1. And it came to pass, that, as he
was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples
said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his
disciples.
[Teach us to pray, as John also
taught his disciples.] What kind of request is this, that this
disciple, whoever he is, doth here make? Was he ignorant of, or had he
forgot, that form of prayer which the Lord had delivered to them in his
sermon upon the mount? If he had not forgot it, why then doth he require
any other? Doth he mean, 'Lord, teach us to pray, for John hath taught
his disciples?' or thus, 'Teach us a form and rule of prayer like that
which John had taught his?' This latter is the most probable; but then
it is something uncertain what kind of form that might be which the
disciples of John were taught. As to this inquiry, we may consider these
things:
I. It is said of the disciples of John,
They fast often, and make prayers,
Luke 5:33: where, upon many accounts, I could persuade myself that
prayers ought to be taken here in its most proper sense for
supplications. To let other things pass, let us weigh these two:
1. That the Jews' daily and common
prayers, ordinary and occasional, consisted chiefly of benedictions and
doxologies, which the title of that Talmudic tract, which treats of
their prayers, sufficiently testifies, being called [Beracoth]
benedictions, as also that tephillah, the general
nomenclature for prayer, signifies no other than praising,
i.e. benediction or doxology. To illustrate this matter,
we have a passage or two not unworthy our transcribing:
"Perhaps, a man begs for necessaries
for himself, and afterward prayeth. This is that which is spoken by
Solomon, when he saith, To the prayer, and to the supplication."
I omit the version, because the Gemarists interpret it themselves;
rinna is tephillah, and tephillah is bakkashah.
Their meaning is this: The first word of Solomon's rinnah,
signifies prayer (as the Gloss hath it, i.e. prayer with
praise, or doxology) the latter word, tephillah,
signifies petition, or supplication; Gloss, begging for
things necessary.
It cannot be denied but that they had
their petitionary or supplicatory prayers; but then, the benedictory or
doxological prayers were more in number, and more large and copious:
especially those which were poured out occasionally or upon present
emergency. Read the last chapter of the treatise I newly quoted, and
judge as to this particular: read the whole treatise, and then judge of
the whole matter.
2. It may be reasonably supposed that
the Baptist taught his disciples a form of prayer different from what
the Jewish forms were. It stands with reason, that he that was to bring
in a new doctrine, (I mean new in respect to that of the Jewish)
should bring in a new way of prayer too; that is, a form of prayer that
consisted more in petition and supplication than the Jewish forms had
done; nay, and another sort of petitions than what those forms which
were petitionary had hitherto contained. For the disciples of John had
been instructed in the points of regeneration, justifying faith,
particular adoption, and sanctification by the Spirit, and other
doctrines of the gospel, which were altogether unknown in the schools or
synagogues of the Jews. And who would imagine, therefore, that John
Baptist should not teach his disciples to pray for these things?
II. It is probable, therefore, that
when this disciple requested our Saviour that he would teach his
disciples as John had done, he had respect to such kind of
prayers as these; because we find Christ so far condescending to him,
that he delivers him a form of prayer merely petitionary, as may appear
both from the whole structure of the prayer, as also in that the last
close of all the doxology, "For thine is the kingdom," &c. is here left
wholly out; he took care to deliver [a form] that was merely
supplicatory. This is confirmed by what follows concerning the man
requesting some loaves of his neighbour, adding withal this exhortation,
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find." Which two
things seem to answer those two things by which supplicatory prayer is
defined; these are sheelah, asking, and bakkashah, seeking:
for if there may be any difference in the meaning of these two words, I
would suppose it thus, bakkashah, or seeking, may respect
the things of God; so, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God," &c.: and
sheelah, or asking, may respect those things which are
necessary for ourselves: which texture we find very equally divided in
this present form of prayer, where the three first petitions are in
behalf of God's honour, and the three last in behalf of our own
necessaries.
It was in use amongst the Jews, when
they fasted, to use a peculiar sort of prayer, joined with what were
daily, terming it the prayer of the fast. This we have mentioned
in Taanith, where it is disputed whether those that fasted for
certain hours only, and not for the whole day, ought to repeat that
prayer of the fast: as also, in what order and place that prayers is to
be inserted amongst the daily ones. Now if it should be granted that
John had taught his disciples any such form, that might be particularly
adapted to their fastings, it is not very likely this disciple had any
particular reference to that, because the disciples of Christ did not
fast as the disciples of John did. It rather respected the whole frame
of their prayers which he had instructed them in, which consisted
chiefly of petitions and supplications.
