36 ; his con
fession at Caesarea Philippi, and its
import, 80-86, 91, t2; he tempts
Christ, 86, 87 ; witnesses the Trans
figuration, 92-98 ; his conduct as to
the tribute money, 111-114 ; he asks
about forgiving his brother, 115-117,
124, 125 ; what reward should they
have ? 343 ; refuses to let Christ wash
his feet at table, 499, 500 ; questions
about the betrayer, 506 ; asks about
Christ's going away, 509; Christ
warns him of his denial , and has inter
ceded for him, 535-537 ; resemblance
between Judas and Peter, 535, 536 ;
is taken into Gethsemane, 538 ; smites
the ear of Malchus, 544 ; denies
Christ, 550-564 ; his repentance. 564 ;
Peter goes to the sepulchre on Easter
Day, 633, 634 ; Christ appears to him,

642 ; Christ's three questions and
commission to him by the Lake of
Ua'.ilee, 647-650
Pharisees, contempt of, for Hellenists,
i. 7 ; their origin and political history,
96, 97, 310 ; not a sect, 310 ; number,
degrees, and admission into the frater
nity, 311, 312 ; how described inTal
mud, and viewed by Sadducees, 312 ;
their characteristics, 312, 313; ii. 276,
277, 290, 291 ; their dogmatic, cere
monial, and juridical differences from
Sadducees, i. 314-321 ; derivation of
the name. 323 ; their deputation to
John the Baptist, 340-342, they unite
with He rod to imprison the Baptist,
658 ; they track Christ, ii. 51, 52 ; the
controversies about hand washing, 9-
15 ; about Sabbath observance, 52-62;
they seek a sign from heaven, 68-70;
their leaven, 70, 71 ; their treatment
of the man born blind, 185-187; their
interpretation of Christ's power, 197,
198 ; the morning meal in the Phari
see's house in Peraea ; Christ's expos
ure of their hypocrisy, 204-215; Christ
teaches concerning their giving, 248,
249 ; their view ofthe future blessed
ness, 249 ; the sinners and the right
eous, 256 ; their hypocrisy in hospi
tality, and self-seeking, 303, 304; they
question Christ about divorce, 331,
832 ; their anger at Christ's welcome
in Jerusalem, 368 ; the question of
tribute. 384 ; their arguments with
the Sadducees as to the Resurrection,
397-399 ; their views on Levirate mar
riage, 400 ; Christ's last denunciations
and woes on them, 407-414
Pharos, LXX. tianslated there, i. 25 ;
feast celebrated there, 30
Phasaelis, built, i. 119
Phasaelus. brother of Herod I., history
of, i. 123, 124
Pheroras, brother of Herod I., history
of, i. 126, 127
Philip, the Apostle, call of, i. 348-350;
the Greek proselytes come to him, ii.
390 ; his question after the Paschal
Supper, 515
Philip, son of Herod I., political his
tory of, i. 219, 220 ; his character and
works, 262 ; marries Salome, 673
Philo of Alexandria, i. 36, 39 ; bis per
sonal history. 40, 77 ; Greek learning
and philosophy in bis works, 40, 44 ;
his mode of interpreting Scripture,
41-43 ; his theology, 43, 44 ; his ' po
tencies ' and 'words,' 44-46; the
Logos in his works. 48-50 : differences
as compared with the Epistle to the

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

809

Hebrews, 49, 50 ; cosmology and
ethics of Philo, 50-53 ; comparison of
his works and St John's Gospel, 56;
his views on the restoration of the
Dispersion, 82
Phylacteries, or Tephillin, i. 76 ; women
dispensed from, i. 228 , the compart
ments in, 315 ; ostentation in wearing
them, ii. 408
Pilate, Pontius, cruelty and harshness
of, i. 242, 261, 272 ; slaughters the
Galileans, ii. 221 ; gave the band of
soldiers, 541, 542, Christ brought be
fore him, 565-581 ; he is made to con
demn Christ, 580, 581 ; allows the
crurifragium, 612, 613 ; gives Joseph
Christ's body. 615, 616
Pollio, i. 128
Pompeii, Jewish tombstones at, i. 70
Pompey, captures Jerusalem, i. 122;
settles disputes, 128.
Prcelorium, in Jerusalem, ii. 566
Prayer, Rabbinic injunctions astoatti
tude in, i. 438 ; as to interruptions
in, ii. 137, 138
Priesthood, genealogies of, kept, i. 9
Prophecy and Assumption of Moses, age
and contents of, i. 81
Proselytes, some Greek proselytes desire
to see Jesus, ii. 389-392 ; Jewish
views on the making of proselytes,
411, 412 ; would the Gentiles in Mes
sianic days be such ? 439, 440
Proseuche, i. 76
Psalter of Solomon, date and character
of, i. 88 ; description of Messiah and
Messianic times in, 79, 80, 174
Pseudepigraphic Writings, general cha
racter and number of, i. 37
Psewio-Philo, i. 36
Ptolemy 1. (Lagi), projects the Museum
in Alexandria, i. 24 ; rules Samaria,
397
Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus), his love of
books, i. 24 ; has O. T translated,
25
Pto'emy III. (Euergetes), i. 25, 27
Ptolemy (Philometor), i. 36
Publicans, classes of, i. 515-517; charac
ter of, 516, 517 ; the call and feast of
Matthew, 518-520
Purification after childbirth, ceremonial
and sacrifices for, i. 195-197
Purifications. Talmudic tractates on, i.
35*7, 358 ; dispute about, between the
Baptist's disciples and a Jew, : 91 ;
Christ's woe on Pharisaic hypocrisy,
concerning, ii. 413. See also Washing
of hands
Purim, Feast of, how celebrated, i. 229
Puteoli, Jewish settlement in, i. 70

Rabbis, subject of study of ,i. 11 ; rules of
etiquette for, ii. 209, 210; their autho
rity and place, 381, 407 ; manner of
ordination of, 382 ; Christ's charges '
against them, 407-409 ; their position
in both worlds, 408, 410 ; their power
of. binding and loosing, 85, 645
Rabbinic Theology, avoidance of anthro
pomorphisms in, i. 28, 29, 43 ; the
allegorical method in, 35, 36 : com
pared with that of Philo, 42-45 ,
Jehovah and Elohim in, 45, 46 ;
Rabbinic views on creation, 50-51 ;
ou the heavenly Academy, 85, ii.
15, 16 ; Rabbinic hatred of Gen
tiles and idolatry, i. 85, 89-92 .
essential contrariety of Rabbin
ism to the teaching of Christ. 84,
145 . views of Israel's receiving the
Law, 90, ii. 142-144, place given to
Scripture by Rabbinism, i. 105-108,
ii. 17 ; the conception of good in, i. 144,
ii. 339; contempt of Rabbinism for
Galileans and the ignorant, i. 144, 145,
508; no doctrine of original sin, 165;
views on death, 166; the two inclina
tions in man, 167; Rabbinic accounts
of trials of O.T. heroes, 292; views of
sin and the sinner, 507-511 ; Rabbinic
teaching about penitence and peni
tents, 509-513, ii. 245, 246, 253, 258 ;
fasting, i. 512, 513; the children of
God and of Gehinnom in, 551 ; the
Rabbinic ordinance of handwashing,
ii. 9-15: decisions as to canonicity of
certain books, 12, the 18 decrees, 13,
14; Rabbinic views of God's dpingsin
heaven,15, 16; the ordinance of vows,
18-21; the Sabbath laws, 52-62, 158,
154; signs from heaven to confirm cer
tain Rabbis, 68, 69 ; signification of
salt in Rabbinism, 121 ; teaching as to
angels, 122; views on praying, 137,
138; prayers of certain Rabbis, 291;
their authority, whence derived, 151;
their views on the sudden appearance
of Messiah, 154 ; their laws about testi
mony, 169; the doctrine of sin before
birth, 178, 179; the spiritual leaders
Parnasin,188, 189; Rabbinic teaching
about nourishment and redemption,
196; how to inherit elernal life, 235;
236 ; separation of Israel according to,
237; the merits of the fathers, 290;
Rabbinic teaching about forgivene s,
296,297; about divorce, 832-^35; the
renovation of the world. 343 ; Rabbinic
teaching about the Resurrection, 397-
399, 402, 403; teaching about the light
and heavy commandments, 404, 405,
407 ; the abodes of the blessed accord-

8L0

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

ing to the Rabbis, 513, 514. See also
Mishna, Midrash, Halakhah, Hagga
dah, Talmud
Redemption of the firsthorn, i. 194, 195
Resurrection, Christ's teaching to Mar
tha concerning it. ii. 321, 322; Saddu
cean attacks on the doctrine, 897r3f)9;
Jewish and Pharisaic views on it, 398,
199, 402, 403; Christ's teaching con
cerning it, 401-403; the Messiah's part
in it, 436; the Resurrection of Christ:
the narrators of it, 621, 622;. the
disciples' expectation concerning the
event, 623-625; St. Paul's statements
concerning it, 625, 626; hypotheses
concerning it, 626-629, the women at
the sepulchre, 630, 633; Mary Mag
dalene there, 631-636; the guard see
the angel, 631, 632; Peter and John
at the sepulchre, C33, 634; the report
of the body having been stolen, 636,
637; Christ appears to the two who
went to Emmaus, 638-642; appeals to
Peter, 642; to the disciples on Easter
evening, 642-646; appears the next
Sunday, 646,647; is seen by the Lake
of Galilee, 647-651; other manifesta
tions of Christ, 651; our Resurrection -
body, what will it be? 635, 636
Revelation, Christ's teaching as to its
unity, ii. 404, 406
Roads iu Palestine, the three great cara
van ones, i. 147
Rome, views there entertained about the
Jews, i. 65-67 ; political hi-tory and
standing of the Jews there 67, 68,
70-72; Jewish slaves and freedmen in
Rome, 67, 68; their quarters. Syna
gogues, and inscriptions, 68-70; Ro
man proselytes, 71 ; Jewish legend of
Messiah at the gate of Rome, 175;
political, social, and religious history
of the Roman Empire under Au
gustus, 256-260; Jewish legend of the
origin of Rome, ii. 439
Sabbath, the, Jewish modes of making it
a delight, i 437, ii. 52, 114, 115;
Christ's controversy on the 'second
first' Sabbath, ii, 53-56; Rabbinic
views of labour on the Sabbaih. 56-
58 ; as to danger to life on it, 59-61 ,
the O. and N. T. teaching concerning
the Sabbath, 56-59 ; Christ heals the
man with the withered hand on it, 61,
62 ; is accused of breaking tlie Sabbath
again, 181, 182; His Peraean teaching
concerning healing on it, 224, 225, 303
Sabbatyon, river, i. 15
Sadducees, origin of. i. 96, 238, 310;
characteristics of their system, 313;

