3. And as he sat upon the mount of
Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew
asked him privately,
[Upon the mount of Olives, over
against the Temple.] "The east gate of the Court of the Gentiles had
the metropolis Sushan painted on it. And through this gate the high
priest went out to burn the red cow." And, "All the walls of that court
were high, except the east wall; because of the priest, when he burnt
the red cow, stood upon the top of mount Olivet, and took his
aim, and looked upon the gate of the Temple, in that time when he
sprinkled the blood." And, "The priest stood with his face turned
westward, kills the cow with his right hand, and receives the blood with
the left, but sprinkleth it with his right, and that seven times,
directly towards the Holy of Holies."
It is true, indeed, the Temple might be
well seen from any tract of Olivet: but the word over against,
if it doth not direct to this very place, yet to some place certainly in
the same line: and it cannot but recall to our mind that action of the
high priest.
7. And when ye shall hear of wars
and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must
needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
[Be not troubled.] Think here,
how the traditions of the scribes affrighted the nation with the report
of Gog and Magog, immediately to go before the coming of the Messiah:--
"R. Eliezer Ben Abina saith, When you
see the kingdoms disturbing one another, then expect the footsteps of
the Messiah. And know that this is true from hence, that so it was
in the days of Abraham; for kingdoms disturbed one another, and then
came redemption to Abraham." And elsewhere; "So they came against
Abraham, and so they shall come with Gog and Magog." And again, "The
Rabbins deliver. In the first year of that week [of years] that
the Son of David is to come, shall that be fulfilled, 'I will rain upon
one city, but I will not rain upon another,'
Amos 4:7. The second year, the arrows of famine shall be sent forth.
The third, the famine shall be grievous, and men and women and children,
holy men, and men of good works, shall die. And there shall be a
forgetfulness of the law among those that learn it. The fourth year,
fulness, and not fulness. The fifth year, great fulness; for they shall
eat and drink and rejoice, and the law shall return to its scholars. The
sixth year, voices. (The Gloss is, 'A fame shall be spread, that the Son
of David comes,' or, 'they shall sound with a trumpet.') The seventh
year, wars; and in the going out of that seventh year the Son of David
shall come."
8. For nation shall rise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in
divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are
the beginnings of sorrows.
[These are the beginnings of sorrows.]
Isaiah 66:7,8: Before she travailed she brought forth; before the
labour of pains came she was delivered, and brought forth a male. Who
hath heard such a thing? Does the earth bring forth in one day, or is a
nation also brought forth at once? For Sion was in travail and brought
forth her sons.
The prophet here says two things:--
I. That Christ should be born before
the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jews themselves collect and
acknowledge this out of this prophecy: "It is in the Great Genesis
[Bereshith Rabba] a very ancient book: thus R. Samuel Bar
Nachaman said, Whence prove you, that in the day when the destruction of
the Temple was, Messias was born? He answered, From this that is said in
the last chapter of Isaiah, 'Before she travailed she brought forth;
before her bringing forth shall come, she brought forth a male child.'
In the same hour that the destruction of the Temple was, Israel cried
out as though she were bringing forth. And Jonathan in the Chaldee
translation said, Before her trouble came she was saved; and before the
pains of childbirth came upon her, Messiah was revealed." In the Chaldee
it is, A king shall manifest himself.
"In like manner in the same book: R.
Samuel Bar Nachaman said, It happened that Elias went by the way in the
day wherein the destruction of the Temple was, and he heard a certain
voice crying out and saying, 'The holy Temple is destroyed.' Which when
he heard, he imagined how he could destroy the world: but travelling
forward he saw men ploughing and sowing, to whom he said, 'God is angry
with the world and will destroy his house, and lead his children
captives to the Gentiles; and do you labour for temporal victuals?' And
another voice was heard, saying, 'Let them work, for the Saviour of
Israel is born.' And Elias said, 'Where is he?' And the voice said, 'In
Bethlehem of Judah,'" &c. These words this author speaks, and these
words they speak.
II. As it is not without good reason
gathered, that Christ shall be born before the destruction of the city,
from that clause, "Before she travailed she brought forth, before her
bringing forth came [the pangs of travail], she brought forth a
male child"; so also, from that clause, Is a nation brought forth at
once? for Sion travailed and brought forth her children, is gathered
as well, that the Gentiles were to be gathered and called to the faith
before that destruction; which our Saviour most plainly teacheth, verse
10, "But the gospel must first be preached among all nations." For how
the Gentiles, which should believe, are called 'the children of Sion,'
and 'the children of the church of Israel,' every where in the prophets,
there is no need to show, for every one knows it.
In this sense is the word pangs
or sorrows, in this place to be understood; and it agrees not
only with the sense of the prophet alleged, but with a most common
phrase and opinion in the nation concerning the sorrows of the
Messiah, that is, concerning the calamities which they expected
would happen at the coming of the Messiah.