Object. But probably this
disciple was not ignorant that Christ had already delivered to them a
petitionary form in that Sermon of his upon the Mount: and therefore
what need had he to desire, and for what reason did he importune
another?
Answer. It is likely he did
know it; and as likely he did not expect the repetition of the same
again: but being very intent upon what John had done for his disciples,
did hope for a form more full and copious, that might more largely and
particularly express what they were to ask for, according to what he had
observed probably in the form that had been prescribed by John: but the
divine wisdom of our Saviour knew, however, that all was sufficiently
comprehended in what he had given them. And as the Jews had their
short summary of those eighteen prayers epitomized, so would he have
this form of his a short summary of all that we ought to ask for.
4. And forgive us our sins; for we
also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into
temptation; but deliver us from evil.
[And lead us not into temptation.]
I am much deceived if this petition is not amongst other things, and
indeed principally, and in the first place, directed against the visible
apparitions of the devil, the evil one: as also his actual
obsessions: by which the phrase of God's 'leading us into temptation' is
very much softened.
The doxology, 'For thine is the
kingdom,' &c., is left out, because it was our Saviour's intention in
this place to deliver to them a form of prayer merely petitionary; for
which very same reason also, Amen is omitted too. For he shall
say Amen at thy giving of thanks: and indeed they commonly ended all
their prayers, even those that consisted most of petition, with
thanksgiving and benediction; concluding in this manner, "Blessed be
thou, O Lord, who hast thus done, or thus commanded," or the like; and
then was it answered by all, Amen. This we may observe in those
Psalms that conclude any portion of that book, and end with Amen:
upon what subject soever the Psalmist is engaged, either throughout the
whole psalm, or immediately before the bringing forth of Amen,
still he never doth mention Amen without some foregoing doxology
and benediction, "Blessed be the Lord God, &c., Amen and Amen."
In St. Matthew, therefore, we find Amen, because there is the
doxology: in St. Luke it is wanting, because the doxology is so too. You
may see more of this in notes upon
Matthew 6.
15. But some of them said, He
casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
[Through Beelzebub the chief of the
devils.] I. As to this name of Beelzebub I have elsewhere
discoursed, and do still assert the reading of it with the letter l
in the end of it, viz. Beelzebul, against the Syriac, Persian, Vulgar,
and other translations, which read it Beelzebub. The Italian, cautiously
indeed, but not purely, Beelzebu, that he might not strike upon
either the one or the other reading: but in the mean time I will not
answer for the faithfulness and candour of the interpreter.
II. Amongst the Jews we may observe
three devils called the chief, or prince of the devils: 1.
'The angel of death'; who is called Prince of all the Satans. 2.
The devil Asmodeus: of him afterward. 3. Beelzebub, in
this place. Now as to vindicating the writing of it by l in the
end of the word, and not b:
III. It is a question whether there
were such a thing as Beelzebub in rerum natura. Why should
not the deity of the place take his farewell, when Ekron, the place of
this deity, was wholly obliterated? When there was no more an idol nor
oracle at Ekron, did not the demon cease to be Beelzebub any
longer, although it did not cease to be a demon? Wherever, therefore,
Ekron was under the second Temple, or the place where it had been under
the first; you can hardly persuade me there was any idol or oracle of
Beelzebub, and so not Beelzebub himself. I will not here
dispute whether Achor, the Cyrenians' tutelar god against flies, hath
any relation or affinity with the name of Ekron. Let it be granted that
Beelzebub might change his soil upon some occasion, and remove
from Ekron to Cyrene: but then how should he come to be the prince of
the devils, when all his business and power was only among flies?
It may not be improbable, perhaps,
that he might be first or chief of those demons, or Baalim, that
Ahab brought among the Israelites; and so Ahaziah his son, in the midst
of his affliction and danger, might fly for refuge to that idol as what
had been the god of his father: but what is it could move the ages
following at so long distance of time from this, that they should esteem
this demon Beelzebub the prince of the devils? Here I
confess myself not well satisfied: but as to Beelzebul, something
may be said.