dogmatic, ritual, and juridical views
differing from the Pharisees of, 314—
321 ; they were a minority, 322; origin
of the name, 32^-324; had no sym
pathy with thc Baptist, 334, 335;
identified with the Herodians by St.
Matthew, ii. 67; they seek a sign from
heaven, 68-70, their leaven, 70, 71;
their attitude towards f'hrist, 396,
397; their arguments with the Phar
isees and with Christ as t o the Resur
rection. 397-399, 401, 402: their views
on the Levirate marriage, 400
Sadduk. a Shammaite, joins Judas thc
Nationalist, i 241
Safed, i. 146
Saliva, mode of healing by, ii. 45, 48,
180, 182
Salome, wife of Zebedee. See Zebedee
Salome, daughter of Herodias, dances
before Herod, i. 672; her end, 673
Salome, sister of Herod I , compasses
murder of her husband, of Mariamme,
Soemus, and Costobarus, i. 125, 126,
releases the Jews shut up at Jericho,
219
Salt, Christ's teaching about its mean
ing, ii. 121
Samaria, province of. Biblical history
of, i. 394-396, its temple, 396, later
political history of, 397, 398; how
viewed by Jews, and attitude of
Samaria towards Judaea. 398-402;
beauty of the Plain of Samaria, 404,
405
Samaria, or Sehaste, built, i. 88, 119;
heathen temple at, 88; fate of, 397,
398
Sanaritans, meaning of the designa- •
tion in Jewish writings, i. 399, 400;
doctrines held by the Samaritans,
402, 403; they refuse to receive Christ,
ii. 131; the healed Samaritan leper,
329-331
Sanhedrin, the, of Jerusalem, signals of
the new month by, i. 9: of supreme
authority, 12; actual power of, at the
time of Christ, 120, 128, 238, ii. 556 ;
origin of, i. 97; places of, meeting,
114, 371; rank in it, and privileges
thereby conferred, 96, 131, ii. 555;
character of decisions made by San
hedrin, i. 129, ii. 557, 584, teaching by
members of it on the Temple-terrace,
i. 247; s'-nt no official deputation 10
the Baptist, 30!), 310; did not sit on
Sabbaths, ii. 182; the Sanhedrist
council against Christ. 326; mode of
ordination, 381, 382, 553-555; Christ's
trial illegal according to their laws,
553; the three tribunals, 554; regular

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

811

mode of procedure in trial by the San
hedrin, 555, 556. See Trial of Christ
Satan or Sammael, compasses the Fall
of Man, i. 165; his assaults upon
Abraham, 292; his conqutst by Mes
siah, 292, 293 ; Christ sees his fall, ii.
140; also named Shomron, 174
Schoolsm Palestine, i. 230, 231; teachers
in, 231; subjects of study in, 232
Scribes or Sopherim, studies of, i. 11;
their position and dignity, 93, origin,
growth, and decay in power of, the
institution, 94-96
Seleucidm, troubles of Palestine under,
i, 96, 121
Seleucus I. (Nicator) grants the Jews of
Asia Minor citizenship, i. 7-1
Seleucus IV. (Philopator) conquers Sa
maria, i. 397
Sephiroth. See Kabbalah
Sepphoris, seized by Judas, the Nation
alist, i. 241
Septuagint, i. 23; legend of its origin
and name, 24-26; its age, 26; its char
acteristics, 27, 28; how regarded and
used by Hellenists and Rabbis. 29,
30
Sermon on the Mount, the, contrasted and
compared with Rabbinic wiitings, i.
524-526, 531-541 ; its arrangement and
divisions, 527, 528; the Beatitudes,
~ 529,530; alms, prayer, and fasting in
it, 530, 531 ; analysis of the third part,
531; its effect on the hearers, 541
Seventy, mission of the, ii. 135; differ
ences between it and the sending of
the Twelve, 135, 136; their commis
sion and return, 137-142
Shammai, bis life and teaching, i. 95,
128, 129; character of his school, 239,
240; the eighteen decrees, how parsed,
239. ii. 13, 14; views of the school on
hand-washing, ii. 13; on divorce, 333;
the burdens bound by them, 407
SJiaul, Abba, curse pronounced by, i.
372
Shechem, real capital of Samaria, i. 397,
398; the ' city of fools,' 400; the val
ley of Shechem, 404, 405
Shekhinah, the, removed from earth at
the Fall of man. i. 166; lingers over
the wall of the Temple, 168
Sheliaeh Tsibbur. Christ acts as, in the
Nazareth Synagogue, i 439
Shema, the, reason of its order, i. 238
Shemayah, or Sameas, saying of, i.
128
Sibylline Oracles, lament of i. 6; Jewish
personation in. 36: date and country
of, 38; passed for Erythraean and Cu-
maean, 38 ; the restoration of Israel re

ferred to in them ; their presentation
of Messiah, 172, 173
Sickness, Jewish views crncerning, i.
554
Siloam, Pool of, i. Ill; the procession
thither on the Feast of Tabernacles, ii.
157, 158, the man born blind sent to
wash there, 180; lessons of the fall
of the tower there, 222, 223
Simeon , meets the Holy Family in the
Temple, i. 198; his song and pro
phecy, 199, 200
Simeon, grandson of Hillel, interferes
concerning Temple traffic, i. 370,371
Simon 1. (Just), described in Ecclus., i.
26,121, saying of, 95; sees a vision of
an angel every year, 138
Simon, the Cyrenian, ii. 582, 587
Simon, son of Gamaliel, views on Sama
ritans of, i. 400
Simon, ben Jochai, saying of, i. 540; ii.
291.
Simon, the Pharisee, the meal given to
Christ in his house, and the woman
which was a sinner there, i. 563-569
Simon, ben Shetach, i. 96
Simon Zelotes, a cousin of Christ, i. 251,
522; ii. 603
Sirach, Son of, translates his grand
father's work, i. 26; Grecian thought
in it, 32
Sod, i, 21
Soemus, murdered, i. 126
Sowing, modes of, i. 586
Star of the Magi, i. 204, 205; probable
explanation of it, 211-213; Jewish
expectation of a star, 211, 2i2
Stoning, Place of, ii. 585
Sugolh, or couples, the, i. 95-97
Susanna, ministers to Christ, i. 573
Swine, keeping them prohibited to
Jews, ii. 260
Sychar, i 405; roads to the place, 405;
its well, 409; Christ at Jacob's Well
there, 405-420
Synagogue, ihe Great, duration of, i. 94,
95
Synagogues, Hellenist, i. 19, 29, 30, 77;
the batlanim of, 76, 433, 434; their
tendency in the Dispersion and in Pa
lestine, 77, 433, 434; the Jerusalem
Synagogues, 119, 432; origin of Syna
gogues, 431, 432; plan and structure
of Synagogues, according to that at
Capernaum, 434-436; regulations as
to conduct in, going to. and returning
from, a Synagogue, 437; the officials,
438, 439; the service, 439-445: Jewish
preachers and sermons in, 445-450;
Christ in the Synagogue of Nazareth,
452-456

812

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Syracuse, Jewish colony at, i. 69
Syria, reckoned part of ' the land,' i. 7
Syrophmnician Woman, healing of her
daughter by Christ, ii. 38-43
Tabernacles, Feast of, how kept, i. 229 ;
pilgrims at it, and how treated, ii.129 ;
148, 149; Christ goes up to it private
ly, 131; the booths, 145, 146; Choi ha
Moed of, 148; symbolism of thf Feast,
149, 150; the illuminations, 150-165;
the services of the great day of the
Feast, 156-160; the Lulabh and Eth
rog, 157
Tabor', distant view of, i. 146
Talmud, or Gemara, Metatron in, i. 47;
age and contents of the Jerusalem
Talmud, 103, 104; of the Babylon
Talmud, 104; number of tractates
and pages in the Babylon, 104, 105;
its Boraithas, 104; the birth of Mes
siah in the Talmud, 175
Tanchuma, R., saying of, i. 178
Targumim, origin of, i. 10, 11, 29; to
write them forbidden at first, 10, 11,
Memra in, 47, 48; the Messiah in, 175
Targum Jonathan, when sanctioned, i.
11; Metatron in, 47
Targum Onkelos, i. 11 ; absence of an
thropomorphisms in, 28. Memra in,
see Memra, also Appendix II. pp.
659-662
Tarichcea, battle of, ii. 68, 72 ; the dis
ciples there, 76
Temple, tlte, how regarded by the Jews,
i. 3, 4, 235 ; Gentile gifts and wor
shippers in it, 73, 74; its porches, 112,
244, 245, ii. 151 ; bridge, i. 112 ; its
gates, 244; the courts. 245, 246; the
Sanctuary and Most Holy Place, 245,
246; the veils, ii. 610; the shops and
Temple-market, i. 114, 244, 369-372;
the money-changers, 114, 369 ; the
Temple rebuilt by Herod, 111-120 ;
its beauty, 243; the Sanhedrin in it,
114 ; no Synagogue or Academy
there, 246, 247; beggars in the Tem
ple, i. 114, ii. 177; charity to poor of -
ferersinit, i. 130; the morning sacri
fice in the Temple, 133; the courses
of priests in it, 135; its services a su
perfluity to Rabbinism, 144 ; the
teaching on the Temple terrace, 247;
the Temple-guard : cannot seize
Christ, ii. 155, 161, 162; the Treas
ury, 165: the Trumpets, 165, 387;
private prayer in the Temple, 289; its
second cleansing, 377, 378; the chil
dren's Hosanna in it, 378, 379 ; the
widow's two mites : gifts to the
Treasury, 387-389; Christ's last view