"Ulla saith, The Messias shall
come, but I shall not see him. So also saith Rabba, Messias shall
come, but I shall not see him; that is, he shall not be to be seen. Abai
saith to Rabba, Why? Because of the sorrows of the Messias. It is
a tradition. His disciples asked R. Eliezer, What may a man do to be
delivered from the sorrows of Messias? Let him be conversant in the law
and in the works of mercy." The Gloss is, "the terrors and the sorrows
which shall be in his days." "He that feasts thrice on the sabbath day
shall be delivered from three miseries, from the sorrows of Messiah,
from the judgment of hell, and from the war of Gog and Magog." Where the
Gloss is this, "'From the sorrows of Messias': for in that age, wherein
the Son of David shall come, there will be an accusation of the
scholars of the wise men. The word sorrows denotes such pains as
women in childbirth endure."
32. But of that day and that
hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father.
[But of that day and hour knoweth
no man.] Of what day and hour? That the discourse is
of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident, both by the
disciples' question, and by the whole thread of Christ's discourse, that
it is a wonder any should understand these words of the day and hour
of the last judgment.
Two things are demanded of our Saviour,
verse 4: the one is, "When shall these things be, that one stone shall
not be left upon another?" And the second is, "What shall be the sign of
this consummation?" To the latter he answereth throughout the whole
chapter hitherto: to the former in the present words. He had said,
indeed, in the verse before, "Heaven and earth shall pass away," &c.;
not for resolution to the question propounded (for there was no inquiry
at all concerning the dissolution of heaven and earth), but for
confirmation of the truth of the thing which he had related. As though
he had said, "Ye ask when such an overthrow of the Temple shall
happen; when it shall be, and what shall be the signs of it. I answer,
These and those, and the other signs shall go before it; and these my
words of the thing itself to come to pass, and of the signs going
before, are firmer than heaven and earth itself. But whereas ye inquire
of the precise time, that is not to be inquired after; for of that
day and hour knoweth no man."
We cannot but remember here, that even
among the beholders of the destruction of the Temple there is a
difference concerning the day of the destruction; that that day and hour
was so little known before the event, that even after the event, they
who saw the flames disagreed among themselves concerning the day.
Josephus, an eyewitness, saw the burning of the Temple, and he ascribed
it to the tenth day of the month Ab or Lous. For thus he; "The Temple
perished the tenth day of the month Lous (or August), a day fatal
to the Temple, as having been on that day consumed in flames by the king
of Babylon." Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai saw the same conflagration; and
he, together with the whole Jewish nation, ascribes it to the ninth day
of that month, not the tenth; yet so that he saith, "If I had not lived
in that age I had not judged it but to have happened on the tenth day."
For as the Gloss upon Maimonides writes, "It was the evening when they
set fire to it, and the Temple burnt until sunset the tenth day. In the
Jerusalem Talmud, therefore, Rabbi and R. Joshua Ben Levi fasted the
ninth and tenth days." See also the tract Bab. Taanith.
[Neither the angels.] "'For the
day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come,'
Isaiah 63:4. What means 'the day of vengeance is in mine heart?' R.
Jochanan saith, I have revealed it to my heart, to my members I have not
revealed it. R. Simeon Ben Lachish saith, I have revealed it to my
heart, but to the ministering angels I have not revealed it." And
Jalkut on that place thus: My heart reveals it not to my
mouth; to whom should my mouth reveal it?
[Nor the Son.] Neither the
angels, nor the Messias. For in that sense the word Son, is
to be taken in this place and elsewhere very often: as in that passage,
John 5:19, "The Son," that is, the Messias, "can do nothing of
himself, but what he seeth the Father do": verse 20, "The Father loveth
the Messias," &c: verse 26, "He hath given to the Messias to have life
in himself," &c. And that the word Son is to be rendered in this
sense, appears from verse 27; "He hath given him authority to execute
judgment also, because he is the Son of man." Observe that, "because he
is the Son of man."
I. It is one thing to understand "the
Son of God" barely and abstractly for the second person in the Holy
Trinity; another to understand him for the Messias, or that second
person incarnate. To say that the second person in the Trinity knows not
something is blasphemous; to say so of the Messias, is not so, who,
nevertheless, was the same with the second person in the Trinity: for
although the second person, abstractly considered according to his mere
Deity, was co-equal with the Father, co-omnipotent, co-omniscient,
co-eternal with him, &c.; yet Messias, who was God-man, considered as
Messias, was a servant and a messenger of the Father, and received
commands and authority from the Father. And those expressions, "The Son
can do nothing of himself," &c. will not in the least serve the Arian's
turn; if you take them in this sense, which you must necessarily do; "Messias
can do nothing of himself, because he is a servant and a deputy."
II. We must distinguish between the
excellences and perfections of Christ, which flowed from the
hypostatical union of the natures, and those which flowed from the
donation and anointing of the Holy Spirit. From the hypostatical union
of the natures flowed the infinite dignity of his person, his
impeccability, his infinite self-sufficiency to perform the law, and to
satisfy the divine justice. From the anointing of the Spirit flowed his
power of miracles, his foreknowledge of things to come, and all kind of
knowledge of evangelic mysteries. Those rendered him a fit and
perfect Redeemer; these a fit and perfect Minister of the gospel.
Now, therefore, the foreknowledge of
things to come, of which the discourse here is, is to be numbered among
those things which flowed from the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and
from immediate revelation; not from the hypostatic union of the natures.