IV. I have already shewn, in notes
upon
Matthew 12, that the Jewish doctors (and such were these who
contended with our Saviour) did give idolatrous worship the denomination
of zebul, or dung, for the ignominy of the thing; and so
was the nation generally taught by these Rabbins. I gave some instances
for the proof of it, which I shall not here repeat, but add one more:
"It is said of Joseph" [when his mistress would have tempted him to
adultery], "that he came into the house to do his business. R. Judah
saith, It was a day of fooling and of dunging, it was a day of
theatres." Where the Gloss upon the word zebul, stercoration,
saith thus: "It is a word of contempt, and so it is expounded by R.
Solomon in the treatise Avodah Zarah, and Tosaphoth; viz.
that fooling signifies to sacrifice [that is, to idols];
and they prove it out of Jerusalem Beracoth, where it is said,
'He that seeth a place where they dung [that is, offer
sacrifice] to an idol, let him say, Whoso offereth sacrifice
to strange gods, let him be accursed.'" Which words we have also alleged
out of the Jerusalem Talmud.
V. Now therefore, when idolatry was
denominated zebul amongst the Jews, and indeed reckoned amongst
the most grievous of sins they could be guilty of, that devil whom they
supposed to preside over this piece of wickedness they named him
Beelzebub, and esteemed him the prince of the devils; or (if
you will pardon the expression) the most devilized of all devils.
VI. They give the like title to the
devil Asmodeus. Asmodeus the king of the devils. The devil, the
prince of the spirits. Which elsewhere is expounded, the devil
Asmodeus. For in both places we have this ridiculous tale: "There
was a certain woman brought forth a son in the night-time, and said to
her son [a child newly born you must know], 'go and light me a candle,
that I may cut thy navel.' As he was going, the devil Asmodeus meeting
him, said to him, 'Go and tell thy mother that if the cock had not
crowed I would have killed thee,'" &c.
The very name points at 'apostasy,'
not so much that the devil was an apostate, as that this devil provoked
and enticed people to apostatize: Beelzebul amongst the Gentiles,
and Asmodeus amongst the Jews, the first authors of their apostasy.
Whether both the name and demon were not found out by the Jews to
affright the Samaritans, see the place above quoted: "When as Noah went
to plant a vineyard, the demon Asmodeus met him and said, Let
me partake with thee," &c. So that it seems they suppose Asmodeus
had a hand in Noah's drunkenness. "When he [that is, Solomon]
sinned, Asmodeus drove him to it," &c. They call the angel of
death by the name of prince of all Satans, because he
destroys all mankind by death, none excepted.
31. The queen of the south shall
rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn
them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom
of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
[The queen of the south, &c.]
I. I cannot but wonder what should be the meaning of that passage in
Bava Bathra; Whoever saith that the queen of Sheba was a woman, doth no
other than mistake. What then is the queen of Sheba? The kingdom of
Sheba. Would he have the whole kingdom of the Sabeans to have come
to Solomon? Perhaps what is said, that the queen of Sheba came
with an exceeding great army (for so is that clause rendered by
some), might seem to sound something of this nature in his ears. But if
there was any kind of ambiguity in the word queen, as indeed
there is none, or if interpreters doubted at all about it, as indeed
none had done, the great oracle of truth hath here taught us that the
queen did come to Solomon: but why doth he term her the queen of 'the
south,' and not the queen of 'Sheba'?
II. There are plausible things upon
this occasion spoken concerning Sheba of the Arabians, which we
have no leisure to discuss at present. I am apt rather to apprehend that
our Saviour may call her the queen of the south in much a like
sense as the king of Egypt is called in Daniel 'the king of the south.'
The countries in that quarter of the world were very well known amongst
the Jews by that title: but I question whether the Arabian Saba
were so or no. Grant that some of the Arabian countries be in later ages
called Aliemin, or southern parts, yet I doubt whether so
called by antiquity, or in the days of our Saviour.