of the Temple, 431 ; the disciples'
question as to its destruction, 431,
432 ; the mi might service in it on 15th
Nisan, 508; the rending of the Veil :
Jewish legends of such a portent,
610-612
Temptation of Christ, i. 291-307
Ten Tribes, seat of, i. 14, 15 ; their re
turn expected, 15
Testament, New, quotations from Old
in, i. 206
Testament, Old, grand unity of, i. 160,
161 ; copies of, possessed by the peo
ple, 232, 233
Theodotus, i. 36
Therapeutce, i. 61
j.herumoth, from what countries due, i.
9, 86 ; once kept elose to the roll of
the Law, ii. 12
Thomas, Didymus, call of, i. 521 ; his
conduct when leaving Peraea, ii. 315;
question of, after the Paschal Supper,
514 ; his disbelief aud confession after
the Resurrection, 645, 646."
Tiberias, built, i. 88, 261, 657 ; its site,
261, 262 ; scenes in the last war at,
ii. 72
lathes, due from Babylonians, i. 9 ;
Christ's teaching concerning the
Rabbinic law of tithing, ii 212; His
woe on the Pharisaic ordinances of,
412, 413
Torah, or Law, dignity and age of, i.
35, 85
Tosephtoth, i. 103
Towel, with which Christ girded Him
self, ii. 501, 502
Transfiguration of Christ, ii. 94-101
Trial of Christ, not in regular Sanhe
drin, nor according to Jewish
law, ii. 553, 556-558; the false wit
nesses, 558; the charge of the 'sign,'
558-560 ; Caiaphas' adjuration and
Christ's answer, 560, 561 ; the con
demnation, 561 ; the Sanhedrists'
morning meeting, 565; Christ before
Pilate, 565-569; the dream of Pilate's
wife, 569 ; the scruples and charges
of the Sanhedrists, 565, 566, 569,
570 ; Pilate questions Christ, 570,
571 ; He is sent to Antipas, 572; Pilate
seeks to save Him, 577 ; Barabbas
chosen, 577: Pilate washes his bands,
577, 578 ; Christ scourued, derided,
and sentenced, 579-581"
Tribute to Ca>sar. See Ccesar
Tribute, Temple, amount of, i. 367, 368:
money changers for, 387-371; itsobli
gation, ii. Ill; privileges accorded to
some in paying it, 111; time of year
for so doing, 111; how applied by

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

813

Vespasian, 112; Peter and the tribute
money : the miracle of the stater,
112-114
Tsitsith, the, i. 76, 277, 623, 626
Tyre, fair at, i. 117
Tyre and Sidon, borders of, Christ's stay
there, ii. 37, 38
Tyropceon Valley, i. 112
Unknown Feast, Christ alone there, i.
461, 462 ; the miracle at Bethesda,
462-469 ; His teaching at the Feast,
465, 466, 469-471
Valerius Gratus, Procurator, i. 242
Venusia, Jewish tombstones at, i. 70
Vows, Rabbinic ordinances concerning,
ii. 17-21 ; the 'hand on the Qorban,'
19 ; distinctions between vows, oaths,
and ban, 19, 20 ; Christ's woe on
vows contrary to the fifth command
ment, 412
Wages in Palestine, ii. 417
Washing of hands, Rabbinic ordinances
of, ii. 9, 10; the ceremony, 10-12 ;
Rabbinic teaching on the subject, 13,
15, 210; Christ's attitude towards
this tradition, and his teaching con
cerning it, 15, 205--211
Watches, night, how many, i. 687, 688
Weeks, Feast of, how kept, i. 229
Wheat, price of, ii. 269
Wines, various kinds of, ii. 208
Wisdom of Solomon, character of, i. 31-
33; allegorical interpretations in, 34
Woes of Christ, on Chorazin and Beth
saida, ii. 138, 139; on the Pharisees,
212, 410-414; on the Scribes, 213
Writing materials, ii. 270; inks, 270,

271; pens, &c, 271; the tablet, 271,
272
Xystos, in Jerusalem, i. 118
Yemen, kings of, professed the Jewish
faith, i. 2U3
Yetser ha Ra, i. 52, 167; final destruc
tion of, ii. 441
Yetser tobh, i. 52, 53, 167
Yoke of the Kingdom, ii. 142-144
Zacchmus, ii. 352-355
Zacharias, home, wife, and chaiacter
of, i. 135-137; the annunciation of
John the Baptist to, 137-140, is
dumb till the naming of his son, 140-
158; an ' idiot ' priest, 141 ; his hymn,
158, 159
Zadok, disciple of Antigonus of Socho,
i. 322.
Zadok, High Priest, did not give their
name to Sadducees, i. 322, 323
Zealots, Nationalists, or Cananaans, rise
and political history of, i. 237, 238-
242; the Sicarii, 241, 242; their pres
ence in Christ's family, 242; how de
scribed by Josephus, 243; their prin
ciples, ii. 383, 385
Zebedee, sons of, probably Christ's cou-
sius, i. 251; meaning of the name,
474; request of the mother of his
children, ii. 116, 346, 347; she is un
der the cross, 602, 603
Zechariah, the murdered prophet, le
gend of, ii. 413, 414
Zeqenim, i. 96; Christ denounces their
traditionalism, ii. 213; the question
of one of them about the greatest
commandment, 403-405
Zugoth. See Sugoth.

INDEX II.
OF PASSAGES FROM THE FOUR GOSPELS REFERRED TO IN
THESE VOLUMES.

St. Matt.
ch. ver.
i  _._i. 144
24   i. 251
25  i. 180
ii.  i. 212
1-18.  i. 2>j2
4   i. 93
6  i 206
7   i. 205
11  i. 207
15  i. 162
16  i 205
19-23  i. 217
22  i. 183, 221
22, 23 __-.-.--.i. 221
iii. 1-12  i. 255
2  i. 270; ii 421
4  i. 264
7 -..i. 309, 310, 335
12  _.._i. 273
13-17  _-i. 275
14  i. 279. 282
17   ii. 101
iv  __- ii. 55
1-11  i. 291
4  i. 48
12   i. 422
13  i. 364, 394
13-16  i. 423
13-17.i. 423, 451, 458
17   i. 422
17, 23  i. 270
18, &c  ..i. 473
13-22.1. 394, 423, 472;
ii. 55
18, 22   i. 457
20, 22  i. 474
23  i. 489
v .  i. 529
v.-vii....... i. 524, 529
1-2  i. 524
3, 10  .-.-i. 270
3-12  i. 529

St. Matt.
ch. ver.
v. 6   i. 537
13  ...ii. 119
13-16  i. 529
15  i 537; ii. 202
16  ii. 456
17  i. 537
17-20  i. 531
18  i. 234, 537
19, 20  i. 270
20  ii. 293
21 ...  i. 538
21-48....  l. 530
22  i. 538
25  _.i. 537
25, 26.  ii. 221
26  i 538
29  i. 537
31  ....i. 537
35 ....  i. 538
42-48  i. 536
46  l. 537
47   i. 537
vi,  .i. 530
1-4  i 530
2  _ i. 196, 539
5-15  i. 530
8  i. 537
9-13  i. 536
10  i. 209
12  i. 537
13  i. 296, 539
14, 15  i. 539
16-18  i. 530
18   i. 537
19-21. .i. 530; ii. 218
22 .  i. 537
22, 23- i. 530; ii 202
22-24  _-i. 530
24  i. 537
25  i. 539
25-33  ii. 216
25-34  i. 530

St. Matt.
ch. ver.
vi. 28-30..  i. 578
32   i. 537
33  i 269, 270
34 _.._  i. 539
vii. 1-5  i. 531
2  i. 539
3, 4  i. 539
6  i. 531, 539
7-12   i. 531
8  i 537
9  i. 537
10  i, 473, 537
11  i. 539
12  i. 535, ii. 236
13, 14. _i. 531, ii 298
14  _i 540
15   i 537
15.16  i. 531
16-20  i 578
17-19  i. 537
17-20  i 531
21  i. 270
21, 22  .ii. 300
21-23.. i. 541; ii. 298
22   i 537
22, 23  i 528
23  i. 537, ii. 301
24-27  i. 531
25  . ..i 578
26   i 54o
28  i. 478
viii. 1, 5-15  i. 542
2-4 ...i. 489; H. 328
4  i. 619
5 ...i. 365, 426, 548
6  _..i. 548
7  i. 548
11  i. 270; ii. 301
11, 12.... ii. 298, 829
12  i. 550, 551
14  i. 366, 549
14-17  ....i. 478

816

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

St. Matt.
ch. -ver.
viii. 17 ...i. 342, 464, 488
18  ii. 132
18, 23-27  i. 599
19-22  ii. 126, 132
28  i. 607, 609
28-34.-_-  i. 606
29  ii. 132
ix.  ii. 49
1 ._.i. 364, 423, 457
1-3  i 499
2  i. 504
9-13  i. 507
10, 11....  ii. 254
11 ..  i. 576
14  -i 576
14-17. i 520, 654, 662
15 .... i. 355, ii 469
16, 17  i 665
18-26  i. 616
20  i. 76, 277
27-31  i. 573
ii. 44, 48
30  i. 619
32-35  i. 570, 573,
ii. 48
33, 34  ..-A. 576
34  _.i. 573, 574
35  i. 270
36 ...  :.-.-i 640
36-38 i.640,ii. 135, 137
88  ...ii 536
x.  ii 214, 216
1, 5-42.  i. 635
1-15   i 644
2-4  i. 507, 521
5  i 394; ii. 135
5-15  i, 640, 641
5-42   i. 640
7 -.  _..-i. 270
7, 8  .-ii 137
8  __i. 480
10  _ i. 621, 622
13   ii. 138
15 -  _.-i. 641
16-18   i. 644
16-23  i 640, 644
17   .i. 645
18  --i. 645
18-20  ii. 214, 216
21, 22  i. 645
21-25  _.. ii. 216
23  i. 644
24-33  i. 640
24-34  i. 648
26  i. 640, 649
26-33  ii. 214
32  ...i. 650
34  -i. 650
34-36  ii. 220
84-39  i. 640
37, 38  ii. 304