So that those things which were revealed by Christ to his church, he had
them from the revelation of the Spirit, not from that union. Nor is it
any derogation or detraction from the dignity of his person, that he
saith, 'He knew not that day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem';
yea, it excellently agrees with his office and deputation, who, being
the Father's servant, messenger, and minister, followed the orders of
the Father, and obeyed him in all things. "The Son knoweth not," that
is, it is not revealed to him from the Father to reveal to the church.
Revelation 1:1, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto
him."
We omit inquiring concerning the
knowledge of Christ, being now raised from death: whether, and how far,
it exceeded his knowledge, while yet he conversed on earth. It is
without doubt, that, being now raised from the dead, he merited all kind
of revelation (see
Rev 5:9, "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take
the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain," &c.); and
that he, conversing on earth before his death, acted with the vigour of
the Holy Spirit and of that unspeakable holiness which flowed from the
union of the human nature with the divine, the divine nature, in the
meantime, suspending its infinite activity of omnipotence. So that
Christ might work miracles, and know things to come, in the same manner
as the prophets also did, namely, by the Holy Ghost, but in a larger
measure; and might overcome the devil not so much by the omnipotence of
the divine nature, as by the infinite holiness of his person, and of his
obedience. So that if you either look upon him as the minister and
servant of God; or if you look upon the constitution, as I may so call
it, and condition of his person, these words of his, "Of that day and
hour knoweth not the Son also," carry nothing of incongruity along with
them; yea, do excellently speak out his substitution as a servant, and
the constitution of his person as God-man.
The reason why the divine wisdom would
have the time of the destruction of Jerusalem so concealed, is well
known to itself; but by men, since the time of it was unsearchable, the
reason certainly is not easy to be searched. We may conjecture that the
time was hid, partly, lest the godly might be terrified with the sound
of it, as
2 Thessalonians 2:2; partly, that the ungodly, and those that would
be secure, might be taken in the snares of their own security, as
Matthew 24:38. But let secret things belong to God.
3. And being in Bethany in the
house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having
an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake
the box, and poured it on his head.
[Of spikenard.] What if I
should render it, nardin of Balanus? "Nardin consists of
omphacium, balaninum, bulrush, nard, amomum, myrrh, balsam," &c. And
again, "Myrobalanum is common to the Troglodytes, and to Thebais, and to
that part of Arabia which divides Judea from Egypt; a growing ointment,
as appears by the very name, whereby also is shown that it is the mast [glans]
of a tree."
Balanus, as all know among the
Greeks, is glans, mast, or an acorn: so also is pistaca,
among the Talmudists. There are prescribed by the Talmudists various
remedies for various diseases: among others, this; For a pleurisy
(or, as others will have it, a certain disease of the head), take to
the quantity of the mast of ammoniac. The Gloss is, the mast of
ammoniac is the mast of cedar. The Aruch saith, "the mast of
ammoniac is the grain of a fruit, which is called glans."
The word nard, is Hebrew from
the word nerad; and the word spikenard is Syriac, from the
word pistaca. So that the ointment might be called Balanine
ointment, in the composition of which, nard and mast, or
myrobalane, were the chief ingredients.
[Poured it on his head.] In
Talmudic language, "What are the testimonies, that the woman married is
a virgin? If she goes forth to be married with a veil let down
over her eyes, yet with her head not veiled. The scattering of nuts is
also a testimony. These are in Judea; but what are in Babylon? Rabh
saith, If ointment be upon the head of the Rabbins." (The Gloss
is, "The women poured ointment upon the heads of the scholars,
and anointed them.") "Rabh Papa said to Abai, Does that doctor speak
of the aromatic ointment used in bridechambers?" (The Gloss is, "Are
the Rabbins such, to be anointed with such ointments?") "He answered,
O thou unacquainted with the customs, did not thy mother pour out
ointment for you (at thy wedding) upon the heads of the Rabbins?
Thus, a certain Rabbin got a wife for his son in the house of Rabbah Bar
Ulla; and they said to him, Rabbah Bar Ulla also got a wife in the house
of a certain Rabbin for his son, and he poured out ointment upon the
head of the Rabbins."
From the tradition produced it may be
asked, whether it were customary in Judea to wet the heads of the
Rabbins with ointments, in the marriages of virgins, as it was in
Babylon? Or, whether it were so customary otherwise to anoint their
heads; as that such an anointing at weddings were not so memorable a
matter as it was in Babylon? Certainly, in both places, however they
anointed men's heads for health's sake, it was accounted unfitting for
Rabbins to smell of aromatical ointments: "It is indecent (say the
Jerusalem Talmudists) for a scholar of the wise men to smell of spices."
And you have the judgment of the Babylonians in this very place, when it
is inquired among them, and that, as it were, with a certain kind of
dissatisfaction, Whether Rabbins be such as that they should be anointed
with aromatical ointments, as the more nice sort are wont to be
anointed? From this opinion, everywhere received among them, you may
more aptly understand, why the other disciples as well as Judas, did
bear the lavish of the ointment with some indignation: he, out of
wicked covetousness; but they, partly, as not wiling that so precious a
thing should be lost, and partly as not liking so nice a custom should
be used towards their master, from which the masters of the Jews
themselves were so averse. And our Saviour, taking off the envy of what
was done, applies this anointing to his burial, both in his intention
and in the intention of the woman; that it might not seem to be done out
of some delicate niceness.