Whereas it is said that the queen
of the south came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, is it worth the
patience of the reader to hear a little the folly of the Jews about this
matter? Because it is said that she came to make a proof of his wisdom
by dark sayings and hard questions, these doctors will be telling us
what kind of riddles and hard questions she put to him. "She saith unto
him, 'If I ask thee any thing, wilt thou answer me?' He said, 'It is the
Lord that giveth wisdom.' She saith, 'What is this then? There are
seven things go out and nine enter. Two mingle [or prepare]
the cup, and one drinks of it.' He saith, 'There are seven days
for a woman's separation, that go out; and nine months for her bringing
forth, that come in. Two breasts do [mingle, or] prepare the cup, and
one sucks it.' Again saith she, 'I will ask thee one thing more: What is
this? A woman saith unto her son, Thy father was my father; thy
grandfather was my husband; thou art my son, and I am thy sister.' To
whom he answered, 'Surely they were Lot's daughters.'" There is
much more of this kind, but thus much may suffice for riddles.
33. No man, when he
hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither
under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see
the light.
[No man, when he hath lighted a
candle, &c.] The coherence of this passage with what went before
seems a little difficult, but the connection probably is this: there
were some that had reviled him as if he had cast out devils by the
prince of the devils, others that had required a sign from heaven,
verses 15,16. To the former of these he gives an answer, verse 17,18:
and, indeed, to both of them, verse 19, and so on. This passage we are
upon respects both, but the latter more principally: q.d. "You require a
sign of me: would you have me light a candle, and put it under a bushel?
would you have me work miracles, when I am assured beforehand you will
not believe these miracles? Which, however of themselves they may shine
like a candle lighted up, yet, in respect to you that believe them not,
it is no other than a candle under a bushel, or in a secret place."
36. If thy whole body
therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall
be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee
light.
[The whole shall be full of light.]
This clause seems so much the same with the former, as if there were
something of tautology; If thy whole body therefore be full of light,
&c. Our Saviour speaketh of the eye, after the manner of the schools,
where the evil eye, or the eye not single, signified the
covetous, envious, and malicious mind: "Do not bring such a mind along
with thee, but a candid, benign, gentle mind; then thou wilt be all
bright and clear thyself, and all things will be bright and clear to
thee. If you had but such a mind, O ye carping, blasphemous Jews, you
would not frame so sordid and infamous a judgment of my miracles; but
you would have a clear and candid opinion concerning them."
38. And when the Pharisee saw it,
he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.
[That he had not first washed
before dinner.] Had the Pharisee himself washed before dinner,
in that sense wherein washed signifies the washing of the whole
body? It is hardly credible, when there was neither need, nor was it the
custom, to wash the whole body before meat, but the hands only. This we
have spoken largelier upon elsewhere [Matt
15;
Mark 7]; from whence it will be necessary for us to repeat these
things; that there is a washing of the hands, and there is a
dipping of the hands. This clause we are upon refers to this latter.
The Pharisee wonders that Christ had not washed his hands; nay, that he
had not dipped them all over in the water when he was newly come from
the people that were gathered thick together.
Of how great esteem this washing
their hands before meat was amongst them, besides what I have
alleged elsewhere, take this one instance more: "It is storied of R.
Akibah, that he was bound in prison, and R. Joshua ministered unto him
as his reader. He daily brought him water by measure. One day the
keeper of the prison met him, and said unto him, 'Thou hast too much
water today.' He poured out half, and gave him half. When he came to R.
Akibah, he told him the whole matter. R. Akibah saith unto him, 'Give me
some water to wash my hands': the other saith unto him, 'There is not
enough for thee to drink; and how then shouldest thou have any to wash
thine hands?' To whom he, 'What shall I do in a matter wherein there is
the guilt of death? It is better I should die [that is, by thirst] than
that I should transgress the mind of my colleagues'": who had thus
prescribed about washing of hands.
And a little after; Samuel saith, "At
that time wherein Solomon instituted the 'Erubhin' and washing of the
hands, there came forth 'Bath Kol,' and said, 'My son, if thy
heart be wise, even mine shall rejoice.'" Observe here, (at least if you
will believe it) that Solomon was the first author of this washing of
hands. "Whosoever blesseth immediately after the washing of hands,
Satan doth not accuse him for that time of his repast."