St. Matt.
ch. ver.
x. 38  _ii. 469
40-42  i. 640, 651
xi. 1  i. 654
2  i. 337
2-14   i. 654
2-19  i. 666
5   i. 669
7-19 ...... ii. 136
11  i. 270
12.i. 270; ii. 277, 299
12-14  i. 670
13-17  -i. 584
14  i. 338. 341,
ii. 104
14-19_  ...i. 670
16-19  i. 562, 574
16-42  ii. 188
17, 18  i. 576
20-24. ii. 135, 136, 138
20-30  i. 561, 562
21 .  -...ii 4
25-27  ii. 528
25-30  ii. 135
27   i. 500
28-30-, i 562; ii. 142
xii,  i. 573 ii. 55
1-21.  ii. 51 223
7  i. 520
9-13  ii 223
11 ._  ii. 225
12 _   ii. 60
14  ii. 197, 224
16 .-_  -i 619
18 ..  ..i 54
22 .i. 296, 576, ii. 197
22-32  i 573
22-45.. i. 580; ii. 195
23  ii 49
24, &c  i. 579
25  ii. 198
25-28  -i. 295
27-30  ii. 198
28   i. 270
30   ii. 118
31, 32.... ii. 214, 216
33-37  ii- 199
38  ....ii. 200
38-40  i. 375
39  .ii. 200
39-42  ii. 200
40 -..  ...ii. 469
43 .._  _i. 480
43-45 ._  ii. 200
46  i. 251, 577
46,47  ii. 202
46-50  i. 361, 570
xiii. __.i. 579, 583, 586
1,2  i. 579
1-9, 24-33 ....I. 584
1-52  1. 578
3  i. 583

St. Matt.
cb. ver.
xiii. 3-9-.-  --i. 209
9-13  i. 646
10  -i. 583, 594
11-15  -i. 375
11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44,
45, 47, 52... _i. 270
12   -i. 597
13-15   i. 584
16 .i. 594, 597; ii. 135,
142, 144
17  i. 597
18   i. 586
19   i. 597
19,25, 39  i. 296
22   i. 597
33  --..i. 583
34   i. 583
36  i. 590. 594
36, 44-52  i. 584
38  i. 270
39  i. 591. 597
40  i. 591
41   i. 270
42   i. 597
43  i 270
44  i. 597
45,46  i. 583
46  i. 597
47  i. 473, 597
47,48  -...i. 269
54   i. 4i8
54-58  i. 457, 635
55   i. 252
55, 56  i. 251
xiv. 1   i. 657
1-12   i. 654
3,4  i 657
5  _...i. 657
8  i. 674
12, 13 ...  i. 654
13-21..... i. 676, 678
14  i 464, 679
15   i. 606
17  i. 681
19  i. 683; ii. 65
20   ii. 65
22 ...i. 606, 690, 694
22-36.  _.-.i. 686
23 .i. 606, 687; ii. 374
24  i. 690, 692
26  .i. 689
33   ii. 80
34-36  ..ii. 6
36  i. 76, 277
xv. 1   ii. 7
1-9  .....ii. 211
1-20  ....ii. 3
2  i. 314
3, 6  ii. 17
10  ii. 7, 22
10, 11  ii. 211

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

817

St. Matt.
eh . ver.
xv. 11,18  i. 106
12  ii. 36, 77
12-14  ii. 7
15  i. 582
15-20  ii. 7
17  ii. 24
19  -ii. 23
21  ii. 3,37
21t-28.  ii. 37
22  ..ii. 49
23  ii. 38
28  _ii. 42
29-31  ii. 44, 45
32-xvi. 12  ii. 63
36  i. 473, 683
39  ii 67
xvi. 1   ii, 396
1-4   ii. 200
2,3  ii. 69, 220
3   ii. 342
6,7  i. 419
9,10  ii. 65
13-28  ii. 72
16  _.ii. 536
19 ...i. 270; ii. 645
21  ii. 344,470"
22  .ii. 500
23  ii. 346
24-27.  ii. 87
28 ...i 647; ii. 88
xvii. 1  ii. 538
1-8   ii. .91
9-21  ...ii. 102
12   i. 340
14  .ii. 105
20 ...i. 593, ii. 306
21 ...i. 480, ii. 106
22  ii. 470
22,23  ii. 344
22-xviii. 22. ii. 110
23  ii. 115
25  ii. 112
xviii  _. i. 580
1 ...i. 270;- ii. 115
1-6 &c  ii. 306
1-14  ii. 293
3 i. 270,382, ii. 337
6-35  ii. 306
10  ii. 257
11  ii. 257
12-14  ii. 256
15   ii. 525
15,21  ii. 115
15-22.  ii. 293
17  ii. 84
18  ii. 645
19  ..-ii. 124
19, 20  ii. 124, 531
21 -  -ii. 115
21, 22  ii. 306,377
33  i, 270, 568

St. Matt.
ch. ver.
xviii.23-35-.. ii. 284, 293
26   .ii. 295
29  ii. 295
35   ii. 296
xix. 1  ii. 127, 293
1,2  ii. 327, 331
3  ii. 332
3-12  ii. 331
4  ii. 334
8  i. 612
10-12..  .ii. 335
12 __  _i. 269
13-15.-  ii. 836
16 .-  _.ii. 338
16-22  ii. 235, 338
20   ii. 340
21  .ii. 217
23-30  ii, 338
24   i. 270
25   i. 478
28  ii. 343
29  ii. 343
30 -ii 300, 416, 420
30-xx. 16  ii 415
xx  i. 580
1 i. 2,0, ii. 247. 417
2  ii. 239
6  ii. 418
15  ii 416
16 ........ ii, 300. 344
17  ii. 126
17-19 ii. 338, 344,470
18   i. 93
20  ii 116, 346
20-28  ii. 338, 346
24  ii. 337.347
28  ii. 248, 606
29-34  ii. 349, 355
30,31..  ii. 49
xxi   i. 580
1-11  ii. 363
9,15._  ii. 49
12 ...i. 244, 372, 373
12-22  ii. 374
15  i. 93; ii. 337
18-22  ii. 375
22-32  .-.ii. 421
23-27. ..ii. 380, 383
25  i. 281, 287
28-32  ii. 415
29,32..  _ii. 573
31  i. 270
33  ii. 247, 422
33-46. i. 646; ii. 415
30  ii. 422
38   ii. 469
40,41  _.ii. 423
43 _--i. 270; ii. 422
44  ii. 422
45  ii. 423
xxii  i. 580
1-9.  ii. 426

St. Matt.
'ch. ver.
xxii. 1-14.... ii. 415, 425
2  __i. 270
10  ii. 429
10-14  ii. 426
12  ii. 403
15-22. .. ii. 380, 384
17  ii. 112
23-33  ii. 396
29,30..  ii. 401
32  _i. 316
83   i. 478
34  ii. 403, 429
34-40.... ii 235, 396
35 -_..i. 93; ii. 234
41-46- ..ii. 380, 396, 560
42-45  i. 248
46  ii. 406
xxiii. ii 204, 211, 39l>, 406
2  _. i. 436
3, 4..i. 101; ii. 407
5 i. 76, 94, 277, 6:4
5-7  ii. 407
6  i, 486
8-12  .ii. 407
11  ii. 410
13  _. i. 270
13-33  ..ii. 410
14   ii 411
23  i. 312
25,26  i. 312, 358
27   ii. 320
34-36-... ii. 413, 424
37-39 ii. 302, 414, 431
38,39  ii. 449
39  ii. 432
xxiv,  i 580, 647,
ii.328,331, 389,431
1  ii. 415, 431
3 . . ii 432, 448, 449
3-29-..  i. 205
4  ii. 446
4,5  ii 448
4-8  .ii. 446
4-35  ii 445, 440
6  ii. 446
6-8  ii. 447
8  .ii. 446
9-1 4.... ii. 443, 447
10-13  ii. 448
14 ..ii 418, 449, 450
15-28  ii. 446, 448
22  ii. 419
28  ii. 449
29  ii. 450
29-31 .-..ii. 449, 450
30  ii. 450
31  _.ii. 451)
32  i. 582, 583
32,33  ii 450
34 ___i. 647; ii. 449
36  ii. 451

818

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

St. Matt.
ch. ver.
xxiv.36-51 ii. 445,451,453
37-40  ii. 451
40, 41  _.ii. 451
42  .-.ii. 452
42-51  ii. 452
43, 44... ii. 218, 452
44 ....  ii. 452
45-51.. ..ii. 219, 452
xxv   i. 580
1  ii. 455, 450
1-13  ii. 453
1, 14  i 270
1-30  .--i. 647
2  ii. 456
3  -ii. 456
4   ii. 456
6 .-_  -.ii. 455
7  -ii. 456
14-30... .ii. 453, 459
31-46  App xix.
34  i. 270
46  ...-ii. 380
xxvi 1  _ii 380, 481
1-5  ii. 468
3-6  ii. 371
6&c.i 563, ii. 311
6-13. -..ii 349, 364
8 .-.-  ii. 337
13 ....  ii 359
.14-16  ii. 468
17-19.. ..ii. 479, 490
17-20-  ii. 481
20  ii. 490
21  ii. 504
21-24  ii. 490
24  _.-.ii 506
25  ii. 490, 494
26  ii. 511
26-29  ii. 490
29 -.-_  _ i 270
30  ii. 513
30, 36  ii. 480
30-56  ii. 533
32  ii. 534
33  ii. 649
36  _. ii. 538
39, 42  ii. 539
40  ii. 540
41  i. 296
43  ii. 96
45   ii. 541
49  ii. 543
50  ii. 544
57  i. 93
57, 58  ii 546
58  _ii. 550
59   ii. 565
59-08  ii 546
60, 61  i. 451
06  _.ii. 557
69  .ii. 551