5. For it might have been sold for
more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they
murmured against her.
[More than three hundred pence.]
The prices of such precious ointments (as it seems in Pliny) were
commonly known. For thus he, "The price of costus is sixteen
pounds. The price of spike(nard) is ninety pounds. The leaves
have made a difference in the value. From the broadness of them it is
called Hadrosphaerum; with greater leaves it is worth X. xxx," that is,
thirty pence. "That with a lesser leaf is called Mesosphaerum, it
is sold at X. lx," sixty pence. "The most esteemed is that called
Microsphaerum, having the least leaf, and the price of it is X. lxxv,"
seventy-five pence. And elsewhere: "To these the merchants have
added that which they call Daphnois, surnamed Isocinnamon, and they make
the price of it to be X. ccc" three hundred pence.
II. It is not easy to reduce this sum
of three hundred pence to its proper sense; partly because a penny was
two-fold, a silver penny, and a gold one: partly because there was a
double value and estimation of money, namely, that of Jerusalem and that
of Tyre, as we observed before. Let these be silver (which we believe),
which are of much less value than gold: and let them be Jerusalem pence
(which we also believe), which are cheaper than the Tyrian; yet they
plainly speak the great wealth of Magdalene, who poured out an ointment
of such a value, when before she had spent some such other.
Which brings to my mind those things
which are spoken by the Masters concerning the box of spices,
which the husband was bound to give the wife according to the proportion
of her dowry: "But this is not spoken, saith Rabh Ishai, but of
Jerusalem people. There is an example of a daughter of Nicodemus
Ben Gorion, to whom the wise men appointed four hundred crowns of gold
for a chest of spices for one day. She said to them, 'I wish you may so
appoint for their daughters'; and they answered after her, 'Amen.'" The
Gloss is, "The husband was to give to his wife ten zuzees for
every manah, which she brought with her to buy spices, with which
she used to wash herself," &c. Behold! a most wealthy woman of
Jerusalem, daughter of Nicodemus, in the contract and instrument of
whose marriage was written, "A thousand thousand gold pence out of the
house of her father, besides those she had out of the house of her
father-in-law": whom yet you have in the same story reduced to that
extreme poverty, that she picked up barley-corns for her food out of the
cattle's dung.
7. For ye have the poor with you
always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not
always.
[For ye have the poor with you
always.] "Samuel saith, 'There is no difference between this world
and the days of the Messias,' unless in regard of the affliction of
the heathen kingdoms; as it is said, 'A poor man shall not be
wanting out of the midst of the earth,'"
Deuteronomy 15:11. Observe a Jew confessing, that there shall be
poor men even in the days of the Messias: which how it agrees with their
received opinion of the pompous kingdom of the Messias, let him look to
it. "R. Solomon and Aben Ezra write, 'If thou shalt obey the words of
the Lord, there shall not be a poor man in thee: but thou wilt not obey;
therefore a poor man shall never be wanting.'" Upon this received reason
of the thing, confess also, O Samuel, that there shall be disobedient
persons in the days of the Messias; which, indeed, when the true Messias
came, proved too, too true, in thy nation.
12. And the first day of unleavened
bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where
wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
[And the first day of unleavened
bread.] So
Matthew 26:17;
Luke 22:7. And now let them tell me, who think that Christ indeed
kept his Passover the fourteenth day, but the Jews not before the
fifteenth, because this year their Passover was transferred unto the
fifteenth day by reason of the following sabbath: let them tell me, I
say, whether the evangelists speak according to the day prescribed by
Moses, or according to the day prescribed by the masters of the
traditions, and used by the nation. If according to Moses, then the
fifteenth day was the first of unleavened bread,
Exodus 12:15,18: but if according to the manner of the nation, then
it was the fourteenth. And whether the evangelists speak according to
this custom, let us inquire briefly.
Sometime, indeed, the whole seven
days' feast was transferred to another month; and that not only from
that law,
Numbers 9, but from other causes also: concerning which see the
places quoted in the margin [Hieros. in Maasar Sheni, fol. 56.3. Maimon.
in Kiddush. Hodesh. cap. 4.]. But when the time appointed for the feast
occurred, the lamb was always slain on the fourteenth day.