39. And the Lord said unto him, Now
do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but
your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
[Now do ye Pharisees make clean the
outside of the cup and the platter, &c.] This our Saviour speaks of
the persons, and not of the vessels; which is plain, in
that,
I. He saith, your inward parts,
&c.; so that the sense is to this purpose: You cleanse yourselves
outwardly indeed by these kinds of washings; but that which is within
you is full of rapine, &c.
II. Whereas he saith, he that made
that which is without, he doth not speak it of the artificer
that made the cup or the platter, but of God. Else what kind of
argument is this? 'He that made the cups and the platters, made both the
outside and the inside of them': what then? 'Therefore do ye make
yourselves clean both outside and inside too.' But if we refer it to
God, then the argument holds forcibly enough: 'Did not God, that made
you without, make you within too? he expects, therefore, that you should
keep yourselves clean, not only as to your outside, but as to your
inside too.'
III. It is hardly probable that the
Pharisees should wash the outside of the cup or platter, and not the
inside too. Take but these two passages out of this kind of authors
themselves: "Those dishes which any person eats out of over night, they
wash them, that he may eat in them in the morning. In the morning they
wash them, that he may eat in them at noon. At noon, that he may eat in
them at the mincha. After the mincha, he doth not wash them again; but
the cups, and jugs, and bottles, he doth wash, and so it goes
throughout the whole day," &c. I will not give myself nor reader the
trouble to examine the meaning of the words: it suffices that here is
mention only of washing, and that the whole vessel, not of this or that
part only: and the washing of such vessels was by dipping them in
water.
"All vessels that have an outside
and an inside, if the inside be defiled, the outside is also; but
if the outside be defiled, the inside is not defiled." One would
think this was to our purpose, and asserted the very literal sense of
the words we have in hand, viz. that the cups and the platters, although
they were unclean on the outside, yet in the inside they might be clean;
and it was sufficient to the Pharisee, if he cleansed them on the
outside only. But the vessels here mentioned (if the Gloss may be our
interpreter) are such as they might use both the outside and the
inside indifferently. Some of them are recited by the Gemarists,
viz. sacks, wallets, nightcaps, pillowcases, &c.
Our Saviour, therefore, does not here
speak according to the letter, neither here nor in
Matthew 23:25, when he saith, "Ye make clean the outside of the cup
and of the platter"; but by way of parable and similitude. 'You, while
you are so very nice and officious in your external washings, you do
nothing more than if you only washed the outside of the cup or dish,
while there was nothing but filth and nastiness within.'
40. Ye fools, did not he
that made that which is without make that which is within also?
[Ye fools.] A word very common
to the nation. "Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai said to the Baithuseans,
Ye fools, how prove you this?" "Esau said, Cain was a fool.
Pharaoh said, Esau was a fool. Haman said, Pharaoh was a fool.
Gog and Magog will say, They were all fools that are gone before us."
Hence that common phrase, O thou most foolish thing in all the world.
41. But rather give alms of such
things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
[But rather give alms of such
things as ye have.] This seems ironically spoken, and in derision to
the opinion they had concerning alms.
1. As to the version of the word of
such things, may we not suppose it signifies not only, that which
is over and above, as the Vulgar, but also all that you have,
as Beza: or not only something that may have respect to the riches of
this world, but something also that may have respect to the doctrines
and tenets of the Pharisees. As if the meaning was this, "'Those things
which are amongst you,' i.e. which obtain commonly amongst you, are to
this purpose, 'Give but alms, and all things are clean unto you.'" ...
II. However, that which is over and
above, or that which you have, (for I will not be very
tenacious in this) yet it is hardly probable that our Saviour utters
this as his own, but rather as the words and opinion of the Pharisees.
Nor do I think that he speaks these things directly, or by way of
directions to them, but that he cites their tenets in mere scoff
and displeasure. For indeed, this principle was the spawn of their own
schools, that giving of alms had a value in it that served for
atonement, justification, salvation, every thing. Hence that common term
that reached so comprehensively, righteousness. And hence is it
that, in those numberless places in the Holy Scriptures, where the
praises of justice and righteousness are celebrated, and
all the blessings of it pronounced, they apply it all to the giving
of alms. Take on instance for all: "Rabh Asai saith, Alms is
equivalent to all the other commandments." "R. Judah saith, Giving
of alms is a great thing; for it hastens our redemption. It is written,
righteousness, [i.e., giving of alms], delivers from
death. Almsgiving, delivereth from sudden death, and from the
judgment of hell. R. Meir saith, If any wicked man should make this
objection, that if your God love the poor, why doth he not feed them? do
thou make this answer; it is, that we by them might be delivered from
the judgment of hell."