St. Matt.
ch. ver.
xxvi. 69, 70  ii. 546
71, 72  ii. 546
73-75  ii. 546
xxvii. 1,2,11-14; ii. 565
3 __  .ii. 421
3-10 ._ ii. 565, 573
5  ii. Ill, 574
7  ii. 316, 576
12  ii. 557
15-18  ii. 565
17  .-.ii. 573
18 -__  ii. 569
19  ii. 565
20-31  ii. 565
24,25  ..ii. 577
31-43  ii. 582
89-43  ii. 591
40-42  i. 451
41  i. 93
42   ii. 596
44  ii. 582
45-56  ii. 582
48, 49  ii. 608
51  ii 604, 610
52, 53  ii. 612
55 _..i 692; ii. 602
56 ._ i 572, ii. 346
57-61 ._¦  ii. 582
60  ii. 617
61  l. 572
62-66... ii 582. 623
xxviii, 1 ..i. 692, ii, 631
1-10  ii. 630
9 --_'  ii. 633
11-15  ii 630
16 ....ii 535, 630,
633, 647
17 .........ii 647
17-20  ii. 630
18-20 ..-  ii. 535
19  i. 643
St. Mark.
i. 2-8  i. 255
7-11.  __i. 275
10  i. 284
12  i. 291
13  i. 291
14  i. 270, 394,
422, 423, 451
15  i. 270, 422,
423, 451
16  i. 473, 474
16-20.-.1 394, 472
20  _._. i. 472
21-34  i. 478
22  i. 478
23  i. 484
25  ii. 403
27  i. 485, 602

St. Mark.
ch. ver.
i. 29 -   n. 4
35 -..-i. 490; ii. 374
35-45  i. 489
35-39  i. 489
38 _  i. 490
40  ii. 50
40-45  ii. 328
41   ii. 50
43  -ii. 49
44  i. 619
45  ii. 50
ii. 1   -i. 364
1-12..  i. 499
6   i. 500
7   i. 500
9  _-i. 500
10 ....  i. 500
13  i; 514
13-17  i. 507
15 __  _-i. 366
16  i. 518
18  i. 663
18-22  i. 654
23  ii. 55
23-iii. 6  ii. 51
.iii. 4   ii. 60
6  ii 384
11  i. 692
12  i. 619
13-15  ._-. i. 524
13-19  i. 507. 521
18  i. 251
19-21  _.-.i. 542
20  _.-i. 366, 542
21  i. 542
22 ...i. 570,574, 575;
ii 197
22-30  i. 580
23  i. 573, 582
23-30  ..i 573
31  i. 251. 366,
543, 576
iv, 1-34  i. 578
10  i. 594
11 _..i. 270, 375, 580
12  i. 375
26  i. 270
26-29. i. 583, 586, 588
30  ...i. 270
32  ._.. i. 593
33  i. 583
34   i. 583
35-41  i. 599
36  __.i. 599
37   i. 000
38   i. 602
39  i. 484 ; ii. 403
v. 1-16  _i. 678
1-20  i. 006, 607
3-5  i. 609
6  i. 610

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

819

St. Mark.
cb. ver.
v. 13   i. 612
15  i. 692
21-43  i. 616
22  i. 438, 457
27  i. 76
31 ...=.  i. 617
37  ii. 538
38  i. 692
41  ii. 484
43  A. 619
vi. 1-6  i. 457
1-13  -i. 635
2  _-i. 478, 639
3 ...i. 251, 252, 364,
637, 638
5   i. 464
7 -_..i. 641 ; ii. 135
7-11  i. 641
12  . -  i. 054
13  i. 464, 654
14-29  ...i. 654
17  ...i. 657
18  i. 657
20  .i. 660
30-44  i. 654, 676
31-33  i. 678
32  i. 678
33  i. 678; ii. 150
34  i. 679, 680
35   i, 681
38   i. 681
39 . i. 677, 683 ; ii. 65
40  i. 683
45  i. 676; ii. 3
45-56  i. 686
48   i. 693
49  i, 689
53  ii. 5
53-56  ii. 6
56  i. 464; ii. 6
vii. 1   ii. 7
1-4  i. 357
1-23  ii. 3
2-5   i. 358
3 ...  ii. 11
9  ii. 17
13  ...ii. 17
14  ii. 7, 22
15   ii. 7
16  ii. 22
17-23  ii. 7
19  ii. 23
21  ii. 23
24 . -i. 655; ii. 38
24-30  ii 37
25  ii. 38, 39
31  ii- 44
31-37  ii. 44, 46
34  i. 489
36   -i. 619
37  i. 478, 631
VOL. II.

St. Mark.
ch. vol'.
viii. 1-21  ii. 63
6 ...i. 683; ii. 65
7  ii. 05
11  .ii. 67
12  ii. 69, 70
2J  ii. 47
22-26  ii. 44, 47
23  ii. 45, 47
24 ._  ii. 48
26 _i. 619; ii. 47, 48
27  ii. 47
26-ix. 1  ii. 72
ix. 2-8  _.ii. 91
3  -...ii. 96
9-29  _ii 102
13  ... i. 340
16  ii 106
21 -__  .i. 480
25 __  i 602
30  ii. 92
30-50  ii. 110
31  ii. 115
34 --..  ii. 115
35  ii. 410
38 ..ii. 115, 117, 346
42-50  ii. 115
43 ...i. 273; ii. 46
44 -.-  .ii. 120
45 ...i. 273; ii. 120
46  ii. 120
47  i. 270
48  ii. 120
50  ii. 119
x. 1 ..ii. 127, 327, 331
2-12 . . ii. 327, 331
4  i. 012
10  -ii. 335
13-16 ...ii. 327, 336
14  i. 270
15  i. 270
17-22  ii. 338
18  ii. 484
21  ii. 341
23  i. 270
23-31  ii. 338
24 i. 270, 485 ; ii. 342
25   i. 270
26   i. 478
* 29  ii. 343
30  ----ii. 343
31  ii. 344
32 i. 485 ; ii. 126, 845
32-34  ii. 338
35   ii. 346
35-45 ._.ii. 338, 346
41  ii. 337, 347
45  ii. 348
46-52  ii. 349, 355
47 I...  ii. 49
48  ii. 49
49  ii. 350

St. Mark.
ch. ver.
xi. 1-11  ii 363
3  ii. 365
10  i. 270
11  i. 373
15-20  ii. 374
18  i. 478
20  ii. 375, 380
25  ii. 377
26  ii. 877
27-33 ...ii. 380, 383
xii. 1-12  ii. 415
13-17 . . _ii. 380, 384
14  ii. 112
17  ii. 386
18-27  ii. 396
28-34  ii. 396
34  __ i. 270
35-40  ii. 396
40 .-  .ii. 411
41  i. 692
41-44  ii. 387
xiii.  -_ i. 640;
ii. 328, 431
1  ii. 432
3   ii. 432
8  ii. 446
9  ii. 448
30  i. 647
35  i. 490
37  ii. 380
xiv. 1 -i. 93; ii. 280, 468
2  ii. 371, 468
3  ii. 311
3-9 ii. 49, 358, 364
4   ii. 337
5  ii. 49
8  ii. 359
10  ii. 468
11  ...ii. 468
12-16 ...ii. 479, 490
12-17  ii. 481
14 ..._i. 185; ii. 483
17  ii. 490
18  ii. 504
18-21  _ii. 490
21  ii. 506
22  ii. 511
22-25  ..ii. 490
25  i. 270
26  ii. 480, 513
26-52  ii. 533
28  ..ii. 534
32 _.._  ii. 480
36  _..ii. 539
40  ii. 96
41  ii. 360, 541
43  i. 93
45   ii. 543
46  ii. 544
51  .ii. 545
53  ii. 546
3 G

820

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

St. Mark

St.

Luke.

ch . ver.

ch ver.