I. Let us begin with a story where an
occasion occurs not very unlike that for which they of whom we speak
think the Passover this year was transferred; namely, because of the
following sabbath. The story is this: "After the death of Shemaiah and
Abtalion, the sons of Betira obtained the chief place. Hillel went up
from Babylon to inquire concerning three doubts. When he was now at
Jerusalem, and the fourteenth day of the first month fell out on the
sabbath [observe that], it appeared not to the sons of Betira,
whether the Passover drove off the sabbath or no. Which when Hillel had
determined in many words, and had added, moreover, that he had learned
this from Shemaiah and Abtalion, they laid down their authority, and
made Hillel president. When they had chosen him president, he derided
them, saying, 'What need have you of this Babylonian? Did you not serve
the two chief men of the world, Shemaiah and Abtalion, who sat among
you?'" These things which are already said make enough to our purpose,
but, with the reader's leave, let us add the whole story: "While he thus
scoffed at them, he forgot a tradition. For they said, 'What is to be
done with the people if they bring not their knives?' He answered, 'I
have heard this tradition, but I have forgot. But let them alone; for
although they are not prophets, they are prophets' sons.' Presently
every one whose passover was a lamb stuck his knife into the fleece of
it; and whose passover was a kid, hung his knife upon the horns of it."
And now let the impartial reader judge
between the reason which is given for the transferring the Passover this
year unto the fifteenth day, namely, because of the sabbath following,
that they might not be forced to abstain from servile work for two days
together; and the reason for which it might with good reason be
transferred that year concerning which the story is. The fourteenth day
fell on a sabbath; a scruple ariseth, whether the sabbath gives way to
the Passover, or the Passover to the sabbath. The very chief men of the
Sanhedrim, and the oracles of traditions, are not able to resolve the
business. A great article of religion is transacting; and what is here
to be done! O ye sons of Betira, transfer but the Passover unto the next
day, and the knot is untied. Certainly if this had been either usual or
lawful, they had provided that the affairs of religion, and their
authority and fame, should not have stuck in this strait. But that was
not to be suffered.
II. Let us add a tradition which you
may justly wonder at: "Five things, if they come in uncleanness, are not
eaten in uncleanness: the sheaf of firstfruits, the two loaves, the
shewbread, the peace offerings of the congregation, and the goats of the
new moons. But the Passover which comes in uncleanness is eaten in
uncleanness: because it comes not originally unless to be eaten."
Upon which tradition thus Maimonides:
"The Lord saith, 'And there were some that were unclean by the carcase
of a man,'
Numbers 9:6, and he determines of them, that they be put off from
the Passover of the first month to the Passover of the second. And the
tradition is, that it was thus determined, because they were few. But if
the whole congregation should have been unclean, or if the greatest part
of it should have been unclean, yet they offer the Passover, though they
are unclean. Therefore they say, 'Particular men are put off to the
second Passover, but the whole congregation is not put off to the second
Passover.' In like manner all the oblations of the congregation, they
offer them in uncleanness if the most are unclean; which we learn also
from the Passover. For the Lord saith of the Passover, [Num
9:2] that it is to be offered in its set time [note that];
and saith also of the oblations of the congregation, Ye shall do this to
the Lord in your set times, and to them all he prescribes a set time.
Every thing, therefore, to which a time is set, is also offered in
uncleanness, if so be very many of the congregation, or very many of the
priests, be unclean."
"We find that the congregation makes
their Passover in uncleanness, in that time when most of them are
unclean. And if known uncleanness be thus dispensed with, much more
doubted uncleanness." But what need is there of such dispensation? Could
ye not put off the Passover, O ye fathers of the Sanhedrim, for one or
two days, that the people might be purified? By no means: for the
Passover is to be offered in its set time, the fourteenth day,
without any dispensation. For,
III. Thus the canons of that church
concerning that day: in the light of the fourteenth day, they seek
for leaven by candlelight. The Gloss is; "In the night, to which the
day following is the fourteenth day." And go to all the commentators,
and they will teach, that this was done upon the going out of the
thirteenth day. And Maimonides; "From the words of the scribes, they
look for and rid away leaven in the beginning of the night of the
fourteenth day, and that by the light of the candle. For in the night
time all are within their houses, and a candle is most proper for such a
search. Therefore, they do not appoint employments in the end of the
thirteenth day, nor doth a wise man begin to recite his phylacteries in
that time, lest thereby, by reason of their length, he be hindered from
seeking for leaven in its season." And the same author elsewhere; "It is
forbidden to eat leaven on the fourteenth day from noon and onwards,
viz. from the beginning of the seventh hour. Our wise men also forbade
eating it from the beginning of the sixth hour. Nay, the fifth hour they
eat not leaven, lest perhaps the day be cloudy, and so a mistake arise
about the time. Behold, you learn that it is lawful to eat leaven on the
fourteenth day, to the end of the fourth hour; but in the fifth hour it
is not to be used." The same author elsewhere writes thus; "The passover
was not to be killed but in the court, where the other sacrifices were
killed. And it was to be killed on the fourteenth day afternoon, after
the daily sacrifice."
[For more on the Passover and daily
sacrifices, please see
The Temple: Its Ministry and Services by Alfred Edersheim.
Also see
Chronology of the Crucifixion Week for info regarding Christ as
our Passover Lamb.]
And now, reader, tell me what day the
evangelists call the first day of unleavened bread: and whether
it be any thing probable that the Passover was ever transferred unto the
fifteenth day? Much less is it probable that Christ this year kept his
Passover one day before the Passover of the Jews.