I fear, indeed, that the Greek
interpreters have a touch of this, when they so oftentimes render
justice by giving of alms. So that the reader may judge
whether our Saviour either would teach, that rapine, injustice, and
unrighteousness might be cleansed by giving of alms; or that he would
give them any counsel of this nature, when he knew they were
sufficiently tinctured with this kind of doctrine already.
45. Then answered one of the
lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us
also.
[Then answered one of the lawyers.]
Here seems a little difficulty, that whereas, in the foregoing verse it
is said, "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees," it is not subjoined
then answered one of the scribes, but one of the lawyers;
which scruple perhaps the Vulgar observing, made him leave scribes
and Pharisees wholly out. Our Saviour inveighs more peculiarly, and
by name, against the Pharisees, verses 37,42,43; and at length joins the
scribes with them, verse 44. Hence that lawyer cavils and complains,
either that he had named the scribes in terms, or that he had accused
the Pharisees of nothing but what the scribes might be equally accused
of. As to this very scribe, did not he wash his hands before dinner as
the Pharisees did? for it is said of all the Jews, "except they wash
their hands oft, eat not." Did not the scribe tithe mint and rue as
well as the Pharisee? when we find that the tithing of herbs was
instituted by the Rabbins. In a word, the scribes and the Pharisees
go hand in hand in that discourse of our Saviour's,
Matthew 23; where he blameth both the one and the other for the same
things. So that it is plain enough why this man complains; but it is not
so plain why he should be termed "one of the lawyers," and not
"one of the scribes."
I. It is not very easy distinguishing
betwixt the scribe and the Pharisee, unless that Pharisaism was a
kind of tumour and excrescence as to superstition and austerities of
religion beyond the common and stated practice of that nation, even of
the scribes themselves. Whether that distinction betwixt singular,
and a disciple, hints any difference as to the austerity of
religion, I cannot affirm; I will only lay a passage or two in the
reader's eye for him to consider.
"The Rabbins have a tradition, Let no
one say, I am a Disciple, I am not fit to be made a Singular."
The Gloss hath it, "I am not fit to begin the fasts with the Singulars."
And the Gemara a little after; "The Rabbins have a tradition: Every one
that would make himself a Singular, let him not make himself so:
but if any one would make himself a Disciple, let him." And at
length; It is not lawful for a Disciple of the Wise to continue in
fastings, because he diminisheth from the work of God: that is, he
ceaseth from learning and teaching.
One would here think, that it is
plainly distinguished betwixt a Pharisee and any other; and yet the
Gemarists, in the very same place, say thus, All the Disciples of the
Wise are Singulars. At length they query, "Who is a Singular, and
who is a Disciple? A Singular is he that is worthy to be
preferred to be a pastor of a synagogue. A Disciple is he, who if
they ask him any thing concerning a tradition in his doctrine, he hath
wherewithal to answer." So that by a Disciple they mean not him
that is now learning, but him who hath already learned and now teacheth;
but, in other places, they apply both these to the Disciple.
"R. Jochanan saith, Who is a Disciple
of the Wise? he whom they prefer to be pastor of a synagogue: he who, if
they ask him about any tradition in any place, hath wherewithal to
answer." The difference between these, however confounded in this place,
was this: that the Disciple could answer doubts and questions
fetched out of that place or from that subject upon which he had taught
or read; but the Singular, could answer all doubts raised from
any place, even out of the treatise concerning marriages. That
mention of the pastor and the teacher,
Ephesians 4:11, we seem to have some shadow of it here: the
Disciple is the teacher, and the Singular is the
pastor of the synagogue: and perhaps if these things were observed,
it might give some light into that place of the apostle.