xiv. 54 .-. .
n
546, 550
ii. 12 ...
... i. 189
55 
..ii. 565
15 ...
... i. 250
55-65 ..
._ii. 546
19 ...
-_-i.
193, 250
04 
..ii. 557
21-38
... i. 191
66 ...i
118; i
27 ...
...ii. 289
66-68 ..
.ii. 546
29-32
... i. 199
69 
.-ii. 546
.32 ...
..ii. 166
70 
. .ii. 546
36 ..
...i. 16
70-72 .-
..ii. 546
37 ...
...ii. 289
XV. 1 
.ii. 565
39,40
... i. 217
1-5....
ii. 565
40 ...
i
221, 226
6-10 ..
..ii. 565
41-52
... i. 235
11 
.ii. 577
43 ...
. . . i. 246
11-20 -.
..ii. 565
48 ...
...i. 478
20-32 ..
.ii. 582
49 -_.
. - . i. 644
21 
.ii. 587
51 -..
...l.
193, 250
22 
.ii. 587
52 ...
... i. 250
23 
.ii. 208
iii. 1-18
.. i. 255
25 
ii
582, 587
3 ...
. . i. 264
29 
.ii. 597
15 ...
...I.
309, 340
32 
.ii. 582
17 .-.
.. i. 273
33-41 ._
.ii. 582
18 ...
.. i. 270
36 
.ii. 608
19 ...
...ii. 525
39 
ii. 609
21 ...
.. i.
282, 283
40 i. 251
692
;ii. 327,
21-23
.. i. 275
346, 602
iv. 1 ...
..ii. 126
41 
u
327, 602
1-13
. . i. 291
42-47 ..
.ii. 582
14, 15
._ i. 422
43 
.ii. 615
15, 16
..i. 423
47 
. i. 692
15-32
_ . i. 451
xvi. 1 
.ii. 631
16 _.i.
234,
430, 431
1-11 ..
.ii. 630
16-30
... i. 423
4 
. i. 692
16-31
_. i. 635
9 
.ii. 633
18, 19
.. i. 452
9-20 ..
_ii. 622
20 ...
. . i. 438
10 
ii. 624
22 ...
. . i. 431
11 
.ii. 638
23 _-i.
424,
582, 583
12 
Tl
630, 635
31, 32
.. i. 423
13 
-ii. 630
32 ...
.. i. 478
15-18 ..
-ii. 630
33-41
. . i. 478
18 
. i. 464
35 ...
..ii. 403
19 _...i.
557
;ii. 630
36 ...
.. i. 485
20 
.ii. 630
42-44
. _ i. 489
43 ...
--.i.
270, 490
St. Luke
v.
..ii. 649
1-11
. 394, 4 \ ii.
i. 2 
. i. 54
648
4 
i. 185
2 ...
. . i. 473
5-25 ..
. i. 133
5 ...
. . i. 473
17 
i. 340
.ii. 248
12-1614 ...
- i. 489
20 
.- i. 619
26-80 ..
_ i. 144
16 . .
. .n
126, 374
33 
. i. 270
17 ...
- . i. 93
63 
.ii. 270
17-26
. . i. 499
65 
. i. 250
81 ...
. -_i.
478, 497
68 
. i. 560
27-32
-- i. 507
80 
. i. 260
30 ...
.. i. 497
ii. 1-20 ..
. i. 180
31 -._
.- i. 520
2 
. i. 182
32 _..
. . i. 507
7 i. 189,
251
; ii. 354,
33 ...
. . i. 497
483
33-39
.. i. 654
St. Luke.
ch. ver.
v. 36  i- 582, 583
39   i. 665
44  i. 94
46  i. 94
vi  i. 526
1-11 _.  ii. 51
2   i. 478
4  ii. 58
6   ii. 61
7  i. 478, 497
11   ii. 62
12 ...A. 524; ii. 374
12-19 ....i. 50,, 521
13  --- i. 524
15  i. 251, 522
17-19  i. 524
20  i. 270
38  i. 535
39  i. 583
vii. 1   i. 426
1-10  i. 542
5  i. 433, 457
6   i. 548
8  i. 547
11-17  i. 552
12  _.. i. 353
17  i. 574
18-35 ...i. 654, 666
21  i. 669
24  ii. 126
26   ii. 424
28  i. 270, 274
29, 30  i. 670
30 _...i. 93, 94,277
31-33  i. 576
36  i. 562
36-50  i. 561
39 ..  i. 560
40  i. 564
43  i. 567
viii. 1  i. 270
1-3  i. 570
3  i. 429
4-18  i. 578
5  ..... i. 587
10  i. 270
14  i. 587
17  i. 649
19  i. 360, 576
22-25  i. 599
26-39  i. 606
27  i. 609
28  i. 610
29   ii. 126
40-56  i. 616
44  i. 70
45  i. 617
47  i. 628
56  ----- i. 619
ix. 1  ii. 135
1-5  i. 641
CM
00

O, m
OC5
W
WH
O
¦c
HO «u
03<OhoMw Q

SSSBM«0«i-SOS810et-t)0101«»OeCl-,OrOOOCOOOO«)OOHTOD'*f-BHItlo«5COOT5SS"™rS«01CJ«<M<MNCMCO<?iCOCM«WOC<!05CQWCTCNCOCM«-*COCOCOCOCOCOCOeOCOTO

p

¦a, i
CO T* I o -^ w
tCHHH

oo CMOJ

3W9B-gga:
CO CO

100 :B
' CM ¦-

j CO m
, CO CO .i-I
1

.
ii ._ii 298 ;
ii ,
ii _.
ii

:s :b :s *o :-
. i ,05

ca:= —

© «:b

:n "B ib

i !gf3 !

; ' 'id

IB '

' |
Iii-1!!
1
;oj
oo ;a :s ¦" :s :s :
COOOOSOCQCOCO'^IOt-COOSO^-t^H^-CMCOTlHlC'i-tCO-^IC I OH«ff(W'*10ffl»t'
T-tT-lrt««C*«N«MWnWCOm«MCp»m I> ,H ^- ,-, ,-h ,— tH t-1 tH tH t-1
JObCS— ' t-,0»-CO-«00
( CQCM CO
OO^OllClO'OOOCOflOOHOWOOOH^rHHCQcaiNCOMCJWMOOCI^^lO^nOlOlOlOCSlOlOCCOttC-Offl^t-QDWfllffiCOffil-ffl«ffl(»t-010a)OOOOIOHOHrJHHHrtrlOOMTHHHrtHrtT-lTHrtrtrtrtHTH-*SSHt-rirlrt«rSS„CQTH!Oi-H>-<<N-*S!THT-.-tfeJiCSCM-WCO<N«<N<NC»«<N(M<NCOCM«
02
loo-*-*-*-*!
* :K :3 "* "H :S :S :E 'S ;S S3 :S w :H :E w *^ :— :S :S :S :a :S :3 :a :£
¦r-t th as
coco
CO ¦*
CO IO
CO lira
CD
• OMC-fflfflaiOHM- . .  -
I CO CO CO CO-CO CO^-^TflTt^^^lOlOi©
OS
CO Tfl W CO tS C6 ^1 H"-WM«^Ob05O
Ht-T
CI OS
,-knco
CM CO
I I
CO CM 02 -*
; :s — ; :a :£ cs :s o :;:
, GOOD
, CO -^
J I I
^KOIOC-I)coco co-^, ¦* ¦
CO,-ICM-^THCO00CO,y*CO©l>Cfti^*>£--^C©T-,COC0©C»lOt~COC©C)0£>©CO'<*a>THettC»C»300DL-t-OS(MCftCftOC-^H^H05 00C4l>t-^COfftCO^-l>COCOCOCOCOCOt-CO COCO^COOOCOOS^H-«*Tj.THCOCOCO^HCOi>^QOCO
CD . CO rH H^HrlHr^HK)HntHTHi-t«WTHr,HrHHH«H MlOIOH^rtCrHHHT^WOWWHWWOlN
•" t> :a :s* :s :S* :s :s :h'*m :s :s ao"t-'co":E:d:3 :ri:s:s ¦-' *~ :ri :s :s :S :s :s mri :a :d :S "'"' '~ :s ,F* :d ©:k :s :a «f co •"' :s — :d -^oo'co
 i , , , ,,"«««"" ,T, , , ,"11 I" ,111 , ¦ , , 1 oo 1 1 eo eo , 1 eo ' , os ->* co
¦ :H , , , ,  rtrtH  , , . •¦¦ . i i ¦--  , ."=!<¦-, ,r-,« , , , -Jew CM
1(5 CO O ^ CM rt
CO CM t- l<c t- O
!DTH«©rtCO
L- 00 00 00 00
CO CO CD CO
m p
En'
CD CO
CD
g,H rH« COt>OS
H O^
i>:a
:s := :"
:s:p
• FH •"
00
,«
:s
rH
H
I
so !
CO ,
1
la: i
O i-t CO ^H 00 c
' -r©
' CD O
' OS 1C
HTHWMTH^>©«,rrJ«CeC'COCS'Hc!lMMTO«O^t'NQ0WM^lftliHlOlOOiOlOlOirSWCOg HHHHrlHWr-l'HHN«««««
822

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

St. Ldke.
ch. ver
xv. 8-10  i. 581
13   ii. 267
21  ii, 262
23 -.  -__ii. 261
32 -._  ii. 263
xvi.   ii. 264
1  ii. 264
1-8  ii. 266
2  ii. 267
3 .--.  ii. 267
7  ii 272
8   ii. 266
9  ii. 266, 273
10   ii. 275
10-13  ii. 266
11  ii. 154
13  ii. 275
14   ii. 331
14-31  ii. 275
15  ...ii. 264
16 ..i. 270 ,ii. 264, 277
16-22  ii. 278
17 ...i.234;ii. 264,
277, 332
18 . .ii. 264,277, 332
20  ...-ii. 279
23-26  ii. 280
26 ---.  ii. 282
27-31  ii. 282
28.----  ii. 282
30 ....  ii. 283
xvii  ii 283, 284
1  .ii. 306
1-4  ii. 306
1-7  ii. 119
1-10. -.ii. 298, 306
2  ii 306
3  ii. 306
4  ii. 306
6   ii. 306
7-10  ii. 306
10  i. 509
11 .ii. 126, 284, 327
12-19. _.ii. 327, 328
14   ii. 329
16  i. 395
18  i. 400
20 i. 270; ii.284, 331
20-37-. .ii. 328, 331
21 ...i. 270 ;ii. 284
22-37 .-  ii. 284
35  ii. 120
xviii.  i. 579
1  ii. 286
1-14 -.  ii. 284
4   ii. 287
7  ii 284, 288
8  ii.284, 288
; 9-14  ii 289
12  i, 312,662

St. Luke

St. Luke.

cb. ver.

cb. ver.