For the Passover was not to be slain
but in the court, where the other sacrifices were slain, as we heard
just now from Maimonides: and see the rubric of bringing in the lambs
into the court, and of slaying them. And then tell me seriously whether
it be credible, that the priests in the Temple, against the set decree
of the Sanhedrim that year (as the opinion we contradict imports), would
kill Christ's one, only, single lamb; when by that decree it ought not
to be killed before tomorrow? When Christ said to his disciples, "Ye
know, that after two days is the Passover"; and when he commanded them,
"Go ye, and prepare for us the Passover," it is a wonder they did not
reply, "True, indeed, Sir, it ought to be after two days; but it is put
off this year to a day later, so that now it is after three days; it is
impossible therefore that we should obey you now, for the priests will
not allow of killing before tomorrow."
We have said enough, I suppose, in
this matter. But while I am speaking of the day of the Passover, let me
add a few words, although not to the business concerning which we have
been treating; and they perhaps not unworthy of our consideration:
"He that mourns washes himself, and
eats his Passover in the even. A proselyte, which is made a proselyte on
the eve of the Passover, the school of Shammai saith, Let him be
baptized, and eat his Passover in the even: the school of Hillel saith,
He that separates himself from uncircumcision [that is, from heathens
and heathenism] is as if he separated himself from a sepulchre." The
Gloss, "And hath need of seven days' purification." "There were
soldiers at Jerusalem, who baptized themselves, and ate their
Passovers in the even." A thing certainly to be noted, proselytes the
same day made proselytes, and eating the Passover; and that as it seems
without circumcision, but admitted only by baptism.
The care of the school of Hillel in
this case did not so much repulse a proselyte from eating the Passover,
who was made a proselyte and baptized on the day of the Passover; as
provided for the future, that such a one in following years should not
obtrude himself to eat the Passover in uncleanness. For while he was in
heathenism, he contracted not uncleanness from the touch of a sepulchre;
but being made a proselyte, he contracted uncleanness by it. These are
the words of the Gloss.
[That we prepare that thou mayest
eat the Passover.] For the Passovers were prepared by the servants
for their masters. "If any say to his servant, 'Go and kill me the
passover,' and he kills a kid, let him eat of it: if he kill a lamb, let
him eat of it: if a kid and a lamb, let him eat of the former," &c.
26. And when they had sung an hymn,
they went out into the mount of Olives.
[And when they had sung an hymn.]
I. "What difference is there between the first Passover and the second?"
[that is, the Passover of the first month and of the second,
Numbers 9]. "In the first, every one is bound under that law,
'Leaven shall not be seen nor found among you.' In the second, 'Leaven
and unleavened bread may be with a man in his house.' In the first, he
is bound to a hymn when he eats the Passover. In the second, he
is not bound to a hymn when he eats it. In both, he is bound to a
hymn while he makes or kills. Both are to be eaten roast,
and with unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, and both drive away the
sabbath." The Gemarists ask, "Whence this is, that they are bound to
a hymn, while they eat the Passover? R. Jochanan in the name of R.
Simeon Ben Josedek saith, The Scripture saith, 'You shall have a song,
as in the night when a feast is kept,'
Isaiah 30:29. The night which is set apart for a feast is bound to
a hymn: the night which is not set apart for a feast is not bound
to a hymn." The Gloss writes thus; "As ye are wont to sing in the
night when a feast is kept: but there is no night wherein they are
obliged to a song, besides the night when the Passover is eaten."
II. That hymn is called by the Rabbins
the Hallel; and was from the beginning of
Psalm 113, to the end of
Psalm 118, which they cut in two parts; and a part of it they
repeated in the very middle of the banquet, and they reserved a part to
the end.
How far the former portion extended,
is disputed between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. That of Shammai
saith, Unto the end of
Psalm 113. That of Hillel saith, Unto the end of
Psalm 114. But these things must not stop us. The hymn which Christ
now sang with his disciples after meat was the latter part. In which, as
the Masters of the Traditions observe, these five things are mentioned:
"The going out of Egypt. The cutting in two of the Red Sea. The delivery
of the law. The resurrection of the dead: and the sorrows of the Messias.
The going out of Egypt, as it is written, 'When Israel went out of
Egypt.' The cutting in two of the Red Sea, as it is written, 'The sea
saw it, and fled.' The delivery of the law, as it is written, 'The
mountains leaped like rams.' The resurrection of the dead, as it is
written, 'I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.' And
the sorrows of the Messias, as it is written, 'Not unto us, Lord, not
unto us.'"
[They went out into the mount of
Olives.] They were bound by traditional canons to lodge within
Jerusalem. "On the first Passover, every one is bound to lodge
also on the second Passover he is bound to lodge." The Gloss thus: "He
that keeps the Passover is bound to lodge in Jerusalem the first night."
But it is disputed, whether it be the same night wherein the lamb is
eaten; or the night first following the feast day. See the place: and
let not the lion of the tribe of Judah be restrained in those cobwebs
[Pesach. fol. 95 .2.]
36. And he said, Abba, Father, all
things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me:
nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
[Abba, Father.] As it is
necessary to distinguish between the Hebrew and Chaldee idiom in the
words Abi, and Abba, so you may, I had almost said,
you must, distinguish of their sense. For the word Abi,
signifies indeed a natural father, but withal a civil father also, an
elder, a master, a doctor, a magistrate: but the word Abba,
denotes only a natural father, with which we comprehend also an adopting
father: yea, it denotes, My father.