II. As the Disciple and the
Singular are sometimes confounded, sometimes distinguished, so also
is the scribe and the Pharisee. They are sometimes confounded; for many
of the Pharisees were scribes: and they are sometimes distinguished; for
many of them were of the common people, and not scribes. Perhaps it may
not be improperly said, that there were Pharisees that were of the
clergy, and Pharisees that were of the laity. He whom we have now before
us was a scribe, but not a Pharisee; but it is not easy to give the
reason why he is termed a lawyer and not a scribe. Here is
some place for conjecture, but not for demonstration. As to conjecture,
therefore, let us make a little essay in this matter.
I. I conceive that the lawyer
and teacher of the law, may be opposed to the Sadducees to whom
the Pharisee is diametrically opposite; for they were contrary to them
in their practice of the traditional rites as much as they could; and
these again abundantly contrary to them in traditional doctrines. The
Sadducees had, indeed, their scribes or their teachers, as well as any
other party: and there is frequent mention of the scribes of the
Sadducees. And from this antithesis, probably, is Rabban Gamaliel
termed a doctor of law. For there was then an assembly of the
'sect of the Sadducees,' verse 17: and when Gamaliel, who was of the
other sect, made his speech amongst them, it is easy to conceive why he
is there termed a doctor of law. For the same reason we may
suppose the person here before us might be called one of the lawyers,
and not a scribe, because there were scribes even amongst the
Sadducees.
II. I conceive, therefore, that the
lawyers and teachers of the law were the traditionary doctors
of the law. As to Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, the thing is without
dispute: and if there were any difference between the lawyers and
doctors of the law, yet as to this matter, I suppose there was none. Let
us consider this following passage: "It is a tradition: R. Simeon Ben
Jochai saith, He that is conversant, in the textual exposition of the
law, hath a measure, which is not a measure. He that is conversant
in Misna, hath a measure, from whence they receive a reward: but if he
be conversant in the Talmud, there is not a greater measure than this.
Always betake yourself to the Misna rather than the Talmud. But R. Jose
Ben R. Bon saith, This which thou sayest, obtained before the Rabbi had
mixed with it manifold traditions: but from the time that he mixed with
it manifold traditions, always have recourse to the Talmud rather than
to the Misna."
Now, I pray, who is he that, according
to this tradition, merits most the title of a doctor of law? He
that is conversant in the exposition and interpretation of the
written law, and the context of it, alas! he doth but little; and
for all the oil and labour he hath spent, hath only a measure, which is
not a measure. But he that is conversant in the Misna and Talmud, in the
traditional doctrine or exposition of the traditional law, he bears away
the bell; he hath some reward for his pains, and is dignified with the
title of doctor.
III. If there were any distinction
betwixt doctors of tradition and doctors of law (which I
hardly believe), we may suppose it might be this; either that the
doctor of law had his school and his disciples, and the doctor of
tradition had none; or that the doctor of tradition was
conversant in the Misna, or the plain and literal exposition of
traditions, and the doctor of law, in the Talmud, or a more
profound and scholastic way of teaching.
However, be there this distinction
betwixt them, or some other, or indeed none at all, yet I presume they
were both doctors of traditions, and expounders of that which they
called the oral law, in opposition to the scribes, whether amongst the
Jews or the Sadducees, who employed themselves in the textual exposition
of the law.
46. And he said, Woe
unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous
to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your
fingers.
[And ye yourselves touch not (the
burdens) with one of your fingers.] That the lawyers (as we
have already said) were the doctors of traditions, is a little
confirmed by this, that what our Saviour reproacheth them for were
merely traditionals: this particularly, that they laded men with such
'yokes of traditions,' and yet they themselves would not touch or move
them with one of their fingers.
This exposition indeed vulgarly
obtains, 'You lay grievous burdens upon others, which in the meantime
you indulge yourselves in, and will not undergo them by any means.' This
interpretation I cannot but admit; but yet must inquire whether there be
not something more included it. For whereas 'he that would prescribe
light things to himself, and burdensome to others,' was commonly
accounted and called a wicked cunning fellow: and whereas there
is frequent mention of this or that Rabbin, who would lay this or
that burden upon himself, which he would acquit others of; it may be
a question, whether this exposition, so commonly received, doth indeed
speak out the whole sense and meaning of these words.