xviii. 14 
-ii. 410
xxii. 13 
 ii. 481
15-17 .
.ii.
293, 327,
14--..
 ii. 481
336
14-16 .
 ii 490
16 ... .
-. i. 270
15 ..-.
 ii 481
17. ..i
270; ii 96
17 ....
..ii 490, 496
18-23..
.u.
235, 338
18....
..ii. 490, 496
24....
-. i. 270
19---.
 ii. 490
24-30 -
_.ii. 338
20 ....
 ii. 490
25 ... .
. - i. 270
21-23 .
 ii, 490
29 ...i.
270 ; ii 8-18
24-30 .
 ii. 490
30 -..-
. .ii. 343
25 ...-
 ii. 495
31 ....
..ii. 127
26 ....
 ii 495
31-34 .
_.ii. 338
28....
 i. 296
35-43. .
.11.
349, 355
29 -...
 i. 270
38 ... .
..ii. 49
30 .._-
 ii. 343
39 -...
..ii. 49
31 ...i
296 ; ii. 585
xix. 
-. i. 580
31-53 .
 ii. 533
1-10.
_.ii. 349
35-38 .
 ii. 537
10 -...
_-ii. 122
37 ...-
 i. 842
11-28. .
-ii.
453, 465
39 ....
 ii. 480
12....
._ i. 270
41 ..--
 ii. 539
12-27 .
- - i. 220
48 . . . .
 ii; 543
15 ....
.. l. 270
54....
 .ii. 550
29-44 .
..ii. 363
54-58 .
 ii. 546
37_._.
..ii 367
55 ....
 ii. 550
88 ....
..ii. 367
59-62 .
 ii. 546
39 ....
..ii. 365
63-65 .
 ii. 546
41 ...i.
24S
; ii. 324
66 _i. 93, 97 ; ii. 549
41-44 .
..ii. 70
66-68 .
 ii. 560
45 ....
. . i. 373
: 67-71 -
 ii. 546
45-48 ..
..ii. 374
xxiii. 1-5 _ .
 ii. 565
xx. 1-8--.
.ii.
380, 383
2 ii. 384, 557, 565,
9 ....
. ii. 423
570
9-19 .
..ii. 415
3 ....
 ii. 570
19-26 -
..ii. 384
6 ....
 i. 118
20-26 _
..ii. 380
6-12.
.ii. 565, 572
27-39 .
.ii. 396
7---i.
118 ; ii. 383
40-47 .
-_ii. 396
10 ..-.
 i. 93
45-47 -
. .ii. 204
13 -...
 ii. 578
47 --..
..ii. 411
13-17 .
 ii. 565
xxi. 
.. i. 640
18-25 .
 ii. 565
1-4...
-ii.
380, a87
26 .. .
 i. 63
5-38 .
. ii. 431
26-38 .
 .ii. 582
6..-.
. . i. 692
27-31 -
.-ii. 588, 595
12 -...
. .ii. 448
34....
 ii. 595
24 ....
..ii. 433
35 _-i
692 ; ii. 597
29-31 .
_ . i. 646
36 - . . -
 ii. 595
31 ..._
..ii. 450
37....
 ii. 595
32....
-- i. 647
39-43 .
 ii. 582
36-38 .
ii. 380
44-49 .
 ii. 582
37 ....
. ii. 415
45 ....
 ii. 604
xxii. 1 
. ii. 380
46 ... .
 ii. 595
1-6..
..ii. 468
48
 i. 692
2 
. . i. 93
49 ....
 ii. 608
3 _.i.
29t
; ii. 471
50-56 .
 .ii. 582
4 ....
.-ii. 475
51 ....
...-.ii. 615
7 .-._
. ii. 481
54 ....
 ii. 616
7-13. .
-u.
479, 490
55 ....
 i. 572
8 ..-.-
n
364, 482
56 ..:.
 i. 572
11 ....
..i. 185;
xxiv. 1-12 .
 ii. 630
ii, 488
10 ... .
 H. 630
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

'823

St Ldke.
¦cb. ver.
xxiv. 13-35  ii. 630
17   ii. 640
19  ii. 640
21   ii. 623
33  ii. 642
36-43  ii. 630
37  i. 692
38-43... ii. 627, 628
39  i. 692; ii. 643
44-48  ii. 647
44-53 _  .ii. 630
47  i. 270
St. John.
i 9  ...» 154
10  :--. i. 47
11-13  i. 671
13 l  i 384
14  ii. 99
15-51  i. 336
19-24  i. 308
19-28  i. 809
20   i. 340
22-28 ... ._: i. 341
24  i. 322
28..  i. 264, 278
29  i. 488
32  i. 284
32-34  i. 275
33 i. 279,336: ii. 644
34 .._-  i. 285
37  i. 474
40   i. 345
41  i. 347
42  ...ii. 82
43  __ i. 345
44  .....ii. 4
45-51  ii. 646
47  ::.. i. 348
48  ..... i. 414
48, 49  .'. i. 414
49  i.414
50-51  i. 426
50  i. 350
51 _.i. 349,350,351
ii. 1  i. 345
1-11  i. 423
"1-12 -.  i. 351
3   i. 359
6  ..ii. 11
12  i. 394
13._  ii. 54,491
13-17-  i. 357
13-iii. 21  i. 655
13-23  .ii. 378
13-25  i. 364
13-iv. 54.... i. 407
14  i. 244
14, 15  i. 374
18, 19  ii. 558

St. John.
ch. ver.
ii. 18-23  i. 857, 378
19  i 80; ii. 469
20   _ i 375
23  i. 3i8, 692
iji. 1-21  i. 377
3..i. 270, 384, ii. 33
3-5  i. 269, 383
4  i. 386
5_  i. 270, 382
7  i. 384
8   i. 383
14  ii. 469
16  i. 389
16-21. i. 382, 389, 656
20   ii. 525
22  i. 390, ii. 54
22-iv. 3  i. 655
24   i. 657
25...  i. 391, 655
25-30  i. 654
26  i 661
29  i. 663. 664
31  i. 384
31-36  - i. 382
iv  i. 542; ii. 329
1  -,-i, 390,393
1, 2  i. 658
1-4   _ i. 390
1-42   i. 404
2  i. 390
4   i. 894
8   i.409
9  i. 401
11-15  i 413
15  i. 414
19  i. 414, 692
20  i. 77
20-24  ii. 187
23, 37   ii. 154
29   i. 414
30  .:. i. 418
31  i. 418
33   i. 407
35 -_i. 594; ii 55, 137
36  i. 420
89   i. 418
40  i. 408,418
42   i. 421
43-54  i. 422,423
44  i. 455
45  ----- i. 422
46-53 .-..  i. 547
46-54  i. 572
49  _  i. 425
50  i. 426,429
52  i. 428
53 .. _.i. 426, 428,429
v  i, 460,461,499,677; ii. 54, 55, 129
v.-vi. 3  i. 407
1  i. 423, 460

St. John.
ch ver.
v. 1-3  ii. 54
7  i. 463, 468
8   i. 500
9  ii. 53
13, 14  i. 468
15, 16..  i. 309
16   ii. 53
16, 17..  ii. 223
17  .1, 465,470
18  '.... . i. 500
18  ._  ii. 153
19  i. 471; ii. 526
19-32  i. 466
24   i, 469
27   i. 500
30-38  i. 466
36   i 500
37  i 465
39  i 465
40-43  i. 465
44   i. 465
45-47  i. 465
vi.   ii. 129
1  i. 655, 657
1-14  i. 676
2   i. 692
3  - i. 679
4  i. 677, 679;
ii. 128
6  i. 414, 680
9  i. 681
10  i. 683: ii. 65
15   i 687
15-21  i. 686
17  ii. 3
19  i. 606, 692
21  i. 606, 693, 694
22. -i. 678, 690; ii. 26
22-24...  ii. 4
22-25  -ii. 6
22-71 -._  ii. 25
24._   ii. 26
25  ii. 26
25-29  .ii. 28
25-36-..-  ii. 26
25-65  ....ii. 26
26  -ii. 27
27_  ..ii. 35
29   i. 469
30 ...'  i. 469
30-36 -  ii 29
31 ...,....;....ii. 593
32   ii. 154
33   ii. 30
37  .ii. 35
37-40  ii. 31
40  i. 692; ii. 26
41  _  ii. 31
41-51  ii. 82
41-52  ii. 26
42  ii. 35

824

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

St. John.
cb. ver.
¦ -vi, 44   ii. 35
48   ii. 34
48-58  i. 683
49  i. 366
51  ii. 26, 469
52-58  ii. 27
53-58-  ii. 26, 34
55  _.-.ii. 35
56. .-  .ii. 35
59  i. 366; ii. 4, 6,
7, 26
60-66  ii. 7, 77
61-65 ._.  ii. 27
62  i. 692; ii. 35
65   -ii. 35
66.  i. 590, ii. 36
67  ii. 77
68  ii. 36, 152, 536
69  .ii. 36, 81, 152
70  i. 590
71  ii. 36
vii   ii. 70, 129
vii-x  ii. 126
1-5  _-.ii. 77
1-16  _ii. 126
2 _  _.._ii. 129
3  i. 306, 692
4  ii. 527
5  i. 306
11  ii. 131
11-36  _ii. 148
13  -ii. 527
14  ii. 131, 145
15   i. 309
17  ii. 162
18   ii. 526
20 .  i. 479
26  ..ii. 527
27  ii. 436
28  ii. 154
29   ii, 155
35   i. 7
37-viii. 11  ii. 156
37-viii. 59  ii. 164
38  ii. 593
39 _...  ii. 644
40^12  .-- i. 423
50  ..'....-. ii. 617
50-52'  : i. 263
52  .....ii. 174
53  ii. 164
53-viii. 11  ii. 163
viii. 3  i. 309
9   ii. 525
12  ii. 164, 180
12-19  ii. 164
12-59  ii. 164
13  ii. 164, 169
14   ii. 169
15   ii. 169
16.-  ii. 154, 169

St. John.
cb. ver.
viii. 20  ii. 164, 165
21  ii. 164
22  ..-.ii. 170
23, 24  ii. 171
25-28  __.ii. 171
28   ii. 180
29  ..ii. 180
30  i. 469
30-32  ii. 172
31   i 469
33  . i. 271
34  ii. 173
35  ...ii. 173
37-40  ii. 173
39  i. 271
41 :  ii. 173
42  ii 173
43-47 _  ii. 173
46  ii. 525
48  i. 395, 479;
ii 197
49  i. 479
50 -.  ii. 175
51  i, 692, ii. 175
52  i. 479; ii. 88,
175
53  i. 271
56  i 161. 193
59  ii. 164
ix  ii. 177
3  i. 468
4  ..ii. 180
5   ii. 180
6  ii. 45
7  ii. 158
8  i.692
11  ii. 180
12 ..-.  ii. 181
14  ii. 177
15  _._ii. 182
16  ii. 8
18  i.309
22  i. 3i'9, ii. 181
24  ii. 8
32   _ii. 324
35  __ .ii. 177
39  ii 187
41 ._  ___.ii 187
x.  i. 583; ii. 177, 217
1-21  _ _ii. 188
11  ii. 194, 469
12  i. 692
13-15 _-  ii. 229
15  ii. 469
17  ii. 192
18  ii. 192
19  ..:..ii. 195
19-21  ii 126
20  i. 479; ii. 197
21 .-  i. 479