Let no man say to his neighbour,
'My father' is nobler than thy father. "R. Chaija asked Rabh the son
of his brother, when he came into the land of Israel, Doth my father
live? And he answereth, And doth your mother live?" As if he
should have said, You know your mother is dead, so you may know your
father is dead. "Solomon said, Observe ye what my father saith?"
So in the Targum infinite times.
And we may observe in the Holy
Scriptures, wheresoever mention is made of a natural father, the
Targumists use the word Abba: but when of a civil father, they
use another word:--
I. Of a natural father.
Genesis 22:7, "And he said, 'Abi,' my father." The Targum
reads, "And said, 'Abba,' my father."
Genesis 27:34: "Bless me, even me also 'Abi,' O my father."
The Targum reads, Bless me also, 'Abba,' my father.
Genesis 48:18: Not so, 'Abi,' my father. Targum, Not so,
'Abba,' my father.
Judges 11:36: 'Abi,' my father, if thou hast opened thy mouth.
Targum, 'Abba,' my father, if thou hast opened thy mouth.
Isaiah 8:4: The Targum reads, before the child shall know to cry
'Abba,' my father, and my mother. See also the Targum upon
Joshua 2:13, and
Judges 14:16, and elsewhere very frequently.
II. Of a civil father.
Genesis 4:20,21: He was 'Abi,' the father of such as dwell in
tents. "He was 'Abi,' the father of such as handle the harp," &c.
The Targum reads, He was 'Rabba,' the prince or the master of
them.
1 Samuel 10:12: But who is 'Abihem,' their father? Targum,
Who is their 'Rab,' master or prince?
2 Kings 2:12: 'Abi, Abi,' my father, my father. The Targum,
Rabbi, Rabbi.
2 Kings 5:13: And they said, 'Abi,' my father. The Targum,
And they said, 'Mari,' my Lord.
2 Kings 6:21: 'Abi,' my father, shall I smite them? Targum,
'Rabbi,' shall I kill, &c.
Hence appears the reason of those
words of the apostle,
Romans 8:15: Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba, Father. And
Galatians 4:6: "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit
of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father." It was one
thing to call God Abi, Father, that is, Lord, King, Teacher,
Governor, &c.; and another to call him Abba, My Father. The
doctrine of adoption, in the proper sense, was altogether unknown to the
Jewish schools (though they boasted that the people of Israel alone were
adopted by God above all other nations); and yet they called God
Father, and our Father, that is, our God, Lord, and King, &c.
But "since ye are sons (saith the apostle), ye cry, Abba, O my Father,"
in the proper and truly paternal sense.
Thus Christ in this place, however
under an unspeakable agony, and compassed about on all sides with
anguishments, and with a very cloudy and darksome providence; yet he
acknowledges, invokes, and finds God his Father, in a most sweet
sense.
We cry, 'Abba,' Father. Did the
saints, invoking God, and calling him Abba, add also Father?
Did Christ also use the same addition of the Greek word Father,
and did he repeat the word Abba or Abi? Father
seems rather here to be added by Mark, and there also by St. Paul, for
explication of the word 'Abba': and this is so much the more
probable also, because it is expressed Father, and not O
Father, in the vocative.
51. And there followed him a
certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked
body; and the young men laid hold on him:
[Having a linen cloth cast about
his naked body.] It is well rendered by the Vulgar clothed in
sindon or fine linen: for to that the words have respect: not
that he had some linen loosely and by chance cast about him, but that
the garment wherewith he always went clothed, was of sindon, that
is, of linen. Let us hearken a little to the Talmudists.
"The Rabbins deliver: Sindon
[linen] with fringes, what of them? The school of Shammai absolves,
the school of Hillel binds, and the wise men determine according to the
school of Hillel. R. Eliezer Ben R. Zadok saith, Whosoever wears
hyacinth [purple] in Jerusalem, is among those who make men
admire." By hyacinthinum [purple] they understand those fringes
that were to put them in mind of the law,
Numbers 15. And by sindon, linen, is understood a cloak,
or that garment, which, as it serves for clothing the body, so it is
doubly serviceable to religion. For, 1. To this garment were the
fringes fastened, concerning which mention is made,
Numbers 15:38. 2. With this garment they commonly covered their
heads when they prayed. Hence that in the Gemarists in the place quoted:
"talith, or the cloak whereby the boy covereth his head, and a
great part of himself; if any one of elder years goes forth clothed
with it in a more immodest manner, he is bound to wear fringes." And
elsewhere, "The priests who veil themselves when they go up into the
pulpit, with a cloak which is not their own," &c.
But now it was customary to wear this
cloak, in the summer especially, and in Jerusalem for the most part,
made of sindon or of linen. And the question between the
schools of Shammai and Hillel arose hence, that when the fringes were
woolen, and the cloak linen, how would the suspicion of wearing things
of different sorts be avoided? R. Zeira loosed his sindon. The
Gloss is: "He loosed his fringes from his sindon [that is, from his
talith, which was of 'sindon,' linen], because it was of
linen," &c. "The angel found Rabh Ketina clothed in sindon;
and said to him, O Ketina, Ketina, sindon in the summer, and a short
cloak in the winter."