I apprehend, therefore, our Saviour
might not only rebuke the remissness and indulgence they gave
themselves, but further their strictness and tenaciousness about their
own decrees. They made light of the commandments of God, at their own
pleasure; but would never diminish the least tittle of their own. That
they might remove or take away any part of the divine law, they employ
both hands; but as to their own constitutions, they will not move one
finger.
49. Therefore also said the wisdom
of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them
they shall slay and persecute:
[Therefore also said the wisdom of
God.] This form of speaking agreeth well enough with that so much in
use, the rule of judgment saith. Amongst numberless instances,
take that of the Targumist; "Is it fitting that the daughters of Israel
should eat the fruit of their own womb? The rule of judgment
[retributive justice] answered and said, Was it also fitting
to kill a priest and a prophet in the sanctuary of the Lord, as ye
killed Zacharias," &c.
51. From the blood of Abel unto the
blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple:
verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
[Unto the blood of Zacharias.]
If our Saviour had not in the evangelist St. Matthew added "the son of
Barachias," no one could have doubted that it referred to any other than
Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, whose slaughter is recorded
2 Chronicles 24. It is certain the Jews own no other Zacharias slain
in the Temple but himself: and what they say of his slaughter, I have
already taken notice upon that place in St. Matthew out of both the
Talmuds. We meet with the same things in Midras Echah, and Midras
Coheleth: out of which last give me leave briefly to transcribe these
passages:
"The blood of Zachary boiled up two
hundred and fifty-two years, from the days of Joash to the days of
Zedekiah. What did they do? They swept into it all the dust [of the
court] and made a heap; yet it ceased not, but still boiled and
bubbled up. The Holy Blessed God said to the blood, Behold the time
is come that thou exact [that was, Let the Lord behold, and require
it at your hands]. When Nebuzaradan came and inquired, what this matter
was; they answered, That it was the blood of heifers, and rams, and
lambs, which they had sacrificed. Afterward, when he came to understand
what the matter was, he slew eighty thousand priests, and yet the blood
would not stanch, but broke out and flowed as far as the tomb of
Zachary. He brought together, therefore, the Sanhedrim, both the Great
and Less, and slew them over that blood, and yet it did not cease," &c.
I hardly indeed think that those that
relate this matter did really believe it to have been actually so; but
only would by such flowers of rhetoric and strained hyperboles, paint
out the horrible guilt of the murder of Zacharias; which by how much the
more horrible it was, by so much the more did it agree with the guilt of
the murder of our blessed Lord.
And however a great part of it in
these relations of theirs may be mere flourish, yet by the whole framing
of the thing, it must needs be observed, that the slaughter of this
Zacharias was so famous and rooted in the minds of that people
generally, that when our Saviour speaks of one Zacharias, slain between
the Temple and the altar, it cannot be imagined that they could
understand him pointing at any other than this very man. As for his
father being here called Barachias, and not Jehoiada, we have spoken to
that matter elsewhere.
If any one hesitate about the changing
of the name, let him say by what name he finds Jehoiada recited in that
catalogue of priests set down in
1 Chronicles 6. It must be either some other name, or else we must
suppose him wholly left out of that number. If by another name, you will
say (supposing he be also called Barachias) he was then a man of three
names. This indeed is no unusual thing with that nation for some to have
more names than one: nay, if you will believe the Jewish doctors, even
Moses himself had no less than ten.
52. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye
have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and
them that were entering in ye hindered.
[Ye have taken away the key of
knowledge.] Should we render it, Ye have taken the key of
knowledge, (that is, to yourselves) or, Ye have taken it away;
there is not much difference. They took the key of knowledge to
themselves, when they arrogated to themselves only all profoundness
of wisdom and learning, hereby indeed taking it away from the
people, because they taught them nothing but trifling and idle stuff.
The word for key in their
language brings to mind the word which was so very much in use amongst
them for one that was teaching. Instances of this were endless:
there are enough of it in that long preface prefixed to that Midras
Threnorum, that hath for its title, The opening of the wise;
where (as indeed almost everywhere else), it is so frequently said,
R. such a one 'opened'; for I cannot tell how better to render it...
Table of Contents