St. John.
ch. ver.
x. 22.  ii. 177,226
22-39  ii. 195
22-42 ....ii. 126, 195, 226
23  -  ii. 151
24  :.--. -ii. 527
26  ii. 229
27  ii. 229
28  -ii. 229
35  :  ii. 231
37  ..:  ii. 232
39   .ii. 126
39-43  .ii. 126
xi. -..ii. 136, 145, 284, 306
1-45  ...ii. 195
1-54  Iii. 308
2  ii. 311
4  ii. 322, 325
6  ._.- i. 629
8_  _.ii. 301, 345
14  ii. 527
16   ii. 345
20  ii. 315
33, 38   ii. 49
35-44  ii. 375
41  _ii. 324
45  _  ii. 311
46-54  .ii. 195
47  ii. 475
47-50  i. 205,263
48  _-ii. 475
49  i. 264
50  ii. 546
51  ii. 526
54.. .ii. 126, 127, 135, 527
55  i. 367
55-57 ._  .ii. 357
55-xii. 1 ._  ii. 349
57   ii. 475
xii   ii. 878
1  -ii. 357, 358
2-11   ii. 34'J
5  .-ii. 472
6   .ii. 472
10 __  ii. 357
11  --  ii. 357
12   ii. 365
12-19  ..ii. 363
16  ii. 366
17  ,...ii. 367
18 ..-¦.. — ---«. 367
19  i. 692; ii. 365
20   ii. 187
20-50  ii. 380, 389
21  i. 676; ii. 3
23  _..ii. 391
24-26  ii. 391
25  ii. 404
27  _.ii. 391, 393

IraOl
00

03OOS3
W
H
o«
02<1PnEh
O
Q125

Boo

oco IC -*f
IO IO

CO CO 00 .
-^ TJH -^i C
wioie?

W
o

03 . T1
felOIO

-©©COCO CD
I H^ ^* ^f -^- ^t*
| io io io io *c
t-Tco".-: .-
csj-*. io io

©iflnie -
io co cocoth
io io io io ;*IO
CM tH i>I>.J
— io in .S
IOIO

t-oscoIO CO ©
IO IO -^<

CD© coos
CJCM

£-cocot-co©e-oo-*t<ao©coooao©©ao©©;*iy> lOIOIOIOIOCDIOIOIOCO-^lOlOlOCOlOIOIOloCMto CO

io o oo os ©

( i CO
> oo oo as oh
! CM CM CM CO CO

CO

2cr32^iH,~,c^'^cot-T-i'^io©cDt~os©i-ic>?coi CO CO "<# tHt-IHHt-IHHWNWW

CMCQ.nCOr-<MCS110**CMTH£-t-©©10CO
OOOOOOQOT^OUOOOOOHTHCOCOCCa COCOCOCOCOIOCOlO-r-liOCOCCCOCDCDCOCO

521 ;
ii. -ii.
582, .i.
360, i

CO •—
© —
CO

CM —
oo-'- lO

'", :H ¦'¦

:S:p

IO ' '
;
,©
t-
CM ' '
•00> TH
10IO(OC*OOo6HTHiec6ffiHCTHH(»C5 CM CM CQ CM CM CM CO CO CO CO CO ¦* Tf
OS OS © ,v^00 "^
OlOlOHiOH
OS CO i-l
— , CM CM
io io io
tH © © CM tH
CM w CO CM CM
IO IO IOIO IO
CO OS CO
IO IOIO
CO 00
CN* CM
S5wo
Hs
0Q
..J CM — — .
CQ " 
IO
CO CO CM © 00 CO
-^i ^, -^i Hjl ^f( ^<
IO IO IO IO IC IO
i ¦* , 00 t- H ¦*
"00 " ' ' tH H ' rH CM CM CM
T-lrH-^C-COOSi-ieMCOCDCO©CM
HHHHrtHCJ
;t
i IO >H -H —I .^ .^ .,-* .*i .ph' .^
* 00 •'-! *h ,F1 *h -h "H 'H *h «h
THCMlOIO^CCCS^eO^OSCOlOCSOj-ICMCO WCOOTCOCO©CMCMCOlO©^4l-rJTHC>lCo4lOCMCMC0^1>
tH tH T-1 y-i tH CM CM CM CO CO CO CO HrtHHWMffl tH t-1 t-4 tH
t-ICM©tH
osos-^fr--COCO tH tH
CM CO CO
© © ©
COCO CO
CO Tjl
CO© nee
OS"*
©©
coco
©©
CO CO
a
o
1-5
r- ©i
©©c
00©" c
tHI-cCOtit-
'©00 oo
>© © CO
I "* tji IO
OSi-.t>'r-tffl^tt3©COCfiCO^O
osoosoo©©oso©©osos
TiHW'VlOWlOO^lOiOW'^^
-t-co
^©©COT}r©©CO00"C*TlieOlO©©THCDC0CMCOfc-eMfr-COCO00Si5i5SSS2Sisri<s,-|'-|a("II|'!Hrt0'-lrt®-|rtio:H IO IO IO IO IO CO CD IO IO IO IO IO IO CO CO IO IO IO CO IO IO IO IO IO IO
CO ' ' ,00
, CO , TJ4 ' , itH
KOOODT-ICM'^rCOt-CMTjiiOlO©©£«(NMeoeoe5co;<i!-*"*Tti->*'io
:s "5:
©
--HCMCMCO"cHeDTHe!jCMt-©T-lTHCMCO-T*COCOt tHtHt-1t-4CMCMCMCM(MCMCMCMCM
J3:aco"-*:a:!3>" ; ioio ¦
w
00©tHCMC0CO©t>OiCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
HH I > T-t T-1 04
T-lTHlOiOi>00©CMlOIOt-©©CM^-JlC0l> T-liHTHTHTHCMCMCM«CMe4
a'WIn
:B
826

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS.

ch.
XX

St. John.
ver. 9 
11-17 
12 
13 
14 
16 
19-25 
20 

ii.

623

n

633

693

n

635

693

93

n

630

n.

643

St. John. •
cb. ver.
xx. 23  ii. 85
26-29  ii. 630
27   ii. 614
30 i. 394, 466; ii. 647
31 ..i. 185, 394, 467;
ii. 647
xxi. l-24-__  ii. 030

St. John.
ch. ver.
xxi. 2 i. 350; ii. 535, 633
3  ii. 647
9 ...A. 683; ii. 649
10  i. 683
13  i. 683; ii. 627
15-17  ii. 536
25 ....i. 394; ii, 139

EXPLANATORY NOTES
FOR THE SECOND VOLUME.
Page 15 d : The Targum is quoted from the Venice edition.
" 16 s; for 'Shem. R. 22,' read '42.' However, the word has also been trans
lated in the wider sense of 'garment' But see Rosh haSh, and
compare also what is said about the Tephillin, which cannot be
otherwise interpreted than in the text.
" 21 •: But the passage is a somewhat difficult one, and it has received differ
ent interpretations. See Levy as in note 1, and Lightfoot ad loc.
Line 10, read: 'by a vow from anything by which he might be
profited (or rather have enjoyment) from his son.' And so as re
gards note 2, various interpretations and comments are given. But
the principle that a vow would exclude parents from being ' profited '
is clearly established in Ned. ix. 1.
" 116 a: Remove the signs of quotation in the text. Simon b. Shetach com
pares him to a son who sins against his father, and yet he does what
the child pleases, so Chony, although he was sinning against God.
yet He answered that very prayer.
" 162 ode: Of course, these were only the extreme inferences from their prin
ciples, and not intended literatim.
" 156, note 1 : Ou the Octave of the Feast probably Ps. xii. was chanted (see
Sopher. xix. beg.).
" 182 d: One of the prohibitions there would be exactly parallel to the making
of clay.
" 290, note 2, end: I refer here especially to Bemid. R. 2. It would be difficult
to find anything more realistically extravagant in its exaltation of
Israel over all the nations {delete 28). The note sets forth the general
impression left on the mind, and is, of course, not intended as a
citation.
" 296 d: The reference is to one who hesitates to forgive injury to his name
when asked to do so by the offender. At the same time I gladly
admit how beautifully Rabbinism speaks about mercy and forgive
ness. In this respect also are the Gospels historically true, since the
teaching of Christ here sprang from, and was kindred to the highest
teaching of the Rabbis. But, to my mind, it is just where Rab
binism comes nearest to Christ that the essential difference most ap
pears. And from even the highest Rabbinic sayings to the forgive
ness of Christ in its freeness, absoluteness, internalness, and univer
sality (to Jew and Gentile) there is an immeasurable distance.
'" 388, note 1: In Vayy. R. 3, there is another beautiful story of a poor man
who offered every day half his living, and whose sacrifice was pre
sented before that of King Agrippa.

828 EXPLANATORY NOTES.
Page 409 a: As regards the view given of Jer. Ber. 9 a, I refer to Levy, Neuhebr.
Worterb. II., p. 10 a,
•' 431 a: It was described as more beautiful than the waves of the sea.
" 437 a: The quotation of the Midrash on Cant, is again from the unmutilated
citation in R. Martini, Pugio Fidei (ed. Carpz.), pp. 782, 783.
" notel: The citations refer to the Jerusalem from heaven. For the rest see
Weber, Altsynag. Theol. p. 386. But probably the last clause had
best be omitted.
" 479, line 9: 'What is the Pascha,' &c. ; rather: 'What is "on the Pesach 1"
On the 14 Nisan' — in the original: BaPesach, i.e. the beginning of
the Passover.
" 556, line 7 : for ' on public Feast-days ' read ' at the great public Feasts.'
" 609: The reference4 applies to the end of the sentence. On the thirteen
Veils comp. Maimonides (Kel. haMiqd. vii. 17).

ttBiiSii

! Hi! 'i! Hlil'll i i

¦IllllllllnUllrllllillllilUiiiininiiiiiiii