You see that word which is spoke by
the evangelist, about his naked body, carries an emphasis: for it
was most usual to be clothed with sindon for an outer garment. What
therefore must we say of this young man? I suppose in the first place,
that he was not a disciple of Jesus; but that he now followed, as some
curious looker on, to see what this multitude would at last produce. And
to such a suspicion they certainly do consent, who think him to have
been roused from his bed, and hastily followed the rout with nothing but
his shirt on, without any other clothes. I suppose, secondly, St. Mark
in the phrase having a sindon cast about him, spake according to
the known and vulgar dialect of the nation, clothed with a sindon.
For none shall ever persuade me that he would use an idiom, any thing
uncouth or strange to the nation; and that when he used the very same
phrase in Greek with that Jewish one, he intended not to propound the
very same sense. But now you clearly see, they themselves being our
teachers, what is the meaning of being clothed with a sindon,
with them, namely, to have a talith or cloak made of linen;
that garment to which the fringes hung. I suppose, in the last place,
that this young man, out of religion, or superstition rather, more than
ordinary, had put on his sindon, and nothing but that upon his
naked body, neglecting his inner garment (commonly called chaluk),
and indeed neglecting his body. For there were some amongst the Jews
that did so macerate their bodies, and afflict them with hunger and
cold, even above the severe rule of other sects.
Josephus in his own Life writes thus:
"I was sixteen years old, and I resolved to make trial of the
institution of the three sects among us, the Pharisees, the Sadducees,
and the Essenes; for I judged I should be able very well to choose the
best of them, if I thoroughly learned them all. Afflicting, therefore,
and much tormenting myself, I tried them all. But judging with myself
that it was not enough to have tried these sects, and hearing of one
Banus, that lived in the wilderness, that he used a garment made of
leaves, or the bark of trees, and no food but what grew of
its own accord, and often by day and by night washing himself in cold
water, I became a follower of him, and for three years abode with him."
And in that place in the Talmudists,
which we but now produced, at that very story of Rabh Ketina, wearing a
sindon in the winter for his talith, we have these words;
"The religious in elder times, when they had wove three wings [of the
talith], they joined the purple," whereof the fringes were
made: "but otherwise, they are religious who impose upon themselves
things heavier than ordinary." And immediately follows the story of
the angel and Ketina, who did so. There were some who heaped up upon
themselves burdens and yokes of religion above the common rule, and that
this is to be understood by such as laid upon themselves heavier
things than ordinary, both the practice of some Jews persuade, and
the word itself speaks it, being used by the Gemarists in the same sense
elsewhere.
Such, we suppose, was this young
man (as Josephus was, when a young man, of whom before), who, when
others armed themselves against the cold with a double garment, namely,
an inner garment, and a talith or cloak, clothed
himself with a single garment, and that of sindon or linen,
and under the show of some more austere religion, neglecting the
ordinary custom and care of himself.
The thing, taken in the sense which we
propound, speaks the furious madness of this most wicked rout so much
the more, inasmuch as they spared not a man, and him a young man,
bearing most evident marks of a more severe religion.
56. For many bare false
witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
[Their witness agreed not together.]
The traditional canons, in these things, divide testimonies into three
parts:--
I. There was a vain testimony:
which being heard, there is no more inquiry made from that witness,
there is no more use made of him, but he is set aside, as speaking
nothing to the business.
II. There was a standing testimony,
for let me so turn it here, which, although it proved not the matter
without doubt, yet it was not rejected by the judges, but admitted to
examination by citation, that is, others being admitted to try to
disprove it if they could.
III. There was the testimony of the
words of them that agreed or fitted together (this also was
a standing evidence), when the words of two witnesses agreed, and
were to the same purpose: an even evidence. Of these, see the
tract Sanhedrin; where also discourse is had concerning exact
search and examination of the witnesses by inquisition, and
scrutiny, and citation: by which curious disquisition if they
had examined the witnesses that babbled and barked against Christ, Oh!
the unspeakable and infinite innocence of the most blessed Jesus, which
envy and madness itself, never so much sworn together against his life,
could not have fastened any crime upon!
It is said, verse 55, they sought
for witness against Jesus. This is neither equal, O fathers of the
Sanhedrim! nor agreeable to your rule: In judgments about the life of
any man, they begin first to transact about quitting the party who is
tried; and they begin not with those things which make for his
condemnation. Whether the Sanhedrim now followed that canon in their
scrutiny about Christ's case, let them look to it: by their whole
process it sufficiently appears, whither their disquisition tended. And
let it be granted, that they pretended some colour of justice and mercy,
and permitted that any one who would, might come forth, and testify
something in his behalf, where was any such now to be found? when
all his disciples turned their backs upon him, and the Fathers of the
Traditions had provided, that whosoever should confess him to be Christ
should be struck with the thunder of their excommunication,
John 9:22.
Table of Contents
